Atlantic Sturgeon –Listing under theEndangered Species ActMarch 15, 20122• March 2007 – NMFS, FWS, USGS completed status review• October 6, 2009 – Natural Resources Defense Council petitioned NOAA Fisheries tolist Atlantic sturgeon under the ESA and designate critical habitat• January 6, 2010 – NOAA Fisheries published positive 90-day finding inFederalRegisterindicating petitioned action may be warranted; petition establishes statutorytimeline for publication of proposed listing determination by October 6, 2010• October 6, 2010 - Proposed rules published ( 75 FR 61872 and 75 FR 61904)• February 6, 2012 - Final rules published (77 FR 5880 and 77 FR 5914)• April 6, 2012 – Effective date of the listingsTimeline: Listing Atlantic Sturgeon3Listing is for 5 DistinctPopulation Segments(DPSs)Gulf of Maine DPSNew York Bight DPSChesapeake Bay DPSCarolina DPSSouth Atlantic DPSMarine range for all DPSsextends from Canada to FL4Five Factors under the ESA• Factor A - poor water quality, dredging, dams/barriers prevent access toimportant spawning habitat, and water availability (in the South) due toallocation for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses, as well asdrought and climate change• Factor B - bycatch in commercial and recreational fisheries is asignificant threat – sink gill net fisheries (e.g., monkfish, dogfish) aresignificant sources of mortality• Factor C – disease and predation are not affecting the long termpersistence of the species• Factor D - primary threats identified above are not adequately addressedthrough existing regulatory mechanisms• Factor E - Current impacts from vessel strikes represent a substantialrisk to the long-term persistenceof the Chesapeake Bay and New YorkBight Distinct Population Segments5Conservation Efforts• 1998 Amendment to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries CommissionFishery Management Plan• Penobscot River Restoration Project• Multi-state conservation program (Maine, New Hampshire,Massachusetts)• Hudson River Estuary Management Plan• James River Restoration Plan• St. Mary’s Fish Restoration Committee Project• Ongoing research efforts in many river systems provide much neededinformation.Conclusion:While these efforts provide some benefit to Atlanticsturgeon, they do not obviate the need to list them under the ESA6Gulf of Maine Distinct PopulationSegment• Significant risk from bycatch; moderate risk from water quality anddredging• Spawning known to occur in only 1 spawning river, possibly in one other• Positive signs include observations of Atlantic sturgeon in rivers fromwhich sturgeon observations have notbeen reported for many years andpotentially higher catch-per-unit-effort levels than in the past• These signs coupled with the fact thatsome of the threats to the DistinctPopulation Segment are moderate led tothe conclusion that the speciesis likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, but is not nowendangeredConclusion: Gulf of Maine DPS Threatened7New York Bight & ChesapeakeBay Distinct Population Segments• Spawning populations are thought to be one to two orders ofmagnitude below historical levels• Significant risks posed by bycatch, water quality, vessel strikes,dredging• Spawning occurs in two rivers in the New York Bight DistinctPopulation Segment and at least one river in the Chesapeake DistinctPopulation SegmentConclusion: NYB and CB DPSs endangered8Carolina and South AtlanticDistinct Population Segments• Estimated to be between 1% and6% of historical populationabundance• Significant risks posed by dams, dredging, reduced water quality andquantity, bycatch, and the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms tocontrol these threats.• Spawning occurs in 11 rivers in the Southeast, but spawningpopulations have been extirpated in 5to 9 rivers in the SoutheastConclusion: Carolina and SA DPSs endangered9Comments and Concerns from thepublic• Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission opposed the listing citingmanagement measures they have implemented• Reasons cited for opposing the listingby some states and some membersof the general public:• lack of data• the methods used to determine the Distinct Population Segments• disagreement with the threats assessment (e.g., water quality is improving,bycatch is not as high as reported in the proposed rules)• listing will not prevent impacts to the species but will delay necessary scientificresearch and cause economic hardship• Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission coast-wide moratorium is working,and the Commission should remain the sole management authority forAtlantic sturgeon• no new information between1998 and now to suggest that listing Atlanticsturgeon is warranted10Additional actions followingthe listing• Critical habitat: must be designated within1 year of the final listing rule (i.e., byFebruary 6, 2013)• “Five –year status reviews”: required to ensure accuracy of listingclassifications• Recovery Planning:• Draft Recovery Plan should be completed 18 months after listing; finalPlan completed 2.5 years after listing• Recovery Team will develop down-listing and de-listing criteria and actionsneeded to achieve recovery• ASMFC’s sturgeon technical committee and States will have input into thePlan• Public input and engagement is sought in the recovery planning process11Questions?12Post listing• Coordination with Fishery Management Councils,states, ASMFC• Final 4(d) rule• Scientific research permits• Section 7 consultation13Coordination• Coordinate with other federal agencies (Section 7)• Webinar/conference call - 3/26• Coordinate with states and ASMFC to address takes in statefisheries and other activities (Sections 6 & 10)• Webinar/conference call – 3/2214Section 6• Cooperative agreement between NMFS and state to workcollaboratively to enhance the conservation of threatened, endangered,candidate, and proposed species.• Up to the state to implement and maintain an active conservationprogram.• States with cooperative agreements may compete for federal fundingthrough the annualSpecies Recovery Grants to Statesopportunity.• Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,and Virginia currently have cooperative agreements with NMFS.• Agreements reviewed on annual basis to ensure that states aremaintaining active and effective conservation programs for listedspecies.15Section 10• Individuals planning to conduct any activity resulting in the"take" of an endangered or threatened species must possessa permit.• Two components to authorize different types of take:—Section 10(a)(1)(A) - intentional take of listed species forscientific research or to enhance the propagation andsurvival of the species.—Section 10(a)(1)(B) - non-federal entities (e.g., states, localgovernments, private citizens) to unintentionally take alisted species as long as the take is incidental to otherwiselawful activities.16•Advance permitting system to help Atlanticsturgeon researchers continue their work•12 permits expected to be issued by or close toeffective date.•Permits are issued by F/PR in HeadquartersSection 10(a)(1)(A) - Scientificresearch permits17Section 10(a)(1)(B)• Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit - applicant must develop a conservationplan (CP) or habitat conservation plan (HCP).• HCPs• planning documents that describe the effects of the proposed take,potential minimization and/or mitigation measures, and funding forthe program.• include both listed and unlisted species• currently working on HCPs for hydropower operations• discussing HCP process with ASMFC primarily re: state fisherytakes.• program not delegated to the regions but specific projects are18•Need to finalize a rule, under section 4(d) of the ESA, tospecify prohibitions on take, as well as exemptions to take,for the threatened Gulf of Maine DPS.•Proposed rule published June 10, 2011 (76 FR 34023)•Applied all Section 9 prohibitions with limitedexceptions for scientific research, salvage andresuscitation•Sought public comment•Expect to publish final rule in JuneFinal 4(d) rule19Coordination cont.• Coordinate with Council staff, PDTs, Committees, APs, etc.on potential measures to include in BiOps to reduce bycatchin federal fisheries (Section 7)• MAFMC Sturgeon Committee meeting - 3/19• NEFMC Groundfish AP meeting - 3/29• NEFMC Meeting – April 24-2620Questions?21Section 7 Consultation• Section 7 of the ESA directs NMFS to ensure that allFederal actions are not likelyto jeopardize the continuedexistence of any listed species• Federal action = any discretionary action that isauthorized, funded or carried out by a Federal agency• Jeopardy = an appreciable reduction in the likelihood ofsurvival and recovery of the species in the wild• For Atlantic sturgeon, each DPS is a unique species(range of all DPSs overlaps)• Must make a jeopardy determination for each listedspecies (e.g., each DPS)22What are we doing now?We have reviewed existing Biological Opinions todetermine which ones consider actions that may affectAtlantic sturgeonThese include actions authorized, funded or carried out by:NMFS, Army Corps of Engineers, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission23Reinitiation of ConsultationsInformals—most informal consultations are not likely to need to be reinitiatedbut there could be cases where this is necessary (e.g., NLAA forshortnose sturgeon but may be incidental take of Atlanticsturgeon)—Since Atlantic sturgeon were proposed for listing, we haveprovided action agencies with “technical assistance” consideringeffects of proposed actions on Atlantic sturgeonFormals—We have identified over 60 existing Biological Opinions. Ofthese, over 50 consider actions that may interact with Atlanticsturgeon. We have identified approximately 20 “high priority”Opinions that we are working to get completed as soon aspossible. This includes 11 Fishery Management Plans.24Biological OpinionsThese Opinions have been or will be reinitiated soon:—11 FMPs: scallop, multispecies, dogfish, monkfish, skate,squid/mackerel/butterfish, summer flounder/scup/black seabass, bluefish, lobster, red crab, ocean quahog, tilefish—NEFSC surveys (e.g., spring and fall bottom trawl)—NEAMAP—NEFSC Penobscot River surveys—Several Army Corps authorized dredging projects25Biological Opinions...Additionally, we are likely to reinitiate consultation on:—Nuclear power plant operations authorized by the NRC—Water quality issues regulated by EPA—Penobscot River dam removal project—USCG activities—Other bridge and in-water construction activities26What does a formal consultation do?Biological Opinion establishes the “status of the species”considering what is known about each spawningpopulation and DPS and the threats that are faced withinand outside the action area – together, this informationestablishes the “baseline”The jeopardy analysis examines the “future” with andwithout the action under consideration to determine if theproposed action is likely to appreciably reduce thespecies likelihood of survival and recovery27Effects Analysis in the Opinion will...In addition to whale and sea turtle analysis, we will...• Determine the effect of the action under consideration,as it currently operates/is proposed, on each DPS ofAtlantic sturgeon• Establish a number of Atlantic sturgeon likely to becaptured/injured/killed per DPS• Determine if that annual loss is likely to appreciablyreduce the likelihood of survival and recovery28If we conclude “No Jeopardy”...• Provide an Incidental Take Statement that exempts a certainamount of take from the ESA Section 9 prohibitions on take• Level of exempted take is the amount of take we anticipate toresult from the proposed action operating as is• ITS also includes Reasonable and Prudent Measures that arenon-discretionary and are “reasonable and appropriate” tominimize and monitor take• Terms and Conditions are required. These serve toimplement the RPMs• In most cases, the action taking place with RPMs in placeshould result in less take than was exempted• The “minor change rule”: RPMs can not alter the basicdesign, location, scope, duration, or timing of the action, andmust involve only minor changes29If we conclude “Jeopardy”• Must develop at least one Reasonable and Prudent Alternative• RPA modifies the existing operations of the action to reduce the number ofmortalities to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy• Can have multiple RPAs that can be chosen from as long as they all meet therelevant conditions• RPA can require one major change in operations or several smaller changesprovided that together the small changes had enough of an impact to removejeopardy.• RPA is likely to have a “time frame”associated with it (e.g., “must modifyoperations to reduce bycatch by X% in X years)• Any RPA must meet several conditions:— can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action,— can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authorityand jurisdiction,— is economically and technologically feasible; and,— removes jeopardy.30Once an RPA is developed...• Implementation of the RPA is mandatory• phased in approach to implementation possible provided we canjustify that any delay in implementation is not likely to jeopardizethe species• Analysis demonstrating that the action carried out pursuant tothat RPA will result in mortalities at a low enough rate so thatthe action is not likely to jeopardize any listed species (e.g.,any DPS of Atlantic sturgeon)• Incidental Take Statement provided for the modified action• ITS provides a take exemption (e.g., number of Atlanticsturgeon likely to be captured/injured/killed in modified action)with non-discretionary RPMs and Terms and ConditionsEffortbygeartypeandmeshsize,withNEFOPandASMsturgeonrecordsSturgeonrecords;2006‐2010Effort;2006‐2010average47Questions?NEFOPObserverDataGeneticMixedStockAnalysisObserverDatan=8941‐51%NewYorkBight91%Hudson9%Delaware3‐13%GulfofMaine100%Kennebec24‐34%SouthAtlantic11‐21%Chesapeake100%James0‐6%St.John(Canada)NEFSCBycatchReport•Used2006‐2010datatoprovideanestimateofdiscardsofAtlanticsturgeon•OtterTrawlandSinkGillnetGear•OnlypresentsinformationforNortheastFisheries•Twomethodswerepresented:design‐basedandmodel‐basedestimator•DesignBasedestimator:expandstheratiooftotalsturgeontakestototallandingsbythetotallandingswithinacell•Model‐basedestimator:incorporatesthemixtureofspeciesassociatedwiththeobservedtrips.providedmorerigorousresultsNEFSCbycatch report...•NEFSCconsidersuseofthemodelbasedapproachmoreappropriate•AllocatingtakestoFMPisdifficultbasedontheavailableinformation•Modelbasedapproachisabletoallocatetakestoottertrawlvs.sinkgillnetModelBasedEstimates•Onaverage(2006‐2010)– 3,118AtlanticsturgeonarecapturedinNERFMPfisherieseachyear(sinkgillnetandottertrawl)•Ottertrawlandsinkgillnet:nolandingsattributabletoherring,riverherring,salmon,tilefish,redcraborsurfclams/oceanquahogwhensturgeonweretaken•Mortalityrateinottertrawlsisapproximately5%*Mortalityrateinsinkgillnetisapproximately20%*(exceptgillnetswhereprimaryhaultargetismonkfishwheremortalityrateis27%)**allmortalityratesarebasedonobservercategorizingtakeasdeadoralivewithnoadjustmentforpost‐releasesurvival.Bycatch Estimates•OtterTrawl:2006‐2010average1,548annualencounters(range1,338‐1,794)•Approximately77mortalities/year(5%mortalityrate)•SinkGillnet:2006‐2010average1,597annualencounters(range858‐2,053)•Approximately320mortalities/year(20%mortalityrate)•Theseestimatesincludetripswhereno“FMP”specieswerelanded•Approximately13%ofottertrawlestimateandapproximately22%ofsinkgillnetestimateisattributedtonon‐FMPWhat%oftheHudsonRiveradultpopulationiscapturedinNERfisherieseachyear?AnnualMatureAdultHudsonRiverPopulationEstimate863Observedsturgeonaremostlysubadults:25%adult,75%subadult basedonlengthsinObserverdatabase(n=726)AverageNo.ofAtlanticsturgeoncaughtinNERfisheries2006‐2010:3,118/yearMixedStockAnalysis(usingobserverdata):46%ofbycaught AtlanticsoriginatefromNYBightDPSandofthat,91%areHudsonRiverorigin1305HudsonRiveroriginAtlanticsturgeoncapturedinNERFMPfisherieseachyear327adultscaught/year327captures/863totaladults38%interceptrate(%ofHudsonRiveroriginmatureadultscapturedinNERfisherieseachyear)Usingthe“HudsonInterceptRate”toEstimatetheNumberofAdultsinotherDPSs– GOMDPS3118Atlanticsturgeoncaught/year• 8%GOMDPS250GOMDPSoriginfishcaught/year• 25%adults63GOMDPSoriginadultscaught/year38%interceptrate166:meanannualadultsinKennebecRiverpopulationUseHudsonRiverintercept%tocalculateChesapeakeBayDPSadultpopulation3,118Atlanticsturgeoncaught/year• 16%CBDPS499CBDPSoriginfishcaught/year• 25%adults125CBDPSoriginadultscaught/year38%interceptrate329:meanannualadultsinJamesRiverpopulationUseHudsonRiverintercept%tocalculateSouthAtlanticDPSadultpopulation3,118Atlanticsturgeoncaught/year• 29%SADPS905SADPSoriginfishcaught/year• 25%adults227SADPSoriginadultscaught/year38%interceptrate598meanannualadultsinSADPSUseHudsonRiverintercept%tocalculateDelawareRiverpopulation3118Atlanticsturgeoncaught/year• 46%NYBDPS1435NYBDPSoriginfishcaught/year• 9%DEriver129DEriverfishcaught/year• 25%adult33DelawareRiveroriginadultscaught/year• 38%interceptrate87meanannualadultsinDelawareRiverpopulation863Hudsonadults(annualmean)87Delawareadults(annualmean)950NYBDPSadults(annualmean)DPSMatureAdultPopulationEstimateEstimatedNumberofSubadults (atsizevulnerabletofisheries)**CombinedEstimateofAdultsandSubadults atsizevulnerabletofisheriesGOM 166 498 664NYB(863inHudsonplusDelaware) 950 2850 3800ChesapeakeBay 329 987 1316SouthAtlantic 598 1794 2392Usingthe“interceptrate”andthemixedstockanalysisforadultstocalculateestimatesoftheNumberofAtlanticsturgeoninNERMarinewaters**unpublishedNMFSestimatesdeterminedforthepurposesofconductingSection7consultations**thisnumberisbasedsolelyontheobservedratioof25%adultsand75%subadults;ittakestheadultestimateandmultipliesby3.Re‐initiationofExistingConsultations•AllNEFMCandMAFMCFMPsareconsideredinexistingESAconsultations•AnyconsultationthatconsidersanactionthatmayaffectanyDPSofAtlanticsturgeonmustbere‐initiatedtoconsidereffectstothesenewlylistedspecies•TheseOpinionswillupdateinformationandanalysisforwhalesandseaturtlesasappropriateExistingConsultationsFMP Existing ConsultationDocument ExpectInteractionswithAtlanticsturgeon?RedCrab 2002BiologicalOpinionNoSurfClam/OceanQuahog 2002“NotLikelytoAdversely Affect”determinationNoTilefish 2001BiologicalOpinionNoAtlantic Herring 2010“NotLikelytoAdversely Affect”determinationNoAtlantic seascallop 2008BiologicalOpinion Occasionalinteractionsintrawl gear.Nonerecordedinscallopdredgegear.Tilefish 2001BiologicalOpinionNoMultispecies 2010Biological Opinion YesMonkfish 2010BiologicalOpinionYesBluefish 2010BiologicalOpinionYesSpinyDogfish 2010BiologicalOpinionYesSkate 2010BiologicalOpinionYesSquid/Mackerel/Butterfish 2010BiologicalOpinion YesSummerFlounder/Scup/BlackSea Bass2010BiologicalOpinionYesLobster 2010BiologicalOpinion NoInformationAvailableforConsultations•2007ASMFCAtlanticsturgeonbycatch report–Ottertrawlandsinkgillnetaregearsofconcern•2011NEFSCAtlanticsturgeonbycatch report–Ottertrawlandsinkgillnetaregearsofconcern•NEFOPandASMObserverDatabase(726recordedAtlanticsturgeoninteractionssince2006)Section7Consultation•Section7oftheESAdirectsNMFStoensurethatallFederalactionsarenotlikelytojeopardizethecontinuedexistenceofanylistedspecies•Federalaction=adiscretionaryactionthatisauthorized,fundedorcarriedoutbyaFederalagency•WehavetypicallyconsideredeachFMPtobeanindependentFederalactionandhaveconductedconsultationsonanFMPbyFMPbasis•WearecurrentlyexploringalternativestothisapproachsuchasbatchingtogetherFMPswithlikegeartypesorotherwisesimilaroperations.Thiseffortisbeingdrivenbythedifficultyof“assigning”or“allocating”takebyFMP.Possible Measurestoconsidertoreduceinteractionsormortalities•LimitingSoakTimeorRequiringNetTending•Reducedmeshsize•Increasedtwinesize•Effortcontrols•IncentiveAreas–Closedtogillnetsbutopentotrawls•Resuscitationofsturgeon•SeasonalAreaClosures–Knownsturgeonaggregationareas•GearModification–MonkfishBREPstudy62NERO Sturgeon Task ForceGoal – to provide a mechanism for full and opencommunication on sturgeon related issues within theregionMembers – representatives from all NERO divisions,GCNE, OLE, HRCCoordinated by PRD