[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 58 (Friday, March 26, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14676-14685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7387]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AF56
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To
List the Alabama Sturgeon as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to list
the Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) as endangered under the
authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The
Alabama sturgeon's historic range once included about 1,600 kilometers
(km) (1,000 miles (mi)) of the Mobile River system
[[Page 14677]]
in Alabama (Black Warrior, Tombigbee, Alabama, Coosa, Tallapoosa,
Mobile, Tensaw, and Cahaba rivers) and Mississippi (Tombigbee River).
Since 1985, all confirmed captures have been from a short, free-flowing
reach of the Alabama River below Miller's Ferry and Claiborne locks and
dams in Clarke, Monroe, and Wilcox counties, Alabama. The historic
decline of the Alabama sturgeon is attributed to over-fishing, loss and
fragmentation of habitat as a result of navigation-related development,
and water quality degradation. Current threats primarily result from
its small population numbers and its inability to offset mortality
rates with reproduction and recruitment. This proposed rule, if made
final, would extend the Act's protection to the Alabama sturgeon.
DATES: Send your comments to reach us on or before May 26, 1999. We
will not consider comments received after the above date in making our
decision on the proposed rule. We must receive requests for public
hearings by May 10, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Send comments and materials concerning this proposal to the
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6578 Dogwood View
Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213. Comments and materials received
will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal
business hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Hartfield at the above address
(telephone 601/965-4900, extension 25; facsimile 601/965-4340).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) is a small,
freshwater sturgeon that was historically found only in the Mobile
River Basin of Alabama and Mississippi. This sturgeon is an elongate,
slender fish growing to about 80 centimeters (cm) (30 inches (in)) in
length. A mature fish weighs 1 to 2 kilograms (kg) (2 to 3 pounds
(lb)). The head is broad and flattened shovel-like at the snout. The
mouth is tubular and protrusive. There are four barbels (whisker-like
appendages used to find prey) on the bottom of the snout, in front of
the mouth. Bony plates cover the head, back, and sides. The body
narrows abruptly to the rear, forming a narrow stalk between the body
and tail. The upper lobe of the tail fin is elongated and ends in a
long filament. Characters used to distinguish the Alabama sturgeon from
the closely-related shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus)
include larger eyes, orange color, number of dorsal plates, dorsal fin
ray numbers, and spines on snout.
The earliest specimens of Alabama sturgeon in museum collections
date from about 1880. The first mention of the fish in the scientific
literature, however, was not until 1955, when a report of the
collection of a single specimen from the Tombigbee River was published
by Chermock. In 1976, Ramsey referred to the Alabama sturgeon as the
``Alabama shovelnose sturgeon,'' noting that it probably was distinct
from the shovelnose sturgeon which is found in the Mississippi River
Basin, and was also historically known from the Rio Grande. In 1991,
Williams and Clemmer formally described the species based on a
comparison of relative sizes and numbers of morphological structures of
Alabama and shovelnose sturgeons.
The methods used by Williams and Clemmer (1991) to justify species
designation for the Alabama sturgeon have been criticized. In
unpublished manuscripts, (e.g., Blanchard and Bartolucci 1994, Howell
et al. 1995), and in one published paper (Mayden and Kuhajda 1996),
several authors identified a variety of statistical and methodological
errors and limitations [e.g., small sample size, clinal variation,
allometric growth (growth of parts of an organism at different rates
and at different times), inappropriate statistical tests, and others]
that appeared in the analyses used in the original description. Howell
et al. (1995) in an unpublished manuscript, reexamined the data set
used by Williams and Clemmer (1991), corrected certain errors, and
recommended that S. suttkusi be synonymized with S. platorynchus.
Mayden and Kuhajda (1996), in a peer-reviewed paper published in the
journal Copeia, reevaluated the morphological distinctiveness of the
Alabama sturgeon using improved statistical tests and new data derived
from examination of additional shovelnose sturgeon specimens from a
larger geographic area. Mayden and Kuhajda (1996) identified eight new
diagnostic characters, found that there was little evidence of
geographic clinal variation in these diagnostic features, and concluded
that the Alabama sturgeon was a distinct and valid species. Bartolucci
et al. (1998) showed the Alabama and shovelnose sturgeon to be
indistinguishable using principal component analyses, as published in a
peer-reviewed statistical journal.
Genetic analyses of sturgeon DNA used in attempts to clarify
taxonomic findings have met with limited success. In an unpublished
report, Schill and Walker (1994) used tissue samples from the Alabama
sturgeon collected in 1993 to compare the three nominal Scaphirhynchus
species. Based on estimates of sequence divergence at the mitochondrial
cytochrome b locus, they concluded that the Alabama, shovelnose, and
pallid sturgeons were indistinguishable. Other studies have also found
that the cytochrome b locus was not useful for discriminating among
some congeneric fish species which were otherwise distinguished by
accepted morphological, behavioral, and other characteristics (Campton
et al. 1995).
In two unpublished reports for us and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) by Genetic Analyses Inc. (1994, 1995), nuclear DNA
fragments were compared among the three Scaphirhynchus species. The
three Alabama sturgeon specimens examined proved genetically divergent
from pallid and shovelnose, while there were no observed differences of
DNA fragments between the pallid and shovelnose sturgeons. However, the
1995 study also noted that two of the Alabama sturgeon differed
substantially from the third, and recommended additional studies to
examine genetic diversity within the Alabama sturgeon population.
A comparative study of the mitochondrial DNA d-loop of
Scaphirhynchus species has also been completed (Campton et al. 1995).
The d-loop is considered to be a rapidly evolving part of the genome.
Campton et al. (1995) found that haplotype (genetic markers)
frequencies of the d-loop from the three Scaphirhynchus species were
significantly different, with the Alabama sturgeon having a unique
haplotype. However, the relative genetic differences among the three
species was small, suggesting that the rate of genetic change in the
genus is relatively slow and/or they have only recently diverged. The
genetic similarity between the pallid and shovelnose sturgeon has been
suggested to be due to interbreeding that has recently occurred as a
result of niche overlap resulting from widespread habitat losses
(Carlson et al. 1985, Keenlyne et al. 1994).
We acknowledge that there is some disagreement concerning the
Alabama sturgeon's taxonomic status. However, the description of the
Alabama sturgeon (S. suttkusi) complies with the rules of the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Sec. 17.11(b)).
Furthermore, our analysis of the best available evidence supports its
consideration as a species in this proposed rule.
Very little is known of the life history, habitat, or other
ecological requirements
[[Page 14678]]
of the Alabama sturgeon. Observations by Burke and Ramsey (1985)
indicate the species prefers relatively stable gravel and sand
substrates in flowing river channels. Verified captures of Alabama
sturgeon have primarily occurred in large channels of big rivers;
however, at least two historic records were from oxbow lakes (Williams
and Clemmer 1991). Examination of stomach contents of museum and
captured specimens show that these sturgeon are opportunistic feeders,
preying primarily on aquatic insect larvae (Mayden and Kuhajda 1996).
Mayden and Kuhajda (1996) deduced other aspects of Alabama sturgeon
life history by a review of spawning habits of its better known
relative, the shovelnose sturgeon. Life history of the shovelnose
sturgeon has also been recently summarized by Keenlyne (1997). These
data indicate that Alabama sturgeon are likely to migrate upstream
during late winter and spring to spawn. Downstream migrations may occur
to search for feeding and summer refugia areas. Eggs are probably
deposited on hard bottom substrates such as bedrock, armored gravel, or
channel training works in deep water habitats, and possibly in
tributaries to major rivers. The eggs are adhesive and require current
for proper development. Sexual maturity is believed to occur at 5 to 7
years of age. Spawning frequency is influenced by food supply and fish
condition, and may occur every 1 to 3 years. Alabama sturgeon may live
up to 15 years of age.
The Alabama sturgeon's historic range consisted of about 1,600 km
(1,000 mi) of river habitat in the Mobile River Basin in Alabama and
Mississippi. There are records of sturgeon captures from the Black
Warrior, Tombigbee, Alabama, Coosa, Tallapoosa, Mobile, Tensaw, and
Cahaba rivers (Burke and Ramsey 1985, 1995). The Alabama sturgeon was
once common in Alabama, and perhaps also in Mississippi. The total 1898
commercial catch of ``shovel-nose'' sturgeons (i.e., Alabama sturgeon)
from Alabama was reported as 19,000 kg (42,900 lb) in a statistical
report to Congress (U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries 1898). Of
this total, 18,000 kg (39,500 lb) came from the Alabama River and 1,000
kg (2,300 lb) from the Black Warrior River. Given that an average
Alabama sturgeon weighs about 1 kg (2 lb), the 1898 commercial catch
consisted of approximately 20,000 fish. These records indicate a
substantial historic population of Alabama sturgeon.
Between the 1898 report and 1970, little information was published
regarding the Alabama sturgeon. An anonymous article published in the
Alabama Game and Fish News in 1930 stated that the sturgeon was not
uncommon; however, by the 1970's, it had become rare. In 1976, Ramsey
considered the sturgeon as endangered and documented only six specimens
from museums. Clemmer (1983) was able to locate 23 Alabama sturgeon
specimens in museum collections, with the most recent collection dated
1977. Clemmer also found that commercial fishermen in the Alabama and
Tombigbee rivers were familiar with the sturgeon, calling it
hackleback, buglemouth trout, or devilfish.
During the mid-1980's Burke and Ramsey (1985) conducted a status
survey to determine the distribution and abundance of the Alabama
sturgeon. Interviews were conducted with commercial fishermen on the
Alabama and Cahaba rivers, some of whom reported catch of Alabama
sturgeon as an annual event. However, during their collection efforts
in areas identified by fishermen, Burke and Ramsey were able to collect
only five Alabama sturgeons, including two males, two gravid females,
and one juvenile about 2 years old. Burke and Ramsey (1985) concluded
that the Alabama sturgeon had been extirpated from 57 percent (950 km
or 600 mi) of its range and that only 15 percent (250 km or 150 mi) of
its former habitat had the potential to support a good population. An
additional sturgeon was taken in 1985 in the Tensaw River and
photographed, but the specimen was lost (Mettee, Geologic Survey of
Alabama, pers. comm. 1997).
In 1990 and 1992, biologists from the Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR), with the assistance of the
Corps, conducted searches for Alabama sturgeon using a variety of
sampling techniques, without success (Tucker and Johnson 1991, 1992).
However, some commercial and sports fishermen continued to report
recent catches of small sturgeon in Millers Ferry and Claiborne
reservoirs and in the lower Alabama River (Tucker and Johnson 1991,
1992).
In 1993, our biologists and the ADCNR conducted another extensive
survey for Alabama sturgeon in the lower Alabama River. On December 2,
1993, a mature male was captured alive in a gill net downstream of
Claiborne Lock and Dam, at river mile 58.8 in Monroe County, Alabama
(Parauka, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1995). This
specimen represented the first confirmed record of Alabama sturgeon in
about 9 years. This fish was moved to a hatchery where it later died.
On April 18, 1995, an Alabama sturgeon captured by fishermen below
Claiborne Lock and Dam was turned over to ADCNR and Service biologists.
This fish was carefully examined, radio-tagged, and returned to the
river where it was tracked for 4 days before the transmitter switched
off (Parauka, pers. comm. 1995). In June 1995, it was determined that
the tag had dislodged. On May 19, 1995, our biologists took another
Alabama sturgeon in Monroe County, Alabama, near the 1993 collection
site. Unfortunately, shortly after the fish was tagged and released, it
was found entangled and dead in a vandalized gill net lying on the
river bottom (Parauka, pers. comm. 1995). On April 26, 1996, a
commercial fisherman caught, photographed, and released an Alabama
sturgeon (estimated at about 51 to 58 cm (20 to 23 in) total length and
1 kg (2.5 lb) weight in the Alabama River, 5 km (3 mi) south of Millers
Ferry Lock and Dam (Reeves, ADCNR, pers. comm. 1996).
During the spring of 1996, members of the Mobile River Basin
Recovery Coalition began discussions to develop and implement a
conservation plan for the Alabama sturgeon that could receive wide
support. A draft plan was subsequently endorsed by the ADCNR, Service,
Mobile District Corps of Engineers, and representatives of the Alabama-
Tombigbee Rivers Coalition. The draft plan identified the need to
develop life history information through capture, tagging, and
telemetry; capture of broodstock for potential population augmentation;
construction of hatchery facilities for sturgeon propagation; and
habitat identification and quantification in the lower Alabama River.
In March 1997, the ADCNR implemented the collection component of
the conservation plan. The Geological Survey of Alabama, Corps,
Waterways Experiment Station, Alabama Power Company, and the Service
also participated in the effort. Up to four crews were on the river at
any one time using gill nets and trot lines. Most of the effort focused
on the lower Alabama River where recent previous captures had been
made. Personnel from the ADCNR caught one small sturgeon (1 kg (2 lb)
weight) on April 9, 1997, immediately below Claiborne Lock and Dam.
The ADCNR continued fishing for sturgeon through the fall and
winter and collected another sturgeon below Miller's Ferry Lock and Dam
on December 10, 1997. This fish was also transported to the Marion Fish
Hatchery, where both fish are being held for potential use as
broodstock. In January 1998, the two fish were
[[Page 14679]]
biopsied to determine sex. The April specimen was found to be a mature
female with immature eggs, whereas the December fish was a mature male.
Alabama broodstock collection efforts in 1998 resulted in the
capture of a single fish on November 12, 1998. A biopsy performed in
December found the specimen to be a reproductively inactive male. The
two 1997 fish were also biopsied at this time, and were determined to
be candidates for propagation in the spring.
The chronology of commercial harvest, scientific collections, and
incidental catches by commercial and sport fishermen demonstrate a
significant decline in both the population size and range of the
Alabama sturgeon in the past 100 years. Historically the fish occurred
in commercial abundance and was found in all major coastal plain
tributaries of the Mobile River system. The Alabama sturgeon has
apparently disappeared from the upper Tombigbee, lower Black Warrior,
lower Tallapoosa, and upper Cahaba, where it was last reported in the
1960's; the lower Coosa, last reported around 1970; the lower
Tombigbee, last reported around 1975; and lower Cahaba, last reported
in 1985 (Clemmer 1983; Burke and Ramsey 1985, 1995; Williams and
Clemmer 1991; Mayden and Kuhajda 1996). The fish is known from a single
1985 record in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta; however, no incidental catches
by commercial or recreational fishermen have been reported since that
time. Recent collection efforts indicate that very low numbers of
Alabama sturgeon continue to survive in portions of the 216 km (130 mi)
length of the Alabama River channel below Millers Ferry Lock and Dam.
The historic population decline of the Alabama sturgeon was
probably initiated by unrestricted harvesting near the turn of the
century. Although there are no reports of commercial harvests of
Alabama sturgeon after the 1898 report, it is reasonable to assume that
sturgeon continued to be affected by the commercial fishery. Keenlyne
(1997) noted that in the early years of this century, shovelnose
sturgeon were considered a nuisance to commercial fishermen and were
destroyed when caught. Interviews with commercial and recreational
fishermen along the Alabama River indicate that Alabama sturgeon
continued to be taken into the 1980's (Burke and Ramsey 1985). Studies
of other sturgeon species suggest that newly exploited sturgeon
fisheries typically show an initial high yield, followed by rapid
declines. There may be little or no subsequent recovery with continued
exploitation and habitat loss, even after nearly a century (National
Paddlefish and Sturgeon Steering Committee 1993, Birstein 1993).
Although unrestricted commercial harvesting of the Alabama sturgeon
may have significantly reduced its numbers and initiated a population
decline, the present curtailment of the Alabama sturgeon's range is the
result of 100 years of cumulative impacts to the rivers of the Mobile
River Basin (Basin) as they were developed for navigation. Navigation
development of the Basin affected the sturgeon in major ways. This
development significantly changed and modified extensive portions of
river channel habitats; blocked long-distant movements, including
migrations; and fragmented and isolated sturgeon populations.
The Basin's major rivers are now controlled by more than 30 locks
and/or dams, forming a series of lakes that are interspersed with
short, free-flowing reaches. Within the sturgeon's historic range,
there are three dams on the Alabama River (built between 1968 and
1971); the Black Warrior has two (completed by 1959); and the Tombigbee
six (built between 1954 and 1979). These 11 dams affect and fragment
970 km (583 mi) of river channel habitat. Riverine (flowing water)
habitats are required by the Alabama sturgeon to successfully complete
its life cycle. Alabama sturgeon habitat requirements are not met in
impoundments, where weak flows result in accumulations of silt making
bottom habitats unsuitable for spawning and, perhaps, for the bottom-
dwelling invertebrates on which the sturgeon feed.
Prior to widespread construction of locks and dams throughout the
Basin, Alabama sturgeon could move freely between feeding areas, and
from feeding areas to sites that favored spawning and development of
eggs and larvae. Additionally the sturgeon may have sought thermal
refuges during summer months, when high water temperatures became
stressful. Such movements might have been extensive, since other
Scaphirhynchus species of sturgeons are known to make long distance
movements exceeding 250 km (150 mi) (Moos 1978, Bramblett 1996). Locks
and dams, however, fragmented the sturgeons' range, forming isolated
metapopulations between the dams where all the species' habitat needs
were not necessarily met. With avenues of movement and migration
restricted, these metapopulations also became more vulnerable to local
declines in water and habitat quality caused by riverine and land
management practices and/or polluting discharges.
Most of the major rivers within the historic range of the Alabama
sturgeon have also been dredged and/or channelized to make them
navigable. For example, the 740-km (460-mi) long Warrior-Tombigbee
Waterway channel was originally dredged to 45 meters (m) by 2 m (150
feet (ft) by 6 ft) and later to 61 m by 2 m (200 ft by 9 ft). The lower
Alabama and Tombigbee rivers are routinely dredged in areas of natural
deposition to maintain navigation depths. Dredged and channelized river
reaches, in comparison to natural river reaches, have reduced habitat
diversity (e.g., loss of shoals, removal of snags, removal of bendways,
reduction in flow heterogeneity, etc.), which results in decreased
aquatic diversity and productivity (Hubbard et al. 1988 and references
therein). The deepening and destruction of shoals and shallow runs or
other historic feeding and spawning sites as a result of navigation
development likely contributed to local and overall historic declines
in range and abundance of the Alabama sturgeon.
Dams constructed for navigation and power production also affected
the quantity and timing of water moving through the Basin. Water depths
for navigation are controlled through discharges from upstream dams,
and flows have also been changed as a result of hydroelectric
production by upstream dams (Buckley 1995; Freeman and Irwin, U.S.
Geological Survey, pers. comm. 1997).
The construction and operation of dams and development of
navigation channels were significant factors in curtailment of the
historic range of the Alabama sturgeon and in defining its current
distribution. While these structures and activities are likely to
continue to influence the ecology of this species and others, the
present effects of the operation of existing structures, flow
regulation, and navigation maintenance activities on the sturgeon are
poorly understood. This is due in large part to lack of specific
information on the behavior and ecology of the Alabama sturgeon.
In summary, the Alabama sturgeon has undergone marked declines in
population size and range during the past century. Over-fishing and
navigation development were significant factors in the sturgeon's
historic decline. The Alabama sturgeon currently inhabits only about 15
percent of its historic range, and the species is known to survive only
in the Alabama River channel below Millers Ferry Lock and Dam.
[[Page 14680]]
Previous Federal Actions
The Alabama sturgeon was included in Federal Register notices of
review for candidate animals in 1982, 1985, 1989, and 1991. In the 1982
and 1985 notices (47 FR 58454 and 50 FR 37958), this fish was included
as a category 2 species (a species for which we had data indicating
that listing was possibly appropriate, but for which we lacked
substantial data on biological vulnerability and threats to support a
proposed rule). We discontinued designation of Category 2 species in
the February 28, 1996, notice of review (61 FR 7956). In the 1989 and
1991 notices (54 FR 554 and 56 FR 58816), the Alabama sturgeon was
listed as category 1 candidate species (a species for which we have on
file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to
support issuance of a proposed rule).
On June 15, 1993, we published a proposed rule to list the Alabama
sturgeon as endangered with critical habitat (58 FR 33148). On July 27,
1993, we published a notice scheduling a public hearing on the proposed
rule (58 FR 40109). We published a notice on August 24, 1993 (58 FR
44643), canceling and rescheduling the hearing. On September 13, 1993
(58 FR 47851), we published a notice re-scheduling the public hearing
for October 4, 1993, and extending the comment period to October 13,
1993. The October 4 public hearing was held on the campus of Mobile
College, Mobile, Alabama. On October 25, 1993 (58 FR 55036), we
published a notice announcing a second public hearing date, reopening
the comment period, and stating the availability of a panel report.
This second public hearing was canceled in response to a preliminary
injunction issued on November 9, 1993.
On January 4, 1994 (59 FR 288), we published a notice rescheduling
the second public hearing and extending the comment period. However,
this hearing was subsequently rescheduled in a January 7, 1994, notice
(59 FR 997). We held the second public hearing on January 31, 1994, at
the Montgomery Civic Center, Montgomery, Alabama.
We published a 6-month extension of the deadline and reopening of
the comment period for the proposed rule to list the Alabama sturgeon
with critical habitat on June 21, 1994 (59 FR 31970). On September 15,
1994 (59 FR 47294), we published another notice that further extended
the comment period and sought additional comments on only the
scientific point of whether the Alabama sturgeon still existed. We
withdrew the proposed rule on December 15, 1994, (59 FR 64794) on the
basis of insufficient information that the Alabama sturgeon continued
to exist. On September 19, 1997, after capture of several individuals
confirming that the species was extant, we included the Alabama
sturgeon in the candidate species notice of review (62 FR 49403). A
candidate species is defined as a species for which we have on file
sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to
support issuance of a proposed rule.
We published Listing Priority Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998 and
1999 on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). That guidance clarifies the order in
which we will process rulemakings, giving highest priority (Tier 1) to
processing emergency rules to add species to the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists); second priority (Tier 2) to
processing final determinations on proposals to add species to the
Lists, processing new proposals to add species to the Lists, processing
administrative findings on petitions (to add species to the Lists,
delist species, or reclassify listed species), and processing a limited
number of proposed or final rules to delist or reclassify species; and
third priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed or final rules
designating critical habitat. Processing of this proposed rule is a
Tier 2 action.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
The procedures for adding species to the Federal lists are found in
section 4 of the Act and the accompanying regulations (50 CFR part
424). A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened
species due to one or more of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1). These factors and their application to the Alabama sturgeon
(Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) are as follows:
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range. The Alabama sturgeon has
apparently disappeared from 85 percent of its historic range. Its
decline has been associated with construction of dams, flow regulation,
navigation channel development, other forms of channel modification,
and pollution. Dams in the Alabama River have reduced the amount of
riverine habitat, impeded migration of Alabama sturgeon for feeding and
spawning needs, and changed the river's flow patterns. The species is
now restricted to a 216 km (130 mi) reach of the Alabama River below
Millers Ferry Lock and Dam. It is unknown if the quantity of fluvial
(stream) habitat currently available to the species in this river reach
is adequate to meet all of its ecological needs.
Changes in natural river flow regimes by operation of hydroelectric
dams are known to be detrimental to other sturgeon species (e.g.,
Khoroshko 1972, Zakharyan 1972, Veshchev 1982, Veshchev and Novikova
1983, Auer 1996). Flow quantity is believed to be adequate to sustain
the sturgeon in the lower Alabama River (Biggins 1994). The Alabama
Power Company currently releases 57 cubic meters per second (cms) (2000
cubic feet per second (cfs)) seasonal minimum flow from Jordan Dam into
the lower Coosa River, and 34 cms (1200 cfs) minimum flow from Thurlow
Dam into the lower Tallapoosa River. These two releases provide a
combined 91 cms (3200 cfs) minimum flow to the upper Alabama River for
passage through the three Alabama River locks and dams. Alabama River
flows are further augmented by generating flows from Jordan, Thurlow,
and Bouldin dams, as well as other Alabama River tributary flows. The
average daily flows measured over the last decade downstream of
Claiborne Lock and Dam have ranged from over 100 cms to nearly 7,000
cms (4,000 to 240,000 cfs). While there is no evidence to suggest that
the Alabama sturgeon is limited by water quantity below Robert F. Henry
and Millers Ferry locks and dams, these dams house hydropower
facilities and neither is required to maintain a minimum flow. Current
low flow releases from these two facilities can be as little as 3 hours
of generation timed according to peaking needs, plus lockage releases.
The effect of such daily flow fluctuations below Millers Ferry Lock and
Dam on Alabama sturgeon reproductive, larval, or juvenile habitat
requirements may be negative; however, the importance of the area
between Robert F. Henry and Claiborne lock and dams for sturgeon
reproduction is currently unknown.
The most visible continuing navigation impact within presently
occupied Alabama sturgeon habitat is maintenance dredging of navigation
channels. At this time, there is no evidence that it currently
constitutes a limiting factor to the sturgeon (Biggins 1994). The Corps
has constructed 67 channel training works (jetties) at 16 locations in
the lower Alabama River, eliminating about 60 percent of dredging
requirements at those locations. In the Mississippi River drainage,
such channel training works are believed to be used as spawning areas
by other sturgeon species (Mayden and Kuhajda 1996).
[[Page 14681]]
Maintenance dredging continues to be necessary in the Alabama River
to remove seasonally accumulated material from deposition areas within
the navigation channel. Dredged materials are usually placed on natural
deposition features adjacent to the navigation channel, such as point
bars or lateral bars. Due to the natural dynamics of river channels and
annual sediment movement, maintenance areas have remained fairly
constant over time, with the same areas repeatedly dredged or used for
disposal. Recent investigations by us, the Corps, and ADCNR indicate
that the distribution of stable benthic (bottom) habitats in the
riverine portions of the Alabama River has been, and continues to be,
strongly influenced by historical dredge and disposal practices.
Changes in disposal practices could disrupt the existing equilibrium.
For example, river channels are strongly influenced by the amount of
sediment moving through them. Increases in sediment budget can cause
aggradation (filling) of the channel, while decreases in sediment can
cause degradation (erosion). With the upstream dams forming barriers to
the movement of sediment through the Alabama River, additional
reduction of sediment availability (e.g., through upland disposal)
could increase river bed and bank erosion, including areas that are now
important, stable habitats. In consideration of this, significant
changes in current disposal methods in the Alabama River could
adversely affect the Alabama sturgeon.
Recent investigations by us and ADCNR biologists have documented
the presence of high quality, stable river bottom habitats interspersed
within and between dredge and disposal sites in the lower Alabama River
(Hartfield and Garner 1998). These included stable sand and gravel
river bottom supporting freshwater mussel beds, and bedrock walls and
bottom. Mussel beds are excellent indicators of riverine habitat
stability because freshwater mussels may live in excess of 30 years and
mussel beds require many decades to develop (Neves 1993). Clean bedrock
has been identified as potential Alabama sturgeon spawning habitat
(Mayden and Kuhajda 1996). The significance of such areas of stability
are suggested by the location of recent and historic Alabama sturgeon
capture sites below Millers Ferry and Claiborne locks and dams. Dive
surveys at 19 capture sites dating back to 1950 found 17 in the
vicinity of dense mussel beds (15 sites) and/or clean bedrock riverine
habitat (11 sites) (Hartfield and Garner 1998). Depths at these areas
(5 to 15 m (15 to 45 ft)) are well below the minimum navigation
maintenance depth of 3 m (9 ft).
Sand and gravel mining has had historic impacts on riverine
habitats in the lower Tombigbee and Alabama river channels. Instream
dredging for sand and gravel can result in localized biological and
geomorphic changes similar to those caused by channelization and
navigation channel development. For example, mining of rivers has been
shown to reduce fish and invertebrate biomass and diversity, and can
induce geomorphic changes in the river channel both above and below
mined areas (Simons et al. 1982, Brown and Lyttle 1992, Kanehl and
Lyons 1992, Hartfield 1993, Patrick and Dueitt 1996). Sand and gravel
dredging of the Tombigbee and Alabama river channels within the
historic and current range of the Alabama sturgeon has occurred
periodically since the 1930's (Simons et al. 1982). We are not aware of
any currently active sand and gravel dredging operations in the Alabama
River; however, future mining of gravel from stable river reaches used
by the Alabama sturgeon would be detrimental to the species.
Pollution may adversely impact sturgeon (Ruelle and Keenlyne 1993),
and it was likely a factor in the decline of the Alabama sturgeon,
especially prior to implementation of State and Federal water quality
regulations. Presently, the major sources of water pollution in Alabama
are agriculture, municipal point sources, resource extraction, and
contaminated sediments, in order of decreasing importance based on
numbers of miles impaired (Alabama Department of Environmental
Management 1994). Water quality in the lower Alabama River is generally
good; however, two localized river segments above Claiborne Lock and
Dam have been reported as occasionally impaired due to excess nutrients
and organic enrichment (Alabama Department of Environmental Management
1994). Sources of impairment were broadly identified as the combined
effects of industrial and municipal discharges, and runoff from
agriculture and silviculture. These river segments are also affected by
hydropower discharges from Millers Ferry Lock and Dam.
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. As discussed in the ``Background'' section of
this proposed rule, the Alabama sturgeon was commercially harvested
around the turn of the century. Alabama State law (sect. 220-2--.26-4)
now protects the Alabama sturgeon and other sturgeons requiring that
``* * * any person who shall catch a sturgeon shall immediately return
it to the waters from whence it came with the least possible harm.'' As
a result, sturgeon are not currently pursued by commercial or
recreational fishermen. Nonetheless, Alabama sturgeon are occasionally
caught by fishermen in nets or trot lines set for other species. For
example, one of the Alabama sturgeons caught in 1995 was hooked by a
fisherman on a trot line, and the Alabama sturgeon caught in 1996 was
trapped in a hoop net; both of these fish were released. Doubtless
there have been additional, undocumented incidental captures by
commercial and sport fishermen; however, the surveys and collection
efforts of the past decade have shown such captures to be rare.
C. Disease or predation. There are no known threats from disease or
natural predators. To the extent that disease or predation occurs, it
becomes a more important consideration as the total population
decreases in number.
D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. As we
discussed in factor B, Alabama State law (sect. 220-2-.26-4) protects
the Alabama sturgeon and other sturgeons requiring that ``* * * any
person who shall catch a sturgeon shall immediately return it to the
waters from whence it came with the least possible harm.'' As a result,
sturgeon are not currently pursued by commercial or recreational
fishermen. There is currently no requirement within the scope of other
environmental laws or Alabama State law to specifically consider the
Alabama sturgeon or ensure that a project will not jeopardize its
continued existence.
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. The primary threat to the immediate survival of the Alabama
sturgeon is its apparent inability to offset mortality rates with
current reproduction rates. As noted in the ``Background'' section,
incidents of capture of Alabama sturgeon have been steadily diminishing
for the past two decades, indicating declining population numbers over
this time. Recent studies suggest that below some minimum population
size, termed ``minimum viable population'' (MVP), a species is unable
to offset mortality rates with natural reproduction and recruitment
(Soule 1987). In such cases, the species becomes more vulnerable to
extinction from natural or human-induced random events (e.g., droughts,
floods, competition, variations in prey abundance, toxic spills, etc.),
which further reduce recruitment or increase mortality. Estimates of
the MVP in vertebrates range from hundreds to thousands of reproducing
individuals
[[Page 14682]]
(Belovsky 1987, Shaffer 1987, Lande and Barrowclough 1987).
Sturgeons may be especially sensitive to MVP effects (likely to
become extinct) for several reasons. Age at first spawning (ranging
from 5 to 7 years for shovelnose sturgeon) is much delayed in
comparison to other fishes, and female sturgeons may not spawn for
intervals of several years (Wallus et al. 1990). Thus, the effective
population size (number of adult males and females capable of
reproducing in a given year) is much smaller than it would be if
reproduction began earlier and took place annually. Also, recruitment
success in fish is subject to considerable natural variability owing to
fluctuations of environmental conditions, and there can be several
years between periods of good recruitment.
Currently, there are no population estimates for the Alabama
sturgeon. Recent collection efforts demonstrate its increasing rarity.
For example, beginning in the spring of 1997 through 1998, up to four
crews of professional fisheries biologists have expended approximately
3,000 man-hours of fishing effort in the lower Alabama River to capture
Alabama sturgeon for use as broodstock. This effort resulted in the
capture of only three Alabama sturgeon. During this time, commercial
and recreational fishermen encountered on the Alabama River were
interviewed, and asked to report any captures of sturgeon to the ADCNR.
No incidental catches were reported. Thus, approximately 18 months of
fishing by professional, commercial, and recreational fishermen
resulted in the capture of only three Alabama sturgeon. Compared to the
estimated 20,000 Alabama sturgeon reported in the 1898 harvest, the
amount of effort currently required to capture Alabama sturgeon
indicates that the species' population numbers are extremely low. This
strongly suggests that the Alabama sturgeon is highly vulnerable to MVP
effects.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
faced by the Alabama sturgeon in determining to propose this rule.
Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list the Alabama
sturgeon as endangered. The Act defines an endangered species as one
that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become an
endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Endangered status is appropriate for
the Alabama sturgeon due to the extensive curtailment of its range and
extremely low population numbers.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) that may require special management
consideration or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of
the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and
procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing
under the Act is no longer necessary.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time
the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical
habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations
exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other activity and
the identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of threat to the species, or (2) Such designation of critical
habitat would not be beneficial to the species. We find that
designation of critical habitat is not presently prudent for the
Alabama sturgeon.
Critical habitat receives consideration under section 7 of the Act.
Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service
to ensure that any action they carry out, authorize, or fund does not
jeopardize the continued existence of a federally listed species or
destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. The Service's
implementing regulations (50 CFR part 402) define ``jeopardize the
continuing existence of'' and ``destruction or adverse modification
of'' in very similar terms. To jeopardize the continuing existence of a
species means to engage in an action ``that reasonably would be
expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood
of both the survival and recovery of a listed species by reducing the
reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species.'' Destruction
or adverse modification of habitat means a ``direct or indirect
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat
for both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild.''
Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect to both
the survival and recovery of a listed species.
For any listed species, an analysis to determine jeopardy under
section 7(a)(2) would consider impacts to the species resulting from
impacts to habitat. Therefore, an analysis to determine jeopardy would
include an analysis closely parallel to or, for the Alabama sturgeon,
equivalent to an analysis to determine adverse modification of critical
habitat. For the Alabama sturgeon, any modification to suitable habitat
within the species' range has the potential to affect the species.
Actions that may affect the habitat of the Alabama sturgeon in the
lower Alabama River include those with impacts on river channel
morphology, bottom substrate composition, water quantity and quality,
and stormwater runoff. Any activity that would be determined to cause
an adverse modification to critical habitat also would jeopardize the
continued existence of this fish given its restricted distribution and
imperiled status.
Critical habitat designation within a species' occupied range
heightens the awareness of Federal agencies to the potential presence
of the species, and encourages consideration of the effects of Federal
actions on the species' habitat. We have worked closely with Federal
agencies, particularly the Corps, in evaluating Federal agency actions
and their potential effects to the Alabama sturgeon (Biggins 1994). All
potentially affected Federal agencies are currently aware of the
location and extent of habitat occupied by the Alabama sturgeon. In
addition, should the species be listed, Federal actions that might
affect occupied sturgeon habitat would be subject to review under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, whether or not critical habitat is
designated. Therefore, habitat protection for the Alabama sturgeon can
be accomplished through the section 7 jeopardy standard and there is no
benefit in designating occupied habitat as critical habitat.
Designation of unoccupied habitat as critical habitat may, in
certain instances, provide additional protection to that afforded by
the jeopardy standard. Specific areas outside the geographic area
occupied by a species at the time it is listed may be designated as
critical habitat, if it is determined that such areas are essential for
the conservation of the species. The ecological requirements of the
Alabama sturgeon are so poorly known, its historical habitats are so
severely modified and fragmented, and its population numbers are so
small, that extensive research
[[Page 14683]]
over an extended period of time would be required to identify any
existing essential unoccupied habitats (see ``Background'' and
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' sections).
Though critical habitat designation directly affects only Federal
agency actions, this process can arouse public concern and resentment.
Although Alabama sturgeon are currently protected from commercial or
recreational fishing, they are occasionally captured (see factor B).
Publicity or controversy accompanying critical habitat designation may
increase the potential for illegal take. For example, on June 15, 1993,
the Alabama sturgeon was initially proposed for endangered status with
critical habitat (59 FR 33148). Proposed critical habitat included the
lower portions of the Alabama, Cahaba, and Tombigbee rivers in south
Alabama. The proposal generated thousands of comments with the primary
concern that the proposed listing and designation of these rivers as
critical habitat would devastate the economy of the State of Alabama
and severely impact adjoining States. There were reports from State
conservation agents and other knowledgeable sources of rumors inciting
the capture and destruction of Alabama sturgeon.
The primary threat to the Alabama sturgeon has been identified as
its small numbers and its apparent inability to offset mortality rates
with current reproduction rates (see factor E). As noted in the
``Available Conservation Measures'' section, a collaborative effort by
public and private partners to address this threat and conserve the
Alabama sturgeon was initiated in 1997. Essential to this effort is the
collection of sturgeon for use as broodstock for hatchery propagation,
and for telemetry studies on habitat and behavior. Commercial and
recreational fishermen have caught two of the seven fish captured over
the past decade. Their continued cooperation is important to on-going
Alabama sturgeon conservation efforts. The loss of the cooperation of
fishermen and other private partners, as a result of proposed
designation of unoccupied habitat as critical habitat, would be
detrimental to the survival and recovery of the species.
It should also be noted that regardless of critical habitat
designation, Federal agencies are required by section 7(a)(1) of the
Act to utilize their authorities in furtherance of the Act's purposes
by carrying out conservation activities for listed species. We have
been working with the Corps and other partners to assess habitat
quantity, quality, and accessibility within the historic range of the
Alabama sturgeon. Such studies, along with ongoing broodstock
collection efforts, hatchery propagation, and other activities have
focused attention on the sturgeon, its habitat, and threats to its
existence, and will continue should the species be listed. Thus, any
benefit that might accrue from designation of unoccupied habitat as
critical is being accomplished under the existing coordination process.
Based on the above analysis, we have concluded critical habitat
designation would provide no additional benefit for the Alabama
sturgeon beyond that which would accrue from listing under the Act. In
addition, we also conclude that any potential benefit from such a
designation would be outweighed by a loss of cooperation by fishermen
and other partners in current conservation efforts, and an increased
level of vulnerability to illegal take. Therefore, the designation of
critical habitat for the Alabama sturgeon is not prudent.
Available Conservation Measures
The ADCNR has implemented a conservation plan for the sturgeon that
addresses the immediate threat to the species, its depressed population
size, and seeks to develop information on the species and its habitat
needs. A variety of public and private groups, including the Service,
Army Corps of Engineers, Geological Survey of Alabama, Auburn
University, the Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition, and the Mobile
River Basin Coalition are participating in, and/or endorse,
implementation of this plan. The immediate focus of the plan is to
prevent extinction through a captive breeding program and release of
propagated fish. Other objectives of the plan include habitat
restoration and determining life history information essential to
effective management of the species. A freshwater sturgeon conservation
plan working group composed of scientists and resource managers from a
variety of Federal and State agencies, industry, and local universities
was formed in September 1996 to establish collection and handling
protocols, and to recommend and participate in research efforts.
Implementation of the conservation plan began in March 1997, with
broodstock collection efforts. A female and two male sturgeon have been
collected and are being held at the Marion Fish Hatchery. The hatchery
has been upgraded to accommodate sturgeon propagation. An attempt to
spawn the captive sturgeon is planned for spring 1999. Coordinated
studies are currently in progress by us, the ADCNR, and the Corps to
identify and quantify stable riverine habitat in the Alabama River, and
to develop strategies for its management. Life history and habitat
studies in progress include habitat characterization at historic
sturgeon collection sites, prey density studies, and larval sturgeon
surveys.
The Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Coalition, a
partnership comprised of diverse business, environmental, private
landowner, and agency interests, has been meeting regularly to
participate in recovery planning for 15 listed aquatic species in the
Basin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). The Coalition promotes
increased stewardship awareness by private landowners throughout the
Basin, and encourages the control of nonpoint source pollution through
the implementation of Best Management Practices. All aquatic habitats,
including Alabama sturgeon habitat, will benefit from such efforts.
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in
conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups,
and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and
cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be
carried out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal
agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are discussed, in
part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or
listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer
informally with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency
must enter into formal consultation with us.
Federal activities that could occur and impact the Alabama sturgeon
include, but are not limited to, the carrying out or the issuance of
permits for reservoir
[[Page 14684]]
construction, stream alterations, discharges, wastewater facility
development, water withdrawal projects, pesticide registration, mining,
and road and bridge construction. It has been our experience that
nearly all section 7 consultations have been resolved so that the
species have been protected and the project objectives have been met.
The Act and its implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set
forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all
endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or
collect; or to attempt any of these), import or export, ship in
interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It
also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship
any wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to
our agents and agents of State conservation agencies.
It is our policy, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34272), to identify, to the maximum extent practicable, those
activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9
of the Act if this species is listed. The intent of this policy is to
increase public awareness as to the effects of these proposed listings
on future and ongoing activities within a species' range.
Activities that we believe are unlikely to result in a violation of
section 9 for the Alabama sturgeon are:
(1) Discharges into waters supporting the sturgeon, provided these
activities are carried out in accordance with existing regulations and
permit requirements (e.g., activities subject to section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and discharges regulated under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)).
(2) Maintenance dredging of unconsolidated sediments undertaken or
approved by the Corps of Engineers.
(3) Development and construction activities designed and
implemented pursuant to State and local water quality regulations and
implemented using approved Best Management Practices.
(4) Lawful commercial and sport fishing.
(5) Actions that may affect the Alabama sturgeon and are
authorized, funded or carried out by a Federal agency when the action
is conducted in accordance with an incidental take statement issued by
the Service pursuant to section 7 of the Act.
Activities that we believe could potentially result in ``take'' of
the Alabama sturgeon, if it becomes listed, include:
(1) Illegal collection of the Alabama sturgeon.
(2) Unlawful destruction or alteration of the Alabama sturgeon's
habitat (e.g., un-permitted instream dredging, channelization,
discharge of fill material).
(3) Violation of any discharge or water withdrawal permit in waters
supporting the Alabama sturgeon.
(4) Illegal discharge or dumping of toxic chemicals or other
pollutants into waters supporting the Alabama sturgeon.
Other activities not identified above will be reviewed on a case-
by-case basis to determine if a violation of section 9 of the Act may
be likely to result from such activity should the sturgeon become
listed. We do not consider these lists to be exhaustive and provide
them as information to the public.
You should direct questions regarding whether specific activities
will constitute a violation of section 9, should the sturgeon be
listed, to the Field Supervisor of our Jackson Field Office (see
ADDRESSES section).
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances.
Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23.
Such permits are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in
connection with otherwise lawful activities. Send requests for copies
of regulations regarding listed species and inquiries about
prohibitions and permits to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Ecological Services Division, 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, Georgia
30345 (telephone 404/679-7313; facsimile 404/679-7081).
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
party concerning this proposed rule. Comments particularly are sought
concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threat (or lack thereof) to this species;
(2) The location of any additional populations of this species and
the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be
critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act;
(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and
population size of this species; and
(4) Current or planned activities in the lower Alabama River and
their possible impacts on this species.
We will take into consideration your comments and any additional
information received on this species when making a final determination
regarding this proposal. We will also submit the available scientific
data and information to appropriate, independent specialists for
review. We will summarize the opinions of these reviewers in the final
decision document. The final determination may differ from this
proposal based upon the information we receive.
You may request a public hearing on this proposal. Your request for
a hearing must be made in writing and filed within 45 days of the date
of publication of this proposal in the Federal Register. Address your
request to the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make
this rule easier to understand including answers to the following: (1)
Are the requirements of the rule clear? (2) Is the discussion of the
rule in the Supplementary Information section of the preamble helpful
in understanding the rule? (3) What else could we do to make the rule
easier to understand?
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that Environmental Assessments and Environmental
Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any new collections of information other
than those already approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of Management and Budget
clearance number 1018-0094. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a
[[Page 14685]]
currently valid control number. For additional information concerning
permit and associated requirements for endangered species, see 50 CFR
17.22.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this document, as well
as others, is available upon request from the Field Supervisor (see
ADDRESSES section).
Author: The primary author of this document is Paul Hartfield (see
ADDRESSES section)(601/965-4900, extension 25).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, the Service proposes to amend part 17, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend section 17.11(h) by adding the following to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, in alphabetical order under FISHES:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fishes
* * * * * * *
Sturgeon, Alabama................ Scaphirhynchus U.S.A.(AL, MS)..... Entire............. E NA NA
suttkusi.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: March 18, 1999.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 99-7387 Filed 3-23-99; 9:43 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
