Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54561 

and Budget under 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, 

et seq. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 53 

Government procurement. 

Dated: August 27, 2010. 

Edward Loeb, 

Director, Acquisition Policy Division. 

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA 

propose amending 48 CFR part 53 as set 

forth below: 

PART 53—FORMS 

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 53 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. 

chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c). 

§ 53.214 [Amended] 

2. Amend section 53.214 in paragraph 

(a) by removing ‘‘SF 26 (APR 2008)’’ and 

adding ‘‘SF 26 (Date)’’ in its place. 

§ 53.215–1 [Amended] 

3. Amend section 53.215–1 in 

paragraph (a) by removing ‘‘SF 26 (APR 

2008)’’ and adding ‘‘SF 26 (Date)’’ in its 

place. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22346 Filed 9–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2009-0009] 

[MO 92210-0-0008-B2] 

RIN 1018-AV94 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Rule To List the 

Ozark Hellbender Salamander as 

Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose 

endangered status under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), for the Ozark hellbender 

(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishopi) 

throughout its entire range. The species 

is found in southern Missouri and 

northern Arkansas. If we finalize this 

proposed rule, it would extend the Act’s 

protection to the Ozark hellbender. 

However, we find that designation of 

critical habitat is not prudent for the 

Ozark hellbender at this time, because 

the increased threat to the species from 

illegal collection and trade outweighs 

the benefits of designating critical 

habitat. We seek data and comments 

from the public on this proposed listing 

rule and prudency determination. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received on or before November 8, 2010. 

We must receive requests for public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section by October 25, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2009-0009. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. 

FWS-R3-ES-2009-0009; Division of 

Policy and Directives Management; U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. 

Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 

22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Scott, Field Supervisor, at the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Columbia Missouri Ecological Services 

Field Office, 101 Park De Ville Dr., Suite 

A, Columbia, MO 65203 (telephone 573- 

234-2132). If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800- 

877-8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

suggestions from the public, other 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning this 

proposed rule to list the Ozark 

hellbender as endangered. We 

particularly seek comments concerning: 

(1) Population survey results for the 

Ozark hellbender, as well as any studies 

that may show distribution, status, 

population size, or population trends, 

including indications of recruitment. 

(2) Pertinent aspects of life history, 

ecology, and habitat use of the Ozark 

hellbender. 

(3) Current and foreseeable threats 

faced by the Ozark hellbender in 

relation to the five factors (as defined in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.)): 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the species’ 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 and 

threats to the species or its habitat. 

(4) Our determination of ‘‘not 

prudent’’ for critical habitat. 

(5) Whether there is a need for us to 

consider developing a ‘‘similarity of 

appearance’’ listing for the eastern 

hellbender. Section 4(e) of the Act 

(similarity of appearance cases) allows 

the Secretary to treat any species as an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act if he finds that: (A) It (in this 

case, the eastern hellbender) closely 

resembles a listed species (in this case, 

the Ozark hellbender) and enforcement 

personnel would have substantial 

difficulty differentiating between the 

listed and unlisted species; (B) the effect 

of this difficulty is an additional threat 

to the listed species: and (C) such 

treatment of the unlisted species would 

substantially facilitate enforcement of 

the Act for Ozark hellbender. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. We will not accept 

comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an 

address not listed in the ADDRESSES

section. 

We will post your entire comment— 

including your personal identifying 

information—on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you provide 

personal identifying information in 

addition to the required items specified 

in the previous paragraph, such as your 

street address, phone number, or e-mail 

address, 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. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the Columbia Missouri 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

Background 

Species Description 

The Ozark hellbender is a large, 

strictly aquatic salamander endemic to 

streams of the Ozark plateau in southern 

Missouri and northern Arkansas. Its 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
54562 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

dorso-ventrally flattened body form 

enables movements in the fast-flowing 

streams it inhabits (Nickerson and Mays 

1973a, p. 1). Ozark hellbenders have a 

large, keeled tail and tiny eyes. An adult 

may attain a total length of 11.4 to 22.4 

inches (in) (29 to 57 centimeters (cm)) 

(Dundee and Dundee 1965, pp. 369-370; 

Johnson 2000, p. 41). Numerous fleshy 

folds along the sides of the body provide 

surface area for respiration (Nickerson 

and Mays 1973a, pp. 26-28) and obscure 

their poorly developed costal grooves 

(grooves in the inner border of the ribs; 

Dundee 1971, p. 101.1). Ozark 

hellbenders are distinguishable from 

eastern hellbenders (Cryptobranchus 

alleganiensis alleganiensis) by their 

smaller body size, dorsal blotches, 

increased skin mottling, heavily 

pigmented lower lip, smooth surfaced 

lateral line system, and reduced 

spiracular openings (openings where 

water is expelled out of the body) 

(Grobman 1943, p. 6; Dundee 1971, p. 

101.3; Peterson et al. 1983, pp. 227-231; 

LaClaire 1993, pp. 1-2). Despite these 

distinguishing characteristics, the two 

subspecies are not easily or readily 

distinguishable absent the presence of 

both subspecies or when encountered 

outside of their subspecies’ range. 

Taxonomy 

The Ozark hellbender was originally 

described as Cryptobranchus bishopi by 

Grobman (1943, pp. 6-9) from a 

specimen collected from the Current 

River in Carter County, Missouri. Due to 

the small amount of genetic variation in 

the genus Cryptobranchus (Merkle et al. 

1977, pp. 550-552; Shaffer and Breden 

1989, pp. 1017-1022), Dundee and 

Dundee (1965, p. 370) referred to the 

Ozark hellbender as a subspecies of the 

eastern hellbender, C. alleganiensis. 

This designation persisted until Collins 

(1991, pp. 42-43) revived C. bishopi, due 

to the lack of intergradation between the 

eastern and Ozark hellbenders because 

of the allopatry (occurring in separate, 

nonoverlapping geographic areas) of the 

populations (Dundee 1971, p. 101.1). 

Although Ozark hellbenders have been 

shown to be phenotypically and 

genetically distinct from eastern 

hellbenders (Grobman 1943, pp. 6-9; 

Dundee and Dundee 1965, p. 370; 

Dundee 1971, p. 101.1; Routman 1993, 

pp. 410-415; Kucuktas et al. 2001, p. 

127), we will continue to use C. a. 

bishopi, which is the name currently 

recognized by the Committee on 

Standard English and Scientific Names 

(Crother et al. 2008, p. 15). Although 

discussion continues over the 

taxonomic status of the Ozark 

hellbender, the designation of the Ozark 

hellbender as a species or subspecies 

does not affect its qualification for 

listing under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). Careful review of the Ozark 

hellbender’s taxonomic information 

confirms it is a valid subspecies. 

Habitat and Life History 

Eastern and Ozark hellbenders are 

similar in habitat selection, movement, 

and reproductive biology (Nickerson 

and Mays 1973a, pp. 44-55). Published 

works on the eastern hellbender provide 

insights into Ozark hellbender ecology. 

Adult Ozark hellbenders are frequently 

found beneath large rocks in moderate 

to deep (less than 3 feet (ft) to 9.8 ft (less 

than 1 meter (m) to 3 m)), rocky, fastflowing streams in the Ozark plateau 

(Johnson 2000, p. 42; Fobes and 

Wilkinson 1995, pp. 5-7). In spring-fed 

streams, Ozark hellbenders will often 

concentrate downstream of the spring, 

where there is little water temperature 

change throughout the year (Dundee 

and Dundee 1965, p. 370). Adults are 

nocturnal, remaining beneath cover 

during the day and emerging to forage 

at night, primarily on crayfish. They are 

diurnal during the breeding season 

(Nickerson and Mays 1973a, pp. 40-41; 

Noeske and Nickerson 1979, p. 92 and 

p. 94). Ozark hellbenders are territorial 

and will defend occupied cover from 

other hellbenders (Nickerson and Mays 

1973a, pp. 42-43). This species migrates 

little throughout its life. For example, 

one tagging study revealed that 70 

percent of marked individuals moved 

less than 100 ft (30 m) from the site of 

original capture (Nickerson and Mays 

1973b, p. 1165). Home ranges average 

91.9 square (sq) ft (28 sq m) for females 

and 265.7 sq ft (81 sq m) for males 

(Peterson and Wilkinson 1996, p. 126). 

Hellbenders are habitat specialists 

that depend on consistent levels of 

dissolved oxygen, temperature, and flow 

(Williams et al. 1981, p. 97). The lower 

dissolved-oxygen levels found in warm 

or standing water do not provide for the 

hellbender’s respiratory needs. In fact, 

hellbenders have been observed rocking 

or swaying in still, warm water 

(Williams et al. 1981, p. 97) to increase 

their exposure to oxygen. Hutchison and 

Hill (1976, p. 327) found that the 

hellbender exhibits a preferred mean 

water temperature of 11.6 °C (52.9 °F), 

17.7 °C (63.9 °F), and 21.7 °C (71.1 °F) 

for individuals acclimatized to 

temperatures of 5 °C (41 °F), 15 °C (59 

°F), and 25 °C (77 °F), respectively. 

Hutchison et al. (1973, p. 807) found the 

mean critical thermal maxima (the 

temperature at which animals lose their 

organized locomotory ability and are 

unable to escape from conditions that 

would promptly lead to their death) of 

Ozark hellbenders was 32.7 °C (90.9 °F) 

at 5 °C (41 °F) acclimation, 32.9 °C (91.2 

°F) at 15 °C (59 °F), and 36.5 °C (97.7 

°F) at 25 °C (77° F). 

Typically, Ozark hellbender 

populations are dominated by older, 

large adults (Nickerson and Mays 1973a, 

p. 1; Peterson et al. 1983, pp. 227-231; 

LaClaire 1993, p. 2). Hellbenders are 

long-lived, capable of living 25 to 30 

years in the wild (Peterson et al. 1983, 

p. 228). Hellbenders may live up to 29 

years in captivity (Nigrelli 1954, p. 297). 

Individuals mature sexually at 5 to 8 

years of age (Bishop 1941, pp. 49-50; 

Dundee and Dundee 1965, p. 370), and 

males normally mature at a smaller size 

and younger age than females. Female 

hellbenders are reported to be sexually 

mature at a total length of 14.6 to 15.4 

in (37 to 39 cm), or approximately 6 to 

8 years (Nickerson and Mayes 1973a, p. 

54; Peterson et al. 1983, p. 229; Taber 

et al. 1975, p. 638). Male hellbenders 

have been reported to reach sexual 

maturity at a total length of 11.8 in (30 

cm), or approximately 5 years (Taber et 

al. 1975, p. 638). 

Breeding generally occurs between 

mid-September and early October 

(Johnson 2000, p. 42). Males prepare 

nests beneath large flat rocks or 

submerged logs. Ozark hellbenders mate 

via external fertilization, and males will 

guard the fertilized eggs from predation 

by other hellbenders (Nickerson and 

Mays 1973a, p. 42 and p. 48). Clutch 

sizes vary from 138 to 450 eggs per nest 

(Dundee and Dundee 1965, p. 369), and 

eggs hatch after approximately 80 days 

(Bishop 1941, p. 47). Hatchlings and 

larvae are rarely collected during 

surveys due to low detectability. Larvae 

and small individuals hide beneath 

small stones in gravel beds (Nickerson 

and Mays 1973a, p. 12; LaClaire 1993, 

p. 2). Although there is little 

information on the diet of larval 

hellbenders, it is generally believed that 

aquatic insects comprise their primary 

food source. In one of the few studies 

on larval diet, Pitt and Nickerson (2006, 

p. 69) found that the stomach of a larval 

Eastern hellbender from the Little River 

in Tennessee exclusively contained 

aquatic insects. 

During or shortly after eggs are laid, 

males and females may prey upon their 

own and other individuals’ clutches. 

Most hellbenders examined during the 

breeding season contain between 15 and 

25 eggs in their stomachs (Smith 1907, 

p. 26). Males frequently regurgitate eggs 

(King 1939, Pfingsten 1990 p. 548; 

Pfingsten 1990, p. 49), and females 

sometimes eat their own eggs while 

ovipositing (laying) them (Nickerson 

and Mays 1973a, p. 46). Topping and 

Ingersol (1981, p. 875) found that up to 

24 percent of the gravid (egg-bearing) 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54563 

females examined from the Niangua 

River in Missouri retained their eggs 

and eventually reabsorbed them. 

Range 

Ozark hellbenders are endemic to the 

White River drainage in northern 

Arkansas and southern Missouri 

(Johnson 2000, pp. 40-41), historically 

occurring in portions of the Spring, 

White, Black, Eleven Point, and Current 

Rivers and their tributaries (North Fork 

White River, Bryant Creek, and Jacks 

Fork) (LaClaire 1993, p. 3). Currently, 

hellbenders are considered extirpated in 

the mainstem White, Black, and Spring 

Rivers and Jacks Fork, and their range 

has been considerably reduced in the 

remaining rivers and tributaries. 

The other subspecies of hellbender, 

the eastern hellbender, occurs in central 

and eastern Missouri (in portions of the 

Missouri drainage in south-central 

Missouri and the Meramec (Mississippi 

drainage), but its range does not overlap 

with that of the Ozark hellbender. The 

eastern hellbender’s range extends 

eastward to New York, Georgia, and the 

States in between. 

Population Estimates and Status 

Evidence indicates Ozark hellbenders 

are declining throughout their range 

(Wheeler et al. 2003, pp. 153 and 155), 

and no populations appear to be stable. 

Declines have been evident throughout 

the range of the eastern hellbender as 

well, which receives protective status in 

many eastern States. 

At the request of the Saint Louis Zoo’s 

Wildcare Institute, the Conservation 

Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG) 

facilitated a Population and Habitat 

Viability Analysis (PHVA) for the Ozark 

and eastern hellbender in August 2006. 

Thirty workshop participants explored 

threats to hellbender populations and 

develop management actions aimed at 

understanding and halting their decline. 

Using the software program Vortex 

(v9.61), the CBSG team prepared and 

presented a baseline model for 

hellbender populations and worked 

through the input parameters with the 

participants to optimize the model and 

determine current and projected mean 

population sizes for all current 

populations in 75 years (Briggler et al. 

2007, p. 8 and pp. 80-86). The results of 

the model are presented in the riverspecific population accounts below. 

A description of what we know about 

Ozark hellbender populations follows 

(including current population estimates 

from the hellbender PHVA (Briggler et 

al. 2007, pp. 83-84)). 

