[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 65 (Thursday, April 4, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13223-13237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06536]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2018-0056; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BD26
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Petition
Finding and Endangered Species Status for the Missouri Distinct
Population Segment of Eastern Hellbender
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the hellbender (Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis), a salamander species, as an endangered or threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended.
Because the Service published a final rule to list the Ozark hellbender
subspecies (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishopi) as endangered on
October 6, 2011, this 12-month petition finding addresses the eastern
hellbender subspecies (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis).
After review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing of the eastern hellbender is not
warranted. However, we determined that listing is warranted for a
distinct population segment (DPS) of the eastern hellbender
(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis) in Missouri. Accordingly,
we propose to list the Missouri DPS of the eastern hellbender (C. a.
alleganiensis) as an endangered species under the Act. If we finalize
this rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to this
DPS.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June
3, 2019. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by May 20, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R3-ES-2018-0056,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the
[[Page 13224]]
resulting page, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen,
under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rule box to
locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment
Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R3-ES-2018-0056, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Herrington, Field Supervisor,
Missouri Ecological Services Field Office, 101 Park DeVille Drive,
Suite A, Columbia, MO 65203; telephone 573-234-2132. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Requested
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly
seek comments concerning:
(1) The eastern hellbender's biology, range, and population trends
in Missouri, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the DPS, including
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the DPS, its
habitat, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the DPS,
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization,
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,
or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this DPS and existing regulations that
may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of this DPS, including
the locations of any additional populations of this DPS.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Please
note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the
action under consideration without providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as
section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after
the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register
(see DATES, above). Such requests must be sent to the address shown in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on
this proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of
the hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of
listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of five
appropriate specialists regarding the species status assessment (SSA)
report that supports this proposed rule; we received responses from two
of the five peer reviewers. These peer reviewers have expertise in
hellbender biology, ecology, and genetics. The purpose of peer review
is to ensure that our listing determinations are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. Comments from the
peer reviewers will be available along with other public comments in
this proposed rule's Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2018-0056 on http://www.regulations.gov.
Previous Federal Actions
We identified the hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) as a
Category 2 candidate species in our December 30, 1982, Candidate Notice
of Review (CNOR) (47 FR 58454). Category 2 candidates were defined as
species for which we had information that proposed listing was possibly
appropriate, but conclusive data on biological vulnerability and
threats were not available to support a proposed rule at that time. The
species remained so designated in subsequent annual CNORs (50 FR 37958,
September 18, 1985; 54 FR 554, January 6, 1989; 56 FR 58804, November
21, 1991; 59 FR 58982, November 15, 1994). In the February 28, 1996,
CNOR (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the designation of Category 2
candidates; therefore, the hellbender was no longer a candidate
species.
In 2001, the Ozark hellbender subspecies (C. a. bishopi) was added
to the candidate list (66 FR 54808, October 30, 2001). Candidates are
those fish, wildlife, and plants for which we have on file sufficient
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support
preparation of a listing proposal, but for which development of a
listing rule is precluded by other higher priority listing activities.
The Ozark hellbender was included in seven subsequent annual CNORs (67
FR 40657, June 13, 2002; 69 FR 24876, May
[[Page 13225]]
4, 2004; 70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005; 71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006; 72
FR 69034, December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008; and 74 FR
57804, November 9, 2009).
In April of 2010, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)
petitioned the Service to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland
species from the southeastern United States under the Act. The
hellbender (C. alleganiensis) was among these 404 species. On September
27, 2011, we published a substantial 90-day finding for 374 of the 404
species, including the hellbender, soliciting information about, and
initiating status reviews for, those species (76 FR 59836).
Prior to the publication of that 90-day finding, we had already
been evaluating the status of Ozark hellbender and had published a
proposed rule to list the Ozark hellbender subspecies as endangered (75
FR 54561; September 8, 2010). On October 6, 2011, we published final
rules listing the Ozark hellbender as endangered under the Act (76 FR
61956) and listing the hellbender (C. alleganiensis), including its two
subspecies, the eastern hellbender (C. a. alleganiensis) and the Ozark
hellbender (C. a. bishopi), in Appendix III of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES), which addresses native species that need regulation to prevent
or restrict exploitation (76 FR 61978).
On June 17, 2014, CBD filed a complaint against the Service for
failure to complete a 12-month finding for the hellbender within the
statutory timeframe. On September 22, 2014, the Service entered into a
settlement agreement with CBD to address the complaint; the court-
approved settlement agreement specified that a 12-month finding for the
hellbender would be delivered to the Federal Register by March 31,
2019. This document serves as our 12-month finding on the April 2010
petition.
Background
The species belongs to the Order Caudata, family Cryptobranchidae.
The genus Cryptobranchus is monotypic (having only one species) and
currently contains two recognized subspecies: C. alleganiensis
alleganiensis (eastern hellbender) and C. alleganiensis bishopi (Ozark
hellbender).
Because the Ozark hellbender is already listed under the Act, we
conducted an SSA for the eastern hellbender. A thorough review of the
taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the eastern hellbender (C. a.
alleganiensis) is presented in the SSA report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2018, entire). The full SSA report can be found on the
Service's Midwest Region website at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/es/ and
at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2018-0056.
The eastern hellbender is a large, entirely aquatic salamander
found in perennial streams across 15 States from northeastern
Mississippi, northern Alabama, northern Georgia, Tennessee, western
North Carolina, western Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, southern
Illinois, southern Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, western Maryland, and
southern New York, with disjunct populations occurring in east-central
Missouri.
Eastern hellbender streams are usually fast-flowing, cool, and
highly oxygenated (Green 1934, p. 28; Bishop 1941, pp. 50-51; Green and
Pauley 1987, p. 46). Eastern hellbenders respire through their skin,
aided by prominent, highly vascularized skin folds (Guimond 1970, pp.
287-288; Nickerson and Mays 1973, pp. 26-27), and are not well adapted
to low-oxygen conditions (Ultsch and Duke 1990, p. 255). In addition,
low water conductivity is an important habitat requirement (Bodinof
Jachowski and Hopkins 2018, pp. 220-221).
Boulders provide cover and breeding sites, and are the most
important indicator of adult eastern hellbender habitat (Lipps 2009, p.
9; Humphries 2005, p. 10; Bothner and Gottlieb 1991, p. 45). Hellbender
nests are typically excavations beneath partially embedded, large
(greater than 30 centimeters), flat rocks with a single opening facing
downstream or perpendicular to streamflow (Smith 1907, p. 7). Females
deposit eggs under a nest rock, and males externally fertilize the egg
clutch (Nickerson and Mays 1973, p. 45), after which a single male
defends the nest from other hellbenders (Smith 1907, pp. 24-25). Larvae
are typically found within the interstices of cobble and gravel, and
occasionally under large rocks (Nickerson et al. 2003, p. 624; Keitzer
2007, pp. 16-17; Foster et al. 2008, p. 184).
Larvae lose their gills about 1.5 to 2 years after hatching (Bishop
1941, p. 49; Nickerson and Mays 1973, p. 53); juveniles sexually mature
at an age of approximately 5 or 6 years (Bishop 1941, p. 50). Maximum
age is not known with certainty, but estimates suggest that eastern
hellbenders can live at least 25 to 30 years in the wild (Taber et al.
1975, p. 635; Peterson et al. 1988, p. 298).
Adults are primarily nocturnal and eat crayfish and, to a lesser
degree, small fish (Smith 1907, p. 12; Swanson 1948, p. 363; Peterson
et al. 1989, p. 440). Other occasional food items include insects and
larval and adult frogs (Green 1935, p. 36; Pfingsten 1990, p. 49;
Foster 2006, p. 74). The diet of larval eastern hellbenders consists
mainly of aquatic insects (Pitt and Nickerson 2005, p. 69; Hecht et al.
2017, p. 159). Eastern hellbenders occupy relatively small home ranges
of approximately 30 square meters (m\2\) (322 square feet (ft\2\)) to
approximately 2,212 m\2\ (23,810 ft\2\) (Hillis and Bellis 1971, p.
124; Coatney 1982, p. 23; Peterson and Wilkinson 1996, p. 126;
Humphries and Pauley 2005, p. 137; Burgmeier et al. 2011a, p. 139) but
are also capable of long distance movements, which have been documented
up to 12.9 kilometers (km) (8 miles (mi)) (Petokas 2011, pers. comm.;
Foster 2012, pers. comm.).
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species.'' The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,'' and a threatened species as a species that is ``likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. These factors
represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or
conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence.
In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may
have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other
actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may
have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct
[[Page 13226]]
impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect
individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources
(stressors). The term ``threat'' may encompass--either together or
separately--the source of the action or condition or the action or
condition itself. However, the mere identification of any threat(s)
does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory
definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In
determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate
all identified threats by considering the expected response by the
species, and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that
will have positive effects on the species--such as any existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species''
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in
the foreseeable future.
We completed a comprehensive assessment of the biological status of
the eastern hellbender, and prepared a report of the assessment (SSA
report), which provides a thorough account of the subspecies' overall
viability. In the SSA, we define viability as the ability of a species
to persist over the long term and to avoid extinction. To assess the
viability of the eastern hellbender, we used the conservation biology
principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and
Stein 2000, pp. 306-310) in our analysis. Briefly, resiliency refers to
the ability of the species to withstand stochastic events (arising from
random factors), such as fluctuations in birth rates (demographic
stochasticity) or variations in rainfall or temperature (environmental
stochasticity). Representation refers to the ability of the species to
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (natural or
human-caused) and is a function of a species' breadth of diversity:
Genetic diversity within and among populations and the ecological
diversity (also called environmental variation or diversity) of
populations across the species' range. Redundancy refers to the ability
of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts
or hurricanes). In general, the more redundant and resilient a species
is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to sustain
populations over time, even under changing environmental conditions.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the
SSA report.
Summary of Current Condition
Historically, 570 healthy eastern hellbender populations are known
to have existed across 15 States. Currently, 345 (61 percent) are
extant, and 225 populations (39 percent) are presumed or functionally
extirpated. Of the 345 extant populations across the range, 127 (37
percent) are likely healthy (stable, recruiting), and 218 (63 percent)
are declining.
Eastern hellbender abundance has decreased in many parts of the
range, with reduced numbers observed as early as 1948 (Swanson 1948, p.
363). Eastern hellbender survey effort has increased substantially over
the last 5 to 10 years. Of the extant populations, 125 were discovered
since 2012. Most of the new populations discovered since 2000 were
observations of a single individual or detection via environmental DNA
(genetic material collected from environmental samples). A lack of data
regarding abundance or size class structure in these populations
precludes assessments of population trends.
We identified four geographical units (referred to in the SSA
report as adaptive capacity units (ACUs)), based on Hime et al.'s
(2016, entire) evaluation of genetic markers, to delineate variation in
genetic and ecological traits within the eastern hellbender's
historical range (i.e., evolutionary lineages). The units are: (1)
Missouri River drainage (MACU), (2) Ohio River-Susquehanna River
drainages (OACU), (3) Tennessee River drainage (TACU), and (4) Kanawha
River drainage (KACU).
Since 2000, the eastern hellbender has been documented from these
four geographic units across 15 States. The number of populations
varies among ACUs, with 1 percent of the extant populations occurring
in MACU, 39 percent in OACU, 51 percent in TACU, and 9 percent in KACU.
Within the ACUs, the number of healthy populations also varies, with 0
in MACU, 42 in OACU, 68 in TACU, and 16 in KACU.
Influences on the Eastern Hellbender
In consultation with species' experts, we identified the past and
current negative and beneficial factors that have led to the eastern
hellbender's current conditions and which may influence population
dynamics into the future. Factors having a negative impact on eastern
hellbender individuals are referred to as risk factors (also as
stressors), while factors having a beneficial effect are referred to as
conservation factors. We referred to risk and conservation factors
collectively as ``influences.'' A brief summary of the most influential
factors is presented below; for a full description of these factors,
refer to chapter 5 of the SSA report (Service 2018, pp. 26-48).
Sedimentation
Across the range, sedimentation was identified as the factor most
impacting the status of the eastern hellbender. Sedimentation is the
addition of fine soil particles (e.g., sands, silts, clays) to streams.
These sediments bury shelter and nest rocks (Blais 1996, p. 11; Lipps
2009, p. 10; Hopkins and DuRant 2011, p. 112), suffocate eggs
(Nickerson and Mays 1973, pp. 55-56), alter habitat for crayfish (the
primary food source of adult eastern hellbenders) (Santucci et al.
2005, pp. 986-987; Kaunert 2011, p. 23), and degrade habitat for larval
and juvenile hellbenders, as well as habitat for macroinvertebrates,
which are an important food source for larval hellbenders (Cobb and
Flannagan 1990, pp. 35-37; Nickerson et al. 2003, p. 624). Because
sedimentation affects all life stages of the eastern hellbender,
impairs or prevents successful reproduction, and is pervasive
throughout the subspecies' range, it has specifically been implicated
as a cause of eastern hellbender declines and as a continuing threat
throughout much of the species' range.
Water Quality Degradation
Degraded water quality was estimated as having the second highest
impact on the eastern hellbender's status in all ACUs because it can
cause direct mortality of eastern hellbenders and, at sub-lethal
levels, can alter physiological processes and increase vulnerability to
other threats (Maitland 1995, p. 260). Major sources of aquatic
pollutants include domestic wastes, agricultural runoff, coal mining
activities, road construction, and unpermitted industrial discharges.
While it is unlikely that a chemical spill could cause catastrophic
loss of an entire ACU, it is possible if multiple spills occur in an
ACU with low redundancy.
Habitat Destruction and Modification
Destruction of habitat from impoundments, channelization, and
instream gravel mining was also ranked
[[Page 13227]]
relatively high as a factor impacting the eastern hellbender's status
due to the extent of these stressors throughout the subspecies' range.
Impoundments reduce upstream streamflow, increasing sedimentation and
subsequently lowering dissolved oxygen. Dams have been constructed in
every major stream system in the range of the eastern hellbender and
have contributed to population declines and local extirpations,
especially in large streams used for navigation (e.g., Ohio,
Cumberland, and Tennessee rivers) (Echternacht 2009, pers. comm.;
Gentry 1955, p. 169; Graham et al. 2011, p. 246; Mount 1975, p. 109;
Nickerson and Mays 1973, pp. 58, 63, 66; Pfingsten 1990, p. 49; L.
Williams 2012, pers. comm.), and are currently restricting movement
among some populations and into some previously occupied habitats.
Channelization (typically conducted for drainage improvements) and
instream gravel mining remove the coarse substrates (e.g., gravel,
cobble, and boulder) and often the associated riparian vegetation, and
result in accelerated erosion, decreased habitat diversity, and channel
instability (Hartfield 1993, p. 131; Hubbard et al. 1993, pp. 136-145).
Direct Mortality or Permanent Removal of Animals
Large numbers of eastern hellbenders have historically been removed
from some streams for scientific and educational purposes, for the pet
trade, and for eradication efforts. These removals likely contributed
to the population declines seen in some streams. The current rate of
permanent removal of eastern hellbenders is likely significantly lower
than it has been historically. However, collection and sale of eastern
hellbenders continues to be a threat, with internet advertisements as
recent as 2010 soliciting purchase of wholesale lots of eastern
hellbenders (Briggler 2010, pers. comm.). Killing of eastern
hellbenders by some anglers and the removal of individuals for personal
use and the pet trade also continues in some areas. Even though many
eastern hellbenders targeted by scientists and nature enthusiasts are
returned to the stream, the act of searching for eastern hellbenders
can result in increased egg and larval mortality. Eastern hellbenders
are typically captured by lifting large shelter rocks and catching
individuals by hand. Many researchers have speculated that rock lifting
to collect eastern hellbenders results in adverse impacts, especially
when done during the breeding season (Lindberg and Soule 1991, p. 8;
Williams et al. 1981b, p. 26; Williams 2012, pers. comm.).
As a long-lived species, removing adult eastern hellbenders from
stream populations may be particularly detrimental, as stable
populations of long-lived species typically have high adult survival
rates, which compensates for correspondingly low rates of recruitment
into the adult populations (Miller 1976, p. 2). In eastern hellbender
populations with low densities and little evidence of recent
recruitment into the adult population, the removal of any individuals
from a population may be deleterious (Pfingsten 1988, p. 16). Because
many eastern hellbender populations are already stressed by habitat
degradation, compensation for high adult mortality through high
recruitment of juveniles is even less likely. Although the magnitude of
this threat is not known with certainty, its occurrence is commonly
noted by field researchers, suggesting that it is a relatively common
occurrence in some portions of the subspecies' range. Furthermore, as
the number of populations decline and become concentrated on public
lands, locations and animals might be easier to find, especially if
artificial nest box use increases in the future.
Disease
Disease can act as a stressor on eastern hellbender populations and
has the potential to cause catastrophic loss of hellbender populations.
Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs), especially fungal EIDs in
wildlife, are on the rise, and salamanders are especially susceptible
given the high magnitude of legal and illegal trade in herpetofauna.
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) is a fungal pathogen that can
cause chytridiomycosis, a highly infectious amphibian disease
associated with mass die-offs, population declines and extirpations,
and potentially species extinctions on multiple continents (Berger et
al. 1998, pp. 9031-9036; Bosch et al. 2001, pp. 331-337; Lips et al.
2006, pp. 3165-3166). Bd infection of eastern hellbenders has been
confirmed in every State where testing has occurred (i.e., New York,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, North Carolina,
Tennessee, Georgia, and Missouri) (Greathouse 2007, p. 42; Briggler et
al. 2008, p. 444; Burgmeier et al. 2011b, p. 845; Gonynor et al. 2011,
pp. 58-59; Regester et al. 2012, p. 20; Roblee 2012, pers. comm.; Souza
et al. 2012, p. 562; Williams and Groves 2014, p. 457; Wolfe 2012,
pers. comm.). The earliest known record of an infected eastern
hellbender is from Missouri in 1975; Bd infection rates in eastern
hellbenders collected in Missouri between 1896 and 1994 was 5.4 percent
(Bodinof et al. 2011, p. 3). Even mild chronic Bd infections may
negatively impact eastern hellbenders and may increase susceptibility
of eastern hellbenders to other infection. While Bd currently does not
appear to be causing large-scale mortality events in wild populations
of eastern hellbenders, other stressors, such as environmental
contaminants or rising water temperatures, can weaken animals' immune
systems, leading to outbreaks of clinical disease and cause mortality
events in the future (Briggler et al. 2007, p. 18; Regester et al.
2012, p. 19).
Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal) is a fungal pathogen that
invaded Europe from Asia around 2010 and has caused mass die-offs of
fire salamanders (Salamandra salamandra) in northern Europe (Martel et
al. 2014, p. 631; Fisher 2017, pp. 300-301). Given extensive
unregulated trade and the discovery of Bsal in Europe in 2010, the
introduction of this novel pathogen could cause extirpations of
na[iuml]ve salamander populations in North America (Yap et al. 2017,
entire) were Bsal to be introduced here. Regions with a high risk of
introduction of Bsal include portions of the southeastern and
northeastern United States, two regions that comprise a substantial
portion of the eastern hellbender's range (Richgels et al. 2016, p. 5;
Yap et al. 2017, pp. 857-858). Given the high risk of Bsal invasion, on
January 13, 2016, the Service published in the Federal Register (81 FR
1534) an interim rule to list 20 amphibian genera known to carry Bsal
as injurious under the Lacey Act to limit importation into the United
States. Despite this protection, it is possible that an unknown carrier
or illegal import could introduce this pathogen into eastern hellbender
populations.
Habitat Disturbance
Anthropogenic disturbance in the form of rock-moving by people
recreating on rivers is becoming an increasing stressor on eastern
hellbenders and can cause mortality. Large shelter rocks are removed to
reduce obstructions to recreational canoeing or tubing. Additionally,
collection of boulders, rocks, and cobble for landscaping has been
suspected in some areas in Missouri (Briggler et al. 2007, p. 62).
Because large rocks serve as shelter and nesting habitat for adults,
and smaller rocks and cobble provide larval and juvenile habitat,
moving rocks of any size has the potential to lead to mortality of some
life stage. Unger et al. (2017, entire) documented
[[Page 13228]]
direct mortality to eastern hellbenders as a result of shelter rock
disturbance.
Small Populations, Population Fragmentation and Isolation
Many eastern hellbender populations are small and isolated from one
another by impoundments and large reaches of unsuitable habitat. This
isolation restricts movement among populations and precludes natural
recolonization from source populations (Dodd 1997, p. 178; Benstead et
al. 1999, pp. 662-664; Poff and Hart 2002, p. 660).
Increased Abundance of Species of Predators
Some native predators of the eastern hellbender, such as raccoons,
have increased in abundance due to anthropogenic influences, while
others have recently been reintroduced into hellbender streams (e.g.,
river otters). Nonnative predators are also present within a large
portion of the eastern hellbender's range and include predatory fish
stocked for recreation, such as rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and
brown trout (Salmo trutta) (Mayasich et al. 2003, p. 20). Nonnative
trout species are thought to directly impact eastern hellbenders by
predating on eggs, larvae, sub-adults, and adults, and by impacting
hellbenders indirectly through competition for resources.
Climate Change
Average temperatures are expected to rise throughout the range of
the eastern hellbender, along with more frequent heat waves and
increased periods of drought punctuated by intense rainstorms, likely
resulting in elevated stream temperature regimes and lower summer base-
flows (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 44, 107, 111-112, 117-118), which may
affect the subspecies. Migration of eastern hellbenders as an
adaptation to climate change is unlikely, due to their limited
mobility, high site fidelity, restriction to defined stream systems,
and the extensive network of impoundments throughout their range.
Synergistic Effects
In some instances, effects from one threat may increase effects of
another threat, resulting in what is referred to as synergistic
effects. Synergistic effects often include an increased susceptibility
to predation (Moore and Townsend 1998, pp. 332-333), disease (Kiesecker
and Blaustein 1995, pp. 11050-11051; Taylor et al. 1999, pp. 539-540),
or parasites (Kiesecker 2002, pp. 9902-9903; Gendron et al. 2003, pp.
472-473). In addition, chronic, increased levels of stress hormones
have been shown to inhibit immune response (Rollins-Smith and Blair
1993, pp. 156-159; Romero and Butler 2007, pp. 93-94). Other stressors
present in the eastern hellbender's environment (e.g., habitat
modification, degraded water quality) could reduce immune response and
thereby increase vulnerability to disease and parasites.
Conservation Efforts
Beneficial efforts, primarily of population augmentation, were also
ranked by species' experts as an important influence on the eastern
hellbender's status. Captive rearing increases the survival rate of
young by raising them in captivity to 2 to 4 years of age. Once reared,
young are released into the wild to augment existing populations or
reintroduced into areas where the species has been extirpated. However,
we currently have no data on whether released individuals have
successfully reproduced or can successfully reproduce, or the survival
rates of any resulting offspring.
In addition, artificial nest boxes have been successfully used for
reproduction by hellbenders in Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Virginia,
and New York. However, the survival of fertilized eggs and larvae from
these nest boxes is unknown. Because nest boxes may present a curiosity
to stream recreationists, hellbenders occupying the nests are
susceptible to disturbance, persecution, and collection if the nest
boxes are not properly camouflaged.
Summary of Future Conditions
To assess the future number, health, and distribution of eastern
hellbender populations, we asked species' experts for their predictions
of the changes in the numbers of stable recruiting, declining,
functionally extirpated, and presumed extirpated populations at 10-
year, 25-year, and 50-year timeframes under three scenarios: Reasonable
worst plausible, reasonable best plausible, and ``most likely'' future
plausible scenarios. Most experts had little confidence in predictions
beyond 25 years. Using these expert-elicited estimates, we forecast the
health and distribution of populations at 10- and 25-year increments
for the three future scenarios. The reasonable worst plausible and
reasonable best plausible scenarios provide the range of plausible
outcomes while the ``most likely'' predictions provide insights to
whether the future scenarios are likely to be closer to the upper
(reasonable best) or the lower (reasonable worst) predictions.
Projections of the numbers of healthy and extant populations vary
between the reasonable worst plausible and reasonable best plausible
scenarios, and among the ACUs. For the number of healthy populations,
the ``most likely'' scenario is not skewed toward the reasonable best
or reasonable worst plausible scenarios for each ACU, but for the
number of extant populations, the ``most likely'' scenario varies by
ACU. First, we summarize these projections by ACU and then provide a
summary across the eastern hellbender's range.
In MACU, future projections indicate there may be 3 to 5 extant
populations by year 25, with 4 extant populations under the ``most
likely'' scenario. MACU currently has no healthy populations, and this
condition would continue under the reasonable worst plausible scenario.
Two healthy populations are predicted under the reasonable best
plausible scenario. The most important influences affecting eastern
hellbender's future status and trends in MACU are sedimentation, water
quality degradation, augmentation, disease and pathogens, and habitat
disturbance. MACU has a low to moderate risk of Bsal introduction
(Richgels et al. 2016, p. 5) and other potential EIDs. In the event of
a disease outbreak, ACU-wide extirpation is likely under the reasonable
worst plausible scenario and is about as likely as not under the
reasonable best plausible scenario. ACU-wide extirpation is unlikely
due to one or more catastrophic chemical pollution events under both
scenarios.
In OACU, future projections indicate that there may be 30 to 108
extant populations by year 25, with 88 extant populations under the
``most likely'' scenario prediction. Of those extant populations, 15
(65 percent less than current) to 71 (69 percent more than current)
healthy populations are predicted to persist across spatially
heterogeneous environmental conditions. The most important influences
affecting the eastern hellbender's future status and trends in OACU are
sedimentation, water quality degradation, augmentation, small
population effects, destruction of habitat, and climate change. Given
the predicted future geographic spread of populations within OACU,
disease is the only reasonably foreseeable catastrophic event. OACU is
at moderate risk of introduction of Bsal (Richgels et al. 2016, p. 5)
and other potential EIDs. In the event of a disease outbreak, the
number and spatial extent of populations likely provide sufficient
redundancy to protect against extirpation in OACU over the next 25
years under the reasonable best plausible scenario. However, ACU-wide
[[Page 13229]]
extirpation due to a catastrophic disease is likely under the
reasonable worst plausible scenario.
In TACU, future projections indicate that there may be 112 to 154
extant populations by year 25, with the ``most likely'' scenario
prediction skewed toward the reasonable worst plausible scenario. Of
those extant populations, 40 (41 percent less than current) to 91 (34
percent more than current) healthy populations are predicted to persist
across spatially heterogeneous environmental conditions. The most
important influences affecting eastern hellbender's future status and
trends in TACU are sedimentation, water quality degradation, mortality,
overabundance of predators, and augmentation. Given the predicted
future geographic extent of populations within TACU, disease is the
only reasonably foreseeable catastrophic event. TACU is at moderate
risk of introduction of Bsal (Richgels et al. 2016, p. 5) and other
potential EIDs. In the event of a disease introduction, the number and
spatial extent of populations likely provide sufficient redundancy to
protect against extirpation in TACU over the next 25 years under the
reasonable best plausible scenario. However, ACU-wide extirpation due
to a catastrophic disease is likely under the reasonable worst
plausible scenario.
In KACU, future projections indicate that there may be 4 to 35
extant populations at year 25, with 13 extant populations under the
``most likely'' scenario prediction. Under the reasonable worst
plausible scenario, no healthy populations remain, while under the
reasonable best plausible scenario, 13 (19 percent less than current)
healthy populations are predicted to persist. The most important
influences affecting eastern hellbender future status and trends in
KACU are sedimentation, water quality degradation, mortality,
augmentation, and small population effects. KACU has a low to moderate
risk of introduction of Bsal (Richgels et al. 2016, p. 5) and other
potential EIDs. ACU-wide extirpation due to a disease outbreak is
likely under the reasonable worst plausible scenario, but the risk of
catastrophic loss under the reasonable best plausible scenario is
lower, as there is a greater number and spatial extent of populations
predicted. ACU-wide extirpation is unlikely due to one or more
catastrophic chemical pollution events under both scenarios.
Rangewide, the number of extant populations is predicted to
decrease by 2 to 52 percent over the next 10 years, and then slightly
decrease from year 10 to year 25 under both scenarios (see figure 1,
below), with the ``most likely'' scenario skewed toward the reasonable
worst plausible scenario. Despite these overall losses, multiple
healthy populations over a broad geographic range are predicted to
persist over the next 25 years (55 to 178 healthy populations,
representing a 57-percent decrease to a 40-percent increase from
current conditions).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP19.018
In summary, stressors are pervasive across the eastern hellbender's
range, but the magnitude varies across populations. The primary
stressors affecting the eastern hellbender rangewide include
sedimentation, water quality degradation, and direct mortality.
Although augmentation has the potential to influence the eastern
hellbender's status, little data exist as to whether successful
sustained reproduction and recruitment can be achieved and whether
augmentation is logistically possible at a broad scale. Rangewide,
healthy populations are predicted to persist, although with a reduction
in geographic range. Across its range, eastern hellbender has a low to
moderate risk of exposure to catastrophic events (disease or chemical
spills). There is greater vulnerability for ACU-wide extirpation in
MACU and KACU due to the low number and reduced distribution of
populations. Loss of two ACUs would lead to reductions in genetic and
ecological diversity, both of which are potential sources of adaptive
diversity. However, the geographically wide distribution of populations
in OACU and TACU guard against catastrophic losses rangewide.
Finding
Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for
determining whether a species is an endangered species or threatened
species and should be included on the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The ESA 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
[[Page 13230]]
significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.''
Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, we determine whether a species is
an endangered species or threatened species because of any of the
following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. These same factors apply whether we
are analyzing the species' status throughout all of its range or
throughout a significant portion of its range.
Determination of Status Throughout All of Its Range
The first step in our analysis of the status of a species is to
determine its status throughout all of its range. We subsequently
examine whether, in light of the species' status throughout all of its
range, it is necessary to determine its status throughout a significant
portion of its range.
Stressors are pervasive across the eastern hellbender's range, but
the magnitude varies across populations. The primary stressors
identified for the eastern hellbender include sedimentation (Factor A),
water quality degradation (Factor A), and direct mortality (Factor E).
In considering the foreseeable future, we forecast the future viability
of the species by predicting the responses of the ACUs to conditions
under three future scenarios 10 and 25 years into the future.
Predictions of the subspecies' response to threats, based on
elicitation of species' experts, are reasonably reliable out to 25
years; therefore, we have concluded that 25 years is the foreseeable
future for the eastern hellbender.
Our analysis indicates that numerous healthy (resilient)
populations will persist over the next 25 years across a broad
geographic range, including multiple representation units (ACUs).
Although our analysis predicts a population decline over the next 10
years, populations are predicted to be level from year 10 to year 25
under the future scenarios. The risk of exposure to catastrophic events
varies across the eastern hellbender's range. While the subspecies'
redundancy is lower than in the past, the geographically wide
distribution of populations, as well as the low to moderate risk of a
catastrophic event, guards against catastrophic losses rangewide. We
find that the predicted persistence of healthy populations across
multiple ACUs provides redundancy, resiliency, and representation
levels that are likely sufficient to sustain the subspecies now and
into the future, and we conclude that the eastern hellbender has a low
risk of extirpation.
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors
acting on the eastern hellbender and its habitat, either singly or in
combination, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude
to indicate that the subspecies is in danger of extinction (an
endangered species), or likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future (a threatened species), throughout all of its range.
Determination of Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range (SPR). Having determined that the eastern hellbender is not
in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range, we next consider whether it may be
in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future in an SPR. The range of a species can theoretically be divided
into portions in an infinite number of ways, so we first screen the
potential portions of the species' range to determine if there are any
portions that warrant further consideration. To do this we look for
portions of the species' range for which there is substantial
information indicating that: (1) The portion may be significant, and
(2) the species may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future in that portion. No portion would warrant
further consideration if, for that portion, either one of these initial
elements is not present. Therefore, if we determine that either of the
initial elements is not present for a particular portion of the
species' range, then the species does not warrant listing because of
its status in that portion of its range.
We emphasize that the presence of both of the initial elements is
not equivalent to a determination that the species should be listed--
rather, it is a determination that a portion warrants further
consideration. If we identify any portions that meet both of the
initial elements, we conduct a more thorough analysis to determine
whether the portion does indeed meet both of the SPR standards: (1) The
portion is significant and (2) the species is in danger of extinction
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion.
Confirmation that a geographic area does indeed meet one of these
standards (either the portion is significant or the species is
endangered or threatened in that portion of its range) does not create
a presumption, prejudgment, or other determination as to whether the
species is endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its
range. Rather, we must then undertake a more detailed analysis of the
other standard to make that determination. If the portion does indeed
meet both SPR standards, then the species is endangered or threatened
in that significant portion of its range.
At both stages in this process--the stage of screening potential
portions to identify whether any portions warrant further consideration
and the stage of undertaking the more-detailed analysis of any portions
that do warrant further consideration--it might be more efficient for
us to address first the ``significance'' question or the ``status''
question. Our selection of which question to address first for a
particular portion depends on the biology of the species, its range,
and the threats it faces. Regardless of which question we address
first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first question
that we address, we do not need to evaluate the second question for
that portion of the species' range.
For this species, we chose to evaluate the status question (i.e.,
identifying portions where the eastern hellbender may be in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future) first. The
best available information indicates that eastern hellbender
populations in MACU and KACU may have lower viability and greater
vulnerability to potential future stressors than the other two ACUs. We
therefore evaluated whether these two units could be considered
``significant.''
The Service's most-recent definition of ``significant'' has been
invalidated by the courts (for example, Desert Survivors v. Dep't of
the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018)).
Therefore, we identify portions that may be significant by looking for
portions of the species' range that could be significant under any
reasonable definition of ``significant.'' To do this, we look for any
portions that may be biologically important in terms of the resiliency,
redundancy, or representation of the species.
Historically and currently, these two units represent a small
proportion (10% currently) of the total populations and have a small
spatial extent. Because
[[Page 13231]]
these two units collectively have few healthy populations, they are not
currently contributing in an important way to the subspecies' overall
resiliency. If both of these units were extirpated, the subspecies
would lose some representation and redundancy, but the loss of this
portion of the subspecies' range would still leave sufficient
resiliency, redundancy, and representation in the remainder of the
subspecies' range such that it would not notably reduce the viability
of the subspecies. Therefore, these two ACUs do not represent a
significant portion of the subspecies' range, and we conclude that the
eastern hellbender is not in danger of extinction or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range. Our
understanding of ``significance'' in this finding has been arrived at
independently and is not precedential. Further, our approach to
analyzing SPR in this determination is consistent with the court's
holding in Desert Survivors.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the eastern hellbender. Because the subspecies is neither in danger
of extinction now nor likely to become so in the foreseeable future
throughout all or any significant portion of its range, the subspecies
does not meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened
species. Therefore, we find that listing the eastern hellbender as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act is not warranted at this
time. This constitutes the conclusion of the Service's 12-month finding
on the 2010 petition to list the hellbender as an endangered or
threatened species. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding
can be found in the SSA report and other supporting documents
(available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R3-ES-2018-0056).
We ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes
available concerning the taxonomy, biology, ecology, status of, or
stressors to the eastern hellbender outside of Missouri whenever it
becomes available. Please submit any new information, materials,
comments, or questions concerning this finding to Patrice Ashfield,
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ohio Ecological
Services Field Office, 4625 Morse Road, Suite 104, Columbus, OH 43230;
telephone 614-416-8993.
Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Analysis
Under the Act, we have the authority to consider for listing any
species, subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any distinct population
segment (DPS) of these taxa if there is sufficient information to
indicate that such action may be warranted. To guide the implementation
of the DPS provisions of the Act, we and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--Fisheries),
published the Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate
Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act (DPS Policy) in
the Federal Register on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). Under our DPS
Policy, we use two elements to assess whether a population segment
under consideration for listing may be recognized as a DPS: (1) The
population segment's discreteness from the remainder of the species to
which it belongs, and (2) the significance of the population segment to
the species to which it belongs. If we determine that a population
segment being considered for listing is a DPS, then the population
segment's conservation status is evaluated based on the five listing
factors established by the Act to determine if listing it as either
endangered or threatened is warranted.
MACU consists of Big Piney River, Gasconade River, Meramec River,
Niangua River, and their watersheds (see figure 2, below). Meramec
River flows directly to Mississippi River, rather than directly to
Missouri River, as do the other three rivers. For the purposes of the
SSA, we referred to the grouping as the Missouri River drainage. The
entirety of MACU occurs within the State of Missouri, and within this
proposed rule, we also refer to MACU as the Missouri portion of the
eastern hellbender's range. Below, we evaluate the Missouri portion of
the eastern hellbender's range to determine whether it meets the
definition of a DPS under our DPS Policy.
[[Page 13232]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP19.019
Discreteness
Under our DPS Policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following
conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the
same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation; or (2) it is
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
The Missouri populations of the eastern hellbender are markedly
separate from other populations of the subspecies both genetically and
by geographic separation. A recent evaluation of genetic markers spread
throughout the Cryptobranchus genome indicates that the eastern
hellbender subspecies consists of four evolutionary lineages that are
distinct from each other (Hime et al. 2016, pp. 4-13): The Ohio River
drainage, the Kanawha River drainage, the Tennessee River drainage, and
the Missouri River drainage. More information on the genetic difference
between the Missouri River populations and the remainder of the
subspecies is discussed below under ``Significance.''
The populations in the Missouri River drainage, referred to here as
the Missouri ``population,'' are disjunct from populations of eastern
hellbender in the other three drainages. The distance of the geographic
separation from other eastern hellbender populations in the other
genetic lineages is about 320 river kilometers (200 river miles).
Eastern hellbenders occupy small home ranges, and a long distance
movement for an eastern hellbender is 13 km (8 mi); therefore, eastern
hellbender populations in Missouri do not and will never naturally
interact with populations in the other three river drainages.
Based on our review of the available information, we conclude that
the Missouri population of the eastern hellbender is markedly separate
from other populations of the species due to genetic separation and
geographic (physical) isolation from eastern hellbender populations in
the eastern United States (see figure 3, below). Therefore, we have
determined that the Missouri population of the eastern hellbender meets
the condition for discreteness under our DPS policy.
[[Page 13233]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP19.020
Significance
Under our DPS Policy, once we have determined that a population
segment is discrete, we consider its biological and ecological
significance to the larger taxon to which it belongs. This
consideration may include, but is not limited to: (1) Evidence of the
persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting
that is unusual or unique for the taxon, (2) evidence that loss of the
population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of
the taxon, (3) evidence that the population segment represents the only
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range, or
(4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from
other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
Hime et al. (2016, p. 12) found that genetic variation within the
separate lineages is up to four orders of magnitude lower than the
variation among the lineages. These genetic divergences within eastern
hellbender lineages may be millions of years old (Hime et al. 2016, p.
12) and are likely the result of ancient geologic and climatic events
(Sabatino and Routman 2009, p. 1,242). Each of the evolutionary
lineages represents a substantial amount of the subspecies' genetic
diversity, as well as diverse ecological and physical conditions, which
may provide important sources of adaptive diversity for the subspecies.
We have substantial evidence that the Missouri population of the
eastern hellbender differs markedly in its genetic characteristics, and
loss of this genetic diversity would result in loss of the subspecies'
adaptive capacity. Thus, this population meets the criteria for
significance under our DPS Policy.
DPS Conclusion for the Missouri Population of the Eastern Hellbender
Our DPS policy directs us to evaluate the significance of a
discrete population in the context of its biological and ecological
significance to the remainder of the species to which it belongs. Based
on an analysis of the best available scientific and commercial data, we
conclude that the Missouri population segment of the eastern hellbender
is discrete due to genetic separation and geographic (physical)
isolation from the remainder of the taxon. Furthermore, we conclude
that the Missouri discrete population segment of the eastern hellbender
is significant because it meets the following criterion to establish
significance in the DPS policy: (1) This population differs markedly
from the rest of the species because there are genetic characteristics
present in this population that are not observed in the remainder of
the taxon. Therefore, we conclude that the Missouri population of the
eastern hellbender is both discrete and significant under our DPS
policy and is, therefore, a listable entity under the Act.
Based on our DPS policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), if a
population segment of a vertebrate species is both discrete and
significant relative to the taxon as a whole (i.e., it is a distinct
population segment), its evaluation for endangered or threatened status
will be based on the Act's definition of those terms and a review of
the factors
[[Page 13234]]
enumerated in section 4(a) of the Act. Having found that the Missouri
population of eastern hellbender meets the definition of a distinct
population segment, we now evaluate the status of this population to
determine whether it meets the definition of endangered or threatened
under the Act.
Determination
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based
on (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 carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the eastern hellbender in Missouri. Our analysis of this information
indicates that the most important risk factors affecting the eastern
hellbender's current and future status and trends in Missouri are
habitat destruction and modification from sedimentation and water
quality degradation (Factor A), disease and pathogens (Factor C), and
habitat disturbance (Factor A), and these factors are the primary
causes of the decrease in eastern hellbender populations in Missouri
now and into the future. The unauthorized collection of eastern
hellbenders, especially for the pet trade (Factor B), remains a concern
despite regulatory mechanisms, such as listing under CITES (Factor D),
to reduce or eliminate overexploitation. Other factors, such as an
overabundance of predators (Factor C) or population isolation (Factor
E), are also affecting eastern hellbenders in Missouri but to a lesser
degree. Although conservation efforts, such as population augmentation
and artificial nest boxes, are being implemented in Missouri, we have
no evidence that they will improve population viability in the long
term.
The threats described above have already resulted in the
extirpation of one of only five populations (20 percent) of the eastern
hellbender in Missouri and the declining condition of the remaining
four populations (80 percent). The lack of healthy populations and the
limited spatial extent of the Missouri DPS greatly reduce the DPS's
resiliency and redundancy (the ability of eastern hellbenders to
withstand normal environmental variation, periodic disturbances,
stressors, and catastrophes currently and into the future).
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 an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' We find that the Missouri
DPS of the eastern hellbender is presently in danger of extinction
throughout its entire range based on the immediacy of threats currently
impacting the species. None of the remaining populations is healthy,
and all are threatened by a variety of factors acting in combination to
reduce the overall viability of the DPS. The lack of healthy
populations and their limited spatial extent, coupled with the current
and ongoing threats, put the eastern hellbender in Missouri in danger
of extinction. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific
and commercial information, we propose to list the Missouri DPS of the
eastern hellbender as endangered in accordance with sections 3(6) and
4(a)(1) of the Act. We find that a threatened species status is not
appropriate for the Missouri DPS of the eastern hellbender because of
its contracted range, because the threats are occurring rangewide and
are not localized, and because the threats are ongoing and expected to
continue into the future.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Because we have determined that the Missouri DPS of the
eastern hellbender is in danger of extinction throughout all of its
range, we find it unnecessary to proceed to an evaluation of
potentially significant portions of the range. Where the best available
information allows the Services to determine a status for the species
rangewide, that determination should be given conclusive weight because
a rangewide determination of status more accurately reflects the
species' degree of imperilment and better promotes the purposes of the
Act. Under this reading, we should first consider whether the species
warrants listing ``throughout all'' of its range and proceed to conduct
a ``significant portion of its range'' analysis if, and only if, a
species does not qualify for listing as either an endangered or a
threatened species according to the ``throughout all'' language. We
note that the court in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior,
No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), did not
address this issue, and our conclusion is therefore consistent with the
opinion in that case.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we propose to list the Missouri DPS of the
eastern hellbender as an endangered species throughout all of its range
in accordance with sections 3(20) 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 other countries, and calls for recovery actions to be
carried out for 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 calls for 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 provides interim guidance for the
management and conservation of newly listed species during the time
between the final listing and completion of a recovery plan. The
recovery plan identifies recovery criteria that indicate when a species
may be ready for downlisting (i.e., reclassification from endangered
status
[[Page 13235]]
to threatened status) or delisting (i.e., removal from the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants), actions necessary to
achieve recovery and their estimated costs, and methods for monitoring
recovery progress. The recovery plan may be revised to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. When completed, the recovery outline,
draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on
our website (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Missouri
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally needs the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If we list the Missouri DPS of the eastern hellbender, funding for
recovery actions would 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 would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management
actions that promote the protection or recovery of the Missouri DPS of
the eastern hellbender. Information on our grant programs that are
available to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Missouri DPS of the eastern hellbender is only
proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if
you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for this DPS.
Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this DPS
whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for
recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(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 critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the
Service.
Federal agency actions within the DPS' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering
activities, particularly those affecting water quality or instream
habitat, on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service and
Department of Defense; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and
construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal
Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR
17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of
these) endangered wildlife within the United States or on the high
seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive,
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate
or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess,
sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has
been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the
Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land
management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to
endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes:
For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful
activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the
species proposed for listing.
Based on the best available information, the following actions are
unlikely to result in a violation of section 9, if these activities are
carried out in accordance with existing regulations and permit
requirements; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Activities authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal
agencies, when such activities are conducted in accordance with an
incidental take statement issued by us under section 7 of the Act;
(2) Any action carried out for scientific research or to enhance
the propagation or survival of the Missouri DPS of the eastern
hellbender that is conducted in accordance with the conditions of a
permit issued by the Service under 50 CFR 17.22; and
(3) Any incidental take of Missouri eastern hellbenders resulting
from an otherwise lawful activity conducted in accordance with the
conditions of an incidental take permit issued by the Service under 50
CFR 17.22. Non-Federal applicants may design a habitat conservation
plan (HCP) for the DPS and apply for an incidental take permit. HCPs
may be developed for listed species and are designed to minimize and
mitigate impacts to the species to the maximum extent practicable.
We will review other activities not identified above on a case-by-
case basis to determine whether they may be likely to result in a
violation of section 9 of the Act. We do not consider these lists to be
exhaustive and provide them as information to the public.
Based on the best available information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this
list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized killing, collecting, handling, or harassing of
individual eastern hellbenders at any life stage in Missouri;
[[Page 13236]]
(2) Sale or offer for sale of any Missouri eastern hellbender, as
well as delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping any
Missouri eastern hellbender in interstate or foreign commerce and in
the course of a commercial activity;
(3) Unauthorized destruction or alteration of the DPS' habitat (for
example, instream dredging, channelizing, impounding of water,
streambank clearing, removing large rocks from or flipping large rocks
within streams, discharging fill material) that actually kills or
injures individual eastern hellbenders in Missouri by significantly
impairing their essential behavioral patterns, including breeding,
feeding, or sheltering;
(4) Violation of any discharge or water withdrawal permit within
the DPS' occupied range that results in the death or injury of
individual eastern hellbenders by significantly impairing their
essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or
sheltering; and
(5) Discharge or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants
into waters supporting the DPS that actually kills or injures
individual eastern hellbenders by significantly impairing their
essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or
sheltering.
Questions regarding whether specific activities might constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Missouri
Ecological Services Field Office, 101 Park DeVille Drive, Suite A,
Columbia, MO 65203; telephone 573-234-2132.
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the
conservation of the species and (b) which may require special
management considerations or protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner seeks or requests Federal
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed
species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section
7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction
or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at
the time the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of
critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following
circumstances exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other
human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected
to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
Designation of critical habitat requires the publication of maps
and a narrative description of specific critical habitat areas in the
Federal Register. The degree of detail in those maps and boundary
descriptions is greater than the general location descriptions provided
in this proposal to list the Missouri DPS as endangered. We are
concerned that designation of critical habitat would more widely
announce the exact locations of eastern hellbenders to collectors. We
believe that the publication of maps and descriptions outlining the
locations of eastern hellbenders will further facilitate unauthorized
collection and trade, as collectors will know the exact locations where
eastern hellbenders occur.
The unauthorized collection of eastern hellbenders for the pet
trade is a factor contributing to hellbender declines and remains a
threat today. Eastern hellbenders are easily collected because they are
slow moving and have extremely small home ranges. Therefore, publishing
specific location information would provide a high level of assurance
that any person going to a specific location would be able to
successfully locate and collect specimens given the subspecies' site
fidelity and ease of capture once located. For a detailed discussion on
the threat of commercial collection, refer to the SSA report (Service
2018, pp. 40-42).
In conclusion, we find that the designation of critical habitat is
not prudent for the Missouri DPS of the eastern hellbender, in
accordance with 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1), because the eastern hellbender
faces a threat of unauthorized collection and trade, and designation
can reasonably be expected to increase the degree of these threats to
the subspecies.
[[Page 13237]]
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
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).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes. We have no records of the Missouri DPS
of the eastern hellbender occurring on tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this proposed rule is
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon
request from the Missouri Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Service's Midwest Regional Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding an entry for ``Hellbender, eastern
[Missouri DPS]'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in
alphabetical order under AMPHIBIANS to read as set forth below:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Amphibians
* * * * * * *
Hellbender, eastern [Missouri Cryptobranchus Missouri.............. E [Federal Register
DPS]. alleganiensis citation when
alleganiensis. published as a
final rule.]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: March 27, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Authority of the Director,
for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-06536 Filed 4-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P