Rule2025-13702
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of Roanoke Logperch From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 22, 2025
Effective
August 21, 2025
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing the Roanoke logperch (Percina rex), a freshwater fish in the perch family (Percidae), from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. After a review of the best scientific and commercial data available, we find that delisting the species is warranted. Our review 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 threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Accordingly, the prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, will no longer apply to the Roanoke logperch.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 138 (Tuesday, July 22, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 22, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34372-34384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-13702]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0181; FXES11130900000-234-FF09E22000]
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing
the Roanoke logperch (Percina rex), a freshwater fish in the perch
family (Percidae), from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife. After a review of the best scientific and commercial data
available, we find that delisting the species is warranted. Our review
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 threatened species under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act). Accordingly, the prohibitions and
conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through
sections 7 and 9, will no longer apply to the Roanoke logperch.
DATES: This rule is effective August 21, 2025.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Comments and materials we received are available
for public inspection at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-
R5-ES-2023-0181.
Availability of supporting materials: This rule and supporting
documents, including the 5-year review, the recovery plan, and the
species status assessment (SSA) report, are available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0181.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Troy Andersen, Fish and Wildlife
Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Ecological Services
Field Office; telephone 804-728-0695; email address:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#285c5a47517749464c4d5a5b4d46684e5f5b064f475e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4034322f391f212e24253233252e002637336e272f36">[email protected]</span></a>. 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the proposed rule to delist the Roanoke logperch
published on April 2, 2024 (89 FR 22649), for a detailed description of
previous Federal actions concerning this species.
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 in
listing and recovery actions under the Act (<a href="https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf">https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf</a>), we solicited independent scientific review of the information
contained in the Roanoke logperch SSA report. As discussed in the
proposed rule, we sent the SSA report to nine independent peer
reviewers and received three responses. The peer reviews can be found
at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In preparing the proposed rule, we
incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA
report, which was the foundation for the proposed rule and this final
rule. A summary of the peer review comments and our responses can be
found in the proposed rule (89 FR 22649; April 2, 2024).
[[Page 34373]]
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered all
public comments received during the comment period, and we make no
substantive changes from the April 2, 2024, proposed rule (89 FR
22649).
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on April 2, 2024 (89 FR 22649), we
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the
proposal by June 3, 2024. We also contacted appropriate Federal and
State agencies, Tribal entities, scientific experts and organizations,
and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the
proposal. A newspaper notice inviting general public comment was
published in the Roanoke Times on April 12, 2024, and in the Greensboro
News on April 17, 2024. We did not receive any requests for a public
hearing. All substantive information received during comment periods
has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or
is addressed below.
Comments From States
(1) Comment: The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
expressed their continued commitment to propagation, field survey, and
eDNA work in the Dan River basin. However, they expressed concern about
the availability of Federal funding mechanisms to support the post-
delisting monitoring plan for Roanoke logperch.
Our response: The Service appreciates the continued commitment of
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to Roanoke logperch
conservation. There are no specific Federal funds to support post-
delisting monitoring plans; however, funding from a wide variety of
sources may be used to support this work.
Public Comments
(2) Comment: Multiple comments were received stating that the
Service failed to consider the impacts of the Mountain Valley Pipeline
(MVP) project on the species, that the pipeline threatened the species,
that we needed to reassess the populations based on the commenters'
observations of impacts they reported to be from the MVP project, or
that we needed to incorporate impacts from the MVP project into model
simulations specifically.
Our response: The impacts of the MVP project, such as sedimentation
and vegetation removal, on the recovery of the Roanoke logperch were
assessed in the jeopardy analysis of the Service's biological opinion
for the MVP (Service, 2023, p. 52) which included sedimentation
modeling, and in the SSA (Service 2022a, pp. 27-28). The Service's
jeopardy analysis concluded that the MVP project is not anticipated to
reduce appreciably the suitable habitat available for recovery or the
recovery potential for the species. Additionally, one commenter
requesting reassessment based on their observations did not provide
adequate information to allow us to respond specifically to the data
available in the vicinity of their location.
(3) Comment: One commenter stated that they believe there was a
perceived increase in Roanoke logperch distribution and abundance due
to increases in our ability to sample these ecosystems.
Our response: As stated in the SSA report, ``The known geographic
distribution of RLP [Roanoke logperch] has expanded dramatically over
time, from 4 streams by the end of the 1940s to 14 streams by the time
of its ESA [the Act] listing in 1989 to 31 streams currently. Because
survey effort also increased dramatically over this time, we cannot
determine whether RLP's [Roanoke logperch's] range increased because of
true range expansion via dispersal, new discovery of existing but
undiscovered populations, or both'' (Service 2022a, p. 1). The species'
present-day distribution was evaluated in making our determination that
the Roanoke logperch is recovered and no longer needs protections
provided by the Act. Nevertheless, the listing of the species spurred
not only greater survey effort (an action identified in the 1992
recovery plan (Service 1992, pp. 12-13)). but also increased habitat
restoration--inextricably linking these efforts to recovery.
(4) Comment: Two commenters mentioned dams as an obstacle to
Roanoke logperch recovery, including one commenter who mentioned the
lack of dam removals.
Our response: Dams are known to be a threat to Roanoke logperch,
and the presumed effects to Roanoke logperch from these barriers were
analyzed in the SSA report and evaluated in determining if the species
is recovered. Multiple dams have been removed within the range of the
Roanoke logperch between 2009 and 2020, as detailed in table 4 (p. 25)
and figure 6 (p. 24) in the SSA report. Some dams present within the
range of the Roanoke logperch provide one-way passage downstream for
the species.
(5) Comment: One commenter stated that they disagreed with the
delisting, as they believe the Roanoke logperch still faces significant
conservation challenges pertaining to the quality and connectivity of
the habitat and the resiliency of the reproductive population.
Our response: The threats facing the Roanoke logperch identified in
the SSA report were evaluated in determining the species is recovered.
It is not necessary for all threats to a species to be eliminated to
delist a species; a determination of whether a species should be
delisted is made solely on the question of whether it meets the Act's
definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' We
have determined that Roanoke logperch no longer meets the definition of
a threatened or endangered species.
(6) Comment: One commenter stated that all age classes of Roanoke
logperch are likely to be harmed by unpredictable stream conditions
resulting from climate change impacts.
Our response: Effects of climate change on the Roanoke logperch
were evaluated in the SSA report in the discussion of future scenarios
(Service 2022a, pp. 41-60). Effects of climate change, along with
impacts to the species from other threats, were evaluated in
determining that the species is recovered. The effects evaluated
include altered hydrology and sediment delivery by increased flood
magnitudes and flow variability in general, reduced flow
predictability, decreased summer/fall base flows, and increased erosion
and runoff of sediment, potentially reducing habitat suitability for
all age-classes of RLP and increasing direct mortality of vulnerable
juveniles during spring floods. As noted above, it is not necessary for
all threats to a species to be removed for a species to be recovered
under the Act.
(7) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that livestock fences
and conservation easements are not particularly impactful, and
solutions need to be applied to urban and agricultural centers where
runoff and sediment originate.
Our response: The Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
has completed extensive work in cooperation with agricultural
landowners to install livestock fencing and reestablish riparian
buffers on their properties. This program has made improvements in
habitat quality along stretches of rivers and tributaries that are
occupied by Roanoke logperch. We agree that additional efforts to
minimize impacts from non-point source
[[Page 34374]]
pollution would continue to benefit the Roanoke logperch.
(8) Comment: One commenter stated that existing regulatory
mechanisms are insufficient to safeguard the Roanoke logperch's habitat
and that it is disingenuous to assert that monitoring and augmentation
will offset the ongoing threats to the species. They also stated that
existing regulatory mechanisms did not prevent habitat degradation
resulting from the MVP project.
Our response: As discussed in the SSA report, ``Over time, [Roanoke
logperch] has likely benefitted from the protections and resources
provided by State and Federal laws and regulations'' (Service 2022a, p.
29). It is not necessary for all threats to a species, including those
to the species' habitat, to be eliminated for a species to be
considered as recovered under the Act. Existing regulatory mechanisms
are not designed to prevent all habitat impacts from affecting listed
species. Instead, impacts to habitat are avoided and minimized specific
to the proposed action being evaluated. Roanoke logperch habitat
impacts resulting from the MVP project were analyzed and addressed in
the 2023 biological opinion issued by the Service. Additionally, the
intent of monitoring is not to offset threats to the Roanoke logperch
but instead to help track the status of the species following
delisting. Likewise, as discussed below (Conservation Efforts:
Management and Restoration section), augmentation or reintroduction is
intended to bolster resiliency by increasing vital rates, total
population size, and genetic diversity. The Service, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Conservation Fisheries, Inc.,
and the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources have partnered since
2019 to propagate Roanoke logperch and reintroduce them to areas where
they occurred historically. Reintroduction was conducted in the Upper
Mayo River in Rockingham County, NC in October 2023 and November 2024
(394 fish total) and monitoring began in June 2024 (CFI 2024, pp. 1-9;
NCWRC 2023, pp. 1-5).
(9) Comment: One commenter felt that in making a delisting
decision, the Service relied too heavily on individual States keeping
the species on their State endangered species lists.
Our response: Existing regulatory mechanisms are taken into account
when considering a species' current condition (Service 2022a, pp. 29-
30), but they are not a singular driver of the decision to delist the
Roanoke logperch. The species' future viability is assessed using the
3Rs (resiliency, representation, and redundancy, see Analytical
Framework, below). In assessing future viability of the species, the
SSA looked at (1) watershed urbanization, (2) climate change, (3)
population restoration via propagation, augmentation, reintroduction,
translocation, and introduction (PARTI), and (4) connectivity
restoration via barrier removal (Service 2022a, p. 41).
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 and its habitat, is
presented in our SSA report (Service 2022a, entire), which is available
at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 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. Individuals mature by age 2-3
and live up to 6.5 years. Adults appear to undertake extensive upstream
spawning migrations, followed by cumulatively downstream migration over
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 U.S. Geological Survey delineates watersheds using a nationwide
system based on surface hydrologic features. This system divides the
country into six levels of classification: regions, subregions, basins,
subbasins, watersheds, and sub-watersheds. A hierarchical hydrologic
unit code (HUC) is used to identify any hydrologic area. The HUC system
includes two additional digits for each classification level.
Therefore, each hydrologic unit is assigned a 2-digit to 12-digit
number that uniquely identifies each of the six levels of
classification within six 2-digit fields. The system includes 22
regions (2-digit), 245 subregions (4-digit), 405 basins (6-digit),
~2,400 subbasins (8-digit), ~19,000 watersheds (10-digit), and ~105,000
subwatersheds (12-digit).
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
[[Page 34375]]
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.
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 future 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.
Table 1--Roanoke Logperch Geographic Information
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constituent waterbodies
Metapopulation Basin Primary ecoregion(s) MU Presumed status where Roanoke logperch
have been observed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roanoke Mountain.................. Roanoke basin........ Ridge and Valley/Blue Upper Roanoke........ Occupied............ Roanoke River, South Fork
Ridge ecoregions. Roanoke River, North
Fork Roanoke River,
Elliott Creek, Mason
Creek, Tinker Creek,
Glade Creek, Smith
Mountain Lake.
Roanoke Piedmont.................. Roanoke basin........ Piedmont............. Blackwater........... Unoccupied.......... None (never observed).
Pigg................. Occupied............ Pigg River, Big Chestnut
..................... .................... Creek, Snow Creek,
Goose................ Occupied............ Leesville Lake.
Otter................ Occupied............ Goose Creek.
Middle Roanoke....... Occupied............ Big Otter River, Little
Falling.............. Unoccupied.......... Otter River.
Roanoke (Staunton) River.
None (never observed).
Dan............................... Dan basin............ Piedmont/Blue Ridge Upper Smith.......... Occupied............ Smith River, Rock Castle
ecoregions. ..................... .................... Creek, Otter Creek,
Middle Smith......... Occupied............ Runnett Bag Creek.
Lower Smith.......... Occupied............ Smith River, Town Creek.
Upper Mayo........... Unoccupied.......... Smith River.
Lower Mayo........... Occupied............ None (never observed).
Upper Dan............ Unoccupied.......... Mayo River.
Middle Dan........... Occupied............ None (never observed).
..................... .................... Dan River, Cascade Creek,
Lower Dan............ Unoccupied.......... Wolf Island Creek, Big
Banister............. Unoccupied.......... Beaver Island Creek.
None (never observed).
None (never observed).
Chowan............................ Chowan basin......... Piedmont/ Meherrin............. Unoccupied.......... None (never observed).
Southeastern Plains. ..................... .................... .........................
Nottoway............. Occupied............ Nottoway River, Stony
Creek, Sappony Creek,
Waqua Creek, Butterwood
Creek.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
[[Page 34376]]
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. The
overall current resiliency is highest in these river systems based on
Roanoke logperch population density and effective population size,
habitat quality, and genetic conditions (Service 2022a, pp. 38-40); 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 were 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 recovery 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
species. On April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations
in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify
endangered and threatened species and what criteria we apply when
designating listed species' critical habitat (89 FR 23919). This final
rule is now in effect and is incorporated into the current regulations.
