100934 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Permit for Discharges from Construction 

Activities,’’ Document Number 

N2022001 at https://cdxapps.epa.gov/ 

cdx-enepa-II/public/action/nepa/ 

details?nepaId=355222. The EPA has 

reviewed the proposed modification and 

has found that it does not affect the 

EPA’s prior categorical exclusion 

determination for the permit, including 

that it does not involve any 

extraordinary circumstances listed in 40 

CFR 6.204(b)(1) through (10). The EPA 

has documented these findings as part 

of a revised categorical exclusion 

memorandum that is available to the 

public at https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/ 

cdx-enepa-public/action/nepa/search. If 

new information or changes to the 

proposed permit involve or relate to at 

least one of the extraordinary 

circumstances or otherwise indicate that 

the permit may not meet the criteria for 

categorical exclusion, the EPA will 

prepare an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) or Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). 

Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 

et seq. 

David Cash, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

Javier Laureano Perez, 

Director, Water Division, EPA Region 2. 

Carmen Guerrero Perez, 

Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection 

Division, EPA Region 2. 

Michelle Price-Fay, 

Director, Water Division, EPA Region 3. 

Kathlene Butler, 

Director, Water Division, EPA Region 4. 

Tera Fong, 

Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5. 

Troy Hill, 

Director, Water Division, EPA Region 6. 

Jeffery Robichaud, 

Director, Water Division, EPA Region 7. 

Stephanie DeJong, 

Manager, Clean Water Branch, EPA Region 

8. 

Tomas Torres, 

Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9. 

Mathew Martinson 

Director, Water Division, EPA Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28867 Filed 12–12–24; 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–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/easternhellbender-cryptobranchusalleganiensis-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-ofcontact 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
100936 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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/easternhellbender-cryptobranchusalleganiensis-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/easternhellbender-cryptobranchusalleganiensis-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 eastcentral 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 (m2) (322 square feet (ft2)) to 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 100937 

approximately 2,212 m2 (23,810 ft2) 

(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; ‘‘MOpinion,’’ 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’ lifehistory 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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
100938 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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/easternhellbender-cryptobranchusalleganiensis-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 individuallevel 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 habitat 

for breeding and shelter.

Presence of large (≥30 cm) flat rocks; rocks should be partially embedded to allow a 

single opening for males to guard eggs underneath. 

Larvae, juveniles ............. Presence of suitable habitat 

for shelter and foraging.

Substrate should consist of unembedded cobble and coarse gravel material where 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 m2 (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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 RiverSusquehanna River drainages (OACU), 

(3) Tennessee River drainage (TACU), 

and (4) Kanawha River drainage (KACU) 

(see figure 1, below). 

Figure 1. Eastern hellbender adaptive 

capacity units (ACUs). 

KACU=Kanawha River drainage; 

MACU=Missouri; OACU=Ohio RiverSusquehanna 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 (°C) (68 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) 

(Nickerson et al. 2003, p. 622) to 33 °C 

(91 °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. lowvelocity 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALSEP13DE24.000</GPH>
100940 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 naı ̈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 environmentallyresistant 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
100942 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 RiverSusquehanna 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 worstcase 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, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
100944 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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, selfsustaining, 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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/endangeredspecies), 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 nonFederal 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/financialassistance. 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
100946 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 governmentto-government basis. In accordance with 

Secretary’s Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 

(American Indian Tribal Rights, FederalTribal 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 

■ 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. In § 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: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
100948 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and 

applicable rules 

*******

Amphibians 

*******

Hellbender, eastern ......... Cryptobranchus 

alleganiensis alle

ganiensis.

Wherever found .............. E [Federal Register citation when 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS