[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 2, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22649-22662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-06795]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0181; FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 245]
RIN 1018-BH61
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of Roanoke
Logperch From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 22650]]
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove the Roanoke logperch (Percina rex) from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife due to recovery. The species is
currently listed as endangered. Our review of the best available
scientific and commercial data indicates that the threats to the
Roanoke logperch have been eliminated or reduced to the point that the
species no longer meets the definition of an endangered or a threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
Populations of Roanoke logperch are shown to be stable or expanding and
reproducing (as evidenced by sustained recruitment) since the time of
listing in each of the following river systems: Upper Roanoke River,
Pigg River, Smith River, and Nottoway River. The number of streams
where the Roanoke logperch has been observed has increased from 14
streams from the time of listing in 1989 to 31 streams in 2019.
Accordingly, we propose to delist the Roanoke logperch throughout all
of its range, which is in Virginia and North Carolina. If we finalize
this rule as proposed, the prohibitions and conservation measures
provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no
longer apply to the Roanoke logperch.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June
3, 2024. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by May 17, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R5-ES-2023-0181,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed
Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking
on ``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R5-ES-2023-0181, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: This proposed rule and
supporting documents, including the 5-year review, the recovery plan,
and the species status assessment (SSA) report, are available at
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0181.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Schulz, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Ecological Services Field Office,
6669 Short Lane, Gloucester, VA 23061; telephone 804-654-1842.
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States. Please see Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0181 on https://www.regulations.gov for a document that summarizes this proposed rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Reasons we should or should not remove the Roanoke logperch
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
(2) Relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to the
Roanoke logperch, particularly any data on the possible effects of
climate change as it relates to habitat, as well as the extent of State
protection and management that would be provided to this fish as a
delisted species.
(3) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of
the Roanoke logperch that may have either a negative or positive impact
on the species.
(4) Considerations for post-delisting monitoring, including
monitoring protocols and length of time monitoring is needed, as well
as triggers for reevaluation.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directs that determinations as to
whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species
must be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial
data available.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well
as any information that may become available after this proposal. For
example, based on the new information we receive (and if relevant, any
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species
should remain listed as endangered, or we may conclude that the species
should be reclassified from endangered to threatened. We will clearly
explain our rationale and the basis for our final decision, including
why we made changes, if any, that differ from this proposal.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by
[[Page 22651]]
the date specified in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address
shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public
hearing on this proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time,
and place of the hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or
virtually via webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual
public hearings is consistent with our regulation at 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3).
Peer Review
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the Roanoke logperch. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists,
in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a
compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available
concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past,
present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting
the species.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of
listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific
review of the information contained in the Roanoke logperch SSA report.
We sent the SSA report to nine independent peer reviewers and received
three responses. Results of this structured peer review process can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov. In preparing this proposed rule,
we incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the
final SSA report, which is the foundation for this proposed rule.
Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments
As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from three
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new
information regarding the information contained in the SSA report. The
peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions,
and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions,
including clarifications in terminology. Peer reviewers also suggested
supplementing the content to more explicitly address key assumptions,
uncertainties, and knowledge gaps, and they made other editorial
suggestions. One peer reviewer emphasized the need for research to
address key unknowns that remain in the ecology of early-life stages,
logperch movement ecology (including dam effects), and empirical
relationships between stressors such as instream sedimentation measures
(e.g., embeddedness) and Roanoke logperch fitness measures (e.g.,
growth, survival, reproduction). These data gaps are mentioned or
implied in summaries of the species' life history and in a detailed
discussion of caveats and uncertainties in the SSA report (Service
2022a, pp. 46-47). Otherwise, no substantive changes to our analysis
and conclusions in the SSA report were deemed necessary. All peer
reviewer comments are addressed in version 1.1 of the SSA report
(Service 2022a, entire).
Previous Federal Actions
On March 18, 1975, the Service published in the Federal Register
(40 FR 12297) a notice of review for the Roanoke logperch and 28 other
freshwater fishes. Five years later, on May 13, 1980, the Service
published in the Federal Register (45 FR 31447) another notice of
review for the Roanoke logperch.
On December 30, 1982, we published in the Federal Register (47 FR
58454) our candidate notice of review (CNOR) classifying the Roanoke
logperch as a Category 2 candidate species. Category 2 status included
those taxa for which information in our possession at that time
indicated the possible appropriateness of listing as endangered or
threatened but sufficient information was not available to biologically
support a proposed rule.
On October 6, 1983, we received a petition from Mr. Noel M.
Burkhead to list the Roanoke logperch as a threatened species. On
January 16, 1984, we published in the Federal Register (49 FR 1919) a
90-day finding that the petition presented substantial information that
the petitioned action may be warranted. On October 12, 1984, we made a
12-month finding that the petitioned action was warranted but precluded
from immediate proposal because of other pending proposals to list,
delist, or reclassify species (hereafter, a ``warranted-but-precluded
finding''). The announcement of the warranted-but-precluded finding was
published in the Federal Register on July 18, 1985 (50 FR 29238).
Between 1986 and 1988, we published three notices of findings on
pending petitions and descriptions of progress on listing actions in
the Federal Register (51 FR 996, January 9, 1986; 52 FR 24312, June 30,
1987; 53 FR 25511, July 7, 1988). Each of these notices retained the
warranted-but-precluded finding on the October 6, 1983, petition.
On September 7, 1988, we published in the Federal Register (53 FR
34561) a proposed rule to list the Roanoke logperch as an endangered
species under the Act, and on August 18, 1989, we published in the
Federal Register (54 FR 34468) a final rule to list the Roanoke
logperch as an endangered species under the Act. This final rule was
effective on September 18, 1989, and included a determination that the
designation of critical habitat for the species was not prudent at that
time.
In 1992, we released a recovery plan for the species (Service 1992,
entire). A draft update to the recovery plan was prepared in January
2007 (Service 2007a, entire), but this plan was not finalized.
On April 21, 2006, we published in the Federal Register (71 FR
20717) a notice announcing the initiation of a 5-year review for the
Roanoke logperch. The resulting recommendation from this 5-year review
(Service 2007b, entire) was no change in listing status. We announced
the initiation of subsequent 5-year reviews for the Roanoke logperch in
2011, 2018, and 2021 (76 FR 33334, June 8, 2011; 83 FR 39113, August 8,
2018; 86 FR 61778, November 8, 2021). However, reviews were not
completed in 2011 and 2018 because they were precluded by higher
priorities. The resulting recommendation from the 5-year review
completed in 2022 (Service 2022b, entire) is to delist the Roanoke
logperch due to recovery.
Background
A thorough review of the biological information on the Roanoke
logperch including taxonomy, life history, ecology, and conservation
activities, as well as threats facing the species or its habitat is
presented in our SSA report (Service 2022a, entire), which is available
at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0181.
Please refer to the SSA report for additional discussion and background
information.
The Roanoke logperch is a large-bodied member of the darters
(Etheostomatinae), a diverse subfamily of freshwater fishes in the
perch family (Percidae) endemic to the Roanoke, Dan, and Chowan River
basins in Virginia and North Carolina. The Roanoke logperch occupies
medium to large warm-water streams and rivers of moderate gradient and
silt-free substrates (Service 1992, p. 3). Every major riverine habitat
with unembedded stream substrates with low silt cover is
[[Page 22652]]
exploited by the Roanoke logperch during different phases of life
history and season (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994, p. 786).
The overwhelming majority of our knowledge on the Roanoke
logperch's biology and habitat needs is based on research conducted in
the upper Roanoke River (see Burkhead 1983, entire; Roberts and
Angermeier 2006, entire) and comparative studies of Roanoke logperch in
the Nottaway River (see Rosenberger and Angermeier 2003, entire).
Roanoke logperch feed and spawn over clean gravel, pebble, and cobble
substrates in large creeks to medium rivers. They spawn in spring,
depositing eggs on the substrate with no subsequent parental care.
Newly hatched larvae drift downstream on river currents until they
settle out in calm backwaters and pool margins. By their first fall,
juveniles begin shifting into the deeper, main-channel habitats
occupied by older juveniles and adults. The species matures by age 2-3
and lives up to 6.5 years. Adults appear to undertake extensive
upstream spawning migrations, followed by cumulatively downstream
migration over ontogeny, or the rest of the fish's lifespan.
All age classes of Roanoke logperch are intolerant of heavy silt
cover and embeddedness, both because silt smothers eggs and because the
species feeds primarily by flipping over unembedded substrate particles
with its snout. The species is more often found in habitats with silt-
free substrate, forested watersheds, and large enough stream size to
complete its life history. It avoids heavily silted runs and pools,
very small creeks, hydrologically unstable tailwaters below dams, and
lentic lakes and reservoirs.
As detailed in the 2022 5-year review (Service 2022b, entire), the
known geographic distribution of the Roanoke logperch has expanded
since the species was listed in 1989. The Roanoke logperch was first
collected in the 1880s. State databases contain data collected only
since 1940, resulting in an information gap from 1890 to 1940. However,
since 1940, the number of streams where the Roanoke logperch has been
observed has increased from 4 streams in the 1940s, to 14 streams at
the time of listing in 1989, to 31 streams in 2019. In terms of river
basins, the Roanoke logperch was known in Virginia from the Roanoke
basin in the 1880s and the Chowan basin in the 1940s. The first Roanoke
logperch location (Town Creek) in the Dan basin was in the 1970s in
Virginia, then the upper Smith River in the 1980s. In the 1990s and
2000s, observations in the Dan basin expanded, including into North
Carolina. The first observation of Roanoke logperch in North Carolina
was in the Dan River in 2007. No population extirpations are known. The
number of 12-digit hydrologic unit codes (HUCs, also known as
watersheds) in which the Roanoke logperch has been observed has
increased from a total of 27 HUCs in 1989 to 55 HUCs in 2019. A
detailed description of the Roanoke logperch's geographic distribution
is presented in section 2.3 of the SSA report (Service 2022a, pp. 14-
19).
Methodologies for identifying what constitutes a population have
varied; therefore, our analysis uses management units (MUs) to assess
the current condition and potential future conditions of the species.
The definition of an MU is as follows: ``at the smallest spatial grain,
we define an MU as a group of individuals occupying a discrete, local
geographic area in which demographic exchange is common and habitat
conditions are relatively homogeneous. At a larger grain, we define a
metapopulation as a group of MUs located in an evolutionarily similar
setting and in close-enough proximity that some dispersal and gene flow
among MUs within that metapopulation likely has occurred in recent
ecological time, at least prior to anthropogenic habitat alteration.
The species as a whole is the sum of all metapopulations'' (Service
2022a, p. 20). There are four identified Roanoke logperch
metapopulations: Roanoke Mountain, Roanoke Piedmont, Dan, and Chowan. A
total of 18 MUs were delineated from these metapopulations. Eleven of
these MUs are currently occupied (Upper Roanoke, Pigg, Goose, Otter,
Middle Roanoke, Upper Smith, Middle Smith, Lower Smith, Lower Mayo,
Middle Dan, Nottoway) and 7 are currently unoccupied (Blackwater,
Falling, Upper Mayo, Upper Dan, Lower Dan, Banister, Meherrin) (see
table 1 below; Service 2022a, p. 23). For potential new introductions,
currently unoccupied MUs were delineated in waterways deemed good
candidates for future populations based on suitable habitat conditions.
Currently unoccupied ``potential'' MUs were not used in assessing
current condition. However, the possibility for these potential MUs to
become occupied was considered for analysis of future condition.
Additional details on past delineation of populations and spatial
associations of the MUs are presented in section 3.2 of the SSA report
(Service 2022a, pp. 20-25). We provide a summary of the species'
current and future conditions under Summary of Biological Status and
Threats, below.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 22653]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AP24.030
[[Page 22654]]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Recovery Criteria
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii),
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include
objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a
determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the
Act, that the species be removed from the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to
delist a species, is ultimately based on an analysis of the best
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently, and that the
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the Act's definition
of an endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we
may discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the
recovery plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring
adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance
provided in a recovery plan.
In 1992, the objectives of the Roanoke logperch recovery plan were
to first reclassify the species from endangered to threatened, then to
delist the species (Service 1992, pp. 12-13). The recovery plan states
that reclassification to threatened would be initiated when:
(1) Populations of Roanoke logperch are shown to be stable or
expanding and reproducing (as evidenced by sustained recruitment) in
each of the following river systems: Upper Roanoke River, Pigg River,
Smith River, and Nottoway River. Achievement of this criterion will be
determined by population monitoring over at least a 10-year period; and
(2) Each of the known populations is protected from present and
foreseeable threats that may interfere with the species' survival.
Additionally, the 1992 Roanoke logperch recovery plan states that
delisting would be considered when, in addition to meeting the two
criteria above, habitat improvement measures have been developed and
successfully implemented, as evidenced by a sustained increase in
Roanoke logperch population size and/or length of river reach inhabited
within the upper Roanoke River drainage and a similar increase in at
least two of the other three Roanoke logperch populations (Pigg River,
Smith River, or Nottoway River).
As indicated in the most recent 5-year review (Service 2022b,
entire), the current recovery plan for the species is 30 years old,
thus requiring a reexamination of the adequacy of recovery criteria.
The reclassification and delisting criteria in the 1992 plan do not
mention North Carolina populations because Roanoke logperch was not
known to occur in that State at that time. Additionally, benchmarks in
the Plan criteria focus on the health and protection of Roanoke
logperch populations however, identifying what constitutes a population
is unclear. For example, the Plan, 2007 5-year status review, and
associated literature used different methods to identify Roanoke
logperch populations. Due to the outdated nature of this recovery plan,
we rely on the information on the current and future conditions
presented in the SSA report (Service 2022a, entire) to inform the
status determination for the species. See Summary of Biological Status
and Threats, below, for a discussion of the status of and threats to
this species.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations
in 50 CFR 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify endangered
and threatened species and the criteria for designating listed species'
critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019). On the same day, we
issued a finalrule that revised 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71(84 FR 44753) and
ended the ``blanket rule'' option for application of section
9prohibitions to species newly listed as threatened after the effective
date ofthose regulatory revisions (September 26, 2019).
Our analysis for this decision applied the regulations that are
currently in effect, which include the 2019 revisions. However, we
proposed further revisions to these regulations on June 22, 2023 (88 FR
40764). In case those revisions are finalized before we make a final
status determination for this species, we have also undertaken an
analysis of whether the decision would be different if we were to apply
those proposed revisions. We concluded that the decision would have
been the same if we had applied the proposed 2023 regulations. The
analyses under both the regulations currently in effect and the
regulations after incorporating the June 22, 2023, proposed revisions
are included in our decision file.
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence.
[[Page 22655]]
In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may
have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other
actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may
have positive effects. The determination to delist a species must be
based on an analysis of the same five factors.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species--such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the
foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as we can
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species'
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions.
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain;'' it means sufficient to provide
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define the foreseeable
future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable
future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and
should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and
to the species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-
history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing
the species' biological response include species-specific factors such
as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision
on whether the species should be proposed for delisting. However, it
does provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory
decisions, which involve the further application of standards within
the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.
To assess Roanoke logperch viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold
years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events);
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment
(for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we
identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and
reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and
described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species'
viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the species' life-history needs.
The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current
condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics,
including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current
condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about
the species' responses to positive and negative environmental and
anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these stages, we used the
best available information to characterize viability as the ability of
a species to sustain populations in the wild over time which we then
used to inform our regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket FWS-R5-ES-
2023-0181 on https://www.regulations.gov.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
Roanoke logperch and its resources, and the threats that influence the
species' current and future conditions, in order to assess the species'
overall viability and the risks to that viability. In addition, the SSA
report (Service 2022a, entire) and 5-year review (Service 2022b,
entire) document our comprehensive biological status review for the
species, including an assessment of the potential threats and
beneficial activities to the species.
We identified six factors that may influence Roanoke logperch
viability: fine sediment deposition (Factor A), chronic chemical
pollution (Factor A), dams and other barriers (Factor A), climate
change (Factor E), management/restoration activities aimed at improving
habitat quality (Factor A), and existing legal and regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D). These factors align with many of the threats
discussed in the 2007 5-year review: large dams and reservoirs, small
dams/barriers, channelization that will lead to increased
sedimentation, agricultural and silvicultural activities (non-point
source pollution in the form of fine sediment), and toxic spills
(Service 2007b, entire). An additional threat to the Roanoke logperch
identified since the 2007 5-year review is changing climate. Climate
change is anticipated to affect precipitation, runoff patterns, and
stream hydrology, and introduce fine sediment into Roanoke logperch
habitat (Service 2022a, p. 29). The complex relationship between the
numerous environmental and anthropogenic factors and their influence on
the habitat conditions and ultimately on the condition of the Roanoke
logperch is presented in more detail in the SSA report (see figure 7 in
Service 2022a, p. 33). The Service is not
[[Page 22656]]
aware of any evidence that overutilization, competition, predation,
disease, or other manmade factors are significant threats to the
Roanoke logperch.
Fine Sediment Deposition
Fine sediment is produced through erosion and enters streams and
rivers through runoff, especially during storm events (Waters 1995,
entire). A variety of human activities accelerate erosion and thereby
increase sediment inputs to streams, but urbanization and agriculture
are the two most prominent of these activities in the Roanoke
logperch's range.
Fine sediments originating from the watershed or channel of a
stream remain suspended until they reach a low-velocity area and
deposit on the stream substrate. Although suspended sediment can reduce
feeding efficiency for a sight feeder like the Roanoke logperch, it
likely has a greater negative impact once it deposits on the stream
bottom. Deposition of fine sediments like silt and clay on stream
substrate likely reduces the fitness and survival of Roanoke logperch
adults and the survival and recruitment of age-0 juveniles. Roanoke
logperch are invertivores that feed almost exclusively on the stream
bottom; they require substrate particles (for example, pebbles, leaves,
sticks, etc.) to be mostly unembedded by fine sediment so that they can
flip over these particles and access food underneath. Heavily embedded
substrates contain lower benthic macroinvertebrate densities and fewer
benthic invertivorous fishes (Berkman and Rabeni 1987, entire).
Although uninvestigated to date, we assume that as deposition and
embeddedness increase, Roanoke logperch food intake at all life stages
will decrease and individual growth and survival rates will decrease.
Moreover, silt coverage could smother eggs and reduce their hatching
rate, particularly for a gravel spawner like the Roanoke logperch
(Berkman and Rabeni 1987, entire). Reduced egg-to-larva survival, along
with reduced benthic feeding efficiency for age-0 juveniles, could
translate to overall lower recruitment rates for Roanoke logperch
populations. Thus, the effects of fine sediments can impact Roanoke
logperch population resiliency by reducing population densities and
impacting habitat quality.
Chemical Pollution
By definition, water pollution is anthropogenic in origin and
alters the chemical composition of a receiving waterbody (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2022, entire). Pollutants
include organic nutrients such as fertilizer, livestock manure, and
human sewage effluent, along with myriad natural and synthetic
chemicals including heavy metals, pesticides, cleaners, solvents,
pharmaceuticals, and petroleum products, among others.
The population dynamics of the Roanoke logperch were found to be
particularly sensitive to acute pollution events that cause substantial
one-time reductions in population size (Roberts et al. 2016a, entire).
The same study found that, in the upper Roanoke River watershed, seven
pollution events resulting in Roanoke logperch mortality occurred over
a 35-year period, an average of once every 5 years. The most recent
spill event with a known mortality occurred in 2007. These events
involved a variety of different pollutants and affected anywhere from 2
to 19 kilometers (km) (1.2 to 11.8 miles (mi)) of river. Such
catastrophic events presumably act by temporarily reducing survival of
all age classes until the chemical has dissipated, which may take up to
a year (Ensign et al. 1997, entire). However, if fish kills occur
frequently enough, affect a large enough area, or happen to an already
small population, they could threaten the viability of an entire
population.
Like fine sediment, water pollution emanates from a variety of
sources, including urban, mining, or agricultural runoff, and
transportation of chemicals by road, rail, or pipeline. Notably, some
fish-kill events impacting the Roanoke logperch stemmed from nonurban
causes, such as a liquid manure spill in 1991, and a golf course
fungicide spill in 2007 (Roberts et al. 2016a, entire) (Table 2).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AP24.031
In general, however, we expect the risk of a pollution event to be
higher in a watershed with greater urbanization, because with
urbanization we expect a greater concentration of manufacturing
chemicals, industrial and municipal chemical effluents, and chemical
transportation via roads, rails, and pipelines. Thus, we expect
urbanization to be a primary driver of pollution events affecting the
Roanoke logperch.
Dams and Other Barriers
European settlers began constructing milldams and other low-head
dams on rivers upon arrival to the Atlantic States (Walter and Merritts
2008, entire). These barriers may have affected connectivity and
habitat conditions for the Roanoke logperch historically, but we lack
distribution and abundance data for the Roanoke logperch before 1940.
Between the 1920s and 1960s, large hydroelectric dams were installed on
several large rivers in the Roanoke logperch's range. Although none of
these dams were equipped with fish passage technologies, some are short
enough and have a modest-enough spillway drop that they may allow for
one-way fish
[[Page 22657]]
movement (from upstream to downstream) over the spillway. For example,
one study found that Martinsville Dam on the middle Smith River does
not form a genetic population boundary between Roanoke logperch
upstream and downstream of the dam, so the study's authors hypothesized
that the dam allows one-way gene flow (Roberts et al. 2013, entire).
However, many of the dams are much larger than the Martinsville
Dam, forming an extensive impoundment that would not be suitable
habitat for the species, and each of these dams probably constitutes a
complete two-way barrier to Roanoke logperch movement. Roanoke logperch
have a migratory life history that, in the absence of movement
barriers, utilizes multiple sections of a watershed over a lifetime.
Although genetic data indicate that Roanoke logperch populations
currently have sharp, discrete boundaries (Roberts et al. 2013,
entire), these boundaries mostly coincide with dams. Before
construction of these dams, population structure might have been more
continuous, with more frequent dispersal occurring among now-
disconnected streams (Burkhead 1983, entire). Thus, the barrier effect
created by dams has potentially fragmented a once more-continuous range
into a series of geographically smaller, more isolated populations.
This fragmentation reduces resiliency because a declining population
cannot be naturally demographically or genetically ``rescued'' by
another population.
In addition to a movement barrier, dams can create habitat
degradation and loss for Roanoke logperch. Impoundments upstream of
dams convert formerly riverine, potentially suitable habitat to
lacustrine habitat (relating to or associated with lakes) that is not
suitable for Roanoke logperch. Although the species has been observed
occasionally in Smith Mountain Lake and Leesville Reservoir, these have
been interpreted as waifs attempting dispersal through the reservoirs,
rather than resident fish (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994, p. 787). Although
completely unstudied, reservoirs upstream of dams may directly increase
mortality for Roanoke logperch larvae if the larvae drift into the
reservoir from upstream spawning sites and settle in unsuitable
lacustrine microhabitats.
Habitat conditions downstream of hydroelectric dams may be
unsuitable for Roanoke logperch as well. Hydropeaking discharges (i.e.,
the practice of releasing pulses of water to increase power production)
from Leesville Dam have rendered habitat conditions immediately
downstream in the middle Roanoke River unstable and relatively poor for
Roanoke logperch. Population density there is relatively low (Smith
2011, pers. comm.). Hydropeaking, combined with a cold hypolimnetic
release (i.e., release of water that lies below the thermocline and is
perpetually cold), has likewise rendered the middle Smith River
immediately downstream from Philpott Dam unsuitable for Roanoke
logperch. Not only are Roanoke logperch apparently absent from this
reach (Krause et al. 2005, entire), based on genetic results, the cold
unsuitable tailwater acts as a movement barrier between Town Creek, an
occupied tributary that flows into the unoccupied reach, and the
occupied section of middle Smith River, located 4 km (2.5 mi)
downstream (Roberts et al. 2013, p. 2060). These habitat losses
effectively shrink the adjoining populations to a smaller geographic
area, which reduces their potential for resiliency.
Climate Change
Changes to the climate of the Roanoke logperch's geographic range
can affect precipitation, runoff patterns, and stream hydrology in ways
that negatively affect the species' vital rates and resiliency. In the
coming decades, the Roanoke logperch's range is expected to average 5
to 8 degrees Fahrenheit (2.8 to 4.4 degrees Celsius) warmer with around
1 more inch (2.5 centimeters) of rain per year (see section 4.2.1 of
SSA report (Service 2022a, pp. 50-53)). Although a modest increase in
total rainfall, this rain is expected to come in less predictable, less
frequent, more intense storm events (Ingram et al. 2013, entire; Burt
et al. 2016, entire). Increased air temperature has the potential to
increase evapotranspiration rates, decrease groundwater recharge into
streams, and reduce the magnitude of summer baseflows (Ingram et al.
2013, entire; Lynch et al. 2016, pp. 349-350). Increased storm
intensity may likewise reduce summer baseflows by raising the runoff to
infiltration ratio. More irregular but intense rainfall means
``flashier'' stream flows overall, with higher high flows, lower low
flows, and steeper rising and falling limbs of the hydrograph, a
situation exacerbated by urbanization and watershed imperviousness (Roy
et al. 2010, entire). Stronger storm events also increase the
probability that fine sediment will be mobilized in runoff and carried
into streams.
Relationships between hydrology and the Roanoke logperch's habitat
suitability or vital rates have not been thoroughly investigated.
However, in the upper Roanoke River, one study found that age-0
logperch abundance in the fall of their first year was negatively
related to the standard deviation of stream flows during the spring
(April-June) of that year (Roberts and Angermeier 2007, p. 43). Highly
variable flows may directly increase mortality of vulnerable larvae and
small juveniles. They also may reduce habitat quality and availability.
Age-0 Roanoke logperch have very specific habitat needs during their
first summer, requiring unembedded, shallow, and very low-velocity
microhabitats, often in the margins of pools (Roberts and Angermeier
2006, p. 4). These microhabitat conditions change rapidly with stream
flows; the drying of shallow areas forces Roanoke logperch into deeper
areas where they are more vulnerable to aquatic predators, while
elevated flows increase velocity beyond the swimming abilities of small
fish. Given that storm intensity and stream flashiness are predicted to
increase, we predict that it will be more difficult for age-0 Roanoke
logperch to locate and track suitable microhabitat configurations,
resulting in reduced survival and recruitment. Further, reduced
baseflow magnitude may crowd adult Roanoke logperch into smaller areas
of suitable habitat within riffle-runs, resulting in increased
competition for resources, and potentially reduced fitness and survival
of adults. We anticipate that the higher erosion and sediment transport
rates likely to result from predicted greater storm intensity would
negatively affect growth, recruitment, and survival of Roanoke
logperch.
Conservation Efforts: Management and Restoration
Three types of restoration activities have positively benefited
Roanoke logperch habitat and population conditions to date: (1) habitat
restoration, (2) habitat connectivity restoration, and (3) population
restoration. Habitat restoration activities for the Roanoke logperch
primarily seek to reduce erosion potential and fine sediment inputs to
streams. Projects include reestablishing the riparian zone, fencing
livestock out of streams, and placing lands in conservation easements
to prevent deforestation. The end goal of all these projects is to
reduce new inputs of fine sediment into Roanoke logperch habitats.
These activities have occurred, and as discussed below, we expect them
to continue in watersheds harboring Roanoke logperch, regardless of the
Federal listing status of the species.
[[Page 22658]]
Unfortunately, there is no efficient or cost-effective way to
remove existing deposited sediment, which has accumulated in some cases
over the course of centuries and can be removed only very gradually
through downstream transport during flushing flow events (Walter and
Merritts 2008, entire). Since it can take decades to see the positive
effects of Roanoke logperch habitat restoration, the near-term
resiliency of Roanoke logperch populations is not as strongly affected
by these management activities as by connectivity and population
restoration activities.
Habitat connectivity restoration involves the removal of, or
passage over, barriers to Roanoke logperch movement in stream reaches,
most notably dams. Multiple dams have been removed within the species'
range in recent decades, including Wasena Dam on the upper Roanoke
River near Roanoke, Virginia, in 2009; Veteran's Park Dam on the Pigg
River near Rocky Mount, Virginia, in 2013; and Rocky Mount Power Dam on
the Pigg River near Rocky Mount, Virginia, in 2016. Additionally, fish
passages were designed and installed for Roanoke logperch past the
Lindsey Bridge Dam on the Dan River near Madison, North Carolina, in
2020. Removal of additional dams is plausible, given the current trend
toward dam removal in the eastern United States (Bellmore et al. 2017,
entire). Barrier removal and passage increase the effective area of
adjacent populations and allow increased dispersal among populations,
both of which increase population resiliency (Gido et al. 2016,
entire).
Population restoration involves the intentional anthropogenic
movement of fish across movement barriers they otherwise would be
unable to cross. The individual fish being stocked could be
translocated wild fish or propagules produced in a hatchery. Fish can
be stocked into currently occupied habitat to augment the demography or
genetic diversity of that population, reintroduced into a previously
occupied habitat that is no longer occupied, or introduced into a
habitat that has never been occupied by the species. Augmentation is
intended to bolster resiliency by increasing vital rates, total
population size, and genetic diversity, whereas introduction and
reintroduction are intended to bolster redundancy by increasing the
number of populations on the landscape. Collectively, propagation,
augmentation, reintroduction, translocation, and introduction
(hereafter ``PARTI'') form a suite of interrelated population
restoration tactics that have been successfully used in the recovery of
a variety of imperiled fish species (Minckley et al. 2003, entire;
Vrijenhoek 1996, entire; Yamamoto et al. 2006, entire). As of 2023,
PARTI activities conducted by State, Federal, and non-profit agencies
are beginning for the Roanoke logperch; propagation procedures have
been established (Ruble et al. 2009, entire; Ruble et al. 2010,
entire), a decision document is in place to provide a scientific basis
to PARTI decisions for the Roanoke logperch (Roberts 2018, entire), an
online decision-support tool has been developed based on input from the
Structured Decision-making Team to guide hatchery and PARTI activities
(Gibson 2022, entire), and a Statewide aquatic species safe harbor
program in North Carolina will enable the use of PARTI for the Roanoke
logperch (see 87 FR 51698; August 23, 2022). As such, there is strong
momentum to incorporate PARTI into recovery actions for the Roanoke
logperch in the future. As discussed further below, regardless of the
Federal listing status of the Roanoke logperch, we expect the States of
Virginia and North Carolina to continue to prioritize Roanoke logperch
population restoration in the future, as they do with other State-
listed fishes and freshwater mussels.
Regulatory Mechanisms
Over time, the Roanoke logperch has benefited from the protections
and resources provided by State and Federal laws and regulations. The
species has been listed as an endangered species under the Act since
1989. Federal listing status has affected the course of large proposed
and completed projects within the geographic range of the species. For
example, construction plans for the Roanoke River Flood Reduction
Project were adjusted to reduce instream construction traffic, minimize
silt runoff, and closely monitor water quality and Roanoke logperch
population levels, to minimize incidental take of the species (Roberts
et al. 2016c, entire). Coordination for this project spanned multiple
years, and a final Biological Opinion was issued by the Service in
2017. Time-of-year restrictions on construction projects during the
species' spawning window (March 15-June 30), recommended by both State
and Federal agencies, have reduced streambed and floodplain disturbance
and sediment loading during this key time in the species' lifecycle.
Federal status also has allowed access to funding mechanisms available
only for use on federally listed species, including the funds provided
under section 6 of the Act. These funds have been used to restore
riparian habitats to reduce sediment inputs, remove barriers to Roanoke
logperch movement, and fund a range of university research studies that
have advanced understanding of the species' basic biology (e.g.,
Rosenberger and Angermeier 2003, entire), distribution and abundance
(e.g., Roberts 2012b, entire), and genetics and evolution (e.g.,
Roberts et al. 2013, entire).
In our SSA analysis, we did not consider protections, funding, or
other benefits of listed status, including any other Federal, State, or
local protections or benefits arising solely as a result of the species
being listed under the Act when assessing risks to the Roanoke
logperch. Rather, we consider only non-Act-related regulatory
mechanisms and restoration activities that are existing or that we are
reasonably confident will occur in the future regardless of the
species' Federal listing status, such as State-level protection and
population management, habitat restoration, and dam removal and
passage.
The Roanoke logperch has been listed as endangered by Virginia
since 1989, and by North Carolina since its discovery in that State in
2007. The species is given high priority in both States' wildlife
action plans, allowing access to funding mechanisms such as State
wildlife grants. As with the Act's section 6 funds, State wildlife
grants have been used to restore riparian habitats, remove barriers,
and fund research studies. These State listings are independent of the
species' Federal status. There is no reason to expect a change in
Federal status would be followed by the States, both of which are
currently increasing Roanoke logperch propagation and translocation
capacity. Thus, we expect State-level emphasis on protections and
population restoration to carry into the future, regardless of the
species' Federal status. Furthermore, there is considerable interest in
dam removal in the eastern United States for human safety, fish passage
restoration, and river channel restoration. We, therefore, expect
removal of dams and other barriers to continue within the range of the
Roanoke logperch, regardless of the species' Federal listing status.
In addition to benefiting from the Act and State-level listings,
the Roanoke logperch and other stream fishes benefit from the
provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). The
CWA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting system
regulates point sources of water pollution and has reduced some of the
most chronic chemical pollution impacts of the early to mid-20th
[[Page 22659]]
century. Although controlling non-point source pollution--in
particular, runoff of fine sediment, nutrients, and other
contaminants--has been more difficult, CWA provisions such as total
maximum daily load standards, which States are required to develop and
achieve, have helped spur watershed-level management plans aimed at
stemming pollutants potentially harmful to the Roanoke logperch, such
as nutrients and sediment.
No previous research has directly quantified relationships between
the threats to the species and the Roanoke logperch's vital rates, so
in assessing current and future conditions, we based our assumptions
about the nature of these relationships on a combination of ecological
theory, expert judgment, and simulation models (Service 2022a, p. 26).
Effects from specific threats such as fine sediment deposition,
chemical pollution, dams and other barriers, and climate change are
represented in the models but are not explicitly attributed to each
threat.
Current Condition
Considering the biology of the species and key factors influencing
condition, we assessed the current resiliency of occupied Roanoke
logperch MUs (see table 1, above, for a list of MUs) based on indices
of population density, genetically effective population size, habitat
quality, and geographic range complexity. An overall index of current
MU resiliency that combines this information is available in the SSA
report (see section 3.4 of SSA report (Service 2022a, pp. 34-37)). In
summary:
Higher population density is indicative of a more highly
productive habitat, and therefore reflects a population with higher
resiliency since the habitat is able to support the needs of the
species at a more concentrated scale.
An important component of resiliency is being able to
resist the influence of inbreeding depression on individual fitness,
and ultimately, being able to adapt to changing future conditions. A
larger value for genetically effective population size is needed over
the long term (dozens to hundreds of generations) to maintain adaptive
variation in the face of genetic drift; therefore, a higher value is
indicative of higher resiliency in a population.
Current habitat quality was qualitatively assigned as an
aggregate assessment of that habitat's ability to support Roanoke
logperch population growth, and we considered MUs with high habitat
quality to have highest resiliency. Additionally, populations are less
likely to go extinct when they are widely distributed across complex
and diverse habitats. Accordingly, having more stream segments is
indicative of more refugia and protection from impacts from negative
events, and therefore indicative of higher resiliency.
MUs were given scores of low, intermediate, or high for each of the
above indices and then an overall index was calculated. The overall
index was the sum of the high scores (max of 4) minus the sum of the
low scores (max of 4), plus 3 (to scale the final index to have a
minimum of one). Any MU with an overall score >= 5 exhibited at least
three ``high'' indices, so we considered these MUs to have highest
resiliency. In contrast, any MU with an overall score of 1 exhibited at
least two ``low'' indices and no ``high'' indices, so we considered
these MUs to have the lowest resiliency. MUs with scores of 2-4 were
considered intermediately resilient. The overall resiliency index for
current condition is highest in the Upper Roanoke, Pigg, Upper Smith,
Middle Dan, and Nottoway MUs, and is either high or intermediate in 9
of the 11 currently occupied MUs (Service 2022a, p. 40).
We used MU resiliency to further assess redundancy and
representation at the metapopulation and species levels. For each
metapopulation, a redundancy index was calculated, with the assumption
that each MU's contribution to redundancy is a function of both the
resiliency and the geographic complexity of that MU (Service 2022a, pp.
36-37). The overall current redundancy score is highest in the Dan
metapopulation, followed by the Roanoke Mountain and Chowan
metapopulations, and is intermediate in the Roanoke Piedmont
metapopulation; therefore, overall redundancy is considered
intermediate to high across all four metapopulations.
Representation describes the ability of a species to adapt to
changing environmental conditions over time. By maximizing
representation, a species' adaptive capacity to face unpredictable
future changes to its environment are also maximized. Given that all
four metapopulations, which are combinations of ecoregion and basin,
within the known range of the Roanoke logperch have multiple
(redundant) MUs with intermediate or high effective populations, we
deemed that species-level adaptive capacity, or representation, is high
for the species. The high estimated resiliency and redundancy of the
Chowan metapopulation is particularly important for species-level
representation, given that it is the most genetically distinctive
metapopulation (Roberts et al. 2013, entire). The Chowan metapopulation
occurs in the most ecologically distinct environment (Jenkins and
Burkhead 1994, pp. 786-787; Rosenberger and Angermeier 2003, entire)
and, therefore, potentially contributes disproportionately to the
evolutionary diversity of the species.
Future Conditions
We assessed future conditions for the Roanoke logperch using a
population viability model that forecasts population size and species'
viability 50 years into the future. We assumed a current date of 2020,
thus forecasting population size to year 2070. We chose a 50-year
timeframe because we had information to reasonably assess urbanization,
climate change, and risks to the species over this timeframe. Assuming
a 4.5-year generation time for the Roanoke logperch (Roberts 2012a, p.
89), 50 years represents just over 10 generations for the species to
respond to changing future conditions. As with current condition,
future conditions were assessed using the three conservation biology
principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation, with
resiliency gauged by assessing MU persistence probability over the 50-
year timeframe and metapopulation redundancy and species representation
gauged by counts of MUs with intermediate to high resilience.
We forecasted future conditions for the Roanoke logperch under 12
scenarios, featuring three management categories contrasted with four
different assumptions about future environmental conditions including
different watershed urbanization levels, climate change scenarios, and
conservation management (i.e., Roanoke logperch population restoration
efforts and habitat connectivity restoration via barrier removals) (see
chapter 4 of SSA report (Service 2022a, pp. 41-57)). The forecasted
future conditions showed 8 of 11 MUs with 99 or 100 percent probability
of persistence under all 12 scenarios until 2070. Even under the worst
plausible future scenario (increased risk of watershed urbanization,
decreased habitat suitability, no population augmentation, and no
barrier removal), at least one MU is projected to persist in each of
three metapopulations (Roanoke Mountain, Roanoke Piedmont, Chowan), and
all of the MUs in the fourth metapopulation, Dan, are projected to
maintain resiliency. Redundancy is projected to be consistently high in
the Roanoke Mountain, Dan, and Chowan metapopulations. In contrast,
[[Page 22660]]
redundancy of the Roanoke Piedmont metapopulation depends strongly on
future environmental and management conditions. Under declining habitat
conditions, the Roanoke Piedmont metapopulation maintains only one MU,
whereas with conservation management (i.e., PARTI and barrier removal),
it maintains three MUs. Species-level representation is relatively high
under scenarios where multiple Roanoke Piedmont MUs maintain
resiliency, but only partially achieved in situations where the Roanoke
Piedmont metapopulation decreases to one remaining MU.
In summary, owing to a large geographic range that includes at
least some numerically large populations in good-quality habitat, we
estimate that species-level representation and redundancy for Roanoke
logperch currently is relatively high. All four metapopulations exhibit
at least some redundancy of MUs in intermediate to high resiliency
condition. In the future, under the worst-case scenario of worsening
habitat quality, increased risk, and no management, 8 of 11 MUs are
projected to remain highly resilient by year 2070. The Roanoke Piedmont
metapopulation and its constituent MUs show the lowest resiliency and
redundancy, particularly under scenarios involving worsening habitat
quality. However, these declines could potentially be offset through
restoration measures like PARTI (augmenting weak populations and
establishing new ones) and/or barrier removal and passage (allowing
natural augmentation and colonization).
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.
Determination of the Roanoke Logperch's Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires
that we determine whether a species meets the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the
following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, 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.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
When the Roanoke logperch was listed as endangered in 1989, it was
thought to be endemic to Virginia and to inhabit only the upper
Roanoke, Pigg, Nottoway, and Smith rivers. Since then, the species'
known range has expanded to 31 streams spanning 55 watersheds (HUCs) in
both Virginia and North Carolina, and restoration work (such as barrier
removal, construction of fish passages, and riparian habitat
improvement) has occurred throughout the species' range. Furthermore,
no population extirpations are known.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we deemed that six factors influence Roanoke logperch
viability. First, fine-sediment deposition emanating from urbanization,
agriculture, and other sources smothers eggs and reduces feeding
efficiency, potentially resulting in reduced growth, survival, and
recruitment. Second, chronic chemical pollution reduces habitat
suitability for the Roanoke logperch, and acute pollution events reduce
survival and population size. Third, dams and other barriers inhibit
fish movement, fragmenting populations into smaller areas and reducing
demographic rescue and gene flow among populations. Fourth, climate
change has the potential to alter hydrology and sediment delivery by
increasing flood magnitudes and flow variability in general, reducing
flow predictability, decreasing summer/fall base flows, and increasing
erosion and runoff of sediment, potentially reducing habitat
suitability for all age-classes of Roanoke logperch and increasing
direct mortality of vulnerable juveniles during spring floods. Fifth,
existing legal and regulatory mechanisms such as protections of the
Act, the CWA, and State-level equivalents have benefitted the species
through prohibitions on activities that may cause take and by
facilitating funding opportunities used for Roanoke logperch research
and conservation (note, however, that our assessment of status does not
take into account the protections and benefits of the species being
listed under the Act). Sixth, management activities aimed at improving
habitat quality (e.g., riparian revegetation to reduce silt loading),
restoring habitat connectivity (e.g., removing dams and constructing
fish passages over barriers), and directly manipulating populations
through propagation, augmentation, reintroduction, translocation, and
introduction of fish (i.e., PARTI) have increased the resiliency and
redundancy of populations.
Based on the species' expanded geographic distribution since the
time of listing, the lack of empirical records of watersheds that have
become unoccupied or populations that have become extirpated, and our
analysis of threats, we conclude that the Roanoke logperch has a very
low risk of extinction in the near term. The current number and
distribution of intermediate to high resilience MUs is high across all
four metapopulations, species-level adaptive capacity is relatively
high, and threats in the near term are low. Thus, the Roanoke logperch
does not meet the Act's definition of an endangered species.
Twelve future scenarios were modeled 50 years into the future.
Regardless of projected increases in urbanization or climate change,
and even in the absence of augmentation or barrier removal, all
occupied MUs in the Roanoke Mountain, Dan, and Chowan metapopulations
had high persistence probabilities. Only the Roanoke Piedmont differed,
with two high and two low probabilities of persistence among its four
MUs. Also, under all scenarios, all four metapopulations have MUs with
high probabilities of persistence to 2070; thus, species-level
representation is projected to remain high into the future. Even under
the worst plausible case of worsening habitat quality, increased risk,
and no conservation management, 8 of 11 MUs are projected to persist to
2070. Therefore, the Roanoke logperch is not likely to become in danger
of extinction within the foreseeable future, and it does not meet the
Act's definition of a threatened species.
Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude
that the
[[Page 22661]]
Roanoke logperch is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become
so within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. Having determined that the Roanoke logperch is not in
danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be
in danger of extinction (i.e., endangered) or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future (i.e., threatened) in a significant
portion of its range--that is, whether there is any portion of the
species' range for which both (1) the portion is significant; and (2)
the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within
the foreseeable future in that portion. Depending on the case, it might
be more efficient for us to address the ``significance'' question or
the ``status'' question first. We can choose to address either question
first. Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a
negative answer with respect to the first question that we address, we
do not need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the
species' range.
We identified two portions of the range to consider: (1) the
Roanoke Piedmont metapopulation, because it was variable in terms of
resiliency and had the lowest redundancy score; and (2) the Chowan
metapopulation, because it houses the most genetically unique
population of the species. The remaining two portions of the range
(Roanoke Mountain and Dan metapopulations) were not considered due to
their consistently high resiliency and redundancy, indicating the
species is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within
the foreseeable future in those portions. In undertaking this analysis
for the Roanoke logperch, we choose to address the significance
question first. In the absence of a legal definition of significance in
the Act, we determined significance on a case-by-case basis for the
Roanoke logperch using a reasonable interpretation of significance and
providing a rational basis for our determination. In doing so, we
considered what is currently observed about the contributions made by
each geographic portion in terms of biological factors, focusing on the
importance of each in supporting the continued viability of the
species. We also evaluated whether the area occupies relatively large
or particularly high-quality or unique habitat.
The Roanoke Piedmont represents one of the four metapopulations in
our analysis. It was defined by combining river basin (i.e., Roanoke
River Basin) and ecoregion (i.e., upper Piedmont). This metapopulation
represents 25 percent of the species' range, which is a small
proportion of the Roanoke logperch's range and encompasses a small
proportion of the species' overall population. Further, it is not
unique in that it shares similar geology, topography, water chemistry,
habitat, and climate with another upper Piedmont part of the range, the
Dan metapopulation. We conclude that the Roanoke Piedmont is not a
significant portion of the range.
In our representation analysis, we note the special nature of the
Chowan metapopulation. Intraspecific genetic studies of Roanoke
logperch indicate that the Chowan basin houses the most genetically
unique population of the species; however, overall levels of
intraspecific genetic divergence are relatively minor, such that no
major subspecific phylogeographic distinctions (e.g., evolutionarily
significant units) are evident. The high estimated resiliency and
redundancy of the Chowan metapopulation is particularly important for
species-level representation. This evolutionary unit is the most
genetically distinctive metapopulation, occurs in the most ecologically
distinct environment, and therefore potentially contributes
disproportionately to the evolutionary diversity of the species.
Having identified the Chowan as a significant portion of the
Roanoke logperch's range, we then focused our analysis on whether this
portion of the species' range may meet the Act's definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species. We considered whether the
threats to, or their effects on, the species are greater in this
portion of the species' range than in other portions such that the
species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so within
the foreseeable future in that portion. We examined the following
threats: fine-sediment deposition, pollution, dams/barriers, and
climate change, including their cumulative effects.
Our analysis indicates that the primary threats are not acting on
the Roanoke logperch in the Chowan Basin such that the Chowan
metapopulation would have a different status than the species as a
whole. The current condition of Roanoke logperch in the Chowan
metapopulation consists of a high resiliency MU, indicating that the
species has robust population densities, high genetic diversity, plenty
of available suitable habitat, and security from risks like pollution
events. We project that, in the foreseeable future, Roanoke logperch in
the Chowan metapopulation would have a 100 percent probability of
persistence regardless of future scenario. Therefore, we conclude that
the species is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future in the Chowan portion of the range.
We found no biologically meaningful portion of the Roanoke
logperch's range where the condition of the species differs from its
condition elsewhere in its range such that the status of the species in
that portion differs from its status in any other portion of the
species' range.
Therefore, we find that the species is not in danger of extinction
now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in any
significant portion of its range. This does not conflict with the
courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, 321
F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018), and Center for Biological
Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d. 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) because,
in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the Final
Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its
Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered
Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014),
including the definition of ``significant'' that those court decisions
held to be invalid.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best scientific and commercial data available
indicates that the Roanoke logperch does not meet the Act's definition
of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with
sections 3(6), 3(20), and 4(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance
with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(e)(2), we propose to remove the
Roanoke logperch from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife.
Effects of This Rule
This proposed rule, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) by
removing the Roanoke logperch from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. The prohibitions and conservation measures
provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no
longer apply to this species. Federal agencies would no longer be
required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the
[[Page 22662]]
event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect the
Roanoke logperch.
There is no critical habitat designated for this species, so there
would be no effect to 50 CFR 17.95.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for
all species that have been recovered. Post-delisting monitoring (PDM)
refers to activities undertaken to verify that a species delisted due
to recovery remains secure from the risk of extinction after the
protections of the Act no longer apply. The primary goal of PDM is to
monitor the species to ensure that its status does not deteriorate, and
if a decline is detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that
proposing it as endangered or threatened is not again needed. If at any
time during the monitoring period data indicate that protective status
under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures,
including, if appropriate, emergency listing.
We will coordinate with other Federal agencies, State resource
agencies, interested scientific organizations, and others as
appropriate to develop and implement an effective PDM plan for the
Roanoke logperch. The PDM plan will build upon current research and
effective management practices that have improved the status of the
species since listing. Ensuring continued implementation of proven
management strategies that have been developed to sustain the species
will be a fundamental goal for the PDM plan. The PDM plan will identify
measurable management thresholds and responses for detecting and
reacting to significant changes in Roanoke logperch numbers,
distribution, and persistence. If declines are detected equaling or
exceeding these thresholds, the Service, in combination with other PDM
participants, will investigate causes of these declines. The
investigation will be to determine if the Roanoke logperch warrants
expanded monitoring, additional research, additional habitat
protection, or resumption of Federal protection under the Act.
We appreciate any information on what should be included in post-
delisting monitoring strategies for this species (see Information
Requested, above).
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from
the Virginia Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the
Virginia Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.11 [Amended]
0
2. In 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife by removing the entry for ``Logperch, Roanoke''
under FISHES.
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-06795 Filed 4-1-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P