Our analysis for this decision applied our current regulations. Given
that we proposed delisting this species under our prior regulations
(revised in 2019), we have also undertaken an analysis of whether the
decision would be different if we had continued to apply the 2019
regulations, and we concluded that the decision would be the same. The
analyses under both the regulations currently in effect and the 2019
regulations are available on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects. 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.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis which is
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M- Opinion,'' available online at <a href="https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf">https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf</a>).
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter,
the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We
[[Page 34377]]
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period
of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case
basis, using the best scientific and commercial data available and
taking into account considerations such as the species' life-history
characteristics, threat-projection timeframes, and environmental
variability. In other words, the foreseeable future is the period of
time over which we can make reasonably reliable predictions.
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction, in light of the
conservation purposes of the Act.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data available
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 delisted. 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, pathogen). 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 individual species' life-history
needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and
current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' future condition, including responses to
positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences.
Throughout all of these stages, we used the best scientific and
commercial data available 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 No. FWS-R5-
ES-2023-0181 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, 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 to the species.
The following is a summary of this status review and the best
scientific and commercial data available gathered since that time that
have informed this decision.
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 may 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 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 the 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) 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. However, negative impacts from deposition of fine
sediments on Roanoke logperch growth, recruitment, and survival have
not been quantified or shown to have population-level effects.
Chemical Pollution
By definition, water pollution is anthropogenic in origin and
alters the
[[Page 34378]]
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 are particularly
sensitive to acute pollution events that cause substantial one-time
reductions in population size (Roberts et al. 2016a, entire). 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
potentially 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,
below).
Table 2--Known Fish Kills in the Upper Roanoke River Watershed (Virginia) Occupied by Roanoke Logperch (1970-
1982 and 1991-2013)
[Roberts et al. 2016a, p. 56]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stream length
Date of fish kill Water body Substance affected (km) Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 1970..................... Roanoke River near Ethyl benzene- 11.3 Burkhead (1983).
Salem. creosote.
June 1975........................ Roanoke River near Unidentified....... 12.1 Burkhead (1983).
Salem.
July 1975........................ Roanoke River near Toluene............ Unknown Burkhead (1983).
Roanoke.
June 1976........................ Roanoke River near Sodium cyanide..... 12.1 Burkhead (1983).
Roanoke.
October 1991..................... Elliot Creek and Liquid manure...... 19.0 Ensign et al.
South Fork Roanoke (1997).
River new
Shawsville.
August 2003...................... Roanoke River new Various chlorine 3.8 Kimberly Smith,
Salem. derivatives. USFWS.
July 2007........................ North Fork Roanoke Fungicide.......... 2.3 Michael Pinder,
River near VDGIF.
Blacksburg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, 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 indicator of the potential risk of pollution events impacting
Roanoke logperch populations.
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 in height and have a modest-enough spillway drop that they may
allow for one-way fish movement (from upstream to downstream) over the
spillway. For example, one study found that Martinsville Dam on the
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 present in the Roanoke, Dan, and Chowan
River basins are much larger than the Martinsville Dam, forming an
extensive impoundment that would not be suitable habitat for the
species, and each of these larger dams probably constitutes a complete
two-way barrier to Roanoke logperch movement. Roanoke logperch have a
migratory life history and, in the absence of movement barriers,
utilize 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.
However, in many cases, barrier removal, introduction of fish passage
technology, and reintroduction and translocation efforts can increase
the effective area of adjacent populations and allow increased
dispersal among populations, thereby increasing population resiliency
(Gido et al. 2016, entire).
In addition to movement barriers, 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
occurrences have been interpreted as waifs attempting dispersal through
the reservoirs, rather than resident fish (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994,
p. 787).
Habitat conditions downstream of hydroelectric dams may be
unsuitable
[[Page 34379]]
for Roanoke logperch as well. For example, hydro-peaking 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 at this MU is
relatively low (Smith 2011, pers. comm.). The practice of hydro-
peaking, 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. Roanoke logperch are
apparently absent from this reach (Krause et al. 2005, entire). 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). The hypolimnetic pulsed
release from Philpott dam produces year-round cold water temperatures
(~46.4 [deg]F) that apparently exclude Roanoke logperch from the
mainstem Smith River from the dam to about 4 km downstream of the mouth
of Town Creek (Krause, Newcomb and Orth, 2005). This theoretically
would deter dispersal between Town Creek and Smith River during all but
the coldest months, when stream temperatures are similar across these
reaches.
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 changes to the climate within 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 expected to
increase, we predict that it may 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. Additionally, the higher erosion and sediment transport
rates likely to result from predicted greater storm intensity could
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.
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 the positive effects of Roanoke logperch
habitat restoration may not be apparent for decades, 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). As stated previously, 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 demographic
or genetic diversity of that population, reintroduced into a previously
occupied
[[Page 34380]]
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
nonprofit 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 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 tactics for the continued recovery of 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
2005. 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 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 continue 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 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
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
its current 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:
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> An important component of resiliency is being able to
resist the influence of inbreeding depression on individual fitness,
and ultimately, being
[[Page 34381]]
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.
<bullet> 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 become extirpated 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 equal to or greater than
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 is also maximized. Given that all
four metapopulations, which are combinations of ecoregion and basin,
within the known range of the Roanoke logperch have multiple 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 Condition
We assessed future conditions for the Roanoke logperch using a
population viability model that forecasts population size and species'
viability approximately 50 years into the future (2070). We determined
that a 50-year timeframe was appropriate because it provided a
reasonable time period for assessing the threats of urbanization and
climate change, while also representing just over 10 logperch
generations (assuming a 4.5-year generation time; Roberts 2012a, p.
89)--an adequate timeframe for evaluating species response. 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 3 management categories contrasted with 4
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 the 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,
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 evaluated the effects of all the relevant factors that
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation
efforts. Because the SSA framework
[[Page 34382]]
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 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 in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether a species meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species because of any of the following
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for
commercial, 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:
(1) Fine-sediment deposition from urbanization, agriculture, and
other sources smothers eggs and reduces feeding efficiency, potentially
resulting in reduced growth, survival, and recruitment.
(2) Chronic chemical pollution reduces habitat suitability for the
Roanoke logperch, and acute pollution events reduce survival and
population size.
(3) Dams and other barriers inhibit fish movement, fragmenting
populations into smaller areas and reducing demographic rescue and gene
flow among populations.
(4) 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.
(5) 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).
(6) 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 now or in the foreseeable future. The current
number and distribution of intermediate to high resiliency MUs is high
across all four metapopulations, species-level adaptive capacity is
relatively high, and threats now and in the foreseeable future are low.
Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data
available, we conclude that Roanoke logperch is not in danger of
extinction 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 in 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 in 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 in the foreseeable future
in that portion. 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.
Our analysis of the Roanoke logperch identified four MUs occupying
a discrete geographical area where habitat conditions are relatively
homogenous. We identified two MUs or metapopulations to consider as
potentially significant portions of the species' range: (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 Piedmont
and Chowan metapopulations, 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)
[[Page 34383]]
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 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 other portions of the
species' range. 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,
adequate 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 finding does not conflict with
the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. 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 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
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we
determine that the Roanoke logperch does not meet the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections
3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. In accordance with our regulations at 50 CFR
424.11(e)(2) currently in effect, the Roanoke logperch has recovered to
the point at which it no longer meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species. Therefore, we are removing Roanoke
logperch from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Effects of This Rule
This rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) by removing Roanoke logperch from
the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. On the
effective date of this rule (see DATES, above), the prohibitions and
conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through
sections 7 and 9, will no longer apply to this species. Federal
agencies will no longer be required to consult with us under section 7
of the Act in the event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry
out may affect Roanoke logperch. There is no critical habitat
designated for this species, so there will 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 the Roanoke logperch as an endangered or threatened species
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, we will, in combination with other PDM
participants, 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.
Required Determinations
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), Executive Order 13175
(Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the
President's memorandum of November
[[Page 34384]]
30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation; 87 FR 74479,
December 5, 2022), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512
DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate
meaningfully with federally recognized Federal Tribes and Alaska Native
Corporations on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. We have determined that no Tribes will
be affected by this final rule because there are no Tribal lands or
interests within or adjacent to Roanoke logperch habitat.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and upon request from
the Virginia Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
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.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11, amend paragraph (h) by removing the entry for
``Logperch, Roanoke'' under FISHES from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
Justin J. Shirley,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2025-13702 Filed 7-21-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 22, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.