Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Eastern Hellbender, 100934-100948 [2024-28352]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 100934-100948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28352]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2024-0152; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BH79


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for Eastern Hellbender

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
list the eastern hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis 
alleganiensis), a salamander subspecies from Alabama, Georgia, 
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, 
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West 
Virginia, as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act). This determination also serves as our 12-month 
finding on a petition to list the eastern hellbender. After a review of 
the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that 
listing the subspecies is warranted. If we finalize this rule as 
proposed, it would add this subspecies to the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to the subspecies. 
We have determined that designation of critical habitat for the eastern 
hellbender is not prudent.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
February 11, 2025. 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 a 
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by January 27, 2025.

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-2024-0152, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of 
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on 
``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R3-ES-2024-0152, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 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 Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as 
the species status assessment report, are available on the Service's 
website at https://fws.gov/species/eastern-hellbender-cryptobranchus-alleganiensis-alleganiensis, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
No. FWS-R3-ES-2024-0152, or both.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Knoll, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Ohio Ecological Services Field Office, 4625 
Morse Road, Suite 104, Columbus, OH 43230; telephone 614-528-9704. 
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within 
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in 
the United States. Please see Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2024-0152 on https://www.regulations.gov for a document that summarizes this proposed rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 
defines a ``species'' as including any subspecies of fish or wildlife 
or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of 
vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. Under the 
Act, a species warrants listing if it meets the definition of an 
endangered species (in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range) or a threatened species (likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range). If we determine that a 
species warrants listing, we must list the species promptly and 
designate the species' critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable. We have determined that the eastern hellbender meets 
the Act's definition of an

[[Page 100935]]

endangered species; therefore, we are proposing to list it as such. 
Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can be 
completed only by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure 
Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
    What this document does. We propose to list the eastern hellbender 
as an endangered species under the Act. This document also includes our 
determination that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent 
for the eastern hellbender because this subspecies faces a threat of 
unauthorized collection and trade, and a critical habitat designation 
can reasonably be expected to increase the degree of these threats to 
the subspecies.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or a threatened species because of any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined that the eastern hellbender is 
endangered due to the following threats: sedimentation; water quality 
degradation; habitat destruction and modification; disease; and direct 
mortality or removal of hellbenders from a population by collection, 
persecution, recreation, or gravel mining.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the 
Interior (Secretary), to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, 
concurrently with listing designate critical habitat for the species. 
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as (i) the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time 
it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features 
(I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may 
require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) 
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at 
the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such 
areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must make the designation 
on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking 
into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national 
security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular 
area as critical habitat. We have determined that designation of 
critical habitat for the eastern hellbender is not prudent.

Information Requested

    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 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, 
including:
    (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the subspecies, 
including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns 
and the locations of any additional populations of this subspecies;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the subspecies, its 
habitat, or both.
    (2) Threats and conservation actions affecting the subspecies, 
including:
    (a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the 
subspecies, which may include habitat modification or destruction, 
overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors;
    (b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to this subspecies; and
    (c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be 
addressing threats to this subspecies.
    (3) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status of this subspecies.
    (4) Information regarding application of our distinct population 
segment (DPS) policy (61 FR 4722), including:
    (a) Whether any populations or analysis units of the eastern 
hellbender meet the criteria for a DPS; and
    (b) Whether any potential DPS of the eastern hellbender may have a 
different listing status.
    (5) Information regarding our determination that designating 
critical habitat for the eastern hellbender is not prudent.
    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, do not provide substantial 
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of 
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an 
endangered or a 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.
    Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we 
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well 
as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based 
on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on 
that new information), we may conclude that the eastern hellbender is 
threatened instead of endangered, or we may conclude that the eastern 
hellbender does not warrant listing as either an endangered species or 
a threatened species. In our final rule, we will clearly explain our 
rationale and the basis for our final decision, including why we made 
changes, if any, that differ from this proposal.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified 
in DATES. 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

[[Page 100936]]

reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers 
at least 15 days before the hearing. We may hold the public hearing in 
person or virtually via webinar. We will announce any public hearing on 
our website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual 
public hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 
424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

    On April 4, 2019, we published a document in the Federal Register 
(84 FR 13223) that was both: (1) a 12-month finding that listing the 
eastern hellbender subspecies as a whole was not warranted, and (2) a 
proposed rule to list the Missouri DPS of the eastern hellbender as an 
endangered species. On March 9, 2021, we published a final rule listing 
the Missouri DPS of the eastern hellbender as endangered (86 FR 13465). 
Please refer to our April 4, 2019, Federal Register publication (84 FR 
13223) for a detailed description of Federal actions concerning the 
eastern hellbender prior to April 2019.
    On July 1, 2021, the Center for Biological Diversity, Waterkeeper 
Alliance, Inc., Waterkeepers Chesapeake, Inc., Lower Susquehanna 
Riverkeeper Association, and Middle Susquehanna Riverkeeper Association 
filed a complaint challenging the Service's not-warranted finding for 
listing the eastern hellbender subspecies as a whole. On September 5, 
2023, a court order vacated and remanded the Service's April 4, 2019, 
12-month finding (see 84 FR 13223). The Service and plaintiffs reached 
a stipulated settlement agreement whereby the Service agreed to submit 
to the Federal Register a new 12-month finding no later than December 
5, 2024. This document addresses the court's order in compliance with 
the December 5, 2024, stipulated settlement agreement.

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the eastern hellbender (version 2.1; Service 2024, entire). The SSA 
team was composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other 
species experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best 
scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the 
subspecies, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors 
(both negative and beneficial) affecting the subspecies.
    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 in 
listing and recovery actions under the Act, we solicited independent 
scientific review of the information contained in the eastern 
hellbender SSA report. We sent the SSA report to five independent peer 
reviewers and received one response. Results of this structured peer 
review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov and https://fws.gov/species/eastern-hellbender-cryptobranchus-alleganiensis-alleganiensis. In preparing this proposed rule, we incorporated the 
results of this peer review, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which 
is the foundation for this proposed rule.

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments

    As discussed above in Peer Review, we received comments from one 
peer reviewer on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we 
received from the peer reviewer for substantive issues and new 
information regarding the contents of the SSA report. The peer reviewer 
generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and provided 
additional information, clarifications, and suggestions. The peer 
reviewer provided additional information and updated literature on 
threats, including disease, predation, persecution, and sedimentation. 
The reviewer suggested edits to clarify tables and figures in the SSA 
report. The peer reviewer did not recommend any substantive changes to 
our analysis and conclusions within the SSA report. We revised the SSA 
report to address the reviewer's comments, including the additional 
recommended threat information and clarification of tables and figures.

I. Proposed Listing Determination

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
eastern hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis) is 
presented in the SSA report (version 2.0; Service 2024, pp. 16-19). The 
full SSA report can be found on the Service's website at https://fws.gov/species/eastern-hellbender-cryptobranchus-alleganiensis-alleganiensis and at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R3-
ES-2024-0152.
    The eastern hellbender, one of two recognized subspecies of 
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. The range of 
the eastern hellbender does not overlap with the other subspecies, 
Ozark hellbender (C. alleganiensis bishopi).
    Streams occupied by the eastern hellbender 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 (Bothner and 
Gottlieb 1991, p. 45; Humphries 2005, p. 10; Lipps 2009, p. 9). 
Hellbender nests are typically excavations beneath partially embedded, 
large (greater than 30 centimeters (cm)), 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; Unger et al. 2020, p. 3). Eastern hellbenders occupy 
relatively small home ranges of approximately 30 square meters (m\2\) 
(322 square feet (ft\2\)) to

[[Page 100937]]

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.).

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and 
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 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 species' expected response 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.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, which is 
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable 
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf). 
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter, 
the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the 
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We 
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period 
of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case 
basis, using the best available data and taking into account 
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics, 
threat projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other 
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can 
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean 
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of 
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of 
the Act.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the eastern hellbender, including an assessment of the 
potential threats to the subspecies. The SSA report does not represent 
our decision on whether the subspecies should be proposed for listing 
as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. However, it does 
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, 
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and 
its implementing regulations and policies.
    To assess the eastern hellbender's viability, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and 
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold 
years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand 
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events); 
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment 
(for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species 
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we 
identified the eastern hellbender's ecological requirements for 
survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and subspecies 
levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the 
subspecies' viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the eastern hellbender's life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical 
and current condition of the subspecies' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the subspecies arrived 
at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the subspecies' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of the subspecies to sustain populations in 
the wild over time, which we then used to inform our regulatory 
decision.

[[Page 100938]]

    The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from 
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R3-
ES-2024-0152 on https://www.regulations.gov and at https://fws.gov/species/eastern-hellbender-cryptobranchus-alleganiensis-alleganiensis.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the 
subspecies and its resources, and the threats that influence the 
subspecies' current and future condition, in order to assess the 
subspecies' overall viability and the risks to that viability.

Subspecies Needs

Individual Needs
    The eastern hellbender's individual-level needs are summarized in 
table 1, below.

                   Table 1--Eastern Hellbender's Needs at the Individual Level by Life Stages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Life stage                        Requirements                        Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All stages...............................  Perennial streams.........  Inhabited streams must have continuous
                                                                        flow of water throughout the year.
All stages...............................  Good water conditions.....  Stream current should be swift-flowing,
                                                                        have relatively cool temperatures, and
                                                                        be highly oxygenated.
Eggs, juveniles, adults..................  Presence of suitable        Presence of large (>=30 cm) flat rocks;
                                            habitat for breeding and    rocks should be partially embedded to
                                            shelter.                    allow a single opening for males to
                                                                        guard eggs underneath.
Larvae, juveniles........................  Presence of suitable        Substrate should consist of unembedded
                                            habitat for shelter and     cobble and coarse gravel material where
                                            foraging.                   interstitial spaces are present for
                                                                        individuals, especially larvae, to seek
                                                                        shelter and feed.
Larvae, juveniles, adults................  Abundant prey availability  Adults and juveniles feed primarily on
                                                                        crayfish but will occasionally consume
                                                                        small fish, insects, and frogs. Larvae
                                                                        eat aquatic insects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Population Needs
    For eastern hellbender populations to be healthy (stable and 
recruiting), they must have: (1) a healthy demography, (2) adequate 
quantity and quality of habitat to support all life stages, and (3) 
connectivity to allow movement among habitat patches. These are 
described in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 19-20) and summarized 
below.
    Demographic Health--To withstand natural environmental 
fluctuations, eastern hellbender populations must have a population 
growth rate of at least 1 to remain stable over time. Based on expert 
input, a population growth rate of 1.05 (1.0-1.2) is needed for a 
stable recruiting population. In the absence of population growth 
rates, survivorship and recruitment rates also can be used to represent 
healthy demography. Although these rates likely vary among populations, 
the following rates have been used to represent annual survivorship in 
modelling a stable hellbender population: 70 to 85 percent for adults, 
67 to 75 percent for subadults, and 10 percent for early life stages 
(eggs and larvae) (Briggler et al. 2007, p. 82; Unger et al. 2013, p. 
425).
    The population size must also be large enough to be resilient to 
environmental fluctuations. Similar to population growth rate, the 
minimum population size to be healthy likely varies among populations. 
The expert-elicited minimum adult population size ranges from 45 to 
1,050, with a median most likely value of 160.
    Habitat Quality and Quantity--Healthy eastern hellbender 
populations require habitat of sufficient quality and quantity to 
support all life stages. The required habitat quality is described 
above in table 1 and in the SSA report (Service 2024, p. 20). The 
quantity of habitat likely varies among populations. The expert-
elicited minimum number of suitable habitat patches ranges from 3 to 
15, with a median most likely value of 4. Patch sizes reportedly vary 
from 1,150 to 21,400 m\2\ (0.3-5.3 acres) (Peterson 1985, p. 46; 
Humphries and Pauley 2005, p. 136; Foster et al. 2009, p. 582; 
Burgmeier et al. 2011c, p. 196). The minimum patch size required to 
support a healthy population likely depends upon the number of suitable 
habitat patches.
    Movement Among Habitat Patches--Eastern hellbender populations 
typically consist of individuals dispersed among multiple patches of 
suitable habitat within a stream or a portion of a stream. Movement 
among these habitat patches is needed to maintain genetic diversity and 
to allow recolonization of patches in the event of local extirpation. 
For movement to occur, the patches must be in sufficient proximity of 
each other to allow at least occasional interaction among individuals. 
Based on radio telemetry and mark-recapture studies to date, patches 
should generally be no more than 1 km (0.6 mi) apart for this movement 
to occur (Nickerson and Mays 1973, pp. 14-15; Blais 1996, p. 30; 
Burgmeier et al. 2011a, p. 138). In addition, movement between patches 
must not be restricted by barriers, such as dams or large stretches of 
unsuitable habitat.
Subspecies Needs
    For the eastern hellbender to maintain viability, it requires a 
sufficient number and distribution of healthy populations to ensure the 
subspecies can withstand (1) annual demographic and environmental 
variation (resiliency), (2) catastrophes (redundancy), and (3) novel or 
extraordinary changes in its environment (representation). These are 
described in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 21-25) and summarized 
below.
    Resiliency--The eastern hellbender's ability to withstand 
stochastic events requires maintaining healthy populations distributed 
across heterogeneous conditions. Thus, the greater the number of 
healthy populations, the greater degree of spatial heterogeneity 
occupied by eastern hellbender, and the more widely distributed 
populations are, the more likely it is that the eastern hellbender can 
withstand stochastic events.
    As described below, gene flow among major river drainages (e.g., 
Tennessee River, Ohio River, etc.) was limited historically (Sabatino 
and Routman 2009, p. 1241; Tonione et al. 2011, pp. 214-215; Hime et 
al. 2016, p. 12). Therefore, connectivity among major river drainages 
does not influence eastern hellbender resiliency.
    Redundancy--The eastern hellbender's ability to withstand 
catastrophic events depends on the number and distribution of healthy 
populations. The more populations and the more widely distributed, the 
less likely all populations will be exposed to a catastrophic event.
    In addition to guarding against a single or series of catastrophic 
events extirpating all populations of the eastern hellbender, 
redundancy is important to protect against losing irreplaceable sources 
of genetic and adaptive

[[Page 100939]]

diversity. Having multiple eastern hellbender populations within each 
evolutionary lineage (see Representation, below) will guard against 
losses of adaptive diversity due to catastrophic events. Thus, eastern 
hellbender redundancy is described as having multiple, healthy 
populations widely distributed across the breadth of genetic and 
adaptive diversity relative to the spatial occurrence of catastrophic 
events.
    Representation--The ability of the eastern hellbender to adapt over 
time to environmental changes is a function of both its genetic and 
adaptive diversity. In terms of genetic diversity, the eastern 
hellbender consists of four evolutionary lineages that are distinct 
from each other (Hime et al. 2016, pp. 4-13). Thus, to facilitate our 
analyses, we used these four groupings as our adaptive capacity units 
(ACUs) to evaluate past, current, and future representation of the 
eastern hellbender. The four units are: (1) Missouri (MACU), (2) Ohio 
River-Susquehanna River drainages (OACU), (3) Tennessee River drainage 
(TACU), and (4) Kanawha River drainage (KACU) (see figure 1, below).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13DE24.000

Figure 1. Eastern hellbender adaptive capacity units (ACUs). 
KACU=Kanawha River drainage; MACU=Missouri; OACU=Ohio River-Susquehanna 
River drainages; TACU=Tennessee River drainage.

    The eastern hellbender exhibits low levels of gene flow among 
populations (Sabatino and Routman 2009, p. 1,241; Hime et al. 2016, p. 
12), and while there is still some genetic exchange among the lineages, 
significant barriers to gene flow exist (Hime et al. 2016, pp. 7, 12). 
The eastern hellbender's specific habitat requirements (streams with 
clean, clear, cold, well-oxygenated water and large, flat rocks), 
especially at low elevations, may limit migration between rivers and 
result in natural fragmentation (Sabatino and Routman 2009, p. 1,241). 
This restricted gene flow may also be attributable to external 
fertilization, which reduces the colonization of new areas due to 
flooding since this would require at least a breeding pair, as opposed 
to a single inseminated female, to be moved to a new location (Sabatino 
and Routman 2009, p. 1,242).
    In addition to genetic diversity, ecological diversity, such as 
stream temperature regime and stream order, may also represent 
underlying adaptive diversity. Eastern hellbenders occupy streams with 
summer water temperatures ranging from 20 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (68 
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) (Nickerson et al. 2003, p. 622) to 33 
[deg]C (91 [deg]F) (Pfingsten 1988, p. 49). Variation in mean annual 
stream temperature or the annual fluctuation in stream temperature 
likely results in differences in movement patterns (e.g., seasonal 
movements due to extreme temperatures), physiological tolerances, and 
naturally occurring microbes among hellbender populations.
    Stream order is used to define stream size from 1 (smallest) to 12 
(largest), based on a hierarchy of tributaries, and can be used to 
characterize a number of physical conditions, such as hydrological 
patterns. Variation in these characteristics influences the diversity 
and abundance of predators and prey (Vannote et al. 1980, pp. 132-135). 
Stream order is often also correlated with stream gradient, which 
influences stream velocity, discharge rates and patterns (i.e., 
``flashiness''), and sediment transport. Differences in these 
conditions may influence hellbender behavior during flood events, 
foraging behavior (e.g., in high-velocity vs. low-velocity water, in 
turbid vs. clear water), when or how individuals move among sites, and 
habitat selection (e.g., available cover likely differs in headwater 
streams compared to large rivers), among other aspects. Eastern 
hellbenders occupy streams of orders 2 to 8, and this variation may 
also represent a range in the eastern hellbender's adaptive diversity.
    In summary, the eastern hellbender exhibits low levels of genetic 
variation within the four distinct lineages with higher genetic 
variation among the lineages (Hime et al. 2016, p. 12). Ecological 
differences in the streams occupied by the eastern hellbender may also 
represent sources of adaptive diversity. Thus, conserving the full 
breadth of representation for the eastern hellbender involves 
maintaining populations across and within the four distinct lineages 
(see figure 1, above).

Summary of Threats

    In consultation with species experts, we identified the past and 
current factors that have led to the eastern hellbender's current 
condition and that may influence population dynamics into the future. A 
brief summary of the most influential factors is presented below; for a 
full description of these

[[Page 100940]]

threats, refer to chapter 5 of the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 31-
50).
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 
and emanates from multiple sources, including agriculture, 
silviculture, oil and gas development, residential development, off-
road vehicles, impoundments, instream gravel mining, and road 
construction (Service 2024, p. 33). 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; Brooks et al. 2023, p. 3). 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 
subspecies' range.
Water Quality Degradation
    Degraded water quality was estimated as having the second highest 
impact on the eastern hellbender's status in all adaptive capacity 
units (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). Sub-lethal levels of water quality degradation can include 
nutrient enrichment from poorly treated municipal wastewater, which 
causes lower oxygen levels in the stream. 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, such loss is possible if multiple spills occur 
in an ACU with low redundancy. One such spill occurred in a West Branch 
Susquehanna River tributary in 2006 from a railway container following 
a derailment, killing at least four eastern hellbenders (Hartle 2016, 
pp. 54-55).
Habitat Destruction and Modification
    Destruction of habitat from impoundments, channelization, and 
instream gravel mining was also ranked 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) 
(Gentry 1955, p. 169; Nickerson and Mays 1973, pp. 58, 63, 66; Mount 
1975, p. 109; Pfingsten 1990, p. 49; Echternacht 2009, pers. comm.; 
Graham et al. 2011, p. 246; 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, resulting 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 (Swanson 1948, p. 362; Nickerson and 
Briggler 2007, p. 208; Foster 2018, pp. 32-34). 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 soliciting purchase of wholesale lots of eastern 
hellbenders (Briggler 2010, pers. comm.) despite State and Federal 
regulations that restrict sale and trade of hellbenders (see 
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms, below).
    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 
(Williams et al. 1981, p. 26; Lindberg and Soule 1991, p. 8; Williams 
2012, pers. comm.).
    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.
    Direct mortality of eastern hellbenders can also occur from 
instream gravel mining activities. Gravel mining physically disturbs 
habitat in dredged areas, and dredging equipment can crush and embed 
cover rocks (Lipps 2009, p. 8), potentially killing eastern hellbenders 
in the process. Gravel mining continues to be a threat to some 
populations of eastern hellbenders, including in the densest remaining 
known population of the Licking River system in Kentucky (Lipps 2009, 
p. 8).
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

[[Page 100941]]

chytridiomycosis, a highly infectious amphibian disease associated with 
mass die-offs, population declines and extirpations, and potentially 
extinctions of a variety of amphibian species 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; Wolfe 2012, pers. comm.; Williams and 
Groves 2014, p. 457). 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 it 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). The Appalachian Mountains, a region 
containing some of the best remaining eastern hellbender populations, 
was identified as a region most likely to have salamander declines from 
Bsal based on environmental suitability and species richness (Richgels 
et al. 2016, p. 4). Because Bsal can be transmitted via 
environmentally-resistant zoospores and encysted spores that can float 
at the water-air interface (Stegen et al. 2017, pp. 354-355) in 
addition to direct contact between animals, it is expected to spread 
readily in stream environments.
    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 (16 U.S.C. 3371-3378; 18 U.S.C. 42) to prohibit, with limited 
exceptions, their importation into the United States and interstate 
transportation within 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 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 Predator Species
    Some native predators of the eastern hellbender, such as raccoons, 
have increased in abundance due to anthropogenic influences, while 
others, such as river otters, have recently been reintroduced into 
streams where eastern hellbenders occur. 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
    Our current analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing 
and projected changes in climate. Climate change is expected to result 
in rising average temperatures 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). Higher stream temperatures 
result in lower oxygen levels in the stream, and lower summer base-
flows make hellbenders more susceptible to predation by terrestrial 
animals such as racoons. Migration of eastern hellbenders as an 
adaptation to climate change is unlikely, due to their limited 
mobility, small home range sizes, restriction to defined stream 
systems, and the extensive network of impoundments throughout their 
range.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    Eastern hellbender conservation efforts occur in every State in the 
subspecies' range, but these efforts vary widely. Some States, 
including Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, and New York, have developed and 
follow conservation plans specific to the eastern hellbender. Other 
States conduct conservation but do not follow a State-wide plan. 
Conservation efforts include habitat restoration, such as streambank 
stabilization, natural channel restoration, riparian buffer plantings, 
livestock exclusion, dam removal, and rock shelter placement, and 
population augmentation, including captive rearing and artificial nest 
boxes.
    Captive rearing increases the survival rate of young eastern 
hellbenders 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 subspecies has been 
extirpated. Artificial nest boxes have been successfully used for 
reproduction by eastern hellbenders in Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, 
Virginia, and New York. However, we currently have no data on the long-
term success of these

[[Page 100942]]

efforts and whether they contribute to the conservation of the 
subspecies. Therefore, we have not considered these activities in our 
viability assessment of the eastern hellbender.
    The eastern hellbender is protected under State endangered species 
laws in many States within the range. Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, 
Missouri, Ohio, and Tennessee have listed the subspecies as endangered, 
while Alabama and Georgia have listed it as threatened. New York, North 
Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have identified the eastern 
hellbender as a species of special concern, and Mississippi and West 
Virginia consider the subspecies imperiled. Kentucky identified the 
eastern hellbender as a species of greatest conservation need. In some 
States (e.g., Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, and New York), these laws 
prohibit killing, sale, and/or possession of any eastern hellbenders 
but do not always address habitat-related threats, such as 
sedimentation, which is the primary threat affecting the eastern 
hellbender.
    In addition to State regulations, the eastern hellbender is also 
protected by the Lacey Act, which prohibits interstate transportation 
and sale of fish, wildlife, or plant species that were collected in 
violation of State law or regulation. Specifically, it is unlawful for 
any person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or 
purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, 
or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United 
States or in violation of any Indian Tribal law (16 U.S.C. 3372(a)). 
Because the sale of eastern hellbenders is illegal in all States within 
the subspecies' range, interstate or international sale of eastern 
hellbenders collected in those States is prohibited by the Lacey Act.
    Several other regulatory mechanisms address threats to the eastern 
hellbender. The hellbender, including both the eastern and Ozark 
hellbender, was added to appendix III of the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES) on April 3, 2012 (see 76 FR 61978, October 6, 2011). Appendix 
III includes native species that are regulated to prevent or restrict 
exploitation, where help is needed to monitor and control the trade of 
the species. Inclusion in appendix III provides the following benefits:
    (1) Ensures the assistance of the countries or regional economic 
integration organizations that have agreed to be bound by CITES (that 
is, ``CITES Parties'') through the implementation of CITES permitting 
requirements in controlling international trade in the species.
    (2) Enhances the enforcement of State and Federal conservation 
measures enacted for the species by regulating international trade in 
the species, particularly by preventing trade in illegally acquired 
specimens.
    (3) Ensures that records are kept and international trade in the 
species is monitored.
    (4) Requires packing and shipping according to international 
regulations when any live CITES-listed species (including an appendix-
III species) is exported or imported to reduce the risk of injury and 
cruel treatment.

Cumulative Effects

    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have 
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation 
actions on the eastern hellbender. To assess the current and future 
condition of the subspecies, we evaluate the effects of all the 
relevant factors that may be influencing the subspecies, including 
threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers 
not just the presence of the factors, but to what degree they 
collectively influence risk to the entire subspecies, our assessment 
integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a 
standalone cumulative-effects analysis.

Current and Future Conditions

Methodology for Analysis

    Below, we present a summary of our methods for delineating 
populations and representation units and assessing the resiliency, 
representation, and redundancy for the eastern hellbender. For greater 
detail on our methodology, please see the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 
10-15).
    The smallest eastern hellbender population unit is an occupied 
patch of suitable habitat (habitat patch), which may vary in size/
length. Occasional or regular interaction among individual eastern 
hellbenders in different habitat patches likely occurs and is 
influenced by habitat fragmentation and distance among habitat patches. 
In some cases, multiple habitat patches within close proximity and with 
little habitat fragmentation may constitute a single population, while 
in other cases, a single, highly isolated habitat patch may constitute 
a single population. Because the available data for eastern hellbender 
are organized by named stream and these streams often contain one or 
multiple interacting habitat patches, we used named stream as the unit 
with which to delineate an individual population. In this context, 
``stream'' and ``population'' are used synonymously.
    In addition, the eastern hellbender's range includes very long 
streams (e.g., Ohio River, Allegheny River), which likely include 
multiple populations that rarely interact. Therefore, for long streams, 
we delineated populations based on hydrologic unit code (HUC) (Seaber 
et al. 1987, entire; U.S. Geological Survey 2018, entire). The U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS) created the HUC system to provide a uniform 
numbering system for watersheds across the United States. The number of 
digits in the code indicates the scale of the hydrologic unit, with 
larger numbers representing smaller watersheds. For the eastern 
hellbender, we delineated populations at the fourth of six HUC levels 
(that is, we used the HUC-8 watershed level, which is the sub-basin 
level). If there was an eastern hellbender occurrence record for the 
stream in that watershed, we designated a separate population for each 
HUC-8 watershed through which the stream flows. For example, in the 
Ohio River, there are occurrence records in 8 of the 12 HUC-8 
watersheds through which the river flows; hence, our analyses assume 
that there are 8 separate eastern hellbender populations in the Ohio 
River.
    To assess the health, number, and distribution of populations 
through time, we first developed status and trend categories. We 
defined a population's status as extant, extirpated, or unknown (US). 
We developed two categories for extirpated. Presumed extirpated (PX) is 
assigned to a population for which no individuals have been found since 
2000, despite substantive survey effort. We use the descriptor 
``presumed'' to acknowledge that absolute extirpation is difficult, if 
not impossible, to prove. A functionally extirpated (FX) population is 
one for which only older individuals have been found since 2000 and 
there is no evidence of reproduction, despite significant survey 
effort. Although not extirpated in the strictest sense of the term, 
extirpation is likely inevitable for these populations without 
substantial intervention and augmentation (Pitt et al. 2017, p. 973).
    We developed four population trend (health) categories: stable 
recruiting (SR), unknown recruiting (UR), declining (D), or unknown 
trend (UT). SR populations show evidence of recruitment, as 
demonstrated by a range of post-metamorphic juveniles and adults since 
2000, and no documentation of declines. UR

[[Page 100943]]

populations show evidence of recruitment (at least 1 juvenile including 
subadults) since 2000, but we have insufficient data to document a 
trend. Although UR populations have some evidence of recruitment, we 
consider only the SR populations to be healthy given that we have data 
to support that the SR populations are stable. Declining populations 
are those with observations since 2000 and evidence of a decline in 
abundance or recruitment (e.g., shift to larger size classes) as 
demonstrated by survey data. Finally, UT populations are those with 
observation(s) since 2000, but we have insufficient data to document a 
trend (recruiting or declining).
    To garner insights on the distribution, number, and health of US 
and UT populations, we asked species experts to use their knowledge of 
the environmental conditions and status of known populations within 
their geographic areas of expertise to estimate the number of US and UT 
populations that they believe are SR, UR, D, FX, or PX.
    Resiliency--We analyzed the health of populations over time by 
tallying the number of populations in the SR, UR, D, FX, and PX 
categories for current and future time periods. Given these results, we 
evaluated the ability of the eastern hellbender to withstand 
environmental stochasticity and periodic disturbances over time.
    Representation--To assess the eastern hellbender's representation, 
we spatially partitioned eastern hellbender diversity into four 
geographical units (referred to as adaptive capacity units, or ACUs), 
based on genetic variation in the four evolutionary lineages described 
above in Subspecies Needs. The units are: (1) Missouri (MACU), (2) Ohio 
River-Susquehanna River drainages (OACU), (3) Tennessee River drainage 
(TACU), and (4) Kanawha River drainage (KACU).
    Redundancy--To assess the eastern hellbender's ability to withstand 
catastrophic events, we assessed the likelihood of catastrophic events 
occurring across its range. We defined a catastrophe as an event that 
would cause complete population failure irrespective of population 
health, and we considered whether one or more catastrophic events could 
result in the loss of an entire ACU. We identified disease and chemical 
pollution as having the potential to cause catastrophic losses at the 
ACU scale.
    Based on available data and number and distribution of populations 
over time, we developed best-case and worst-case scenarios for both 
sources of catastrophes. Using these results, we determined the 
relative risk of extirpation over time at the ACU level, using three 
broad categories of likelihoods: (1) Unlikely--a less than 33 percent 
chance of occurring; (2) About as likely as not--a 33 to 66 percent 
chance of occurring; and (3) Likely--a greater than 66 percent chance 
of occurring.

Current Condition

    Historically, 626 eastern hellbender populations are known to have 
existed across 15 States. Our assessment, including input from species 
experts, shows that currently 371 populations (59 percent) are extant, 
and 255 populations (41 percent) are presumed or functionally 
extirpated. Of the 371 extant populations across the range, 45 (12 
percent) are stable recruiting; 108 (29 percent) are unknown 
recruiting; and 218 (59 percent) are declining (Service 2024, p. 29).
    Eastern hellbender survey effort has increased substantially since 
2003. Of the extant populations, 181 were discovered since 2012, 
including 56 since 2018. Many of these new discoveries are represented 
by a single adult animal or a positive environmental DNA (eDNA) result, 
neither of which provides demographic information to determine 
population trend (Service 2024, p. 68). Although the number of known, 
extant populations has increased since the time of the Service's 
assessment in 2018, the number of presumed or functionally extirpated 
populations has also increased since then (Service 2018, p. 32; Service 
2024, p. 27).
    Since 2000, the eastern hellbender has been documented from the 
four ACUs. The number of populations in the ACUs varies, with 5 (1 
percent) extant populations in the MACU, 138 (37 percent) in the OACU, 
182 (49 percent) in the TACU, and 46 (12 percent) in the KACU (Service 
2024, p. 27). Within the ACUs, the number of healthy (SR) populations 
also varies, with 0 in the MACU, 12 in the OACU, 26 in the TACU, and 7 
in the KACU (Service 2024, p. 29). Although UR populations have some 
evidence of recruitment, we consider only the SR populations to be 
healthy given that we have data to support that the SR populations are 
stable.
    Disease is a potential catastrophic event for the eastern 
hellbender. Currently, the risk of ACU-wide extirpation from disease 
ranges from unlikely to about as likely as not in the TACU, from 
unlikely to likely in the OACU, and about as likely as not to likely in 
the KACU and MACU.
    Given the loss of populations and reduction of healthy populations 
across the species' range, eastern hellbender resiliency, redundancy, 
and representation is substantially lower than historical conditions. 
The reduced number of populations and the health of the remaining 
populations has rendered the eastern hellbender less able to cope with 
stressors and environmental fluctuations, impaired its ability to adapt 
to novel changes, and increased its vulnerability to catastrophes.

Future Condition

    To assess the future number, health, and distribution of eastern 
hellbender populations, we asked species experts for the anticipated 
change in the number of SR, UR, D, FX, and PX populations at 10-year 
(2034) and 25-year (2049) timeframes, based on their estimates of the 
predicted changes in threats under worst, best, and most likely future 
plausible scenarios within their geographical area (State) of expertise 
for each of the timeframes. Most experts had little confidence in 
predictions beyond 25 years.
    Because we determined that the current condition of the eastern 
hellbender is consistent with the Act's definition of an endangered 
species (see Determination of Eastern Hellbender's Status, below), we 
are not presenting the results of the future scenarios in this proposed 
rule. Please refer to the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 53-57) for the 
full analysis of future scenarios.

Determination of Eastern Hellbender's Status

    At 16 U.S.C. 1532(16), the Act defines the term ``species'' as 
including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any 
distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or 
wildlife which interbreeds when mature. 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 meets the definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species. The Act defines an 
``endangered species'' as a species in danger of extinction throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range and a ``threatened species'' 
as a species 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 a species meets the 
definition of 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,

[[Page 100944]]

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.
    The eastern hellbender has experienced a substantial reduction in 
the number of extant populations compared to historical numbers (41 
percent of populations are presumed extirpated or functionally 
extirpated). Although this subspecies has a broad distribution across 
its range, with extant populations in all four ACUs, only three of the 
four ACUs have populations that are considered healthy (stable and 
recruiting). Overall, of the 371 extant populations, only 45 (12 
percent) are thought to be stable and recruiting, and 108 (29 percent) 
are unknown recruiting. The remaining 218 (59 percent) are declining.
    The primary threat to the eastern hellbender is sedimentation 
(Factor A) caused by multiple sources, which is occurring throughout 
much of the subspecies' range. Other major stressors include water 
quality degradation and habitat destruction and modification (Factor 
A), disease (Factor C), and direct mortality or removal of hellbenders 
from a population by collection, persecution, recreation, or gravel 
mining (Factors A, B, and E). The unauthorized collection of eastern 
hellbenders, especially for the pet trade (Factor B), remains a concern 
despite regulatory mechanisms to reduce or eliminate overexploitation, 
such as listing under CITES and State laws (Factor D). Further, these 
regulatory mechanisms do not address the primary threat of 
sedimentation. Additional risk factors include climate change and small 
population effects (Factor E).
    The risk of ACU-wide extirpation from disease varies across the 
eastern hellbender's range from unlikely to about as likely as not in 
the TACU, from unlikely to likely in the OACU, and about as likely as 
not to likely in the KACU and MACU. The extirpation of one or more ACU 
would result in the loss of genetic diversity, reducing the subspecies' 
adaptive capacity.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    After evaluating threats to the subspecies and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we determined that threats to the eastern hellbender are 
widespread, varied, cumulative, and synergistic, and they have resulted 
in significant population declines and a reduction in the geographic 
range of the subspecies. These reductions impair the subspecies' 
ability to withstand environmental stochasticity and periodic 
disturbances, increase its vulnerability to catastrophic events such as 
disease, and lead to reductions in genetic and ecological diversity, 
further compromising its ability to adapt to environmental changes. Our 
analysis indicates these threats are ongoing and affecting the eastern 
hellbender's current condition, despite the regulatory mechanisms 
currently in place in some States. Thus, the eastern hellbender is in 
danger of extinction due to the severity and immediacy of threats 
currently impacting the subspecies.
    We find that a threatened species status is not appropriate for the 
eastern hellbender because the extent and magnitude of past and ongoing 
threats has reduced the number and distribution of healthy populations, 
rendering the eastern hellbender less able to cope with stressors and 
environmental fluctuations, impaired its ability to adapt to novel 
changes, and increased its vulnerability to catastrophes to such an 
extent that the species is currently in danger of extinction.
    Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data 
available, we determine that the eastern hellbender is in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range.

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 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range. We have determined that the eastern hellbender is in 
danger of extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did 
not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range. 
Because the eastern hellbender warrants listing as endangered 
throughout all of its range, our determination does not conflict with 
the decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. 
Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020), because that decision related to significant 
portion of the range analyses for species that warrant listing as 
threatened, not endangered, throughout all of their range.

Determination of Status

    Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we 
determine that the eastern hellbender meets the Act's definition of an 
endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the eastern 
hellbender as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) 
and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed 
species, planning and implementation of 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, foreign 
governments, 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, including the Service, 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. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. 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.
    The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery 
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing 
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed. 
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State 
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be 
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery 
planning process involves the identification of actions that are 
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the 
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies 
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for 
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or 
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for 
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework 
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates 
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may 
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new

[[Page 100945]]

substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft 
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available 
on our website as they are completed (https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species), or from our Ohio Ecological Services Field Office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, 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 the eastern hellbender is listed, funding for recovery actions 
will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, 
State programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Alabama, Georgia, 
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, 
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West 
Virginia would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management 
actions that promote the protection or recovery of the eastern 
hellbender. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid 
species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
    Although 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 subspecies. Additionally, we 
invite you to submit any new information on this subspecies whenever it 
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery 
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7 of the Act is titled, ``Interagency Cooperation,'' and it 
mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities 
to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that 
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations 
implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
    Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in 
consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize, 
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall 
review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it 
may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is 
made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat, 
formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service 
concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect 
listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal 
consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its 
determination of whether the Federal action is likely to result in 
jeopardy or adverse modification.
    In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies 
to confer with the Service on any action which is likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the 
Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat proposed to be designated for such species. Although the 
conference procedures are required only when an action is likely to 
result in jeopardy or adverse modification, action agencies may 
voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that may affect species 
proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed to be designated. In 
the event that the subject species is listed or the relevant critical 
habitat is designated, a conference opinion may be adopted as a 
biological opinion and serve as compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the 
Act.
    Examples of discretionary actions for the eastern hellbender that 
may be subject to conference and consultation procedures under section 
7 of the Act are management of Federal lands administered by the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
as well as actions that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water 
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or actions funded by Federal agencies such 
as the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, 
or the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Federal actions not 
affecting listed species or critical habitat--and actions on State, 
Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded, 
authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require section 
7 consultation. Federal agencies should coordinate with the Ohio 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) 
with any specific questions on section 7 consultation and conference 
requirements.
    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, and the Service's 
implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for 
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, 
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or to cause to be 
committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered 
wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take 
(which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) 
within the United States, within the territorial sea of the United 
States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, carry, 
transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such wildlife that has 
been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship 
in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the 
course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or offer for sale in 
interstate or foreign commerce. Certain exceptions to these 
prohibitions apply to employees or agents 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 for endangered wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22, 
and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 
13. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued: for 
scientific purposes, for enhancing the propagation or survival of the 
species, or for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The 
statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which 
are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.

II. Critical Habitat

Background

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat 
concurrently

[[Page 100946]]

with listing the species. Critical habitat is defined in section 
3(5)(A) 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.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area 
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated 
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., 
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part 
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    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 each Federal action agency 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 designated 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 also 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. Rather, designation requires that, where a landowner 
requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may 
affect an area designated as critical habitat, the Federal agency 
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the 
action may affect the listed species itself (such as for occupied 
critical habitat), the Federal agency would have already been required 
to consult with the Service even absent the designation because of the 
requirement to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species. Even if the Service were to 
conclude after consultation that the proposed activity is likely to 
result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, 
the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon 
the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, 
they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that 
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, 
cover, and protected habitat).
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in 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.
    Section 4(b)(2) 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.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information compiled in the SSA report and information developed during 
the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may 
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the 
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans 
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and 
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act. 
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside 
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy 
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will 
continue to contribute to recovery of the species. Similarly, critical 
habitat designations made on the basis of the best scientific data 
available at the time of designation will not control the direction and 
substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or 
other species conservation planning efforts if new information 
available at the time of those planning efforts calls for a different 
outcome.

[[Page 100947]]

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 shall designate critical habitat at the 
time the species is determined to be an endangered species or a 
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that 
designation of critical habitat may not be prudent in circumstances 
such as, but not limited to, the following:
    (i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species;
    (ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the 
species;
    (iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no 
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species 
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
    (iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
    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 eastern hellbender as endangered. We are 
concerned that designation of critical habitat would more widely 
announce the exact locations of eastern hellbenders to collectors. We 
find that the publication of maps and descriptions outlining the 
locations of eastern hellbender populations 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 
2024, pp. 44-46).
    In conclusion, we find that the designation of critical habitat is 
not prudent for 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.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by E.O.s 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.

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, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the President's 
memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal 
Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized 
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on a government-to-government 
basis. In accordance with Secretary's 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.
    The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (North Carolina) and the 
Seneca Nation (New York) have Tribal lands within the range of the 
eastern hellbender. We invited participation of these two Tribes in the 
SSA by requesting data on current status and threats to the subspecies. 
Additionally, because the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians provided 
data in response to this request, they were provided the opportunity to 
review and comment on a draft of the SSA report. We will continue to 
work with relevant Tribal entities during the development of any final 
rules for the eastern hellbender.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the Ohio Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Ohio 
Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes 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. In Sec.  17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife under AMPHIBIANS by removing the entry for 
``Hellbender, eastern [Missouri DPS]'' and adding, in alphabetical 
order, an entry for ``Hellbender, eastern'' to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11   Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 100948]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name      Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Amphibians
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hellbender, eastern.............  Cryptobranchus      Wherever found....  E              [Federal Register
                                   alleganiensis                                          citation when
                                   alleganiensis.                                         published as a final
                                                                                          rule].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gary Frazer,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-28352 Filed 12-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P