Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18347 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 224 

[Docket No. 150209121–5121–01] 

RIN 0648–XD760 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 

Initial Finding on a Petition to Identify 

and Delist a Saint John River Distinct 

Population Segment of Shortnose 

Sturgeon Under the Endangered 

Species Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Initial petition finding; request 

for information. 

SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce an 

initial finding on a petition to identify 

the Saint John River population of 

shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser 

brevirostrum) as a distinct population 

segment (DPS) and delist this DPS from 

the Endangered Species Act. We have 

reviewed the petition, the references 

provided by the petitioner, and 

information readily available in our 

files, and we find that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

Therefore, we will conduct a status 

review of the shortnose sturgeon to 

determine if the petitioned actions are 

warranted. To ensure that our review is 

comprehensive, we are soliciting 

scientific and commercial information 

pertaining to this petition from any 

interested party. 

DATES: Information and comments on 

the subject action must be received by 

June 5, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

information, or data on this document, 

identified by the code NOAA–NMFS– 

2015–0040, by either of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic comments via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015- 

0040, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. We accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous), although submitting 

comments anonymously will prevent us 

from contacting you if we have 

difficulty retrieving your submission. 

A copy of the petition and related 

materials are available upon request 

from the Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, 1315 East West Highway, 

Silver Spring, MD 20910, or online at: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/

shortnose-sturgeon.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Manning, Office of Protected Resources, 

301–427–8466. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 24, 2014, we received 

a petition from Dr. Michael J. Dadswell, 

Dr. Matthew K. Litvak, and Mr. Jonathan 

Barry regarding the population of 

shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser 

brevirostrum) native to the Saint John 

River in New Brunswick, Canada. The 

petition requests that we identify the 

Saint John River population of 

shortnose sturgeon as a distinct 

population segment (DPS) and 

contemporaneously delist this DPS from 

the Endangered Species Act. 

Acipenser brevirostrum was originally 

listed as an endangered species 

throughout its range by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on March 

11, 1967, under the Endangered Species 

Preservation Act (ESPA, 32 FR 4001). 

Shortnose sturgeon remained on the 

endangered species list when the U.S. 

Congress replaced ESPA by enacting the 

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 

1969, which was in turn replaced by the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA, 

16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). NMFS 

subsequently assumed jurisdiction for 

shortnose sturgeon under a 1974 

government reorganization plan (39 FR 

41370, November 27, 1974). In Canada, 

the shortnose sturgeon falls under the 

jurisdiction of the Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and was 

listed as a species of ‘‘special concern’’ 

under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 

1980. The status under SARA was 

maintained following a 2005 assessment 

(COSEWIC 2005). Shortnose sturgeon is 

also listed under Appendix I of the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 

(CITES). 

Statutory, Regulatory and Policy 

Provisions 

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 the finding in the Federal 

Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When 

we find that substantial scientific or 

commercial information in a petition 

indicates that the petitioned action may 

be warranted (a ‘‘positive initial 

finding’’ or ‘‘positive 90-day finding’’), 

we are required to promptly commence 

a review of the status of the species 

concerned, which includes conducting a 

comprehensive review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information. Within 12 months of 

receiving the petition, we must 

conclude the review with a finding as to 

whether, in fact, the petitioned action is 

warranted (50 CFR 424.14(b)(3)). 

Because the finding at the 12-month 

stage is based on a significantly more 

thorough review of the available 

information, a ‘‘may be warranted’’ 

finding at this stage 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 that interbreeds when mature 

(16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint policy 

issued by NMFS and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) clarifies the 

interpretation of the phrase ‘‘distinct 

population segment,’’ or DPS for the 

purposes of listing, delisting, and 

reclassifying a species under the ESA 

(‘‘DPS Policy,’’ 61 FR 4722, February 7, 

1996). The DPS Policy identifies two 

criteria for determining whether a 

population is a DPS: (1) The population 

must be ‘‘discrete’’ in relation to the 

remainder of the taxon (species or 

subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) 

the population must be ‘‘significant’’ to 

the remainder of the taxon to which it 

belongs. Congress has instructed the 

Secretary to exercise authority to 

recognize DPS’s ‘‘ * * * sparingly and 

only when the biological evidence 

indicates that such action is warranted.’’ 

(Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18348 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Session). In a recent decision, the 

United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia held that the ESA 

does not permit identification of a DPS 

solely for purposes of delisting. See 

Humane Soc’y v. Jewell, No. 13–186 

(BAH), ¥ F.3d. ¥, 2014 WL7237702 

(D.D.C. December 19, 2014) (Western 

Great Lakes gray wolves). Because this 

is a single district court decision and 

may be appealed, we conclude it does 

not compel us to deny the present 

petition; however, we note that it 

highlights potential complications 

associated with the petitioned action. 

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, 

the determination of whether a species 

is threatened or endangered shall be 

based on any one or a combination of 

the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: 

The present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat 

or range; overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; disease or predation; 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; and any other natural or 

manmade factors affecting the species’ 

existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1); 50 CFR 

424.11(c)). 

Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and 

the implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.11(d), a species shall be removed 

from the list if the Secretary of 

Commerce determines, based on the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available after conducting a review of 

the species’ status, that the species is no 

longer threatened or endangered 

because of one or a combination of the 

section 4(a)(1) factors. The regulations 

provide that a species listed under the 

ESA may be delisted only if such data 

substantiate that it is neither 

endangered nor threatened for one or 

more of the following reasons: 

(1) Extinction. Unless all individuals 

of the listed species had been previously 

identified and located, and were later 

found to be extirpated from their 

previous range, a sufficient period of 

time must be allowed before delisting to 

indicate clearly that the species is 

extinct. 

(2) Recovery. The principal goal of the 

USFWS and NMFS is to return listed 

species to a point at which protection 

under the ESA is no longer required. A 

species may be delisted on the basis of 

recovery only if the best scientific and 

commercial data available indicate that 

it is no longer endangered or threatened. 

(3) Original data for classification in 

error. Subsequent investigations may 

show that the best scientific or 

commercial data available when the 

species was listed, or the interpretation 

of such data, were in error (50 CFR 

424.11(d)). 

A determination whether to revise a 

species-level listing to recognize one or 

more DPSs in place of a species-level 

listing involves a judgment as to which 

approach for managing the species best 

furthers the purposes of the ESA. We 

will make that determination prior to 

making a final finding on the petition. 

At the initial finding stage on a 

petition to list, delist, or reclassify a 

species, the statute requires that we 

determine whether the petition has 

presented substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

See ESA section 4(b)(3)(A) (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(3)(A)). ESA-implementing 

regulations issued jointly by NMFS and 

the USFWS (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)) define 

‘‘substantial information’’ as the amount 

of information that would lead a 

reasonable person to believe that the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted. When evaluating whether 

substantial information is contained in 

a petition, we 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)). 

At the initial finding stage, we 

evaluate the petitioner’s request based 

upon the information in the petition, 

including references provided, 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 which indicates 

that 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 

initial finding stage, so long as it is 

reliable and a reasonable person would 

conclude that it supports the 

petitioner’s assertions. In other words, 

conclusive information indicating that 

the species may meet the ESA’s 

requirements for listing is not required 

to make a positive initial finding. 

Many petitions identify risk 

classifications made by other 

organizations, such as the International 

Union for Conservation of Nature 

(IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, 

or NatureServe, as evidence of 

extinction risk for a species. Risk 

classifications by other organizations or 

made under other Federal or state 

statutes may be informative, but such 

classification alone may not provide the 

rationale for making an initial finding 

under the ESA. For example, as 

explained by NatureServe, their 

assessments of a species’ conservation 

status do ‘‘not constitute a 

recommendation by NatureServe for 

listing under the U.S. Endangered 

Species Act’’ because NatureServe 

assessments ‘‘have different criteria, 

evidence requirements, purposes and 

taxonomic coverage than government 

lists of endangered and threatened 

species, and therefore these two types of 

lists should not be expected to 

coincide’’ (http://www.natureserve.org/

prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). 

Thus, when a petition cites such 

classifications, we will evaluate the 

source of information that the 

classification is based upon in light of 

the standards of the ESA and our 

policies as described above. 

Species Description 

The shortnose sturgeon is a bony fish 

(Class Osteichthyes) that retains many 

primitive physical characteristics that 

reflect its ancient lineage. Distinctive 

features include a protective armor of 

bony plates called ‘‘scutes’’ that extend 

longitudinally from the base of the skull 

to the caudal peduncle; a subterminal, 

protractile tube-like mouth; and 

chemosensory barbels. The general body 

shape is cylindrical, tapering at the head 

and caudal peduncle, and the upper 

lobe of the tail is longer than lower lobe. 

Shortnose sturgeon vary in color but are 

generally dark brown to olive or black 

on the dorsal surface, lighter along the 

row of lateral scutes, and nearly white 

on the ventral surface. Adults have no 

teeth but possess bony plates in the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18349 

esophagus that are used to crush hard 

prey items (Vladykov and Greeley 1963; 

Gilbert 1989). The skeleton is almost 

entirely cartilaginous with the exception 

of some bones in the skull, jaw and 

pectoral girdle. Maximum reported 

length is 1.43 m (total length, TL) and 

maximum reported weight is 23 kg 

(Dadswell 1984). Growth rates and 

maximum size display clinal variation, 

with the fastest growth rates and 

smallest maximum sizes occurring in 

southern populations. Shortnose 

sturgeon are benthic feeders, and their 

diet typically consists of small insects, 

crustaceans, mollusks, polychaetes, and 

small benthic fishes (McCleave et al. 

1977; Dadswell 1979; Marchette and 

Smiley 1982; Dadswell et al. 1984; 

Moser and Ross 1995; Kynard et al. 

2000; Collins et al. 2002). 

Shortnose sturgeon occur along the 

East Coast of North America in rivers, 

estuaries, and marine waters. The 

current species’ range is thought to 

extend from the Saint John River in New 

Brunswick, Canada, south to the St. 

Johns River, Florida (NMFS 1998). 

Shortnose sturgeon are ‘‘anadromous,’’ 

meaning they are born in freshwater, 

migrate to the ocean, then migrate back 

into freshwater as adults to spawn. 

However, some shortnose sturgeon 

populations rarely leave their natal river 

or associated estuary. 

Shortnose sturgeon are relatively 

long-lived and slow to mature. Female 

sturgeon can live up to 67 years, but 

males seldom exceed 30 years of age. 

Males and females mature at about the 

same length, around 1.5–1.8 feet (45–55 

cm), throughout their range. However, 

age at maturity varies across the range 

due the clinal variation in growth rates. 

Shortnose sturgeon also exhibit sexually 

dimorphic growth patterns across 

latitude: males mature at 2–3 years in 

Georgia and at 10–11 years in the Saint 

John River; females mature at 4–5 years 

in Georgia and at 12–18 years in the 

Saint John River (NMFS 2010). In 

general, males are thought to spawn 

every other year, but may spawn 

annually in some rivers (Kieffer and 

Kynard 1996; NMFS 1998). Females 

appear to spawn less frequently— 

approximately every three years to five 

years (Dadswell 1979). 

Analysis of the Petition 

The petition requests that we identify 

the Saint John River shortnose sturgeon 

(SJRSS) as a DPS and make a finding 

that this DPS does not meet the 

definition of threatened or endangered 

under the ESA. In effect, the petition 

requests the delisting of the SJRSS, 

which is currently part of the rangewide listing of shortnose sturgeon at the 

taxonomic level of species. The 

administrative actions requested in the 

petition are clear, and the petition is 

supported by a detailed narrative 

justification and appropriate references. 

The petition provides information 

regarding the status of, and threats to, 

the SJRSS. The petition does not request 

any DPS delineations or change in ESA 

status for the remainder of the species, 

and does not provide a discussion of the 

abundance, distribution, status or 

threats to shortnose sturgeon within the 

U.S. portion of the species’ range. The 

Petitioners state that while they 

understand their petition may ‘‘trigger a 

range-wide status review of shortnose 

sturgeon,’’ they ‘‘respectfully request 

that the designation of the SJRSS 

population be treated independently 

and published on its own merits and 

schedule.’’ 

As stated previously, to be considered 

a DPS, a population must be both 

discrete from other populations of the 

species and significant to the species as 

a whole (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). 

Under the DPS Policy, a population may 

be considered ‘‘discrete’’ if it satisfies 

either one of the following conditions: 

(1) It is markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors. 

Quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation. 

(2) It is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. 

The petition states that the SJRSS is 

markedly separated from other 

populations as a result of ‘‘geography, 

range, and physical constraints.’’ The 

petition does not specify, nor are we 

aware of, any ‘‘physical constraints’’ 

that preclude mixing of the Saint John 

River (SJR) population with other 

populations. However, the petition and 

references in our files suggest that there 

is no, or only limited, spatial overlap in 

the range of shortnose sturgeon from the 

SJR and rivers just to the south in Maine 

(e.g., Kennnebec, Androscoggin and 

Penobscot rivers). Separation of the SJR 

population from other shortnose 

populations is also supported by genetic 

data, which indicate limited 

interbreeding among some river 

populations. For example, Wirgin et al. 

(2009) assessed genetic differentiation 

among shortnose sturgeon from 14 river 

systems by comparing frequencies of 

mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control 

region haplotypes. The results of this 

analysis indicate that although 6 of 8 

haplotypes in the SJR sample (N= 42 

fish) are shared with other Gulf of 

Maine river samples, the SJR sample has 

significantly different haplotype 

frequencies than the other Gulf of Maine 

rivers (Wirgin et al. 2009). Femalemediated gene flow between the 

Penobscot River and the Saint John 

River was also estimated to occur at a 

low rate—only about 2 migrants per 

generation (Wirgin et al. 2009). A more 

recent study by King et al. (2014) using 

nuclear DNA provides additional 

indication that the SJRSS may be 

discrete from other river populations. 

King et al. (2014) used multiple 

approaches (principle component 

analysis and Bayesian clustering) to 

analyze data for 11 microsatellite loci 

for shortnose sturgeon from 17 sample 

populations (N= 561 total fish), 

including 25 fish from the SJR. The 

results suggest the existence of three 

metapopulations (Northeast, MidAtlantic, and South Atlantic), each with 

a different degree of genetic substructuring. The Northeast 

metapopulation, which encompasses 

the Merrimack, Androscoggin, 

Kennebec, Penobscot and Saint John 

rivers, was shown to have a moderate 

degree of differentiation into three 

groups: Merrimack, Androscoggin/

Kennebec/Penobscot, and Saint John 

River. Estimates of the effective number 

of migrants per generation were very 

low among the three metapopulations 

(average ranged between 0.89–1.89), but 

were much higher within each 

metapopulation. For the Saint John 

River in particular, the estimated 

effective number of migrants per 

generation with the other rivers within 

the Northeast metapopulation ranged 

from 2.25–3.43 (King et al. 2014). 

Overall, we find that the SJRSS may be 

discrete from other populations based 

on the existing genetic data. 

The petition also asserts that the 

SJRSS can be considered ‘‘discrete,’’ 

because it is delimited by the U.S.- 

Canada border, on either side of which 

the species experiences significant 

differences in the control of 

exploitation, management of habitat, 

conservation status, and regulatory 

mechanisms. In support of this 

assertion, the petition points to the 

differing conservation status that 

shortnose sturgeon has under the ESA 

in the United States and the SARA in 

Canada. The shortnose sturgeon is listed 

as ‘‘endangered’’ under the ESA, and the 

SJRSS is listed as ‘‘special concern’’ 

under the SARA. Resulting differences 

include that under the ESA, all ‘‘take’’ 

of endangered species such as the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18350 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

shortnose sturgeon is prohibited, with 

take being defined as ‘‘to harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture, or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1532(19)); whereas, in Canada, under 

the Fisheries Act, all means of killing 

SJRSS are prohibited except for fishing 

(R.S.C.1985,c. F–14), which apparently 

results in virtually zero mortality due to 

conservative size restrictions on 

retention of shortnose sturgeon 

(COSEWIC 2005). Certain provisions of 

the ESA apply throughout the range of 

shortnose sturgeon to prohibit activities 

undertaken by persons subject to U.S. 

