[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9320-9327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3628]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 100603239-0275-02]
RIN 0648-XW85
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition
To List Alabama Shad as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA)
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list
Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae) as threatened or endangered and designate
critical habitat under the ESA. We find that the petition does not
present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned actions may be warranted.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and related materials are available
upon request from the Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected
Resources Division, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue
South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, or on the NMFS Southeast Region's Web
site at http://
[[Page 9321]]
sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/AlabamaShad.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Shotts, NMFS, Southeast Region,
(727) 824-5312; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources,
(301) 713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In 1997, we added Alabama shad to our Candidate Species List (62 FR
37562; July 14, 1997). At that time, a candidate species was defined as
any species being considered by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)
for listing as an endangered or a threatened species, but not yet the
subject of a proposed rule (49 FR 38900; October 1, 1984). In 2004, we
created the Species of Concern list (69 FR 19975; April 15, 2004) to
encompass species for which we have some concerns regarding their
status and threats, but for which insufficient information is available
to indicate a need to list the species under the ESA. Twenty-five
candidate species, including the Alabama shad, were transferred to the
Species of Concern list at that time because they were not being
considered for ESA listing and were better suited for Species of
Concern status due to some concerns and uncertainty regarding their
biological status and threats. The Species of Concern status does not
carry any procedural or substantive protections under the ESA.
On April 20, 2010, the Center for Biological Diversity, Alabama
Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration
Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and the West Virginia Highlands
Conservancy (petitioners) submitted a petition to the Secretaries of
Interior and Commerce, as well as to the Regional Director of the
Southeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), to list
404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species from the Southeastern United
States as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The petitioners also
requested that critical habitat be designated under the ESA for all
petitioned species. NMFS' Southeast Region notified the USFWS'
Southeast Region by letter dated May 3, 2010, that we believe the
Alabama shad, one of the 404 petitioned species, falls under NMFS'
jurisdiction based on the August 1974 Memorandum of Understanding
regarding jurisdictional responsibilities and listing procedures
between the two agencies. We proposed to evaluate the petition, for the
Alabama shad only, for the purpose of the 90-day finding and any
required subsequent listing action. On May 14, 2010, we sent the
petitioners confirmation that we would be evaluating the petition for
Alabama shad.
ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy Considerations
ESA Statutory and Regulatory Provisions and Evaluation Framework
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days
of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered,
the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly publish
such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When it
is found that substantial scientific or commercial information in a
petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a ``positive
90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a review of the
status of the species concerned during which we will conduct a
comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial
information. In such cases, within 12 months of receipt of the
petition, we shall conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in
fact, the petitioned action is warranted. Because the finding at the
12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available
information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day
stage, a ``may be warranted'' finding does not prejudge the outcome of
the status review.
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a ``species,''
which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate
species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NOAA-U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) policy clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the
phrase ``distinct population segment'' for the purposes of listing,
delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (61 FR 4722;
February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is ``endangered'' if
it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range, and ``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C.
1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing
regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered
because of any one or a combination of the following five section
4(a)(1) factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (2) overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3)
disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
and (5) any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species'
existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; 50 CFR 424.14(b)) define
``substantial information'' in the context of reviewing a petition to
list, delist, or reclassify a species as the amount of information that
would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in
the petition may be warranted. In evaluating whether substantial
information is contained in a petition, the Secretary must consider
whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the administrative measure
recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species
involved; (2) contains detailed narrative justification for the
recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past
and present numbers and distribution of the species involved and any
threats faced by the species; (3) provides information regarding the
status of the species over all or a significant portion of its range;
and (4) is accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation in
the form of bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent
publications, copies of reports or letters from authorities, and maps
(50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
Court decisions have clarified the appropriate scope and
limitations of the Services' review of petitions at the 90-day finding
stage, in making a determination that a petitioned action ``may be''
warranted. As a general matter, these decisions hold that a petition
need not establish a ``strong likelihood'' or a ``high probability''
that a species is either threatened or endangered to support a positive
90-day finding.