White River – There are only two 

hellbender records from the main stem 

of the White River. In 1997, a hellbender 

was recorded in Baxter County, 

Arkansas (Irwin 2008, pers. comm.). No 

hellbenders were found during a 2001 

survey of the lower portion of the White 

River, but in 2003, an angler caught a 

specimen in Independence County, 

Arkansas (Irwin 2008, pers. comm.). We 

do not know whether a viable 

population exists (or whether 

hellbenders are able to exist) in the 

main stem of the White River or if the 

individuals captured are members of a 

relic population that was separated from 

the North Fork White River population 

by Norfork Reservoir. Much of the 

potential hellbender habitat (we do not 

know whether this habitat was 

historically occupied) was destroyed by 

the series of dams constructed in the 

1940s and 1950s on the upper White 

River, including Beaver, Table Rock, 

Bull Shoals, and Norfork Reservoirs. 

North Fork White River – The North 

Fork White River (North Fork) 

historically contained a considerable 

hellbender population. In 1973, results 

of a mark-recapture study indicated 

approximately 1,150 hellbenders within 

a 1.7-mile (mi) (2.7-kilometer (km)) 

reach of the North Fork in Ozark 

County, Missouri, with a density of one 

individual per 26.2 to 32.8 sq ft (8 to 10 

sq m; Nickerson and Mays 1973b, p. 

1165). Ten years later, hellbender 

density in a 2.9-mi (4.6-km) section of 

the North Fork in the same county 

remained high, with densities between 

one per 19.7 sq ft (6 sq m) and one per 

52.5 sq ft (16 sq m; Peterson et al. 1983, 

p. 230). Individuals caught in this study 

also represented a range of lengths from 

6.8 to 21.7 in (172 to 551 millimeters 

(mm)), indicating that reproduction was 

occurring in this population, and most 

individuals were sized between 9.8 and 

17.7 in (250 and 449 mm). In a 1992 

qualitative study in Ozark County, 

Missouri, 122 hellbenders were caught 

during 49 person-hours of searching the 

North Fork (Ziehmer and Johnson 1992, 

p. 2). Those individuals ranged in 

length from 10 to 18 in (254 to 457 mm), 

and no average size was included in that 

publication. 

Until the 1992 study, the North Fork 

population appeared to be relatively 

healthy. However, in a 1998 study of the 

same reach of river censused in 1983 

(Peterson et al. 1983, pp. 225-231) and 

using the same collection methods, only 

50 hellbenders were captured (Wheeler 

et al. 1999, p. 18). These individuals 

ranged in length from 7.9 to 20.0 in (200 

to 507 mm), with most between 15.7 

and 19.7 in (400 and 500 mm), and were 

on average significantly longer than 

those collected 20 years earlier (Wheeler 

1999, p. 15). This shift in length 

distribution was not a result of an 

increase in maximum length of 

individuals; instead, there were fewer 

individuals collected in the smaller size 

classes. To compare results between 

these qualitative and quantitative 

studies, Wheeler et al. (1999, p. 4) 

converted historical hellbender 

collections (Peterson et al. 1983, pp. 

225-231) to numbers of individuals 

caught per day. In addition, the other 

studies that were not included in that 

conversion (Peterson et al. 1988, pp. 

291-303; Ziehmer and Johnson 1992, pp. 

1-5) have been converted here. For 

comparison purposes, one search day is 

defined as 8 hours of searching by 3 

people (24 person-hours). The use of 

‘‘search day’’ may be an underestimate of 

actual effort, and this conservative 

estimate of effort will likely result in a 

modest estimate of hellbender 

population declines. Therefore, in 1983, 

approximately 51 hellbenders were 

caught per search day (Peterson et al. 

1983, pp. 225-231). In 1992, 60 

hellbenders per day were caught 

(Ziehmer and Johnson 1992, p. 2), and, 

in 1998, 16 hellbenders per day were 

caught (Wheeler 1999, p. 12). 

The North Fork had been considered 

the stronghold of the species in 

Missouri, and the populations 

inhabiting this river had been deemed 

stable (Ziehmer and Johnson 1992, p. 3; 

LaClaire 1993, pp. 3-4). However, these 

populations now appear to be 

experiencing declines similar to those in 

other streams. The collection of young 

individuals has become rare, indicating 

little recruitment. Although Briggler 

(2008a, pers. comm.) did find some 

younger hellbenders in this river during 

his 2005 surveys, he has not found any 

larvae despite extensive effort. In 

species such as the hellbender, which 

are long lived and mature at a relatively 

late age, detecting declines related to 

recruitment can take many years, as 

recruitment under healthy population 

conditions is typically low (Nickerson 

and Mays 1973a, p. 54). In 2006, 

hellbender experts (researchers and 

State herpetologists) estimated the 

current population in the North Fork to 

be 200 individuals (Briggler et al. 2007, 

p. 83). In surveys conducted between 

1969 and 1979, researchers caught from 

8 to 12 hellbenders per hour (Nickerson 

and Briggler 2007, p. 213). For 

comparison, surveys of the same 15.5- 

mi (25-km) section of the North Fork in 

2005 and 2006 averaged 0.5 hellbenders 

per hour (Nickerson and Briggler 2007, 

p. 213). Therefore, a dramatic decline is 

apparent in the North Fork. 

Bryant Creek– Bryant Creek is a 

tributary of the North Fork in Ozark 

County, Missouri, which flows into 

Norfork Reservoir. Ziehmer and Johnson 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
54564 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(1992, p. 2) expected to find hellbenders 

in this stream during an initial survey, 

but none were captured or observed 

after 22 person-hours. This apparent 

lack of the species conflicted with 

reports from Missouri Department of 

Conservation (MDC) personnel and an 

angler who reported observations of 

fairly high numbers of hellbenders in 

Bryant Creek during the winter months 

(Ziehmer and Johnson 1992, p. 3). A 

subsequent survey of the creek resulted 

in the capture of six hellbenders 

(Wheeler et al. 1999, p. 7), confirming 

the existence of a population in this 

tributary. This population, however, is 

isolated from the other North Fork 

White River populations by Norfork 

Reservoir, which could contribute to 

this population’s apparent small size. 

During MDC surveys conducted in 2007, 

no individuals were found in areas 

where the six individuals were found in 

1998. However, five individuals were 

found in areas of Bryant Creek not 

surveyed in 1998. This population has 

been historically low and is not 

considered viable (Briggler 2008b, pers. 

comm.). 

Black River – There is one 

documented record of a hellbender in 

the Black River above its confluence 

with the Strawberry River on the 

Independence–Jackson County line 

(Arkansas) in 1978 (Irwin 2008, pers. 

comm.). Portions of the Black River in 

Missouri were surveyed in 1999 by 

researchers at Arkansas State 

University, but no hellbenders were 

observed (Wheeler et al. 1999, p. 18). 

Currently, the Black River does not 

appear to have conditions suitable for 

hellbenders, although it may have been 

occupied before intensive agricultural 

practices were begun in the area (Irwin 

2008, pers. comm.). The Black River is 

presumed to be part of the historical 

range of the subspecies, because 

hellbenders have been documented in 

several of its tributaries, including the 

Spring, Current, and Eleven Point Rivers 

(Firschein 1951, p. 456; Trauth et al. 

1992, p. 83). In 2004, MDC surveyed 

areas in Missouri that had been 

searched in 1999 (Wheeler et al. 1999, 

p. 18), as well as areas not searched in 

1999 that had anecdotal reports of 

hellbenders. No hellbenders were found 

during this 2–day survey. The habitat 

was considered less than ideal because 

it was predominantly composed of 

igneous rocks, which lack the cracks 

and crevices necessary for hellbender 

inhabitance. Parts of the Black River, 

with suitable dolomite rock, might have 

contained a small population at one 

time (Briggler 2008b, pers. comm.). 

Spring River – The Spring River, a 

tributary of the Black River, flows from 

Oregon County, Missouri, south into 

Arkansas. Hellbender populations have 

been found in the Spring River near 

Mammoth Spring in Fulton County, 

Arkansas (LaClaire 1993, p. 3). In the 

early 1980s, 370 individuals were 

captured during a mark-recapture study 

along 4.4 mi (7 km) of stream south of 

Mammoth Spring (Peterson et al. 1988, 

p. 293). Hellbender density at each of 

the two surveyed sites was fairly high 

(approximately one per 75.5 square (sq) 

ft (23 sq m) and one per 364 sq ft (111 

sq m)). These individuals were 

considerably larger than hellbenders 

captured from other streams during the 

same time period, with 74 percent of 

Spring River hellbenders having a total 

length of more than 17.7 in (450 mm), 

with a maximum length of 23.6 in (600 

mm) (Peterson et al. 1988, p. 294). This 

may indicate that Spring River 

populations are genetically distinct from 

other hellbender populations. This 

speculation was upheld by the 

conclusions of a genetic study of the 

Spring, Current, and Eleven Point River 

populations (Kucuktas et al. 2001, pp. 

131-135). In 1991, surveyors searched 

10 sites for hellbenders along a 16.2-mi 

(26-km) stream reach but observed only 

20 individuals during 41 search-hours 

over a 6–month period (Trauth et al. 

1992, p. 83). This 6–month survey 

included the two sites surveyed in the 

early to mid-1980s in which surveyors 

captured 370 hellbenders, along with 

eight additional sites upstream and 

downstream (Peterson et al. 1988, pp. 

291-303; Trauth et al. 1992, p. 83). No 

size class information is available, 

although the large sizes of captures 

reported in Peterson et al. (1988, p. 294) 

may be indicative of a population 

experiencing little recruitment. 

Researchers with Arkansas State 

University surveyed the Spring River 

from autumn 2003 through spring 2004, 

performing 50 hours of search effort and 

finding only four Ozark hellbenders. 

These animals were removed from the 

river and were housed at the Mammoth 

Spring National Fish Hatchery but have 

since died, most likely due to water 

quality issues at the hatchery. Arkansas 

State University researchers found four 

and one individual during 2005 and 

2006 surveys, respectively. Hellbenders 

have declined in this stream and have 

likely succumbed to the threats of water 

quality degradation, aquatic vegetation 

encroachment, and illegal commercial 

and scientific collection (Irwin 2008, 

pers. comm.). Although experts 

estimated the population in the Spring 

River to be at most 10 individuals, the 

population in this river is considered 

extirpated and the possibility of this 

stream being re-inhabited under present 

conditions is minimal because of the 

magnitude of habitat degradation 

(Briggler et al. 2007, p. 83; Irwin 2008, 

pers. comm.). 

Eleven Point River – The Eleven Point 

River, a tributary of the Black River that 

occurs in Missouri and Arkansas, has 

been surveyed several times since the 

1970s. Wheeler (1999, p. 10) analyzed 

historical data. In 1978, 87 hellbenders 

were captured in Oregon County, 

Missouri, over a 3–day period, yielding 

an average of 29 hellbenders per day. 

From 1980 to 1982, 314 hellbenders 

were captured in the same area in 9 

collection days, yielding an average of 

35 hellbenders per day; hellbender body 

lengths over that period ranged from 4.7 

to 17.8 in (119 to 451 mm). In 1988, 

Peterson et al. (1988, p. 293) captured 

211 hellbenders from the Eleven Point 

River and estimated hellbender density 

to be approximately one per 65.6 sq ft 

(20 sq m). Total lengths of these 

individuals ranged from 4.7 to 17.7 in 

(120 to 450 mm), with most between 9.8 

and 13.8 in (250 and 350 mm). Although 

the data were not analyzed for captures 

per day, it can be estimated that 

approximately 40 hellbenders were 

caught per day during this study. 

In 1998, Wheeler (1999, p. 10) 

captured 36 hellbenders over 4 days 

from the same localities as Peterson et 

al. (1988, p. 292), for an average of nine 

hellbenders per day. These hellbenders 

were larger than those captured 

previously, with total lengths of 12.8 to 

18.0 in (324 to 457 mm), and there were 

considerably fewer individuals in the 

smaller size classes. For comparison, a 

survey of Peterson et al. (1988, p. 293) 

localities in 2005 resulted in a total of 

31 hellbenders captured, yielding an 

average of 2.6 hellbenders captured per 

day (using the search day conversion 

method presented in the North Fork 

White River discussion). Population 

declines and reduced recruitment in the 

Eleven Point River in Missouri are 

indicated (through past survey data), 

although hellbenders are consistently 

reported during surveys in the Eleven 

Point River in Arkansas (Irwin 2008, 

pers. comm.). 

Recently in Arkansas (2005 and 2007), 

however, no more than two or three 

individuals were caught per day. 

Specifically, the catch per person-hour 

in 2005 was 1.1 hellbenders and in 2007 

was 0.9 hellbenders for surveys 

conducted on the Eleven Point River in 

Arkansas (Irwin 2008, pers. comm.). 

Portions of the Eleven Point River 

watershed in Missouri are owned by the 

Federal Government and managed to 

protect stream and riparian areas from 

erosion. However, the watershed in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54565 

Arkansas is all privately owned with 

increased threat from stream bank 

clearing and unrestricted cattle access, 

which have an increased effect (through 

increased siltation and water quality 

degradation) on remaining populations 

(Irwin 2008, pers. comm.). In 2006, 

hellbender experts (researchers and 

State herpetologists) estimated the 

current Eleven Point River population to 

be 200 individuals in Arkansas and 100 

individuals in Missouri (Briggler et al. 

2007, p. 83). 

Current River – The Current River had 

not been surveyed extensively until the 

1990s. Nickerson and Mays (1973a, p. 

63) reported a large hellbender 

population in this stream, but no 

numbers were presented. In 1992, 

Ziehmer and Johnson (1992, p. 2) found 

12 hellbenders in 60 person-hours in 

Shannon County, Missouri, or 

approximately 5 hellbenders per day 

using the same search day conversion as 

presently used. These individuals 

ranged in length from 4.5 in (115 mm) 

to more than 15.0 in (380 mm; 

maximum length was not reported), 

with most between 13.0 and 15.0 in (330 

and 380 mm). In 1999, 14 hellbenders 

were collected over 3 collection days 

(approximately 5 hellbenders per day), 

also in Shannon County, Missouri, and 

the individuals ranged from 14.8 to 20.3 

in (375 to 515 mm), with most between 

17.7 to 19.7 in (450 to 499 mm; Wheeler 

1999, p. 12). The average size of 

individuals increased by nearly 4 in 

(100 mm), indicating this population 

must have a lack of recruitment. In 2005 

and 2006, researchers found a total of 22 

hellbenders throughout the Current 

River in a total of 100 hours spent 

searching (equivalent to 1.8 hellbenders 

per day). In 2006, hellbender experts 

estimated the current population in the 

Current River to be 80 individuals 

(Briggler et al. 2007, p. 83). 

Jacks Fork – Jacks Fork, a tributary of 

the Current River, was surveyed for 

hellbenders for the first time in 1992 

(Ziehmer and Johnson 1992, p. 2). Four 

hellbenders were collected over 66 

person-hours, equating to roughly 2 

hellbenders per day. The individuals 

were large, ranging from 13.0 to 16.9 in 

(330 to 430 mm). No hellbenders were 

found during investigations of Jacks 

Fork in 2003 and 2006. 

Previous Federal Action 

We first identified the Ozark 

hellbender as a candidate species in a 

notice of review published in the 

Federal Register on October 30, 2001 

(66 FR 54808). The Ozark hellbender 

was given a listing priority number of 6 

due to non-imminent threats of a high 

magnitude. 

On May 11, 2004, we received a 

petition dated May 4, 2004, from The 

Center for Biological Diversity to list 

225 candidate species, including the 

Ozark hellbender. We received another 

petition on September 1, 2004 (dated 

August 24, 2004), from Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment and 

Webster Groves Nature Study Society 

requesting emergency listing of the 

Ozark hellbender. Based on information 

presented in that petition, we 

determined that emergency listing was 

not warranted at the time. We notified 

the petitioners by letter of this 

determination in November 2004. Our 

finding on that petition was included in 

a May 11, 2005, notice of review 

published in the Federal Register (70 

FR 24870). 

In the May 11, 2005, notice of review 

we changed the listing priority number 

(LPN) for the Ozark hellbender from 6 

to 3, the highest priority category for a 

subspecies, because of the increased 

immediacy of threats since the Ozark 

hellbender was elevated to candidate 

status in 2001. The threat of particular 

concern was the annual increases in 

recreational pressures on Ozark 

hellbender rivers. Because collection for 

trade is considered a primary threat, we 

coordinated with our Division of 

Management Authority to develop, 

concurrent with this proposal, a 

proposal to list the hellbender (both 

subspecies) in Appendix III of the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES). Elsewhere in today’s 

Federal Register, the Service proposes 

to list the hellbender, including both 

subspecies, in Appendix III of CITES. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Endangered Species 

Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) 

promulgated to implement the listing 

provisions of the Act set forth the 

procedures for adding species to the 

Federal lists. A species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) as follows: (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. 

In the context of the Act, the term 

‘‘threatened species’’ means any species 

or subspecies or, for vertebrates, Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS) that is likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. The 

term ‘‘endangered species’’ means any 

species, subspecies, or for vertebrates, 

DPS, that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. The Act does not define the 

term ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ 

The application of the five factors to 

the Ozark hellbender (Cryptobranchus 

alleganiensis bishopi) is as follows: 

A. The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range. 

One of the most likely causes of the 

decline of the Ozark hellbender in the 

White River system in Missouri and 

Arkansas is habitat degradation 

resulting from impoundments, ore and 

gravel mining, sedimentation, nutrient 

runoff, and nest site disturbance from 

recreational uses of the rivers (Williams 

et al. 1981, p. 99; LaClaire 1993, pp. 4- 

5). Hellbenders are habitat specialists 

that depend on consistent levels of 

dissolved oxygen, temperature, and flow 

(Williams et al. 1981, p. 97). Therefore, 

even minor alterations to stream habitat 

are thought to be detrimental to 

hellbender populations. 

Impoundments 

Impoundments impact stream habitat 

in many ways. When a dam is built on 

a free-flowing stream, riffle and run 

habitats are converted to lentic (still), 

deep water habitat. As a result, surface 

water temperatures tend to increase, and 

dissolved oxygen levels tend to decrease 

(Allan and Castillo 2007, pp. 323-324 

and pp. 97-98). Hellbenders depend 

upon highly vascularized lateral skin 

folds for respiration. Therefore, lakes 

and reservoirs are unsuitable habitat for 

Ozark hellbenders, because these areas 

have lower oxygen levels and higher 

water temperatures (Williams et al. 

1981, p. 97; LaClaire 1993, p. 5) than do 

fast-flowing, cool-water stream habitats. 

Impoundments also fragment hellbender 

habitat, blocking the flow of 

immigration and emigration between 

populations (Dodd 1997, p. 178). The 

resulting small, isolated populations are 

more susceptible to environmental 

perturbation and demographic 

stochasticity, both of which can lead to 

local extinction (Wyman 1990, p. 351). 

In the upper White River, 

construction of Beaver, Table Rock, Bull 

Shoals, and Norfork dams in the 1940s 

and 1950s destroyed the potential 

hellbender habitat upstream of 

Batesville, Arkansas, and effectively 

isolated hellbender populations. 

Norfork Dam was constructed on the 

North Fork in 1944 and has isolated 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
54566 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Ozark hellbender populations in Bryant 

Creek and the White River from 

populations in the North Fork. 

Populations downstream of Beaver, 

Table Rock, Bull Shoals, and Norfork 

dams were likely extirpated due to 

hypolimnetic releases from the 

reservoir. Hypolimnetic releases are 

cooler than normal stream temperatures 

because they are from a layer of water 

that is below the thermocline, and the 

water from this layer is typically 

reduced of oxygen because it is 

noncirculating or does not ‘‘turn over’’ to 

the surface. Additionally, the tailwater 

zones below dams experience extreme 

water level fluctuations and scouring for 

many miles downstream. This impacts 

hellbender populations by washing out 

the pebbles and cobbles used as cover 

by juveniles and creating unpredictable 

habitat conditions outside the Ozark 

hellbender’s normal range of tolerance. 

Mining 

Gravel mining, which has occurred in 

a number of streams within the 

historical range of the Ozark hellbender, 

has directly contributed to Ozark 

hellbender habitat alteration and loss. 

Dredging results in stream instability 

both up and downstream of the dredged 

portion (Box and Mossa 1999, pp. 103- 

104). Head cutting, in which the 

increase in transport capacity of a 

dredged stream causes severe erosion 

and degradation upstream, results in 

extensive bank erosion and increased 

turbidity levels (Allan and Castillo 

2007, p. 331). Reaches downstream of 

the dredged stream reach often 

experience aggradation (raised stream 

bed from build-up of sediment) as the 

sediment transport capacity of the 

stream is reduced (Box and Mossa 1999, 

p. 104). Gravel mining physically 

disturbs hellbender habitat in dredged 

areas, and associated silt plumes can 

impact various aspects of the 

hellbender’s life requisites (nesting 

habitat, eggs, prey). In addition, these 

effects reduce crayfish populations, 

which are the primary prey species for 

Ozark hellbenders. Gravel dredging is 

widespread in the White River systems 

in southern Missouri and northern 

Arkansas (LaClaire 1993, p. 4). 

Portions of the Ozark plateau have a 

history of being major producers of lead 

and zinc, and some mining activity still 

occurs in the southeastern Ozarks, 

though at less than historical levels. 

Results of a U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) water quality study conducted 

from 1992 to 1995 in the Ozark plateau 

(Peterson et al. 1998, pp. 12-13) 

revealed that concentrations of lead and 

zinc in bed sediment and fish tissue 

were substantially higher at sites with 

historical or active mining activity. 

These concentrations were high enough 

to suggest adverse biological effects, 

such as reduced enzyme activity or 

death of aquatic organisms. Because 

hellbenders have highly permeable skin 

and obtain most of their oxygen through 

subcutaneous respiration, they are 

particularly susceptible to absorbing 

contaminants such as lead and zinc. 

Furthermore, because Ozark hellbenders 

are long lived, they may be at higher 

risk of bioaccumulation of harmful 

chemicals (Peterson et al. 1998, pp. 12- 

13). Although mining for lead and zinc 

no longer occurs within the range of the 

Ozark hellbender, Petersen et al. 

showed elevated concentrations were 

still present in the streams where 

mining occurred historically (1998, p. 

12). Although it is possible for these 

metals to be transported and diluted, 

they will not degrade over time; 

therefore, it is likely that lead and zinc 

concentrations found over 10 years ago 

in these rivers would remain similar 

today (Mosby 2008, pers. comm.). In 

addition, there are historical lead and 

zinc mining sites that are near Ozark 

hellbender populations on the North 

Fork in Ozark County (Mosby 2008, 

pers. comm.). 

Increased lead and zinc 

contamination input to the Current 

River by way of the active Sweetwater 

Mine on Adair Creek in Reynolds 

County, Missouri, is a potential future 

risk. Adair Creek is a tributary of Logan 

Creek, a losing stream (loses water as it 

flows downhill) connected to Blue 

Spring, which discharges to the Current 

River. Although lead and zinc 

contaminants have been found in Logan 

Creek, there is no evidence that 

contaminants from Sweetwater mine 

have made it to Blue Spring. However, 

if the current tailings dam on Adair 

Creek fails, which could be ‘‘a real 

possibility,’’ large concentrations of lead 

and zinc would be added to Blue Spring 

and the Current River (Mosby 2008, 

pers. comm.). 

Water Quality 

Despite the claim by some that many 

Ozark streams outwardly appear 

pristine, Harvey (1980, pp. 53-60) 

clearly demonstrated that various 

sources of pollution exist in the ground 

water in the Springfield–Salem Plateaus 

of southern Missouri. In comparing 

ground-water quality of sites within the 

Ozark Plateaus (including Arkansas and 

Missouri) with other National WaterQuality Assessment Program (NAWQA) 

sites, Petersen et al. (1998, pp. 9-10) 

documented that nitrate concentrations 

in parts of the Springfield Plateau 

aquifer were higher than in most other 

NAWQA drinking-water aquifers, and 

could possibly affect hellbenders by 

inhibiting their growth, impairing their 

immune systems, and overall causing 

increased stress. Those study areas were 

within the current distribution of Ozark 

hellbenders in Arkansas and Missouri. 

Nitrogen and phosphorus are essential 

plant nutrients found naturally in 

streams. Elevated concentrations of 

these nutrients, however, cause 

increased growth of algae and aquatic 

plants in many streams and are 

detrimental to aquatic biota (Petersen et 

al. 1998, p. 6). In the Ozark plateau, 

water is contaminated by nutrients from 

increased human waste (in part due to 

rapid urbanization and increased 

numbers of septic systems), fertilizers 

(including land application of chicken 

litter (poultry manure, bedding material, 

and wasted feed)), logging, and 

expanded industrial agricultural 

practices such as concentrated animal 

feeding operations. A continuing source 

of sedimentation and contamination is 

agriculture, which comprises a large 

percentage of the land use within the 

range of the Ozark hellbender (Wheeler 

et al. 2003, p. 155). Missouri is the 

second largest beef cattle-producing 

State in the nation, with the majority of 

animal units produced in the Ozarks. 

Both Arkansas and Missouri are leading 

States in poultry production. The 

NAWQA data collected in the Ozarks in 

1993-1995 from wells and springs 

indicated that nitrate concentrations 

were strongly associated with the 

percentage of agricultural land near the 

wells or springs. Livestock wading in 

streams, poor agricultural practices that 

degrade vegetated riparian areas, and 

faulty septic and sewage treatment 

systems have resulted in elevated nitrate 

levels (Petersen et al. 1998, pp. 6-8 and 

15). 

Increased recreational use (such as 

from canoeing, kayaking, rafting, inner 

tube floating, and small horsepower 

motorboating) also impacts the water 

and habitat quality in rivers inhabited 

by the Ozark hellbender. In 2003, the 

Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources added an 8-mi (13-km) 

stretch of the Jacks Fork River to the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Consolidated 2002 Missouri (303(d)) list 

of impaired waters for organic wastes 

(fecal coliform). Likely sources of the 

contamination include runoff from a 

commercial horse trail ride outfitter, 

horse stream crossings, and effluent 

from campground pit-toilets (Davis and 

Richards 2002, pp. 1, 3, and 36). 

The 303(d) list included additional 

rivers inhabited by Ozark hellbenders. A 

21-mi (34-km) stretch of the Eleven 

Point River was listed as impaired due 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54567 

to unacceptable levels of chlorine and 

atmospheric deposition of mercury. 

Increased mercury levels have been 

implicated as a potential cause in the 

decline of other aquatic amphibians, 

such as the northern dusky salamander 

(Desmognathus fuscus fuscus; Bank et 

al. 2006, pp. 234-236). Water quality 

monitoring on both the North Fork 

White and Eleven Point Rivers in 

Missouri detected 21 chemicals and 

elevated levels of estrogen in male 

hellbenders collected during 2002 and 

2003, respectively (Huang 2004, pers. 

comm.). The Spring River has also 

suffered from many water quality 

perturbations over recent decades. In 

the late 1980s, the West Plains 

(Missouri) wastewater treatment plant 

failed, depositing all stored waste into 

the Spring River. In addition, the 

majority of the Ozarks region in 

Missouri and Arkansas is composed of 

karst topography (caves, springs, 

sinkholes, and losing streams), which 

further complicates transport of 

potential contaminants. 

Siltation 

Sediment inputs from land use 

activities have, and continue to, 

significantly contribute to habitat 

degradation. Nickerson and Mays 

(1973a, pp. 55-56) cite a personal 

communication from S. Minton in 

which sediment accumulation is 

suspected of destroying eggs and 

juvenile hellbenders. Hellbenders are 

intolerant of sedimentation and 

turbidity (Nickerson and Mays 1973a, 

pp. 55-56), which can impact them in 

several ways: 

(1) Sediment deposition of cover 

rocks reduces or removes suitable 

habitat for adults and can cover and 

suffocate eggs. 

(2) Sediment fills interstitial spaces in 

pebble or cobble beds, reducing suitable 

habitat for larvae and subadults 

(FISRWG 1998, chapter 3, p. 19 and p. 

25). 

(3) Suspended sediment loads can 

cause water temperatures to increase, as 

there are more particles to absorb heat, 

thereby reducing dissolved oxygen 

levels (Allan and Castillo 2007, pp. 323- 

324). 

(4) Sedimentation can impede the 

movement of individuals and 

colonization of new habitat (Routman 

1993, p. 412). 

(5) The Ozark hellbender’s highly 

permeable skin causes them to be 

negatively affected by sedimentation. 

Various chemicals, such as pesticides, 

bind to silt particles and become 

suspended in the water column when 

flushed into a stream. The hellbender’s 

permeable skin provides little barrier to 

these chemicals, which can be toxic 

(Wheeler et al. 1999, pp. 1-2). 

(6) Sedimentation may result in a 

decline of prey abundance by 

embedding cover rocks. 

Timber harvest and associated 

activities (construction and increased 

use of unpaved roads, skid trails, and 

fire breaks) are prominent in many areas 

within the range of the Ozark hellbender 

and increase terrestrial erosion and 

sedimentation into streams. Peak stream 

flows often rise in watersheds with 

timber harvesting activities, due in part 

to compacted soils resulting from 

construction of roads and landings 

(where products are sorted and loaded 

for transportation) and vegetation 

removal (Allan and Castillo 2007, p. 

332; Box and Mossa 1999, pp. 102-103). 

The cumulative effects of timber harvest 

on sedimentation rates may last for a 

couple of decades, even after harvest 

practices have ceased in the area 

(Frissell 1997, pp. 102-104). 

Improperly designed and maintained 

roads cause marginally stable slopes to 

fail, and they also capture surface runoff 

and channel it directly into streams 

(Allan and Castillo 2007, pp. 321-322 

and 340). Erosion from roads 

contributes more sediment than the land 

harvested for timber (Box and Mossa 

1999, p. 102). 

Unrestricted cattle access to streams 

increases erosion and subsequent 

sediment loads (Clary and Kinney 2002, 

p. 145). This is particularly a concern 

for the Eleven Point River in Arkansas 

(Irwin 2008, pers. comm.). Riparian 

pasture ‘‘retirement’’ or exclusion of 

grazing has proven to be an effective 

means of reducing surface runoff 

pollutant loads to waterways. Runoff 

levels of sediment, in addition to 

phosphorus, particulate- and nitratenitrogen concentrations, have been 

found to be lower at retired riparian 

pasture than at currently grazed riparian 

pasture sites (Hoorman and 

McCutcheon 2005, p. 9). 

Disturbance 

Habitat disturbance affects hellbender 

survival in several rivers. Most rivers 

and streams inhabited by hellbenders 

are extremely popular with canoeists, 

kayakers, rafters, inner tube floaters, or 

low-horsepower motorboat operators. In 

fact, canoe, kayak, and motor and jet 

boat traffic continues to increase on the 

Jacks Fork, Current, Eleven Point, and 

North Fork Rivers. On the North Fork 

River, an average of five canoes per 

weekday were observed in 1998, and in 

2004, that figure increased to 21 canoes 

per weekday (Pitt 2005, pers. comm.). 

Due to the increasing popularity of these 

float streams, the National Park Service 

is evaluating options that will reduce 

the number of boats that can be 

launched daily by concessionaires (Poe 

2004, pers. comm.). Hellbenders 

encountered with gashes in their heads 

suggest that watercraft traffic likely 

impact these animals. New roads, boat 

ramps, and other river access points 

have been constructed, which lead to 

increased river access and increased 

disturbance to hellbenders (Briggler et 

al. 2007, p. 64). Off-road vehicle (ORV) 

recreation is also widespread 

throughout the Ozarks region. ORVs 

frequently cross rivers inhabited by 

hellbenders and are driven in riverbeds 

where the water is shallow enough to 

enable this form of recreation. The force 

delivered by a boat or ORV hitting a 

rock could easily injure or kill a 

hellbender, in addition to destroying 

hellbender habitat. ORV activity also 

increases erosion and sedimentation by 

exposing bare erodible soils in areas 

with frequent activity. 

The practice of removing large rocks 

and boulders (by hand, machinery, or 

dynamite) to reduce damage to canoes is 

common on many hellbender streams 

(Nickerson and Mays 1973a, p. 56; 

Wheeler et al. 1999, p. 4). Rocks are also 

removed by gardeners for landscaping. 

Rock turning and flipping is also done 

by crayfish hunters and hobbyists and 

independent researchers (Briggler et al. 

2007, p. 61 and p. 66). The areas under 

these large rocks are important habitat 

for cover and nest sites; therefore, 

overturning or removing these rocks can 

diminish available cover and nest sites 

for hellbenders. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

Currently, a number of activities that 

can and do result in habitat degradation 

are outside of regulatory oversight. 

There are no regulatory requirements to 

implement BMPs to protect water 

quality from timber management 

actions. Existing BMPs by the Arkansas 

Forestry Commission and Missouri 

Department of Conservation lack 

mandatory requirements for 

implementing methods to reduce 

aquatic resource impacts associated 

with timber management. Timber 

harvest activities (for example, logging 

decks, increased use of unpaved roads, 

improperly designed and maintained 

roads, skid trails, fire breaks) result in 

erosion and sedimentation. 

Additionally, there are no laws or 

regulations that preclude livestock from 

grazing in riparian corridors and loafing 

in streams and rivers. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
54568 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Summary of Habitat Destruction and 

Modification 

The threats to the Ozark hellbender 

from habitat destruction and 

modification are occurring throughout 

the entire range of the subspecies. These 

threats include impoundments, mining, 

water quality degradation, siltation, and 

disturbance from recreational activities. 

The effects of impoundments on 

Ozark hellbenders are significant 

because impoundments alter habitat 

directly, isolate populations, and change 

water temperatures and flows below 

reservoirs. Remaining Ozark hellbender 

populations are small and isolated, in 

part due to increased impoundments 

over time, making hellbenders 

vulnerable to individual catastrophic 

events and reducing the likelihood of 

recolonization after localized 

extirpations. 

Habitat destruction and modification 

from siltation and water quality 

degradation present a significant and 

immediate threat to the Ozark 

hellbender. We believe these are the 

primary causes of the population 

decline. Siltation and water quality 

degradation are caused by 

industrialization, agricultural runoff, 

mine waste, and activities related to 

timber harvesting. Increased siltation 

affects hellbenders in a variety of ways, 

such as suffocating eggs, eliminating 

suitable habitat for all life stages, 

reducing dissolved oxygen levels, 

increasing contaminants (that bind to 

sediments), and reducing prey 

populations. Increased nitrate levels and 

fecal coliform, along with a variety of 

other contaminants from agricultural 

runoff and increased urbanization, have 

been detected in hellbender streams, 

which not only pose a threat directly to 

hellbenders but also to Ozark aquatic 

ecosystems in general. 

Recreational pressure (for example, 

boat traffic, horseback riding, and ORV 

use) in streams inhabited by Ozark 

hellbenders has increased substantially 

on an annual basis, directly disturbing 

the habitat. Most hellbender rivers are 

popular with canoeists, kayakers, 

rafters, inner tube floaters, and 

motorboat operators. Removing large 

rocks and boulders to reduce damage to 

canoes is a common practice. Gardeners 

remove rocks for use in landscaping. 

Crayfish hunters, hobbyists, and 

independent researchers turn and flip 

rocks. This disturbance is significant 

because areas under large rocks are 

important habitat for cover and nest 

sites; therefore, overturning and 

removing these rocks reduces available 

cover and nest sites for hellbenders. The 

threats of rock removal and overturning 

are expected to continue or even 

increase as these recreational activities 

grow in popularity. 

B. Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes. 

Anecdotal reports indicate that Ozark 

hellbenders have been collected for 

commercial and scientific purposes 

(Trauth et al. 1992, p. 85). Although 

commercial collections are currently 

illegal in both Missouri and Arkansas, 

information provided by Nickerson and 

Briggler (2007, pp. 207-212) indicates 

that Ozark hellbenders are sold for the 

pet trade. Because of their protected 

status in Missouri and Arkansas, any 

actions involving interstate or foreign 

commerce of Ozark hellbenders 

collected from these states would be 

prohibited by the Federal Lacey Act (16 

U.S.C. 3371-3378). 

In Arkansas, hellbenders may be 

collected with a scientific collecting 

permit from the AGFC; however, no 

permits are being issued currently or are 

anticipated to be issued in the future 

because the State acknowledges the 

severely imperiled status of the 

subspecies (Irwin 2008, pers. comm.). 

Missouri imposed a moratorium on 

hellbender collecting from 1991 to 1996 

and has since issued only limited 

numbers of scientific collecting permits 

(Horner 2008, pers. comm.). Despite 

these restrictions, illegal collecting for 

the pet trade has been documented 

(Nickerson and Briggler 2007, pp. 208- 

209) and remains a threat throughout 

the range Briggler (2008b, pers. comm.). 

The illegal and legal collection of 

hellbenders for research purposes, 

museum collections, zoological exhibits, 

and the pet trade has undoubtedly been 

a contributing factor to hellbender 

declines. Nickerson and Briggler (2007, 

pp. 208-211) documented the removal of 

558 hellbenders (approximately 300 

animals illegally) from the North Fork 

White River from 1969 to 1989. 

Anecdotal information suggests 

unauthorized collection of animals on 

the Spring River in Arkansas 

contributed to the recent population 

crash, as reaches of the Spring River that 

formerly contained 35 to 40 have had no 

individuals present for more than 10 

years (Irwin 2008, pers. comm.). The 

decline is linked to unauthorized 

collecting because Ozark hellbenders 

were located in one small, easily 

accessible area of the Spring River, and 

no other event (such as a storm or 

chemical spill) had occurred in that area 

that would explain such a rapid decline 

(Irwin 2008, pers. comm.). Such 

amphibians as the hellbender (a 

relatively slow-moving, aquatic species) 

may be collected with little effort, 

making them even more susceptible to 

this threat. 

The unauthorized collection of 

hellbenders, primarily for the pet trade, 

remains a major concern. In 2001, an 

advertisement in a Buffalo, New York, 

newspaper was selling hellbenders for 

$50 each (Mayasich et al. 2003, p. 20). 

In 2003, a pet dealer in Florida posted 

an Internet ad that offered ‘‘top dollar’’ 

for large numbers of hellbenders 

(wanted in groups of at least 100; 

Briggler 2007, pers. comm.). Also in 

2003, a person in Pennsylvania had an 

Internet posting stating specifically that 

an Ozark hellbender was wanted, no 

matter the price or regulatory 

consequence (Briggler 2007, pers. 

comm.). At the 2005 Hellbender 

Symposium, it was announced that U.S. 

hellbenders were found for sale in 

Japanese pet stores, which is likely the 

largest market for this species (Briggler, 

pers. comm. with Okada, 2005). In 

Japan, the majority of hellbenders are 

sought for pets rather than for food 

(Briggler, pers. comm. with Okada, 

2005). As Ozark hellbenders become 

rarer, their market value is likely to 

increase. In fact, listing the subspecies 

as endangered may also enhance the 

subspecies potential commercial value 

as the rarity of the subspecies is made 

public. 

Few U.S. species listed under the Act 

have commercial value in trade; 

however, the Ozark hellbender does. 

Due to the market demand and the 

apparent willingness of individuals to 

collect hellbenders illegally, we believe 

that any action that publicly discloses 

the location of hellbenders (such as 

publication of specific critical habitat 

maps or locations) puts the species in 

further peril. For example, due to the 

threat of unauthorized collection and 

trade, the Missouri Department of 

Conservation and Arkansas Game and 

Fish Commission have implemented 

extraordinary measures to control and 

restrict information on the locations of 

Ozark hellbenders and no longer make 

location and survey information readily 

available to the public. 

Recreational fishing may also 

negatively impact Ozark hellbender 

populations due to animosity towards 

hellbenders, which some anglers believe 

to be poisonous and to interfere with 

fish production (Gates et al. 1985, p. 18). 

In addition, there are unpublished 

reports of hellbenders accidentally 

killed by frog or fish gigging (spearing), 

when a hellbender may get speared 

inadvertently (Nickerson and Briggler 

2007, pp. 209 and 212). The MDC 

reports that gigging popularity and 

pressure have increased, which 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54569 

increases a potentially significant threat 

to hellbenders during the breeding 

season when they tend to move greater 

distances and congregate in small 

groups where they are an easy target for 

giggers (Nickerson and Briggler 2007, p. 

212). The gigging season for suckers 

(fish mainly in the Catostomidae family) 

spans the reproductive season of the 

Ozark hellbender in the North Fork 

White River and overlaps that of the 

hellbender in other river basins as well. 

The sucker gigging season opens 

September 15, during the peak breeding 

period when hellbenders are most active 

and, therefore, most exposed. Gigging is 

popular in hellbender streams to such a 

degree that marks are often noticed on 

the bedrock and the river bottom from 

giggers’ spears (Briggler 2007, pers. 

comm.). Although the chance of finding 

a gigged hellbender can be limited (due 

to presence of scavengers and the fast 

decomposition rate of amphibians), two 

gigged hellbenders were found along the 

stream bank on the North Fork White 

River in 2004 (Huang 2007, pers. 

comm.). In their studies of Missouri 

hellbenders, Nickerson and Mays 

(1973a, p. 56) found dead gigged 

specimens, and they reference data 

showing how susceptible the species is 

to this threat. Ozark hellbenders are 

sometimes unintentionally caught by 

anglers. However, catching hellbenders 

while fishing is not a frequent 

occurrence and is not believed to be a 

significant threat to the species, 

especially if anglers follow instructions 

posted by the Missouri Department of 

Conservation to remove the hook or cut 

the fishing line and return the 

hellbender to the stream (Briggler 2009, 

pers. comm.). 

Summary of Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

The Ozark hellbender is a rare and 

unique amphibian that has experienced 

extensive collection from the wild for 

various reasons. Due to the continued 

decline of the Ozark hellbender and 

history of its collection, State agencies 

in Missouri and Arkansas have 

implemented measures to reduce the 

threat of collection. These measures 

include moratoriums on issuance of 

scientific collecting permits; prohibiting 

the collection, possession, and sale of 

hellbender under appropriate State 

wildlife statutes; and controlling 

information on the location of 

hellbenders. The unauthorized 

collection of Ozark hellbenders for 

commercial sale in the pet trade, 

however, continues to be a significant 

threat. 

C. Disease or predation 

Disease (Chytridiomycosis) 

Background — Chytridiomycosis (also 

known as chytrid fungus), a highly 

infectious amphibian disease caused by 

the pathogen Batrachochytrium 

dendrobatidis, is recently recognized to 

have a significant negative effect on the 

Ozark hellbender. B. dendrobatidis has 

been demonstrated to infect and kill all 

life stages of an increasing number of 

amphibian species worldwide (Berger et 

al. 1998, pp. 9031-9036). The Ozark 

hellbender is now included on the everincreasing global list of amphibian 

species potentially affected by this fatal 

pathogen (Speare and Berger 2005, pp. 

1-9). 

