Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; the Required Fields If You Wish to Remain Grouse

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 57611

proposed critical habitat. Pine Crest Dated: August 12, 2013. during normal business hours at the Ranch is owned by the Ute Mountain Rachel Jacobsen, street address given above. Ute Tribe under restricted fee status. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish Instructions: Comments sent by any The majority of the property is occupied and Wildlife and Parks. other method, to any other address or by Gunnison sage-grouse, and four leks [FR Doc. 2013–22706 Filed 9–18–13; 8:45 am] individual, or received after the end of occur on the property. In our January BILLING CODE 4310–55–P the comment period, may not be 11, 2013, proposed rule to designate considered by NMFS. All comments critical habitat (78 FR 2540), we received are part of the public record considered the Pine Crest Ranch to be DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE and may be posted to http:// private property. www.regulations.gov without change. National Oceanic and Atmospheric All personal identifying information Since February of 2013, the Service Administration (e.g., name, address), confidential has been in communication with the business information, or otherwise Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. The Service 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 sensitive information submitted attended a Tribal Council Meeting on [Docket No. 130626570–3570–01] voluntarily by the sender will be March 26, 2013, to discuss the proposed publicly accessible. We will accept critical habitat designation and RIN 0648–XC742 anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in proposed listing of Gunnison sage- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; the required fields if you wish to remain grouse. The Tribe has expressed an 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List anonymous). Attachments to electronic interest in developing a conservation Alabama Shad as Threatened or comments will be accepted in Microsoft plan for Gunnison sage-grouse on this Endangered Under the Endangered Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats property and has requested exclusion of Species Act only. the Pine Crest Ranch from the critical FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: habitat designation. We understand that AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Kelly Shotts, NMFS, Southeast Region, the Tribe’s legal department is in the Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 727–824–5312; or Marta Nammack, process of developing a conservation Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Department of Commerce (DOC). plan for their property. 301–427–8469. ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To pursue options for developing a finding, request for information. conservation plan, the Service has Background evaluated conservation funding and SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a 90- In 1997, we added Alabama shad to opportunities for Pine Crest Ranch day finding on a petition to list Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae) as threatened or our Candidate Species List (62 FR through its Partners for Fish and 37562; July 14, 1997). At that time, a Wildlife Program. We have also endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to designate candidate species was defined as any coordinated with the Natural Resources species being considered by the Conservation Service (NRCS) to discuss critical habitat concurrent with the listing. We find that the information in Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for options for enrollment in conservation our files presents substantial scientific listing as an endangered or a threatened programs for Gunnison sage-grouse. or commercial information indicating species, but not yet the subject of a Depending on the outcome of that that the petitioned action may be proposed rule (49 FR 38900; October 1, discussion, an ongoing section 7 warranted. We will conduct a status 1984). In 2004, we created the Species conference with the NRCS for review of the species to determine if the of Concern list (69 FR 19975; April 15, conservation programs and practices in petitioned action is warranted. To 2004) to encompass species for which Gunnison sage-grouse range could ensure that the status review is we have some concerns regarding their include Pine Crest Ranch. comprehensive, we are soliciting status and threats, but for which We will conduct government-to- scientific and commercial information insufficient information is available to government consultation with the Ute regarding this species (see below). indicate a need to list the species under Mountain Ute Tribe throughout the DATES: Information and comments on the ESA. Twenty-five candidate species, development of the final designation of the subject action must be received by including the Alabama shad, were transferred to the Species of Concern list critical habitat. We will consider the November 18, 2013. at that time because they were not being Pine Crest Ranch for exclusion from ADDRESSES: You may submit considered for ESA listing and were final critical habitat designation information, identified by the code NOAA–NMFS_2013–0142, addressed better suited for Species of Concern consistent with the requirements of status due to some concerns and section 4(b)(2) of the Act. to: Kelly Shotts, Ecologist, by any of the following methods: uncertainty regarding their biological Authors • Electronic Submissions: Submit all status and threats. The Species of electronic information via the Federal Concern status does not carry any The primary authors of this notice are eRulemaking Portal. Go to http:// procedural or substantive protections the staff members of the Regional Office www.regulations.gov/ under the ESA. and Western Colorado Field Office, #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013- On April 20, 2010, the Center for Mountain-Prairie Region, U.S. Fish and 0142, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, Biological Diversity (CBD), Alabama Wildlife Service. complete the required fields, and enter Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, or attach your comments. Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Authority • Facsimile (fax): 727–824–5309. Network, Tennessee Forests Council, • The authority for this action is the Mail: NMFS, Southeast Regional and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy (petitioners) submitted a Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. petition to the Secretaries of Interior and amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Petersburg, FL 33701. • Hand delivery: You may hand Commerce, as well as to the Regional deliver written information to our office Director of the Southeast Region of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:59 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM 19SEP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 57612 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which we will conduct a comprehensive based on available information, past and (USFWS), to list 404 aquatic, riparian, review of the best available scientific present numbers and distribution of the and wetland species from the and commercial information. In such species involved and any threats faced southeastern United States as threatened cases, we are to conclude the review by the species; (3) provides information or endangered under the ESA. The with a finding as to whether, in fact, the regarding the status of the species over petitioners also requested that critical petitioned action is warranted within 12 all or a significant portion of its range; habitat be designated for all petitioned months of receipt of the petition. and, (4) is accompanied by the species. We notified the USFWS’ Because the finding at the 12-month appropriate supporting documentation Southeast Region by letter dated May 3, stage is based on a more thorough in the form of bibliographic references, 2010, that the Alabama shad, one of the review of the available information, as reprints of pertinent publications, 404 petitioned species, would fall under compared to the narrow scope of review copies of reports or letters from NMFS’ jurisdiction based on the August at the 90-day stage, a ‘‘may be authorities, and maps (50 CFR 1974 Memorandum of Understanding warranted’’ finding does not prejudge 424.14(b)(2)). regarding jurisdictional responsibilities the outcome of the status review. We evaluate the petitioner’s request and listing procedures between the two Under the ESA, a listing based upon the information in the agencies. We proposed to USFWS that determination may address a ‘‘species,’’ petition including its references, and the NMFS evaluate the petition, for the which is defined to also include information readily available in our Alabama shad only, for the purpose of subspecies and, for any vertebrate files. We will accept the petitioner’s the 90-day finding and any required species, any distinct population sources and characterizations of the subsequent listing action. On May 14, segment (DPS) that interbreeds when information presented if they appear to 2010, we sent the petitioners mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint be based on accepted scientific confirmation we would be evaluating NOAA and USFWS policy clarifies the principles, unless we have specific the petition for Alabama shad. On agencies’ interpretation of the phrase information in our files that indicates February 17, 2011, we published a ‘‘distinct population segment’’ for the that the petition’s information is negative 90-day finding in the Federal purposes of listing, delisting, and incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or Register (76 FR 9320) stating that the reclassifying a species under the ESA otherwise irrelevant to the requested petition did not present substantial (‘‘DPS Policy’’; 61 FR 4722; February 7, action. Information that is susceptible to scientific or commercial information 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is more than one interpretation or that is indicating that the requested listing of ‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of contradicted by other available Alabama shad may be warranted. extinction throughout all or a significant information will not be dismissed at the On April 28, 2011, in response to the portion of its range, and ‘‘threatened’’ if 90-day finding stage, so long as it is negative 90-day finding, CBD filed a it is likely to become endangered within reliable and a reasonable person would notice of intent to sue DOC and NMFS the foreseeable future throughout all or conclude it supports the petitioner’s for alleged violations of the ESA in a significant portion of its range (ESA assertions. In other words, conclusive making its finding. CBD filed the sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively; 16 information indicating the species may lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the meet the ESA’s requirements for listing District of Columbia on January 18, ESA and our implementing regulations, is not required to make a positive 90- 2012. On June 21, 2013, CBD and DOC/ we determine whether species are day finding. We will not conclude that NMFS settled the lawsuit, and we threatened or endangered because of a lack of specific information alone agreed to reevaluate the original listing any one or a combination of the five negates a positive 90-day finding, if a petition and publish a new 90-day factors found in section 4(a)(1): (A) The reasonable person would conclude that finding. Here we reevaluate the present or threatened destruction, the unknown information itself suggests information provided in the 2010 modification, or curtailment of habitat an extinction risk of concern for the petition, as well as information in our or range; (B) overutilization for species at issue. files, including some additional commercial, recreational, scientific, or To make a 90-day finding on a information since the 90-day finding educational purposes; (C) disease or petition to list a species, we evaluate published on February 17, 2011. predation; (D) inadequacy of existing whether the petition or information regulatory mechanisms; or, (E) any other readily available in our files presents ESA Statutory and Regulatory natural or manmade factors affecting the substantial scientific or commercial Provisions and Evaluation Framework species’ existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), information indicating the subject Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, 50 CFR 424.11(c)). species may be either threatened or as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), ESA-implementing regulations issued endangered, as defined by the ESA. requires, to the maximum extent jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR First, we evaluate whether the practicable, that within 90 days of 424.14(b)) define ‘‘substantial information presented in the petition, receipt of a petition to list a species as information’’ in the context of reviewing along with the information readily threatened or endangered, the Secretary a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a available in our files, indicates that the make a finding on whether that petition species as the amount of information petitioned entity constitutes a ‘‘species’’ presents substantial scientific or that would lead a reasonable person to eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, commercial information indicating that believe that the measure proposed in the we evaluate whether the information the petitioned action may be warranted, petition may be warranted. In evaluating indicates that the species at issue faces and to promptly publish such finding in whether substantial information is extinction risk that is cause for concern; the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. contained in a petition, the Secretary this may be indicated in information 1533(b)(3)(A)). When we find that must consider whether the petition: (1) expressly discussing the species’ status substantial scientific or commercial Clearly indicates the administrative and trends, or in information describing information indicates that the petitioned measure recommended and gives the impacts and threats to the species. We action may be warranted (a ‘‘positive 90- scientific and any common name of the evaluate any information on specific day finding’’), we are required to species involved; (2) contains detailed demographic factors pertinent to promptly commence a review of the narrative justification for the evaluating extinction risk for the species status of the species concerned during recommended measure, describing, at issue (e.g., population abundance and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:59 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM 19SEP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 57613

trends, productivity, spatial structure, therefore these two types of lists should describing the marine life stage of age structure, sex ratio, diversity, not be expected to coincide’’ (http:// Alabama shad (Mettee and O’Neil, 2003; current and historical range, habitat www.natureserve.org/prodServices/ Mickle et al., 2010). integrity or fragmentation), and the statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a Alabama shad move back into potential contribution of identified petition cites such classifications, we freshwater to spawn. Males appear to demographic risks to extinction risk for will evaluate the source information enter the river at earlier dates and lower the species. We then evaluate the that the classification is based upon, in water temperatures than females potential links between these light of the standards on extinction risk (Laurence and Yerger, 1966). Arrival at demographic risks and the causative and impacts or threats discussed above. upstream spawning sites also varies by impacts and threats identified in section age (Mettee and O’Neil, 2003). Adults Alabama Shad Species Description 4(a)(1). We do not conduct additional broadcast spawn in the spring or early research, and we do not solicit The Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae) summer over coarse sand and gravel information from parties outside the is a euryhaline (adapted to a wide range sediments with moderate currents when agency to help us in evaluating the of salinities), anadromous species that river temperatures are between 66–72°F petition. spawns in medium to large flowing (19–22°C; Mettee and O’Neil, 2003). Court decisions clarify the rivers from the Mississippi River Adults are thought to feed on small fish, appropriate scope and limitations of the drainage to the Suwannee River, though they likely do not feed during Services’ review of petitions at the 90- Florida. Alabama shad belong to the the spawning run (Laurence and Yerger, day finding stage, in making a family Clupeidae and are closely related 1967). Females become larger than determination whether a petitioned to, as well as similar in appearance and males, reaching a little over 18 inches action ‘‘may be’’ warranted. As a general life history to, the American shad (A. TL (467 mm), while males reach 16.5 matter, these decisions hold that a sapidissima). They also resemble the inches TL (418 mm; Mettee and O’Neil, petition need not establish a ‘‘strong skipjack herring (A. chrysochloris), 2003). Age-2 and -3 adults are the most likelihood’’ or a ‘‘high probability’’ that which occurs in the same areas as prevalent age class of spawning adults a species is either threatened or Alabama shad. Defining characteristics (Laurence and Yerger, 1967; Mettee and endangered to support a positive 90-day of the Alabama shad are an upper jaw O’Neil, 2003; Ingram, 2007). Repeat finding. with a distinct median notch, and the spawning is common, but the Information available on impacts or number of gill rakers (41 to 48) on the percentage of returning spawners is threats should be specific to the species lower limb of the anterior gill arch. highly variable among years. Annual and should reasonably suggest that one Alabama shad differ morphologically fecundity ranges from approximately or more of these factors may be from other Alosa species that occur in 16,000 to 360,000 eggs per female operative threats that act or have acted the same area by a lower jaw that does (Mettee and O’Neil, 2003; Ingram, 2007). on the species to the point that it may not protrude beyond the upper jaw, Some natal homing tendency is warrant protection under the ESA. black spots along the length of the lower evidenced by genetic differences among Broad statements about generalized jaw, and a dorsal fin that lacks an drainage basins (Bowen, 2005). The threats to the species, or identification elongated filament. Alabama shad is relatively short lived, of factors that could negatively impact Alabama shad are a schooling fish; up to 6 years (Mettee and O’Neil, 2003). a species, do not constitute substantial many individuals swim at the same information that listing may be speed and in the same direction. Analysis of the Petition warranted. We look for information Research in the Pascagoula River system First, we evaluated whether the indicating that not only is the particular indicates that Alabama shad move petition presented the information species exposed to a factor, but that the between different riverine habitats indicated in 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2). The species may be responding in a negative seasonally during their first year of life petition clearly indicates the fashion; then we assess the potential (age 0). In early summer (June to mid- administrative measure recommended significance of that negative response. July) small juveniles were found to use and gives the scientific and common Many petitions identify risk sandbar habitats, then move to open names of the taxonomically valid classifications made by other channel and steep bank habitats species involved. It contains a narrative organizations or agencies, such as the containing large woody debris in late justification for the recommended International Union on the Conservation summer and fall (Mickle, 2006). Within measure, describing the distribution of of Nature (IUCN), the American these habitat types, Alabama shad tend the species, as well as the threats faced Fisheries Society (AFS), or NatureServe, to select cooler water temperatures by the species, and it is accompanied by as evidence of extinction risk for a (Mickle, 2006). While little is known of supporting documentation in the form species. Risk classifications by other the Alabama shad’s thermal tolerance, of bibliographic references. The petition organizations or made under other alosines in general are known to be presented very limited information to Federal or state statutes may be highly sensitive to thermal stress support the petitioned action. However, informative, but the classification alone (McCauley and Binkowski, 1982; we have additional information in our may not provide the rationale for a Beitinger et al., 2000). Juvenile growth files that was not provided in the positive 90-day finding under the ESA. rate is about 1.2 inches (30 millimeters petition to list the Alabama shad, For example, as explained by [mm]) per month from July to including the abundance, age structure, NatureServe, their assessments of a September and then 0.4 inches (10 mm) and genetic make-up of the Alabama species’ conservation status do ‘‘not per month until December. Juveniles shad in the Apalachicola River, which constitute a recommendation by remain in fresh water for the first 6 to we discuss in more detail below. We NatureServe for listing under the U.S. 8 months of their lives, feeding on small also have additional information Endangered Species Act’’ because fishes and invertebrates (Ross, 2001) clarifying the current range of the NatureServe assessments ‘‘have and move into the marine environment species. As stated in our prior 90-day different criteria, evidence between September and December finding (February 17, 2011), we requirements, purposes, and taxonomic (Mickle et al., 2010) when they are periodically review our Species of coverage than government lists of about 2 to 5 inches total length (TL; 50 Concern list to evaluate whether species endangered and threatened species, and to 130 mm). There are almost no data should be retained or removed from the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:59 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM 19SEP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 57614 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules

list or proposed for listing under the Ouachita River system (Arkansas/ systems (e.g., Pea River, Alabama/ ESA, and we announced our intent to Louisiana) to eastern Oklahoma. The Florida; Chattahoochee River, Georgia; release a biological review of the petition states that the species’ current and, Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana), species. We considered information in range includes the Apalachicola River Alabama shad have been recorded in the biological review, publicly released system below Jim Woodruff Lock and those systems since 2000, but the in 2011 (Smith et al., 2011), to make this Dam (JWLD); the Pascagoula River number of Alabama shad observed or 90-day finding in response to the drainage in Mississippi; the Conecuh, captured was not provided in the petition. Based on the information Choctawhatchee, and Mobile Rivers in records. No records of Alabama shad acquired in our files since publication of Alabama; the Ouachita River, Arkansas; captures or observations since 2000 the prior finding, primarily the and, the Missouri, Gasconade, Osage, were found for many systems biological review by Smith et al. (2011), and Meramec Rivers, Missouri. historically occupied by Alabama shad. we find that substantial scientific or Information in our files indicates that It is not clear from the available commercial information exists the current range of Alabama shad is information whether targeted studies indicating that the petitioned action larger than that described in the were performed and shad were not may be warranted. petition. In addition to the rivers listed present, or if the lack of Alabama shad The petition states that Alabama shad in the petition, the current range of data is due to the absence of studies or have likely experienced both dramatic Alabama shad includes the record-keeping in regards to the species. long-term population declines and Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, Flint The NatureServe (2008) classification short-term population declines of as (ACF) River system above JWLD in and literature cited by the petition, as much as 30 percent, and attributes these Florida/Georgia/Alabama, the Pea River well as the information in our files, do trends to habitat loss and degradation in Alabama, the Pearl River in not present estimates for historical or caused by impoundments, pollution, Louisiana/Mississippi, and the Little current abundance of Alabama shad for dredging, and other factors. The petition Missouri River in Arkansas (Smith et al., comparison and evaluation. However, also states that commercial fishing in 2011). the low numbers of Alabama shad (less the Ohio River was a threat historically. The petition describes Alabama shad than 25) documented in some rivers and While commercial fishing is no longer a populations as ‘‘small’’ and states that the lack of records of the species in threat, over-exploitation for recreational, the species is considered ‘‘very rare’’ in some historically occupied rivers since scientific, or educational purposes, large portions of its historical range. The 2000 (Smith et al. 2011) indicate that including intentional eradication or petition cites a NatureServe (2008) there may be cause for concern over indirect impacts of fishing, were cited estimate that 6 to 20 populations of declines in some systems currently and by the petition as possible threats to the Alabama shad remain, but neither the historically occupied by Alabama shad. species. The petition states that it is petition nor NatureServe (2008) specify The petition cites various status unknown whether Alabama shad are the location of those populations, the classifications made by the IUCN, ‘‘appropriately protected,’’ noting the size of the populations, or the number, NatureServe, AFS, and our Species of lack of fish passage at locks and dams locations, and size of historical Alabama Concern program to support its as a primary management concern, and shad populations for comparison. The assertion that Alabama shad should be cites lack of regulatory protections petition includes an observation by listed as threatened or endangered associated with classifications assigned Mettee et al. (1996) that ‘‘there are only under the ESA. We do not give any to Alabama shad by IUCN, NatureServe, two known remaining runs of Alabama particular weight to classifications AFS, the NMFS Species of Concern shad in the Mississippi River System established by other scientific and Program, and the states of Mississippi, and other spawning runs occur in the conservation organizations, which may Alabama, and Georgia. Other factors, Florida Panhandle and southern or may not be based on criteria that such as pollution, sedimentation, and Alabama.’’ The petition also presents directly correspond to the listing drought, are cited in the petition as conclusions by Mettee and O’Neil standards of the ESA. However, we have contributing to declines in shad (2003) that spawning populations of reviewed and evaluated the underlying populations. Thus, the petition states shad are ‘‘relatively small.’’ information used to develop the various that four of the five causal factors in After submission of the petition and classifications given to Alabama shad by section 4(a)(1) of the ESA are adversely publication of the prior finding, Smith entities listed in the petition. affecting the continued existence of et al. (2011) conducted an extensive The petition cites the IUCN’s 2010 Alabama shad: habitat modification and search of publications, technical reports, classification of Alabama shad as degradation due to dams, dredging, and and theses, and surveyed universities, ‘‘endangered.’’ We found the IUCN pollution; overutilization in historical state and Federal facilities, and non- updated its classification of Alabama commercial fisheries and continued profit organizations throughout the shad in 2012, relying on a more current indirect effects from fishing and Alabama shad’s historical range for any assessment of the species (citing eradication programs; inadequacy of recent (since 2000) recorded captures. In NatureServe as the ‘‘assessor’’), and existing regulatory mechanisms some systems (e.g., Choctawhatchee reclassified the status from associated with current status River, Alabama; Apalachicola/Flint ‘‘endangered’’ to ‘‘data deficient.’’ The classifications; and other natural or River System, Florida/Georgia; and IUCN provided justification for their manmade factors, such as pollution, Pascagoula/Leaf River system, data deficient classification, stating sedimentation, and drought. Mississippi), hundreds to thousands of there have been declines in the Alabama shad have been documented populations and geographic range of the Evaluation of Information on Species since 2000. Records for some systems species but ‘‘there has been no Status (e.g., Conecuh River and Mobile Bay, quantification of the rate of range or The petition states that Alabama shad Alabama; Suwannee and Withlacoochee population decline’’ of the Alabama has undergone a major geographic Rivers, Florida; Thibodaux Weir, shad. NatureServe (2008) assigned contraction of its historical range that Louisiana; Chickasawhay River, Alabama shad a rank of ‘‘G3’’ or originally spanned the Gulf Coast from Mississippi; and, Gasconade River, ‘‘vulnerable’’ given the species’ limited the Suwannee River, Florida, to the Missouri) documented less than 25 distribution in Gulf of Mexico Mississippi River, and westward in the Alabama shad since 2000. In many tributaries, reduction in population due

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:59 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM 19SEP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 57615

to the effects of dams in blocking in one river system, as well as insight substantial information quantifying the spawning migration, and degradation of into the species’ resilience. Abundance extent to which shad populations have habitat by siltation and pollutants. of Alabama shad varied greatly between been reduced by the presence of dams, NatureServe (2008) described the 2005–2007 (∼2,000–26,000) as described and we have no such information in our Alabama shad’s short-term trend as by Ely et al. (2008) and was lower than files. However, there is some ‘‘relatively stable to decline of 30 expected based on a comparison with information in our files suggesting that percent’’ and the long-term trend as American shad in the Savannah and dams may be resulting in reduced ‘‘relatively stable to decline of 70 Altamaha Rivers (100,000–200,000). populations in some rivers. percent’’. The petition also included the Ingram (2007) compared growth and age Beginning in 2005, a cooperative 2008 AFS determination that Alabama class structure of Alabama shad in the study supported by multiple local, shad were ‘‘threatened’’ (in imminent Apalachicola River in 2005–2006 with academic, state, and Federal danger of becoming endangered results from studies conducted in 1967 conservation partners, including NMFS, throughout all or a significant portion of and 1972 and indicated that the current started tracking movements of Alabama its range) based on (1) present or population structure, with fewer age shad and other fish species in the threatened destruction, modification, or classes and an earlier age at maturity, Apalachicola River (USFWS, 2008; Ely reduction of habitat or range, and (2) was indicative of a declining et al., 2008; TNC, 2010). The study also over-exploitation for commercial, population. Ingram (2007) also noted evaluated the feasibility of moving fish recreational, scientific, or educational that when a population includes only a upriver of JWLD, located at the purposes. The AFS designation did not few year classes, abundance can confluence of the Chattahoochee and provide any information on historical or rebound quickly when environmental Flint Rivers, which presents the first current numbers, populations, or rates conditions change (Rutherford et al., major obstacle on the Apalachicola of decline, and also relies on 1992). Fluctuations in abundance of River to the upstream migration of NatureServe’s (2008) ranking of ‘‘G3/ American shad were noted by Ely et al. Alabama shad to their historical vulnerable’’ (discussed in the previous (2008) and are well documented by spawning grounds. The results of this section of this finding). others (Hattala et al., 1996; Atlantic collaborative study showed that the The petitioner also cited our States Marine Fisheries Commission, existing lock at JWLD could be operated classification of the Alabama shad as a 1998; Moring, 2005). Ely et al. (2008) to allow fish to move upriver through NMFS species of concern as reason to concluded that commonly observed the lock where they could access support an ESA listing. As previously variations in year-class strength suggest spawning habitat. noted, Alabama shad became a NMFS Alabama shad are resilient and capable Based on these results, the U.S. Army Species of Concern in 2004 when it was of quickly increasing in number under Corps of Engineers (USACE) began reclassified from a Candidate Species. favorable conditions. ‘‘conservation locking’’ (operating the We considered the entirety of the lock at JWLD to provide Alabama shad scientific and commercial information Evaluation of Information on Threats to access to upstream habitat) in 2008. The available to us on the apparent the Species locks are operated twice a day to population decline of Alabama shad and The bulk of the information in the correspond with the natural movement the threats that contributed to the petition is an overview of many of the patterns of migrating fish during apparent decline when we classified past and ongoing categories of threats spawning seasons (February through Alabama shad as a Species of Concern that are believed to have contributed May) each year. Since conservation in 2004. By definition, a Species of collectively to the decline of 404 locking began, Alabama shad have been Concern is one for which we have some aquatic, riparian, and wetland species in found to pass upstream of the lock with concerns regarding status and threats, the Southeast. The majority of the 45 percent efficiency (Young, 2010) and, but for which insufficient information information on threats in the petition is as a result, can access over 150 miles was available at the time of either general for all 404 species with no (241.4 km) of historical habitat and classification to indicate a need to list clear linkage to Alabama shad or is spawning areas in the ACF River System the species under the ESA. Our own specifically linked to other species or to for the first time in more than 50 years Species of Concern designation does not habitats not occupied by Alabama shad. (TNC, 2010). Young (2010) estimated include a specific analysis of extinction The petition states that four of the five the number of Alabama shad in the ACF risk for Alabama shad, or an analysis of causal factors in section 4(a)(1) of the River System at 98,469 in 2010, almost population size or trends, or other ESA are adversely affecting the four times larger than the previous high information directly addressing whether continued existence of Alabama shad: estimate of 25,935 in 2005 (Ely et al., the species faces extinction risk that is (A) Present or threatened destruction, 2008). The number of Alabama shad in cause for concern and may warrant modification, or curtailment of its the Apalachicola River in 2011 was listing. habitat or range; (B) overutilization for estimated at 26,193 and was lower than In addition to these classifications by the commercial, recreational, scientific, the 2010 value but slightly higher than national and international or educational purposes; (C) inadequacy the maximum abundance in the 2005– organizations, the petition provided of regulatory mechanisms; and, (D) 2009 period (Young, 2011). The major information that Alabama shad is other natural or manmade factors. difference between the 2010 and 2011 considered by the states of Mississippi, The petition states that Alabama shad Alabama shad spawning runs was a lack Alabama, and Georgia to be of high have been cut off from many historical of age-1 males in 2011 (Young, 2011). conservation concern. Mississippi, spawning areas by dams and locks, Notably, the 2011 run was dominated by Alabama, and Georgia did not provide citing Robison and Buchanan (1988), older, larger adult females in excellent population abundance estimates, Etnier (1997), and Mirarchi et al. (2004). condition, a potential indicator of strong population trends, or additional Dams can block access to upriver year classes in the future (Young, 2011). information supporting their spawning sites for anadromous species, Sammons and Young (2012) provided classifications. as well as alter downstream flow the most recent report from the Information currently available in our regimes. Dams are present on some Apalachicola River, estimating the files provides information on the rivers that are occupied by Alabama number of Alabama shad at 122,578 in abundance and increase of the species shad. The petition did not provide 2012 (the largest since 2005). This

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:59 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM 19SEP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 57616 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules

spawning run was composed of many Alabama shad populations in some regulations (50 CFR 424.11(b)) require males presumed to be from the 2010 rivers may have declined and causes us that a listing determination be based year class, as well as numerous older, to be concerned that habitat solely on the best scientific and larger adults of both sexes (presumably modification may pose a significant risk commercial data, without consideration recruits from 2009). Sammons and to Alabama shad. of possible economic or other impacts of Young (2012) noted that a year of higher In addition to the information on the the determination. During the 60-day than average flows in 2009 may have present and threatened destruction, public comment period we are seeking contributed to spawning and modification, or curtailment of habitat information related only to the status of recruitment successes in 2010 and 2012. or range, the petitioner provided the Alabama shad throughout its range. Sammons and Young (2012) also noted information regarding the inadequacy of Peer Review that alosine population sizes commonly regulatory mechanisms and other fluctuate widely. natural or manmade factors that may On July 1, 1994, NMFS and the U.S. Smith et al. (2011) conducted a cause a significant threat to the Alabama Fish and Wildlife Service published a population viability analysis (PVA) of shad. However, because we have series of policies regarding listings Alabama shad in the ACF River System. determined that the information under the ESA, including a policy for A PVA is a modeling tool that estimates available on the present and threatened peer review of scientific data (59 FR the future size and risk of extinction for destruction, modification, or 34270). The intent of the peer review curtailment of habitat or range may be populations of organisms. Smith et al. policy is to ensure listings are based on a cause for concern for Alabama shad, (2011) estimated returning female the best scientific and commercial data we do not find a need to conduct a abundance in 20 years relative to available. The Office of Management detailed analysis of the other submitted current numbers and predicted that the and Budget issued its Final Information information here. ACF population is increasing and under Quality Bulletin for Peer Review on present conditions could reach carrying Petition Finding December 16, 2004. The Bulletin went capacity in about 40 years. The PVA We have determined after reviewing into effect June 16, 2005, and generally indicated significant declines in information readily available in our files requires that all ‘‘influential scientific abundance only in modeled scenarios that there is substantial information information’’ and ‘‘highly influential with the highest levels and frequencies indicating that the petitioned action scientific information’’ disseminated on of mortality (Smith et al., 2011). may be warranted. Under section or after that date be peer reviewed. We provided funds to USFWS to 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, an affirmative 90- Because the information used to complete a genetic study on Alabama day finding requires that we promptly evaluate this petition may be considered shad in the Apalachicola River, Florida commence a status review of the ‘‘influential scientific information,’’ we (Moyer, 2012). The study assessed petitioned species (16 U.S.C. 1533 solicit the names of recognized experts genetic parameters that may influence (b)(3)(A)). in the field that could take part in the its extinction risk. Moyer (2012) peer review process for this status determined that there is no observable Information Solicited review (see ADDRESSES). Independent genetic structure in Alabama shad in the To ensure that the status review is peer reviewers will be selected from the Apalachicola River and that the species based on the best available scientific academic and scientific community, exhibits low amounts of genetic and commercial data, we are soliciting tribal and other Native American diversity. information on the status of the groups, Federal and state agencies, the The conservation locking program in Alabama shad throughout its range private sector, and public interest the ACF River System and PVA on the including: (1) Historical and current groups. ACF River Alabama shad demonstrated distribution and abundance, including that the species is resilient and is data addressing presence or absence at References Cited responding positively to increased a riverine scale; (2) historical and A complete list of all references is spawning habitat access. However, this current population sizes and trends; (3) available upon request from the may not be the case in other river biological information (life history, Protected Resources Division of the systems historically occupied by genetics, population connectivity, etc.); NMFS Southeast Regional Office (see Alabama shad. The petition relates the (4) landings and trade data; (5) ADDRESSES). construction of dams built on the lower management, regulatory, and Tombigbee and Alabama Rivers in the enforcement information; (6) any Authority 1960s to ‘‘steep declines in shad current or planned activities that may populations’’ in the Mobile River Basin adversely impact the species; and (7) The authority for this action is the (Barkuloo et al., 1993; Mettee and ongoing or planned efforts to protect Endangered Species Act of 1973, as O’Neil, 2003; NatureServe, 2008). While and restore the species and their amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). there is no information in the petition habitats. We request that all information Dated: September 13, 2013. or our files quantifying declines in be accompanied by: (1) Supporting Alan D. Risenhoover, Alabama shad populations due to dams, documentation such as maps, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Smith et al. (2011) found no records of bibliographic references, or reprints of performing the functions and duties of the Alabama shad in the Tombigbee and pertinent publications; and (2) the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Alabama Rivers (the examples presented submitter’s name, address, and any Regulatory Programs, National Marine in the petition) since 2000. Therefore, association, institution, or business that Fisheries Service. the information presented in the the person represents. Section 4(b)(1)(A) [FR Doc. 2013–22869 Filed 9–18–13; 8:45 am] petition and in our files indicates that of the ESA and NMFS’ implementing BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:59 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM 19SEP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS