Ozark Hellbender Salamander (Endangered Species) Photograph Attribution: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lori Nordstrom- Assistant Regional Director
Ecological Services, Midwest Region
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters
MS:JAO/1N; 5275 Leesburg Pile
Falls Church, Virginia 22041-3803
Re: Draft Recovery Plan for the Ozark Hellbender (Salamander Species), Public Comments Due 1-21-21
Dear Ms. Nordstrom:
The Environmental Review Workshop has reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Draft Recovery Plan for the Ozark Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishop). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest Region, Bloomington, MN. 13 pp. (Recovery Plan) and has the following comments:
1) The Recovery Plan has significant deficiencies such that it cannot reasonably meet the requirements under the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 4(f) as amended (Act: 16 United Stated Code 1531 et. seq.) because:
a. the Recovery Plan lacks numerous site specific management actions necessary to achieve goals for conservation and survival of the species (see details in comment 3 below).
b. the Recovery Plan lacks adequate measureable criteria to support any determination that the species should be delisted under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA (see details in comment 3 and 5 below).
c. the deficiencies identified in comments 1) a. and 1) b. above are so significant that at the Recovery Plan (at p. 6) itself states that it may take 15 years to better understand the problem and another 30 for a recovery. However, even those are technically unsupported statements. At p. 1 of the Recovery Plan, discussion is presented that the species is currently in decline. Therefore, it is unrealistic to conclude that the species will recover according to that time frame unless significant improvements are made to the Recovery Plan.
d. the deficiencies are so numerous that a significant rewrite is needed. Please reissue the Recovery Plan with improvements that address all comments provided by the Environmental Review Workshop and make it available for another round of public consultation.
2) The Recovery Plan, at p. 1 identifies the principle causes of decline of the species including: 1) degraded water quality, 2) habitat loss through impoundments (dams, reservoirs…), 3) sedimentation, 4) disease, 5) illegal and scientific collection, 6) predation from stocked trout for sport fishing. In order to address each of these conditions, it is necessary to develop a strategic approach. Each of the causes of decline should be ranked so that priority based allocation of resources can occur. Further, each of the causes of decline should be addressed through a strategy which should identify specific recovery action items. This document fails to follow a basic strategic planning approach because although recovery strategies are presented on p. 3 of the Recovery Plan, they failed to address all six of the causes of decline enumerated above. Also, in order to implement a strategy for each cause of decline, it is necessary to specify action items for each of those. However this document failed to do that; instead, the descriptions of “recovery actions” mostly restated the descriptions of strategies; that is an ostensible failure of the Recovery Plan that is readily apparent through basic evaluations presented herein. That failure to identify specific action items in detail should be corrected. The failure of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to properly develop a strategic plan for this species’ Recovery Plan reflects a failure to meet the requirements of the ESA.
3) Specific detail and examples on how the USFWS failed to adequately fulfill its duty and how it should address the causes of decline of the species in the Recovery Plan follow (items a through f below should be tabulated on rows with three columns for: 1. causes of decline, 2. strategy to address cause of decline, and 3. specific recovery actions to implement strategy):
a. p. 1 identified a cause of decline: degraded water quality; p. 3 strategy: “improve water quality”; p. 5 recovery action: “improve water quality” (this is not an action item, it is a restatement of the strategy). For degraded water quality, no specific action items were identified. Those should include specific monitoring parameters, identification of pollutant sources, and alternatives for mitigating pollution sources (see comment 10 below for discussion on documented contaminants and pollutant sources that were identified in the supporting documentation).
b. p. 1 identified a cause of decline: habitat loss through impoundments; on p. 3, a strategy to address this was not stated; p. 5 action item to address this were not stated. Impoundments are dams or reservoirs which reduce the available water flow and impede connectivity with other parts of streams or rivers. This topic needs evaluation to see what alternatives might be feasible for enhancing the habitat. This Recovery Plan failed to identify a strategy or recovery actions to address impoundments which was identified as causing decline in the species. Where feasible, dams should be removed. Water flows should be increased. Where feasible, some approach for connecting the species above and below dams should be considered (possibly though capture and transportation?).
c. p. 1 identified a cause of decline: sedimentation: p.3 - a strategy to address this was not identified. P. 5 recovery actions included “protect water quality” (which is a strategy, not a recovery action item) but no specific action items related to controlling sediment were presented. This topic needs evaluation to see what alternatives might be feasible for reducing sedimentation (e.g. erosion control, seeding the river banks, identifying sources of sediment, restricting all terrain vehicles, controlling gravel mining, requiring timber harvesting operations to adhere to storm water pollution prevention plans, best management practices, etc) and developing mitigation alternatives.
d. p.1 identified a cause of decline: disease; p.3 a strategy to address this was stated as “address diseases and abnormalities”; p. 5 recovery action stated “minimize impacts of disease” which is not a recovery action item but is a restatement of the strategy. Specific actions should be specified (e.g. consider alternatives like updated research on causes and potential treatments of disease, possibly through capture, treatment, and reintroduction of individuals of the species to their habitat).
e. p. 1 identified illegal or scientific collection of the species as a cause of decline; p. 3 a strategy was stated in general terms without specifying “illegal or scientific collection” but mentioned activities which “ameliorate threats, decrease threats”. That is ambiguous, specificity is needed; p.5 recovery action stated recovery action in general terms without identifying “illegal or scientific collection” could include policy, regulation and enforcement. The Recovery Plan should be more specific about the strategy and recovery actions needed to address the illegal or scientific collection of the species which is causing decline. For example, the current policies, regulations, and enforcement activities should be summarized and evaluated so that gaps in protectiveness may be identified and targeted to be addressed. For example, the documentation associated with the Recovery Plan discussed that online sales of the species may occur in lots (like batches of 100 individuals of the species) to supply pet stores (both domestic and international, esp. Japan). Game warden resources should be discussed. Enforcement alternatives should be evaluated.
f. p.1 identified a cause of decline: predation of the species larvae through stocked trout; p. 3, a specific strategy to address this cause of decline was not presented; p. 5 recovery action that could potentially address this could be interpreted as “policy, regulation, or enforcement”. It is possible that the policy of stocking the rivers and streams trout that prey on the species could be changed. Regulations might be promulgated to prohibit the practice. This Recovery Plan should discuss alternatives for reducing or eliminating the predatory non-native species that are causing decline of the species.
4) On page 7, cost allocations for the budget $7.1M available for the first 15 years does not appear to have undergone a strategic planning evaluation so that priority-based allocation of available resources may occur. As discussed in comment 2 above, specific recovery actions should be identified. That detail is necessary to develop a detailed work breakdown structure which can provide a basis for cost estimating. The Recovery Plan surmised that budgets in 15-year increments would be $7.1M for years 0-15, $3.5M for years 16-30, and $0.6M for years 31-45. At page 8 disclaimers are presented including phrases “difficult to estimate”, “we cannot currently estimate” and at page 6 the “costs are likely higher”. The Response Plan should evaluate the uncertainties associated with costs and timelines which are described above. The budget of $7.1M to be spent over the first 15 years is obviously not enough. Funding strategies should be developed to raise money for conservation and survival of the species (through grant programs, private donations, establishment of foundations, etc.).
5) The Recovery Plan, at p. 1 identified the criteria by which the species could be delisted or taken off of the Endangered Species listing including: a. positive population trend for 15 years; b. evidence of successful recruitment, including full life cycle development and reproduction; c. improvement of habitat quantity and quality for all life stages; d. resilience and connectivity of the species; and e. causes of population declines are addressed and what actions are needed. However, in the context this deficient Recovery Plan, the presentation of the delisting criteria is not meaningful because those criteria were not adequately addressed. This Recovery Plan appears to have been prepared to meet a statutory requirement under the ESA rather than a realistic approach for achieving recovery of the species. The Recovery Plan does not address all delisting requirements but only presents those as abstract ideals. A significant re-write of the Recovery Plan is needed. 15 years to figure out why the decline occurred, 45 years for a full recovery of the species seems like a really long time to address a species that needs more immediate attention.
6) The supporting documentation described that some habitat destruction occurs by the practice of collectors "flipping rocks" in areas where the water depths range from 3 to 9 feet to uncover the species. This problem should be addressed by considering alternatives for identifying areas where that occurs, conducting enforcement, reconstructing habitats, and introducing legislation on the state level for prohibiting this practice in general. The supporting documentation identified that rocks may be removed for residential landscaping purposes; that should also be prohibited somehow.
7) The supporting documentation described pet store monitoring for sales of the species. This may occur through online monitoring, pet store monitoring (including internationally, e.g. in Japan). An evaluation of this topic should be presented. Investigations of online sales may be very cost effective strategy for conservation and survival of the species. The Recovery Plan should identify measures to be taken to achieve cooperation with other countries for enforcement (including Interpol) of the international bans on trade of protected species.
8) The supporting documentation identifies potential habitats downstream of springs which provide a stable temperature which is preferred by the species. Temperature surveys should be conducted to identify the areas which are most suitable for construction or reconstruction of habitat. Since the species has a small home range (e.g. 100 square feet, like a small area 10’ by 10’), consider introducing the species (which are being bred in captivity at the St. Louis Zoo) in those areas considered most suitable for reintroduction (downstream of the springs).
9) The supporting documentation identified increasing water temperatures as degrading habitats. Have any mitigation efforts been proposed such as increasing shade along river and stream banks by planting trees or reducing siltation which, when suspended in the water column of the creeks and rivers absorb light (and heat)?
10) For the water quality, a comprehensive approach to survey point sources of pollution in the watersheds should be compiled and targeted for mitigation. The supporting documentation (Federal Register “FR” which listed the species as endangered) identified contaminants which should be addressed including:
a. pesticides, concentrations of which should be reevaluated and compared to updated screening values. The toxicological studies related to pesticide concentrations in the rivers and streams should be updated.
b. anthropogenic nitrogen and phosphorus which may cause algae blooms and decrease oxygen levels.
c. fecal coliform from horse trails, cattle access, creek crossings, and septic pits from campgrounds.
d. erosion and sedimentation from timber harvesting.
e. water temperature increases may occur due to siltation. The FR identifies gravel mining as a significant source of siltation which should be controlled.
f. Historical lead and zinc mining were identified as causing impacts to water quality. The source of metals contaminants was discussed in the FR as potentially leaching from mining tailings. Those areas may need to be capped or otherwise mitigated.
g. New and emerging contaminants should be considered (e.g. chlorinated solvents, PFOS).
11) The documentation identified brown trout, a non-native species which is stocked for sport fishing as a predator of the species larvae. A gradual reduction in the number of stocked trout should be considered, so that a decreasing predator trend can be documented. Eventually, phasing out of stocking of these streams with brown trout should be considered. Stocking the streams with brown trout that are predators of the species should be reconsidered and a suitable substitute be introduced in its place.
12) The Recovery Plan states that the first criteria for down-listing: "There is a positive population trend for a 15 year period" (p. 4). In addition, the second Recovery Action is to "Monitor populations to assess long-term trends" (p. 5). In the Biological Report for the species it is stated that "Standardized surveys in Missouri have not been conducted since the 2013 sampling by the Missouri Department of Conservation" (p. 15). Given that standardized surveys have not been conducted over the last seven years, what data will USFWS use to establish the baseline for a positive population trend?
13) Recovery Plan p. 1: Have there been more current studies done by the USFWS since 2011? Any data to accompany the possible propagation of the species to augment the reference dated 2019, figure p. 2, such as data gathered during studies might be useful.
14) Overall there is nothing in this paper that describes specific habitat restoration goals and potential costs, the causes of the loss of habitat or how to prevent that from happening again. Sometimes just investing in the habitat of a species and doing a study on the reproductive habits of the species can be enough to give the species a chance.
15) Have there been any studies of the water quality in the streams and what, if any, industries are upstream of the habitats in question?
16) Figure 1 of the Recovery Plan shows a map of habitat areas including approximately 100x100 miles square or roughly 10,000 square miles of watershed and approximately 320 miles of streams and rivers (including North Fork River, Bryant Creek, Current Creek, Jack’s Fork, Eleven Point River, Spring River, and White River). Given the large area, it seems likely that there are other watersheds, streams, and rivers in the region where the species has been extirpated. Has reintroduction of the species into those areas been considered as a viable option for recovery of the species?
17) Given the large area (10,000 square miles and 320 miles of streams and rivers, have recent advancements in technology been considered (e.g. satellite imagery to identify degraded habitats, pollutant source points, thermal imaging…) pursuant to conservation and survival of the species?
18) Spearing fish or “gigging” was identified in the supporting documentation as a way the species is being killed. What is the status of that activity and is that a legal method of fishing in Arkansas and Missouri? What strategies would be viable for reducing the illegal takes of the species due to this activity (possibly through legislation on the state level)?
19) Acknowledgements should include the Academia, Zoos, Nonprofit Organizations, and Other Individuals that contributed to this effort by name.
When responses to these comments are available, please email those to me or notify me where they can be viewed if they are posted for public viewing on your website.
Sincerely yours,
Tom Price
Program Manager
Laura Macklin
Senior Reviewer (Associate in Arizona)
Janet Fox
Senior Reviewer (Associate in Arizona)
Environmental Review Workshop
(Environmental Review, Inc., a 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Public Benefit Organization)
1792 Rogers Avenue
San Jose, California 95112
_____________________________________________________________
1-18-21 Request for Extension of Public Comment Period
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
To Whom it May Concern:
I have reviewed selected excerpts of the associated documents and I found the Ozarks Hellbender Recovery Plan to be in need of significant improvements. The draft projected recovery timeline for the species that was presented appears to be technically unsupported. Supporting alternatives evaluations which may support a realistic plan is absent.
The budget available $7M does not appear to have undergone a strategic planning evaluation so that priority-based allocation of available resources may occur.
I'm assembling a review team to consider and suggest technically defensible recovery options.
This may take time, therefore I would like to request an extension of the comments due date (e.g. 15, 30, 45, or 60 days).
Sincerely yours,
Tom Price-Program Mgr.
Environmental Review Workshop
Environmental Review, Inc. (a 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Public Benefit Organization)
www.envreview.org