The chytrid fungus attacks the 

keratinized tissue of amphibians’ skin, 

which can lead to clinical signs of 

disease presence, such as thickened 

epidermis, lesions, body swelling, 

lethargy, abnormal posture, loss of 

righting reflex, and death (Daszak et al. 

1999, pp. 737-738; Bosch et al. 2001, p. 

331; Carey et al. 2003, p. 130). It is 

believed that the amphibian chytrid 

fungus originated from Africa with the 

African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis), 

used throughout the United States in the 

1930s and 1940s for pregnancy testing. 

This pathogen is now found on all 

continents except Asia, where species 

are currently being tested (Weldon et al. 

2004, pp. 2100-2105; Speare and Berger 

2005, pp. 1-9). 

Currently, there are two theories on 

the development of the chytrid fungus 

as a global amphibian pathogen. One 

theory is that the chytrid fungus is not 

a new pathogen, but has increased in 

virulence or in host susceptibility 

caused by other factors (Berger et al. 

1998, p. 9036). The other, more widely 

supported theory is that B. 

dendrobatidis is an introduced species 

whose spread has been described as an 

epidemic ‘wave-like’ front (Lips et al. 

2006, pp. 3166-3169; Morehouse et al. 

2003, p. 400). 

B. dendrobatidis lives in aquatic 

systems in which it ‘swims’ (using 

spores) through the water and 

reproduces asexually. B. dendrobatidis 

develops most rapidly at 73.4 °F (23 °C) 

in culture, with slower growth rate at 

82.4 °F (28 °C) and reversible stop of 

growth at 84.2 °F (29 °C; Daszak et al. 

1999, p. 741). The temperatures in 

Ozark streams are ideal for the spread 

and persistence of this pathogen. Based 

on U.S. Geological Survey water data 

from 1996-2006, the maximum 

temperature of these hellbender streams 

is 77.0 to 80.6 °F (25 to 27 °C), although 

the average water temperature over 1 

year (for Eleven Point, Current, and 

North Fork White River) is 

approximately 59.0 to 60.8 °F (15 to 16 

°C; Barr 2008, pers. comm.) . 

Persistence of the chytrid fungus may 

be further enhanced by saprophytic 

development (obtaining nourishment 

from dead or decaying material in water; 

Daszak et al. 1999, p. 740). Johnson and 

Speare (2003, pp. 923-924) found that B. 

dendrobatidis can survive 

saprophytically outside the amphibian 

host for up to 7 weeks in lake water and 

3 to 4 weeks in tap water. Further, Carey 

et al. (2003, p. 130) found that 

amphibians can be infected when 

placed either in water containing 

zoospores that were placed specifically 

in the water, or in water from which 

infected animals have been recently 

removed. The possibility that B. 

dendrobatidis can develop for even a 

short period of time outside the 

amphibian host may greatly increase its 

impact and accelerate host population 

declines (Carey et al. 2003, p. 130). 

Also, the possibility of long-term 

survival of B. dendrobatidis as a 

saprophyte may explain the lack of 

recolonization of streams from which 

amphibians, such as the Ozark 

hellbender, have been extirpated 

(Daszak et al. 1999, p. 740). Moreover, 

hellbenders that are not already infected 

with the pathogen are continually at risk 

because temperatures are ideal for the 

persistence of the chytrid fungus in the 

water (without a host) for a long period. 

Habitat specializations and a variety 

of underlying predisposing 

environmental factors may make an 

animal more vulnerable to exposure to 

the pathogen, especially for species 

such as the Ozark hellbender that carry 

out their life cycle in aquatic rather than 

terrestrial habitats (Carey et al. 2003, p. 

131). Since the Ozark hellbender lives 

in an aquatic system throughout its 

entire life, there is no possibility for 

relief from this pathogen. Climate 

change is one of the environmental 

factors that has been indicated as a key 

promoter in the spread of the B. 

dendrobatidis pathogen (Pounds et al. 

2006, pp. 161-167). Rachowicz et al. 

(2006, pp. 1676-1682) found that 

chytridiomycosis was implicated in the 

local extirpations of two species of frog, 

and they conclude with high confidence 

that large-scale warming was the key 

factor in the disappearances of these 

two species. Although environmental 

factors (for example, increased UV-B, 

chemical pollution, climate change) 

may predispose amphibian populations 

to pathogens, evidence suggests that 

cofactors are not required for 

chytridiomycosis to cause mass 

amphibian deaths (Daszak et al. 1999, p. 

741). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
54570 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Overall, chytridiomycosis has been 

implicated in local population 

extirpations, sustained population 

declines, and possibly species 

extinctions for many amphibian species 

(Berger et al. 1998, pp. 9031-9036; 

Bosch et al. 2001, pp. 331-337). Chytrid 

fungi are the best supported pathogen 

related to amphibian declines, with over 

93 species worldwide affected as of 

2005 (Collins and Storfer 2003, pp. 89- 

98; Daszak et al. 2003, pp. 141-150; 

Speare and Berger 2005, p. 1). For 

example, in surveys conducted by Lips 

et al. (2006, pp. 3165-3166) in Costa 

Rica and Panama, over only a few 

months of surveying, frog and 

salamander species richness and 

amphibian density declined by more 

than 60 percent and 90 percent, 

respectively. 

Disease in captive hellbenders — The 

St. Louis Zoo maintains a captive 

population of Ozark and eastern 

hellbenders. In March 2006, there was a 

power outage in the Zoo’s herpetarium, 

including the area where the 

hellbenders are held. Soon after the 

power outage (which may have stressed 

the hellbenders and reduced their 

immunity), several hellbenders were 

observed ‘‘with substrate (rocks) sticking 

to the skin and many were floating’’ 

(Duncan 2007, pers. comm.). More than 

75 percent of the captive population 

whose death occurred from March 2006 

through April 2007 (59 individuals) 

likely resulted directly from B. 

dendrobatidis. As Randall Junge, Doctor 

of Veterinary Medicine, Director of 

Animal Health and Nutrition at the St. 

Louis Zoo (2007, pers. comm.) stated, ‘‘* 

* * in our captive [hellbender] 

population, it [chytridiomycosis] is the 

leading cause of mortality. In my 

opinion, if this disease becomes 

established throughout the hellbender 

range, it will have a significant [further] 

impact on the population.’’ Deaths 

relating to chytridiomycosis continue as 

the zoo staff searches for an effective 

way to treat infected animals (Utrup 

2007, pers. comm.). 

Disease in wild hellbenders — As a 

result of the incident of B. dendrobatidis 

in the St. Louis Zoo hellbender 

population, in 2006 the Missouri 

Department of Conservation began 

testing wild hellbenders in Missouri for 

infection by the pathogen. All Ozark 

hellbender streams surveyed had 

individual hellbenders that tested 

positive for the pathogen (Briggler 

2008b, pers. comm.). Data from 2006 

and 2007 show that, for the presence of 

B. dendrobatidis within the Current 

River, 20 percent of the population is 

positive (heavily positive in a few 

locations); within the Eleven Point River 

(Missouri and Arkansas), 16 percent is 

positive (positives spread throughout 

river); and within the North Fork of the 

White River, 15 percent is positive 

(positives spread throughout river) 

(Briggler 2008b, pers. comm.). These 

results indicate the minimum number of 

infected individuals since polymerase 

chain reaction (PCR) tests for B. 

dendrobatidis may produce false 

negative results if the infection is 

localized in different tissues than were 

analyzed (Beard and O’Neill 2005, p. 

594). The only Ozark hellbender river 

not surveyed for the pathogen was the 

Spring River, where the subspecies is 

believed to be extirpated (Irwin 2008, 

pers. comm.). During future surveys, all 

animals encountered (new and recaptures) will be tested for the presence 

of B. dendrobatidis. Researchers view 

the presence of B. dendrobatidis as one 

of the most, if not the most, challenging 

factors affecting the survival of this 

subspecies (Briggler et al. 2007, p. 83). 

Since there is clear evidence that 

chytridiomycosis, a fatal disease in 

captive Ozark hellbenders, also has been 

documented in the wild Ozark 

hellbender population, it is crucial that 

we not only research techniques to 

combat this disease, but also address all 

other threats that may be linked to 

susceptibility (degraded environmental 

conditions). The immediacy of this 

threat has been significantly heightened 

since this pathogen has been found to 

occur in all remaining populations of 

the Ozark hellbender. Researchers are in 

agreement that this subspecies will have 

little chance of survival if factors 

significantly affecting the hellbender are 

not ameliorated to some degree, 

especially in light of the additional 

severe threat of chytridiomycosis (Utrup 

2008, pers. comm.). 

Abnormalities 

Wheeler et al. (2003, pp. 250-251) 

investigated morphological aberrations 

in the hellbender over a 10–year period. 

They obtained deformity data from 

salamanders that were examined during 

population and distributional surveys in 

the Eleven Point River, North Fork of 

the White River, and Spring River 

dating back to 1990. They found a 

variety of abnormal limb structures, 

including missing toes, feet, and limbs. 

Additional abnormalities encountered 

include epidermal lesions, blindness, 

missing eyes, and bifurcated limbs. 

Three hellbenders were documented 

with tumors on their bodies in the 

Spring River in Arkansas. Currently, we 

are unable to evaluate the importance of 

these abnormalities in light of the recent 

precipitous decline in hellbenders 

observed in these rivers. Briggler (2007, 

pers. comm.) is evaluating and 

compiling additional information on 

these abnormalities and lesions, 

including the frequency of occurrence. 

Several hellbenders with these 

abnormalities were x-rayed and are 

being analyzed by Jeff Briggler, Missouri 

Department of Conservation. One 

hellbender with extreme abnormalities 

(all limbs missing) was sacrificed and 

sent to U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) 

Wildlife Disease Lab in Madison, 

Wisconsin, for necropsy, where the 

conclusive cause for the individual’s 

missing limbs and digits could not be 

determined. 

In 2004, 72 percent of Ozark 

hellbenders captured had abnormalities 

present. For reference, 49 percent of 

eastern hellbenders captured in 

Missouri had abnormalities (Briggler 

2007, pers. comm.). In 2006, 90 percent 

of Ozark hellbenders surveyed from the 

Eleven Point River (Missouri), 73 

percent from the Current River, and 67 

percent from the North Fork of the 

White River had abnormalities (Briggler 

2007, pers. comm.). In general, 

abnormalities in Ozark hellbenders are 

becoming increasingly common and 

severe, often to a level that the animals 

are near death (for example, missing 

digits on all or most limbs, missing all 

or most limbs; Briggler 2007, pers. 

comm.). Most, if not all, hellbenders 

collected in the past decade from the 

Spring River have had some type of 

major malformity or lesions (Davidson 

2008, pers. comm.). In fact, a hellbender 

found in the Spring River in 2004 was 

missing all four feet and was covered in 

lesions and a fungal growth externally 

and inside its mouth; this animal died 

within 15 minutes of capture (Davidson 

2008, pers. comm.). Although these 

abnormalities have not been linked 

conclusively with the presence of B. 

dendrobatidis, considering the types of 

abnormalities documented (for example, 

lesions, digit and appendage loss, 

epidermal sloughing), there may be a 

connection (Briggler 2007, pers. comm.). 

Predation 

Trout stocking has increased in recent 

years both in Missouri and Arkansas. In 

Missouri, both nonnative brown trout 

(Salmo trutta) and nonnative rainbow 

trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) have been 

sporadically introduced into Ozark area 

waters for recreational fishing purposes 

since the 1800s. The 2003 MDC Trout 

Management Plan calls for increased 

levels of stocking as well as increasing 

the length of cold water streams that 

will be stocked with brown and rainbow 

trout (Missouri Department of 

Conservation 2003, pp. 31-32). 

Nonnative trout are stocked in all rivers 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54571 

that historically and currently contain 

hellbenders (rainbow trout: Niangua, 

Gasconade, Big Piney, Current, North 

Fork White, Eleven Point, and Spring 

rivers; brown trout: Niangua, 

Gasconade, North Fork White, and 

Current Rivers) in Missouri (Missouri 

Department of Conservation 2003, pp. 

24-26). In Arkansas, the Arkansas Game 

and Fish Commission is currently 

working with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers to improve cold water 

releases from mainstem dams along the 

White River, to improve conditions for 

trout below the reservoirs (U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers 2008, pp. 1-40). 

Introduced fishes have had dramatic 

negative effects on populations of 

amphibians throughout North America 

(Bradford 1989, pp. 776-778; Funk and 

Dunlap 1999, pp. 1760-1766; Gillespie 

2001, pp. 192-196; Pilliod and Peterson 

2001, pp. 326-331; Vredenburg 2004, 

pp. 7648-7649). Rainbow trout and 

brown trout are considered opportunists 

in diet, varying their diet with what is 

available, including larval amphibians 

(Smith 1985, p. 231; Pflieger 1997, pp. 

224-225). Brown trout grow bigger and 

tolerate a wider range of habitats than 

rainbow trout and, therefore, may be a 

more serious threat to hellbenders, 

particularly at the larval stage. Dunham 

et al. (2004, pp. 19-24) assessed the 

impacts of nonnative trout in headwater 

ecosystems in western North America. 

The authors documented at least eight 

amphibian species that exhibited 

negative associations with nonnative 

trout in mountain lakes, specifically 

regarding the occurrence or abundance 

of larval life stages of native 

amphibians. Also, salamander species, 

such as the long-toed salamander 

(Ambystoma macrodactylum), have 

been extirpated from waterbodies in 

high-elevation lakes in western North 

America due to stocked nonnative trout 

(Pilliod and Peterson 2001, p. 330). 

Preliminary data suggest that larval 

hellbenders from declining populations 

in Missouri do not recognize brown 

trout as dangerous predators. In 

contrast, larvae from more stable 

southeastern (U.S.) populations that cooccur with native trout show ‘‘fright’’ 

responses to brown trout (Mathis 2008a, 

pers. comm.). A recent study conducted 

by Gall (2008, pp. 1-86) confirmed 

results found with this preliminary data 

on Missouri hellbender populations. 

Gall (2008, p. 3) examined hellbender 

(Ozark and eastern) predator–prey 

interactions by (1) studying the foraging 

behavior of predatory fish species 

(native and nonnative (trout)) in 

response to the presence of hellbender 

secretion (a potentially noxious 

chemical cue produced by stressed 

hellbenders), (2) comparing the number 

of secretion-soaked food pellets 

consumed by rainbow and brown trout, 

and (3) comparing the response of larval 

hellbenders to chemical stimuli from 

native and nonnative predatory fishes. 

Gall (2008, p. 23, pp. 30-31) found that 

brown trout were attracted to the 

secretion emitted by hellbenders, and 

hellbender secretions were more 

palatable to brown trout than to rainbow 

trout. Also, although hellbenders 

exhibited only weak fright responses 

when exposed to trout stimuli, they 

responded with strong fright responses 

to native predatory fish. 

Gall (2008, p. 63) suggests that the 

limited evolutionary history between 

salmonids (brown and rainbow trout) 

and hellbenders in Missouri is likely 

responsible for the weak fright behavior 

exhibited by hellbenders in response to 

trout stimuli. Although brown and 

rainbow trout are a threat to 

hellbenders, results from this study 

indicate that rainbow trout are less of an 

immediate concern than brown trout 

(Gall, pp. 63-64). This may be due to the 

difference in diet of the two species; 

rainbow trout maintain a predominately 

invertebrate diet throughout their lives 

and brown trout switch from 

predominately invertebrate prey to 

predominately vertebrate prey 

(including salamanders) at about 8.7 in 

(22 cm) in length (Gall 2008, p. 60). 

Overall, this study found evidence that 

predation by introduced trout cannot be 

ruled out as a factor affecting the Ozark 

hellbender and possibly contributes to 

the decline of both Ozark and eastern 

hellbender populations in Missouri 

(Gall 2008, p. 63). 

In addition to brown trout, walleye 

(Stizostedion vitreum), although a native 

species, have been stimulated to 

approach prey more often and faster in 

the presence of hellbender secretions 

(Gall 2008, pp. 23-24). This may be a 

concern if walleye are further stocked in 

hellbender streams, because walleye 

share similar activity periods with 

hellbenders (Mathis 2008b, pers. 

comm.). 

Summary of Disease or Predation 

The discovery of the presence of 

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis 

(chytridiomycosis) in 2006 within all 

remaining populations of the Ozark 

hellbender has made increased 

protection even more important to the 

persistence of this subspecies (Utrup 

2007, pers. comm.). This pathogen 

occurs throughout the entire range of 

the Ozark hellbender and is determined 

to be a significant threat to the 

subspecies. The threat from 

chytridiomycosis is significant and 

immediate because: (1) It is proven to be 

a fatal pathogen to Ozark hellbenders in 

captivity, and (2) in the wild, all streams 

with extant Ozark hellbender 

populations have individuals that tested 

positive for the pathogen (Briggler 

2008b, pers. comm.). In addition, 

although it is unclear if there is a 

connection to chytridiomycosis, 

abnormalities found on Ozark 

hellbenders are increasingly severe, 

often to a level that the animal is 

approaching death (Briggler 2008a, pers. 

comm.). Researchers view 

chytridiomycosis as one of the most 

serious threats to the survival of this 

subspecies (Briggler et al. 2007, p. 83). 

Nonnative trout are stocked in all 

rivers that historically and currently 

contain hellbenders in Missouri. 

Predation of larval hellbenders by 

nonnative trout possibly contributes to 

the decline of Ozark hellbender 

populations in Missouri and may be a 

growing concern if predatory fish 

continue to be stocked (or are stocked in 

larger numbers) in hellbender streams. 

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms. 

In Arkansas, hellbenders may be 

collected with a scientific collecting 

permit from the AGFC; however, no 

permits are anticipated to be issued now 

or in the future because the State 

acknowledges the severely imperiled 

status of the subspecies (Irwin 2008, 

pers. comm.). Although Arkansas does 

not have a State endangered and 

threatened species list, the State 

considers the Ozark hellbender a 

nongame species and prohibits 

collection without a permit. The Ozark 

hellbender is a State-endangered species 

in Missouri, which prohibits 

importation, exportation, transportation, 

sale, purchase, taking, and possession of 

the species without a permit. MDC 

placed a moratorium on hellbender 

collecting from 1991 to 1996 and has 

since allowed only limited numbers of 

collecting permits (Horner 2008, pers. 

comm.). Despite receiving maximum 

protection by both States, continued 

unauthorized collecting for the pet trade 

has been documented and remains a 

threat throughout the range. 

Clean Water Act 

Although the Clean Water Act of 1972 

(CWA (Pub. L. 92-500)) resulted in an 

overall gain in water quality in streams, 

degraded water quality still is a 

significant factor affecting such highly 

sensitive aquatic organisms as the Ozark 

hellbender. Non-point pollution sources 

(for example, animal and human waste, 

agricultural practices, increased road 

construction) may be causing much of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
54572 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the degraded water quality throughout 

the Ozark hellbender’s range. This is 

more apparent in stretches of rivers that 

are not within federally or State 

protected lands (Irwin 2008, pers. 

comm.). 

The court’s decision in American 

Mining Congress v. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (D.D.C. 1997) resulted in the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

deregulating gravel removal activities 

under section 404 of the CWA. The 

court found that ‘‘de-minimus’’ or 

incidental fallback of sand and gravel 

into the stream from which it was being 

excavated did not constitute the 

placement of fill by the mining 

operation. Hence, the court ruled that 

the Army Corps of Engineers had 

exceeded their authority in requiring a 

permit for this activity. Although these 

activities no longer require a Clean 

Water Act 404 permit, commercial 

operations in Missouri must apply for a 

State permit through the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources Land 

Reclamation Program. Modifications of 

stream channels associated with gravel 

mining, as well as the removal of 

pebbles and cobble that are important 

microhabitat for larvae and subadults, 

contribute to the decline of Ozark 

hellbenders in these systems. 

Lacey Act 

State regulations for gigging and for 

trout stocking do not protect the Ozark 

hellbender. The gigging season for 

suckers (fish mainly in the 

Catostomidae family) spans the 

reproductive season of the Ozark 

hellbender in the North Fork White 

River and overlaps that of the 

hellbender in other river basins as well. 

The sucker gigging season opens 

annually on September 15, during the 

peak breeding period when hellbenders 

are most active and, therefore, most 

exposed. The 2003 MDC Trout 

Management Plan calls for increased 

levels of stocking as well as increasing 

the length of cold water streams that 

will be stocked with brown and rainbow 

trout (Missouri Department of 

Conservation 2003, pp. 31-32). In 

Arkansas, the Arkansas Game and Fish 

Commission is currently working with 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to 

improve cold water releases from 

mainstem dams along the White River to 

improve conditions for trout below the 

reservoirs (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers 2008, pp. 1-40). 

Under section 3372(a)(1) of the Lacey 

Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 

3371-3378), it is unlawful to import, 

export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, 

or purchase any wildlife taken, 

possessed, transported, or sold in 

violation of any law, treaty, or 

regulation of the United States. This 

prohibition of the Lacey Act would 

apply in instances where a person 

engages in a prohibited act with an 

Ozark hellbender unlawfully collected 

from Federal lands, such as those 

Federal lands within the range of the 

Ozark hellbender that are owned and 

managed by the U.S. Forest Service or 

the National Park Service. It is unlawful 

under section 3372(a)(2)(A) of the Lacey 

Act Amendments of 1981 to import, 

export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, 

or purchase in interstate or foreign 

commerce any wildlife taken, 

possessed, transported, or sold in 

violation of any law or regulation of any 

State. 

Because it is a violation of Missouri 

and Arkansas laws and regulations to 

sell, purchase, or engage in any actions 

relating to the commercial trade of 

Ozark hellbenders (for example, import, 

export, ship, or transport), any interstate 

or foreign commerce of the Ozark 

hellbender would result in a violation of 

the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981. 

However, if an Ozark hellbender is not 

declared as the subspecies but rather as 

hellbender or eastern hellbender, then it 

would be difficult for the wildlife 

inspector to identify it as the prohibited 

subspecies. Although the prohibitions 

and penalties of the Lacey Act 

Amendments of 1981 provide some 

protection for the Ozark hellbender, this 

law, by itself, does not adequately 

prevent or reduce the illegal commercial 

trade of hellbenders. 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES) 

The unauthorized collection and trade 

of Ozark hellbenders within the United 

States and internationally is of growing 

concern, particularly as rarity increases 

and, consequently, commercial value 

increases. The Ozark hellbender is not 

listed on the appendices of CITES. 

CITES is an international agreement 

between governments with the purpose 

of ensuring that international trade in 

wild animals and plants does not 

threaten their survival. CITES listing of 

the Ozark hellbender would aid in 

curbing unauthorized international 

trade of hellbenders. 

Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, 

the Service is proposing to include the 

hellbender (both the eastern and Ozark 

subspecies) in Appendix III of CITES. 

CITES can list species in one of three 

appendices. Appendix I includes 

species threatened with extinction that 

are or may be affected by international 

trade. Appendix II includes species that, 

although not necessarily threatened 

with extinction now, may become so 

unless the trade is strictly controlled. 

Appendix II also includes species that 

CITES must regulate so that trade in 

other listed species may be brought 

under effective control (for example, 

because of similarity of appearance 

between listed species and other 

species). Appendix III includes native 

species identified by any Party country 

that needs to be regulated to prevent or 

restrict exploitation; under Appendix 

III, that Party country requests the help 

of other Parties to monitor and control 

the trade of that species. Based on the 

criteria described in 50 CFR 23.90, the 

eastern and the Ozark hellbenders 

qualify for listing in CITES Appendix 

III. Listing all hellbenders in Appendix 

III is necessary to allow us to adequately 

monitor international trade in the taxa; 

to determine whether exports are 

occurring legally, with respect to State 

law; and to determine whether further 

measures under CITES or other laws are 

required to conserve this species and its 

subspecies. Appendix–III listings will 

lend additional support to State wildlife 

agencies in their efforts to regulate and 

manage hellbenders, improve data 

gathering to increase our knowledge of 

trade in hellbenders, and strengthen 

State and Federal wildlife enforcement 

activities to prevent poaching and 

illegal trade. 

Summary of the Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Some existing regulatory mechanisms 

provide protection for the Ozark 

hellbender and its habitat. Existing 

Federal and State water quality laws can 

be applied to protect water quality in 

streams occupied by the hellbender. The 

requirement for a U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers dredge and fill permit under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act has 

resulted in an overall gain in water 

quality. However, ongoing gravel 

mining in hellbender streams is no 

longer regulated by the Corps of 

Engineers under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act. Although the Lacey 

Act provides some protection, the 

current regulatory mechanisms are not 

adequate to protect Ozark hellbenders 

from unauthorized collection for 

commercial sale in the pet trade. The 

Service has also proposed, but not 

finalized, listing the eastern and Ozark 

hellbender in Appendix III of CITES. 

Nonetheless, even if the CITES listing is 

finalized, it would only apply to the 

export of hellbenders from the United 

States. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54573 

E. Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

Small, Isolated Populations – The 

small size and isolation of remaining 

populations of the Ozark hellbender 

make it vulnerable to extinction due to 

genetic drift, inbreeding depression, and 

random or chance changes to the 

environment (Smith 1990, pp. 311-321) 

that can significantly impact hellbender 

habitat. Inbreeding depression can 

result in death, decreased fertility, 

smaller body size, loss of vigor, reduced 

fitness, and various chromosome 

abnormalities (Smith 1990, pp. 311- 

321). Despite any evolutionary 

adaptations for rarity, habitat loss and 

degradation increase a species’ 

vulnerability to extinction (Noss and 

Cooperrider 1994, pp. 58-62). Numerous 

authors (such as Noss and Cooperrider 

1994, pp. 58-62; Thomas 1994, p. 373) 

have indicated that the probability of 

extinction increases with decreasing 

habitat availability. Although changes in 

the environment may cause populations 

to fluctuate naturally, small and lowdensity populations are more likely to 

fluctuate below a minimum viable 

population (the minimum or threshold 

number of individuals needed in a 

population to persist in a viable state for 

a given interval; Gilpin and Soule 1986, 

pp. 25-33; Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Shaffer 

and Samson 1985, pp. 148-150). 

The loss of genetic diversity in Ozark 

hellbenders is illustrated by Routman’s 

(1993, p. 410-415) study, in which 

hellbender populations from different 

rivers showed very little withinpopulation variability, and relatively 

high between-population variability. 

Due to this population fragmentation, 

local extirpations cannot be naturally 

repopulated. Current factors negatively 

affecting the habitat of the Ozark 

hellbender may exacerbate potential 

problems associated with its low 

population numbers and the isolation of 

those small populations from each 

other, which increases the chances of 

this species going extinct. 

Recruitment and Reproductive 

Capability - The hellbender’s late sexual 

maturity leads to a higher risk of death 

prior to reproduction and lengthened 

generation times (Congdon et al. 1993, 

pp. 831-832). Hellbender specimens less 

than 5 years of age are uncommon 

(Taber et al. 1975, pp. 636-637; 

Pfingsten 1990, p. 49), and recent 

research has indicated that the age 

structure has shifted, resulting in the 

prevalence of older individuals 

(Pfingsten 1990, p. 49; Wheeler et al. 

2003, p. 153 and p. 155). 

Because hellbenders are long-lived, a 

population may not be highly 

dependent on recruitment to remain 

extant (Mayasich et al. 2003, p. 22). 

Empirical and theoretical evidence 

suggests, however, that the amount of 

generation overlap within a population 

(high survivorship among juveniles) is 

necessary to maintain stable 

populations (Congdon et al. 1993, pp. 

830-832; Ellner and Hairston 1994, pp. 

413-415). Lack of sufficient recruitment 

may be limiting the population stability 

and the ability of hellbender 

populations to maintain genetic 

diversity as their habitat is altered 

(Wheeler et al. 2003, p. 155). Pfingsten 

(1990, p. 49) also cautions, however, 

that lack of larvae detection could mean 

that the larvae occupy a microhabitat 

that has yet to be surveyed. 

Unger (2003, pp. 30-36) compared 

several measures of sperm production 

between male Ozark and eastern 

hellbenders in Missouri and eastern 

hellbender males from more stable 

populations in North Carolina and 

Georgia. Sperm counts were 

significantly lower for males from both 

tested Missouri populations than for 

males from southeastern populations. 

Populations were not significantly 

different with respect to sperm viability 

and motility. The sperm of Missouri 

males had proportionally smaller heads 

for their tail lengths; this difference was 

relatively small, but was statistically 

significant. There is a clear need to 

direct resources toward determining the 

cause of the apparent reduction in 

sperm counts for males from declining 

populations in Missouri. Because 

motility and viability appeared 

unaffected, artificial insemination might 

be a viable conservation technique, 

although limited efforts to date have 

been successful (Unger 2003, pp. 65-66). 

The extremely low number or lack of 

juveniles in most Ozark hellbender 

populations is a significant sign that 

little reproduction has occurred in these 

populations for several years. Late age of 

reproductive maturity, when paired 

with a long lifespan, can disguise 

population declines resulting from 

activities that occurred years earlier 

until the adults begin dying and 

numbers begin declining from lack of 

recruitment. The present distribution 

and status of Ozark hellbender 

populations in the White River system 

in Arkansas and Missouri are exhibiting 

such a decline (Wheeler et al. 2003, p. 

155). Genetic studies have repeatedly 

demonstrated very low genetic diversity 

in hellbender populations, which may 

be a factor in the decline of the species 

(Routman 1993, Kucuktas et al. 2001). 

The current combination of population 

fragmentation, disease, and habitat 

degradation will prohibit this species 

from recovering without the 

intervention of conservation measures 

designed to facilitate hellbender 

recovery. 

Summary of Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

The small size and isolation of Ozark 

hellbender populations and loss of 

genetic diversity could exacerbate other 

factors negatively affecting the 

subspecies and accelerate possible 

extinction. These factors are particularly 

detrimental when combined with the 

factors affecting the hellbender, such as 

of habitat loss, water quality 

degradation, chytridiomycosis, and 

unauthorized collection and trade. 

Proposed Determination 

Although no clear estimates exist for 

how many Ozark hellbenders 

historically inhabited Missouri and 

Arkansas, surveys over recent years 

have documented a severe decline in all 

populations. To illustrate this decline, 

consider the current total range-wide 

population estimate of 590 (Briggler et 

al. 2007, p. 83) compared to the results 

of one 1973 study indicating 

approximately 1,150 hellbenders within 

less than 1.2 mi (2 km) of one occupied 

river (Nickerson and Mays 1973b, p. 

1165). 

In addition to the severe population 

declines, the known factors negatively 

affecting and subsequent threats to the 

Ozark hellbender have continued to 

increase since we elevated the species to 

candidate status in 2001 (66 FR 54808; 

October 30, 2001). In particular, the 

discovery of the presence of 

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis 

(chytridiomycosis) in 2006 within all 

remaining populations of the Ozark 

hellbender has made increased 

protection even more important to 

persistence of this subspecies (Utrup 

2007, pers. comm.). Researchers view 

chytridiomycosis as one of the most 

serious threats to the survival of this 

subspecies, which has a total estimated 

population size of 590 individuals 

(Briggler et al. 2007, p. 83). 

The decrease in Ozark hellbender 

population size and the shift in age 

structure are likely caused in part by a 

variety of historical and ongoing 

activities. It is believed that one of the 

primary causes of these trends is habitat 

destruction and modification from 

siltation and water quality degradation. 

The sources include industrialization, 

agricultural runoff, mine waste, and 

activities related to timber harvesting. 

Increased siltation affects hellbenders in 

a variety of ways, such as suffocating 

eggs, eliminating suitable habitat for all 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
54574 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

life stages, reducing dissolved oxygen 

levels, increasing contaminants (that 

bind to sediments), and reducing prey 

populations. Increased nitrate levels and 

fecal coliform, along with a variety of 

other contaminants from agricultural 

runoff and increased urbanization, have 

been detected in hellbender streams, 

which not only negatively affects 

hellbenders directly but also the Ozark 

aquatic ecosystems in general. 

Impoundments alter habitat directly, 

isolate populations, and change water 

temperatures and flows below 

reservoirs. Remaining Ozark hellbender 

populations are small and isolated, in 

part due to increased impoundments 

over time, making hellbenders 

vulnerable to individual catastrophic 

events and reducing the likelihood of 

recolonization after localized 

extirpations. 

Recreational pressure (for example, 

boat traffic, horseback riding, and ORV 

use) in streams inhabited by Ozark 

hellbenders has increased substantially 

on an annual basis, directly disturbing 

the habitat. Fish and frog gigging 

popularity and pressure continue to 

increase, presenting a significant threat 

to hellbenders during the breeding 

season (Nickerson and Briggler 2007, 

pp. 209-211). Trout stocking continues 

to occur on hellbender streams both in 

Missouri and Arkansas. The lack of 

larval and sub-adult hellbenders present 

may be attributed to predation by 

nonnative stocked trout. The increase in 

number or size of recreational boats and 

tubes, commercial horse trail ride 

outfitters, and ORV use has increased 

disturbance and contamination (for 

example, fecal coliform). 

The unauthorized collection of 

hellbenders, especially for the pet trade, 

remains a major concern, particularly 

with market values continually 

increasing. Existing regulations targeting 

this significant threat, including State 

laws, have not been completely 

successful in preventing the 

unauthorized collection and trade of 

Ozark hellbenders. 

The combined impact of degraded 

environmental conditions, along with 

the increased susceptibility to 

chytridiomycosis due to these threats, 

has created a situation in which the 

Ozark hellbender is likely to become 

functionally extinct (populations no 

longer viable) within the next couple 

decades. Researchers and managers 

agree that, while a solution is being 

reached to directly address the presence 

of the chytrid fungus within Ozark 

hellbender populations, all other factors 

significantly affecting the hellbender 

must be ameliorated to prevent the 

imminent extinction of this subspecies. 

Projections from the August 2006 

PHVA model concluded that the Ozark 

hellbender metapopulations are 

expected to decline by more than 50 

percent in 12 to 16 years, viability of all 

individual populations will be low after 

20 to 25 years (total individuals equaled 

fewer than 100 and genetic diversity 

was less than 90 percent), and risk of 

metapopulation extinction is high 

within 40 to 50 years. These projections 

may be optimistic because they are 

based on best-case density estimates and 

assume that hellbender populations 

within each river system are continuous 

and did not account for the prevalence 

of chytrid fungus and its possible effects 

on hellbenders. Hellbenders do not 

travel great distances, however, and 

subpopulations within each river 

system are often separated by miles 

(kilometers) of unsuitable habitat 

resulting in fragmented populations. 

These models projected the Ozark 

hellbender subspecies to be functionally 

extinct within 20 years (Briggler et al. 

2007, pp. 88-90 and 97). 

We determine foreseeable future on a 

case-by-case basis, taking into 

consideration a variety of speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

genetics, breeding behavior, 

demography, threat-projection 

timeframes, and environmental 

variability. Based on the observed 

population decline in the subspecies 

and the threats as discussed, we find 

that the Ozark hellbender is in danger 

of extinction throughout all of its range. 

One information source (Briggler et al. 

2007, pp. 88-90 and p. 97) estimates that 

the subspecies may be functionally 

extinct by 2026 (less than 20 years) if we 

do not take actions to slow or reverse 

the downward trajectory. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding past, present, and 

future threats to the Ozark hellbender. 

The population numbers continue to 

decline as a result of the multiple 

threats impacting this subspecies, 

increasing extinction risk. Based on the 

immediacy and ongoing significant 

threats to the subspecies throughout its 

entire range, we find the subspecies to 

be in danger of extinction throughout all 

of its range. Therefore, on the basis of 

the best -scientific and commercial 

information available, we are proposing 

to list the Ozark hellbender as an 

endangered species. Because we find 

that this subspecies meets the definition 

of an endangered species (in danger of 

extinction) throughout all of its range, it 

is unnecessary to analyze its status in a 

significant portion of its range. 

Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(i) 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 

(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 that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against Federal agencies 

carrying out, funding, or authorizing the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) requires 

consultation on Federal actions that 

may affect critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership or establish a 

refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 

other conservation area. Such 

designation does not allow the 

government or public to access private 

lands. Such designation does not 

require implementation of restoration, 

recovery, or enhancement measures by 

non-Federal landowners. Where a 

landowner seeks or requests Federal 

agency funding or authorization for an 

action that may affect a listed species or 

critical habitat, the consultation 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act would apply, but even in the event 

of a destruction or adverse modification 

finding, Federal action agency’s and the 

applicant’s obligation is not to restore or 

recover the species, but to implement 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54575 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

For inclusion in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it was listed must 

contain the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species, and be included only if 

those features may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. Critical habitat designations 

identify, to the extent known using the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available, habitat areas that provide 

essential life cycle needs of the species 

(areas on which are found the physical 

and biological features (PBFs) laid out 

in the appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement for the conservation of the 

species). Under the Act and regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.12, we can designate 

critical habitat in areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed only when 

we determine that those areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species and that designation limited to 

those areas occupied at the time of 

listing would be inadequate to ensure 

the conservation of the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial 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 developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include 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, or other unpublished 

materials and expert opinion or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is often dynamic, and species 

may move from one area to another over 

time. Furthermore, 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 required for recovery of the 

species. 

Areas that are important to the 

conservation of the species, but are 

outside the critical habitat designation, 

will continue to be subject to 

conservation actions we implement 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. Areas 

that support populations are also subject 

to the regulatory protections afforded by 

the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as 

determined on the basis of the best 

available scientific information at the 

time of the agency action. Federally 

funded or permitted projects affecting 

listed species outside their designated 

critical habitat areas may still result in 

jeopardy findings in some cases. 

Similarly, critical habitat designations 

made on the basis of the best available 

information at the time of designation 

will not control the direction and 

substance of future recovery plans, 

habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or 

other species conservation planning 

efforts if new information available at 

the time these planning efforts calls for 

a different outcome. 

Prudency Determination 

Background 

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, we designate critical 

habitat at the time the species is 

determined to be endangered or 

threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR 

424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation 

of critical habitat is not prudent when 

one or both of the following 

circumstances exist: (1) The species is 

threatened by taking or other human 

activity, and identification of critical 

habitat can be expected to increase the 

degree of threat to the species, or (2) 

such designation of critical habitat 

would not be beneficial to the species. 

We have determined that both 

circumstances apply to the Ozark 

hellbender. This determination involves 

a weighing of the expected increase in 

threats associated with a critical habitat 

designation against the benefits gained 

by a critical habitat designation. An 

explanation of this ‘‘balancing’’ 

evaluation follows. 

Increased Threat to the Taxon by 

Designating Critical Habitat 

The unauthorized collection of Ozark 

hellbenders for the pet trade is a factor 

contributing to hellbender declines 

(Nickerson and Briggler 2007, p. 214) 

and remains a significant threat today, 

particularly with increasing 

international market values. For a 

detailed discussion on the threat of 

commercial collection, see factor B 

(Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes). 

The process of designating critical 

habitat would increase human threats to 

the Ozark hellbender by increasing the 

vulnerability of this species to 

unauthorized collection and trade 

through public disclosure of its 

locations. Designation of critical habitat 

requires the publication of maps and a 

very specific narrative description of 

critical habitat areas in the Federal 

Register. The degree of detail in those 

maps and boundary descriptions is far 

greater than the general location 

descriptions provided in this proposal 

to list the species as endangered. 

Furthermore, a critical habitat 

designation normally results in the 

news media publishing articles in local 

newspapers and special interest 

websites, usually with maps of the 

critical habitat. We believe that the 

publication of maps and descriptions 

outlining the locations of this critically 

imperiled taxon will further facilitate 

unauthorized collection and trade, as 

collectors will know the exact locations 

where Ozark hellbenders occur. Ozark 

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 

species site fidelity and ease of capture 

once located. 

Due to the threat of unauthorized 

collection and trade, the Missouri 

Department of Conservation and the 

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 

have implemented extraordinary 

measures to control and restrict 

information on the locations of Ozark 

hellbenders. These agencies have 

expressed to the Service serious 

concerns with publishing maps and 

boundary descriptions of Ozark 

hellbender areas associated with critical 

habitat designation (Briggler and Irwin 

2008, pers. comm.). The agencies 

believe that designating critical habitat 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
54576 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

could negate their efforts to restrict 

access to location information that 

could significantly affect future efforts 

to control the threat of unauthorized 

collection and trade of Ozark 

hellbenders. 

Benefits to the Species from Critical 

Habitat Designation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that actions they fund, 

authorize, or carry out are not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Decisions by the 5th and 9th

Circuit Court of Appeals have 

invalidated our definition of 

‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’ 

(50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot 

Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) 

and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 

442F (5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely 

on this regulatory definition when 

analyzing whether an action is likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Under the statutory provisions 

of the Act, we determine destruction or 

adverse modification on the basis of 

whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

(or retain those PBFs that relate to the 

ability of the area to periodically 

support the species) to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species. 

Critical habitat only provides 

protections where there is a Federal 

nexus, that is, those actions that come 

under the purview of section 7 of the 

Act. Critical habitat designation has no 

application to actions that do not have 

a Federal nexus. Section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act mandates that Federal agencies, in 

consultation with the Service, evaluate 

the effects of its proposed action on any 

designated critical habitat. Similar to 

the Act’s requirement that a Federal 

agency action not jeopardize the 

continued existence of listed species, 

Federal agencies have the responsibility 

not to implement actions that would 

destroy or adversely modify designated 

critical habitat. Critical habitat 

designation alone, however, does not 

require that a Federal action agency 

implement specific steps toward species 

recovery. 

Ozark hellbenders primarily occur on 

non-Federal lands. The species occurs 

exclusively on private lands in Arkansas 

and predominately on private lands in 

Missouri. In Missouri, Ozark 

hellbenders do occur on lands managed 

by the National Park Service (Ozark 

National Scenic Riverway) and U.S. 

Forest Service (Mark Twain National 

Forest). We anticipate that some actions 

on non-Federal lands will have a 

Federal nexus (for example, requirement 

for a permit to discharge dredge and fill 

material from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers) for an action that may 

adversely affect the hellbender. There is 

also the potential that some proposed 

actions by the National Park Service and 

U.S. Forest Service may adversely affect 

the hellbender. However, both of these 

Federal agencies are implementing 

measures to ensure the conservation and 

recovery of the hellbender on lands they 

manage, including active involvement 

in the Ozark Hellbender Working 

Group. 

In those circumstances where it has 

been determined that a Federal action 

(including actions involving nonFederal lands) may affect the 

hellbender, the action would be 

reviewed under section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act. We anticipate that the following 

Federal actions are some of the actions 

that could adversely impact the Ozark 

hellbender: Instream dredging, 

channelizing, impounding water, 

streambank clearing, moving large rocks 

within or from streams, discharging fill 

material into the stream, or discharging 

or dumping toxic chemicals or other 

pollutants into a hellbender stream 

system. Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, 

project impacts would be analyzed and 

the Service would determine if the 

Federal action would jeopardize the 

continued existence of the hellbender. 

The designation of critical habitat 

would ensure that a Federal action 

would not result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of the designated 

critical habitat. Consultation with 

respect to critical habitat will provide 

additional protection to a species only 

if the agency action would result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

the critical habitat but would not 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species. In the absence of critical 

habitat, areas that support the Ozark 

hellbender will continue to be subject to 

conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to 

the regulatory protections afforded by 

the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as 

appropriate. Federal actions affecting 

the hellbender even in the absence of 

designated critical habitat areas will still 

benefit from consultation pursuant to 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act and may still 

result in jeopardy findings. 

Another potential benefit to the Ozark 

hellbender from designating critical 

habitat is that such a designation serves 

to educate landowners, State and local 

governments, and the public regarding 

the potential conservation value of an 

area. Generally, providing this 

information helps focus and promote 

conservation efforts by other parties by 

clearly delineating areas of high 

conservation value for the affected 

species. Simply publicizing the 

proposed listing of the species also 

serves to notify and educate 

landowners, State and local 

governments, and the public regarding 

important conservation values. 

Furthermore, the Ozark Hellbender 

Working Group has developed a 

comprehensive outreach and education 

program that targets a diverse audience, 

including public and private 

landowners, organizations, and the 

media (Ozark Hellbender Working 

Group 2008, Outreach and Education 

Chapter). 

The Ozark Hellbender Working 

Group, formed in 2001, is composed of 

personnel from Federal and State 

agencies, academia, zoos, non-profit 

organizations, and private individuals. 

The Ozark hellbender outreach actions 

implemented to date include producing 

and distributing stickers, posters, and 

videos; publishing magazine articles; 

working with media outlets (newspaper 

and television) on hellbender stories; 

giving presentations to local County 

Commissioners and other community 

groups; providing a profile of the Ozark 

hellbender in the Missouri Department 

of Conservation’s Fishing Regulations 

Pamphlet; and providing annual 

technical assistance to volunteers like 

the Missouri Department of 

Conservation’s Stream Teams working 

in hellbender streams. In view of the 

extensive, ongoing efforts to outreach 

and promote Ozark hellbender 

conservation, we believe that the 

designation of critical habitat would 

provide limited additional outreach 

value. 

Increased Threat to the Species 

Outweighs the Benefits of Critical 

Habitat Designation 

Upon reviewing the available 

information, we have determined that 

the designation of critical habitat would 

increase the threat to Ozark hellbenders 

from unauthorized collection and trade. 

We believe that the risk of increasing 

this significant threat by publishing 

location information in a critical habitat 

designation outweighs the benefits of 

designating critical habitat. 

A limited number of U.S. species 

listed under the Act have commercial 

value in trade. The Ozark hellbender 

would be one of them. Due to the 

market demand and willingness of 

individuals to collect hellbenders 

without authorization, we believe that 

any action that publicly discloses the 

location of hellbenders (such as critical 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54577 

habitat) puts the species in further peril. 

The Ozark hellbender is critically 

imperiled, requiring a focused and 

comprehensive approach to reducing 

threats. Several measures are currently 

being implemented to address the threat 

of unauthorized collection and trade of 

hellbenders, and additional measures 

will be implemented if the species is 

listed under the Act. One of the basic 

measures to protect hellbenders from 

unauthorized collection and trade is 

restricting access to information 

pertaining to the location of Ozark 

hellbenders. Publishing maps and 

narrative descriptions of Ozark 

hellbender critical habitat would 

significantly affect our ability to reduce 

the threat of unauthorized collection 

and trade. 

Therefore, based on our determination 

that critical habitat designation would 

increase the degree of threats to the 

Ozark hellbender and, at best, provide 

nominal benefits for this taxon, we find 

that the increased threat to the Ozark 

hellbender from the designation of 

critical habitat significantly outweighs 

any benefit of designation. 

Summary of Prudency Determination 

We have determined that the 

designation of critical habitat would 

increase unauthorized collection and 

trade threats to the Ozark hellbender. 

The Ozark hellbender is valued in the 

pet trade, and that value is likely to 

increase as the species becomes rarer. 

Critical habitat designation may provide 

some benefits to the conservation of the 

Ozark hellbender, for example, by 

identifying areas important for 

conservation. However, we have 

determined that the benefits of 

designating critical habitat for the Ozark 

hellbender are minimal. We have 

concluded that, even if some benefit 

from designation may exist, the 

increased threat to the species from 

unauthorized collection and trade 

outweighs any benefit to the taxon. A 

determination to not designate critical 

habitat also supports the measures taken 

by the States to control and restrict 

information on the locations of Ozark 

hellbenders and to no longer make 

location and survey information readily 

available to the public. We have, 

therefore, determined that it is not 

prudent to designate critical habitat for 

the Ozark hellbender. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition of the species and its status 

by the public, landowners, and other 

agencies; recovery actions; requirements 

for Federal protection; and prohibitions 

against certain practices. Recognition 

through listing results in public 

awareness of the conservation status of 

the species and encourages conservation 

actions by Federal and State 

governments, private agencies and 

groups, and individuals. The Act 

provides for possible land acquisition 

and cooperation with the States and 

calls for recovery actions to be carried 

out. The protection required of Federal 

agencies and the prohibitions against 

taking and harm are discussed, in part, 

below. 

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to evaluate 

their actions with respect to any species 

that is listed as endangered or 

threatened and with respect to its 

critical habitat, if any is designated. 

Regulations implementing this 

interagency cooperation provision of the 

Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies 

to confer informally with us on any 

action that is likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a species 

proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. If a species is 

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) 

requires Federal agencies, including the 

Service, to ensure that activities they 

authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the species or to destroy or 

adversely modify its critical habitat if 

any has been designated. If a Federal 

action may affect a listed species or its 

critical habitat, the responsible Federal 

agency must enter into formal 

consultation with us. 

Federal agency actions that may 

require conference or consultation for 

the Ozark hellbender as described in the 

preceding paragraph include, but are 

not limited to: stream alterations, 

development of new waste water 

facilities that may impact water quality, 

stream bank clearing, timber harvesting, 

construction of recreational trails and 

facilities adjacent to streams, water 

withdrawal projects, pesticide 

registration and usage, agricultural 

assistance programs, mining, road and 

bridge construction, and Federal loan 

programs. Activities will trigger 

consultation under section 7 of the Act 

if they may affect the Ozark hellbender 

addressed in this rule. 

The listing of the Ozark hellbender 

would subsequently lead to 

development of a recovery plan for this 

species. A recovery plan establishes a 

framework for interested parties to 

coordinate activities and to cooperate 

with each other in conservation efforts. 

The plan will set recovery priorities, 

identify responsibilities, and estimate 

the costs of the tasks necessary to 

accomplish the priorities. It will also 

describe site-specific management 

actions necessary to conserve the Ozark 

hellbender. Additionally, under section 

6 of the Act, we would be able to grant 

funds to the States of Missouri and 

Arkansas for management actions 

promoting the conservation of the Ozark 

hellbender. 

The Act and implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to all endangered and threatened 

wildlife. As such, these prohibitions 

would be applicable to the Ozark 

hellbender. The prohibitions, under 50 

CFR 17.21 and 17.31, in part, make it 

illegal for any person subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States to take 

(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect; or to attempt any of these), 

import or export, deliver, receive, carry 

transport, or ship in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity, or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

listed species. It also is illegal to 

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or 

ship any such wildlife that has been 

taken illegally. Further, it is illegal for 

any person to attempt to commit, to 

solicit another person to commit, or to 

cause to be committed, any of these acts. 

Certain exceptions apply to our agents 

and State conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving threatened and endangered 

wildlife under certain circumstances. 

We codified the regulations governing 

permits for endangered and threatened 

species at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32. Such 

permits are available for scientific 

purposes, to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the species, and for 

incidental take in the course of 

otherwise lawful activities. 

It is our policy, published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify, to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act and associated 

regulations at 50 CFR 17.31. The intent 

of this policy is to increase public 

awareness of the effect of this proposed 

listing on proposed and ongoing 

activities within a species’ range. We 

believe that the following activities are 

unlikely to result in a violation of 

section 9 of the Act: 

(1) Activities authorized, funded, or 

carried out by Federal agencies, when 

such activities are conducted in 

accordance with an incidental take 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
54578 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

statement issued by us under section 7 

of the Act; 

(2) Any action carried out for 

scientific research or to enhance the 

propagation or survival of Ozark 

hellbenders that is conducted in 

accordance with the conditions of a 50 

CFR 17.22 permit; 

(3) Any incidental take of Ozark 

hellbenders resulting from an otherwise 

lawful activity conducted in accordance 

with the conditions of an incidental take 

permit issued under 50 CFR 17.22. NonFederal applicants may design a habitat 

conservation plan (HCP) for the species 

and apply for an incidental take permit. 

HCPs may be developed for listed 

species and are designed to minimize 

and mitigate impacts to the species to 

the maximum extent practicable. 

We believe the following activities 

would be likely to result in a violation 

of section 9; however, possible 

violations are not limited to these 

actions alone: 

(1) Unauthorized killing, collecting, 

handling, or harassing of individual 

Ozark hellbenders at any life stage; 

(2) Sale or offer for sale of any Ozark 

hellbender as well as delivering, 

receiving, carrying, transporting, or 

shipping any Ozark hellbender in 

interstate or foreign commerce and in 

the course of a commercial activity; 

(3) Unauthorized destruction or 

alteration of the species habitat (for 

example, instream dredging, 

channelizing, impounding of water, 

streambank clearing, removing large 

rocks from or flipping large rocks within 

streams, discharging fill material) that 

actually kills or injures individual 

Ozark hellbenders by significantly 

impairing their essential behavioral 

patterns, including breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering; 

(4) Violation of any discharge or water 

withdrawal permit within the species’ 

occupied range that results in the death 

or injury of individual Ozark 

hellbenders by significantly impairing 

their essential behavioral patterns, 

including breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering; and 

(5) Discharge or dumping of toxic 

chemicals or other pollutants into 

waters supporting the species that 

actually kills or injures individual 

Ozark hellbenders by significantly 

impairing their essential behavioral 

patterns, including breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering. 

We will review other activities not 

identified above on a case-by-case basis 

to determine whether they may be likely 

to result in a violation of section 9 of the 

Act. We do not consider these lists to be 

exhaustive and provide them as 

information to the public. 

You should direct questions regarding 

whether specific activities may 

constitute a future violation of section 9 

of the Act to the Field Supervisor of the 

Service’s Columbia Field office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

You may request copies of the 

regulations regarding listed wildlife 

from and address questions about 

prohibitions and permits to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological 

Services Division, Henry Whipple 

Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive, Fort 

Snelling, MN 55111; Phone 612-713- 

5350; Fax 612-713–5292). 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy, 

‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative 

Policy for Peer Review in Endangered 

Species Act Activities,’’ that was 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we will seek the expert opinion 

of at least three appropriate 

independent specialists regarding this 

proposed rule. The purpose of such 

review is to ensure listing decisions are 

based on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analysis. We will send 

copies of this proposed rule to the peer 

reviewers immediately following 

publication in the Federal Register. 

We will consider all comments and 

information we receive during this 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during our preparation of a final 

determination. Accordingly, our final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Public Hearings 

The Act provides for one or more 

public hearings on this proposal, if we 

receive any requests for hearings. We 

must receive your request for a public 

hearing within 45 days after the date of 

this Federal Register publication. Send 

your request to the address shown in the 

ADDRESSES section. We will schedule 

public hearings on this proposal, if any 

are requested, and announce the dates, 

times, and places of those hearings, as 

well as how to obtain reasonable 

accommodations, in the Federal 

Register and local newspapers at least 

15 days before the first hearing. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

regulations adopted under section 4(a) 

of the Act. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Clarity of Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) 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 the ADDRESSES

section. 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. 

References Cited 

A list of the references used to 

develop this proposed rule is available 

upon request (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the 

Columbia (Missouri) Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as follows: 

PART 17-[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99- 

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an 

entry for ‘‘Hellbender, Ozark’’ in 

alphabetical order under AMPHIBIANS 

to the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife as follows: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54579 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic 

range 

Vertebrate 

population 

where 

endangered 

or 

threatened 

Status When listed Critical habitat Special rules 

Common name Scientific name 

*******

Amphibians 

*******

Hellbender, Ozark Cryptobranchus 

alleganiensis 

bishopi 

AR, MO Entire E NA NA 

*******

Dated: August 19, 2010. 

Wendi Weber, 

Acting Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22249 Filed 9–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 23 

[Docket No. FWS–R9–IA–2009–0033] 

[96300–1671–0000–R4] 

RIN 1018–AW93 

Inclusion of the Hellbender, Including 

the Eastern Hellbender and the Ozark 

Hellbender, in Appendix III of the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 

and Flora (CITES) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

include the hellbender (Cryptobranchus 

alleganiensis), a large aquatic 

salamander, including its two 

subspecies, the eastern hellbender 

(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis 

alleganiensis) and the Ozark hellbender 

(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishopi), 

in Appendix III of the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES 

or Convention), including live and dead 

whole specimens, and all readily 

recognizable parts, products, and 

derivatives. Listing hellbenders in 

Appendix III of CITES is necessary to 

allow us to adequately monitor 

international trade in the taxon; to 

determine whether exports are 

occurring legally, with respect to State 

law; and to determine whether further 

measures under CITES or other laws are 

required to conserve this species and its 

subspecies. 

DATES: To ensure that we are able to 

consider your comment on this 

proposed rulemaking action, you must 

send it by November 8, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on Docket No. FWS–R9–IA–2009–0033. 

• U.S. mail or hand–delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R9– 

IA–2009–0033; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clifton A. Horton, Division of 

Management Authority, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203; 

telephone 703–358–1908; facsimile 

703–358–2298. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

suggestions on this proposed rule. We 

particularly seek comments concerning: 

(1) Biological, trade, or other relevant 

data concerning any threats (or lack 

thereof) to this species (including 

subspecies), and regulations that may be 

addressing those threats. 

(2) Additional information concerning 

the range, distribution, and population 

size of this species (including 

subspecies). 

(3) Any information on the biological 

or ecological requirements of this 

species (including subspecies). 

(4) Any information regarding legal or 

illegal collection of or trade in this 

species (including subspecies). 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. We will not 

consider comments sent by e-mail or fax 

or to an address not listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

If you submit a comment via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If you submit a 

hardcopy comment 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 comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS