Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Petition Finding and Endangered Species Status for the Missouri Distinct Population Segment of Eastern Hellbender, 13223-13237 [2019-06536]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[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: https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 (https://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: https://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 https://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