We evaluate the petitioner's request based upon the information in
the petition including its references, and the information readily
available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we
do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us
in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioner's sources and
characterizations of the information presented, if they appear to be
based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific
information in our files that indicates
[[Page 9322]]
the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or
otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is
susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by
other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding
stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude
it supports the petitioner's assertions. In other words, conclusive
information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for
listing is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not
conclude that a lack of specific information alone negates a positive
90-day finding, if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown
information itself suggests an extinction risk of concern for the
species at issue.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we
evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating the subject species may be either
threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate
whether the information presented in the petition, along with the
information readily available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under
the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the
species at issue faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this
may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species'
status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to
the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic
factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species at
issue (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial
structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical
range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential
contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the
species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic
risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section
4(a)(1).
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to
the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these
factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species
to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad
statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification
of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute
substantial information that listing may be warranted. We look for
information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed
to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative
fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative
response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by other
organizations or agencies, as evidence of extinction risk for a
species. Risk classifications of the petitioned species by other
organizations or made under other Federal or State statutes may be
informative, but the classification alone may not provide the rationale
for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. Thus, when a petition
cites such classifications, we will evaluate the source information
that the classification is based upon, in light of the standards on
extinction risk and impacts or threats discussed above.
Distribution and Life History of Alabama Shad
The Alabama shad is a euryhaline, anadromous species that spawns in
medium to large flowing rivers from the Mississippi River drainage to
the Suwannee River, Florida. They once reached into freshwater systems
as far inland as eastern Oklahoma, Iowa, and West Virginia. Present
distributions extend up the Mississippi River drainage into eastern
Arkansas and central Missouri. They are found in some Gulf coast
drainages, but are thought to be extirpated from those drainages west
of the Pascagoula drainage in Mississippi (Adams et al., 2000; Mettee
and O'Neil, 2003; Boschung and Mayden, 2004). Although once abundant
enough to support commercial fisheries in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky,
Indiana, and Iowa, Alabama shad are rarely collected throughout much of
their former range (Ross, 2001; Adams et al., 2000). Gunning and
Suttkus (1990) report on collections between 1963 and 1988 in the Pearl
River, Louisiana and Mississippi, in which the majority of individuals
(384) were collected before 1965, with only 34 collected since then.
None have been taken from the Pearl River since 1981 (Gunning and
Suttkus, 1990; Ross, 2001). Barkuloo et al. (1993) report large
declines in the Mobile River basin occurred shortly after new dams were
built on the Alabama and lower Tombigbee rivers in the 1960s. Five
adults have been captured in the basin in the past 25 years, and then
only in years with very high river flows (Mettee and O'Neil, 2003),
suggesting that no spawning population remains. The largest remaining
population probably occurs in the Apalachicola River, Florida,
downstream of the Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam (Barkuloo et al., 1993).
Outside of Florida, spawning populations are thought to persist in the
Choctawhatchee and Conecuh Rivers, Alabama; the Pascagoula River,
Mississippi; the Ouachita River, Arkansas; and, the Missouri,
Gasconade, Osage and Meramec Rivers, Missouri.
Alabama shad belong to the family Clupeidae and are closely related
to, as well as similar in appearance and life history to, the American
shad (A. sapidissima). They also resemble the skipjack herring (A.
chrysochloris), which occurs in the same areas. Defining
characteristics of the Alabama shad are their upper jaw with a distinct
median notch, and the number of gill rakers (41 to 48) on the lower
limb of the anterior gill arch. Alabama shad differ from other members
of their family in the same area in that the lower jaw does not
protrude beyond the upper jaw, black spots are present along the length
of the lower jaw, and the dorsal fin lacks an elongate filament.
Alabama shad are a schooling species. Research in the Pascagoula
River system indicates that Alabama shad shift between riverine
habitats during their first year (age 0). In early summer (June to mid-
July) in the Pascagoula River system, small juveniles use sandbar
habitats, then switch to open channel and steep bank habitats
containing large woody debris in late summer and fall (Mickle, 2006).
Within habitat types, they tend to select cooler water temperatures
(Mickle, 2006). While little is known of the Alabama shad's thermal
tolerance, alosids in general are notoriously sensitive to thermal
stress (Beitinger et al., 2000; McCauley and Binkowski, 1982). Little
is known of the species' behavior and habitat use in marine
environments. Juveniles remain in fresh water for the first 6 to 8
months of their lives, feeding on small fishes and invertebrates (Ross,
2001). Adults broadcast spawn in the spring or early summer over coarse
sand and gravel sediments swept by moderate currents when river
temperatures are between 18 and 23 degrees Celsius. Males appear to
enter the river at earlier dates and lower water temperatures than
females (Laurence and Yerger, 1966). Male and female spawning site
arrival also varies by age (Mettee and O'Neil, 2003). Adults likely do
not feed during the spawning run; otherwise, they are thought to forage
on small fish. Females become larger than males, reaching 18 inches
(457 mm), while males reach 16.5 inches (419 mm). Age-2 adults are the
most prevalent age class of spawning adults. Repeat spawning is common,
but the percentage of returning spawners is highly variable among
years. Annual fecundity ranges from 40,000 to 360,000
[[Page 9323]]
eggs per female. Juvenile growth rate is about 1.2 inches (30 mm) per
month from July to September and then 0.4 inches (10 mm) per month
until December. Juveniles enter the seawater in late summer/early
autumn when they are about 2 to 5 inches (50 to 130 mm). Some natal
homing tendency is evidenced by genetic differences among drainage
basins (Bowen, 2005). The Alabama shad is relatively short lived (up to
6 years).
Analysis of the Petition
First, we evaluated whether the petition presented the information
indicated in 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2). The petition clearly indicates the
administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and common
name of the taxonomically valid species involved; contains a narrative
justification for the recommended measure, describing the distribution
of the species, as well as the threats faced by the species; and is
accompanied by supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic
references. However, the petition does not include information required
under 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(ii-iii) on the past and present numbers of
the species, or information regarding the status of the species over
all or a significant portion of its range, other than conclusions and
opinions. We have additional information in our files, acquired since
our last evaluation of Alabama shad in 2004 and its designation as a
Species of Concern, on the abundance and age structure of the
Apalachicola population of Alabama shad, which we discuss in more
detail below.
The petition states that Alabama shad have likely experienced
dramatic long-term population declines, as well as short-term
population declines of as much as 30 percent, and attributes these
trends to habitat loss and degradation caused by impoundments,
pollution, dredging, and other factors. The petition also states that
commercial fishing in the Ohio River was a threat historically, and
even though there is no longer a commercial fishery, intentional
eradication or indirect impacts of fishing may be contributing to the
species' declining status. The petition states that it is unknown
whether any occurrences of Alabama shad are ``appropriately
protected,'' noting the lack of fish passage at locks and dams as a
primary management concern, and cites lack of regulatory protections
associated with status classifications assigned Alabama shad by
NatureServe, NMFS, and the States of Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia.
Other factors, such as pollution, sedimentation, and drought, are cited
in the petition as contributing to declines in shad populations. Thus,
the petition states that four of the five causal factors in section
4(a)(1) of the ESA are adversely affecting the continued existence of
Alabama shad: Habitat modification and degradation due to dams,
dredging, and pollution; overutilization in historical commercial
fisheries and continued indirect effects from fishing and eradication
programs; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms associated with
current status classifications; and other natural or manmade factors,
such as pollution, sedimentation, and drought.
Information on Species Status
The petition states that Alabama shad has undergone a major
geographic contraction of its historical range, which originally
spanned the Gulf Coast from the Suwannee River, Florida, to the
Mississippi River, and westward in the Ouachita River system (Arkansas
and Louisiana) to eastern Oklahoma. The species' current range is
stated to include the Apalachicola River system below Jim Woodruff Lock
and Dam in Florida; the Pascagoula River drainage in Mississippi; and,
the Conecuh, Choctawhatchee, and Mobile Rivers in Alabama. The petition
describes Alabama shad populations as small and states that the species
is considered very rare in large portions of its historical range. The
petition cites a NatureServe (2008) estimate that only 6 to 20
populations of Alabama shad remain. The petition also includes an
observation by Mettee et al. (1996) that there are only two known
remaining spawning runs in the Mississippi River System, with other
spawning runs occurring in the Florida Panhandle and southern Alabama,
and the conclusions by Mettee and O'Neil (2003) that spawning
populations of shad are ``relatively small.'' Though the petition
describes Alabama shad populations as ``small'' and the species as
``rare throughout its historic range'' and concludes that spawning
populations are ``relatively small,'' it does not present estimates for
historical or current abundance of Alabama shad for comparison and
evaluation. While the petition states that 6 to 20 populations of
Alabama shad exist today, it does not state the location of those
populations, the size of the populations, or the number, locations, and
size of historical Alabama shad populations for comparison.
The petition cites various status classifications made by the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American
Fisheries Society (AFS), NatureServe, and NMFS to support its assertion
that Alabama shad should be listed as threatened or endangered under
the ESA. We do not give any particular weight to classifications
established by other scientific and conservation organizations, which
may or may not be based on criteria that directly correspond to the
listing standards of the ESA. However, we have reviewed and evaluated
the underlying information used to develop the various classifications
given to Alabama shad by entities listed in the petition.
The petition cites the IUCN's classification of Alabama shad as
``endangered,'' which the IUCN defines as ``a very high risk of
extinction in the wild.'' The IUCN bases its species classifications on
evidence indicating that the species meets any of the five general
criteria (A through E) that relate to population size (A), rate of
population decline (B), reductions in geographic range (C), specific
population sizes relative to rates of decline (D), and quantification
of extinction risk (E). Based on its 1996 assessment, the IUCN
classified Alabama shad as endangered because it believed the species
met one of the five criteria (B). Specifically, the IUCN assigned
Alabama shad a generic criterion of ``B1+2e,'' which indicates (B) the
extent of occurrence is estimated to be less than 5,000 km\2\ or the
area of occupancy is estimated to be less than 500 km\2\, with (1)
either severely fragmented populations or the species is known to exist
at no more than five locations, and (2) continuing inferred, observed,
or projected decline in (e) the number of mature individuals. However,
this generic criterion does not describe how the 5,000 km\2\ area of
occurrence or the 500 km\2\ area of occupancy were determined to be the
thresholds below which a species is facing ``a very high risk of
extinction'' and does not provide information on how the current areal
extent of Alabama shad was determined. While the IUCN criterion
indicates that the number of mature individuals is declining, no
abundance estimates were provided to quantify that decline. In fact,
the IUCN recently updated its classification of Alabama shad (version
2010.4), relying on a more current 2007 assessment of the species
(citing NatureServe as the ``assessor''), and reclassified it from
``endangered'' to ``data deficient.'' While the IUCN notes declines in
the population and geographic range of the species, it states in its
justification of the current classification that ``there has been no
quantification of the rate of
[[Page 9324]]
range or population decline'' of the Alabama shad (IUCN, 2010).
NatureServe (2008) gave the species a rank of ``G3'' or
``vulnerable'' and attributed the rank to the species' limited
distribution in Gulf of Mexico tributaries, reduction in population due
to the effects of dams in blocking spawning migration, and degradation
of habitat by siltation and pollutants. The petition cites NatureServe
(2008) in its assertion that Alabama shad have experienced as much as a
30 percent population decline in the short term, with dramatic long-
term declines. NatureServe (2008) defines short-term trends for species
as the observed, estimated, inferred, suspected, or projected short-
term trend over a period spanning the past 10 years or 3 generations
(whichever is longer, up to a maximum of 100 years). The full
description of the short-term trends for Alabama shad in the
NatureServe (2008) source is ``declining to stable, with +/- 10 percent
fluctuation to 30 percent decline'' and notes that while Alabama shad
are ``probably'' declining, the ``rate of decline is unknown.''
NatureServe (2008) also describes range-wide trends over the ``long-
term'' (covering an approximately 200-year period) in very broad terms:
``substantial decline to relatively stable (25 percent change to 75
percent decline).'' The range that the percentage of population change/
decline represents is very large and demonstrates a great deal of
uncertainty in the actual rate of change in Alabama shad populations,
making reliable quantification of long-term population trends difficult
at best. The ability to interpret NatureServe's (2008) quantification
of long-term trends is further confounded because there is no
description of how these percentages were determined. While NatureServe
(2008) is cited in the petition as the major source presenting the
declines in Alabama shad, the actual descriptions of the short- and
long-term trends by NatureServe actually allow for stability and even
some increases in Alabama shad populations.
Alabama shad were designated as ``threatened'' (in imminent danger
of becoming endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its
range) by AFS in 2008 based on (1) present or threatened destruction,
modification, or reduction of habitat or range, and (2) over-
exploitation for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes. The AFS designation does not provide any information on
historical or current numbers, populations, or rates of decline, and
also refers to NatureServe's (2008) ranking of ``G3/vulnerable''
(discussed in the previous section of this finding).
As previously noted, NMFS transferred Alabama shad to the Species
of Concern list from the Candidate Species list in 2004. The entirety
of the scientific and commercial information presented in the petition
on the apparent population decline of Alabama shad and the threats that
contributed to the apparent decline were considered by NMFS in its last
evaluation of Alabama shad in 2004 and resulted in its designation as a
Species of Concern. Further, much of the information on the status and
threats presented in the petition is included in the NMFS Species of
Concern fact sheet for Alabama shad, which is publicly available on the
Internet (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/alabamashad_detailed.pdf). The fact sheet describes the rationale for the Species
of Concern designation, citing Alabama shad's rarity throughout much of
its former range and on-going threats that may have contributed to its
decline, such as dams, poor water quality, siltation, habitat
alteration, dredging, bycatch, and thermal stress. By definition, a
Species of Concern is one for which we have some concerns regarding
status and threats, but for which insufficient information is available
to indicate a need to list the species under the ESA. We believe that
no new substantial information (information not already considered by
NMFS in designating Alabama shad as a Species of Concern) is presented
in the petition.
In addition to these classifications by national and international
organizations, Alabama shad has received several State classifications/
designations. Mississippi lists the Alabama shad as a ``Tier 1''
``species of greatest conservation need,'' defined as ``species that
are in need of immediate conservation action and/or research because of
extreme rarity, restricted distribution, unknown or decreasing
population trends, specialized habitat needs, and/or habitat
vulnerability. Some species may be considered critically imperiled and
at risk of extinction/extirpation.'' Alabama also lists Alabama shad as
a ``species of greatest conservation need'' with a priority of ``2.'' A
priority of ``2'' is considered by Alabama to be a ``high conservation
concern'' and is given to species that meet three of the following
factors: Rarity; very limited, disjunct, or peripheral distribution;
decreasing population trend/population viability problems; and/or,
specialized habitat needs/habitat vulnerability due to natural/human-
caused factors. This designation notes that timely research and/or
conservation action is needed. Neither Mississippi nor Alabama indicate
which of the multiple factors resulted in the ``Tier 1'' and ``Priority
2'' classifications, and no population abundance estimates were
provided by either State. The shad is also listed as a ``species of
special concern'' by the State of Georgia and is given a State ranking
of ``S1,'' defined as ``critically imperiled in the State because of
extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences).'' Georgia lists the State
status of Alabama shad as ``threatened,'' defined as ``a species which
is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future
throughout all or parts of its range.'' While Georgia's ``S1'' ranking
indicates that there are ``5 or fewer occurrences'' in the State, it is
unclear what constitutes an ``occurrence,'' and it does not provide
information on population abundance.
The classification of Alabama shad as ``data deficient,''
``vulnerable,'' ``threatened,'' and a ``Species of Concern'' by
national and international organizations, as well as their designations
as ``Tier 1'' and ``Priority 2'' ``species of greatest conservation
need'' by Mississippi and Alabama, respectively, and an ``S1''
``threatened'' ``species of special concern'' by Georgia, demonstrate
that there is general concern about the status of Alabama shad.
However, it also demonstrates that there is no consensus on the
severity of the decline and magnitude of the threats faced by Alabama
shad. We reviewed the underlying information for these classifications
and found that none of the sources cited in the petition provide
current population sizes of Alabama shad or historical population sizes
for comparison and insight into any rate of decline of the species that
may be occurring.
In addition to the information presented in the petition, we
evaluated information in our own files, particularly new information
obtained since our last review of Alabama shad in 2004 that resulted in
its designation as a Species of Concern. Most of these sources
contained in our files are also publicly available on the Internet.
The first population abundances of Alabama shad, estimated for the
Apalachicola River population, were published by Ely et al. (2008). The
population sizes varied greatly during the 2005 to 2007 study period
(approximately 2,000 to 26,000 Alabama shad), and were described by Ely
et al. (2008) as lower than expected based on a comparison with
American shad in the Savannah and Altamaha Rivers (between 100,000 and
200,000
[[Page 9325]]
American shad). Given the similarities in life history characteristics
of Alabama and American shad and the similarities in discharge,
drainage area, and latitude between the Apalachicola River and the
other Atlantic Coast rivers, the authors expected the populations of
adult Alabama shad and American shad to be similar. Ingram (2007)
compared growth and age class structure of Alabama shad in the
Apalachicola River in 2005 and 2006 with studies conducted in 1967 and
1972 and indicated that the current structure, with fewer age classes
and an earlier age at maturity, was indicative of a declining
population and asserted that ``concern over the long-term
sustainability of Alabama shad populations appears to be justified.''
Ingram (2007) also noted that populations comprised of few year classes
tend to rebound quickly when environmental conditions change
(Rutherford et al., 1992), but also tend to be less stable than
populations comprised of more year classes and may be extirpated under
prolonged periods of degraded environment (Everhart and Youngs, 1981).
Additionally, Ely et al. (2008) noted that fluctuations in abundance of
American shad are well documented (Hattala et al., 1996; Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission, 1998; Moring, 2005) and variations
in year-class strength typically observed in this genus suggest that
populations of Alabama shad are capable of recovering quickly to
historical levels under favorable conditions.
The resilience of Alabama shad and the species' ability to respond
positively to conservation efforts is evident in the Apalachicola-
Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River System. Beginning in 2005, a
cooperative study supported by multiple local, academic, State, and
Federal conservation partners, including NMFS, started tracking Alabama
shad and other fish species in the Apalachicola River (USFWS, 2008;
TNC, 2010; Ely et al., 2008). The study also evaluated the feasibility
of passing fish upriver of the Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam (JWLD),
located at the confluence of the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, which
presents the first major impediment on the Apalachicola River to the
upstream migration of Alabama shad to their historical spawning
grounds. The results of this collaborative study showed that the
existing lock could be used to pass fish upriver where they could
potentially reproduce in great numbers. Based on these findings, in
2008, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began operating the lock
at JWLD to allow fish passage. The locks are operated twice a day to
correspond with the natural movement patterns of migrating fish during
spawning seasons--February through May each year. Alabama shad have
been found to pass upstream of the lock with 45 percent efficiency
(Young, 2010) and, as a result, can access over 150 miles of historical
habitat and spawning areas in the ACF River System for the first time
in more than 50 years (TNC, 2010). The current 2010 population estimate
for the ACF River System of 98,469 Alabama shad obtained as a result of
this study (Young, 2010) is almost four times larger than the previous
high estimate of 25,935 obtained in 2005 (Ely et al., 2008). Since age-
2 adults are the most prevalent age class of spawning adults, the large
increase in the Alabama shad population in the Apalachicola in 2010 is
likely a direct result of JWLD being operated for fish passage
beginning in 2008.
The information presented in the petition on the status and trends
of Alabama shad populations does not present new substantial
information indicating that listing as threatened or endangered under
the ESA may be warranted. While the petition notes that Alabama shad
populations are small and there has been an overall reduction in its
geographic range, none of the sources cited provide current population
sizes of Alabama shad or historical population sizes for comparison and
insight into any rate of decline of the species that may be occurring.
Further, the majority of the information contained in the petition was
already considered in NMFS' 2004 evaluation of Alabama shad that
resulted in its retention on the Species of Concern list. In addition
to the petition, we also reviewed information in our own files. Since
our evaluation in 2004, the first abundance estimates for Alabama shad
were obtained in the Apalachicola River. The current 2010 estimate for
that river is four times higher than the previous high estimate, likely
evidence of the success of conservation efforts that resulted in fish
passage at JWLD beginning in 2008. While we only have population
estimates from the Apalachicola River, information on the status of the
species contained in the petition and our files does not indicate that
the listing of Alabama shad as threatened or endangered under the ESA
may be warranted. We will next consider how threats facing Alabama shad
may be contributing to their extinction risk.
Information on Threats to the Species
We evaluated whether the information in the petition and contained
in our files concerning the extent and severity of one or more of the
ESA section 4(a)(1) factors suggests these impacts and threats may be
posing a risk of extinction for Alabama shad that is cause for concern.
The bulk of the information in the petition on threats is an overview
of many of the past and ongoing categories of threats that are believed
to have contributed to the decline of 404 aquatic, riparian, and
wetland species in the Southeast. The majority of this information on
threats is either general for all species in the Southeast,
specifically linked to species other than Alabama shad, or
characterized in areas where shad are not known to occur. The following
discussion on threats focuses on the information presented in the
section of the petition on Alabama shad.
Habitat Modification and Destruction
The petition states that Alabama shad have experienced widespread
declines because of loss of habitat to dams, rapid urbanization,
pollution, and other factors (Mettee and O'Neil, 2003; Mirarchi et al.,
2004; NMFS, 2008). The petition states that shad have been cut off from
many historical spawning areas by dams and locks (Robison and Buchanan,
1988; Etnier, 1997; Mirarchi et al., 2004) and provides the example of
dams built on the lower Tombigbee and Alabama Rivers in the 1960s
resulting in ``steep declines in shad populations'' in the Mobile River
Basin (Barkuloo et al., 1993; Mettee and O'Neil, 2003; NMFS, 2008;
NatureServe, 2008). The petition also states that agricultural
operations, dredging, and possible reservoir construction for water
supply on major tributaries are major threats to remaining populations
in Alabama (Mettee, 2004) and that these threats likely apply
throughout the species' range. NMFS listed dredging as a factor for the
Alabama shad's decline in its rationale for the 2004 Species of Concern
designation. Dredging can remove necessary spawning substrate, increase
siltation, and reduce water quality. However, neither the petition nor
our files contain specific information on the nature or the degree of
threat to Alabama shad from dredging. We also noted the presence of
locks and dams as factors in the decline of Alabama shad in our Species
of Concern designation, including the specific example cited in the
petition of reduction in shad populations in the Mobile River Basin
resulting from dam construction on the Tombigbee and
[[Page 9326]]
Alabama Rivers. We further noted in our evaluation of the impacts of
dams on Alabama shad that the population in the Pascagoula River is
small, even though that river lacks dams and other barriers to
migration. While dredging and dams represent generalized threats to the
species, as stated in the petition and by us in our rationale for
designating Alabama shad as a Species of Concern, the petition does not
provide substantial information detailing how the significance of these
threats to the species indicates that listing may be warranted. The
petition cites reservoir construction as a threat to the species, with
recent information that new reservoirs are currently proposed on Murder
Creek, the Little Choctawhatchee, and on smaller tributaries ``that
further threaten the shad'' (SFC and CBD, 2010). However, the petition
does not state whether Alabama shad are present in these locations and
does not describe, either quantitatively or qualitatively, the
anticipated effects (e.g., blockage of spawning migrations or
modifications of downstream habitat) to Alabama shad from the proposed
reservoirs. Further, the petition asserts that habitat loss due to
rapid urbanization and pollution has contributed to the widespread
declines in Alabama shad populations, but provides no explanation or
examples describing how or where this has occurred. Therefore, we find
that the petition does not present new substantial information on the
threat to Alabama shad from habitat destruction and modification
indicating that listing may be warranted.
Overutilization
The petition states that commercial fishing in the Ohio River was a
threat historically, but with the decline in fish numbers, there is no
longer a commercial fishery (NatureServe, 2008). The petition cites AFS
(Jelks et al., 2008), which classified this species as threatened in
part because of over-exploitation for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes, including intentional eradication
or indirect impacts of fishing. As part of the rationale for the
Alabama shad's 2004 Species of Concern designation, we noted that early
commercial harvest of Alabama shad may have contributed to its decline,
but that the catches were small and the fishery was short lived. NMFS
(2004) also noted that threats to Alabama shad may include bycatch
(i.e., indirect impacts of fishing, as stated by the petition), but
neither the petition nor our files provide additional details on the
nature or degree of the threat of bycatch to Alabama shad. There is no
information in our files, nor does the petition provide sources or
citations, for the historical or current existence of a recreational
fishery of Alabama shad, scientific or educational activities that
could threaten shad, or the nature or location of programs intended to
eradicate the species. Therefore, we find the petition does not present
new substantial information on the threat to Alabama shad from
overutilization indicating that listing may be warranted.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petition states that it is not known whether any occurrences of
Alabama shad are appropriately protected and cites NatureServe (2008)
that a ``primary management need is the creation of fishways so that
shad can migrate through or around locks and dams.'' Dams are
documented to block anadromous species, such as Alabama shad, from
accessing habitat upstream, while also degrading habitat downstream.
Hydropower dams are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) under the Federal Power Act (FPA). The FPA provides
for cooperation between FERC and other Federal and State agencies,
including resource agencies, in licensing and relicensing power
projects, including the authority to issue mandatory fishway
prescriptions. However, the timing of project relicensing (once every
30 to 50 years per facility) and the existence of dams, such as those
operated by the Army Corps of Engineers, to which the FPA does not
apply, can hinder the efficacy of the FPA. Even where fish passage
currently exists, passage efficiency varies and is often less than 100
percent. The petition does not quantify the amount of historical
Alabama shad habitat that is blocked by dams or the reductions in
abundance of shad resulting from the lack of passage at dams. However,
the presence of dams and the lack of passage is recognized by NMFS as a
general threat to Alabama shad and was documented as part of the
rationale for its 2004 Species of Concern designation. As part of the
proactive conservation initiative under the Species of Concern program,
we are a partner in the multi-agency collaborative project at JWLD that
resulted in the USACE operating the lock for purposes of fish passage
during spawning season. This project appears to have been highly
successful at enhancing the Alabama shad population in the ACF River
System.
As previously discussed, the petition notes classifications of the
Alabama shad by various States within its range. Mississippi lists the
shad as a Tier 1 ``species of greatest conservation need.'' This
designation provides no regulatory protection for the shad. Alabama
also lists the species as a ``species of greatest conservation need''
with a priority of ``2.'' Although the State of Alabama has developed a
``comprehensive wildlife strategy,'' this strategy is entirely
voluntary and provides no regulatory protection for the shad. The
petition also states that there is no evidence that adherence to the
strategy will ensure the survival and recovery of the shad. The shad is
also listed as a species of special concern by the State of Georgia and
NMFS, though these designations, like the others, do not provide any
regulatory protection. Other than fish passage at dams discussed in the
previous section, the petition does not indicate what threats require
adequate regulation by these States or NMFS. Therefore, we have
determined that information in the petition and contained in our files
does not constitute substantial information indicating existing
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to prevent, or are contributing
to, the extinction risk for Alabama shad to the extent that listing as
threatened or endangered under the ESA may be warranted.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors
The petition lists pollution ``from a variety of sources'' and
drought as additional threats to Alabama shad. As stated in the
discussion of habitat modification and destruction, the petition cites
Mettee (2004), which lists increased sedimentation, pesticide runoff
from agricultural operations, and prolonged drought as major threats to
populations in Alabama, and Metee and O'Neil (2003), which lists
siltation and water pollution as causes of decreasing shad populations.
Siltation and poor water quality are already documented as part of the
rationale for the Alabama shad's 2004 Species of Concern designation by
NMFS, and the petition does not provide additional information
indicating the significance of these generalized threats to Alabama
shad. Therefore, there is no new substantial information indicating
listing may be warranted as a result of these threats. Prolonged
drought is recognized as a potential threat to riverine and anadromous
species, as it can decrease water depths and velocity, increase thermal
stress, and exacerbate existing water quality issues. However, the
petition does not present information that indicates the extent to
which Alabama shad have been affected by drought or evaluate how their
current
[[Page 9327]]
extinction risk would be increased to an unacceptable level by the
onset of future droughts. Therefore, we find that the petition does not
present new substantial information on the threat to Alabama shad from
other natural and manmade factors, such as water pollution, siltation
and drought, indicating listing as threatened or endangered under the
ESA may be warranted.
Petition Finding
We have reviewed the petition, the literature cited in the
petition, and other literature and information contained in our files.
We find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the requested listing actions
may be warranted. Alabama shad is currently designated as a NMFS
Species of Concern. We periodically review the species on the Species
of Concern list to evaluate whether they should be retained or removed
from the list or proposed for listing under the ESA. For the Alabama
shad, NMFS is currently scheduled to release a Species of Concern
review in 2011.
References Cited
A complete list of all references is available upon request from
the Protected Resources Division of the NMFS Southeast Regional Office
(see ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: February 11, 2011.
Eric C. Schwaab,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-3628 Filed 2-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P