jurisdiction. See 16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)(A), 

(D)–(F). The petition does not provide 

additional information to clarify how 

the differences in the control of 

exploitation or regulation of the species 

within the two countries translate into 

meaningful differences for shortnose 

sturgeon or its habitat, nor does it 

explain how the management 

differences are significant with respect 

to section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. We find 

that, while there is insufficient support 

to use the international boundary as a 

potential basis for considering the 

SJRSS ‘‘discrete,’’ the petition does 

provide sufficient information to 

indicate that the SJRSS may be discrete 

based on biological data; and therefore, 

we proceeded to evaluate information 

presented in the petition and the cited 

references with respect to the second 

criterion of the DPS Policy. 

Under the DPS Policy, if a population 

segment is found to be discrete, then its 

biological and ecological significance to 

the taxon to which it belongs is 

evaluated. This consideration may 

include, but is not limited to: (1) 

Persistence of the discrete population 

segment in an ecological setting unusual 

or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence 

that the loss of the discrete population 

segment would result in a significant 

gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence 

that the discrete population segment 

represents the only surviving natural 

occurrence of a taxon that may be more 

abundant elsewhere as an introduced 

population outside its historical range; 

and (4) evidence that the discrete 

population segment differs markedly 

from other populations of the species in 

its genetic characteristics (61 FR 4722, 

February 7, 1996). 

The petition states that the SJRSS 

meets the ‘‘significance’’ criterion of the 

DPS Policy on the basis of all four of the 

considerations listed in the policy. First, 

the petition asserts that the SJRSS 

persists in a unique ecological setting, 

because it occurs at the northern 

extreme of the species’ range. Second, 

the petition states that loss of this 

population would result in a significant 

gap in the range of the species, and, 

third, that the SJRSS is the ‘‘only known 

surviving natural occurrence of this DPS 

taxon in its historic range.’’ Lastly, the 

petition states that the SJRSS differs 

markedly from other populations of 

shortnose sturgeon in its genetic 

characteristics. 

We agree that the SJRSS may have 

markedly different genetic 

characteristics from other shortnose 

sturgeon populations, because it has 

some morphological, behavioral, and 

genetic differences from other 

populations. We do not, however, find 

sufficient information in the petition or 

cited references to suggest that the 

riverine, estuarine, or marine habitats of 

the SJRSS represent a unique ecological 

setting for the taxon. Supporting 

information provided in the petition 

pertained to the life history and habitat 

use patterns of Atlantic salmon and the 

Gulf of Maine region; this information is 

not particularly relevant or explanatory 

with respect to the uniqueness of SJRSS 

habitat or shortnose sturgeon. We also 

find relatively limited support in the 

petition and references provided to 

suggest that the loss of this particular 

population, which occurs at the 

northernmost portion of the species’ 

range, would result in a significant gap 

in the species’ range. The species is 

broadly distributed along the East Coast 

of North America and highly mobile; 

furthermore, estimated rates of 

migration are higher among rivers 

within the northeast region versus the 

mid-Atlantic region (King et al. 2014). 

Lastly, we find no support for the 

assertion that the SJRSS is the only 

surviving natural occurrence of 

shortnose sturgeon within its historical 

range. Shortnose sturgeon are present in 

at least 42 coastal rivers within the 

species’ historical range (NMFS 2010). 

We also note that the terms ‘‘taxon’’ and 

‘‘historical range’’ in the relevant 

context of the DPS Policy refer to the 

larger taxonomic entity, not the DPS 

under evaluation, as may have been 

assumed by the Petitioners. 

Overall, we conclude that the 

information presented in the petition 

and supporting references suggests that 

the SJRSS may meet the ‘‘discreteness’’ 

and the ‘‘significance’’ criteria of the 

DPS Policy and thus may qualify as a 

DPS. Therefore, we proceeded to review 

the petition and information readily 

available in our files to evaluate 

whether this potential DPS should 

continue to be protected under the ESA. 

The status of the SJRSS was most 

recently reviewed in 2005 by the 

Committee on the Status of Endangered 

Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), which 

is the official scientific body established 

under SARA responsible for assessing 

extinction risk of wildlife species in 

Canada. This most recent assessment 

concluded that the status of the SJRSS 

had not changed, and that the 

population still warranted a status of 

‘‘special concern (SC),’’ which is 

defined under SARA as ‘‘a wildlife 

species that may become a threatened or 

endangered species because of a 

combination of biological characteristics 

and identified threats’’ (S.C. 2002, c. 

29). The 2005 COSEWIC assessment 

also indicated that the SJRSS met the 

criterion for ‘‘threatened’’ under SARA 

based on criterion D2 (i.e., Canadian 

population with a very restricted index 

of area of occupancy or number of 

locations, based on presence in only one 

river) but was classified as SC because 

there were ‘‘no immediate threats’’ 

(COSEWIC 2005). The petition asserts 

that the SC classification under SARA 

indicates the SJRSS does not meet the 

definition of threatened or endangered 

under the ESA, and that the SC status 

under SARA is ‘‘substantially similar’’ 

to the non-regulatory ‘‘species of 

concern’’ designation that NMFS has 

extended to some species. NMFS 

‘‘species of concern’’ are defined as 

those species about 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 

(69 FR 19975, April 15, 2004). Under 

SARA, a threatened species is defined 

as ‘‘a wildlife species that is likely to 

become an endangered species if 

nothing is done to reverse the factors 

leading to its extirpation or extinction’’ 

(S.C. 2002, c. 29). A threatened species 

is defined in section 3 of the ESA as 

‘‘. . . any species which is likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a portion of its range’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1532(3)). While similar, these 

definitions are not equivalent and 

require interpretations of different 

terms. Furthermore, the processes and 

standards by which species are 

evaluated under each statute are not the 

same. Thus, while the ‘‘special concern’’ 

status under SARA is an indication that 

the SJRSS is not at immediate risk of 

extirpation, it remains unclear what 

status may be warranted for an SJRSS 

DPS under the ESA. 

The 2005 COSEWIC assessment states 

that incidental bycatch in fisheries, 

poaching, and habitat loss and 

degradation are threats to the SJRSS. 

The petition provides no data or 

references with which to evaluate the 

level or trends in bycatch or poaching. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18351 

Habitat loss and degradation occur in 

the form of dams, impoundments, and 

water quality impacts stemming from 

urban, agricultural and industrial 

activities (COSEWIC 2005). The petition 

states that the largest threat to the SJRSS 

may be the Mactaquac Dam, which was 

completed in 1967 and is impassable by 

sturgeon. No studies have been 

conducted to evaluate the effect of the 

dam on spawning as a consequence of 

changes in water flow or temperature 

(COSEWIC 2005). Aboriginal knowledge 

also suggests that there has been a 

decline in the SJRSS since the 

Mactaquac Dam was constructed 

(COSEWIC 2005). There have also been 

no evaluations of the impact of 

contaminants on shortnose sturgeon in 

the SJR (COSEWIC 2005). However, 

water quality in the SJR, while still a 

significant concern in some areas, has 

improved since 2000, and many fish 

communities are healthy and stable (CRI 

2011). The majority of the watershed is 

forested, and all municipalities, which 

are mostly small, now have sewage 

treatment capabilities (COSEWIC 2005). 

Overall, the information provided 

regarding threats to the SJRSS within its 

riverine and marine habitats is limited 

and difficult to fully assess. 

The only comprehensive population 

estimate available for consideration in 

connection with this finding for the 

SJRSS population comes from 

Dadswell’s (1979) mark-recapture study 

in 1973–1977. Dadswell (1979) 

calculated a Jolly-Seber population 

estimate of 18,000 (± 30%) adults. Thus, 

the overall population trend is 

‘‘unknown’’ (COSEWIC 2005). However, 

some evidence suggests the population 

has remained fairly stable since the 

1970’s. Size distributions and growth 

rates for sturgeon sampled in the SJR 

during 1998–2000 are similar to those 

measured and estimated for sturgeon 

sampled in 1973–1977 (COSEWIC 

2005). Both time periods indicate a 

broad range of size and age-classes. A 

possible indicator of the stability of the 

SJRSS mentioned in the petition is the 

stable catch of adult shortnose sturgeon 

in a 26-year old annual fishing derby on 

the Kennebecasis River, a tributary of 

the Saint John. Catch records or some 

assessment of the catch records from 

this tournament were not provided in 

the petition or supporting references, so 

this statement is difficult to verify at 

this time. More recent studies 

conducted in overwintering areas have 

produced partial adult population 

estimates of 4,836 ± 69 in 2005 and 

3,852–5,222 in 2009 and 2011, 

indicating persistence at the 

overwintering sites over this time period 

and suggesting stable abundance (Li et 

al. 2007; Usivyatsov et al. 2012). 

Interestingly, the range of the SJRSS has 

also recently been scientifically 

recognized as extending to include the 

waters off of Nova Scotia: Dadswell et 

al. (2013) recently confirmed the 

presence of an adult shortnose sturgeon 

in the Minas Basin, which is about 165 

km from the mouth of the SJR. Fishers 

also report that they have been catching 

1–2 shortnose sturgeon in their weirs 

during the past decade (Dadswell et al. 

2013). Lastly, Stokesbury et al. (2014) 

used an index called the ‘‘Species 

Ability to Forestall Extinction Index,’’ or 

SAFE index, to characterize the SJRSS 

risk of extinction and concluded that 

this population was above the authors’ 

particular threshold for ‘‘threatened,’’ 

which was based on an assumed 

minimum viable population of 5,000 

adults. Because there have been no 

comprehensive surveys of the SJRSS 

since the 1970s, Stokesbury et al. (2014) 

also assumed an adult population size 

of 18,000 based on the 1973–1977 study 

by Dadswell (1979) in order to calculate 

the index for the SJRSS. Overall, while 

data are lacking with respect to current 

population abundance and trends, the 

available evidence suggests that the 

population has remained stable since 

the 1970s and is not at high risk of 

extirpation. 

In summary, we find that the 

shortnose sturgeon within the Saint 

John River in New Brunswick, Canada, 

may meet the ‘‘discreteness’’ and 

‘‘significance’’ criteria of the DPS Policy 

(61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996) and thus 

may qualify as a DPS. We also find that, 

given the available information 

regarding the seemingly stable and thus 

potentially sufficiently high abundance 

of the shortnose sturgeon in the SJR, the 

SJRSS, if considered on its own, may 

not meet the criteria for listing under 

the ESA. Revisions to the current 

species-level listing for shortnose 

sturgeon therefore may be warranted, if 

we determine it would best further the 

purposes of the ESA. While there is 

substantial uncertainty regarding the 

current population size, trends, and 

threats, we conclude that the petition 

and references provide sufficient 

indication that the petitioned action 

may be warranted. 

Petition Finding 

After reviewing the information 

contained in the petition, as well as 

information readily available in our 

files, we conclude that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating the 

petitioned actions may be warranted for 

the SJRSS. We hereby announce the 

initiation of a status review to determine 

whether the petitioned population 

meets the DPS criteria and whether the 

current species-level listing should be 

revised. 

Information Solicited 

To ensure that the status review is 

based on the best available scientific 

and commercial data, we are soliciting 

information relevant to the petitioned 

actions. Specifically, we are soliciting 

data and information, including 

unpublished data and information, in 

the following areas: (1) Recent genetic 

analyses of populations of shortnose 

sturgeon; (2) current distribution and 

abundance of shortnose sturgeon rangewide; (3) movements, migratory patterns 

and habitat use of shortnose sturgeon 

along the northeast coast of the United 

States and in Canadian waters; (4) 

historical and current population trends 

for shortnose sturgeon within the Saint 

John River; (6) past, current and future 

threats, including bycatch rates and any 

current or planned activities that may 

adversely impact the SJRSS; (7) ongoing 

or planned efforts to protect and restore 

the SJRSS and their habitat; and (8) 

management, regulatory, and 

enforcement information. We request 

that all information be accompanied by: 

(1) Supporting documentation such as 

maps, bibliographic references, or 

reprints of pertinent publications; and 

(2) the submitter’s name, address, and 

any association, institution, or business 

that the person represents. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references is 

available upon request to the Office of 

Protected Resources (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: March 31, 2015. 

Eileen Sobeck, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07833 Filed 4–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS