Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 13465 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Edward Messina, 

Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—TOLERANCES AND 

EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE 

CHEMICAL RESIDUES IN FOOD 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. Add § 180.716 to subpart C to read 

as follows: 

§ 180.716 Fluindapyr; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. (1) Tolerances are 

established for residues of the fungicide 

fluindapyr, including its metabolites 

and degradates, in or on the 

commodities in Table 1 of this section. 

Compliance with the tolerance levels 

specified in Table 1 is to be determined 

by measuring only fluindapyr, 3- 

(difluoromethyl)-N-(7-fluoro-1,1,3- 

trimethyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-inden-4-yl)-1- 

methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide, in 

or on the commodity. 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(1) 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Almond, hulls ........................................... 15 

Cattle, fat ................................................. 0.03 

Cattle, meat ............................................. 0.01 

Corn, field, grain ...................................... 0.01 

Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks 

removed ............................................... 0.01 

Corn, sweet, stover ................................. 20 

Egg .......................................................... 0.01 

Goat, fat .................................................. 0.03 

Goat, meat .............................................. 0.01 

Grain, aspirated fractions ........................ 20 

Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, 

group 16, forage, except rice .............. 15 

Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, 

group 16, hay, except rice ................... 8 

Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, 

group 16, stover, except rice ............... 4 

Grain, cereal forage, fodder, and straw, 

group 16, straw, except rice ................ 20 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(1)— 

Continued 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Grain, cereal group 15, except rice and 

corn ...................................................... 0.8 

Hog, fat .................................................... 0.01 

Hog, meat ................................................ 0.01 

Horse, fat ................................................. 0.03 

Horse, meat ............................................. 0.01 

Milk .......................................................... 0.01 

Nut, tree, group 14–12 ............................ 0.04 

Poultry, fat ............................................... 0.01 

Poultry, meat ........................................... 0.01 

Sheep, fat ................................................ 0.03 

Sheep, meat ............................................ 0.01 

(2) Tolerances are established for 

residues of the fungicide fluindapyr, 

including its metabolites and 

degradates, in or on the commodities in 

Table 2 of this section. Compliance with 

the tolerance levels specified in Table 2 

is to be determined by measuring the 

sum of fluindapyr, 3-(difluoromethyl)- 

N-(7-fluoro-1,1,3-trimethyl-2,3-dihydro1H-inden-4-yl)-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4- 

carboxamide, and 3-(difluoromethyl)-N- 

(7-fluoro-1-hydroxymethyl-1,3- 

dimethyl-2,3-dihydro-lH-inden-4-yl)-1- 

methyl-lH-pyrazole-4-carboxamide, 

calculated as the stoichiometric 

equivalent of fluindapyr, in or on the 

commodity. 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(2) 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Cattle, meat byproducts .......................... 0.3 

Goat, meat byproducts ............................ 0.3 

Horse, meat byproducts .......................... 0.3 

Hog, meat byproducts ............................. 0.01 

Poultry, meat byproducts ........................ 0.01 

Sheep, meat byproducts ......................... 0.3 

(b)–(d) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2021–04786 Filed 3–8–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2018–0056; 

FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] 

RIN 1018–BD26 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for the Missouri Distinct 

Population Segment of Eastern 

Hellbender 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

endangered species status under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 

as amended, for the Missouri distinct 

population segment (DPS) of eastern 

hellbender (Cryptobranchus 

alleganiensis alleganiensis), a 

salamander species. This rule adds this 

DPS of this species to the Federal List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 8, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FWS–R3–ES–2018–0056 and https://

www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/ 

amphibians/eastern_hellbender/. 

Comments and materials we received, as 

well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this rule, are available 

for public inspection at http://

www.regulations.gov. Comments, 

materials, and documentation that we 

considered in this rulemaking will be 

available by appointment, during 

normal business hours, at: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Columbia, Missouri 

Ecological Services Field Office, 101 

Park DeVille Drive, Suite A, Columbia, 

MO 65203–0057; telephone 573–234– 

2132. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Herrington, Field Supervisor, 

Missouri Ecological Services Field 

Office, 101 Park DeVille Drive, Suite A, 

Columbia, MO 65203; telephone 573– 

234–2132. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal Actions 

On April 4, 2019, we published a 

proposed rule (84 FR 13223) to add the 

Missouri DPS of the eastern hellbender 

as an endangered species to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 

part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (at 50 CFR 17.11(h)). We 

concurrently published a not warranted 

finding on the listing of the eastern 

hellbender subspecies as a whole. See 

the proposed listing rule for the 

Missouri DPS of the eastern hellbender 

for more information regarding the 

previous Federal actions on the 

hellbender species and related 

subspecies. 

Background 

The Missouri DPS of the eastern 

hellbender lies completely within the 

boundaries of the State of Missouri with 

eastern hellbenders known to occur in 

Big River, Big Piney River, Courtois 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
13466 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Creek, Gasconade River, Huzzah Creek, 

Meramec River, Niangua River, and 

Osage Fork of the Gasconade River 

(figure 1). The Meramec River 

watershed, which includes the Big River 

and Courtois Creek, drains directly into 

the Mississippi River; whereas all of the 

other watersheds in the Missouri DPS 

drain directly into the Missouri River. 

Please refer to our April 4, 2019, 

proposed rule (84 FR 13223) for a 

summary of species background 

information available to the Service at 

the time that it was published. 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ The Act defines an 

endangered species as a species that is 

‘‘in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range,’’ and 

a threatened species as a species that is 

‘‘likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ The Act requires that we 

determine whether any species is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ because of any of the following 

factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals, as well as those 

that affect individuals through alteration 

of their habitat or required resources. 

The term ‘‘threat’’ may encompass— 

either together or separately—the source 

of the action or condition or the action 

or condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

expected response by the species, and 

the effects of the threats—in light of 

those actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULESER09MR21.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 13467 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species—such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

Our proposed rule described 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ as the extent to 

which we can reasonably rely on 

predictions about the future in making 

determinations about the future 

conservation status of the species. The 

Service since codified its understanding 

of foreseeable future in 50 CFR 

424.11(d) (84 FR 45020). In those 

regulations, we explain the term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as the Service can 

reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. The Service 

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’ lifehistory characteristics, threat-projection 

timeframes, and environmental 

variability. The Service need not 

identify the foreseeable future in terms 

of a specific period of time. These 

regulations did not significantly modify 

the Service’s interpretation; rather they 

codified a framework that sets forth how 

the Service will determine what 

constitutes the foreseeable future. 

Accordingly, although these regulations 

do not apply to the final rule for the 

Missouri DPS of the eastern hellbender 

because it was proposed prior to their 

effective date, they do not change the 

Service’s assessment of foreseeable 

future for the Missouri DPS of the 

eastern hellbender as contained in our 

proposed rule and in this final rule. In 

the discussion of threats and the 

species’ response to those threats that 

follows, we include a discussion of, 

where possible, either a qualitative or 

quantitative assessment of the timing of 

the threats and species’ responses to 

those threats. 

Analytical Framework 

The Eastern Hellbender 

(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis 

alleganiensis) Species Status 

Assessment Report (SSA report) 

documents the results of our 

comprehensive biological status review 

for the eastern hellbender subspecies as 

a whole, including an assessment of the 

potential stressors to the species (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2018, entire). 

The SSA report does not represent a 

decision by the Service on whether the 

subspecies (or the DPS) warrants listing 

as an endangered or threatened species 

under the Act. It does, however, 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. The following 

is a summary of the key results and 

conclusions from the SSA report, 

specifically related to the Missouri DPS 

of the eastern hellbender; the full SSA 

report can be found at Docket No. FWS– 

R3–ES–2018–0056 on http://

www.regulations.gov and at https://

www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/ 

amphibians/eastern_hellbender. 

To assess eastern hellbender viability, 

we used the three conservation biology 

principles of resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation (Shaffer and Stein 

2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency 

supports the ability of the species to 

withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years), 

redundancy supports the ability of the 

species to withstand catastrophic events 

(for example, droughts, large pollution 

events), and representation supports the 

ability of the species to adapt over time 

to long-term changes in the environment 

(for example, climate changes). In 

general, the more resilient and 

redundant a species is and the more 

representation it has, the more likely it 

is to sustain populations over time, even 

under changing environmental 

conditions. Using these principles, we 

identified the species’ ecological 

requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated individual 

species’ life-history needs. The next 

stage involved an assessment of the 

historical and current condition of the 

species’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 

at its current condition. The final stage 

of the SSA involved making predictions 

about the species’ responses to positive 

and negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences. This process 

used the best available information to 

characterize viability as the ability of a 

species to sustain populations in the 

wild over time. We use this information 

to inform our regulatory decision. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

We identified four geographical units 

(referred to in the SSA report as 

adaptive capacity units (ACUs)), based 

on Hime et al.’s (2016, entire) 

evaluation of genetic markers, to 

delineate variation in genetic and 

ecological traits within the eastern 

hellbender’s historical range (i.e., 

evolutionary lineages; figure 2). The 

units are: (1) Missouri River drainage 

(MACU), (2) Ohio River-Susquehanna 

River drainages (OACU), (3) Tennessee 

River drainage (TACU), and (4) 

Kanawha River drainage (KACU). 

Through the DPS analysis described in 

the proposed rule (84 FR 13223, April 

4, 2019), the Service determined that the 

MACU adaptive capacity unit was a 

distinct population segment and that the 

DPS met the definition of endangered. 

Any reference to the MACU in the SSA 

can be understood to mean the Missouri 

DPS of eastern hellbender. The term 

MACU is used throughout this 

document (and the SSA report) but 

references the same geographic areas as 

the Missouri DPS of the eastern 

hellbender. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
13468 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

The Missouri DPS of eastern 

hellbender (or MACU) historically had 

five populations. One of the populations 

is considered functionally extirpated 

(i.e., the number of individuals 

remaining is so low that the population 

is no longer considered to be viable; 

while the four other populations are 

declining and not in healthy condition. 

As noted in our DPS analysis in the 

proposed rule, eastern hellbenders 

occupy small home ranges, and the 

populations within the Missouri DPS 

are disjoined from other populations of 

eastern hellbender by such a large 

geographic distance (200 river miles) 

that there is no feasible way other 

populations could act as a source for 

any populations within this DPS (84 FR 

13232, April 4, 2019). The Missouri 

DPS’s current condition is most strongly 

influenced by sedimentation, poor water 

quality, disease, habitat disturbance, 

small population size, and direct 

mortality. Additionally, collection and 

sale of eastern hellbenders continues to 

be a threat to the species. Augmentation 

is an important positive influence, but 

even with introductions ongoing, all 

extant populations have a declining 

trend in abundance. Though 

redundancy has declined with the 

functional extirpation of eastern 

hellbenders in one stream of the DPS, 

we have concluded that DPS-wide 

extirpation is unlikely due to a 

catastrophic chemical pollution event 

(Service 2018, p. 37). One of the largest 

freshwater oil spills in the nation 

(863,268 gallons of crude oil) occurred 

within the range of the Missouri DPS of 

eastern hellbender in 1988. The DPS 

persisted after the spill, but resiliency 

and redundancy have both declined 

since the spill. We have also concluded 

that the Missouri DPS of eastern 

hellbender likely has lower viability and 

greater vulnerability to current and 

potential future stressors, compared to 

other segments of the species’ range. We 

summarize the major influences to the 

Missouri DPS of eastern hellbender 

viability below; for more detail see 

chapter 5 of the SSA report (Service 

2018, pp. 34–56). 

Influences on the Missouri DPS of 

Eastern Hellbender 

In consultation with species’ experts, 

we identified the past and current 

negative and beneficial factors that have 

led to the eastern hellbender’s current 

condition and which may influence 

population dynamics into the future. 

Factors having a negative impact on 

eastern hellbender individuals are 

referred to as risk factors (also as threats 

or stressors), while factors having a 

beneficial effect are referred to as 

conservation factors. We referred to risk 

and conservation factors collectively as 

‘‘influences.’’ A brief summary of the 

most influential factors is presented 

below; for a full description of these 

factors, refer to chapter 5 of the SSA 

report (Service 2018, pp. 26–48). 

Sedimentation 

Sedimentation was identified as the 

factor most impacting the status of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULESER09MR21.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 13469 

Missouri DPS of eastern hellbender. 

Sedimentation is the addition of fine 

soil particles (e.g., sands, silts, clays) to 

streams. These sediments bury shelter 

and nest rocks (Blais 1996, p. 11; Lipps 

2009, p. 10; Hopkins and DuRant 2011, 

p. 112), suffocate eggs (Nickerson and 

Mays 1973, pp. 55–56), alter habitat for 

crayfish (the primary food source of 

adult eastern hellbenders) (Santucci et 

al. 2005, pp. 986–987; Kaunert 2011, p. 

23), and degrade habitat for larval and 

juvenile hellbenders, as well as habitat 

for macroinvertebrates, which are an 

important food source for larval 

hellbenders (Cobb and Flannagan 1990, 

pp. 35–37; Nickerson et al. 2003, p. 

624). Because sedimentation affects all 

life stages of the eastern hellbender, 

impairs or prevents successful 

reproduction, and is pervasive 

throughout the subspecies’ range, it has 

specifically been implicated as a cause 

of eastern hellbender declines and as a 

continuing threat throughout much of 

the Missouri DPS range. 

Water Quality Degradation 

Degraded water quality was estimated 

as having the second highest impact on 

the Missouri DPS’s status because it can 

cause direct mortality of eastern 

hellbenders and, at sublethal levels, can 

alter physiological processes and 

increase vulnerability to other threats 

(Maitland 1995, p. 260). Major sources 

of aquatic pollutants include domestic 

wastes, agricultural runoff, coal mining 

activities, road construction, and 

unpermitted industrial discharges. 

There are a few documented cases of 

eastern hellbender kills (Williams, 

Chapman, and Floyd 2017, pers. comm.; 

Feller and Thompson 2011, entire) and 

many examples of fish and mussel kills 

from chemical pollution within the 

eastern hellbender range (USFWS 2013, 

pp. 59279–59284; Henley et al. 2002, 

entire). However, there is no 

information available to estimate how 

frequently chemical pollution events 

occur or the likelihood of this causing 

catastrophic decline in the Missouri 

DPS. Several databases track reported 

chemical spill events, 303(d) listed 

streams, and chemical pollution; 

however, the effects of chemicals on 

eastern hellbender remain largely 

unknown (Burgmeier et al. 2011b, p. 

836; Pugh et al. 2015, pp. 105–6). While 

it is unlikely that a single chemical spill 

could cause catastrophic loss of the 

entire DPS, such loss is possible if 

multiple spills occur in the Missouri 

DPS of eastern hellbender. For further 

discussion about water quality 

degradation see Risk and Conservation 

Factors of the SSA report (Service 2018, 

pp. 34–56). 

Disease 

Disease (specifically, Bd) was 

estimated to be strongly contributing to 

the current condition of the Missouri 

DPS of the eastern hellbender and was 

ranked fourth in threats currently 

affecting eastern hellbenders by species 

experts (Service 2018, p. 36). Diseases 

can act as stressors and have the 

potential to cause catastrophic loss of 

hellbender populations. Emerging 

infectious diseases (EID), especially 

fungal EIDs in wildlife (discussed 

below), are on the rise (Fisher et al. 

2012, p. 188). Salamanders are 

especially susceptible given the high 

magnitude of legal and illegal trade in 

herpetofauna. The importation of 

wildlife is a known pathway for 

transmission of pathogens. 

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) 

is a fungal pathogen responsible for 

causing chytridiomycosis, a highly 

infectious amphibian disease associated 

with mass die-offs, population declines 

and extirpations, and potentially species 

extinctions on multiple continents 

(Berger et al. 1998, pp. 9031–9036; 

Bosch et al. 2001, pp. 331–337; Lips et 

al. 2006, pp. 3165–3166). The range of 

occurrence within eastern hellbenders 

in the Missouri DPS ranges among the 

rivers from 3–8 percent (Briggler 2019, 

pers. comm), and Bodinof et al. (2011, 

p. 3) found the earliest detection in 

Missouri occurred in 1975. Although 

the exact impact of Bd remains unclear, 

species experts believe that even mild 

chronic Bd infections may negatively 

impact eastern hellbenders and may 

increase susceptibility of eastern 

hellbenders to other infections. While 

Bd currently does not appear to be 

causing large-scale mortality events in 

populations of eastern hellbenders in 

the Missouri DPS, other stressors, such 

as environmental contaminants or rising 

water temperatures, can weaken 

animals’ immune systems, leading to 

outbreaks of clinical disease, and cause 

mortality events in the future (Briggler 

et al. 2007, p. 18; Regester et al. 2012, 

p. 19). 

Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans 

(Bsal) is a fungal pathogen that invaded 

Europe from Asia around 2010 and has 

caused mass die-offs of fire salamanders 

(Salamandra salamandra) in northern 

Europe (Martel et al. 2014, p. 631; 

Fisher 2017, pp. 300–301). Given 

extensive unregulated trade and the 

discovery of Bsal in Europe in 2010, the 

introduction of this novel pathogen 

could cause extirpations of naı ̈ve 

salamander populations in North 

America (Yap et al. 2017, entire) were 

Bsal to be introduced here. Given the 

high risk of Bsal invasion, on January 

13, 2016, the Service published in the 

Federal Register (81 FR 1534) an 

interim rule to list 20 amphibian genera 

known to carry Bsal as injurious under 

the Lacey Act to limit importation into 

the United States. Despite this 

protection, it is possible that an 

unknown carrier or illegal import could 

introduce this pathogen into eastern 

hellbender populations. The Missouri 

DPS of the eastern hellbender has a low 

to moderate risk of Bsal introduction 

based on proximity to areas with a high 

volume of amphibian trade (Richgels et 

al. 2016, p. 5); unregulated trade of 

amphibians occurs in the range of the 

DPS and releases of infected amphibians 

could lead to the introduction of Bsal to 

this area. 

Habitat Disturbance 

Anthropogenic disturbance in the 

form of rock-moving by people 

recreating on rivers is a 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. For 

example, Unger et al. (2017, entire) 

documented a deceased adult eastern 

hellbender under a recently constructed 

rock stack and a deceased larval eastern 

hellbender under freshly moved cobble 

at the base of a small, artificial dam. 

Both structures were presumed to have 

been constructed by recreational visitors 

to the small, heavily used stream (Unger 

et al. 2017, entire). 

Small Populations, Population 

Fragmentation, and Isolation 

Populations of the Missouri DPS of 

eastern hellbender 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 other populations (Dodd 1997, 

p. 178; Benstead et al. 1999, pp. 662– 

664; Poff and Hart 2002, p. 660). 

Increased Abundance of Species of 

Predators 

Some native predators of the eastern 

hellbender, such as raccoons, have 

increased in abundance due to 

anthropogenic influences, while others 

have recently been reintroduced into 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
13470 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

hellbender streams within the range of 

the Missouri DPS (e.g., river otters) 

(Briggler et al. 2007, p. 17). Nonnative 

predators are also present within a large 

portion of the Missouri DPS of 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). Species 

experts presume nonnative trout species 

directly impact eastern hellbenders by 

predating on eggs, larvae, and subadults 

(Briggler et al. 2007, p. 23). 

Direct Mortality or Permanent Removal 

of Animals 

Large numbers of eastern hellbenders 

have historically been removed from 

some streams within the Missouri DPS 

for scientific and educational purposes 

(Peterson 1985, p. 59; Ingersol 1991, pp. 

61, 63). Though there is no 

documentation of collection of eastern 

hellbenders within the Missouri DPS for 

the pet trade, we presume that 

individuals were also collected for this 

purpose based on documentation of the 

large number of Ozark hellbenders 

illegally collected for the pet trade 

(Nickerson and Briggler 2007, entire) 

and the proximity of the Missouri DPS 

to Ozark hellbenders. These removals 

likely contributed to the population 

declines seen in some streams. The 

current rate of permanent removal of 

eastern hellbenders is likely 

significantly lower than it has been 

historically. However, collection and 

sale of eastern hellbenders continues to 

be a threat, with internet advertisements 

as recent as 2010 soliciting purchase of 

wholesale lots of eastern hellbenders 

(Briggler 2010, pers. comm.). Killing of 

eastern hellbenders by some anglers and 

the removal of individuals for personal 

use and the pet trade also continues in 

some areas (Briggler et al. 2007, pp. 18, 

59). 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 to all life stages, 

especially when done during the 

breeding season (Williams et al. 1981b, 

p. 26; Lindberg and Soule 1991, p. 8; 

Williams 2012, pers. comm.). 

As a long-lived species, removing 

adult eastern hellbenders from stream 

populations may be particularly 

detrimental, as stable populations of 

long-lived species typically have high 

adult survival rates, which compensates 

for correspondingly low rates of 

recruitment into the adult populations 

(Miller 1976, p. 2). In eastern hellbender 

populations with low densities and 

little evidence of recent recruitment into 

the adult population, the removal of any 

individuals from a population may be 

deleterious (Pfingsten 1988, p. 16). 

Because many populations within the 

Missouri DPS of eastern hellbender are 

already stressed by habitat degradation, 

compensation for high adult mortality 

through high recruitment of juveniles is 

even less likely. Although the 

magnitude of the threat of removing 

individuals from the wild 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 (discussed below in the 

Conservation Efforts section and the 

SSA report; Service 2018, p. 56). 

Synergistic Effects 

In some instances, effects from one 

threat may increase effects of another 

threat, resulting in what is referred to as 

synergistic effects. Synergistic effects 

often include an increased susceptibility 

to predation (Moore and Townsend 

1998, pp. 332–333), disease (Kiesecker 

and Blaustein 1995, pp. 11050–11051; 

Taylor et al. 1999, pp. 539–540), or 

parasites (Kiesecker 2002, pp. 9902– 

9903; Gendron et al. 2003, pp. 472–473). 

In addition, chronic, increased levels of 

stress hormones have been shown to 

inhibit immune response (Rollins-Smith 

and Blair 1993, pp. 156–159; Romero 

and Butler 2007, pp. 93–94). Other 

stressors present in the eastern 

hellbender’s environment (e.g., habitat 

modification, degraded water quality) 

could reduce immune response and 

thereby increase vulnerability to disease 

and parasites. 

Conservation Efforts 

Beneficial efforts, primarily of 

population augmentation, were also 

ranked by species’ experts as an 

important influence on the Missouri 

DPS’s status. Captive-rearing increases 

the survival rate of young by raising 

them in captivity to 2 to 4 years of age 

(Briggler 2019, pers. comm.). Once 

reared, young are released into the wild 

to augment existing populations or 

reintroduced into areas where the 

species has been extirpated. However, 

we currently have no data on whether 

released individuals have successfully 

reproduced or can successfully 

reproduce, or the survival rates of any 

resulting offspring. 

In addition, artificial nest boxes have 

been successfully used for reproduction 

by hellbenders in Missouri (Briggler 

2016, p. 1). However, the survival of 

fertilized eggs and larvae from these 

nest boxes is unknown. Because nest 

boxes may present a curiosity to stream 

recreationists, hellbenders occupying 

the nests are susceptible to disturbance, 

persecution, and collection if the nest 

boxes are not properly camouflaged. 

Lastly, the eastern hellbender 

(including the Missouri DPS) is listed 

on Appendix III of the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES). CITES is an international 

agreement among governments with the 

purpose of ensuring that international 

trade in wild animals and plants does 

not threaten their survival. Appendix III 

includes native species that at least one 

Party country (i.e., a country that is part 

of CITES) has identified as requiring 

regulation to prevent or restrict 

exploitation. Under Appendix III, that 

Party country requests the help of other 

Parties to monitor and control the trade 

of that species. 

Summary 

In summary, stressors are pervasive 

across the range of the Missouri DPS of 

the eastern hellbender. The primary 

stressors affecting the Missouri DPS of 

eastern hellbender include 

sedimentation, water quality 

degradation, disease, habitat 

disturbance, small population size, and 

direct mortality. Although augmentation 

has the potential to influence the status 

of the DPS, little data exist as to whether 

successful sustained reproduction and 

recruitment can be achieved and 

whether augmentation is logistically 

possible throughout the range. With 

regard to redundancy, there is high 

vulnerability for DPS-wide extirpation 

due to the low number (four) and 

reduced distribution of populations. 

Populations of the Missouri DPS 

eastern hellbender have declined as 

much as 77 percent over a twenty-year 

period in the Big Piney River, 

Gasconade River and Niangua River 

(Wheeler et al. 2003, p. 155). The threats 

described above have already resulted 

in the functional extirpation of one of 

five populations of the eastern 

hellbender in Missouri and the 

declining condition of the remaining 

four populations. Of the four remaining 

populations, none are currently healthy, 

contributing to their low resiliency. The 

lack of healthy populations, the limited 

spatial extent of the Missouri DPS and 

the likely functional loss of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 13471 

population(s) in the event of a 

catastrophic event greatly reduce the 

DPS’s resiliency and redundancy (the 

ability of a species to withstand normal 

environmental variation, periodic 

disturbances, stressors, and catastrophes 

currently and into the future). Based on 

threats currently affecting the Missouri 

DPS, we expect all populations to 

continue to decline in health (Service 

2018, Chapter 6). Additionally, under 

two out of three future scenarios, we 

expect an additional population to 

become extirpated within 10 years 

(Service 2018, Chapter 6). 

Population resiliency is low due to 

the unhealthy condition of the four 

remaining populations of the Missouri 

DPS of eastern hellbender. The 

functional loss of a population has 

decreased the overall redundancy of the 

DPS and the limited geographic extent 

(5 streams closely located to one 

another) of the DPS leads to low overall 

redundancy as well. 

The eastern hellbender SSA report 

(Service 2018, entire) contains a more 

detailed discussion of our evaluation of 

the biological status of the eastern 

hellbender in Missouri and the 

influences that may affect its continued 

existence. Our conclusions are based 

upon the best available scientific and 

commercial data, including the expert 

opinion of the species’ experts (fishery 

biologists, aquatic ecologists, and 

geneticists from State and Federal 

agencies and academic institutions) and 

the SSA team members. Please see the 

proposed listing rule and its supporting 

materials for a complete list of the 

species experts and peer reviewers and 

their affiliations (84 FR 13231, April 4, 

2019; Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2018– 

0056). 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the April 4, 2019, proposed rule 

(84 FR 13223), we requested that all 

interested parties submit written 

comments on the proposal by June 3, 

2019. We also contacted appropriate 

Federal and State agencies, scientific 

experts and organizations, and other 

interested parties and invited them to 

comment on the proposal. We did not 

receive any requests for a public 

hearing. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), and our August 22, 2016, 

memorandum updating and clarifying 

the role of peer review actions under the 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we solicited 

expert opinion from five knowledgeable 

individuals with scientific expertise that 

included familiarity with the eastern 

hellbender and its habitat, biological 

needs, and threats. We received 

responses from two peer reviewers. 

We updated the SSA report based on 

the peer reviewer’s comments. The 

changes consisted of clarifications and 

corrections to the SSA report, including 

typographical edits, and incorporation 

of omitted references. 

Public Comments 

We received eight public comments 

on the proposed rule and more than five 

thousand form letters expressing 

support for the listing of the eastern 

hellbender under the Act. One of the 

comments received during the public 

comment period did not address or 

provide any information concerning the 

Missouri DPS of the eastern hellbender. 

The remaining commenters did not 

provide substantive comments or new 

information concerning the proposed 

listing of the Missouri DPS of the 

eastern hellbender. We note the SSA 

report, a list of literature referenced, the 

public comments and the peer reviewer 

reports, all of which helped inform this 

listing decision, are available to the 

public on http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2018– 

0056. 

(1) Comment: A commenter suggested 

that, when making a final 

determination, the Service should 

consider all feedback it receives at the 

2019 Hellbender Symposium, a biennial 

gathering of researchers and species 

experts from across the country. 

Our Response: We received no new 

information at the symposium 

pertaining to the Missouri DPS of the 

eastern hellbender. 

Two public commenters expressed 

opposition to the Service’s proposed 

determination not to designate critical 

habitat for the eastern hellbender. These 

comments were generally centered on 

five main topics and are addressed 

individually below. 

(2) Comment: The commenters opined 

that information in the SSA report 

demonstrates that collection pressure is 

among the least influential of the 

primary factors impacting population 

health in Missouri; whereas 

sedimentation and water quality 

impairment are the two strongest and 

together make up 32 percent of the 

relative influence of all factors on 

population status. This information 

suggests that concerns about Federal 

activities that may degrade habitat and 

water quality dramatically outweigh 

concerns about collection pressure. 

Our Response: The commenters stated 

that collection pressure was not ranked 

as a factor currently having a high 

influence on eastern hellbender 

population health in Missouri because 

various measures have been 

implemented to restrict the disclosure of 

specific locations of occupied sites. If 

the exact location of occupied sites were 

publically available, we expect the 

threat of illegal collection would be 

much higher. Collection, as a threat, is 

discussed further above in the Summary 

of Biological Status and Threats section 

and the SSA report (Service 2018, pp. 

48–50) 

(3) Comment: The commenters stated 

that designating critical habitat would 

not increase the risk of unlawful eastern 

hellbender collection because eastern 

hellbender locations are already widely 

available on the internet via articles 

published in scientific journals. These 

articles and other sources identify 

waterways where eastern hellbenders 

live and include maps, verbal 

descriptions, and capture techniques. 

Our Response: Though the streams in 

which eastern hellbenders occur are 

readily available to the public, the 

identification of these streams does not 

provide sufficient detail to facilitate 

illegal collection. Disclosure of the exact 

location of occupied sites within these 

rivers, however, would facilitate illegal 

collection. Therefore, disclosure of this 

information to the public is limited. The 

exact location of some sites has been 

published in scientific journals, but 

these sites constitute only a small 

proportion of the total number of sites 

occupied by eastern hellbenders, and 

species experts now recommend that 

exact locations no longer be published 

due to the threat of illegal collection. 

The designation of critical habitat 

would result in publishing of sitespecific information and maps in the 

Federal Register. The Service is already 

aware of instances in which the 

publication of locality information for 

Ozark hellbender (Cryptobranchus 

alleganiensis bishopi) occupied sites 

resulted in the removal of almost all 

individuals from the location. Thus, we 

have concluded that publishing location 

information for eastern hellbender 

would further facilitate illegal collection 

and result in similar consequences. 

(4) Comment: The commenters stated 

that designating critical habitat would 

not increase the risk of unlawful eastern 

hellbender collection because the 

Service can designate critical habitat 

without revealing exact locations of 

eastern hellbenders. 

Our Response: When designating 

critical habitat, the Service must 

determine the physical or biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
13472 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

considerations or protection. Essential 

physical and biological features are the 

features that occur in specific areas and 

that are essential to support the lifehistory needs of the species. 

Appropriate cover rocks or other 

crevices are necessary features to fulfill 

the life-cycle needs of the eastern 

hellbender because they provide 

protection and nesting habitat. Stream 

reaches with suitable habitat for the 

eastern hellbender are not continuous, 

and areas with suitable habitat are often 

separated by miles (kilometers) of 

unsuitable habitat (data from markrecapture studies indicate that 

hellbenders rarely move between sites). 

Therefore, by mapping the critical 

habitat and describing the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species, the Service 

would disclose the specific location of 

occupied sites and subject the Missouri 

DPS of eastern hellbenders to collection. 

(5) Comment: The commenters stated 

that designating critical habitat would 

provide significant benefits to the 

eastern hellbender because the Act 

imposes an additional consultation 

requirement where an action will result 

in the ‘‘destruction or adverse 

modification’’ of critical habitat. 

Our Response: In consultations for 

species with critical habitat, Federal 

agencies are required to ensure that 

their activities do not destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

However, once a species is listed under 

the Act, the provisions prohibiting take 

come into effect where the species is 

present. In most cases, ‘‘take’’ refers to 

a direct effect on an individual of the 

species. ‘‘Take’’ may also apply to 

actions that result in modification of the 

habitat of the species where such 

modification may be considered to 

constitute ‘‘harm’’ to the listed species. 

These prohibitions are completely 

independent of the designation of 

critical habitat. That is, the prohibition 

against take of the listed species applies 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated. Although eastern 

hellbenders are considered functionally 

extirpated in one population within the 

Missouri DPS, species experts believe 

that a small number of individuals may 

still be present. Thus, there are no areas 

within the eastern hellbender range in 

the Missouri DPS that are considered 

unoccupied and for which section 7 

consultation would not apply. 

(6) Comment: The commenters stated 

that given the predicted future impacts 

to habitat throughout the MACU, the 

benefits of critical habitat designation 

far outweigh any concerns about 

additional collection pressure in the 

MACU. Even when there is no Federal 

nexus requiring consultation, critical 

habitat has value because it educates 

landowners, State and local 

governments, and the public about the 

conservation value of an area. 

Our Response: The benefits provided 

by the designation of critical habitat can 

duplicate those already provided to the 

species without the designation of 

critical habitat by the ‘‘jeopardy 

standard,’’ especially in the cases of 

species with smaller ranges. The Service 

recognizes that, in some instances, 

designation of critical habitat could 

provide some benefits to the Missouri 

DPS of the eastern hellbender. However, 

these benefits do not outweigh the 

increased illegal collection that is likely 

to occur if critical habitat maps are 

published and the specific locations of 

currently occupied sites are disclosed. 

Comments From States 

We received a comment letter from 

the State of Missouri Department of 

Conservation that supported our 

decision to seek Federal listing of the 

Missouri DPS of the eastern hellbender. 

The State also expressed agreement with 

our finding that the designation of 

critical habitat was not prudent. They 

did not provide further substantive 

information during the comment period 

that would influence a change in the 

Service’s decision from the proposed 

rule. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

As discussed above, we made no 

changes to this final rule after 

consideration of the comments we 

received. 

Distinct Population Segment (DPS) 

Analysis 

Please see our proposed listing rule 

for the Missouri DPS of the eastern 

hellbender published on April 4, 2019, 

for the full description of our DPS 

analysis (84 FR 13223). We did not 

receive substantive additional 

information during the open comment 

period regarding whether or not the 

Missouri DPS of eastern hellbender is a 

valid distinct population segment. 

Determination of Missouri DPS of 

Eastern Hellbender Status 

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 ‘‘endangered species’’ 

or ‘‘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 a 

species meets the definition of 

‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened 

species’’ because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) 

The inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. For a more detailed 

discussion on the factors considered 

when determining whether a species 

meets the definition of ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or ‘‘threatened species’’ and 

our analysis on how we determine the 

foreseeable future in making these 

decisions, please see the Regulatory 

Framework section above. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the section 4(a)(1) 

factors, we have carefully assessed the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available regarding the past, 

present, and future threats to the 

Missouri DPS of the eastern hellbender. 

Our analysis of this information 

indicates that the most important risk 

factors affecting the eastern hellbender’s 

current and future status and trends in 

Missouri are habitat destruction and 

modification from sedimentation and 

water quality degradation (Factor A), 

disease and pathogens (Factor C), and 

habitat disturbance (Factor A), and these 

factors are the primary causes of the 

decrease in the population health 

within the Missouri DPS of eastern 

hellbender now and into the future. The 

unauthorized collection of eastern 

hellbenders, especially for the pet trade 

(Factor B), remains a concern. Other 

factors, such as an overabundance of 

predators (Factor C) or population 

isolation (Factor E), are also affecting 

the Missouri DPS of eastern hellbenders 

but to a lesser degree. Although 

conservation efforts, such as population 

augmentation, artificial nest boxes, and 

listing under the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Fauna and Flora, are being 

implemented, it is unclear if they will 

improve population viability in the long 

term. 

Populations of Missouri DPS eastern 

hellbender have declined as much as 77 

percent over a twenty year period in the 

Big Piney River, Gasconade River and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 13473 

Niangua River (Wheeler et al. 2003, pg. 

155). The threats described above have 

already resulted in the functional 

extirpation of one of five populations of 

the eastern hellbender in Missouri and 

the declining condition of the remaining 

four populations. The lack of healthy 

populations, the limited spatial extent 

of the Missouri DPS and the likely loss 

of population(s) in the event of a 

catastrophic event greatly reduce the 

DPS’s resiliency and redundancy (the 

ability of eastern hellbenders to 

withstand normal environmental 

variation, periodic disturbances, 

stressors, and catastrophes currently 

and into the future). Based on threats 

currently affecting the Missouri DPS, we 

expect all populations to continue to 

decline in health (Service 2018, Chapter 

6). Additionally, under two out of three 

future scenarios, we expect an 

additional population to become 

extirpated within 10 years (Service 

2018, Chapter 6). Thus, after assessing 

the best available information, we 

determine that the Missouri DPS of 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 in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. We have 

determined that the Missouri DPS of 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 we have determined that 

the Missouri DPS of the eastern 

hellbender warrants listing as 

endangered throughout all of its range, 

our determination is consistent with the 

decision in Center for Biological 

Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289 

(D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), in which the 

court vacated the aspect of the 2014 

Significant Portion of its Range Policy 

that provided the Services do not 

undertake an analysis of significant 

portions of a species’ range if the 

species warrants listing as threatened 

throughout all of its range. 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the Missouri DPS of the 

eastern hellbender meets the definition 

of an endangered species. Therefore, we 

are listing the Missouri DPS of 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, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness, and conservation by 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

agencies; private organizations; and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with the States and other 

countries, and calls for recovery actions 

to be carried out for listed species. The 

protection required by Federal agencies 

and the prohibitions against certain 

activities are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of 

the Act calls for the Service to develop 

and implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

Recovery planning consists of 

preparing draft and final recovery plans, 

beginning with the development of a 

recovery outline and making it available 

to the public within 30 days of a final 

listing determination. The recovery 

outline guides the immediate 

implementation of urgent recovery 

actions and describes the process to be 

used to develop a recovery plan. 

Revisions of the plan may be done to 

address continuing or new threats to the 

species, as new substantive information 

becomes available. The recovery plan 

also identifies recovery criteria for 

review of when a species may be ready 

for delisting, and methods for 

monitoring recovery progress, which 

may include downlisting criteria when 

appropriate. Recovery plans also 

establish a framework for agencies to 

coordinate their recovery efforts and 

provide estimates of the cost of 

implementing recovery tasks. Recovery 

teams (composed of species experts, 

Federal and State agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, and 

stakeholders) are often established to 

develop recovery plans. When 

completed, the recovery outline, draft 

recovery plan, and the final recovery 

plan will be available on our website 

(http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or 

from our Missouri Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally needs the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

addressing factors contributing to 

sedimentation (e.g., streambank 

stabilization, restoring riparian 

corridors, excluding cattle from 

streams), 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 nonFederal lands. To achieve recovery of 

these species requires cooperative 

conservation efforts on private, State, 

and Tribal lands. 

Now that the Missouri DPS of the 

eastern hellbender listing is final, 

funding for recovery actions will be 

available from a variety of sources, 

including Federal budgets, State 

programs, and cost share grants for nonFederal landowners, the academic 

community, and nongovernmental 

organizations. In addition, pursuant to 

section 6 of the Act, the State of 

Missouri will be eligible for Federal 

funds to implement management 

actions that promote the protection or 

recovery of the Missouri DPS of the 

eastern hellbender. Information on our 

grant programs that are available to aid 

species recovery can be found at: http:// 

www.fws.gov/grants. 

Please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for the Missouri DPS of the 

eastern hellbender. Additionally, we 

invite you to submit any new 

information on this species whenever it 

becomes available and any information 

you may have for recovery planning 

purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is proposed or listed as an endangered 

or threatened species and with respect 

to its critical habitat, if any is 

designated. Regulations implementing 

this interagency cooperation provision 

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 

402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with the 

Service on any action that is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
13474 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

proposed threatened or endangered 

species or result in destruction or 

adverse modification of its proposed 

critical habitat. If a species is listed 

subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species or 

destroy or adversely modify its critical 

habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 

listed species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency must enter 

into consultation with the Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

range of the Missouri DPS of the eastern 

hellbender habitat that may require 

consultation as described in the 

preceding paragraph include, but are 

not limited to, management and any 

other landscape-altering activities, 

particularly those affecting water quality 

or instream habitat, on Federal lands 

administered by the U.S. Forest Service 

and Department of Defense; issuance of 

section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers; and construction 

and maintenance of roads or highways 

by the Federal Highway Administration. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions 

of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 

50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to take (which includes 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or 

to attempt any of these) endangered 

wildlife within the United States or on 

the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful 

to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, 

transport, or ship in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity; or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

listed species. It is also illegal to 

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or 

ship any such wildlife that has been 

taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply 

to employees of the Service, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, other 

Federal land management agencies, and 

State conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.22. With regard to endangered 

wildlife, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: For scientific 

purposes, to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the species, and for 

incidental take in connection with 

otherwise lawful activities. There are 

also certain statutory exemptions from 

the prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a final listing on proposed 

and ongoing activities within the range 

of a listed species. 

Based on the best available 

information, the following actions are 

unlikely to result in a violation of 

section 9, if these activities are carried 

out in accordance with existing 

regulations and permit requirements; 

this list is not comprehensive: 

(1) Activities authorized, funded, or 

carried out by Federal agencies, when 

such activities are conducted in 

accordance with an incidental take 

statement issued by us under section 7 

of the Act; 

(2) Any action carried out for 

scientific research or to enhance the 

propagation or survival of the Missouri 

DPS of the eastern hellbender that is 

conducted in accordance with the 

conditions of a permit issued by the 

Service under 50 CFR 17.22; and 

(3) Any incidental take of Missouri 

eastern hellbenders resulting from an 

otherwise lawful activity conducted in 

accordance with the conditions of an 

incidental take permit issued by the 

Service under 50 CFR 17.22. NonFederal applicants may design a habitat 

conservation plan (HCP) for the DPS 

and apply for an incidental take permit. 

HCPs may be developed for listed 

species and are designed to minimize 

and mitigate impacts to the species to 

the maximum extent practicable. 

We will review other activities not 

identified above on a case-by-case basis 

to determine whether they may be likely 

to result in a violation of section 9 of the 

Act. We do not consider these lists to be 

exhaustive and provide them as 

information to the public. 

Based on the best available 

information, the following activities 

may potentially result in a violation of 

section 9 of the Act; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Unauthorized killing, collecting, 

handling, or harassing of individual 

eastern hellbenders at any life stage in 

Missouri; 

(2) Sale or offer for sale of any 

Missouri eastern hellbender, as well as 

delivering, receiving, carrying, 

transporting, or shipping any Missouri 

eastern hellbender in interstate or 

foreign commerce and in the course of 

a commercial activity; 

(3) Unauthorized destruction or 

alteration of the DPS’ habitat (for 

example, instream dredging, 

channelizing, impounding of water, 

streambank clearing, removing large 

rocks from or flipping large rocks within 

streams, discharging fill material) that 

actually kills or injures individual 

eastern hellbenders in Missouri by 

significantly impairing their essential 

behavioral patterns, including breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering; 

(4) Any discharge or water 

withdrawal within the DPS’ occupied 

range that results in the death or injury 

of individual eastern hellbenders by 

significantly impairing their essential 

behavioral patterns, including breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering; and 

(5) Discharge or dumping of toxic 

chemicals or other pollutants into 

waters supporting the DPS that actually 

kills or injures individual eastern 

hellbenders by significantly impairing 

their essential behavioral patterns, 

including breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities might constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the Missouri Ecological Services 

Field Office, 101 Park DeVille Drive, 

Suite A, Columbia, MO 65203; 

telephone 573–234–2132. 

Critical Habitat 

In our proposed listing rule for the 

Missouri DPS of the eastern hellbender 

we found that designating critical 

habitat was not prudent, in accordance 

with 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1), because the 

Missouri DPS faces a threat of 

unauthorized collection and trade, and 

designation can reasonably be expected 

to increase the degree of these threats to 

the DPS. Please refer to the proposed 

rule for the full prudency determination 

analysis (84 FR 13223, April 4, 2019; 

Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2018–0056). 

On August 27, 2019, we published a 

final rule in the Federal Register (84 FR 

45020) to amend our regulations 

concerning the procedures and criteria 

we use to designate and revise critical 

habitat. That rule became effective on 

September 26, 2019, but, as stated in 

that rule, the amendments it sets forth 

apply to ‘‘rules for which a proposed 

rule was published after September 26, 

2019.’’ We published our proposed 

critical habitat designation for the 

Missouri DPS of the eastern hellbender 

on April 4, 2019 (84 FR 13223); 

therefore, the amendments set forth in 

the August 27, 2019, final rule at 84 FR 

45020 do not apply to this final 

determination regarding critical habitat 

for the Missouri DPS of the eastern 

hellbender. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 13475 

The Service’s 2019 revisions to 50 

CFR 424.12 did not change the language 

that allows us to determine that critical 

habitat may not be prudent if ‘‘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.’’ The Service relied upon this 

language in making the prudency 

determination for designation of critical 

habitat for the Missouri DPS of eastern 

hellbender. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with listing 

a species as an endangered or 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to tribes. 

We have no records of the Missouri DPS 

of the eastern hellbender occurring on 

tribal lands. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this final rule is available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Missouri 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this final rule 

are the staff members of the Service’s 

Great Lakes Regional Office and the 

Columbia, Missouri, Ecological Services 

Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an 

entry for ‘‘Hellbender, eastern [Missouri 

DPS]’’ to the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical 

order under Amphibians to read as set 

forth below: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and 

applicable rules 

*******

AMPHIBIANS

* * * * * * * 

Hellbender, eastern [Missouri DPS] ....... Cryptobranchus alleganiensis 

alleganiensis.

Missouri ............. E 86 FR [Insert Federal Register page 

where the document begins]; 3/9/ 

2021. 

* * * * * * * 

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04629 Filed 3–8–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 210303–0037] 

RIN 0648–BK30 

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch 

Sharing Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator 

for Fisheries, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

on behalf of the International Pacific 

Halibut Commission (IPHC), publishes 

as regulations the 2021 annual 

management measures governing the 

Pacific halibut fishery that have been 

recommended by the IPHC and accepted 

by the Secretary of State. This action is 

intended to enhance the conservation of 

Pacific halibut and further the goals and 

objectives of the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (PFMC) and the 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (NPFMC). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES