4022 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Background indicating that the requested listing of In 1997, we added Alabama shad to Alabama shad may be warranted. National Oceanic and Atmospheric our Candidate Species List (62 FR On April 28, 2011, in response to the Administration 37562; July 14, 1997). At that time, a negative 90-day finding, CBD filed a candidate species was defined as any notice of intent to sue the Department [Docket No. 130626570–6999–02] species being considered by the of Commerce (DOC) and NMFS for Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for alleged violations of the ESA in making its finding. CBD filed the lawsuit in the RIN 0648–XC742 listing as an endangered or a threatened species, but not yet the subject of a U.S. District Court for the District of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife proposed rule (49 FR 38900; October 1, Columbia on January 18, 2012. On June 21, 2013, CBD and DOC/NMFS settled and Plants: Notice of 12-Month Finding 1984). In 2004, we created the Species the lawsuit. We agreed to reevaluate the on a Petition To List Alabama Shad as of Concern list (69 FR 19975; April 15, original listing petition, as well as Threatened or Endangered Under the 2004) to encompass species for which information in our files, including some Endangered Species Act we have some concerns regarding their additional information we acquired after status and threats, but for which the original 90-day finding published on AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries insufficient information is available to February 17, 2011, and publish a new Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and indicate a need to list the species under 90-day finding. On September 19, 2013, Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA). we published a 90-day finding with our Commerce. Twenty-five candidate species, determination that the petition ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding. including the Alabama shad, were presented substantial scientific and transferred to the Species of Concern list SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12- commercial information indicating that at that time because they were not being the petitioned action may be warranted month finding and listing determination considered for ESA listing and were on a petition to list Alabama shad (78 FR 57611). better suited for Species of Concern Our 90-day finding requested (Alosa alabamae) as threatened or status due to some concerns and endangered under the Endangered scientific and commercial information uncertainty regarding their biological from the public to inform a review of Species Act (ESA). We have completed status and threats. The Species of a comprehensive review of the status of the status of the species. We requested Concern status does not carry any information on the status of Alabama Alabama shad in response to the procedural or substantive protections petition submitted by the Center for shad, including: (1) Historical and under the ESA. current distribution and abundance of Biological Diversity (CBD), Alabama On April 20, 2010, the Center for this species throughout its range, Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Biological Diversity (CBD), Alabama including data addressing presence or Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, absence at a riverine scale; (2) historical Network, Tennessee Forests Council, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration and current population sizes and trends; and the West Virginia Highlands Network, Tennessee Forests Council, (3) biological information (life history, Conservancy (petitioners). Based on the and the West Virginia Highlands genetics, population connectivity, etc.); best scientific and commercial Conservancy (petitioners) submitted a (4) landings and trade data; (5) information available on the status of petition to the Secretaries of Interior and management, regulatory, and Alabama shad, we have determined that Commerce, as well as to the Regional enforcement information; (6) any the species does not warrant listing at Director of the Southeast Region of the current or planned activities that may this time. We conclude that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service adversely impact the species; and (7) Alabama shad is not currently in danger (USFWS), to list 404 aquatic, riparian, ongoing or planned efforts to protect of extinction throughout all or a and wetland species from the and restore the species and its habitat. significant portion of its range and is not southeastern United States as threatened We received information from the likely to become so within the or endangered under the ESA. The public in response to the 90-day finding, foreseeable future. petitioners also requested that critical and we incorporated all relevant DATES: This finding was made on habitat be designated for all petitioned information into our review of the status January 12, 2017. species. We notified the USFWS’ of Alabama shad. Southeast Region by letter dated May 3, ADDRESSES: The reference list associated Listing Species Under the ESA with this determination is available by 2010, that the Alabama shad, one of the submitting a request to the Species 404 petitioned species, would fall under We are responsible for determining Conservation Branch Chief, Protected NMFS’ jurisdiction based on the August whether Alabama shad warrants listing Resources Division, NMFS Southeast 1974 Memorandum of Understanding as threatened or endangered under the Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue regarding jurisdictional responsibilities ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) To be South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701–5505, and listing procedures between the two considered for listing under the ESA, a Attn: Alabama shad 12-month finding. agencies. We proposed to USFWS that group of organisms must constitute a The reference list is also available we would evaluate the petition, for ‘‘species,’’ which is defined in section 3 electronically at:http:// Alabama shad only, for the purpose of of the ESA to include taxonomic species sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_ the 90-day finding and any required and ‘‘any subspecies of fish, or wildlife, resources/listing_petitions/species_esa_ subsequent listing action. On May 14, or plants, and any distinct population consideration/index.html 2010, we sent the petitioners segment of any species of vertebrate fish confirmation we would be evaluating or wildlife which interbreeds when FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the petition for Alabama shad. On mature.’’ Section 3 of the ESA defines Kelly Shotts, NMFS, Southeast Regional February 17, 2011, we published a an endangered species as ‘‘any species Office (727) 824–5312; or Marta negative 90-day finding in the Federal which is in danger of extinction Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Register (76 FR 9320) stating that the throughout all or a significant portion of Resources (301) 427–8469. petition did not present substantial its range’’ and a threatened species as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: scientific or commercial information one ‘‘which is likely to become an

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4023

endangered species within the likely to become so in the foreseeable any of the other Alosa species and foreseeable future throughout all or a future, throughout all of its range. Alabama shad (Kreiser and Schaefer significant portion of its range.’’ Thus, We describe each of the steps listed 2009). we interpret an ‘‘endangered species’’ to above in detail in the following sections Diet be one that is presently in danger of of this finding. Alabama shad are likely generalist extinction. A ‘‘threatened species,’’ on Review of the Status of Alabama Shad the other hand, is not presently in insect feeders. Mickle et al. (2013) danger of extinction, but is likely to We have identified the best available conducted stomach content analyses on become so in the foreseeable future (that scientific and commercial information individuals collected from the is, at a later time). In other words, the in order to conduct a comprehensive Pascagoula and Apalachicola Rivers. primary statutory difference between a review of the status of Alabama shad. The stomach contents of the smallest threatened and endangered species is Unlike many of our other 12-month juvenile Alabama shad (those less than the timing of when a species may be in findings, we have not developed a 50 millimeters), collected exclusively danger of extinction, either presently separate status review report. Instead we from the Pascagoula River, were made (endangered) or in the foreseeable future present all available relevant up primarily of semi-decomposed algae (threatened). information for Alabama shad in this and other unidentifiable organics, Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires Federal Register notice. suggesting filter feeding or particulate us to make listing determinations based Taxonomy feeding of smaller prey. As the size of solely on the best scientific and Alabama shad taken from the commercial data available after Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae) was Pascagoula River increased, the conducting a review of the status of the first described by David Starr Jordan percentage of terrestrial and aquatic species and after taking into account and Barton Warren Evermann in 1896 in insects in the stomach contents efforts being made by any state or the Black Warrior River near increased. Mickle et al. (2013) found foreign nation to protect the species. Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Jordan and that terrestrial insects dominated the Under section 4(a) of the ESA, we must Evermann 1896). Alabama shad was stomach contents of all size classes of determine whether any species is depicted earlier as ‘‘white shad’’ in Alabama shad taken from the endangered or threatened due to any documents from the U.S. Commission Apalachicola River. Diet of Alabama one or a combination of the following on Fish and Fisheries circa 1860 and shad from both the Apalachicola and five factors: (A) The present or was often confused with other shad Pascagoula Rivers changed as the size of threatened destruction, modification, or even after it had been described (Daniels the fish increased, with insects curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 1860, Barkuloo et al. 1993). Alabama replacing unidentifiable organic matter. overutilization for commercial, shad belong to the family Clupeidae and Ephemeroptera nymphs, an order of recreational, scientific, or educational are closely related to, as well as similar aquatic insects, dominated the diets of purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) in appearance and life history to, the larger Alabama shad from both rivers. the inadequacy of existing regulatory American shad (A. sapidissima). They These nymphs produce aquatic juvenile mechanisms; or (E) other natural or also resemble the skipjack herring (A. larvae that emerge in open water in the manmade factors affecting its continued chrysochloris), which occurs in the same habitats where Mickle et al. (2013) existence (Sections 4(a)(1)(A) through same areas as Alabama shad. Defining collected the Alabama shad for their (E)). characteristics of the Alabama shad are study. Mickle et al. (2013) noted that We followed a stepwise approach in an upper jaw with a distinct median these observed ontogenetic dietary shifts making this listing determination for notch, and the number of gill rakers (41 seemed to coincide with habitat shifts Alabama shad. First we conducted a to 48) on the lower limb of the anterior and are consistent with a generalist biological review of the species’ gill arch. Alabama shad differ strategy. taxonomy, distribution, abundance, life morphologically from other Alosa Age and Growth history, and biology. Next, using the species that occur in the same area by best available information, we a lower jaw that does not protrude Like many clupeids (the family of fish completed an extinction risk assessment beyond the upper jaw, black spots along that include shad, herring, sardines, and using the general procedure of the length of the lower jaw, and a dorsal menhaden), egg hatching period and Wainwright and Kope (1999). Then, we fin that lacks an elongated filament. growth of subsequent larvae varies by assessed the threats affecting the status Alabama shad are considered a location and environmental factors. of each species using the five factors separate species from the closely related Mickle et al. (2010) found those identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. American shad based on mitochondrial Alabama shad that hatched in the In the next step, we evaluated the DNA molecular data (Bowen 2005, Apalachicola River had a longer available information to determine 2008, Kreiser and Schaefer 2009), in successful hatch window (mean of 58 whether there is a portion of the species’ addition to the physical differences. days) compared to those in the range that is ‘‘significant’’ in light of the There is limited genetic difference and Pascagoula River (mean of 33.8 days). use of the term in the definitions of it is theorized that the two species have Juvenile Alabama shad exhibit rapid threatened and endangered. We only recently diverged from a common growth, although the size of juveniles followed the final policy interpreting ancestor. Alabama shad is its own varies across the range of the species. the phrase ‘‘significant portion of its monophyletic group (a group of Typical juvenile Alabama shad increase range’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). A organisms descended from a single in size from about 4.7 centimeters total portion of the range of a species is ancestor) due to limited genetic length (cm TL, the length of the fish ‘‘significant’’ if the species is not differences among the Clupeidae family measured from the tip of the snout to tip currently endangered or threatened and allopatric speciation (speciation by of the tail fin) to about 10.1 cm TL over throughout all of its range, but the geographic isolation, Bowen 2008). the summer but variation can occur portion’s contribution to the viability of There has been no significant genetic depending on the river drainage. For the species is so important that, without differentiation among different stocks of example, juvenile Alabama shad from the members in that portion, the species Alabama shad geographically and there the Apalachicola River grew faster than would be in danger of extinction, or is no evidence of hybridization between those in the Pascagoula River despite

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 4024 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices

similar environmental conditions eggs, as suggested by Mills (1972), or if Life History Strategy (Laurence and Yerger 1967, Mickle their gonads ripen as river temperatures On the spectrum of life history 2010). In the Chipola River, Florida, increase (Laurence and Yerger 1967). strategies, Alabama shad tend to be ‘‘r juveniles move downstream at an Females tend to release their eggs in late strategists’’, species that are typically average size of 6.5 cm TL, while those April and early May when the water short-lived, have small body size, reach moving down the nearby Apalachicola temperatures are 20–21 °C (Mettee and sexual maturity at an early age, and River averaged 11.5 cm TL (Laurence O’Neil 2003, Ingram 2007). Fecundity have high natural mortality that is and Yerger 1967). (reproductive capacity) is related to size, balanced by a high growth rate (Adams In both the Apalachicola and with larger females producing more eggs 1980). Species that are r strategists adapt Choctawhatchee Rivers, Florida, adult (Ingram 2007, Young 2010). Alabama to unstable, unpredictable environments female shad were typically longer and shad produced 26,000–250,000 eggs per by producing higher numbers of heavier than the adult males (Laurence female in the Apalachicola River and offspring as compared to k strategist and Yerger 1967, Mills 1972, Mettee and species living in stable, predictable O’Neil 2003). Age 1–3 males on average between 36,000–357,000 eggs per female environments. Elliott and Quintino weigh 250 grams and age 1–4 females in the Choctawhatchee River (Mettee (2007) found that species living in weigh around 650 grams before and O’Neil 2003, Ingram 2007). After unpredictable, variable, and even spawning (Mettee and O’Neil 2003, spawning, the younger (age 2 and 3) stressed environments are well-adapted Ingram 2007). Alabama shad migrate back to marine Two studies have aged otoliths of waters. The older spawners (age-4 and to cope with these conditions without or Alabama shad but only one study has fit older) either die or are preyed upon by with reduced adverse effects. Adapting growth models to observed age data. In other piscivorous fish (Laurence and to highly variable environments also the Pascagoula River, maximum Yerger 1967). produces high natural variability in r strategist populations. Adams (1980) observed age was 6 years based on Because of the age range among the otoliths (Mettee and O’Neil 2003), while noted that fisheries for r strategists can spawning fish, it is believed that have very large catches some years, but Ingram (2007) aged shad from the individuals may spawn more than once Apalachicola River to 4 years. are characterized by erratic, highly in a lifetime (Laurence and Yerger 1967, variable production levels overall. Most Reproductive Biology Mettee and O’Neil 2003, Ingram 2007, clupeoids (an order of soft-finned fishes Alabama shad is a euryhaline Mickle et al. 2010). Laurence and Yerger that includes Alabama shad, other (adapted to a wide range of salinities), (1967) indicated that 35 percent of clupeids, and anchovies in the family anadromous fish species that migrates Alabama shad were likely repeat engraulidae) have a short life span and between the ocean and medium to large spawners and noted that 2–4 year old show striking inter-annual or decadal flowing rivers to spawn (reproduce) males from the Apalachicola River had variation in productivity and abundance from the Mississippi River basin to the spawning marks on their scales. Mills (Mace et al. 2002). Fisheries for Suwannee River, Florida. Alabama shad (1972) also observed 35–38 percent clupeoids can vanish for 50–100 years spawn in February to April at lower repeat spawners (mostly age-3) as well then undergo a remarkable recovery latitudes in the south and May to June as discernable spawning marks on with the population growing as fast as in more northern latitudes, usually over scales from the Apalachicola River 40 percent per year (Mace et al. 2002). sandy bottoms, gravel shoals, or population. In addition, Mettee and Sammons and Young (2012) noted limestone outcrops (Laurence and O’Neil (2003) noted that many Alabama that the population sizes of species in Yerger 1967, Mills 1972, Barkuloo 1993, shad collected from the Choctawhatchee the Alosa genus commonly fluctuate Kreiser and Schaefer 2009, Mickle et al. River were repeat spawners, with age-3 widely. An Alabama shad researcher 2010). Water temperatures between 18 and age-4 females comprising the with the Georgia Department of Natural and 22 °C and moderate current majority of repeat spawners in 1994– Resources (DNR) noted that as an r velocities (0.5–1.0 meters (m) per 1995, and age-2 and age-3 females the strategist, Alabama shad are prone to second) promote successful spawning majority in 1999–2000. In contrast, ‘‘boom and bust’’ years, but they are also (Laurence and Yerger 1967, Mills 1972). Ingram (2007) has not observed highly fecund (capable of producing an abundance of offspring) and can recover If environmental circumstances are spawning marks on the scales of quickly from even a small number of unfavorable, mature Alabama shad will Apalachicola River shad and most fish fish (based on the results of stocking sometimes abandon their upstream in the Apalachicola may die after efforts; T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. spawning movement (Young 2010). spawning (Smith et al. 2011). Alabama Spawning males range in age from 1 comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, shad appear to be philopatric and return to 5 years and females from 2 to 6 years 2016). In fact, the speciation (Mickle et al. 2010). Some age-1 male to the same rivers to spawn, resulting in (evolutionary process by which Alabama shad move into fresh water for slight genetic differences among river reproductively isolated biological their first spawning, but the primary drainages (Meadows 2008, Mickle populations evolve to become distinct spawning age classes tend to be 2–3 2010). These genetic differences may species) of Alabama shad likely years for males and 2–4 years for result in characteristics (e.g., faster occurred from a very small number of females; any age-4 Alabama shad growth rates, higher temperature fish that dispersed around the Florida present in rivers are almost always tolerance, etc.) that lead to variable peninsula and became separated from female (Laurence and Yerger 1967, spawning strategies among river other Alosa species during the Mettee and O’Neil 2003, Ingram 2007). drainages. Kreiser and Schaefer (2009) Pleistocene (Bowen et al. 2008). Males arrive at spawning sites first and found slight genetic distinctions Modeling conducted by Moyer (2012) increase in abundance as the spawning between populations from the indicated that the Pleistocene bottleneck season continues, while females appear Mississippi River basin and coastal Gulf for Alabama shad was intense. The in large groups slightly later in the of Mexico drainages due to Alabama effective population size for Alabama spawning season (Mills 1972, Mettee shad straying from their natal rivers, at shad during the bottleneck was and O’Neil 2003). It is unknown an estimated rate of about 10 migrants estimated to be between 76 and 398, whether females arrive with ripened per generation. meaning 76–398 individuals is the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4025

population size during the Pleistocene Mexico and move into rivers in the Alabama shad in a technical estimated to have been necessary to spring to spawn. First year (age-0) memorandum published in August 2011 result in the relatively low genetic juveniles stay upriver in freshwater (Smith et al. 2011). In addition to diversity observed in members of the environments until late summer or fall conducting an extensive search of all species today. Moyer (2012) also noted and eventually migrate downstream to publications, technical reports, and that the bottleneck event was prolonged the Gulf of Mexico. Juveniles coming theses available, NMFS staff surveyed (145–987 shad generations), indicating from natal rivers located at more scientists at universities, state and that the species persisted at very low northern latitudes (e.g., Ouachita River Federal facilities, and non-profit numbers for an extended period of time. in Arkansas) begin downstream organizations throughout the historical movement throughout the summer, range of Alabama shad for any recent Habitat Use and Migration reaching the Gulf of Mexico by autumn. recorded captures. Surveys were sent by Alabama shad are found in the Gulf Juveniles located at more southern email, and information was requested of Mexico, although there is very little latitudes (e.g., Pascagoula River in on capture dates, location, and number information about their marine habitat Florida) will remain in natal rivers as of Alabama shad captured, if available. use. Only six records of Alabama shad late as December before beginning their Additionally, capture information and collected in marine waters exist. The downstream movement to the Gulf of observations were provided by state and Florida Museum of Natural History Mexico. Alabama shad do not Federal agencies during the public reports one specimen was captured in overwinter in freshwater river systems comment period on our 90-day finding. July 1957 approximately 80 miles (mi) (Mickle et al. 2010). Information on the historical and or 129 kilometers (km) south of Alabama shad prefer cooler river current distribution and abundance of Choctawhatchee Bay, Florida, in about waters with high dissolved oxygen (DO) Alabama shad is largely lacking. 100 meters of water (Fishnet2 2015, and pH levels (Mickle et al. 2010). Alabama shad was never an Catalogue #28671). The National Although there have been no studies on economically important species, Museum of Natural History, the thermal tolerances of Alabama shad, therefore information from fisheries Smithsonian Institution, reports another other Alosa species cannot tolerate statistics, such as landings data, is rare. Alabama shad was captured just off water temperatures greater than 32°C; it Hildebrand (1963) noted that Alabama Dauphin Island, Alabama, in December is likely that Alabama shad also cannot shad were considered unfit for human 1960 in 15 meters of water (Fishnet2 tolerate high water temperatures consumption, and the lack of demand 2015, Catalogue #293755.5174309). Two (Beitinger et al. 1999). Mickle et al. produced no incentive to capture the Alabama shad were collected (2010) found spawning adults in waters species or record its presence and approximately 115 km southwest of as cold as 10 °C, but juveniles have been abundance. Very few directed research Cape San Blas, Florida in November collected in waters as warm as 32 °C studies on Alabama shad have occurred, 2007 (Fishnet2 2015, Catalogue #20627). (Mickle et al. 2010, Young 2010). with the exception of recent studies in An Alabama shad was collected by the Water velocity is also believed to be the Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint Texas A&M University Biodiversity an important habitat feature, as this (ACF) and Pascagoula River systems. Research and Teaching Collections in a species is rarely found in the still or The recent studies in the ACF River trawl about 25 mi (40 km) offshore of backwater portions of rivers. It is system have produced the only Florida, between Tampa Bay and the hypothesized that spring floods abundance estimates, either historical or Charlotte Harbor Estuary (Fishnet2 (increased river flows) are a vital current, for Alabama shad in any river 2016, Catalogue #14540.07). In March environmental cue for spawning adults system. The historical and current 2013, an adult female Alabama shad as well as an important aspect for distribution of Alabama shad in other was collected during a fishery successful hatching. Juveniles tend to systems is based on capture data from independent monitoring survey occupy moderate to fast moving water general multi-species surveys, project approximately 15 km south of the (approximately 0.5–1.2 m per second) monitoring, captures incidental to other Pascagoula River just north of Petit Bois that is less than 1 m deep (Mickle 2010). research studies, and anecdotal Island in Mississippi Sound and Clear water with minimal benthic algal information. Information received from approximately 5 km east of Horn Island growth also appears to be preferred by state resource agencies (e.g., during the Pass, which leads to the open Gulf of this species (Buchanan et al. 1999). public comment period on the 90-day Mexico (Mickle et al. 2015). Smaller, younger shad tend to prefer finding and during development of this Microsatellite DNA analysis indicated the slightly shallower, more protected determination, presented in the sections that the fish was most genetically areas over sandbars, while the older, below) corroborates that long-term, similar to Alabama shad originating larger shad can be found in channel and strategic studies of the species in their from the Pascagoula River. She was bank habitats. Sandbars within the states are lacking. For instance, the observed to have well-developed bends of rivers that are less than 2 m Arkansas Fish and Game Commission ovaries, and Mickle et al. (2015) deep often support juveniles in the early stated in their comments on the suggested she may have been preparing summer (Mickle 2010). As the fish grow, Alabama shad positive 90-day finding to make a spawning run. Stomach they move to bank (greater than 2.5 m they could not assess the status of content analyses showed that the fish deep) and channel (1.5–2.5 m deep) Alabama shad in their state because of was full of small invertebrates. Previous habitats, although the shift is not always the scarcity of information on the studies (e.g., Mills 1972) report few or consistent (Mickle 2010). Presumably, species, the lack of targeted surveys, and no stomach contents in Alabama shad this allows the juveniles to avoid the unknown detectability of the species collected in riverine environments. The predators, fulfill foraging needs, or (M. Oliver, Chief of Fisheries, Arkansas marine specimen with a full stomach access cooler temperatures that might be Fish and Game Commission, pers. collected by Mickle et al. (2015) present in deeper waters (Bystrom 2003, comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, November 5, supports that Alabama shad likely feed Mickle et al. 2010, Mickle 2010). 2013). primarily in marine habitats, similar to Mettee and O’Neil (2003) note that other anadromous species. Distribution and Abundance low numbers of recorded Alabama shad As part of their anadromous life cycle, NMFS documented the current individuals may be due, at least in part, adult Alabama shad leave the Gulf of known distribution and abundance of to insufficient sampling effort during

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 4026 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices

appropriate times (i.e., spawning shad were observed in the Flint River information regarding Alabama shad, migrations) and with the appropriate (Kern 2016; S. Herrington, The Nature then information is presented by rivers gear to target the species. Hildebrand Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, from west to east. (1963) noted the importance of proper NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End Apalachicola River Drainage gear, citing greatly increased catches of Summary Meeting, January 2014; S. Alabama shad that occurred in Sammons, Auburn University, pers. The Apalachicola River drainage is Kentucky when surface-fishing seines comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish made up of the Apalachicola, were substituted for bottom-fishing Passage Year-End Summary Meeting, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers and seines. Short-term studies may also fail January 2015). Alabama shad were drains water from parts of Florida, to accurately demonstrate the status of detected at upstream and downstream Alabama, and Georgia. Alabama shad a given river population of Alabama locations on acoustic receivers, but were were known to have migrated from the shad since this r strategist species is not detected by receivers in between. Apalachicola River up the prone to high natural variability and Multiple methods were used with Chattahoochee River to Walter F. George long-term studies would be necessary to limited success to improve the Reservoir in the early 1970s (Smith et al. reveal any population trajectory. detectability of Alabama shad, including 2011), even with the construction In reviewing data provided by the passive (anchored receivers), boat, and downstream of the Jim Woodruff Lock Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation airplane tracking of acoustically and and Dam (JWLD) in the early 1950s and Commission (FFWCC) during the public radio-tagged shad (S. Sammons, Auburn George W. Andrews Lock and Dam in comment period on the positive 90-day University, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, the early 1960s. Alabama shad were able finding (J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End to pass upstream and downstream when to K. Shotts, NMFS, November 12, Summary Meeting, January 2015). Kern the navigation locks were open. Located 2013), less than 50 Alabama shad were (2016) believed a combination of at the confluence of the Chattahoochee reported since 1999. The shad were behavioral and environmental factors and Flint Rivers, JWLD is the first major collected during multispecies surveys reduced the detectability of Alabama obstacle on the Apalachicola River to not specifically targeting Alabama shad. shad. Kern (2016) notes there are many the upstream migration of Alabama shad The research with positive reports of ‘‘blue hole’’ springs along the river’s to their historical spawning grounds. Alabama shad was conducted using length that are substantially deeper than River traffic on the Apalachicola River otter trawls, seines, and electrofishing the surrounding river and it is possible resulted in the lock being operated during winter (December, January, that Alabama Shad may use these frequently, allowing passage and February), spring (May), summer (June, features as refugia during the spawning sustaining reproduction of the resident July, August), and fall (September, migration. High water conditions were Alabama shad population. Historically, October, November) months between also experienced during portions of the JWLD was operated continuously 24 2002 and 2011. It is notable that none sampling period. Kern (2016) stated that hours per day for commercial barge of the FFWCC surveys were conducted increased water depth during periods of traffic (Sammons 2013). With the in March or April, when the largest high river discharge, swimming depth of elimination of commercial traffic in the catches of Alabama shad have occurred Alabama Shad, and the presence of late 1960s, lock operation was reduced during targeted research in the ACF significantly deeper habitats than what to 8 hours per day for on-demand River system (Kern 2016, Sammons is available in the rest of the river could passage of recreational boats, reducing 2013, 2014). Further, although FFWCC lead to decreased detection probability the number of lockages to less than 100 caught less than 50 Alabama shad from by exceeding the detection range of per year from a high of 1200. Barge 2002–2011, researchers targeting passive and manual receivers. Kern traffic decreased and lock operation Alabama shad in the ACF River system (2016) also noted that Alabama shad are became less frequent when navigational captured 128–1,497 Alabama shad per capable of long, rapid migration runs dredging ceased in 2001 (J. Wilcox, year during an overlapping time period and if those migration runs occur at FFWCC, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, (2005–2011; Young 2010, 2011). This night, Alabama shad will not be NMFS, November 12, 2013). demonstrates the importance of the detected by manual tracking (from boats Researchers believe Alabama shad sampling gear and time of year in and airplanes) that occurs exclusively spawn in shoal habitat downstream of interpreting available data and why during the day. The same detection JWLD based on observations of the short-term and/or non-targeted research problems (gaps in Alabama shad species congregating over the shoals is not always a good indicator of detection at receivers between two during spawning season, as well as distribution and abundance. positive detection points) were usage by other spawning anadromous Even studies designed to target experienced during Alabama shad species, such as Gulf sturgeon Alabama shad have yielded difficulties conservation locking studies in the (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi; T. in detecting the species. Researchers Alabama River system (Kern 2016; S. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. studying Alabama shad in the ACF Sammons, Auburn University, pers. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016). River system noted they had great comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish During the public comment period, difficulty finding Alabama shad in Passage Year-End Summary Meeting, the FFWCC reported collecting fewer portions of the Flint River and January 2015). than 50 Alabama shad in the lower expressed their surprise at the difficulty, It is unknown to what degree the lack Apalachicola River since 1999 (J. given the small size of the river (Kern or low numbers of Alabama shad Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. to K. 2016; S. Herrington, The Nature reported for many river systems Shotts, NMFS, November 12, 2013). In Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, accurately reflects the abundance in reviewing the data provided by FFWCC NMFS, Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam those systems or whether it is indicative during the public comment period on (JWLD) Fish Passage Year-End Summary of the lack of targeted studies or the the positive 90-day finding, the fewer Meeting, January 2014; S. Sammons, detectability of this species. than 50 Alabama shad reported since Auburn University, pers. comm. to K. Distribution and abundance 1999 were collected during multispecies Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year- information is summarized below by surveys (i.e., Alabama shad were not End Summary Meeting, January 2015). rivers, starting with the Apalachicola specifically targeted). The research with Large gaps in detections of Alabama River where we have the most positive reports of Alabama shad was

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4027

conducted using otter trawls, seines, study supported by multiple local, meetings, the cooperators and other and electrofishing during winter academic, state, and Federal interested parties (e.g., universities that (December, January, February), spring conservation partners started tracking are not signatories to the MOU, but are (May), summer (June, July, August), and movements of Alabama shad and other heavily involved in research activities fall (September, October, November) fish species in the Apalachicola River associated with the conservation locking months between 2002 and 2011. It is (USFWS 2008, Ely et al. 2008, TNC in the ACF River system) discuss notable that none of the surveys were 2010). The study also evaluated the lessons learned from the previous year conducted in March or April, when the feasibility of moving fish upriver of and participate in planning the next largest catches of Alabama shad have JWLD during the spawning season. The cycle of spring conservation locking, occurred during research targeting results of this collaborative study including whether the locking operation Alabama shad in the ACF River system, showed that the existing lock at JWLD and schedule can be improved. For which occurs annually between March could be operated to allow fish to move example, during the planned lock and May to coincide with the spring upriver through the lock where they maintenance that occurred during the spawning migration (Kern 2016, could access additional spawning 2013–2014 season, the cooperators were Sammons 2013, 2014). Further, habitat. Based on these results, U.S. able to upgrade the method of delivering although FFWCC caught less than 50 Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) the attractant flow (a stream of high Alabama shad from 2002–2011, began ‘‘conservation locking’’ (operating velocity water used to attract spawning researchers targeting Alabama shad in the lock at JWLD to provide Alabama fish) from a manual system to an electric the ACF River system captured 128– shad access to upstream habitat) in pump as a more efficient way to direct 1,497 Alabama shad per year during an 2005. shad through the lock when overlapping time period (2005–2011; In 2012, the ‘‘cooperator’’ conservation locking resumed (S. Young 2010, 2011). This demonstrates organizations (USACE, USFWS, NMFS, Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, the importance of the sampling gear and Georgia DNR, FFWCC, and TNC) signed pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD time of year in interpreting available a Memorandum of Understanding Fish Passage Year-End Summary data and why short-term and/or non- (MOU) clarifying their commitments Meeting, January 2014). targeted research is not always a good and responsibilities in the continued Population abundance estimates for indicator of distribution and abundance. implementation of fish passage at JWLD. Alabama shad in the ACF River system The ACF River system likely contains The contents of the MOU are described were determined through mark- the largest spawning population of in more detail in the ‘‘Regulations on recapture methods from 2005–2016. The Alabama shad within its range, although Dams’’ section in ‘‘D. Inadequacy of estimated abundances for 2005–2016 are the population may be several orders of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms.’’ In listed in the following table (the magnitude smaller than historical levels fulfillment of the cooperation outlined asterisks indicate years in which no (Schaffler et al. 2015). Because this in the MOU, an annual meeting to conservation locking occurred due to population has remained self-sustaining discuss the issues and outcomes from maintenance and upgrades to the lock at even with apparent declines, a project to the previous spring conservation JWLD). The table also shows the catch restore passage to upstream spawning locking cycle is held, usually in the per unit effort (CPUE) of adult and habitats was initiated (Schaffler et al. early part of the following year (i.e., juvenile Alabama shad during spring 2015). Beginning in 2005, a cooperative January or February). At the annual and fall sampling, respectively.

TABLE 1—ADULT AND JUVENILE ALABAMA SHAD RESEARCH RESULTS IN THE ACF RIVER SYSTEM

Adult population Confidence interval Adult CPUE Juvenile CPUE Year estimate (spring) (spring) (fall) (spring)

2005 ...... 25,935 17,715–39,535 ...... 20 .47 n/a. 2006 ...... 2,767 838–5,031 ...... 6 .10 0.1. 2007 ...... 8,511 5,211–14,674 ...... 13 .17 5.75. 2008 ...... 5,253 1,592–9,551 ...... 13 .00 16.17. 2009 ...... 10,753 3,258–19,551 ...... 9.20 0. 2010 ...... 98,469 51,417–127,251 ...... 7.17 22.4. 2011 ...... 26,193 22,371–43,713 ...... 72 .93 25. 2012 ...... 122,578 57,911–282,872 ...... 100.6 1.9. 2013 * ...... 2,039 618–3,706 ...... 17 .2 1.33. 2014 * ...... n/a n/a [86 fish captured; no re-captures] ...... 6 .5 3.33. 2015 ...... 324 58–3,240 ...... 6 .8 0. 2016 ...... n/a [0 fish captured] ...... 0 CPUE not yet calculated [20 juveniles captured].

In the period of conservation locking, Since conservation locking began, found in the Chattahoochee River, with Alabama shad have been successfully Alabama shad have been reported above the vast majority being found in the passed through the navigational lock at JWLD in both the Chattahoochee River Flint River (Young 2010). In years when the most downstream dam on the ACF, and the Flint River (2008–2010) by the conservation locking occurred, the locks JWLD, providing upstream migration to Georgia DNR (Smith et al. 2011). The were operated twice a day to correspond higher quality spawning and juvenile USACE reported Alabama shad in Lake with the natural movement patterns of rearing habitat, which has potentially George W. Andrews in the migrating fish during spawning seasons improved recruitment and lead to Chattahoochee River during recent (February through May) each year. population increases (Ely et al. 2008, sampling of the area (Smith et al. 2011). During conservation locking, Young et al. 2012, Schaffler et al. 2015). Only a few Alabama shad have been acoustically tagged Alabama shad

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 4028 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices

released below the dam have been pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, 2013). It is unknown whether Alabama found to pass upstream of the lock with February 8, 2016). Based on a predictive shad not captured by researchers 45 percent efficiency (Young 2010). model developed by Clemson, the 2008 successfully spawned at the shoal Alabama shad can more easily access and 2009 Alabama shad population habitat below JWLD where they over 150 mi (241.4 km) of historical estimates would be closer to 8,500 and spawned prior to conservation locking habitat and spawning areas in the ACF 26,000 shad, respectively. (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi; T. River system for the first time in more Young (2010) estimated the number of Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. than 50 years now that the lock is Alabama shad in the ACF River system Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016). Also, operated to correspond with their at 98,469 in 2010, almost 4 times larger during the maintenance period on the natural spawning cues (TNC 2010). than the previous high estimate of lock, the method of delivering the Schaffler et al. (2015) completed a 25,935 in 2005 (Ely et al. 2008). attractant flow (a stream of high velocity study on shad collected in 2010 and Alabama shad were the most abundant water used to attract spawning fish) was 2011 to determine whether fish passage species observed in the Apalachicola upgraded from a manual system to an efforts at JWLD were contributing during spring sampling in 2010 (T. electric pump as a more efficient way to recruits to the adult Alabama shad Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. direct shad through the lock when population. They evaluated otolith Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016). conservation locking resumed (S. (inner ear bone) chemistry from Within the ACF River system, the Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, spawning adult Alabama shad to number of Alabama shad in 2011 was pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD determine the river reach within the estimated at 26,193; this is lower than Fish Passage Year-End Summary ACF basin the fish originated from. the 2010 value but slightly higher than Meeting, January 2014). They first examined the otolith the maximum abundance in the 2005– Conservation locking appears to have chemistry of known-origin juveniles 2009 period (Young 2011). The major enhanced spawning and recruitment of captured in freshwater reaches both difference between the 2010 and 2011 Alabama shad in the ACF River system upstream and downstream of JWLD. Alabama shad spawning runs was a lack (Young 2010, 2011, Sammons and Then, they compared the distinct of age-1 males in 2011. Ingram (2007) Young 2012, Schaffler et al. 2015). chemical signatures of the juvenile noted that fewer age classes and lower Although the ACF population of otoliths to those from returning numbers of older, more mature, fish are Alabama shad has been the largest spawning adults of unknown origin indicative of a declining population. known population for decades captured below the dam to assign river- The 2011 run was dominated by older, (Laurence and Yerger 1967), the lack of reach natal origins. The results showed larger adult females in excellent conservation locking in 2013 and 2014, that the Flint River, inaccessible to condition, a potential indicator of strong combined with environmental Alabama shad prior to conservation year classes in the future (Young 2011). conditions (cold and flooding) and the locking, is the dominant source of Sammons and Young (2012) provided a poor condition of spawning fish recruits returning to spawn in the ACF report from the Apalachicola River, (discussed below), likely produced the River system making up 86 percent of estimating the number of Alabama shad weakest year class since research began the individuals captured. Schaffler et al. at 122,578 in 2012 (the largest since on Alabama shad in the ACF River (2015) found no evidence that collection 2005). This spawning run was System in 2005. However, year, sex, or age impacted the origin of composed of many males presumed to environmental conditions (cold, returning Alabama shad in the ACF be from the 2010 year class, as well as flooding, and the presence of large River system, meaning the Flint River numerous older, larger adults of both debris) and funding levels also produced the majority of recruits in the sexes (presumably recruits from 2008 hampered researchers’ ability to survey ACF River system for the 2008–2010 and 2009). In 2012, the abundance of 3- the Alabama shad population in the cohorts of both males and females. The and 4-year-old fish made up the largest ACF River system in 2013–2015 to results from this study indicate that percentage of spawning Alabama shad, develop reliable population estimates. conservation locking is making a rather than 1- and 2-year-olds as in The Alabama shad population tremendous contribution to Alabama previous years (Ingram 2007), indicating sampled below JWLD during the 2013 shad in the ACF River system, the bulk a healthier population (T. Ingram, spawning season was low compared to of the Alabama shad population in the Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, previous seasons (Sammons 2013). A ACF River system is spawning in the NMFS, June 6, 2016). Sammons and total of 309 Alabama shad were Flint River, and juvenile Alabama shad Young (2012) noted that a year of higher captured below JWLD and of those fish, are able to successfully move than average flows in 2009 may have 87 fish were tagged and 1 was downstream to contribute to the adult contributed to spawning and recaptured, resulting in a population stock. recruitment successes in 2010 and 2012. estimate of 2,039 Alabama shad In 2005, the population estimate in While conservation locking of (Sammons 2013). Sammons (2013) the ACF River system was about 26,000 Alabama shad at JWLD and monitoring noted that most Alabama shad collected individuals, but decreased to less than of Alabama shad populations in the below JWLD in 2013 were in poor 10,000 in both 2006 and 2007 (Ely and ACF River system continue to receive physical condition, with visible wounds Young 2008). In 2008 and 2009, mark- support and funding Alabama shad (this will be discussed further in ‘‘C. recapture methods yielded an Alabama were not passed through the lock in Disease and Predation’’). The wounds shad population estimate of 2013 and 2014 due to maintenance on were observed only on adult fish and approximately 5,200–10,700. However, the structure. However, 74 Alabama not on younger fish, indicating the one of the researchers noted that the shad out of a total of 251 captured by source may have occurred in the Gulf of Alabama shad population estimates for researchers during 2013 were tagged Mexico (Sammons 2013). The wounds 2008 and 2009 (5,253 and 10,753 shad, and transported above JWLD and were also not observed on other respectively) are likely underestimates released (Kern 2016, Sammons 2013) in anadromous species, indicating of the actual population numbers based order to access habitat above the dam. Alabama shad are either more on the results of a companion Of the 74 tagged fish, 11 were verified susceptible to the source of the wounds electrofishing study by Clemson as post-release mortalities, with another or they are distributed in areas that the University (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, 3 suspected mortalities (Sammons other species are not (Sammons 2013).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4029

The wounds remain unexplained, but upstream and spawned (P. Freeman, NMFS, June 6, 2016). No Alabama shad Sammons (2013) cited a news article The Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to were captured in the Apalachicola River reporting gash wounds on fish K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage in 2016, and therefore an abundance potentially associated with the Year-End Summary Meeting, February estimate could not be produced for that Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill resembling 2016). Despite no abundance estimate year (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. the wounds found on Alabama shad. being produced, juvenile CPUE in 2014 comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, Sammons (2014) also cited Murawski et was higher than CPUEs in the 2 2016). However, Alabama shad were al. (2014) noting the anecdotal reports of previous years. observed lower in the Apalachicola skin lesions in offshore fish species in Given the low numbers, Sammons River by another researcher conducting 2010 and 2011, but the symptoms (2014) believes that weak year classes striped bass surveys (T. Ingram, Georgia declined by 2012. The sores have not were produced in 2013 and 2014. DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, been observed in any Alabama shad However, Sammons (2014) stated that June 6, 2016). The Alabama shad survey captured since 2013 (T. Ingram, Georgia water levels and temperature may have occurred about 2 km downstream of DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, factored in to the low catches in 2014. JWLD (Sammons 2014) and therefore June 6, 2016). Water levels and discharge were much would not have encountered Alabama The Alabama shad captured below higher during Alabama shad sampling shad occurring downstream of that JWLD were tagged and/or released in 2014 than in the previous 2 years and location. The gill-netting survey approximately 5 km above the dam the mean catch rate of Alabama shad conducted in Lake Seminole above (Sammons 2013). Most of the Alabama below JWLD was inversely correlated JWLD to detect juvenile Alabama shad shad were relocated (detected again with mean daily discharge over the past occurred in mid-December 2016 and after release) in Lake Seminole just 5 years (Sammons 2014). High water produced 20 juvenile Alabama shad. above the dam, but some fish were and discharge may have hindered catch Even though no adults were captured in detected moving into the preferred rates, but spawning population size was the spring survey, the collection of spawning habitat in the Flint River also likely low (Sammons 2014). juvenile shad above JWLD indicates that (Sammons 2013). Although fewer fish Reasons for the lack of fish found below some adult Alabama shad did were detected making a spawning run JWLD are unknown, but may have also successfully pass through the lock and than in previous years, Alabama shad involved unusually cold water spawn in the ACF system in 2016 (T. traveled greater distances from the area temperatures. As in 2013, water Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. they were released in 2013 than in temperature was generally more than 2– ° Shotts, NMFS, December 15, 2016). At previous years (Sammons 2013). 4 C cooler throughout the spawning the time this 12-month determination Reasons for the lack of fish found season than in 2011 or 2012 (Sammons was prepared, the researchers had not below JWLD are unknown, but 2014). Abnormally low water yet calculated the CPUE for the juvenile unusually cold water temperatures due temperatures in the Apalachicola River survey. to cooler weather patterns present throughout the spring in 2013 and 2014 throughout the Apalachicola River may have inhibited the usual spawning Funding levels and research effort Basin in 2013 may have been a migration cues of this species, resulting may also have contributed to the contributing factor (Sammons 2013). in fewer fish migrating upstream differences in abundance estimates Water temperature serves as one of the (Sammons 2014). Sammons (2014) between 2013–2016 (low number of fish main cues for Alabama shad to enter the stated it is possible that a significant captured) and 2009–2012 (large number ACF River system to spawn (Kern 2016, spawning population of this species of fish captured). Funding levels were Sammons 2013). The researchers persists in the Gulf of Mexico waiting much higher in 2009–2012 and suspect that many Alabama shad had for more normal spring conditions to researchers were pursuing additional not yet entered the Apalachicola River return to the river before initiating their research questions beyond population to spawn during their sampling effort in spawning run. estimates that required them to capture the river, and this factored into the low In 2015, conservation locking more fish (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. numbers captured during 2013. resumed, but the Alabama shad comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, In 2014, 102 Alabama shad were population estimate remained low (324 2016). From 2009–2012, researchers captured below JWLD; 86 were tagged fish). Due to the lack of conservation logged more research time on the and released above JWLD (Sammons locking in 2013 and 2014, and Apalachicola River and targeted higher 2014). No fish were recaptured and a potentially the lack of successful numbers of Alabama shad, which population estimate could not be spawning due to the poor condition of produced robust population estimates. calculated (Sammons 2014). Since the Alabama shad observed in 2013 As noted, environmental conditions conservation locking did not occur in (Sammons 2013, 2014), it is probable greatly hampered research efforts in 2013 or 2014 due to maintenance of the that the actual number of returning 2013–2015. It is unknown whether lock, Alabama shad likely did not pass adult Alabama shad in 2015 was low. catch rates were influenced by upstream except for those transported Similar to the previous year, researchers environmental factors in 2016 or were by researchers. Sammons (2014) noted noted factors that may have reduced strictly a reflection of very low that the Alabama shad captured in 2014 their capture rates, such as high water population numbers, but reduced were smaller than shad captured in the levels and large amounts of debris in the funding further exacerbated researchers’ previous two years, but that the fish river that hampered sampling, ability to increase survey efforts to offset were in better condition and did not potentially leading to the low number of research difficulties or to exhibit the wounds as the majority of recaptures and the low population opportunistically take advantage of the population did in 2013. Although estimate (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. improved environmental conditions few adult Alabama shad were captured comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, February 3, when they occurred (T. Ingram, Georgia in the spring 2014, juvenile Alabama 2016). DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, shad were collected in the fall sampling In 2016, high water levels occurred June 6, 2016). The differences in the above JWLD in 2014 (CPUE of 3.3 in the early in the sampling season, but later trends in Alabama shad adult table above), indicating that adult returned to normal levels (T. Ingram, population estimates and the CPUE of Alabama shad had successfully passed Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, adult Alabama shad between 2005–2016

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 4030 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices

can partially be explained by the have hindered catch rates. The mean would be of spawning age. Recapture differences in sampling effort levels due catch rate of Alabama shad below JWLD rates of tagged adult Alabama shad to both environmental conditions and was inversely correlated with mean ranged from 0 to 2.2 percent per year for funding levels (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, daily discharge over the past 5 years tagged shad. There was not a strong pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, (Sammons 2014). This is similar to relationship (r = 0.33) between 2016), although researchers believe the observations in other systems, and can population size and CPUE, nor between Alabama shad spawning populations in mean high river discharge delayed or population size and the number of the ACF River system in 2013–2016 hindered spawning runs or affected the recaptured fish (r = 0.21). However, were smaller, especially compared to ability of researchers to capture shad. there was a strong positive relationship the 2009–2012 spawning populations. Kern (2016) found that the number of between population size and the As described above, low numbers of detections of tagged Alabama shad in number of fish tagged (r = 0.82). Alabama shad were captured in 2013– 2013 and 2014, as well as the extent of Interestingly, there is a very poor fitting 2015 and no adult Alabama shad were upstream migration by shad, appeared relationship between the number of fish captured in 2016, producing low or no to be influenced by river discharge, with tagged and the number of fish population estimates. From 2013–2016, the lowest number of detections and recaptured (r = 0.15), which indicates the primary cause of low Alabama shad least amount of upstream movement the results are potentially heavily captures is likely that low numbers of occurring during years with relatively influenced by variability in the number Alabama shad returned to spawn in the high river discharges. Sammons (2014; of recaptures in a given year. The ACF River system during those years citing Holman and Barwick 2011, and researchers’ ability to capture, but not as (Sammons 2013, 2014, T. Ingram, Pierce et al. 1985) noted that the inverse easily recapture fish, may provide some Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, relationship between capture of fish by indication that difficulties in detecting NMFS, June 6, 2016). Conservation electrofishing results and high water Alabama shad during research efforts locking did not occur in 2013 and 2014 level is well known. Alabama shad factored into the low population due to maintenance and improvements detection in general proved surprisingly estimates in addition to the actual on the lock. Some Alabama shad difficult to researchers, in both the ACF population size being low. captured by researchers were River and the Alabama River systems, The low catch rates of Alabama shad transported and released above JWLD, with large gaps in detections between in 2013–2016, although potentially but the remaining fish in the population areas where Alabama shad were known influenced by environmental likely only had access to any to have occurred (Kern 2016; S. conditions, detection ability, and downstream spawning habitat Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, research effort, primarily indicate that (Sammons 2013, 2014). However, while pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Alabama shad populations were much conservation locking appears to have Fish Passage Year-End Summary lower during those years than in the significantly increased spawning and Meeting, January 2014; S. Sammons, previous years of research since 2005. recruitment success of Alabama shad Auburn University, pers. comm. to K. However, for an r strategist species such and expanded the species’ access to Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year- as Alabama shad that is inherently additional habitat in the ACF River End Summary Meeting, January 2015). prone to high levels of natural system, the ACF population has been Funding levels and research effort may variability, it is very difficult to the largest known population of also have contributed to the differences interpret a population trend from 11 years of population estimates, with no Alabama shad for decades (Laurence in abundance estimates between 2013– and Yerger 1967) even before historical abundances available for 2016 (low number of fish captured) and conservation locking occurred. The poor comparison. The abundance estimates 2009–2012 (large number of fish condition of Alabama shad in 2013, for Alabama shad in the ACF River captured), with higher funding levels when most fish collected had System demonstrate that the abundance and increased effort in 2009–2012 unexplained external wounds in the system for the 11-year period is compared to the later years (T. Ingram, (Sammons 2013, 2014), potentially led highly variable, and no population trend Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, to poor spawning success and fewer is apparent. The confidence intervals NMFS, June 6, 2016). returning spawners in the following around each of the abundance estimates years. The CPUE of juvenile Alabama To further evaluate potential causes in the table show the wide range of shad in the Flint River in the fall of 2013 and effects of the low capture rates in uncertainty inherent in the abundance was low, although not the lowest the ACF River system in 2013–2016, we data. observed and similar to the CPUE for compared the adult population Based on the life history strategy of 2012, which had the highest adult estimates and CPUEs from spring the species and the short period over population estimate recorded since sampling with the CPUE of juveniles which abundance estimates have been research commenced in 2005. sampled above JWLD in the fall. The available, we cannot discern a pattern or Environmental conditions may have CPUE for juvenile shad is a metric trend in the Alabama shad population affected both shad spawning activities derived from surveys designed to assess in the ACF River system. As an r and the ability of researchers to detect the recruitment success of Alabama strategist, Alabama shad have high shad. Cold temperatures in 2013 and shad upstream of JWLD. Given the natural mortality that is balanced by a 2014 may have postponed the spring growth rate of Alabama shad, surveys high growth rate (Adams 1980). R spawning runs until temperatures for juveniles upstream of JWLD in the strategist populations are well-adapted increased later in the season (and after fall would indicate success of the spring to cope with unstable, unpredictable Alabama shad research had already spawning that occurred earlier in the environments, and this also produces ceased), or the majority of Alabama shad year. Trends in juvenile CPUE did not high natural variability in their may have forgone their annual appear to follow trends in the adult populations (Elliott and Quintino 2007). spawning run and remained in their population estimates or the adult Adams (1980) noted that fisheries for r marine habitat (Sammons 2014). Water CPUEs. Further, the trends in juvenile strategists are ‘‘boom or bust,’’ and levels and discharge were much higher CPUE did not appear to reflect the although catches can be very large some during Alabama shad sampling in 2014 trends in adult population estimates years, they will be characterized by than in the previous 2 years and may either 1 or 2 years later, when juveniles erratic production levels overall.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4031

Alabama shad belong to the clupeoids, However, the Gutreuter et al. (1997) Coon 1994). However, Galat (2005) an order of fish that show striking report did not include specific data on recorded the presence of the species in interannual or decadal variation in Alabama shad and other species, such the Lower Missouri River in 2005, and productivity and abundance, with the as the number of fish caught, gear used, stated that Alabama shad are rare in the ability to persist at extremely low the location of capture, etc. Presently, Ozark Plateaus region in southern population numbers for 50–100 years there are 10 locks and dams on the Missouri. The MDC reported the then undergo a remarkable recovery Upper Mississippi River (north of the collections, by trawl and electrofishing, with the population growing as fast as confluence with the Ohio River) that of Alabama shad from the Gasconade 40 percent per year (Mace et al. 2002). border the state of Iowa and an River (41 fish in 1989, 4 fish in 1997, Sammons (2013) also noted that additional seven locks and dams south 17 fish in 2000, and 26 fish in 2012); the increases of Alabama shad populations of the state that could prevent Alabama purposes and locations of those studies can happen very quickly, as shad from reaching historical spawning were varied (e.g., project monitoring and demonstrated by the rapid rise in grounds within Iowa (Steuck et al. fish surveys) and they were not directed population size between 2006–2009 and 2010). In 1915, 48 Alabama shad were at collecting Alabama shad (C. 2010–2012 (Sammons 2013). While the collected from the Upper Mississippi Gemming, MDC biologist, pers. comm. Alabama shad population appears to be River near Keokuk, Iowa, and it was to J. Rueter, NMFS, September 21, much smaller based on the last 4 years reported that some of these fish were 2016). of tag-recapture data as compared to the able to make it past the Keokuk Dam Meramec River previous 7 years, we did not detect a (Lock and Dam #19) farther upstream discernable trend, the high interannual (Coker 1928). Iowa DNR has collected The Meramec River is a tributary of variability is not unexpected for this no Alabama shad in the Upper the Mississippi River whose confluence species, and the species is adapted to Mississippi River in the areas between is just south of the confluence of the recover from very low numbers of fish, Lock and Dams #16 and #19 in the last Missouri River. The entire length of the even if the population persists at 25 years (Smith et al. 2011). Barko’s river is contained within Missouri. depressed levels for long periods of study (2004b) in the Upper Mississippi Alabama shad were known to spawn in time. River, near the confluence of the Ohio the Meramec River prior to 1978 (Mills The studies in the ACF River system and Missouri Rivers, found no Alabama et al. 1978) and a second spawning have produced the only abundance shad between 1994 and 2000. A species location in the river was discovered in estimates, either historical or current, richness study conducted by Koel the Big River tributary (Mills et al. for Alabama shad in any river system. (2004) indicates that the Upper 1978). Between 1980 and 1997, 88 The following sections of the Mississippi River in the state of Illinois juvenile and 8 adult Alabama shad were determination present the historical and does not support Alabama shad. The captured in Missouri rivers, including current distribution of Alabama shad in Upper Mississippi River Conservation the Meramec River (Pflieger 1997). The other systems, which is primarily based Committee also indicated that there are University of Tennessee reported the on capture data from general multi- only historical records of Alabama shad collection of 33 Alabama shad from the species surveys, project monitoring, in the Upper Mississippi River, and Big River shoals in 1990 (Fishnet2 2016, captures incidental to other research none have been caught in over 10 years Catalogue #29.12) Burr et al. (2004) and studies, and anecdotal information. (Steuck et al. 2010). However, Wilcox Buchanan et al. (2012) list the Meramec (1999) and Ickes (2014) both list as one of the remaining spawning rivers Mississippi River Alabama shad as being present in the of Alabama shad. The Missouri Fish and The Mississippi River is the largest Upper Mississippi River. Wildlife Information System, river basin in North America and drains maintained by the Missouri Department portions of Montana, the Dakotas, Missouri River of Conservation, also states that Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, The Missouri River is a major Alabama shad spawn in the Meramec Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, tributary of the Mississippi River and River (MDC 2015). Pennsylvania, Colorado, Kansas, flows through Montana, North and Lower Mississippi River Mainstem Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, and and Missouri. The lower Missouri River The Lower Mississippi River is the Louisiana. Alabama shad were and its tributaries, located in the center portion of the river downstream of historically found in parts of the of Missouri, probably supported the Cairo, Illinois. Alabama shad Mississippi River and its tributaries and greatest number of Alabama shad in the historically used the Mississippi River several small spawning populations state, although the records are limited as a means to reach many of its remain. (Smith et al. 2011). The Missouri Fish tributaries, but none have been found in and Wildlife Information System, the lower portion of the waterway in Upper Mississippi River Mainstem maintained by the Missouri Department recent years. Surveys conducted by The Upper Mississippi River is the of Conservation (MDC), states that USACE on the Lower Mississippi River portion of the river upstream of Cairo, Alabama shad spawn in the Missouri (north of Baton Rouge, Louisiana) in the Illinois. In the Upper Mississippi River, River and two of its tributaries, the early 1980s show a slow decline in the Alabama shad were recorded in the Gasconade and Osage Rivers (MDC number of adult and juvenile Alabama 1994 Annual Status Report: ‘‘A 2015, Pflieger 1997). The MDC’s earliest shad (Pennington 1980, Conner 1983, Summary of Fish Data in Six Reaches of record of an Alabama shad in the Smith et al. 2011). From the Thibodaux the Upper Mississippi River’’ (Gutreuter Gasconade River was 23 fish collected Weir on Bayou Lafourche, between et al. 1997) as being captured in a long- in 1947 (C. Gemming, MDC biologist, Donaldsonville and Raceland, term fish resource monitoring program. pers. comm. to J. Rueter, NMFS, Louisiana, a single Alabama shad was The report was compiled by the U.S. September 21, 2016). A study caught using a gillnet in March of 2006 Geological Survey (USGS), Minnesota determining the habitat use of juvenile (Dyer 2007). Three Alabama shad were DNR, Wisconsin DNR, Iowa DNR, the fish in the lower Missouri River did not caught in Louisiana just west of Illinois Natural History Survey, and the identify Alabama shad as being present Atchafalaya Bay between 1992 and 1996 Missouri Department of Conservation. between 1987 and 1988 (Brown and by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 4032 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices

and Fisheries (Smith et al. 2011). in the early 1970s (M. Oliver, Chief of these two captures, the last Alabama However, no records of shad have been Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game shad to be captured in Illinois was a reported in recent years in annual fish Commission, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, juvenile in 1962 (Burr et al. 1996). surveys conducted by USGS in other NMFS, November 5, 2013). Alabama shad appear to have been Louisiana streams and rivers (Smith et extirpated from many Illinois rivers and Red River al. 2011). are considered rare in the state. Annual The Red River, a major tributary of the field studies conducted in the Illinois Ohio River Mississippi River, flows through Texas, River by Illinois State University have The Ohio River is the largest tributary Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. resulted in no additional records of by volume of the Mississippi River and The Washita, North Fork, Kiamichi, and Alabama shad (Smith et al. 2011). flows through Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Little Rivers, as well as Lake Texoma, Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, and are part of the Red River system. A White River Illinois. Although the species was compilation of 20 years of fish The White River is a minor tributary present and abundant enough to support collection data from Arkansas riverine of the Mississippi River that flows a small and brief commercial fishery systems by Matthews and Robison through Missouri and Arkansas and was during the late 19th century and early (1988) indicated no records of Alabama recently discovered to contain a 20th century in Ohio, by 1989 the shad in the Arkansas portion of the spawning population of Alabama shad majority of Alabama shad had been river. During a 6-year sampling period (Buchanan et al. 2012). Matthews (1986) extirpated from the Ohio River (Pearson from 1996–2001, no Alabama shad were reported that no Alabama shad were and Pearson 1989). The USGS has not caught in the Red River (Buchanan et al. found in White River tributaries from collected any Alabama shad from the 2003). In a study on the effects of land 1972–1973 or 1981–1983. However, the Ohio River since 1993 and the USFWS alterations on fish assemblages, Arkansas Fish and Game Commission has no records of Alabama shad in its Rutherford et al. (1992) found no shad provided information during the public database (Smith et al. 2011). in the Little River. Presumably, Alabama comment period on our 90-day finding Hammerson (2010) cites that Etnier and shad are no longer able to reach their that three Alabama shad were collected Starnes (1993) recorded the collection of former spawning grounds in the Little from the White River in 2006 (M. Oliver, a large adult from the Tennessee River River due to degradation of river habitat Chief of Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and (which flows into the Ohio River) just as a result of land modification Game Commission, pers. comm. to K. below Kentucky Dam in Marshall (Buchanan et al. 2003). No Alabama Shotts, NMFS, November 5, 2013). County, Kentucky, in July 1986. shad were collected from Lake Texoma Buchanan et al. (2012) were the first to However, there have been no recent or any of its adjoining rivers (Red and report the species in the White River observations or collections of the Washita Rivers) between 1948 and 1958 drainage when they collected 3 juvenile species in the Tennessee River (Smith et (Riggs and Bonn 1959). The Denison Alabama shad over a sand-gravel bar in al. 2011). Although the species was Dam likely excluded the species from August 2006. The researchers believe once present in the Clinch and Stones these areas. The Altus Dam also likely the shad were spawned in the mainstem Rivers (tributaries of the Tennessee excluded the species from Red River White River or one of its tributaries and River), no collections of Alabama shad tributaries, including the North Fork, they noted that the morphology and size were made in these systems after 1993 Brier Creek, and Kiamichi River, since of the White River specimens compared (Hammerson 2010, Etnier and Starnes there are no longer reports of Alabama well with Alabama shad previously 1993). Historically, the Wabash River, shad (Winston and Taylor et al. 1991, reported from other drainages in the another tributary of the Ohio River, was Matthews et al. 1988). In recent years, state. said to have a ‘‘very limited number’’ of during general river surveys conducted Ouachita River Alabama shad in its waters in the mid- by the University of Oklahoma, 1800s (Daniels 1860). Alabama shad have not been collected The Ouachita River is a minor in southeast and central Oklahoma tributary of the Mississippi River and Arkansas River (Smith et al. 2011). flows through Arkansas and Louisiana. The Arkansas River is a major The Ouachita River system includes the tributary of the Mississippi River that Illinois and Marys Rivers Little Missouri and Saline Rivers. The drains Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and The Illinois and Marys Rivers are both Ouachita and Little Missouri Rivers Arkansas. Alabama shad have not been minor tributaries of the Mississippi contain spawning populations of collected in the Arkansas River since an River contained solely within the state Alabama shad (Buchanan et al. 1999). 1892 collection of one specimen in the of Illinois. While there are historical Four pre-1900 records of Alabama shad Mulberry River tributary (M. Oliver, records of shad within Illinois rivers from the Ouachita River are known: One Chief of Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and (Smith et al. 2011), the historical specimen near Hot Springs and three at Game Commission, pers. comm. to K. abundance of Alabama shad in Illinois Arkadelphia (Buchanan et al. 1999). Shotts, NMFS, November 5, 2013). A is not known. The first collection of Buchanan et al. (1999) reported that 16 few specimens were captured from the Alabama shad from the Illinois River juvenile specimens were collected from Poteau River, a tributary of the Arkansas was 47 fish taken in 1950 (Moore 1973). the Saline River in 1972 and 3 juvenile River, prior to the 1950s (Cross and In a thorough report of the biodiversity specimens at the juncture of the Little Moore 1952), but Lindsey et al. (1983) of the state’s rivers and streams, Page Missouri and Ouachita rivers in 1982. stated the species’ status was unclear. A (1991) found no evidence of Alabama Buchanan et al. (1999) collected over compilation of 20 years of fish shad. However, Burr et al. (1996) 300 juvenile Alabama shad from the collection data from Arkansas riverine reported two juvenile Alabama shad, Ouachita River and the Little Missouri systems by Matthews and Robison one near the mouth of the Marys River River between 1997 and 1998, and (1988) indicated no records of Alabama in 1994 and one in the Grand Tower in noted that Alabama shad were abundant shad. The species may have been Devils Backbone Park in 1995. These at the four sites where they were extirpated from the watershed by the two captures support the hypothesis collected. Buchanan et al. (1999) also construction of dams in the McClelland- that some adult shad were able to spawn documented a 1.3-kilogram (kg) adult Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System in these areas during that time. Before taken on an artificial lure in April 1997

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4033

in the Ouachita River below Remmel Pontchartrain (Hastings 1987, O’Connell O’Neil 2003). This was observed in the Dam. The Arkansas Fish and Game et al. 2004, O’Connell et al. 2009). ACF in large differences in Alabama Commission provided information shad captured in multispecies surveys Pearl River during the public comment period on conducted by FFWCC (J. Wilcox, our 90-day finding that 10 Alabama Multispecies studies of the Pearl River FFWCC, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, shad were collected from the Ouachita were conducted by Tulane University NMFS, November 12, 2013) versus River in 2005 during a survey to from 1963–1988 (Gunning and Suttkus studies targeting Alabama shad in ACF evaluate the influence of increased 1990). Gunning and Suttkus (1990) (Young 2010, 2011) during the same minimum flows after the relicensing of looked at the relative abundance of 84 time period. the Remmel Dam (M. Oliver, Chief of species over the course of the 25-year Smith et al. (2011) state no Alabama Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game study, with sampling occurring at shad have been captured in the Pearl Commission, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, multiple stations in Louisiana and River since then, although FishNet NMFS, November 5, 2013). Several Mississippi either on a quarterly or contains records of Alabama shad Alabama shad from the Ouachita River annual basis. At stations where captured from the Pearl River in 1996 by were also collected and photographed quarterly sampling was conducted, the the Illinois Natural History Survey and on October 12, 2012, for the purpose of spring survey occurred in February in 2004 by Tulane University (Fishnet2 illustrating a new edition of the ‘‘Fishes the Mississippi portion of the river and 2016, Catalogue #38236 and #198208). April in the Louisiana portion of the of Arkansas’’ (M. Oliver, Chief of Pascagoula River Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game river. Approximately 30 minutes were Commission, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, spent at each station unless the river The Pascagoula River system, made NMFS, November 5, 2013). was flooded and water depth limited up of the Pascagoula, Leaf, and sampling ability. Records from the Chickasawhay Rivers, is the only system Although the Saline River in Arkansas Gunning and Suttkus (1990) sampling within the state of Mississippi inhabited is the only free flowing river left in the surveys show a steady decline in by Alabama shad (Mickle et al. 2010, state, there have been no recent reports catches of Alabama shad. Sampling Mickle 2010). A total of 531 Alabama of Alabama shad (Buchanan 1999). The occurred in 16.1 km of the river above shad (all age classes) were captured in Monroe Museum of Natural History at and below Bogalusa, Louisiana, for 25 the Pascagoula River system between the University of Louisiana has 16 years; a 64.4 km section of the West 2004 and 2007 (307 from the Pascagoula Alabama shad that were collected from Pearl River was sampled for 16 years; River, 200 from the Leaf River, and 24 the Saline River in 1972 (Buchanan et and, a 64.4 km portion of the East Pearl from the Chickasawhay River; Smith et al. 2012). During the public comment River was sampled for 16 years. al. 2011). The Pascagoula River system period on the 90-day finding, the Between 1963 and 1965, 384 Alabama has one of the remaining spawning Arkansas Fish and Game Commission shad were caught from all river populations of Alabama shad as provided information from Layher et al. segments combined. Between 1965 and evidenced by Mickle’s (2006) collection (1999) that their targeted assessment of 1979, only 33 Alabama shad were of 193 age-0 Alabama shad from 10 sites Alabama shad at 80 sites in the Saline captured. One Alabama shad was between 2004 and 2005. The Leaf and River did not encounter the species in captured in the Pearl River between Pascagoula Rivers contain the highest the 4,863 fish collected and that severe 1979 and 1988 (Gunning and Suttkus populations of Alabama shad within drought conditions may have influenced 1990). Gunning and Suttkus (1990) this system due to their unimpounded the results (M. Oliver, Chief of Fisheries, attributed the declining catch of waters and variety of habitats, with a Arkansas Fish and Game Commission, Alabama shad to declining abundance smaller Alabama shad population in the pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, of the species. Chickasawhay River (Mickle et al. 2010, November 5, 2013). Throughout the In the Gunning and Suttkus (1990) Mickle 2010). Between 2004 and 2006, year, Arkansas State University study, only one 30-minute multispecies Mickle et al. (2010) captured 133 conducts general fish sampling in the survey was conducted during the spring juvenile Alabama shad (66 from the Leaf state’s rivers and no captures of once per year at some of their Pearl River, 55 from the Pascagoula River, and Alabama shad have been reported in River stations. The studies targeting 12 from the Chickasawhay River). Small recent years (Smith et al. 2011). Alabama shad in the ACF River system numbers of Alabama shad were also Lake Pontchartrain, Lake Maurepas, and are conducted over a 3-month period caught in Black Creek, a tributary of the the Tangipahoa River each year to ensure their collections Pascagoula River, in 1986 and the late encompass the peak spawning migration 1990s (Adams et al. 2000). Alabama shad are only caught of Alabama shad, which can vary from sporadically in the state of Louisiana, year to year based on factors such as Mobile Bay and the Mobile River Basin and there are limited data for the temperatures and river discharge The Mobile River basin spans species in its rivers (Smith et al. 2011). (Sammons 2013, 2014, Kern 2016). Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and The Tangipahoa River begins in Gunning and Suttkus (1990) state that Tennessee. The Mobile River, which southwest Mississippi and drains into the consistency of their methodology empties into Mobile Bay, branches Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana. Due and the length of their study are upstream into the Alabama, Cahaba, west of Lake Pontchartrain, and sufficient to accurately indicate relative Tallapoosa, Coosa, Tombigbee, and connected by Pass Manchac and North abundance. Gunning and Suttkus (1990) Black Warrior Rivers. The Alabama shad Pass, is Lake Maurepas. No Alabama does provide one of the few long-term was first described as a species in 1896 shad were caught in the Tangipahoa studies available for this species. in the Black Warrior River near River in 1994 (Knight 1994) and none However, as noted previously, low Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Jordan and were collected in Lake Pontchartrain numbers of recorded Alabama shad Evermann 1896). Alabama shad were between 1996 and 2000. However, individuals may be due, at least in part, once prevalent in the Mobile River basin individuals were collected in Lake to insufficient sampling effort during (Evermann and Kendall 1897). Maurepas from 1983 to 1984 and in appropriate times (i.e., spawning Numerous juvenile Alabama shad 2009 using trawl and gillnets, indicating migrations) and with the appropriate were recorded in the Alabama River in that some fish still pass through Lake gear to target the species (Mettee and 1951, the late 1960s, and the early 1970s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 4034 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices

(Boschung 1992, Mettee and O’Neil one Alabama shad was subsequently indicating successful downriver passage 2003). A single Alabama shad (15.3 cm) collected, over one hundred years later through the lock. Twenty fish were was also captured in Dog River (a small in 1998 (Mettee and O’Neil 2003). never detected. There were large areas tributary draining into Mobile Bay) in Conservation locking, similar to where no tagged fish were detected, and 1964 (Williams and Gaines 1974, efforts conducted in the ACF River some fish moved over 50 mi (80 km) in Boschung 1992, Hammerson 2010). On system, was undertaken on the Alabama 2 days. ‘‘Leap-frogging’’ was also the Alabama River, Claiborne Lock and River at Claiborne Lock and Dam and observed, with shad being detected at Dam was opened for navigation in 1969 Miller’s Ferry Lock and Dam in 2009 by downstream and upstream locations, (Freeman et al. 2005). Upstream from the Alabama Department of but escaping detection in between. Claiborne Lock and Dam, Millers Ferry Conservation and Natural Resources, Of the 15 tagged fish released below Lock and Dam was constructed for the USACE, and Auburn University after Claiborne Lock and Dam, 3 were purpose of both power generation and USGS suggested the locks could be used detected 93 times. One fish was navigation, with the lock opening in as a means of fish passage (Simcox detected 12 days after release below 1969 and power coming on line in 1970. 2012). At that time, no efforts were Gravine Island (just north of Mobile Sampling in Mobile Bay in 1972 yielded made to quantify passage efficiency or Bay) and was detected again upriver 6 no Alabama shad. Two individuals were even monitor which species may be days later, just below Claiborne Lock caught in the Alabama River in the passing upstream and downstream and Dam. This movement pattern 1990s: One in 1993 below Claiborne through the locks. Freeman et al. (2005) indicated ‘‘fallback’’ (fish that move a Lock and Dam, and one in 1995 below stated that substantial potential for great distance downriver shortly after Miller’s Ferry Lock and Dam (Smith et restoring populations of migratory, stocking), but in this case, the fish al. 2011). More recently, in February large-river fishes such as Alabama eventually moved upriver. Another fish 2004, a single specimen (32.8 cm) was sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi), remained in the vicinity of Claiborne captured by the Alabama Department of Gulf sturgeon, Alabama shad, and Lock and Dam for 9 days and was not Conservation and Natural Resources, southeastern blue sucker (Cycleptus detected thereafter. A third fish was Marine Resources Division, in Heron meridionalis) entailed modifying detected several times moving Bay (adjacent to Mobile Bay), Claiborne and Miller’s Ferry, the two downstream after release but not later. presumably making its upstream downstream-most dams on the Alabama No tagged Alabama shad were detected spawning migration (Smith et al. 2011). River. Enhancing fish passage at above Claiborne Lock and Dam and The Alabama Division of Wildlife and Claiborne and Millers Ferry Locks and researchers hypothesized this low Freshwater Fisheries conducted a year- Dams could restore connectivity number could have been due to high long study in 2009 in the Alabama River between the lower Alabama River and water events or mortalities. that did not collect any Alabama shad. the Cahaba River, encompassing over In 2015, 27 Alabama shad from the Despite the existence of a thorough 400 km of riverine habitat from the Gulf ACF River system were tagged and historical fisheries record of the Cahaba to the fall line. stocked below Miller’s Ferry Lock and River system, no recent captures of In 2014, a study was initiated to Dam (and above Claiborne Lock and Alabama shad from the upper reaches of determine if conservation locking could Dam). Detections of tagged fish were the Cahaba River are documented. Both be used to pass Alabama Shad upriver much higher in 2015 than 2014, likely the Pierson et al. (1989) general fish or downriver during spawning season due to higher river flows in 2014 (Kern faunal survey of the river from 1983– through the navigation locks at and Sammons 2015), with 17 of the 27 1988 and the Onorato et al. (1998 and Claiborne Lock and Dam and Miller’s fish detected for a total of 371 2000) sampling between 1995–1997 Ferry Lock and Dam. With support from detections. Similar to 2014, large found no Alabama shad present in the the FFWCC and Georgia DNR, Alabama movements over short time periods upper region of the Cahaba River. The shad from the ACF River system were were observed, with most of the last Alabama shad collected was in 1968 collected and tagged before being movements being in a downstream and the only previously recorded fish stocked in the Alabama River. Fifteen direction. No fish were found to have reported in the Cahaba River at Alabama shad were tagged and released successfully navigated upstream of Centreville, Alabama, was in 1965 below Claiborne Lock and Dam, and an Miller’s Ferry Lock and Dam, although (Onorato et al. 2000, Boschung 1992). additional 38 Alabama shad were tagged many of the fish passed downstream of The last specimen to be captured from and released above the dam. These fish Claiborne Lock and Dam. were tracked both upstream and the Coosa River was in 1966 (Boschung Escambia River and Conecuh River 1992). No Alabama shad were captured downstream of the dam. Of the Alabama during fish sampling in the Tallapoosa shad released above the dam, 18 were The Conecuh River begins in Alabama River by Freeman et al. (2001). later detected at 18 different locations, and becomes the Escambia River at the Mettee and O’Neil (2003) state that and 7 definite mortalities (no movement Florida border. Alabama shad were Alabama shad have not been found in between successive locations) were documented in the Escambia/Conecuh the Tombigbee River since the 1901 eventually confirmed. The 7 confirmed River system as early as 1900 (Evermann construction of the Tombigbee lock mortalities occurred in the section of the and Kendall 1900). This system contains system in the waterway. However, Alabama River below Claiborne Lock one of the known remaining Alabama records provided by the Mississippi and Dam to its confluence with the shad spawning populations (Smith et al. Museum of Natural Science during the Tombigbee River. Kern and Sammons 2011). Bailey (1954) reported the public comment period on our 90-day (2015) note that further research is capture of two individuals in the finding showed that 5 Alabama shad necessary to determine whether Escambia River in 1954. In 2009, two were captured in the Tombigbee River Alabama shad found suitable spawning Alabama shad were caught in the in 1969 and one in 1971 (M. Roberts, habitat in this location and halted Escambia River by FFWCC, one in Curator of Fishes, Mississippi Museum downstream movements, or whether spring and one in the fall (Smith et al. of Natural Science, pers. comm. to K. they died as a result of cumulative stress 2011; E. Nagid, FFWCC, pers. comm. to Shotts, NMFS, October 21, 2013). In the from handling and transport. One fish K. Shotts, NMFS, November 26, 2014). Black Warrior River of Alabama, where was detected approximately 53 mi (85 Studies indicate there are small the species was first described in 1896, km) below Claiborne Lock and Dam, populations of Alabama shad in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4035

southern Alabama, including within the between 1990–1995 (FishNet2 2016; or in combination with other factors, is Conecuh River (Barkuloo 1993, Adams search terms ‘‘Alosa alabamae,’’ ‘‘1990– considered ‘‘unlikely’’ to significantly et al. 2000, Mettee and O’Neil 2003). 2016,’’ and ‘‘Suwannee’’). Mickle (2010) contribute to risk of extinction for a Smith et al. (2011) reported that 11 collected 6 fish. Smith et al. (2011) species. The next lowest level describes Alabama shad were captured in the reported that FFWCC caught 15 a factor that, on its own, is considered Conecuh River in 2000 and one in 2010 Alabama shad on the Withlacoochee to be at ‘‘low’’ likelihood of contributing by the Alabama Department of Wildlife River, a tributary of the Suwannee to the extinction risk, but could and Fisheries. River, in late November 2010 (Smith et contribute in combination with other al. 2011). The Florida Museum of factors. The next level is considered a Choctawhatchee River Natural History also shows that 2 ‘‘moderate’’ risk of extinction for the The Choctawhatchee River begins in Alabama shad were collected in 2015 species, but in combination with other Alabama. As it flows south, it is joined (FishNet2 2016; Catalogue #238044 and factors contributes significantly to the by one of its tributaries, the Pea River, #238066). risk of extinction. A ranking of ‘‘likely’’ then continues through the Florida means that factor by itself is likely to Extinction Risk Assessment panhandle and into the Gulf of Mexico. contribute significantly to the risk of Some studies indicate there are small We estimated both the current extinction. Finally, the most threatening spawning populations of Alabama shad extinction risk for Alabama shad and factors are considered ‘‘highly likely’’ to in southern Alabama, including in the the anticipated risk in the foreseeable contribute significantly to the risk of Choctawhatchee and Pea Rivers future. We defined the ‘‘foreseeable extinction. (Barkuloo 1993, Adams et al. 2000, future’’ as the timeframe over which Both ‘‘low’’ and ‘‘moderate’’ rankings Mettee and O’Neil 2003, Young 2010). threats or the species’ response to those require that the demographic factor or Smith et al. (2011) reported the capture threats can be reliably predicted to threat be considered alone, as well as in of 400 Alabama shad from the impact the biological status of the combination with other factors. In this Choctawhatchee River system in 2000. species. First, we evaluated determination, we first consider each of demographic factors associated with the demographic factors and threats Ochlockonee River population viability (abundance, independently, then evaluate how they Alabama shad were historically productivity, spatial distribution, and may interact in combination to present in the Ochlockonee River, a fast diversity) and how they are contributing contribute to the extinction risk of running river that flows from Georgia to the extinction risk of Alabama shad. Alabama shad. Our rankings of into Florida. Smith et al. (2011) reported We then performed a threats assessment demographic factors and threats do not that the last specimens to be collected using the factors listed in Section 4(a)(1) translate directly to extinction risk in the Ochlockonee River were captured of the ESA by identifying the severity of conclusions. Ranking simply describes in 1977 below Jackson Bluff Dam (Swift threats that exist now and estimating how we considered the information. For 1977). During the public comment their severity in the foreseeable future. instance, one or more demographic period announced in the 90-day finding, We used the methods developed by factors could be ranked as ‘‘highly FFWCC reported that 4 Alabama shad Wainwright and Kope (1999) to organize likely’’ to be contributing to the were collected near the Talquin (Jackson and summarize our findings on the extinction risk of a species without Bluff) Dam in 2011 (J. Wilcox, FFWCC, contributions of the demographic factors concluding that the species is pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, and threats listed in ESA Section 4(a)(1) threatened or endangered. For example, November 12, 2013). to the extinction risk of Alabama shad. low abundance may be considered to This approach has been used in the present a moderate threat to the Econfina River review of many other species (Pacific extinction risk of Alabama shad, but is The Econfina River is a minor river salmonids, Pacific hake, walleye offset by the species’ high productivity draining part of the Big Bend region of pollock, Pacific cod, Puget Sound and wide spatial distribution. Florida. It empties into Apalachee Bay. rockfishes, Pacific herring, and black In some cases, there was not enough Historical data for Alabama shad are not abalone, and foreign sawfishes) to information or too much uncertainty in available for this river, but, FFWCC summarize the status of the species pending outcomes to rank a threat’s reported during the public comment according to demographic risk criteria. contribution to the risk of extinction for period that 1 Alabama shad was McElhany et al. (2000) examined short Alabama shad using the categories collected in the Econfina River in 2006 and long-term trends in abundance, established by Wainwright and Kope (J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. to K. productivity, spatial structure, and (1999). In those cases, we classify the Shotts, NMFS, November 12, 2013). genetic variability as the primary contribution of the threat to the indicators of risk. Populations that are extinction risk of Alabama shad as being Suwannee River more fragmented have less genetic ‘‘unknown.’’ Even for threats we The Suwannee River originates from exchange and therefore less ultimately classify as unknown, we the Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia and connectivity, increasing the risk of provide and evaluate whatever runs south through Florida. Historically, extinction. Loss of fitness and loss of information is available, in some cases the Suwannee River has been the diversity can occur from random genetic providing information on how related easternmost boundary of the Alabama effects and increase the risk of surrogate species (e.g., other Alosas) shad’s range (Herald and Strickland extinction for a species. We used the may be responding to the identified 1946). There is still a spawning five-level qualitative scale from potential threat. NMFS recently issued population of Alabama shad in the Wainwright and Kope (1999) to describe updated ESA listing guidance (May 26, Suwannee River (Smith et al. 2011). our assessment of the risk of extinction 2016) that states in order to list a Sporadic sampling in the Suwannee for Alabama shad for each demographic species, the agency must affirmatively River has included Alabama shad category, both currently and in the determine on the basis of a set of (Mettee and O’Neil 2003). Records from foreseeable future. We also used this scientific facts that a species is at risk. the Florida Museum of Natural History scale to describe our assessment of each The ESA does not allow for listings to and the FFWCC show that 3–27 of the threats from ESA Section 4(a)(1). be based on giving the species the Alabama shad were collected annually At the lowest level, a factor, either alone benefit of the doubt. The guidance

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 4036 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices

clarifies that in the absence of any (Sammons and Young 2012). The time to contribute to the species extinction information about threats to a species, period associated with the foreseeable risk. the null hypothesis is that the risk is future for Alabama shad should be long Small populations may have less of a low (generally low, not as defined by enough to assess population response buffer against threats than large Wainwright and Kope (1999). Specific while taking into consideration the high populations (McElhany et al. 2000). We supporting information must be cited in variability inherent in the species. ranked low abundance as posing a order to elevate the potential threat to a Below, we discuss generation time in moderate threat to Alabama shad’s moderate or high risk category (again relation to our ability to reliably predict extinction risk. Our consideration of generally, not as defined by Wainwright the species’ conservation status. generation time above discusses how and Kope (1999). In cases where we In defining the foreseeable future, we the abundance of Alabama shad is classified a threat as having an considered generation time, specifically variable, and the species can fluctuate ‘‘unknown’’ risk to the species, we defined here as the time it takes for a widely from year to year. We considered whether the ‘‘unlikely’’ or sexually mature Alabama shad to be determined projecting out further than ‘‘low’’ category established in replaced by offspring with the same three generations could lead to Wainwright and Kope (1999) was most spawning capacity. Age-2 to age-4 fish considerable uncertainty in estimating appropriate. Because the ‘‘low’’ category make up the majority of spawning the population trajectory for Alabama by definition states that a threat could Alabama shad; therefore, using our shad. contribute to the extinction risk of a definition, the generation time for We also consider the timeframe over species in combination with other Alabama shad is 4–8 years. Generation which the effect of dams on Alabama time is inversely related to productivity factors, per the listing guidance, we shad populations can be predicted. and/or resilience. Highly productive ultimately evaluated ‘‘unknown’’ threats Dams are believed to be the main cause species with short generation times are as being ‘‘unlikely’’ to significantly of the initial decline of Alabama shad. more resilient than less productive, contribute to the risk of extinction for Existing dams continue to block habitat long-lived species, as they are quickly Alabama shad. and cause downstream effects today, but We determined the extinction risk for able to take advantage of suitable few new dams have been built since the the species as a whole by integrating the conditions for reproduction (Mace et al. mid-1980s (Graf 1999). The threat of demographic risks and the threats 2002). Species with shorter generation dams to Alabama shad has not increased assessment, including considerations of times, such as Alabama shad (4–8 for the past 30 years, and is not any uncertainty in the risks and threats. years), experience greater population We made a determination as to whether variability than species with long expected to increase in the future due to the species warrants listing as generation times, because they maintain the advent of environmental laws and threatened or endangered, or whether the capacity to replenish themselves public awareness that occurred after the we believe listing is not warranted. more quickly following a period of low era of big dam building (Doyle et al. Finally, we determined whether there survival (Mace et al. 2002). We believe 2003, Graf 1999). The threat of dams to was a significant portion of the species’ that the impacts from the threats on the Alabama shad is more likely to decrease range that may warrant listing as biological status of the species can be in the future, as dams are either threatened or endangered. confidently predicted within the 12- to removed or additional fish passages are 24-year (three-generation) timeframe. added. Environmental concerns are Foreseeable Future Given their high population variability, coinciding with a policy window in Per NMFS’ May 2016 revised listing projecting out further than three which many private dams are coming guidance, the ‘‘foreseeable future’’ generations could lead to considerable up for regulatory re-licensing with the describes the extent to which the uncertainty in estimating the population Federal Energy and Regulatory Secretary can, in making determinations trajectory for Alabama shad. The Commission (FERC) and operational about the future conservation status of timeframe of three generations is widely guidelines for publicly-operated dams the species, reasonably rely on used to assess trends in populations and are being reviewed (Doyle et al. 2003). predictions about the future has been applied to decision-making Upstream effects from dams may be (Department of the Interior Solicitor’s models by many other conservation reduced through fish passage Memorandum M–37021, ‘‘The Meaning management organizations, including technology, which is becoming of ‘Foreseeable Future’ in Section 3(20) the American Fisheries Society (AFS), increasingly efficient (Roscoe and Hinch of the Endangered Species Act’’ (Jan. 16, the Convention on the International 2010). Fish passage may be voluntarily 2009)). Those predictions can be in the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild implemented at dams, or even required form of extrapolation of population or Flora and Fauna (CITES), and the by Federal regulations in some threat trends, analysis of how threats International Union for Conservation of instances. Downstream effects from will affect the status of the species, or Nature (IUCN). dams are also becoming better assessment of future events that will The foreseeable future timeframe is understood and dam operators are have a significant new impact on the also a function of the reliability of becoming more willing and able (and species. We believe that the appropriate available data regarding the identified may be required in some instances) to period of time corresponding to the threats and extends only as far as the alter operations to minimize the foreseeable future should account for data allow for making reasonable ecological effects downstream (Poff and the Alabama shad’s life-history predictions about the species’ response Hart 2002). Further, an estimated 85 characteristics and the most significant to those threats. In our extinction risk percent of the dams in the United States threats facing the species. assessment, we determined the will be near the end of their operational The Alabama shad is an early- abundance of Alabama shad and the lives by 2020 (Doyle et al. 2003). maturing species (Mickle et al. 2010) presence of dams are the highest ranked Economic considerations and with high productivity (Mettee and threats, both contributing a moderate environmental concerns may result in O’Neil 2003, Ingram 2007). Like other level of risk to Alabama shad. The dam removals, as maintenance, members of the Alosa family, Alabama remaining threats are ranked as either operation, repairs are often much shad populations may fluctuate contributing a low or unknown level of costlier than dam removal (Doyle et al. significantly from year to year risk to Alabama shad, or being unlikely 2003, Stanley and Doyle 2003).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4037

It is unknown to what extent the ecological interactions, and other Louisiana) River systems. The annual implementation of fish passage, processes compared to large numbers in Alabama shad population estimates in modifications to dam operations, or dam many populations (e.g., Meffe and the ACF River system were developed removal will occur in rivers inhabited Carroll 1994, Caughley and Gunn 1996). through mark-recapture studies. The by Alabama shad. The lack of new dam A population growth rate that is initial capture of less than a hundred to building in the past 30 years coupled unstable or declining over a long period over 1,000 Alabama shad resulted in with increased environmental of time has less resiliency to future population estimates of thousands to regulation and public awareness makes environmental change (e.g., Lande 1993, over 100,000 Alabama shad. Mark- it unlikely that the threat of dams to Middleton and Nisbet 1997, Foley recapture can be used to produce Alabama shad will increase and more 1997). A species that is not widely abundance estimates without capturing likely that there could be a decrease of distributed across a variety of well- every individual in the population this threat to the species. However, we connected habitats is at increased risk of because in addition to counting the cannot predict where dam modifications extinction due to environmental number of individuals captured during or removal may occur, and how perturbations, including catastrophic the study, they estimate the detection Alabama shad may be affected. Our events, compared to a species that is probability of individuals (i.e., the ability to predict the response of widely distributed (Schlosser and probability that an individual will be Alabama shad populations to the threat Angermeier 1995, Hanski and Gilpin captured during the study; Yoccoz et al. is limited by the life history 1997, Tilman and Lehman 1997, Cooper 2001). Detection probability can be characteristics of the species (i.e., its and Mangel 1999). A species that has influenced by population size, but can variability in response to all of the lost locally adapted genetic and also be influenced by the sampling factors affecting the population) rather ecological diversity may lack the ability season and methodologies used, as well than any variability in the threat of to exploit a wide array of environments as a species’ habitat affinities (Gu and dams itself. and endure short- and long-term Swihart 2004). Population estimates In defining foreseeable future, we environmental changes (e.g., Groot and cannot be reliably developed from further considered the interaction of Margolis 1991, Wood 1995). Assessing studies that collect a species, but do not demographic characteristics (parameters extinction risk of a species involves consider its associated detection describing the viability of a population, evaluating whether risks to its probability. Pellet and Schmidt (2005) such as abundance and productivity) abundance, population growth rate, note that it is often very difficult, if not and the species’ response to various spatial structure, and/or diversity are impossible, to detect all individuals, threats, primarily dams. Smith et al. such that it is at or near an extinction populations, or species, and found (2011) conducted a population viability threshold, or likely to become so in the during their surveys that the detection analysis (PVA) on Alabama shad in the foreseeable future. probability for a common species of tree ACF River system. Researchers selected Abundance frog was very high, while the detection 20 years as the timeframe over which probability of a common toad species A small population faces a host of the PVA could reliably model was very low. Yoccoz et al. (2001) note risks intrinsic to its low abundance population responses of Alabama shad that detection probability is generally while large populations exhibit a greater based on the species’ demographic less than 100 percent and usually degree of resilience (McElhany et al. characteristics and various variable. Although we cannot estimate 2000). The only population estimates combinations of natural and the population abundance of Alabama anthropogenic threat scenarios affecting available for Alabama shad are from the shad in the Pascagoula, their survival and growth. The 20-year ACF River system in Florida, Alabama, Choctawhatchee, and Ouachita Rivers, timeframe used in the PVA falls within and Georgia. This system is believed to based on the likelihood that the species’ the three-generation timeframe have the largest population of Alabama detection probability is less than 100 discussed above. This timeframe takes shad. Population estimates fluctuated percent, we can infer that the sizes of into account aspects of the species’ life widely from 2005 to 2015. For instance, those Alabama shad populations are history and also allows the time 26,193 Alabama shad were estimated to greater than the hundreds of fish necessary to provide for the recovery of be in the system in 2011. The following collected in those systems. For instance, populations. Thus, we determined for year, the estimate of Alabama shad during the 2013 targeted study in the the purpose of the extinction risk peaked at 122,578. Sammons and Young assessment, a 20-year timeframe, (2012) noted that the population sizes of ACF, 251 Alabama shad were captured corresponding approximately to the species in the Alosa genus commonly and 1 recaptured to yield the population three-generation time period, to be fluctuate widely. Researchers in the estimate of 2,039 (S. Herrington, The appropriate for use as the foreseeable ACF River system believe that Alabama Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. future for Alabama shad. shad abundance may be a response to Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year- conservation efforts in the system End Summary Meeting, January 2014). Demographic Risks (Schaffler et al. 2015). They also note Generally, the number of Alabama Threats to a species’ long-term that variability in population number shad in rivers other than the ACF, persistence are manifested may be linked to environmental Pascagoula, Choctawhatchee, and demographically as risks to its conditions. Specifically, Sammons and Ouachita is likely to be small. A multi- abundance, population growth rate, Young (2012) believe that heavy rainfall state, multi-agency report from 1994 spatial structure and connectivity, and in 2009 may have led to strong year (Gutreuter et al. 1997) indicates that genetic and ecological diversity. These classes in 2010 and 2012. Alabama shad were found in the Upper demographic risks provide the most No population estimates are available Mississippi River, but does not note the direct indices or proxies of extinction for other rivers, although several number or locations of fish caught. risk. A species at very low levels of hundred Alabama shad have been Smaller numbers (one to several dozens) abundance and with few populations captured in studies conducted in the of Alabama shad have been captured in will be less tolerant to environmental past 15–20 years in the Pascagoula the last 25 years in portions of the variation, catastrophic events, genetic (Mississippi), Choctawhatchee (Florida/ Lower Mississippi River, Mississippi processes, demographic stochasticity, Alabama), and Ouachita (Arkansas/ River tributaries (Missouri, Marys, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 4038 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices

White Rivers), Mobile, Escambia, studies. In fact, Smith et al. (2011) study, the numbers of Alabama shad in Conecuh, Ochlockonee, Econfina, and report that a viable spawning the Apalachicola River generally Suwannee Rivers. population persists in the Suwannee increased, ranging from 2,000–122,500 Alabama shad was never an River at the eastern edge of the species’ from 2008–2012. It is not known what economically important species, and, range, even though sporadic sampling the historical abundance of Alabama therefore, information from fisheries since 2003 has only reported a total of shad was in the ACF River system, but statistics, such as landings data, is rare. 6–15 individual Alabama shad. We do the Alabama Shad Restoration Plan for Hildebrand (1963) noted that Alabama not have historical abundances of the ACF River System (NMFS et al. shad were considered unfit for human Alabama shad, which can be indicative 2012) projected that the carrying consumption, and the lack of demand of abundance levels associated with low capacity (the maximum population of a produced no incentive to capture the extinction risk. However, populations species that can survive indefinitely in species or record its presence and may also be at low risk of extinction at a given environment) for Alabama shad abundance. Most of the recent directed abundance levels below historical in the ACF is approximately 1.3 million research studies on Alabama shad have levels, and accurate estimates of adults. Capture data from other systems occurred in the ACF and Pascagoula historical abundance are not essential are limited or lacking but suggest low to River systems. Capture data for other for evaluating extinction risk. moderate sized populations in some systems comes from general multi- Information from other species in the rivers and absence in others. species surveys, captures incidental to Alosa genus indicates that the species The only current population estimates other research studies, and anecdotal can rebound from extremely low available for Alabama shad are in the information. Mettee and O’Neil (2003) abundance. The 12-month ACF River system. Because Alabama note that low numbers of recorded determination for 2 species of river shad were never commercially or Alabama shad individuals may be due, herring (78 FR 48944; August 12, 2013), recreationally important, few historical at least in part, to insufficient sampling which determined that listing alewives records exist. There are no recorded effort during appropriate times (i.e., (A. pseudoharengus) and blueback historical population sizes in any river spawning migrations) and with the herring (A. aestivalis) under the ESA systems for comparison, although appropriate gear to target the species. was not warranted, states that highly anecdotal information on observations Hildebrand (1963) noted the importance fecund, short generation time species and small, short-lived fisheries provide of proper gear, citing greatly increased like river herring may be able to some historical context (e.g., Coker catches of Alabama shad that occurred withstand a 95 to 99 percent decline in 1929, 1930). However, many researchers in Kentucky when surface-fishing seines biomass (Mace et al. 2002). The 12- recognize that Alabama shad were substituted for bottom-fishing month determination (78 FR 48944; populations have experienced decline seines. The lack of data is echoed in the August 12, 2013) states that both from historical population sizes (e.g., responses received from fish and alewives and blueback herring may have Gunning and Suttkus 1990, Buchanan et wildlife agencies during the public declined by more than 98 percent from al. 1999, Mettee and O’Neil 2003, comment period on our 90-day finding. their historical baseline (Limburg and Mickle et al. 2010). Declines have been estimated in other The Arkansas Fish and Game Waldman 2009), but that the abundance Alosa species with longer historical Commission stated they could not of each species is stable or increasing, records. Hall et al. (2012) attempted to assess the status of Alabama shad in indicating the species are self- estimate historical alewife populations their state because of the scarcity of sustainable and are at a low to information on the species, the lack of in Maine for the years 1600–1900 using moderate-low risk of extinction. targeted surveys, and the unknown analyses of nineteenth and twentieth detectability of the species (M. Oliver, Directed studies and current data on century harvest records and waterway Chief of Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Alabama shad abundance are mostly obstruction records dating to the 1600s Game Commission, pers. comm. to K. lacking. The available population and estimated that obstructed spawning Shotts, NMFS, November 5, 2013). It is estimates for the ACF River system access reduced the annual alewife unknown whether the lack or low since 2005 are relatively large and productivity per watershed to 0–16 numbers of Alabama shad reported for highly variable. Ely et al. (2008) percent of pre-dam estimates. The 12- many river systems accurately reflects compared Alabama shad and American month listing determination for river the abundance in those systems or shad. They noted that, given the herring (78 FR 48944; August 12, 2013) whether it is indicative of the lack of similarities in life history characteristics reported that of the riverine stocks of targeted studies, but ultimately, the of Alabama shad and American shad alewife and blueback herring for which population abundance in these areas is and the similarities in discharge, data were available and were considered still unknown. drainage area, and latitude between the in a stock assessment, 22 were depleted, The threshold abundance below Apalachicola River and other 1 was increasing, and the status of 28 which Alabama shad populations southeastern rivers, the populations of stocks could not be determined because cannot rebound (quasi-extinction) is adult Alabama shad and American shad the time-series of available data was too unknown. In conducting the PVA on might be expected to be similar. Ely et short. In most recent years, 2 riverine Alabama shad from the ACF River al. (2008) cited the number of American stocks were increasing, 4 were system, Smith et al. (2011) shad reaching the first barrier to decreasing, and 9 were stable, with 38 conservatively assumed 420 females as migration in the Savannah River, rivers not having enough data to assess the threshold for quasi-extinction based estimated as nearly 190,000 (Bailey et recent trends. Both alewives and on the lowest recorded population al. 2004), and the number in the blueback herring may already be at or abundance for the ACF River system at Altamaha River system estimated as less than 2 percent of the historical the time (from Ely et al. 2008). That 133,000 (Georgia DNR 2005), and baseline. Because historical landings assumption was not based on a concluded that the population size of data are available for alewife and minimum number of females needed to the Alabama shad in the Apalachicola blueback herring, population modeling recover the population, but instead the River from 2005–2007 (approximately was feasible and used to determine the lowest number of females observed in 2,700–26,000 shad) was relatively small. stability of the stocks in light of the the viable population during previous Subsequent to the Ely et al. (2008) declines. The conclusion of the 12-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4039

month determination (78 FR 48944; contributing a low or unknown level of system, with smaller spawning August 12, 2013) was that listing alewife risk to Alabama shad, or being unlikely populations believed to exist in the and blueback herring under the ESA to contribute to the species extinction Missouri/Gasconade/Osage, Meramec, was not warranted because the risk. As discussed in each of these White, Ouachita/Little Missouri, abundance of each species is stable or sections evaluating these threats, we do Pascagoula/Leaf/Chickasawhay, increasing, indicating the species are not have information that they will Escambia/Conecuh, Choctawhatchee/ self-sustainable and are at a low to increase in the foreseeable future. Pea, and the Suwanee River systems. moderate-low risk of extinction. Therefore, we ranked abundance The life history traits of Alabama shad Population sizes of Alabama shad and throughout its range as contributing a combined with the presence of multiple other Alosa species are known to be moderate level of risk to the overall spawning populations contributes to the variable and the species can quickly current and foreseeable extinction risk productivity potential of Alabama shad. rebound from low population numbers. of Alabama shad. Highly productive species with short Alabama shad are spawning and Productivity generation times, like Alabama shad, are persisting in river systems along the more resilient than less productive, long Gulf Coast and in tributaries of the Population growth rate (productivity) lived species, as they are quickly able to Mississippi River. Even smaller and factors that affect productivity take advantage of suitable conditions for populations are considered to be self- provide information on how well a reproduction (Hutchings and Reynolds sustaining (e.g., eastern Alabama rivers, population is responding in the habitats 2004, Mace et al. 2002, Musick 1999). Mettee and O’Neil 2003, Suwannee and environmental conditions it is Species with shorter generation times, River, Smith et al., 2011). The range of exposed to during its life cycle such as Alabama shad (4 to 8 years), Alabama shad appears to be stable (McElhany et al. 2000). Whether a experience greater population (Smith et al. 2011). However, low species’ productivity has declined, or is variability than species with long abundance in combination with other declining, toward the point where generation times, because they maintain factors could contribute significantly to populations may not be sustainable and the capacity to replenish themselves the risk of extinction since smaller whether habitat quality restricts more quickly following a period of populations have less of a buffer against productivity to non-sustainable levels lower survival (Mace et al. 2002). This threats than larger populations. This are key pieces of information in resilience was observed in the ACF aligns with the definition of a assessing a species’ extinction risk River system when Alabama shad ‘‘moderate risk’’ under the risk (Wainwright and Kope 1999). In populations quickly increased when assessing the productivity of Alabama classification system by Wainwright and access to upstream spawning habitat shad, we considered life history traits, Kope (1999). was re-established by conservation the number of spawning populations, For comparison, the next highest locking through an existing dam. ranking under Wainwright and Kope’s and trends in abundance over time. (1999) classification system is for a Several life history traits make Alabama shad populations are threat that is presently low or moderate, Alabama shad a relatively productive generally believed to have declined in but is likely to increase to high risk in species (Smith et al. 2011). They reach many areas where they were historically the foreseeable future if present sexual maturity quickly. Males start found. However, it is difficult to conditions continue. Although based spawning as early as 1 year old, and quantify any declines because of a lack largely on anecdotal information rather females start spawning at 2 years old of historical abundance data for most than population estimates and trends, (Mickle et al. 2010). Female Alabama river systems and the lack of current we believe there is sufficient evidence shad are known to release large numbers population estimates for populations to indicate that there have been declines of eggs. Individual females in the other than the ACF River system. in the abundance of Alabama shad and Apalachicola River produce from Records of Alabama shad in the Pearl their low abundance could contribute 26,000–250,000 eggs and from 36,000– River are fairly complete and show a significantly to their long-term risk of 357,000 in the Choctawhatchee River steady decline of the species. This extinction. However, we do not have (Mettee and O’Neil 2003, Ingram 2007). decline was based on the total number information suggesting that threats to Females may have multiple spawning of fish captured over time; it did not Alabama shad populations are likely to periods within the same spawning include estimating population numbers lead to further decline to the point that season (Mettee and O’Neil 2003). through the use of mark-recapture their abundance would present a high Because of the age range among methods, like those used in the risk to the species. The primary threat spawning Alabama shad (1–5 years for Apalachicola River. In the Pearl River, that led to the initial decline of the males, 2–6 years for females), consistent sampling occurred in several species was the installation of dams that individuals may spawn multiple times sections of the river over 16–25 years: block access to upriver spawning habitat in a lifetime (Laurence and Yerger 1967, 384 fish captured 1963–1965; 33 (evaluated under Factor A of this listing Mettee and O’Neil 2003, Ingram 2007, captured 1965–1979; and 1 individual determination). Although most dams are Mickle et al. 2010). Recent information captured 1979–1988 (Gunning and still in place and represent an obstacle from the ACF River system suggests that Suttkus 1990). Since then no records of to spawning Alabama shad, very few female Alabama shad may spawn only shad have been reported during annual dams have been built in the last 30 years once during their lifetime, but may fish surveys conducted by several of the (Graf 1999). Few environmental laws release several batches of eggs during state’s universities in the Pearl River were in existence when the dams were the weeks that they are spawning (S. (Smith et al. 2011). Surveys conducted originally built, but the development Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, by USACE on the Lower Mississippi and implementation of conservation pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, River (north of Baton Rouge, Louisiana) measures in the last 20 years (Doyle et November 2015). in the early 1980s also recorded the al. 2003) are likely to lessen the effect We also considered the number of number of individuals encountered and of dams on Alabama shad rather than to Alabama shad spawning populations to showed a slow decline in the number of pose an increasing threat to the species. assess the productivity of Alabama both adult and juvenile Alabama shad Other threats evaluated in this listing shad. The largest spawning population (Pennington 1980, Conner 1983, Smith determination are ranked as either of Alabama shad is in the ACF River et al. 2011). We can use the low

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 4040 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices

numbers or lack of Alabama shad skewed by sampling difficulties). adequately represent historical patterns captures/observations throughout the Additionally, Ely et al. (2008) noted that of geographic distribution and rest of their range to indicate declines fluctuations in abundance of American biodiversity and whether population from historical abundances. But it is shad are well documented (citing fragmentation poses a risk. The hard to relate those numbers with the Hattala et al. 1996, Atlantic States historical distribution of Alabama shad estimates for the Apalachicola that were Marine Fisheries Commission 1998, spanned the Gulf Coast from the calculated using mark-recapture Moring 2005) and variations in year- Suwannee River, Florida, to the techniques. However, it is clear that class strength typically observed in this Mississippi River, Louisiana. Within the while once abundant enough to support genus suggest that populations of Mississippi River and its tributaries, the small commercial fisheries in Alabama, Alabama shad are capable of recovering species spanned north to Illinois and Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and quickly to historical levels under Iowa, westward to Oklahoma, and Iowa, Alabama shad are rarely collected favorable conditions. A multi-agency eastward to Kentucky and Ohio. The throughout much of their former range Alabama Shad Restoration Plan for the species is believed to be extirpated in (Adams et al. 2000, Daniels 1860). Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River some of the farthest reaches of its Alabama shad are believed to possibly System (NMFS et al. 2012) calculated historical range, such as the Upper be extirpated from the Ohio River since that the carrying capacity for the system Mississippi River and Mississippi River 1989 (Pearson and Pearson 1989). is 1.3 million adult Alabama shad tributaries in Oklahoma, Illinois, and Alabama shad are considered rare in the (700,000 in the Chattachoochee and Kentucky/Ohio. However, Alabama state of Illinois and appear to have been 600,000 in the Flint), derived from the shad can still be found in river systems extirpated from many rivers in the state amount of free-flowing habitat in the (Smith et al. 2011). mainstem and major tributaries of the in Arkansas, Missouri, and along the Declines have been estimated in other Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers and Gulf Coast. The current range of Alosa species with longer historical using American shad population indices Alabama shad encompasses a diverse records. Hall et al. (2012) attempted to as a surrogate. array of habitats, which potentially estimate historical alewife populations In summary, we find the productivity contributes to population stability. in Maine for the years 1600–1900 using potential for Alabama shad is relatively Smith et al. (2011) state that the current analyses of nineteenth and twentieth high, given its life history characteristics range of Alabama shad is believed to be century harvest records and waterway and the presence of multiple spawning stable. obstruction records dating to the 1600s. populations within the species’ range. Maps displaying the best available They estimated that obstructed This relatively high productivity information on the historical and spawning access in 9 watersheds potential of Alabama shad was current range (presence) of Alabama reduced the annual alewife productivity confirmed in the ACF River system shad by river, including where the per watershed to 0–16 percent of pre- when population numbers greatly species continues to spawn, can be dam estimates, equaling a cumulative increased when access to historical found at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/ lost fisheries production of 11 billion spawning habitat was provided. protected_resources/listing_petitions/ fish from 1750 to 1900 (Hall et al. 2012). Available data suggest a decline in species_esa_consideration/index.html Attempts have been made to estimate abundance in many systems. Other (see Figures 1 and 2 for the eastern and past abundances of Alabama shad and Alosa species with longer and more western portions of the range, habitat carrying capacity for complete historical records, such as respectively). Historical and current conservation planning by using alewife, have also shown declines in range, as well as spawning rivers, are examples from other Alosa species. abundance. A comparison with based on reports of the species presence Comparisons have been made between American shad populations at similar from the literature (see the ‘‘Distribution Alabama shad and American shad. Ely latitudes and a habitat study indicate and Abundance’’ section), but the maps et al. (2008) noted that, given the that the Alabama shad population in the do not represent the number of fish similarities in life history characteristics ACF River system may be smaller than reported from a river system. In most of Alabama shad and American shad expected and below carrying capacity in cases, we do not have information on and the similarities in discharge, the system. Managers and researchers the exact portion(s) of river systems drainage area, and latitude between the note that low numbers of recorded historically or currently inhabited by Apalachicola River and other Alabama shad individuals may be due, southeastern rivers, the populations of at least in part, to insufficient sampling Alabama shad, or where spawning adult Alabama shad and American shad effort during appropriate times (i.e., habitat is located. In the ACF River might be expected to be similar. Ely et spawning migrations) and with the system (where the majority of recent al. (2008) cited the number of American appropriate gear to target the species. directed research on Alabama shad is shad reaching the first barrier to We ranked productivity, on its own, to occurring), the map shows that Alabama migration in the Savannah River, be at low risk of contributing shad likely do not pass above dams at estimated as nearly 190,000 (Bailey et significantly to the current and Albany and George Andrews Lake. In al. 2004), and the number in the foreseeable risk of extinction for other systems, it is unknown to what Altamaha River system estimated as Alabama shad. degree locks and dams and/or low head 133,000 (Georgia DNR 2005), and dams block upstream passage or allow concluded that the population size of Spatial Distribution some shad to move upstream and the Alabama shad in the Apalachicola McElhany et al. (2000) stated that downstream. This is discussed in River from 2005–2007 (approximately spatial structure is an important greater detail in the ‘‘Dams’’ section 2,700–26,000 shad) was relatively small. consideration in evaluating population under ‘‘A. The Present or Threatened Subsequent to the Ely et al. (2008) viability because it affects evolutionary Destruction, Modification, or study, the numbers of Alabama shad in processes and can affect a population’s Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range.’’ In the Apalachicola River generally ability to respond to environmental cases where no information is available increased, ranging from 2,000–122,500 change. Wainwright and Kope (1999) on the specific extent of Alabama shad from 2008–2012 (as noted earlier, the stated that it is important to determine or its spawning habitat within a river 2013–2015 data was considered to be whether existing populations system, we included the entire river

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4041

system as part of the range of Alabama or targeted surveys. Positive reports in at broad scales (Abell et al. 2008). The shad. the tributaries without reports from the boundaries of an ecoregion encompass In developing the maps reflecting the mainstem could indicate the presence of an area within which important historical and current range of Alabama landlocked populations or it could ecological and evolutionary processes shad, we determined we would include simply indicate that shad were present most strongly interact (Abell et al. positive reports of Alabama shad over in the mainstem, but not surveyed or 2008). Conservation of blocks of natural the last 24 years. The 24-year time frame detected. Given the pelagic nature of habitat large enough to be resilient to was selected because dams within the Alabama shad, and their migratory life large-scale disturbances and long-term geographic range of Alabama shad were style, we believe that Alabama shad changes are essential for large river completed 30 or more years ago (mid- likely inhabit the mainstem of the rivers systems in particular (Abell et al. 2008). 1980s; Graf 1999). Since dams have the adjacent to the tributaries where they Under several widely used ecoregion ability to alter the range of shad within were reported. classification systems, Alabama shad rivers, older/pre-dam studies reporting Spatial structure contributes to the populations inhabit heterogeneous shad would not reflect any alterations of resiliency of populations to various habitats across multiple diverse the species’ distribution due to the dam. disturbances, which can occur across a ecoregions. Alabama shad occupy six Further, any alterations in the range of spatial scales, from localized ecoregion ‘‘divisions’’ that the U.S. distribution of Alabama shad may not disturbances affecting a few miles of Forest Service classifies based on happen immediately after construction stream and therefore only a portion of precipitation, temperature, and of a dam. Therefore we considered the a population, to regional impacts from vegetation or other natural land cover. maximum age observed in Alabama events such as droughts that affect The Environmental Protection Agency shad (6 years; Mettee and O’Neil 2003). multiple populations (Williams et al. (EPA) identified four levels of We only included reports of Alabama 2008). Hilborn et al. (2003) state there is ecoregions by analyzing patterns of shad that occurred at least 6 years after growing recognition that many fish biotic and abiotic phenomena, both the era of dam-building ended (i.e., 24 stocks consist of multiple combined terrestrial and aquatic. These years ago or less). Positive reports of geographic components. Spatial phenomena include geology, landforms, Alabama shad in a river system in the diversity in populations can lead to soils, vegetation, climate, land use, last 24 years would indicate that new greater stability in fish species wildlife, and hydrology (EPA 2016). generations of shad persisted in the (Jorgensen et al. 2016). Schindler et al. Even at the coarsest level, the EPA’s river system after the end of the dam- (2010) referred to this as a ‘‘portfolio Level I ecoregion, which highlights building era, even if a dam was effect’’ that is analogous to the effects of major ecological areas, Alabama shad constructed in the system. Therefore, asset diversity on the stability of populations occupy 2 of the 12 positive reports collected during the 24- financial portfolios. Hilborn et al. (2003) ecoregions in the continental United year time frame accounted for the reported a ‘‘portfolio effect’’ in the States: The Eastern Temperate Forests presence of dams with the range of resilience of sockeye salmon in Bristol and the Great Plains. The species Alabama shad. We also used Bay, Alaska, which the researchers occupies 4 of the 25 Level II ecoregions, information from the literature on where attributed to the maintenance of diverse and 14 of the 105 Level III ecoregions. the species is potentially extirpated to geographic locations and life history The Nature Conservancy (TNC) uses a indicate the historical versus current strategies that comprise the sockeye terrestrial ecoregion classification range. In many instances, the salmon stock. At different times during system similar to the EPA Level III information demonstrating persistence the 1900s, different geographic regions ecoregions. Alabama shad populations during the last 24 years is limited to just and different life history strategies occupy nine TNC terrestrial ecoregions. one or several verified identifications of contributed to the productivity of the TNC also uses freshwater ecoregions Alabama shad. However, in view of the stock, and Hilborn et al. (2003) with boundaries describing broad high productivity of shad, the concluded this likely buffered the stock patterns of species composition and challenges associated with detecting the against large-scale environmental associated ecological and evolutionary species in non-targeted studies, and the conditions, providing long-term processes (Abell et al. 2008). Along the episodic, anecdotal nature of available stability. Jorgensen et al. (2016) studied Gulf Coast, Alabama shad occupy four information, we believe it is reasonable Chinook salmon populations from the freshwater ecoregions: The Apalachicola to extrapolate from information Columbia River and also observed (containing the ACF River system and confirming presence during the last 24 differential contributions of populations the Econfina River), the West Florida years that Alabama shad continue to to species productivity, noting Gulf (includes the Escambia and occur in these systems. differences in migratory corridors, Choctawhatchee River systems), Mobile In some cases, such as the Mississippi climate, and geology as potential factors. Bay (containing the Mobile River River, Alabama shad are shown to The current range of Alabama shad system), and the Lower Mississippi inhabit a tributary but not the river (the species’ portfolio) encompasses a (includes portions of the White River). mainstem. Although the mainstem is diverse array of habitats, which In the northern part of their range, not included as part of the historical potentially contributes to population Alabama shad occupy three freshwater range, this does not necessarily indicate stability. Many Federal agencies and ecoregions: The Central Prairie Alabama shad are not present in the non-governmental organizations classify (containing the Missouri River and its mainstem, only that we did not find a terrestrial and aquatic systems based on tributary, the Osage River), the Ozark positive report of their presence in the ecoregions, large areas of similar climate Highlands (including a portion of the last 25 years. In the example of the where ecosystems recur in predictable White River), and the Ouachita Mississippi River, the river mainstems patterns (USFS 2016). Ecoregions are a Highlands (including the Ouachita River are often not the subject of research widely recognized and applied and its Little Missouri River tributary). surveys as high river flows and high geospatial unit for conservation The ecoregions along the Gulf Coast are vessel traffic raise concerns for human planning, developed to represent the similarly defined by humid subtropical safety. Also, as noted earlier in this patterns of environmental and climates, but diverge in other determination, Alabama shad can be ecological variables known to influence characteristics. The Apalachicola difficult to detect, in both non-targeted the distribution of biodiversity features ecoregion lies entirely within the coastal

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 4042 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices

plain, but the variety of habitats found of high gradient headwater streams rivers, Waters et al. (2000) proposed that in its rivers provide the foundation for surrounded by coastal plains and shad species may stray more than other a diverse freshwater fauna. Rivers in the prairie. The Ozark Highlands contain a anadromous fishes and estimated that Apalachicola ecoregion flow through diversity of freshwater habitats, American shad are expected to have shaded ravines with cool spring inputs, including fens, sinkholes and springs, over 10 effective migrants per resembling habitats of more northerly which feed the clear headwaters of generation. In fact, Mickle et al. (2006) regions. This ecoregion supports more larger, free-flowing streams. Many of and Kreiser and Schaefer (2009) found species than adjacent lowland these habitats served as refugia during slight genetic distinctions between ecoregions. The West Florida Gulf periods of glacial maximas. The Ozarks populations from the Mississippi River ecoregion is defined by the lowland are home to a unique assemblage of basin and coastal Gulf of Mexico drainages that flow through extensive species. Like the Ozark Highlands, the drainages. Kreiser and Schaefer (2009) floodplain oak-hickory-pine forests. Ouachita Highlands ecoregion is attributed this to Alabama shad straying This ecoregion does not boast the same distinguished by its relative from their natal rivers at a rate of about fish richness as the neighboring Mobile biogeographic isolation. The ecoregion 10 migrants per generation, consistent Bay. The Mobile Bay ecoregion has the is a source area for several larger with the estimate by Waters et al. (2000) highest level of aquatic diversity in the streams and is an area of high-gradient for American shad. This indicates the eastern Gulf. This is largely due to the and spring-fed springs, and can almost possibility that Alabama shad could variety of physiographic provinces be considered an island surrounded by enhance and repopulate nearby river occurring in this ecoregion, its size, and the Great Plains, coastal plains, and systems within their range. This was its escape from Pleistocene glaciation. prairie. The ecoregion is characterized also observed in anadromous Pacific This ecoregion is centered in central by oak-hickory-pine forests, which are salmon. Similar to Alabama shad, these Alabama and includes eastern some of the best developed in the species exhibit high spawning site Mississippi, western Georgia, and a United States. fidelity, but are well-adapted to small area in southern Tennessee. The Habitat heterogeneity is considered to dynamic environments through straying northern part of the ecoregion is be important for the stability of by adults (to connect populations) and characterized by Appalachian Blue populations, and Oliver et al. (2010) high fecundity (also similar to Alabama Ridge and Appalachian mixed found that heterogeneous landscapes shad; Reeves et al. 1995, Jorgensen et al. mesophytic forests, considered some of containing a variety of suitable habitat 2016). the most biologically diverse temperate types were associated with more stable The historical range of Alabama shad forests in the world. These grade into population dynamics in a butterfly has contracted and this species is Southeastern mixed forests, which are species. Oliver et al. (2010) noted that believed to be extirpated from some demarcated from conifer forests in the many studies have suggested that the river systems. Few targeted research south by the fall line of the Atlantic beneficial effects of heterogeneity may studies were conducted since the time Piedmont. Historically, rivers and buffer a broad range of taxa against a majority of dams may have altered streams in this ecoregion stretched over environmental change. Based on Alabama shad’s distribution, therefore 1000 mi. Today, flow in the Mobile common ecoregion classifications, the we can rely only on anecdotal reports River is regulated by a series of watersheds inhabited by Alabama shad from monitoring activities and upstream reservoirs on the Etowah, populations contain a diverse array of multispecies surveys from the last 24 landscapes, vegetation, geology, years to determine their current range. Coosa, and Tallapoosa rivers, and to a hydrology, and climate. However, the remaining spawning lesser extent by the locks and dams of We also considered the spatial populations of the species appear to be the Tombigbee River. The Lower structure of the spawning populations of geographically widespread. Their range Mississippi ecoregion is also Alabama shad. In assessing the viability appears to have become stable once dam distinguished by its species richness, of salmonid populations, which are building ended, and lost access to particularly in fish. The entire anadromous and exhibit homing spawning habitat is likely to be restored Mississippi basin has served as a center tendencies like Alabama shad, through dam removal and fish passage, for fish distribution as well as a glacial McElhany et al. (2000) stated that it is and protections under environmental refugium, and as such it is home to practical to focus on spawning group laws have increased. Although many of the species found in distribution and connectivity because spawning populations in some places surrounding drainages. As a result, it is many of the processes that affect small are small, the species exists in multiple the second richest ecoregion in North population extinction risk depend on ecoregions, representing a diverse array America. the breeding structure. The spatial of ecosystems that has the potential to Compared to other ecoregions, arrangement of suitable spawning and buffer the species against environmental Alabama shad experience different rearing habitat within a watershed can changes and promote population climatic conditions in the Central be dynamic through time as a result of stability. Genetic studies (Kreiser and Prairie, which has hot continental periodic disturbances that create a Schaefer 2009, Waters et al. 2000) show summers and cold winters, with mosaic of varying habitat conditions that exchange between river populations periodic arctic blasts. Most of the (Reeves et al. 1995). Efforts to is occurring at higher rates than is streams and rivers in the ecoregion are understand population diversity have expected for other anadromous species. meandering with low to moderate flow. focused on population connectedness, Therefore, we ranked spatial The diversity of species in this through the analysis of DNA collected distribution throughout its range, on its ecoregion is high relative to adjacent from individuals across the landscape or own, to be at low risk of contributing ecoregions due to the presence of tagging data to quantify dispersal significantly to the current and diverse habitats that were not between populations (Jorgensen et al. foreseeable risk of extinction for interrupted during glacial periods. The 2016). Alabama shad continue to spawn Alabama shad. Ozark Highlands ecoregion is part of the in river systems in Florida, Alabama, western Mississippi River drainage but Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Diversity is distinctive because of its relative Arkansas, and Missouri. While most In a spatially and temporally varying biogeographical isolation. It is a region Alabama shad spawn in their natal environment, genetic diversity is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4043

important for species and population originating ancestor(s) of Alabama shad long-term persistence of Alabama shad viability because it (1) allows a species traveled around the Florida peninsula in the ACF River system. to use a wider array of environments into the Gulf of Mexico during or after In summary, we found no significant than they could without it, (2) protects the Pleistocene and became genetic differences between Alabama a species against short-term spatial and geographically separated from Atlantic shad from different river populations, temporal changes in the environment, populations. based primarily on information and (3) provides the raw material for Loss of genetic diversity can reduce provided in Kreiser and Schaefer (2009) surviving long-term environmental an organism’s adaptive capacity to and Moyer (2012). A genetic evaluation changes (McElhany et al. 2000). Small respond to differing environmental of Alabama shad from the ACF River populations may be at risk from random conditions and increase a species’ system (Moyer 2012) showed genetic genetic effects, Allee effects, and extinction risk. However, population diversity is low, likely resulting from a directional effects (Wainwright and bottlenecks can also have positive bottleneck that occurred during the Kope 1999). outcomes on a species’ genetic diversity, Pleistocene rather than any recent Alabama shad are believed to be fitness, and extinction risk (Bouzat anthropogenic factors. Moyer (2012) philopatric and generally return to the 2010). Moyer (2012) noted that stated that the reduced genetic diversity same rivers to spawn, which has populations or species that have resulting from the Pleistocene resulted in slight genetic differences undergone population bottlenecks bottleneck potentially reduced the among river drainages (Meadows et al. throughout their evolutionary history genetic load of Alabama shad, which 2008, Mickle 2010). These genetic may have reduced genetic load. Genetic decreases their extinction risk and differences could result in load is the combination of harmful increases their viability and chances of characteristics (e.g., faster growth rates, genes that are hidden in the genetic recovery. We ranked diversity, on its higher temperature tolerance, etc.) that make-up of a population and may be own, to be at low risk of contributing lead to variable spawning strategies transmitted to descendants. The genetic significantly to the current and among river drainages. Kreiser and load of a population reduces the fitness foreseeable risk of extinction for Schaefer (2009) also noted slight genetic of that population relative to a Alabama shad. differences between Alabama shad from population composed entirely of Threats Assessment the Mississippi River basin and coastal individuals having optimal genotypes. Next we consider whether any of the Gulf of Mexico drainages; however, they Hedrick (2001) stated that a population five factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of determined there has been no with reduced genetic load resulting significant genetic differentiation among the ESA are contributing to the from a bottleneck may have increased different river populations of Alabama extinction risk of Alabama shad. viability and be more likely to recover shad. A. The Present or Threatened Moyer (2012) evaluated the genome of from near-extinction than a population Destruction, Modification, or Alabama shad collected from the ACF that has not experienced such an Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range River system to assess the influence of evolutionary bottleneck. genetic factors on their extinction risk, Modeling conducted by Moyer (2012) Effects to Alabama shad’s riverine including whether the construction of indicated that the Pleistocene bottleneck habitat are contributing to the species’ JWLD blocking access to upstream for Alabama shad was intense. The extinction risk now, and are likely to spawning habitat affected their genetic maintenance of genetic variability in a continue into the foreseeable future. The diversity. Genetic diversity of finite population can be understood primary cause for declines in Alabama Apalachicola River shad was calculated through the concept of effective shad populations is believed to be the based on the average number of alleles population size, which is not an actual presence of dams, which can block (the possible forms in which a gene for abundance estimate but an estimate of access to upstream spawning habitats a specific trait can occur), observed the number of individuals in an ideal (NMFS et al. 2012, Mettee and O’Neil heterozygosity (having different alleles population that would give the same 2003). Existing literature cites other in regard to a specific trait), and rate of random genetic drift (change in threats to Alabama shad, including expected heterozygosity. Moyer (2012) the frequency of a gene variant) as in the dredging (Mettee and O’Neil 2003), found no evidence of fine-scale actual population (Lande 1988). The sedimentation (Mettee and O’Neil 2003), population structure in the ACF River effective population size for Alabama and water quality degradation (Mettee et system. The observed genetic variation shad during the bottleneck was al. 1996), although there is little specific found in Alabama shad was lower than estimated to be between 76 and 398, information on how Alabama shad expected based on other shad studies. meaning 76–398 individuals is the populations may be responding to those These findings suggest that the genetic population size during the Pleistocene threats. Recently identified and ongoing variation of Alabama shad in the ACF estimated to have been necessary to potential threats to Alabama shad River system has been severely reduced result in the relatively low genetic include water allocation issues, climate by a bottleneck event. Moyer (2012) diversity observed in members of the change, and the Deepwater Horizon concluded that the bottleneck likely did species today. Moyer (2012) also noted (DWH) oil spill. not result from the construction of that the bottleneck event was prolonged JWLD or from any other anthropogenic (145–987 shad generations) and he Dams activity. Moyer (2012) stated the concluded that it may have purged The construction of dams that block reduced genetic diversity appears to be much of the species’ genetic load, access to upstream habitat has long been the result of past events that occurred making the population less prone to considered the primary reason for during the Pleistocene. Bowen et al. fitness decreases in the event of another declines of Alabama shad and other (2008) made a similar determination for bottleneck. Moyer (2012) concluded the anadromous fish species (NMFS et al. Alabama shad while studying the risk of population decline and 2012). Dynesius and Nilsson (1994) list phylogenetic relationships across North extinction in Alabama shad from the three of the river systems inhabited by American Alosa species. Their study ACF River basin due to reduced genetic Alabama shad (the Mississippi, also indicated that the genetic diversity appears to be low and is not Apalachicola, and Mobile Rivers) as bottleneck occurred when the of immediate importance to the short- or being strongly affected by the presence

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 4044 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices

of dams. Despite a lack of species- and Alabama, there is evidence that Powersite Dam, a hydroelectric dam, specific data, the proliferation of Alabama shad historically occurred was constructed far upstream in the impassable structures constructed on above the fall line in the Flint and Missouri portion of the White River in rivers within its range is believed to Chattahoochee Rivers (Mettee and 1913. In 2006, researchers collected the have restricted adult Alabama shad from O’Neil 2003, Couch et al. 1996) and in first Alabama shad in the White River reaching their historical spawning the upper Coosa and Tallapoosa River (Buchanan et al. 2012); the collected grounds, which severely reduced or systems (Freeman et al. 2005). An specimens were juveniles believed to eliminated their ability to reproduce Alabama shad record exists above the have been spawned in the river. The (Pflieger 1997, Mettee and O’Neil 2003). fall line into the Piedmont from the Remmel Dam was constructed on the Most surveys and studies of Alabama Cahaba River, Alabama (Mettee et al. Ouachita River in 1924 to provide shad focused on fish below dams 1996). There are many locks, dams, and electrical power for southern Arkansas (Laurence and Yerger 1967, Mills 1972), other impoundments in the Mobile and surrounding states. While the dam while collection records from state and River basin that cumulatively impound blocks access to upstream habitat for Federal agencies, as well as approximately 44 percent of the river most of the year, Alabama shad are ichthyological collections, indicate a mainstem length in the basin as well as successfully spawning in the Ouachita rarity of specimens collected upstream portions of many tributary streams and Little Missouri Rivers (Buchanan of dams (Coker 1930, Etnier and Starnes (Pringle et al. 2000). Only a few 1999). Buchanan et al. (1999) note that 1993). In addition, similar declines in Alabama shad have been found in the during March and April of most years, American shad populations have Tombigbee River, a tributary of the the peak months of the spring spawning resulted from dam construction Mobile River, since the construction of run, high water frequently flows over (Limburg and Waldman 2009). Pringle the Tombigbee lock system in the and around the structure, allowing et al. (2000) note that Alosa species, waterway in 1901 (M. Roberts, Curator Alabama shad to move into habitats such as river herring and American of Fishes, Mississippi Museum of upstream of Remmel Dam. shad, have established themselves Natural Science, pers. comm. to K. The Elba-Pea River Dam was outside their native ranges and in Shotts, NMFS, October 21, 2013). On constructed for power generation on the landlocked populations when dams the Alabama River, Claiborne Lock and Pea River tributary of the blocked their natural habitat. In the Dam was opened for navigation in 1969 Choctawhatchee River in the early Mississippi River system, Alabama shad (Freeman et al. 2005). Upstream from 1900s. Studies indicate there are small are shown to inhabit several tributaries Claiborne Lock and Dam, Millers Ferry spawning populations of Alabama shad but have not been recently reported Lock and Dam was constructed for the in the Choctawhatchee and Pea Rivers within the river mainstem. Positive purpose of both power generation and (Barkuloo 1993, Adams et al. 2000, reports in the tributaries without reports navigation, with the lock opening in Mettee and O’Neil 2003, Young 2010). from the mainstem could indicate the 1969 and power coming on line in 1970. Dams were constructed on the Conecuh/ presence of landlocked populations of Numerous juvenile Alabama shad were Escambia (Point A Dam) and Alabama shad or it could indicate that recorded in the Alabama River in 1951, Apalachicola Rivers (JWLD) beginning shad were present in the mainstem, but the late 1960s, and the early 1970s in 1929 and 1947, respectively. River not surveyed or detected. (Boschung 1992, Mettee and O’Neil traffic on the Apalachicola River Within the state of Iowa there are 10 2003). However, only two individuals resulted in the lock being operated frequently, allowing passage and locks and dams on the Upper have been caught in the Alabama River Mississippi River (north of the sustaining reproduction of the resident in more recent years, one in 1993 below confluence with the Ohio River) and an Alabama shad population. Historically, Claiborne Lock and Dam and one in additional 7 locks and dams to the south JWLD was operated continuously 24 1995 below Miller’s Ferry Lock and that could prevent Alabama shad from hours per day for commercial barge Dam (Smith et al. 2011). In 2009, reaching historical spawning grounds traffic (Sammons 2013). With the conservation locking during spawning (Steuck et al. 2010). Noting that large elimination of commercial traffic in the season was instituted at Claiborne Lock numbers of Alabama shad congregated late 1960s, lock operation was reduced and Dam and Miller’s Ferry Lock and below Keokuk Dam, Iowa, but few were to 8 hours per day for on-demand Dam (Simcox 2009). In 2014 and 2015, ever captured above it, Coker (1930) passage of recreational boats, reducing conservation locking coupled with reasoned that the dam likely limited the the number of lockages to less than 100 upstream passage of the species in the stocking of Alabama shad was per year from a high of 1200. Barge Upper Mississippi River. Dams in undertaken to provide access above traffic decreased and lock operation Mississippi River tributaries also block Claiborne and Miller’s Ferry Locks and became infrequent when navigational Alabama shad from reaching spawning Dams and to enhance Alabama shad dredging ceased in 2001 (J. Wilcox, habitat. Construction of dams in the populations in the river system. FFWCC, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, McClelland-Kerr Arkansas River Legislation focused on flood control, NMFS, November 12, 2013). Recently, Navigation System in the early 1970s navigation, and hydropower passed in conservation locking on the may have led to the extirpation of the late 1920s through the mid-1940s Apalachicola River has given Alabama Alabama shad in that system (M. Oliver, resulted in the development and shad access to previously blocked Chief of Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and construction of over a dozen major habitat upstream of JWLD, although 15 Game Commission, pers. comm. to K. impoundments on the mainstem other impoundments/reservoirs Shotts, NMFS, November 5, 2013). The Missouri River, but there are currently exist upstream on the Denison and Altus Dams block access to approximately 17,200 minor dams and Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers (NMFS habitat in the Red and Washita Rivers reservoirs on the river and its et al. 2012). Populations of Alabama (Smith et al. 2011). tributaries, most of which are small, shad continue to use the Conecuh/ Dams have been constructed at or local irrigation structures (USACE Escambia and ACF River systems for below the fall line in many river 2006). Alabama shad spawn in the spawning. systems along the Gulf Coast and Missouri River, as well as two of its Dams are believed to be the primary prevent spawning migrations into the tributaries, the Gasconade and Osage reason for declines in all three of the Piedmont (NMFS et al. 2012). In Georgia Rivers (Smith et al. 2011). The anadromous species native to the Gulf

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4045

of Mexico (USFWS 2009a). In addition streams to raise the water level, (e.g., sturgeon, bass, and herrings) had to Alabama shad, anadromous Gulf normally producing vertical water the most success moving upriver sturgeon and striped bass (Morone surface drops of one to several feet. Fish through structures, but Alabama shad saxatilis) have also been blocked by may also pass through navigation locks and other migratory fish species dams from accessing upstream habitat when they are open for vessel traffic. included in the study were also able to in river systems draining into the Gulf. Coker (1929) noted lack of observation move upstream through Upper Gulf sturgeon were listed as threatened in locks. However, Zigler et al. (2004) Mississippi River locks and dams when in 1991 (56 FR 49653) and occur in river note that there is considerable hydraulic conditions were favorable. systems from Louisiana to Florida, in opportunity for fish to use some locks Wilcox (1999) described the difference nearshore bays and estuaries, and in the for upstream and downstream in hydraulic conditions when gates are Gulf of Mexico. While overfishing movement. Ickes (2014) states that all of in the open and closed positions. caused initial declines in Gulf sturgeon the dams on the Upper Mississippi Velocities through the gated sections of populations, the listing determination River are ‘‘semi-permeable’’ to fish the dams are highest when dam gates cited dams as a current threat to the passage in that they all have locks that are in the water (closed). When the dam species. Striped bass were native to Gulf fish could use to move upstream and gates are raised from the water (open) of Mexico rivers from the Suwannee downstream. With the exception of two during higher levels of river discharge, River in Florida to the rivers draining of the locks, all are open and run-of-the- uncontrolled conditions exist, and open into Lake Pontchartrain in eastern river for part of the year, up to as much channel flow occurs in the gate bay Louisiana and southwestern as 35 percent of the time annually (Ickes openings. Opportunity for upriver fish Mississippi. Striped bass populations 2014). passage through dams is greatest during began declining in the early 1900s, and Zigler et al. (2004) found that the uncontrolled conditions due to the by the mid-1960s had disappeared from dams on the Upper Mississippi River lower velocities through the dam gate all Gulf rivers except for the ACF River are typically low head dams that allow openings. Dams with lower controlled system of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia fish passage under certain conditions. discharge capacity may therefore (USFWS 2009a). In addition to blocking Downriver fish passage can occur present more frequent and longer windows of opportunity for upriver fish upstream habitat, it is believed that through the locks and gated sections of downstream effects from the dam, such passage than dams with higher the dam, as well as over the top of the as impaired water quality and discharge capacity (Wilcox 1999). dam (Wilcox 1999). Fish can sometimes channelization may have prevented USFWS (2012) conducted a 2-year swim over low head dams when water successful spawning (USFWS 2009a). study starting in 2010 to determine levels in the river are high enough, The USFWS and Gulf states began whether Lock and Dam #1 (a low head although Wilcox (1999) notes that most cooperative efforts to restore and dam) creates a barrier to fish passage on upriver passage on the Upper maintain Gulf striped bass populations the Osage River, which supports a Mississippi River occurs through the in the late 1960s, mainly through spawning population of Alabama shad. gated sections of the dams. Zigler et al. stocking of hatchery-raised fingerlings, USFWS (2012) determined through (2004) observed that navigation dams and this effort continues today (USFWS captures of pallid and hybrid sturgeon 2009b). Related anadromous Alosa are operated with partially closed dam marked in other studies that Lock and species on the East Coast, such as the gates during most of the year to increase Dam #1 was passable at certain flows, American shad, have also experienced dam head and maintain water levels in but presented a barrier at others. Fish declines due to dams blocking access to navigation pools. Fish can likely pass passage upstream of Lock and Dam #1 upstream habitat (Limburg and downstream through partially closed was detected by USFWS (2012). Passage Waldman 2009). dam gates unharmed (Zigler et al. 2004, was determined through collection of Spawning populations of Alabama Moen et al. 1992). Upstream passage is fish above and below the dam, rather shad inhabit the Meramec, Gasconade, possible, but likely impeded to some than by acoustically or radio tracking Suwannee, and Pascagoula River degree, when gates are partially closed fish. Therefore it is unknown whether systems, all of which are free-flowing due to increased current velocity, which upstream passage was achieved by fish systems unmodified by dams (Heise et increases with increasing dam head swimming over the dam or passing al. 2005, MDC 2001, 2015, Mickle et al. (Zigler et al. 2004). In a tagging study of through the lock. However, since 2010; J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. to paddlefish, a species selected as upstream passage is typically more K. Shotts, NMFS, November 12, 2013). representative of migratory fish species difficult for fish due to swimming However, other spawning populations whose movements have likely been against the river current, it is likely that of Alabama shad, including the largest adversely affected by dams, Zigler et al. downstream passage is also possible known spawning population in the ACF (2004) showed 12–33 percent of the since upstream passage was River system, use river systems that tagged fish moved upstream, documented to occur. USFWS (2012) have been dammed since the early to downstream, or both during years with also noted that the 115-year-old dam mid-1900s. Recent conservation locking high river discharge through the low was unstable and would need to be is currently having a positive effect on head dams, but no movement was removed or repaired in the very near Alabama shad in the ACF River system, observed during time periods with a future. and this population has been considered weak flood pulse. Studies by Brooks et While dams are believed to be the to be the largest population since at al. (2009) and Tripp and Garvey (2011) main cause of the initial decline of least 1967 (McBride 2000). in the Upper Mississippi River found Alabama shad, and continue to block While dams are known to impede that the degree to which upriver habitat and cause downstream effects upstream access to habitat, access may movement was impeded by lock and today, few new dams are being built still be possible under certain dam structures varied among species, (Graf 1999). Some dams in the United conditions. Fish may be able to pass but that each of their 5 study species States date back centuries. The greatest upstream and downstream during high had the capability to negotiate dams rate of increase in reservoir storage water conditions at ‘‘low head’’ dams, whether the lock gates were closed or occurred from the late 1950s to the late which are low vertical structures that open. Wilcox (1999) found similar 1970s, with more dams (and some of the have been constructed across rivers or results in that strong swimming species largest) built in the 1960s than in any

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 4046 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices

other decade (Graf 1999). In the ‘‘golden small ones) and the costs of maintaining 37,099 river restoration projects in the age’’ of U.S. dam building, thousands of old dams suggests that dam removal National River Restoration Science large and small dams were built to will continue for the foreseeable future Synthesis (NRRSS) database. Fish supply power, reduce flood hazard, (Poff and Hart 2002). The benefits of passage is one of the four most improve navigation, and impound water dams have been routinely exaggerated commonly stated goals of river for irrigation and urban water supply and the costs have been frequently restoration, along with water quality with little thought to the environmental underestimated, prompting policy- management, instream habitat impacts, long-term fate, inevitable aging, makers to increasingly consider dam improvement, and riparian and need for continued maintenance, removal as a policy option (Pejchar and management. The NRRSS database renovation, or even removal of dams Warner 2001). The cost of repairing a shows that of the 58 percent of projects (Doyle et al. 2003, Pejchar and Warner small dam can be as much as three where cost information was available, 2001). There have been few new dams times greater than the cost of removing $9.1 billion has been spent on river built since the mid-1980s and the it (Born et al. 1998). In contrast, many restoration projects since 1970. nation’s era of dam building is over cost-effective methods for water Bernhardt et al. (2005) notes that the (Graf 1999). Further, the aging of conservation in cities already exist, and majority of the money ($7.5 billion) America’s dams, coupled with new technologies are constantly spent on restoration was spent between increasing awareness of their evolving that will enable even greater 1990–2003, indicating that river environmental costs, has brought dam efficiencies, reducing the amount of restoration is a relatively recent and decommissioning and removal to the water that needs to be extracted from growing phenomenon. Specific river attention of the scientific community, rivers through the use of dams and flow patterns cue anadromous species management agencies, and the general reservoirs (Richter and Thomas 2007). like Alabama shad to migrate and public (Doyle et al. 2003). It is only As dams in the U.S. age beyond their reproduce. To mitigate negative effects since the late 1990s that the topic of intended design lives (Doyle et al. of flow patterns created by dams, dam dam removal has become common due 2008), some states are providing operations are increasingly being to the convergence of economic, incentives to remove dams as means of adapted toward releasing environmental, and regulatory concerns river restoration (Ardon and Bernhardt ‘‘environmental flows,’’ the appropriate (Doyle et al. 2003). An understanding 2009). quantity, quality, and timing of water about how dams severely impair free- Besides dam removal, various designs flows required to sustain freshwater and flowing rivers has become firmly of fishways or fish ladders have been estuarine ecosystems (Lehner et al. established both in the United States developed to enable fish to pass 2011). and abroad and this knowledge has upstream of barrier dams. The In summary, dams have impacted entered into the public debate on river recognized need to pass fish upstream of anadromous species populations and conservation, both in terms of greater dams and other obstacles inspired many are believed to be the primary cause for willingness of reservoir managers to seminal studies on fish swimming the observed decline of Alabama shad. minimize downstream ecological effects performance, energetics, and Existing dams continue to block access and of increased calls for outright dam biomechanics (Castro-Santos et al. to upstream spawning habitat, although removal (Poff and Hart 2002). 2009). Within the last 50 years fishways few new dams are being built today. The and other passage operations have current diminished abundance of By 2020, an estimated 85 percent of become increasingly sophisticated and Alabama shad is a reflection of the dams in the United States will be efficient, their design a product of historical effects of the dams over near the end of their operational lives collaboration between hydraulic decades, although the threat to Alabama (Doyle et al. 2003). The current engineers and biologists (Roscoe and shad from existing dams may be intensification of economic and Hinch 2010). The presence of a fishway reduced with effective fish passage, environmental concerns is coinciding alone does not guarantee that the fish conservation locking, dam removal, and with a policy window in which many are able to pass upstream of the barrier other forms of river restoration. We private dams are coming up for to their movement and fishways do not believe that the presence of dams is regulatory re-licensing with FERC and always perform as intended (Roscoe and contributing a moderate level of risk to operational guidelines for publicly- Hinch 2010). However, upstream the overall current extinction risk of operated dams are being reviewed passage technologies are considered to Alabama shad, but could decrease in the (Doyle et al. 2003). Stanley and Doyle be well developed and well understood foreseeable future with the increasing (2003) predict that the aging of the U.S. for the main anadromous species, focus on restoring access to fish habitat dam infrastructure will make dam including Alosa species (Larinier and blocked by dams. removal even more common in the Marmulla 2004). In the ACF and Water Quality future. American Rivers (2015) reports Alabama River systems, Federal, state, that 1,300 dams were removed between and non-governmental organizations are Changes in water quality parameters 1912 and 2015. Lovett (2014) notes that collaborating and utilizing existing (turbidity, flow, oxygen content, and 1,150 of those dams were removed in facilities (i.e., opening navigation locks) pollutants) are a potential threat to the last 20 years, most of which were during spawning season to pass Alabama shad. The presence of dams, dams lower than 5 meters (16.4 feet) but Alabama shad and other species dredging, and watershed activities can also taller dams in recent years. In 2004, upstream, with demonstrated success in alter water quality in riverine and 2012, and 2013, 5 dams within the the ACF River system, but with coastal habitat used by Alabama shad. current range of Alabama shad in the unknown results in the Alabama River. In addition to blocking access to habitat, ACF and Alabama River systems were River restoration will play an dams can degrade spawning, nursery, removed (American Rivers 2015). increasing role in environmental and foraging habitat downstream by Another 10 dams were removed since management and policy decisions, and altering flow, water temperature, and 1999 in the historical range of Alabama has even become a highly profitable oxygen levels. Mettee et al. (2005) state shad in the Mississippi, Tennessee, and business (Bernhardt et al. 2005, Ardon that seasonal flow patterns in dammed Ohio Rivers (American Rivers 2015). and Bernhardt 2009). Bernhardt et al. rivers have been replaced by pulsed The rapid aging of dams (especially (2005) synthesized information on releases that alter water temperature and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4047

DO levels, as well as nutrient and source of the impairment (e.g., dam benthos compared to the water column. sediment transport. releases, dredging, industrial discharge, Tagatz (1961) found that juvenile Dredging can also affect water quality. or stormwater runoff). However, the American shad (an Alosa species more Several decades ago, when vessel traffic water quality assessment reports closely related to Alabama shad than on the Apalachicola River was much provide some information on the water sturgeon) are able to acclimate to low greater, the USACE frequently dredged quality conditions Alabama shad are oxygen concentrations (2–4 mg/L) when the river to maintain depth of the exposed to in the riverine areas they other environmental conditions are navigation channel. The dredged use. satisfactory. Howell and Simpson (1994) material was placed along the river We reviewed the water quality looked at the abundance of a variety of banks and eventually became re- assessment reports for the following finfish captured across DO levels in suspended in the river. The dredged river systems: (1) ACF; (2) the Missouri/ Long Island Sound, New York, and material (finer sands and clays) settled Gasconade/Osage; (3) Meramec; (4) found that American shad were on the river bottom and filled in spaces White; (5) Ouachita/Little Missouri; (6) captured in 79 percent of the tows in between grains of the coarser sands and Pascagoula/Leaf/Chickasawhay; (7) waters with DO greater than or equal to gravel that served as spawning habitat Mobile/Alabama; (8) Escambia/ 3 mg/L. American shad were captured for Alabama shad (Mills 1972). McBride Conecuh; (9) Choctawhatchee/Pea; and in 40 percent of the tows with DO levels (2000) reports that dredging affected (10) the Suwanee. Of the approximately of 2–2.9 mg/L, but no captures were Alosa species, including Alabama shad, 4,500 combined river mi in these made in waters where DO was less than in Florida rivers through re-suspension systems, water quality was deemed good 2 mg/L. The classification of Alabama of particulate matter in the water for 2,150 or 48 percent of the assessed shad as a pelagic species, meaning they column, alteration of natural flow mi. Approximately 2,100 mi (47 inhabit the water column, indicates they patterns, and removal of river-bottom percent) were designated as impaired are present above the benthos in areas habitat. based on one or more factors, and 275 where DO levels are usually higher. Alabama shad and their habitat are mi were not assessed. Within each river This suggests that Alabama shad could also exposed to sediment and pollutants system, between 6 percent and 100 be less susceptible to the effects of low introduced from land-based activities. percent of the river mi assessed were DO than other species, such as sturgeon. Agriculture, silviculture, and industrial, deemed to be impaired (too polluted or Segments of several river systems commercial, and residential otherwise degraded to meet water inhabited by Alabama shad were development in the watershed quality standards) for one or more designated as impaired due to biota. The contribute to degraded water quality in factors. water quality assessment reports define rivers and coastal waters inhabited by With the exception of the Meramec this category as ‘‘the community of Alabama shad. Wastewater treatment, and White Rivers, all or portions of aquatic animals (fish, reptiles, municipal stormwater, industrial every other river system we looked at amphibians, aquatic insects or others) discharges, land clearing, and were impaired due to mercury levels. normally expected in a healthy construction of impervious surfaces are The EPA states that coal-burning power waterway is unhealthy, reduced, or examples of activities that increase plants are the largest human-caused absent, and the exact cause of the runoff into the watershed, introduce source of mercury emissions into the air problem is unknown.’’ The sediment and pollutants, and lead to within the United States, accounting for Chattahoochee River was designated low DO. There are no specific data over 50 percent of all domestic human- impaired based on fish biota. Georgia linking exposure to altered water quality caused mercury emissions (EPA 2014a). DNR (2008) reported to the EPA that parameters with responses in Alabama Mercury in the air may settle into rivers, studies completed during 1998–2003 shad populations. However, McBride lakes, or estuaries, where it can be showed modification of the fish (2000) noted that the effects of declining transferred to methylmercury through community in the Chattahoochee River. water quality from low DO and microbial activity. Methylmercury can The general cause was determined to be industrial discharges were seen in other accumulate in fish at levels that may the lack of fish habitat due to stream Alosa species on the Atlantic Coast harm the fish and the other animals that sedimentation. Even with access to the throughout the nineteenth century. eat them (EPA 2014b). Other heavy Chattahoochee River restored as a result States are required to report water metals (copper, zinc, and lead) were of conservation locking at JWLD, quality conditions to the EPA under found in impaired waters in the Alabama shad preferentially spawn in Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the Clean Meramec and Ouachita/Little Missouri the Flint River over the Chattahoochee Water Act. We reviewed the water River systems. There are no known River. Sammons (2014) conducted a quality assessment reports (available at studies on the effects to Alabama shad study to determine habitat usage by http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir/ from exposure to, or accumulation of, Alabama shad in the Flint and index.html) for rivers occupied by mercury and other heavy metals. Chattahoochee Rivers and did not find Alabama shad spawning populations, as All river systems we evaluated, with a single shad in the Chattahoochee well as the Mobile/Alabama River the exception of the Meramec and the during 4 years of tracking. The Flint and system where Alabama shad Pascagoula/Leaf/Chicksawhay River Osage Rivers are designated impaired conservation activities are occurring. systems, had some impaired river due to benthic and aquatic Rivers were assessed by the states segments due to low DO. Low DO can macroinvertebrates, respectively. The between 2008 and 2014, with most cause lethal and sublethal (metabolic, Leaf River is also designated impaired rivers assessed more recently (2012– growth, feeding) effects in fish. Different due to biological impairment. It is 2014). The water quality assessment species have different oxygen unknown whether these conditions reports provide information on river requirements. For instance, sturgeon affect Alabama shad. segments that have good water quality, species, considered to be benthic Sedimentation was listed as a as well as segments that are impaired. species, are known to be more highly potential threat to Alabama shad While the reports list what the sensitive to low DO (less than 5 (Mettee and O’Neil 2003). Segments of impairment is based on (e.g., the milligrams per liter (mg/L)) than other the White, Leaf, and Conecuh Rivers presence of heavy metals, sediment, or fish species (Niklitschek and Secor were designated as impaired due to low DO), the reports rarely specify the 2009a, 2009b). DO is often lowest at the sedimentation. Other causes of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 4048 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices

impairments listed in the water quality there are no clear data directly linking River Basin and appropriate injunctive assessment reports include the presence water quality problems with declines in relief against Georgia to sustain an of PCBs (Chattahoochee River), organic Alabama shad, and the species may be adequate flow of fresh water into the material (Conecuh River), algal growth/ less susceptible to some impairment Apalachicola Region (State of Florida v. chlorophyll-a (Suwannee River), and factors (e.g., low DO) than other species. State of Georgia, No. 142, Original). salinity/solids/chlorides/sulfites The NCCR I–IV reports (EPA 2001, It is not known how much water is (Suwannee River). It is unknown how 2005, 2008, 2012) show that coastal already being removed from rivers used these conditions affect Alabama shad. water quality in the Gulf of Mexico has by Alabama shad because there is little We also reviewed the National Coastal improved since 2001. As coastal information concerning actual Condition Report (NCCR) published by populations grow and industrial, withdrawals and virtually no the EPA to gauge the recent water commercial, and residential information concerning water quality conditions experienced by development increases, water quality discharges. This is particularly the case Alabama shad in coastal waters. The issues could also grow. At this time it for municipal and industrial uses NCCR IV (EPA 2012) graded the overall is unknown what risk water quality because water use permits are not conditions of the Gulf Coast region as presents to Alabama shad now or in the required in Georgia for withdrawals less ‘‘fair,’’ with an overall condition score foreseeable future. than 100,000 gallons per day of 2.4 out of a possible 5.0. (Cummings et al. 2003) and discharge Comparatively, the overall condition of Water Allocation permits are not required unless the nation’s coastal waters was also Water allocation issues are a growing discharge contains selected toxic rated ‘‘fair,’’ with an overall condition concern in the southeastern United materials. Agricultural water use score of 3.0. Using 2003–2006 data, the States. Transferring water from one river permits are not quantified in any water quality index (based on basin to another can fundamentally and meaningful way, thus neither water parameters such as dissolved nitrogen, irreversibly alter natural water flows in withdrawals nor return flows are phosphorus, and oxygen, chlorophyll a both the originating and receiving measured (Fisher et al. 2003). The concentrations, and water clarity) for basins, and exacerbate any existing Metropolitan North Georgia Water the coastal waters of the Gulf Coast water quality issues. Reallocation of Planning District, which was created region overall was rated as ‘‘fair.’’ Only water between river basins can affect through legislation in 2001 and includes 10 percent of the region was rated as DO levels, temperature, and the ability 15 counties and 93 cities (Cole and ‘‘poor,’’ although estuaries with ‘‘poor’’ of the basin of origin to assimilate Carver 2011), is the only major water quality conditions were found in pollutants (Georgia Water Coalition metropolitan area in the country with all five Gulf states. The Gulf Coast 2006). more than 100 jurisdictions region is rated ‘‘good’’ for DO Water allocation issues have implementing a long-term concentrations, with less than 5 percent traditionally occurred primarily in the comprehensive water management of the coastal area rated ‘‘poor’’ for this Western United States, but they are also program that is required and enforced. factor. Although hypoxia is a relatively occurring in the Southeast, with one of Since plan implementation, total water local occurrence in Gulf Coast estuaries, the biggest interstate allocation disputes consumption in the region has dropped the occurrence of hypoxia in the Gulf occurring between Alabama, Florida, by 10 percent despite a one million Coast shelf waters is much more and Georgia (SELC 2015a, Ruhl 2003). person increase in population. The widespread. The Gulf of Mexico These three states have fought over the District’s Water Supply and Water hypoxic zone is the second-largest area future allocation of water in the ACF Conservation Management Plan (2009) of oxygen-depleted waters in the world and Alabama/Coosa/Tallapoosa (ACT) recommends that the Georgia General (Rabalais et al. 2002b). This zone, which River basins for decades (SELC 2015a) Assembly consider requiring permits for occurs in waters on the Louisiana shelf as population growth is driving withdrawals less than 100,000 gallons to the west of the Mississippi River competing water demands for urban, per day within the Metro Water District. Delta, was not assessed for NCCR IV agricultural, and ecological uses. A 2006 Large withdrawals of water (such as (EPA 2012) and the ‘‘good’’ rating for study by the Congressional Budget those for municipal and agricultural DO concentrations in the Gulf Coast Office (CBO 2006) reported that Georgia use) from rivers result in reduced water region provided in the report is not had the sixth highest population growth quantity and quality (altered flows, indicative of offshore conditions. (26.4 percent) in the nation, followed by higher temperatures, and lowered DO). Because the life history of the Alabama Florida (23.5 percent). The per capita Florida and Georgia have developed shad in offshore Gulf of Mexico waters water use in Georgia has been estimated water management plans in attempts to is unknown, it is not possible to to be 8 to 10 percent greater than the provide comprehensive basin-wide determine if these conditions affect national average, and 17 percent higher strategies for management of the water Alabama shad. than per capita use in neighboring states resources; Alabama is also developing a In summary, water quality has been (UGA 2002). Georgia needs water to plan. Many cost-effective methods for cited by multiple studies as a threat to supply the large metro Atlanta area; water conservation in cities already Alabama shad (e.g., Mills 1972, Mettee Alabama needs its water supply for exist, and new technologies are et al. 1996, 2005, McBride 2000). Water power generation, municipal uses, and constantly evolving that will enable quality assessments required by the fisheries; and Florida seeks to maintain even greater efficiencies, reducing the Clean Water Act, as well as assessments its shellfish industry in Apalachicola amount of water that needs to be of water quality along the Gulf Coast Bay (SELC 2015a). Water shortages have extracted from rivers (Richter and reported in NCCR IV (EPA 2012), already occurred and are expected to Thomas 2007). indicate that water quality in some continue due to the rapid population It is unclear whether Alabama shad in portions of the Alabama shad’s range are growth anticipated over the next 50 the ACF system have been affected by good, while other areas are impaired by years (Cummings et al. 2003). In an these ongoing water allocation issues. heavy metals, low DO, and other issues. ongoing U.S. Supreme Court case, in The Georgia Ecological Services Office Although it is likely that Alabama shad 2014 Florida sued Georgia seeking to of the USFWS (2015) states that several are exposed to water quality issues in establish that it is entitled to equitable species of snails and mussels have gone their coastal and riverine environments, apportionment of the waters of the ACF extinct in the ACT and ACF systems

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4049

due to alterations in water quantity and less robust in the Southeast United 2014). About 70 percent of the quality. Currently, there are 65 ESA- States. Within North America, the coastlines worldwide are projected to listed species in the ACT and ACF Southeast is predicted to have the experience a sea level change within systems. USFWS (2015) has provided smallest changes in mean annual ±20 percent of the global mean (IPCC instream flow guidelines to Georgia, temperature, between 1.5–2.5 °C by the AR5 2014). A rise in sea level will likely Alabama, and Florida that describe flow mid-21st century (IPCC AR5 2014). It is create more estuarine areas and push regime features that would protect these unknown what level of temperature the salt wedge farther upstream; this listed species. It is unknown whether increases could affect the current will likely impact any water intake water allocation issues contribute to distribution and range of Alabama shad. structures located in the newly Alabama shad’s extinction risk, either Precipitation can affect riverine estuarine areas and may also increase now or in the foreseeable future. habitat used by Alabama shad through the potential for salt water to enter increased runoff and introduction of aquifers (U.S. Global Research Group Climate Change sediment and pollutants. While 2004). Saltwater intrusion will stress the Changes in temperature, precipitation, precipitation is generally expected to availability of water in the southeast. drought, flooding, and sea level due to increase for the northern portion of The IPCC AR5 (2014) states that in the climate change could further exacerbate North America, little to no change in the Southeast, ecosystems and irrigation are existing water quality and quantity annual average precipitation over the projected to be particularly stressed by issues in rivers and coastal areas used average recorded for 1986–2005 is decreases in water availability due to by Alabama shad. The predicted to occur in the Southeast by the combination of climate change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate the mid-21st century (2046–2065) under growing water demand, and water Change (IPCC) in its fifth and most RCP8.5 (IPCC AR5 2014). This is also transfers to urban and industrial users. recent assessment report (IPCC AR5 the prediction for the late 21st century Existing water allocation issues could be 2014) presented four Representative (2081–2100) for most of the Alabama exacerbated, potentially stressing water Concentration Pathways (RCPs) to shad’s range. A small portion of the quality. However, it is unknown how assess future climate changes, risks, and species’ western range is in an area Alabama shad may be affected by sea impacts. The RCPs describe four where greater than or equal to 66 level rise in the future. possible 21st century pathways of percent of the prediction models for the Most observations of climate change greenhouse gas emissions and late 21st century indicated changes in responses in species involve alterations atmospheric concentrations, air annual precipitation would occur, in phenology (Parmesan 2006). pollutant emissions, and land use. The although the models could not predict Phenology is the study of how seasonal IPCC did not identify any scenario as whether precipitation would increase or and interannual variations in the being more likely to occur than any decrease. environment affect the timing of critical other. Because we cannot predict Similar to increased precipitation, stages and events in a species’ life cycle whether and how climate conditions increased flooding can also affect (Anderson et al. 2013). Phenological may change, it is our policy to assume riverine habitat used by Alabama shad shifts attributed to climate change have climate conditions will be similar to the through increased runoff and been identified in both terrestrial and status quo in making ESA listing introduction of sediment and pollutants. aquatic biota (Ellis and Vokoun 2009). determinations (memorandum from D. Conversely, increased periods of In the marine ecosystem, the most Wieting, Director of the Office of drought that result in lower than normal important physical factors affecting Protected Resources, to E. Sobeck, river flows can restrict access to habitat phenology are water temperature and Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, areas, expose previously submerged light, with the response to and regarding guidance for treatment of habitats, interrupt spawning cues, importance of each factor being species climate change in NMFS ESA decisions, reduce thermal refugia, and exacerbate dependent (Anderson et al. 2013). January 4, 2016). In this listing water quality issues, such as water Importantly, climate change affects determination, we use a baseline temperature, reduced DO, nutrient temperature but not photoperiod or scenario, which is one without levels, and contaminants. IPCC AR5 light, which is key when considering additional efforts to constrain emissions (2014) states that changes in the the environmental cues that trigger of greenhouse gases, leading to the magnitude or frequency of flood events species’ migrations. RCP8.5 pathway, a scenario with very have not been attributed to climate For marine species, climate-driven high greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC change, as floods are generated by changes in temperature can modify the AR5 2014), in evaluating potential multiple mechanisms (e.g., land use, phenology of annual migrations to climate effects to Alabama shad. seasonal changes, and urbanization). spawning grounds (Po¨rtner and Peck The southern distributional limit for IPCC AR5 (2014) also states that it is not 2010). Seasonal temperature increases all Alosa species is believed to be possible to attribute changes in drought have been shown to correlate with determined by water temperature frequency in North America to climate changes in the timing of fish movement, (McBride 2000). Although there have change. with shifts towards earlier migrations of been no studies on the thermal Sea level rise resulting from climate anadromous fish (Quinn and Adams tolerances of Alabama shad, other Alosa change is projected to continue during 1996, Juanes et al. 2004) and earlier species cannot tolerate water the 21st century, at a rate faster than annual spawning events (Ahas and Aasa temperatures greater than 32 °C; observed from 1971 to 2010. The 2006). The importance of temperature in therefore, it is likely that Alabama shad projected increase in sea level for the regulating the behavior and dynamics of cannot tolerate high water temperatures period 2081–2100, relative to 1986– Alosa species during spawning has been (Beitinger 1999). Under RCP8.5, the 2005, is 0.45 to 0.82 meters with documented in several reviews predicted increase in temperature from medium confidence under the scenario (Aprahamian et al. 2010, Mettee and the 1850–1900 period to the end of the RCP8.5 (IPCC AR5 2014). Sea level rise O’Neil 2003, Quinn and Adams 1996). 21st century (2081–2100) is likely to is expected to occur in more than 95 Ellis and Vokoun (2009) compared exceed 2 °C (IPCC AR5 2014). However, percent of the ocean area by the end of temperature records with fish surveys current temperature trends indicate that the 21st century, although it will not be for anadromous alewives in several warming has been less pronounced and uniform across regions (IPCC AR5 southern New England streams back to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 4050 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices

the 1970s. They determined that 13 °C optimize conditions for both the adult riverine environment. It is unknown was a consistent predictor of spawning and the offspring in response to how phenological shifts brought on by run timing for alewives in one historical environmental variation. Shad spawn in climate change may affect interactions and three recent stream studies over the river mainstem and have a brief between Alabama shad, their predators, several years. They found that stream incubation period (Quinn and Adams and their prey. temperatures in the spring warmed to 1996). Spawning adult shad experience In summary, under the RCP8.5 ° 13 C about 12 days earlier in recent conditions that will be closely scenario, there could be a 2.6–4.8 °C years than they did in the 1970s. Ellis correlated to those affecting survival of temperature increase by the end of the and Vokoun (2009) concluded alewife their offspring during incubation and 21st century (2081–2100) relative to runs occur about 12 days earlier on hatching. In contrast, when greater 1986–2005. However, current average than they did in the 1970s. spatial and temporal separation occur temperature trends indicate that Aprahamian et al. (2010) used a stock- between the environmental conditions warming has been less pronounced and recruitment model with a temperature experienced by migrating adults and less robust in the Southeast United component to estimate the effects on their offspring, as is the case with States. Within North America, the twaite shad (A. fallax) in the Severn salmon, genetic control over the timing Southeast United States is predicted to Estuary in Great Britain from an of their spawn is greater than the have the smallest changes in mean increase in temperature resulting from response to environmental cues. This ° annual temperature (IPCC AR5 2014). climate change. They determined a 1 C can result in a decoupling of cues that Little to no changes in precipitation that increase in water temperature would initiate migration (e.g., photoperiod, could increase runoff are predicted shift the spawning run into the River which is not affected by climate change) within the range of Alabama shad. Sea Severn 6–10 days earlier, and a 2 °C and the state of the target habitat that level rise resulting from climate change would shift the spawning run 16–17 can be affected by climate-sensitive is projected to continue during the 21st days earlier. Aprahamian et al. (2010) factors, such as temperature, flow, DO, century, at a rate faster than observed also predicted that a 1–2 °C temperature etc. In some Pacific salmon species, from 1971 to 2010. However, it is increase would result in an increase in such as sockeye, migration into unknown how Alabama shad may be twaite shad abundance, likely through freshwater may precede spawning by affected by sea level rise in the future. increased hatching success and growth several months, fry emergence by many The IPCC AR5 (2014) states that in the rate. months, and the time of seawater entry Quinn and Adams (1996) identified Southeast, ecosystems and irrigation are by juveniles by a year or more (Groot projected to be particularly stressed by shifts in spawning migrations in another and Margolis 1991). These salmon move Alosa species, American shad, in decreases in water availability due to through a mainstem migratory corridor the combination of climate change, response to changes in temperature. that is separate from the spawning and Records show that annual spring growing water demand, and water incubation areas in tributaries that may warming has occurred progressively transfers to urban and industrial users. be subjected to different thermal and earlier in the Columbia River since Existing water allocation issues could be hydrological regimes. The ability of 1950. Fish counts from Bonneville Dam further exacerbated, potentially Alosa species to shift the timing of their indicate that the peak migration of stressing water quality. Most spawning migrations in response to American shad, introduced into the observations of climate change temperature, and the close spatial and river in the late 1800s, occurs responses in species involve alterations temporal proximity of habitats occupied approximately 38 days earlier than it in phenology, the study of how seasonal by spawning adults and newly spawned did in 1938 and correlates with the and interannual variations in the offspring, likely buffer Alabama shad warming trend. Quinn and Adams environment affect the timing of critical (1996) also looked at the timing of from some aspects of climate change. stages and events in a species’ life cycle sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), Climate change may also disrupt the (Parmesan 2006, Anderson et al. 2013). and noted that while the species’ timing between the life cycles of For marine species, climate-driven upriver migration is 6 days earlier than predators and prey (Parmesan 2006). changes in temperature can modify the it was in 1949, that period lags behind The presence of both the predators of timing of annual migrations to spawning the rate of environmental change. Quinn Alabama shad and their prey sources grounds, which has been observed in and Adams (1996) state that salmon may be shifted temporally or spatially other Alosa species. Studies on migration is primarily controlled by due to climate change. Also, changes in American shad (Quinn and Adams population-specific responses to cues water temperature could impact prey 1996), alewives (Ellis and Vokoun such as photoperiod (a factor not production, with greater production in 2009), and twaite shad (Aprahamian et affected by climate change) rather than warmer years (Aprahamian et al. 2010). al. 2010) demonstrated that those species-specific responses to Year-class strength in American shad species were able to shift their spawning temperature (a factor that is affected by has been shown to be positively migrations earlier to adapt to warmer climate change), as may be the case in correlated with zooplankton density, as temperatures occurring earlier in the shad. shown by an increase in the percentage year. A comparison of responses to The differences in the environmental of larval fish with food in their guts climate change in American shad and cues triggering spawning migration, as (Aprahamian et al. 2010). However, salmon showed that the behavioral well as the life history differences, ocean currents, fronts, and upwelling responses of adult shad to warming between shad and salmon highlight how and downwelling zones play significant temperatures (i.e., earlier spawning species may be affected differently by roles in the distribution and production migrations) should optimize conditions climate change. A species with close of marine ecosystems, and it is not yet for both the adults and the offspring, as links between the environments predictable how these features are likely there is less spatial and temporal experienced by spawning adults and to change in response to alterations in separation between the environmental their offspring (e.g., spawning within temperature, precipitation, runoff, conditions experienced by migrating the migratory corridor and a brief larval salinity, and wind (Scavia et al. 2002). adults and their offspring in shad period) should behaviorally adjust the Little is known about predators of compared to salmon (Quinn and Adams timing of migration and spawning to Alabama shad, in either the marine or 1996, Groot and Margolis 1991).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4051

However, it is unknown how spatial and livers, changes in heart and respiration and dispersants from the DWH spill, temporal changes in migration in rates, fin erosion, and reproductive although this is uncertain. Alabama shad may affect both their impairment when exposed to oil Despite widespread contamination of predator and prey relationships. (USFWS 2010, Snyder et al. 2015). Oil offshore waters by the DWH spill and to Ultimately, it is unknown how climate has the potential to impact spawning a lesser extent, coastal waters, the change may contribute to the current success as the eggs and larvae of many results of a study by Moody et al. (2013) and foreseeable risk of extinction of fish species are highly sensitive to oil provided little evidence for large-scale Alabama shad. toxins (USFWS 2010). acute or persistent oil-induced impacts There have been no studies on the on organisms that complete all or a Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill effects of the DWH spill on Alabama portion of their life cycle within an On April 20, 2010, while working on shad. Based on their life history, it is estuary in Point-aux-Pins, Alabama. The an exploratory well in the Gulf of likely that the earliest and most abundance of resident estuarine species Mexico (approximately 50 mi southeast vulnerable life stages (eggs and larvae) declined significantly following the of the Mississippi River Delta, were not exposed to oil and dispersants. DWH spill, but returned to pre-spill Louisiana, and 87 mi south of Dauphin The oil spill occurred in April when abundances by 2011. There was no Island, Alabama), the semi-submersible females are upriver, releasing their eggs significant decline in the abundance of DWH drilling rig experienced an at spawning sites. Over the summer, as transient species (those that only spent explosion and fire. The rig subsequently oil recovery and cleanup was occurring, a portion of their life cycle in the sank, and oil and natural gas began the newly spawned Alabama shad estuary), even though transient species leaking into the Gulf of Mexico. The larvae were in their riverine habitats were more likely exposed to oiling in well was temporarily capped on July 15, maturing. Alabama shad from northern the marine environment. Moody et al. 2010, which significantly reduced the rivers start the downstream migration (2013) concluded that despite the amount of leaking oil, but the well was toward marine waters in late summer. In presence of localized oiling in coastal not ultimately sealed and declared comparison, shad from Gulf Coast river habitats outside Louisiana, the most ‘‘effectively dead’’ until September 19, systems have been observed to stay severe oil impacts were largely relegated 2010. Estimates on the amount of upriver as late as December. Therefore, to the deep sea. Fodrie and Heck (2011) released oil varied widely and over it is likely some juvenile and non- reviewed pre- and post-DWH fish data time, but final official estimates spawning adult Alabama shad were collected by trawl surveys in nearshore indicated 53,000–62,000 barrels were exposed to oil and dispersants seagrass habitats from Louisiana to released per day as a result of the event; associated with the DWH spill, but not Florida. They concluded that the total amount of oil released into the the actively spawning adults and early immediate, catastrophic losses of 2010 Gulf of Mexico was estimated at 4.9 life stages. year classes of marine organisms were million barrels (780,000 m3) (McNutt et Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons largely avoided, and that no shifts in al. 2011). In addition, approximately 2.1 (PAH) are considered the most toxic species composition occurred following million gallons of chemical dispersant component of crude oil to marine life the DWH spill. Fodrie and Heck (2011) were applied to surface waters (1.4 and are ubiquitous pollutants in the also noted that there is increasing million gallons) and directly at the marine environment (Snyder et al. evidence that the acute impacts of the wellhead (0.77 million gallons) between 2015). Exposure to PAHs has been DWH spill may be concentrated in the May 15 and July 12, 2010 (Kujawinski linked with a variety of sublethal effects deep ocean rather than shallow-water, et al. 2011). in fish, including DNA damage, internal coastal ecosystems where Alabama shad There have been no studies of the and external lesions, gill and organ are known to occur. effects of the DWH spill on Alabama abnormalities, reduced adult fitness, Little is known about Alabama shad shad and no reports or collections of altered and reduced growth, decreased in the marine environment, even though shad affected by the spill. Chakrabarty fecundity, and reduced survival to the species spends the majority of its et al. (2012) estimated that the DWH maturity (Snyder et al. 2015). Red life there. We considered the potential spill zone overlapped with 1.26 percent snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) for effects to the species from the DWH of Alabama shad’s nearshore habitat. sampled since 2013 show spatial spill by looking at studies of other This estimate is based on the percentage variation in tissue concentrations of offshore species. Rooker et al. (2013) of the species’ historical collection PAH metabolites (Snyder et al. 2015). looked at abundance and occurrence of records that occur within the spill zone. Red snapper caught closer to the the larvae of four deep-ocean species in Because few historical records for Mississippi River and the DWH spill relation to the DWH spill: Blackfin tuna Alabama shad exist in some Gulf Coast area had higher PAH metabolite (Thunnus atlanticus), blue marlin systems, and almost no data exist for concentrations than snapper caught on (Makaira nigricans), dolphinfish Alabama shad in the marine the west Florida shelf. Additionally, the (Coryphaena hippurus), and sailfish environment, the estimate by red snapper caught near the Mississippi (Istiophorus platypterus). They Chakrabarty et al. (2012) is likely an River showed a decrease in PAH determined that both the abundance and underestimate of the overlap of the metabolite concentrations over time, percent occurrence declined in 2010 for DWH spill zone with habitat used by indicating an exposure event to elevated all four species relative to the 3 years Alabama shad. However, it does confirm PAHs that dissipated over time. prior to the DWH oil spill, suggesting that Alabama shad may have been Meanwhile, the snapper from the west that changes in environmental exposed to oil or chemical dispersants Florida shelf showed no decrease in conditions, possibly linked to the associated with the DWH spill. PAH metabolites over time, suggesting presence of oil and dispersants, may Fish exposed to oil can be impacted they were not exposed to elevated PAHs have contributed to observed inter- directly through uptake by the gills, from the DWH spill. This indicates that annual variability. The most ingestion of oil or oiled prey, effects on the largest spawning population of conspicuous 2010 declines were seen in egg and larval survival, or changes in Alabama shad, the population from the billfish (blue marlin and sailfish) larvae. the ecosystem that support the fish ACF River basin, and other populations Given these larvae are typically (USFWS 2010). Adult fish may in rivers that drain into the west Florida restricted to surface waters compared to experience reduced growth, enlarged shelf may not have been exposed to oil the other taxa surveyed (blackfin tuna

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 4052 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices

and dolphinfish), it is possible their species’’ of ‘‘Ohio’’ shad (a species later Therefore, collection or harvest of exposure to DWH toxic compounds determined to be the same species as Alabama shad is unlikely to affected early life survival. However, Alabama shad) were caught in the Ohio significantly contribute to the species’ Rooker et al. (2013) also note that inter- River in West Virginia, Indiana, and extinction risk in the foreseeable future. annual variability of larval abundance Kentucky, valued at $355 (Townsend C. Disease and Predation and distribution is relatively common 1902). The report stated that the species for pelagic larvae in the Gulf of Mexico. had likely been caught in that river for Most of the Alabama shad collected Part of the apparent decline in billfish, a ‘‘number of years.’’ The 1901 report during research and monitoring dolphinfish, and tuna larvae therefore stated there was no catch of ‘‘Ohio’’ associated with JWLD conservation may be due to shifts in biological or (Alabama) shad in Alabama, Arkansas, locking activities in 2013 had large, oceanographic conditions and not Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, open sores or gash-like wounds, in some entirely attributable to the DWH oil Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, cases exposing organs and bone spill. Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, (Sammons 2013; S. Herrington, The In summary, there are no data Tennessee, and Wisconsin. The Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year- indicating Alabama shad were directly following year (1902), Hildebrand End Summary Meeting, January 2014). affected by the DWH spill. The spill (1963) reported Alabama shad landings These sores or wounds were not occurred in April when the most of 68 kg (150 pounds) from Alabama, observed on other fish species collected vulnerable early life stages of Alabama with no commercial landings reported (e.g., gizzard shad [Dorosoma shad were in riverine areas and it is since. Hildebrand (1963) noted that cepedianum] and mullet [Mugil spp.]), unlikely they were directly exposed. Alabama shad were still numerous The older juveniles and adults that indicating Alabama shad are either more enough in Kentucky and Ohio to be entered coastal and nearshore waters in susceptible to the source of the wounds taken in considerable quantities, but late summer through winter may have or they are distributed in areas that the were undesirable for human been exposed to toxins from the DWH other species are not (Sammons 2013). consumption, and no attempts were spill, but studies of other coastal species The wounds were only observed on made to catch and sell them. Coker indicate recovery occurred the following adult Alabama shad and not on younger (1930) stated that there were enough year. It is likely that the worst acute fish, indicating the source may have ‘‘Ohio’’ (Alabama) shad at the Keokuk effects of DWH were experienced occurred in the Gulf of Mexico Dam in Iowa in 1915 to support a further offshore in the marine (Sammons 2013). A researcher attending environment. Although we have almost substantial fishery, but that none the 2014 JWLD Fish Passage Year-End no information on the marine portion of developed, and ‘‘a few’’ have been taken Summary Meeting suggested that the Alabama shad’s life cycle, it is doubtful commercially from the Ohio River. pictures of the Alabama shad sores or this smaller anadromous species spends Coker (1930) observed that ‘‘Ohio’’ wounds looked similar to symptoms of a significant portion of its life cycle far (Alabama) shad in the Mississippi River a disease that occurred in blueback offshore like the large oceanic species had no economic value at that time. The herring on the Atlantic Coast. The 12- (e.g., tuna and billfish). We ranked FFWCC (McBride 2000) notes that even month listing determination for alewife exposure to oil and other toxins from though there have been significant and blueback herring (78 FR 48944; the DWH spill, on its own, as having a fisheries for other Alosa species like August 12, 2013) states that low risk of contributing to the extinction American shad, hickory shad (A. mycobacteria, which can cause ulcers, risk of Alabama shad. It is unknown mediocris), and blueback herring, a emaciation, and sometimes death, have whether the DWH spill will contribute fishery for Alabama shad never been found in many Chesapeake Bay to the extinction risk of Alabama shad developed in Florida. McBride (2000) fish, including blueback herring. in the foreseeable future. also states that recreational fishing for Alabama shad with the wounds Alabama shad began around 1950 but generally appeared to be in poor B. Overutilization for Commercial, has not developed significantly. There condition and suffered higher than Recreational, Scientific, or Educational are currently no directed fisheries for normal mortality due to handling and Purposes Alabama shad in any U.S. waters (Smith tag insertion (Sammons 2013). Small commercial fisheries for et al. 2011). Mills (1972) noted that Sammons (2013) also cited a news Alabama shad once existed in Alabama, striped bass fishermen used Alabama article reporting gash wounds on fish Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and shad as bait. NMFS et al. (2012) potentially associated with the Iowa (Adams et al. 2000, Daniels 1860). reported that fishermen occasionally Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill resembling Based on existing records, Alabama catch Alabama shad in the Apalachicola the wounds found on Alabama shad. It shad populations have never supported River below JWLD for bait to use while is unknown what caused the sores or an important or sizeable commercial or fishing for striped bass or flathead wounds in Alabama shad in the ACF recreational fishery, at least since the catfish (Pylodictis olivaris). Some River system and what percentage of the 19th century (NMFS et al. 2012). Alabama shad are also collected for population may have been impacted. Buchanan et al. (1999) reported that a scientific research and for educational The sores have not been observed in any ‘‘limited’’ commercial fishery existed in purposes. However it is unlikely that of the ∼200 Alabama shad captured the Mississippi River system in the late past or present collection or harvest since 2013 (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, 1800s. Only small catches of the species (utilization) of Alabama shad for pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, have been recorded for a few years in commercial, recreational, scientific, or 2016). It is unknown whether disease is the statistical reports of the U.S. Fish education purposes, alone or in contributing to the species’ extinction Commission (Hildebrand 1963). The combination with other factors, has risk. total reported commercial landings of contributed significantly to the species’ Little information is available Alabama shad were 3,165 kg (6,978 extinction risk. Further, given the lack regarding predation on Alabama shad in pounds) in 1889 (Hildebrand 1963). The of the sizeable harvest in the past, we do freshwater systems and no information U.S. Fish Commission Report for 1901 not anticipate the development of new regarding predation in marine reported that a total of 3,154 kg (6,955 fisheries or that directed harvest levels environments (NMFS et al. 2012). Like pounds) of the ‘‘newly described will otherwise increase in the future. other clupeids, Alabama shad are likely

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4053

prey for piscivorous fishes, such as from marine waters. It is highly unlikely during the licensing or license renewal striped bass (Pattillo et al. 1997). NMFS that fishermen or researchers would be process. With regard to fish passage, et al. (2012) noted that birds of prey able to successfully target the species in Section 18 of the FPA requires a FERC (bald eagles and osprey) have been the marine environment. Harvest and licensee to construct, maintain, and observed eating Alabama shad from the collection of Alabama shad is restricted operate fishways prescribed by the Apalachicola River. There is no to varying degrees in Louisiana, Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary available information suggesting Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, while no of Commerce. Section 18 also allows Alabama shad populations are restrictions are in place in Mississippi, that a fishway prescription can be significantly affected by predation. It is Arkansas, or Missouri. Under reserved to address impacts that become unlikely that predation, alone or in ‘‘Overutilization for Commercial, apparent in the future. combination with other factors, is Recreational, Scientific, or Educational The presence of dams that block significantly contributing to Alabama Purposes’’ (Factor B), we determined Alabama shad from accessing upstream shad’s extinction risk. that it is unlikely that past or present spawning habitat is believed to be the collection or harvest (utilization) of primary cause of their decline in some D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Alabama shad has contributed Mechanisms river systems (NMFS et al. 2012, significantly to the species’ extinction USFWS 2009a). The era of big dam Regulations on Harvest of Alabama risk. We also determined under Factor building began in the 1930s, but slowed Shad B that, given the lack of the sizeable over time with the advent of harvest in the past, we do not anticipate The harvest or collection of Alabama environmental laws and alternative the development of new fisheries or that shad is not regulated in Federal waters, power sources (USBR 2015). The directed harvest levels will otherwise although the legal authority exists, and greatest rate of increase in reservoir increase in the future. Therefore, regulations could be implemented as storage occurred from the late 1950s to although harvest and collection of necessary through the Magnuson- the late 1970s, with more dams (and Alabama shad is regulated in some areas Stevens Fishery conservation and some of the largest) built in the 1960s where the species occurs, but not in Management Act. A variety of protective than in any other decade (Graf 1999). In others, we believe that the existing laws regulations exist in the states within the the ‘‘golden age’’ of U.S. dam building, are adequate to regulate the low levels thousands of large and small dams were species’ historical range (NMFS et al. of harvest and collection and are built with little thought to the 2012), although there are currently no unlikely contributing to the extinction environmental impacts (Doyle et al. directed fisheries for Alabama shad in risk of Alabama shad. any U.S. waters (Smith et al. 2011). 2003). While very few new dams have Since January 1, 1997, hook-and-line Regulations on Dams been constructed since 1980 (Graf 1999), has been the only allowable fishing gear The Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 FERC continues to renew licenses under for Alosa species in the State of Florida, U.S.C. 791–828), as amended, provides the FPA for existing dams due to with a limit of 10 shad (as an aggregate for protecting, mitigating damages to, expiring licenses, modifications to of Alabama, American, and hickory and enhancing fish and wildlife power generating capabilities, or no shad) for both recreational and resources (including anadromous fish) prior license because the dam was commercial fishermen (Chapter 68B– impacted by hydroelectric facilities constructed pre-FPA. FERC’s initial 52.001 of the Florida Administrative regulated by FERC. FERC must consult mandate under the FPA of 1920 was the Code). In Louisiana, recreational with state and Federal resource agencies regulation of energy production, regulations limit the taking of shad on proposed hydroelectric projects and distribution, and availability; and the species (unspecified) to 50 pounds (22.7 implement recommendations promotion of hydropower (OTA 1995). kilograms) per day, with no size limit concerning fish and wildlife and their Environmental concerns were largely (NMFS et al. 2012). Alabama shad are habitat, e.g., including spawning addressed through a number of laws not listed as a game fish in the habitat, wetlands, instream flows that were enacted (some much later than Mississippi Department of Wildlife (timing, quality, quantity), reservoir the original FPA) to protect natural fishing regulations and may be taken as establishment and regulation, project resources and the environment, bait with dip/landing net, cast net, boat construction and operation, fish including: the Fish and Wildlife mounted scoop, or wire basket by entrainment and mortality, and Coordination Act (1934), Wild and resident anglers with the appropriate recreational access. FERC must also Scenic Rivers Act (1968), National fresh or salt water recreational fishing consult with Federal and state resource Environmental Policy Act (1970), license for personal use during sport agencies to renew the operating licenses Federal Water Pollution Control Act/ fishing (NMFS et al. 2012). Alabama for existing dams and must address Clean Water Act (1972/1977), and the shad is a protected species in both impacts to natural resources. Both Endangered Species Act (1973; OTA Alabama and Georgia, and may only be NMFS and USFWS, and in certain 1995). In 1986, Congress passed the collected with a state-issued scientific cases, U.S. Federal land management Electric Consumers Protection Act collector’s permit that specifies agencies, prescribe mandatory fish (ECPA), a series of amendments to the Alabama shad. No recreational or passage conditions for inclusion in FPA, which was designed, in part, to commercial harvest is permitted in hydropower licenses. These agencies place greater emphasis on either state (NMFS et al. 2012). Alabama and state resource agencies also may environmental considerations in shad are classified as non-game fish in make nonbinding recommendations for licensing decisions. The FPA, as Missouri and Arkansas, and there are no additional mitigation to promote fish amended by ECPA, directs FERC to give catch or possession limits. protection (OTA 1995). Specific equal consideration to the full range of Although there are no restrictions on regulations in section 10(j) of the FPA purposes related to the potential value the harvest of Alabama shad in marine provide that licenses issued by FERC of a stream or river, including energy waters, virtually nothing is known about contain conditions to protect, mitigate conservation, fish and wildlife resources the life history of the species in the damages to, and enhance fish and (including spawning grounds and marine environment and only 5 wildlife based on recommendations habitat), and other aspects of specimens have ever been recorded received from state and Federal agencies environmental quality in addition to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 4054 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices

hydropower development. Although USFWS on activities that may affect among state agencies, federal agencies, mandatory fish passage authority rested listed species. Dam maintenance, and the public within the ACF River with the Federal resource agencies since repairs, and operational changes may Basin, and (5) designate a Partnership the early part of this century, the ECPA require ESA Section 7 consultation and Coordinator from one of the cooperators was instrumental in elevating the allow conservation measures benefitting in order to facilitate the partnership and importance of non-developmental listed species to be recommended or fulfill the purpose of the MOU. The values in and increasing FERC’s required. Alabama shad may also Partnership Coordinator shall provide a accountability for licensing decisions benefit from the conservation measures report of the annual fish passage (OTA 1995). Through the addition of implemented for other species with operations, results, and related activities section 10(j), Federal and state resource similar needs or in similar habitats. to all cooperators. agencies may recommend conditions to USFWS (2007) completed a biological In fulfillment of the cooperation protect, enhance, or mitigate for opinion under Section 7 of the ESA on outlined in the MOU, an annual meeting damages to fish and wildlife resources USACE’s drought operations for the to discuss the issues and outcomes from under the FPA. Interim Operating Plan for JWLD in the the previous spring conservation FERC licenses have a term of 30 to 50 ACF system. While that biological locking cycle is held, usually in the years, so NMFS’ involvement in the opinion did not evaluate Alabama shad early part of the following year (i.e., licensing process to ensure the it did analyze effects to Gulf sturgeon January or February). Powerpoints protection and accessibility of upstream and three species of mussels (fat presented at the meeting, data habitat, and to improve habitat degraded threeridge, purple bankclimber, and summaries, reports to funding agencies, by changes in water flow and quality Chipola slabshell). USFWS (2007) and journal articles or other from dam operations, may only occur 2– determined that while there were likely publications resulting from research in 3 times a century for a particular to be some adverse effects to the the ACF are provided to cooperators and project. However, an estimated 85 mussels, the drought operations are not interested parties, satisfying the annual percent of the dams in the United States likely to jeopardize the continued reporting noted in #5 of Part B. of the will be near the end of their operational existence of any of the species or MOU. At the annual meeting, the lives by 2020 (Doyle et al. 2003). The destroy their critical habitat. Because cooperators and other interested parties current intensification of economic and Alabama shad have similar water (e.g., universities that are not signatories environmental concerns is coinciding quality and quantity requirements to to the MOU, but are heavily involved in with a policy window in which many Gulf sturgeon, the conservation efforts research activities associated with the private dams are coming up for for the sturgeon likely benefit shad. conservation locking in the ACF) regulatory re-licensing with FERC Federal agencies may also choose to use discuss lessons learned from the (Doyle et al. 2003). Alabama shad may their authorities and resources for the previous year and participate in benefit from fishway requirements conservation of species. planning the next cycle of spring under section 18 of the FPA when conservation locking, including whether prescriptions are made to address In two river systems inhabited by the locking operation and schedule can anadromous fish passage and during the Alabama shad, the ACF and Alabama be improved. For example, during the re-licensing of existing hydroelectric River systems, USACE has voluntarily planned maintenance on the lock that dams when anadromous species are cooperated with state and Federal occurred during the 2013–2014 season, considered. Mitigation technologies to agencies to implement conservation the cooperators were able to upgrade the reduce the adverse effect of hydropower locking for Alabama shad and other method of delivering the attractant flow on the nation’s fish resources have been anadromous species. In 2012, the (a stream of high velocity water used to employed, although not consistently, ‘‘cooperator’’ organizations (USACE, attract spawning fish) from a manual since the early 1900s; while their USFWS, NMFS, Georgia DNR, FFWCC, system to an electric pump as a more effectiveness is often poorly understood, and TNC) signed a Memorandum of efficient way to direct shad through the in a review of 16 case studies, the Understanding (MOU) clarifying their lock when conservation locking majority demonstrated positive results commitments and responsibilities in the resumed (S. Herrington, The Nature for migratory fish stemming from continued implementation of fish Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, technology implementation (OTA 1995). passage at JWLD. In Part B. of the MOU, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End Decommissioning and/or removal of ‘‘Statement of Mutual Benefit and Summary Meeting, January 2014). existing dam facilities as an alternative Interests’’, the cooperator organizations Although the MOU does not require to relicensing has been raised more agree to: (1) Provide mutual assistance, implementation of conservation locking frequently since 1993 and as part of the share information and technology, and at JWLD, USACE had demonstrated a movement toward greater scrutiny of the coordinate efforts for fish passage, (2) commitment to continuing conservation adverse impacts of hydropower plants discuss a strategy for providing passage locking. The current operations on certain fish populations (OTA 1995). at JWLD for the conservation and considered in developing alternatives Lovett (2014) notes that 1,150 dams restoration of migratory fishes in the for the updated USACE Master Water have been removed in the last 20 years. ACF River Basin, consistent with Control Manual (FEIS; December 2016) However, dam removal options are authorized project purposes, (3) initiate includes standard operating procedures faced by a number of very real and participate in a JWLD Fish Passage for conservation locking at the JWLD to environmental, economic, and political Partnership and discuss yearly fish benefit Alabama shad. All alternatives constraints and, thus, are infrequently passage operation for migratory fishes at considered in the FEIS included considered as alternatives to fish JWLD. Collaborate, assist, and support conservation locking. The FEIS passage development. research, monitoring, outreach, and indicates that in most years since the The FPA does not apply to non- related activities for determining the spring of 2005, USACE has operated the hydropower dams, such as those effects of fish passage on migratory fish lock at JWLD between March and May operated by USACE for navigation populations and habitats at JWLD and to facilitate downstream-to-upstream purposes. However, under Section the ACF River Basin, (4) foster passage of Alabama shad in cooperation 7(a)(2) of the ESA, Federal agencies are partnerships that support the passage of with pertinent state and federal required to consult with NMFS or migratory fishes in Georgia and Florida agencies. In general two fish locking

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4055

cycles are performed each day. While maximum amount of a pollutant that a Change. The Copenhagen Accord studies are ongoing to determine the waterbody can receive and still meet identifies specific information provided most appropriate technique and timing water quality standards, and an by Parties on quantified economy-wide for the locks, the number of lock cycles allocation of that load among the emissions targets for 2020 and on per day will not change (FEIS 2016). various point and non-point sources of nationally appropriate mitigation The presence of dams that block that pollutant. Section 402 of the Clean actions to help achieve the goal of Alabama shad from accessing upstream Water Act created a system for capping increasing average global spawning habitat is believed to be the permitting wastewater discharges. temperature at 2 °C above pre-industrial primary cause of their decline in some Collectively the NPDES sets specific levels. The last conference of the Parties river systems. The purpose of the limits on discharge of various types of to the United National Framework original FPA of 1920 was the regulation pollutants from point-source outfalls. A Convention on Climate Change was held of energy production, distribution, and non-point source control program in Lima, Peru, in December 2014. The availability, and the promotion of focuses primarily on the reduction of resulting decisions from the meeting hydropower, and dams were built with agricultural siltation and chemical were primarily to continue ongoing little or no regard for the environmental pollution resulting from rain runoff into efforts to reach a new agreement for consequences. The adverse streams. Efforts to reduce non-point emissions reductions to be adopted at environmental effects, including effects pollution currently rely on the use of the 2015 meeting in Paris, France, and to anadromous fish species, were largely land management practices to reduce to have those implemented by 2020. The unaddressed until the 1970s with the surface runoff through programs new agreement would maintain the enactment of several major administered primarily by the same overall goal as the Copenhagen environmental laws. However, the FPA Department of Agriculture. Accord, to cap additional warming at itself was amended by the ECPA in Water quality has been cited as a 2 °C. 1986, which directed FERC to give equal threat to Alabama shad (Mettee and Within the United States, President consideration to environmental issues. O’Neil 2003, Mettee et al. 1996). We Barack Obama released the President’s The FPA, through Section 18 and 10(j), reviewed the water quality assessment Climate Action Plan in June 2013. The provides opportunities to implement reports for rivers occupied by Alabama plan is three-pronged, including conservation measures at existing dams. shad submitted by individual states to proposed actions for mitigation, Although some dams are not subject to the EPA under Sections 305(b) and adaptation, and international the FPA, other mechanisms exist to 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The leadership. The actions listed for achieve conservation measures in assessment reports prepared by the mitigation include completing carbon addition to fish passage at non-FPA states show that water quality in pollution standards for new and existing dams (Section 7 consultation and approximately half of the river mi power plants, accelerating clean energy voluntary efforts such as conservation within the species’ current range is permitting, increasing funding for clean locking). Therefore, we ranked the deemed to be good. The remaining areas energy innovation and technology, inadequacy of existing dam regulations are impaired for one or more reasons, increasing fuel economy standards, as having a low risk of contributing including the presence of heavy metals, increasing energy efficiency in homes, significantly to the current and low DO, impaired biota, sedimentation, businesses, and factories, and reducing foreseeable risk of extinction for and the presence of other organic and other greenhouse gas emissions Alabama shad. inorganic contaminants. Further a including hydrofluorocarbons and comparison of NCCR I–IV, published by methane. The plan states that the United Regulations Associated With Water the EPA in 2001, 2005, 2008, and 2012, States is still committed to reducing Quality shows a pattern of overall improving greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent The Federal Water Pollution Control water quality in the Gulf of Mexico, below 2005 levels by 2020 if all other Act, and amendments (FWPCA) (33 with the overall condition improving major economies agree to similar U.S.C. 1251–1376), also called the from NCCR I to IV. Contaminant loads reductions. Additional efforts made ‘‘Clean Water Act,’’ mandates Federal in sediments and in fish tissue also domestically related to climate change protection of water quality. The law also improved from ‘‘poor’’ to ‘‘fair.’’ The DO are more focused on facilitating provides for assessment of injury, content of coastal waters in the Gulf adaptation to the impending changes to destruction, or loss of natural resources Coast has remained ‘‘good’’ in all four the environment due to climate change caused by discharge of pollutants. reports. Based on this recent record of in order to maintain the country’s Section 404 of the FWPCA prohibits the performance, regulatory mechanisms natural and economic resources, but do discharge of dredged or fill material into governing water quality are at a low risk not directly address the emission of navigable waters without a permit. The of contributing significantly to the greenhouse gas. main responsibility for water quality current and foreseeable risk of National and international efforts to management resides with the states in extinction for Alabama shad. limit climate change are ambitious, but the implementation of water quality their success is uncertain since major standards, the administration of the Regulatory Mechanisms for Climate agreements are still being formulated, National Pollutant Discharge Change and the outcomes of ongoing activities Elimination System (NPDES) program Greenhouse gas emissions are are not yet known. Likewise, the effects (where the state has received EPA regulated through multi-state and of climate change on Alabama shad and approval to do so), and the management international agreements, and through their habitat are also not yet known. of non-point sources of pollution. statutes and regulations, at the national, However, climate change predictions by Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act state, or provincial level. One of the key the IPCC (IPCC AR5 2014) suggest that requires states to identify waters that do international agreements relevant to temperature increases throughout the not meet or are not expected to meet attempts to control greenhouse gas range of Alabama shad of 1.5–2.5 °C by water quality standards. Each state emissions, the Copenhagen Accord, was the mid-21st century may be less than develops Total Maximum Daily Loads developed in 2009 by the Conference of other areas in North America (2.5–4 °C (TMDLs) for its water quality-limited Parties to the United Nations by the mid-21st century), even with no waters. A TMDL is a calculation of the Framework Convention on Climate additional efforts to constrain

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 4056 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices

greenhouse gas emissions. Flooding and district to meet water supply demands jurisdiction to arrive at an equitable drought are not attributable to climate within the district (Cole and Carver apportionment of the water (Ruhl 2003). change, and the IPCC predicts little to 2011). The Metropolitan North Georgia The major water allocation issues no change in average annual Water Planning District encompasses affecting Alabama shad are between precipitation within the range of the Atlanta metropolitan area, the most Alabama, Georgia, and Florida over use Alabama shad through 2065, although populous area in Georgia and the ninth of water in the ACT and ACF River the predictions are less certain for the largest metro area in the U.S. Therefore, basins. SELC (2015b) documented the remainder of the 21st century (IPCC regulations that limit inter-basin following history of the dispute, which AR5). Sea level rise associated with transfers would benefit Alabama shad ensued in 1989 after USACE climate change may salinize by limiting the amount of water recommended reallocation of water groundwater and decrease freshwater removed from rivers within their range. from reservoirs in the ACT and ACF availability, exacerbating existing water Georgia’s Board of Natural Resources basins to supply the Atlanta, Georgia, allocation issues. Regulatory adopted an instream flow policy in 2001 metro area. Alabama sued USACE, stating they had ignored environmental mechanisms addressing water allocation that ensures the minimum flows impacts on the downstream states and issues (discussed in the following required to protect aquatic habitat, such breached their duty to benefit all section) are likely to have as much as that for Alabama shad, are immediate impact on this issue as downstream users. Florida intervened maintained downstream of new water regulatory mechanisms addressing the on the side of Alabama, and Georgia and withdrawals (Cole and Carver 2011). In causes of sea level rise. It is unknown metro Atlanta municipalities intervened Florida, when determining whether the how regulations addressing climate or initiated their own lawsuits against change may contribute to Alabama public interest is served by a transfer of USACE for not allowing the reservoirs shad’s extinction risk, either now or in groundwater from one water district to to serve current and future water supply the foreseeable future. another, or surface water from one needs. The lawsuit was put on hold to county to another, the governing board allow the three states and USACE to Regulatory Mechanisms Associated or department must consider an array of negotiate a resolution, conduct With Water Allocation factors, including the potential comprehensive studies, and create a It is unknown whether water environmental impacts (Cole and Carver structure that would allow the states to allocation issues contribute to Alabama 2011). The State of Florida statutes work together. Each state passed a shad’s extinction risk. Regulations require local governments to consult compact, and they were ratified by associated with water allocation are with water suppliers to ensure that Congress in 1997. However, agreement both an intra- and inter-state issue. adequate water supplies will be in place could not be reached, the compacts Within a state’s borders, state laws and available to serve a new expired without resolution in 2003 and determine rights to use water (CBO development by the time the local 2004, and the states went back to court. 2006). In the East, water rights are government issues the development’s The litigation continued for over a formed under riparian doctrine, certificate of occupancy (Cole and decade. In 2009, a judge ruled that Lake meaning ownership of land adjacent to Carver 2011). In addition to state laws Lanier (part of the ACF basin) was not a body of water (riparian land) conveys governing water allocation, many states authorized to supply water to metro the right to use the water in a way that within the range of Alabama shad also Atlanta. The ruling was reversed by the is reasonable (Ruhl 2003, CBO 2006). have state water plans that are intended 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and after Determining what is reasonable involves to be comprehensive strategies for the the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently consideration of the purpose of the use, long-term management of water declined to hear the case, the litigation the suitability of the use to the body of resources on a watershed basis. Georgia, was temporarily suspended. Currently water, economic and social values of the Florida, Missouri, and Arkansas have at the U.S. Supreme Court is a case use, the extent of harm caused, the state water plans in place, and Alabama brought by Florida against Georgia practicality of avoiding any harm by and Louisiana have draft plans. The alleging harm to Apalachicola Bay adjusting the methods or quantities of state plans vary in detail and goals, but resulting from Georgia’s use, and the fairness of making the user generally attempt to balance economic, disproportionate use of water from the who causes harm bear losses (CBO public health, and environmental needs. ACF River system. 2006). In practice today, owners of Water planning that considers We evaluated water allocation issues riparian land must obtain permits from environmental needs, such as under the ‘‘Present or Threatened a state agency to use water. Permits may downstream habitat for fish, are likely to Destruction, Modification, or also be available to others who do not benefit Alabama shad because it Curtailment of its Habitat or Range’’ own riparian land. The charters increases the likelihood that adequate (Factor A). Transferring water from one incorporating most cities give them water flows will be available. river basin to another can alter natural power to procure water for public water flows in both the originating and purposes and to supply the domestic When water allocation issues arise receiving basins, and exacerbate any needs of their residents, and states have between states, there are generally three existing water quality issues. It is not modified the riparian doctrine by ways to resolve the issue. States can known how much water is already being introducing exceptions that allow enter into a compact agreeing to a removed and transferred from rivers municipal uses (CBO 2006). division of resources, which would then used by Alabama shad. The biggest In Georgia, the 15-county require congressional approval (Ruhl interstate allocation dispute is occurring Metropolitan North Georgia Water 2003). Second, the commerce clause of in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia over Planning District was created through the Constitution gives Congress the the future allocation of water in the ACF legislation to manage the water supply authority to allocate interstate waters to and ACT River basins. While the and its consumption for economic, serve the national interest, even if doing outcomes of water allocation and the environmental, and social well-being. so means overriding state law (Ruhl regulatory mechanisms governing it are The Metropolitan North Georgia Water 2003, CBO 2006). The third option is for unknown, the Alabama shad population Planning District prohibits the inter- states to take their dispute to the U.S. in the ACF continues to be the largest basin transfers of water from outside the Supreme Court, which can exercise its known spawning population, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4057

conservation locking is occurring in years (Kynard et al. 2008), while prediction of the effects of operations on both the ACF and ACT basins to reduce passage technologies are considered to species in the riverine environment. the effects of dams, the primary threat be well developed and well understood Thus, other ESA listings and critical to the species in both systems. Under for the main anadromous species, habitat designations, are unlikely Factor A, we determined that it is including Alosa species (Kynard et al. contributing to the extinction risk of unknown whether water allocation 2008, Larinier and Marmulla 2004). Alabama shad. Overall, harvest and issues contribute to Alabama shad’s Sturgeon species are known to be more collection of Alabama shad are extinction risk, either now or in the highly sensitive than most other species adequately controlled through the state foreseeable future. It is also unknown to water quality problems, such as low regulations. Regulatory mechanisms whether the regulatory mechanisms for DO and contaminants (Niklitschek and governing water quality appear to be managing water allocation in Alabama Secor 2009a, 2009b, Dwyer et al. 2005). having success, although water quality shad’s riverine habitat are adequate or Because Alabama shad are likely easier is still impaired in some areas whether they are contributing to the to pass through fish passages and are throughout the Alabama shad’s range. The outcomes of state, Federal, and species’ extinction risk, either now or in less susceptible to water quality international laws governing dams, the foreseeable future due to the problems, it is reasonable that measures water allocation, and climate change, complexity of the issue, the length of to improve fish passage and water time (more than 25 years) the issue has and their adequacy in protecting quality for Gulf sturgeon will apply to persisted, and the inability of the major Alabama shad and their habitat, are Alabama shad, as well. stakeholders to come to agreement or unknown. Therefore, we ranked the final decision. However, state and Alabama shad in the ACF River inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms Federal agencies and an environmental system have been found to be the host overall as having a low risk of organization (USACE, USFWS, NMFS, for the larvae of an ESA-listed contributing significantly to the current Georgia DNR, FFWCC, and TNC) did freshwater mussel (S. Herrington, The and foreseeable risk of extinction for achieve agreement in the signed 2012 Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Alabama shad. MOU for a cooperative fish passage Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year- E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors strategy at JWLD that it was to their End Summary Meeting, January 2014). Affecting Its Continued Existence mutual interest and benefit to The purple bankclimber, a freshwater coordinate efforts for fish passage for the mussel listed as threatened under the Bycatch, the incidental catch of a conservation and restoration of ESA (63 FR 12664), is potentially one of species in fisheries targeting another migratory fish, such as Alabama shad, in the species using Alabama shad to species, is a potential threat to Alabama the ACF River Basin. transport larvae upstream. Critical shad in the marine environment. habitat for the purple bankclimber and Although there are no reports of Other Regulatory Mechanisms Affecting Alabama shad being taken as bycatch in Alabama Shad other listed freshwater mussels has been designated in the ACF River system (72 fisheries, many fisheries lack comprehensive bycatch monitoring Other ESA listings and critical habitat FR 64286), and the primary constituent (Harrington et al. 2005, Crowder and designations for species within the elements include a geomorphically Murawski 1998). While bycatch in range of Alabama shad may also stable stream channel, stream substrate shrimp trawls is a significant source of promote the conservation of Alabama with low to moderate amounts of silt shad. For instance, Gulf sturgeon, listed mortality for many finfish in the and clay, permanently flowing water, under the ESA as threatened in 1991 (56 Southeast, no Alosa species were water quality, and fish hosts that FR 49653), inhabit many of the same recorded during mandatory observer support the larval life stages of the rivers along the Gulf of Mexico as reporting from the Gulf of Mexico seven mussels. Conservation actions to Alabama shad. Critical habitat for Gulf shrimp trawl fishery in 2007–2010 benefit the purple bankclimber mussel sturgeon was designated in 2003 (68 FR (Scott-Denton et al. 2012). Guillory and 13370). The primary constituent could potentially protect both the Hutton (1982) surveyed incidental catch elements of Gulf sturgeon critical Alabama shad and its habitat. For in the Louisiana Gulf menhaden habitat include habitat elements that are example when the USFWS consulted on (Brevoortia patronus) purse seine also important for shad (i.e., abundant the drought operations for the Interim fishery in 1980 and 1981 by taking food items, riverine spawning sites, Operating Plan for JWLD in 2007, they samples at processing plants. Total riverine aggregation areas, flow regime, considered effects to the purple bycatch comprised 2.68 percent by water quality, sediment quality, and safe bankclimber. Reasonable and prudent number and 2.35 percent by weight of and unobstructed migratory pathways). measures required by USFWS (2007) the menhaden catch. While no Alabama Measures to improve habitats and during drought operations that may shad were found in the bycatch, another reduce impacts to Gulf sturgeon may benefit Alabama shad include (1) Alosa species, the skipjack herring, directly or indirectly benefit Alabama adaptively managing operation of the made up 0.1 percent both by number shad. Both species are anadromous; system using information collected on and weight of the overall bycatch. adults spawn in freshwater in the spring species and their habitats, upstream Hutchings and Reynolds (2004) stated and early summer then migrate back water use, and climatic conditions, (2) that clupeids are more resilient than into estuarine and marine waters. Many increasing the lower threshold for other fish in the marine environment, of the habitats that Gulf sturgeon occupy reservoir storage from 8,000 to 10,000 attributed in part to their reduced are also habitats that Alabama shad use cubic feet per second (i.e., increasing vulnerability to bycatch. There are no for spawning, migration, and juvenile flows in downstream areas by limiting reports of Alabama shad being taken as rearing. Therefore, protection measures reservoir storage during low flow times), bycatch in fisheries, although we have for Gulf sturgeon, such as improved fish (3) modifying the operation plan to no information on life history or passage and water quality, or reduction provide higher minimum flow to the location of Alabama shad within the of water withdrawals, may also provide Apalachicola River when conditions marine environment and much bycatch a benefit to Alabama shad. Passage for permit, and (4) evaluating the sediment goes unreported. It is unknown whether sturgeon species, although less studied, dynamics and channel morphology in incidental capture in other fisheries has become more of a priority in recent the Apalachicola River to allow better contributes to Alabama shad’s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 4058 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices

extinction risk, either now or in the tributaries, from the Suwannee River, recommended or required. In two river foreseeable future. Florida, to the Mississippi River, systems inhabited by Alabama shad (the including Lower Mississippi tributaries ACF and Alabama River systems), Conclusions on Extinction Risk of in the Midwest. USACE has voluntarily cooperated with Alabama Shad Throughout Its Range Although some of these spawning state and Federal agencies to implement The presence of dams throughout the populations are small, this wide conservation locking for Alabama shad Alabama shad’s range blocks access to geographic distribution of spawning and other anadromous species. upstream spawning sites in many rivers populations increases the resiliency of Conservation locking in the Alabama and is believed to be the primary cause the species, reducing its vulnerability to River, occurring since 2009, has only of population decline in the species. catastrophic events such as storms, been coupled with stocking and While there are little historical or disease, or manmade threats, which monitoring since 2014, and any benefits current data quantifying declines in usually occur at smaller scales. The to the species are not expected to be Alabama shad, we believe that the short generation time for the species evident for a few years. Conservation species’ abundance is reduced from also adds to its resiliency, allowing it to locking in the ACF River system has had historical levels. We believe both low take advantage of suitable habitat success. The abundance of Alabama abundance and the presence of dams are conditions for reproduction. The Shad in the ACF has been variable, but the greatest threats to Alabama shad and spawning success of Alabama shad in higher in many of the years, since ranked both as posing moderate risks to the ACF River system illustrates this locking began. Also, a study by Schaffler the species. We noted these factors ability to take advantage of newly et al. (2015) reported that 86 percent of could, in combination with other available spawning habitat made Alabama shad were spawned above factors, contribute significantly to their accessible through conservation locking JWLD after conservation locking began. risk of extinction. In this section, we at JWLD. Even more compelling is a genetic study consider these factors in combination Alabama shad are anadromous and (Schaffler et al. 2015) that shows 86 with other relevant demographic factors generally return to their natal rivers to percent of the spawning adult Alabama and threats to determine whether spawn. While the genetic diversity of shad in the ACF were spawned in the synergistic effects would result in a Alabama shad is low, likely due to Flint River, which has only become significantly greater extinction risk for natural bottleneck events that occurred accessible with the recent conservation Alabama shad to the extent that the during the Pleistocene, we ranked locking. In light of the inter-agency species’ persistence is at risk. diversity as having a low probability of cooperation with other entities noted The abundance of Alabama shad in posing an extinction risk to the species. above in the discussion of the ACF many river systems is considered to be The bottleneck is believed to have system, we expect conservation locking low. However, we have estimates of reduced their genetic load (presence of to continue at JWLD. Although dams current abundance from only one river harmful genes) and genetic analyses exist in other river systems, spawning system and we do not have any indicate the species strays into other populations of Alabama shad have historical abundance estimates of river systems to spawn at a greater rate persisted in a number of those systems Alabama shad, which can be indicative than most anadromous species. This notwithstanding the presence of of abundance levels associated with low higher rate of straying into other river obstacles to passage, as shown in range extinction risk. However, populations systems, combined with the species’ maps and discussed above. may also be at low risk of extinction at high productivity and ability to take abundance levels below historical advantage of suitable environmental We also evaluated water quality and levels, and accurate estimates of conditions, along with the wide spatial the adequacy of regulations governing historical abundance are not essential distribution of the spawning water quality in combination with the for evaluating extinction risk. Whether a populations increases the species moderate threats of low abundance and species qualifies for listing under the resilience and could allow individuals the presence of dams, because water ESA depends on whether the species is to enhance smaller river populations quality is often cited as a concern for in danger of extinction or likely to and repopulate river systems that have Alabama shad and dams may affect become so within the foreseeable future experienced declines or extirpations. water quality. Dredging and land-based as a result of one or more of the factors Existing dams continue to block activities (agriculture, silviculture, and described in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. access by Alabama shad to upstream industrial, commercial, and residential If a species is viable at its current habitat, although few new dams are development) can also result in population levels into the foreseeable being built today. Under ‘‘Inadequacy of degraded water quality in rivers and future, it is irrelevant whether that Existing Regulatory Mechanisms’’ coastal waters inhabited by Alabama population level is or is not close to its (Factor D), we ranked the inadequacy of shad. We looked at state water quality historical levels. We believe the low regulatory mechanisms regulating dams, reports, required by Sections 305(b) and abundance of Alabama shad is offset by primarily the FPA and ESA, as posing 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, for river the high productivity and spatial a low risk of extinction to the species. systems inhabited by Alabama shad distribution of the species, which is The FPA provides for protecting, spawning populations. Of the assessed believed to be stable. We ranked mitigating damages to, and enhancing river mi, about half were deemed to productivity and spatial distribution as fish and wildlife resources, including have good water quality and half were having a low probability of posing an anadromous fish, impacted by impaired. Low DO, mercury, impaired extinction risk to the species. Alabama hydroelectric facilities regulated by the biota, and sedimentation were listed as shad are highly productive, reaching FERC. The FPA does not apply to non- the primary impairments, although spawning age at 1–2 years, and hydropower dams, such as those there are no known studies linking these spawning multiple times during a single operated by USACE for navigation impairments to effects in Alabama shad spawning season, as well as potentially purposes, but maintenance, repairs, and or indicating that the species is throughout their lifetime. The nine operational changes may require ESA susceptible to effects from these known Alabama shad spawning section 7 consultation and allow impairments. We reviewed the EPA’s populations are widely distributed, conservation measures benefitting NCCR I–IV reports, which show that the ranging from Gulf Coast rivers and their Alabama shad and other species to be overall condition of the Gulf Coast

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4059

region is fair and coastal water quality ACF and ACT River basins. The for most anadromous species. While in the Gulf of Mexico has improved complexity of the issue, the length of dams originally led to declines in since 2001. We ranked water quality as time (more than 25 years) that the water Alabama shad, the lack of new dam having an unknown probability of allocation issue remains unresolved, construction, the adequacy of posing an extinction risk to the species. and the inability of the major regulations governing new and existing We ranked the inadequacy of stakeholders to come to agreement or dams, and ongoing conservation efforts regulations governing water quality as final decision, as well as the fact that we also reduce the effects of dams on having a low probability of posing an do not know whether or how Alabama Alabama shad. We believe water extinction risk to the species, as shad may be affected by water allocation quality, climate change, direct harvest, landmark laws such as the Clean Water issues, leads to great uncertainty about bycatch, and the inadequacy of the Act have successfully worked to the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms regulatory mechanisms governing these improve and maintain water quality in for managing water allocation in and other threats are not contributing, aquatic habitats supporting Alabama Alabama shad’s riverine habitat. While alone or in combination, to the shad. We do not believe water quality or the outcomes of water allocation and the extinction risk of Alabama shad. We the inadequacy of regulations governing adequacy of the regulatory mechanisms evaluated other threats (water allocation water quality, alone or in combination governing it are unknown, the Alabama issues, DWH, disease, and predation), with other factors, are contributing shad population in the ACF continues but found there was not enough significantly to the extinction risk of to be the largest known spawning information or too much uncertainty in Alabama shad. population, and conservation locking is pending outcomes, to determine their Other known threats ranked as posing occurring in both the ACF and ACT contribution to the extinction risk of an unknown, unlikely, or low risk of basins to alleviate the effects of dams, Alabama shad. Based on these extinction to Alabama shad include the primary threat to the species in both conclusions, we find that the Alabama climate change, direct harvest, bycatch, systems. There is no evidence that shad is at low risk of extinction and the regulatory mechanisms Alabama shad were affected throughout all of its range, now and in governing these and other threats. immediately after the DWH oil spill. the foreseeable future. National and international efforts to Given that the spill occurred in April stem climate change are ambitious, but Significant Portion of the Range when the most vulnerable early life Evaluation their success is uncertain since major stages were in riverine areas, it is The ESA definitions of ‘‘endangered’’ agreements are still being formulated, unlikely they were directly exposed. and ‘‘threatened’’ species refer to two and the outcomes of ongoing activities The more mature Alabama shad that spatial scales: A species’ entire range or are not yet known. The effects of climate entered coastal and nearshore waters a significant portion of its range. We change on Alabama shad and their following the DWH spill in late summer initially evaluated the extinction risk of habitat are also uncertain, although through winter may have been exposed Alabama shad throughout its entire based on the species’ life history and to toxins from the DWH spill, but range and found it to be low. So we evidence from responses by other Alosa studies of other coastal species affected must consider if a ‘‘significant portion species to temperature shifts, we believe by the spill show that most recovered by of its range’’ is at higher risk, such that there is a low probability of this factor the following year. It is likely that the contributing significantly to the it elevates the entire species’ status to worst acute effects were experienced endangered or threatened. However, this extinction risk of Alabama shad. Data further offshore in the marine and literature suggest that harvest of evaluation can only be conducted if a environment and more studies will be Alabama shad, either directly for ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ where necessary to determine any long-term, commercial, recreational, or scientific the species’ status is more imperiled can chronic impacts from the DWH spill. purposes or as incidental bycatch, is be identified. There are few data on disease and unlikely to contribute to the extinction The USFWS and NMFS have jointly predation in relation to Alabama shad risk of Alabama shad and existing finalized a policy interpreting the and it is unknown whether either factor regulatory mechanisms are adequate to phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ is contributing to the species’ extinction control harvest. Additionally, (SPOIR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). The risk. environmental regulations, such as the SPOIR policy provides that: (1) If a FWCA and the ESA listing and critical In summary, we did not identify any species is found to be endangered or habitat designations for other species demographic factors or threats that are threatened in only a significant portion are likely benefitting the species. We do likely or highly likely to contribute of its range, the entire species is listed not believe climate change, direct significantly to the Alabama shad’s risk as endangered or threatened, harvest, bycatch, and the regulatory of extinction. We conclude that the respectively, and the ESA’s protections mechanisms governing these and other greatest threats to Alabama shad, low apply across the species’ entire range; threats, alone and in combination with abundance and the presence of dams, (2) a portion of the range of a species is other factors, are contributing pose a moderate threat to the species. ‘‘significant’’ if the species is not significantly to the extinction risk of However, these threats, alone and in currently endangered or threatened Alabama shad. combination with other factors, do not throughout its range, and the portion’s We were unable to rank the pose a significant risk of extinction. contribution to the viability of the contribution of water allocation and the Other demographic factors that pose a species is so important that, without the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms low likelihood of contributing to members in that portion, the species governing it, DWH, and disease and extinction risk, and potentially offset would be in danger of extinction or predation to the extinction risk of the threats of low abundance and dams, likely to become so in the foreseeable Alabama shad. Water allocation issues include the species’ high productivity, future, throughout all of its range; and are a growing concern in the Southeast wide spatial distribution, and genetic (3) the range of a species is considered United States. One of the biggest evidence that the presence of harmful to be the general geographical area interstate allocation disputes is ongoing genes has been reduced and genetic within which that species can be found between Alabama, Florida, and Georgia transfer between spawning populations at the time we make any particular over the future allocation of water in the is likely occurring at a greater rate than status determination. We evaluated

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 4060 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices

whether substantial information ACF River system. We did not identify population abundance estimate. Smith indicated that (i) the portions may be any other SPOIRs since (1) we do not et al. (2011) conducted a population significant and (ii) the species have abundance estimates for any other viability analysis (PVA) of Alabama occupying those portions may be in Alabama shad populations, although shad in the ACF River system that danger of extinction or likely to become they are believed to be at least one order estimated the future size and risk of so within the foreseeable future (79 FR of magnitude smaller than the ACF extinction of Alabama shad. The results 37578; July 1, 2014). Under the SPOIR population, (2) we do not have of any PVA are not an absolute predictor policy, both considerations must apply information that another population is of what will happen to a population or to warrant listing a species as threatened making significant contributions to a species; rather, a PVA is a tool to or endangered throughout its range other populations, and (3) we did not explore potential consequences of based upon its status within a portion identify any other populations that were management actions in light of an of the range. differentially experiencing concentrated uncertain future. We reviewed the best available nor acute threats compared to other Using a sex-specific (females only), information on Alabama shad and populations. age-structured model, Smith et al. considered several relevant factors in Following the SPOIR policy, we next (2011) used data from the literature (e.g., identifying whether portions of the evaluated whether the species age at maturity, annual spawning species’ range may be significant: (1) occupying this portion of the range may period, natural mortality, carrying Population abundance, (2) contributions be in danger of extinction or likely to capacity, available habitat, frequency of to other populations, and (3) become so within the foreseeable future. drought, and anthropogenic mortality) concentration and acuteness of threats. In our evaluation of the status of the and projected changes in population Based on these criteria, we initially species range-wide, we determined that size over time under different scenarios identified only one population, the none of the demographic risks or threats (e.g., varying mortality, survivorship, Alabama shad that spawn in the ACF contribute, alone or in combination, to carrying capacity, and density River system, as potentially constituting extinction risk for Alabama shad to the dependence). Each modeled scenario a SPOIR. First, we considered extent that the species’ persistence is at was run 10,000 times to provide population abundance. The Alabama risk. We believe this conclusion also estimates of the range of possible values shad population spawning in the ACF is applies to the Alabama shad in the ACF under the stochastic conditions believed to be one to several orders of River system. We did identify the threat specified. Smith et al. (2011) reported magnitude larger than other spawning of water allocation as being the estimated number of females populations. Next we considered the concentrated in the ACF River system. returning to the ACF as the proportional potential contribution of the ACF As with the range-wide evaluation, we increase or decrease in the population spawning population to other were unable to rank the contribution of after 20 years from the initial population populations. Genetic analyses indicate water allocation, as we do not have size (12,400 females). Quasi-extinction that Alabama shad spawn in systems information that water allocation is rates were measured as the probability other than their natal system at a rate of affecting Alabama shad, or the adequacy of fewer than 420 females returning at about 10 migrants per year. Because the of regulatory mechanisms governing it least 1 year over 20 years. The number spawning population in the ACF River to the extinction risk of Alabama shad of females (420) used to initiate the system is large relative to other systems, in ACF, due to the complexity of the model was taken from Ely et al. (2008; migrants from the ACF may make issue, the length of time (more than 25 lower 95 percent confidence limit) as greater contributions as compared to years) that the water allocation issue the approximate lowest population size, shad from smaller populations. The loss remains unresolved, and the inability of since historical population sizes of of the largest spawning population of the major stakeholders to come to Alabama shad in the ACF River system Alabama shad would leave only smaller agreement or final decision. While the are not available. populations of Alabama shad and could outcomes of water allocation and the In most scenarios (15 out of 20), the make the species as a whole less regulatory mechanisms governing it are PVA revealed positive proportional resilient to environmental perturbations, unknown, upstream water withdrawals change in mean abundance from initial including catastrophic events. Finally, for public use have been occurring for abundance and averaged about 250 we looked at concentration and over 25 years during which time the percent for these positive scenarios acuteness of threats. While the majority Alabama shad population in the ACF (Smith et al. 2011). In 2 scenarios, the of threats to Alabama shad are neither has persisted. The ACF population of population abundance was relatively concentrated nor acute in specific Alabama shad continues to be the stable over the 20-year time period. In portions of the species’ range, the ACF largest known spawning population. 3 scenarios, there was an overall River system is one of two river systems The abundance of Alabama shad in the decrease in population abundance after within the range of Alabama shad that ACF has been variable, but generally 20 years. The baseline model (i.e., no we identified as being threatened by higher since conservation locking was anthropogenic mortality, density water allocation issues. undertaken, alleviating the effects of dependence affecting all vital rates, We initially identified the spawning dams, the primary threat to the species current carrying capacity of 75,687 population of Alabama shad in the ACF in the system. The genetic study by females) predicted the population River system as being potentially Schaffler et al. (2015) shows that 86 would increase to 23 percent of carrying significant under the SPOIR policy percent of the spawning adult shad were capacity after 5 years and 37 percent because (1) it is believed to be the spawned upstream of JWLD in newly after 10 years (Smith et al. 2011). When largest spawning population by one to available habitat in the Flint River, introducing potential mortality from several orders of magnitude, (2) it could which was inaccessible prior to downstream passage through dams contribute to the viability of the species conservation locking. under different scenarios, the number of as a whole because of its large relative We were able to model and quantify females was still 16–37 percent of size and potential role in enhancing the resilience of Alabama shad from the carrying capacity in 10 years. Only one other river populations through ACF River system since it is the most scenario resulted in a 50-percent or outmigration, and (3) the threat of water studied population with the most higher probability of reaching quasi- allocation issues is concentrated in the available data, including the only extinction in 14 years (median time)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4061

during the 20-year projection (Smith et available scientific and commercial credibility of the Federal government’s al. 2011). The remaining scenarios with information on Alabama shad, including scientific information, and applies to population declines (scenarios m and s) the petition, public comments influential or highly influential did not drop below the quasi-extinction submitted on our 90-day finding, and scientific information disseminated on level more than 50 percent of the time. other published and unpublished or after June 16, 2005. To satisfy our While Smith et al.’s (2011) PVA information. We considered each of the requirements under the OMB Bulletin, cannot predict precisely the population section 4(a)(1) factors to determine we obtained independent peer review of size of the Alabama shad population in whether it presented an extinction risk our review of the status of Alabama the ACF River system in the future, it to the species. We found that the risk of shad, including our extinction risk demonstrates that Alabama shad extinction to Alabama shad throughout analysis. Three independent specialists populations are highly resilient and will its entire range was low. We could not were selected from the academic and likely increase, even when faced with identify a SPOIR that was both scientific community, Federal and state anthropogenic induced mortality and significant and where the species’ status agencies, and the private sector for this drought, under all but the most dire is threatened or endangered. Therefore, review. All peer reviewer comments conditions. While available information our determination is based on a were addressed prior to dissemination suggests the spawning population of synthesis and integration of the of the publication of this 12-month Alabama shad in the ACF may be foregoing information, factors, and determination. The peer review significant, we do not find that the considerations, and their effects on the comments can be found at: http:// species within this portion of its range status of the species throughout its www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/ is in danger of extinction nor do we entire range. We conclude that the prplans/ID322.html. believe it is likely to become so in the Alabama shad is not presently in danger References foreseeable future. Consequently, we are of extinction, nor is it likely to become unable to identify a SPOIR for Alabama so in the foreseeable future, throughout A complete list of all references cited shad that would change the listing all or a significant portion of its range, herein is available at: http:// determination relative to the status of and that listing as threatened or sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_ the species range-wide. endangered is not warranted. resources/listing_petitions/species_esa_ Listing Determination Peer Review consideration/index.html. Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires In December 2004, the Office of Authority that NMFS make listing determinations Management and Budget (OMB) issued The authority for this action is the based solely on the best scientific and a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Endangered Species Act of 1973, as commercial data available after Peer Review establishing minimum peer amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). conducting a review of the status of the review standards, a transparent process species and after taking into account for public disclosure of peer review Dated: January 5, 2017. those efforts, if any, being made by any planning, and opportunities for public Samuel D. Rauch, III, state or foreign nation, or political participation. The OMB Bulletin, Assistant Administrator for Regulatory subdivision thereof, to protect and implemented under the Information Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. conserve the species. We have Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554) is [FR Doc. 2017–00372 Filed 1–11–17; 8:45 am] independently reviewed the best intended to enhance the quality and BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2