61904 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–24459 Filed 10–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 224 

RIN 0648–XN50 

[Docket No. 090219208–9210–01] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Listings for Two 

Distinct Population Segments of 

Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser 

oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) in the 

Southeast 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In 2007, a Status Review 

Team (SRT) consisting of Federal 

biologists from NMFS, U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) completed a 

status review report on Atlantic 

sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus) in the United States. We, 

NMFS, have reviewed this status review 

report and all other best available 

information to determine if listing 

Atlantic sturgeon under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) as either threatened 

or endangered is warranted. The SRT 

recommended that Atlantic sturgeon in 

the United States be divided into the 

following five distinct population 

segments (DPSs): Gulf of Maine; New 

York Bight; Chesapeake Bay; Carolina; 

and South Atlantic, and we agree with 

this DPS structure. After reviewing the 

available information on the Carolina 

and South Atlantic DPSs, the two DPSs 

located within the NMFS Southeast 

Region, we have determined that listing 

these two DPSs as endangered is 

warranted. Therefore, we propose to list 

these two DPSs as endangered under the 

ESA. We have published a separate 

listing determination for the DPSs 

within the NMFS Northeast Region in 

today’s Federal Register. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received by January 4, 2011. At 

least one public hearing will be held in 

a central location for each DPS; notice 

of the location(s) and time(s) of the 

hearing(s) will be subsequently 

published in the Federal Register not 

less than 15 days before the hearing is 

held. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the XRIN 0648–XN50, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail or hand-delivery: Assistant 

Regional Administrator for Protected 

Resources, NMFS, Southeast Regional 

Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. 

Petersburg, FL 33701. 

• Facsimile (fax) to: 727–824–5309. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are considered part of the public record 

and will generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. All Personal 

Identifying Information (i.e., name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted may 

be publicly accessible. Do not submit 

Confidential Business Information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. We will accept anonymous 

comments (enter ‘‘n/a’’ in the required 

fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Please provide electronic 

attachments using Microsoft Word, 

Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file 

formats only. This proposed rule, the 

list of references, and the status review 

report are also available electronically at 

the NMFS Web site at http:// 

sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sturgeon.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kelly Shotts, NMFS, Southeast Regional 

Office (727) 824–5312 or Marta 

Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected 

Resources (301) 713–1401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate as possible and informed by 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information. Therefore, we 

request comments or information from 

the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested party concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) The abundance of Atlantic 

sturgeon in the various river systems in 

the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs; 

(2) The mixing of fish from different 

DPSs in parts of their ranges, 

particularly in the marine environment; 

(3) Information concerning the 

viability of and/or threats to Atlantic 

sturgeon in the Carolina and South 

Atlantic DPSs; and 

(4) Efforts being made to protect 

Atlantic sturgeon in the Carolina and 

South Atlantic DPSs. 

Public Hearings 

One public hearing will be held in a 

central location for each DPS. We will 

schedule the public hearings on this 

proposal and announce the dates, times, 

and locations of those hearings, as well 

as how to obtain reasonable 

accommodations for disabilities, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the first hearing. 

Background 

Initiation of the Status Review 

We first identified Atlantic sturgeon 

as a candidate species in 1991. On June 

2, 1997, NMFS and USFWS 

(collectively, the Services) received a 

petition from the Biodiversity Legal 

Foundation requesting that we list 

Atlantic sturgeon in the United States, 

where it continues to exist, as 

threatened or endangered and designate 

critical habitat within a reasonable 

period of time following the listing. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register on October 17, 1997, stating 

that the Services had determined 

substantial information existed 

indicating the petitioned action may be 

warranted (62 FR 54018). In 1998, after 

completing a comprehensive status 

review, the Services published a 12- 

month determination in the Federal 

Register announcing that listing was not 

warranted at that time (63 FR 50187; 

September 21, 1998). We retained 

Atlantic sturgeon on the candidate 

species list (and subsequently 

transferred it to the Species of Concern 

List (69 FR 19975; April 15, 2004)). 

Concurrently, the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) 

completed Amendment 1 to the 1990 

Atlantic Sturgeon Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP) that imposed a 20- to 40- 

year moratorium on all Atlantic 

sturgeon fisheries until the Atlantic 

Coast spawning stocks could be restored 

to a level where 20 subsequent year 

classes of adult females were protected 

(ASMFC, 1998). In 1999, pursuant to 

section 804(b) of the Atlantic Coastal 

Fisheries Cooperative Management Act 

(ACFCMA) (16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.), we 

followed this action by closing the 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to 

Atlantic sturgeon retention. In 2003, we 

sponsored a workshop in Raleigh, North 

Carolina, with USFWS and ASMFC 

entitled, ‘‘The Status and Management 

of Atlantic Sturgeon,’’ to discuss the 

status of sturgeon along the Atlantic 

Coast and determine what obstacles, if 

any, were impeding their recovery 

(Kahnle et al., 2005). The workshop 

revealed mixed results in regards to the 

status of Atlantic sturgeon populations, 

despite the coastwide fishing 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61905 

moratorium. Some populations seemed 

to be recovering while others were 

declining. Bycatch and habitat 

degradation were noted as possible 

causes for continued population 

declines. 

Based on the information gathered 

from the 2003 workshop on Atlantic 

sturgeon, we decided that a new review 

of Atlantic sturgeon status was needed 

to determine if listing as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA was 

warranted. The SRT, consisting of four 

NMFS, four USFWS, and three USGS 

biologists prepared a draft status review 

report. The draft report was then 

reviewed and supplemented by eight 

state and regional experts who provided 

their individual expert opinions on the 

scientific facts contained in the report 

and provided additional information to 

ensure the report provided the best 

available data. Lastly, the report was 

peer reviewed by six experts from 

academia. A Notice of Availability of 

the final status review report was 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 3, 2007 (72 FR 15865). On October 

6, 2009, we received a petition from the 

Natural Resources Defense Council to 

list Atlantic sturgeon as endangered 

under the ESA. As an alternative, the 

petitioner requested that the species be 

delineated and listed as the five DPSs 

described in the 2007 Atlantic sturgeon 

status review report (ASSRT, 2007): 

Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, 

Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South 

Atlantic DPSs, with the Gulf of Maine 

and South Atlantic DPSs listed as 

threatened, and the remaining three 

DPSs listed as endangered. The 

petitioner also requested that critical 

habitat be designated for Atlantic 

sturgeon under the ESA. We published 

a Notice of 90-Day Finding on January 

6, 2010 (75 FR 838), stating that the 

petition presented substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that the petitioned actions may be 

warranted. 

Listing Species Under the Endangered 

Species Act 

We are responsible for determining 

whether Atlantic sturgeon are 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) To be 

considered for listing under the ESA, a 

group of organisms must constitute a 

‘‘species,’’ which is defined in section 3 

of the ESA to include ‘‘any subspecies 

of fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct population segment of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature.’’ On 

February 7, 1996, the Services adopted 

a policy describing what constitutes a 

DPS of a taxonomic species (61 FR 

4722). The joint DPS policy identified 

two elements that must be considered 

when identifying a DPS: (1) The 

discreteness of the population segment 

in relation to the remainder of the 

species (or subspecies) to which it 

belongs; and (2) the significance of the 

population segment to the remainder of 

the species (or subspecies) to which it 

belongs. As stated in the joint DPS 

policy, Congress expressed its 

expectation that the Services would 

exercise authority with regard to DPSs 

sparingly and only when the biological 

evidence indicates such action is 

warranted. 

Section 3 of the ESA defines an 

endangered species as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a threatened species as 

one ‘‘which is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ The 

statute requires us to determine whether 

any species is endangered or threatened 

as a result of any one or a combination 

of the following five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence 

(section 4(a)(1)(A)(E)). Section 4(b)(1)(A) 

of the ESA requires us to make listing 

determinations based solely on the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

after conducting a review of the status 

of the species and after taking into 

account efforts being made to protect 

the species. Accordingly, we have 

followed a stepwise approach in making 

our listing determination for Atlantic 

sturgeon. Considering biological 

evidence, such as the separation 

between river populations during 

spawning and the possibility of multiple 

distinct interbreeding Atlantic sturgeon 

populations, we evaluated whether 

Atlantic sturgeon population segments 

met the DPS Policy criteria. We then 

determined the status of each DPS (each 

‘‘species’’) and identified the factors and 

threats contributing to their status per 

section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Finally, we 

assessed efforts being made to protect 

the species, determining if these efforts 

are adequate to mitigate impacts and 

threats to the species’ status. We 

evaluated ongoing conservation efforts 

using the criteria outlined in the Policy 

for Evaluating Conservation Efforts 

(PECE; 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003) to 

determine their certainties of 

implementation and effectiveness. 

We reviewed the status review report, 

its cited references and peer review 

comments, and information that has 

become available since the status review 

report was finalized in 2007. Thus, we 

believe this proposed rule is based on 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information. Much of the 

information discussed below on 

Atlantic sturgeon biology, distribution, 

historical abundance and threats is 

attributable to the status review report. 

However, we have independently 

applied the statutory provisions of the 

ESA, our regulations regarding listing 

determinations, and our policy on 

identification of distinct population 

segments, in making the proposed 

listing determinations. 

Taxonomy and Life History 

There are two subspecies of Atlantic 

sturgeon—the Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser 

oxyrinchus desotoi) and the Atlantic 

sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus). Historically, the Gulf 

sturgeon occurred from the Mississippi 

River east to Tampa Bay. Its present 

range extends from Lake Pontchartrain 

and the Pearl River system in Louisiana 

and Mississippi east to the Suwannee 

River in Florida. The Gulf sturgeon was 

listed as threatened under the ESA in 

1991. The finding in this proposed rule 

addresses the subspecies Acipenser 

oxyrinchus oxyrinchus (referred to as 

Atlantic sturgeon), which is distributed 

along the eastern coast of North 

America. Historically, sightings have 

been reported from Hamilton Inlet, 

Labrador, south to the St. Johns River, 

Florida. Occurrences south of the St. 

Johns River, Florida, and in Labrador 

may have always been rare. 

Atlantic sturgeon is a long-lived, latematuring, estuarine-dependent, 

anadromous species. Atlantic sturgeon 

may live up to 60 years, reach lengths 

up to 14 feet (ft; 4.27 meters (m)), and 

weigh over 800 pounds (lbs; 363 

kilograms (kg)). They are distinguished 

by armor-like plates and a long 

protruding snout that is ventrally 

located, with four barbels crossing in 

front. Sturgeon are omnivorous benthic 

(bottom) feeders and filter quantities of 

mud along with their food. Adult 

sturgeon diets include mollusks, 

gastropods, amphipods, isopods, and 

fish. Juvenile sturgeon feed on aquatic 

insects and other invertebrates (ASSRT, 

2007). 

Vital parameters of Atlantic sturgeon 

populations show clinal variation with 

faster growth and earlier age at 

maturation in more southern systems, 

though not all data sets conform to this 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
61906 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

trend. Atlantic sturgeon mature between 

the ages of 5 and 19 years in South 

Carolina (Smith et al., 1982), between 

11 and 21 years in the Hudson River 

(Young et al., 1988), and between 22 

and 34 years in the St. Lawrence River 

(Scott and Crossman, 1973). Atlantic 

sturgeon likely do not spawn every year. 

Multiple studies have shown that 

spawning intervals range from 1 to 5 

years for males (Smith, 1985; Collins et 

al., 2000; Caron et al., 2002) and 2 to 5 

years for females (Vladykov and 

Greeley, 1963; Van Eenennaam et al., 

1996; Stevenson and Secor, 1999). 

Fecundity of Atlantic sturgeon has been 

correlated with age and body size, with 

egg production ranging from 400,000 to 

8 million eggs per year (Smith et al., 

1982; Van Eenennaam and Doroshov, 

1998; Dadswell, 2006). The average age 

at which 50 percent of maximum 

lifetime egg production is achieved is 

estimated to be 29 years, approximately 

3 to 10 times longer than for other bony 

fish species examined (Boreman, 1997). 

Spawning adults migrate upriver in 

the spring, which occurs during 

February and March in southern 

systems, April and May in mid-Atlantic 

systems, and May and July in Canadian 

systems (Murawski and Pacheco, 1977; 

Smith, 1985; Bain, 1997; Smith and 

Clugston, 1997; Caron et al., 2002). In 

some southern rivers, a fall spawning 

migration may also occur (Rogers and 

Weber, 1995; Weber and Jennings, 1996; 

Moser et al., 1998). Spawning is 

believed to occur in flowing water 

between the salt front and fall line of 

large rivers, where optimal flows are 18 

to 30 inches (in) per second (46 to 76 

centimeters (cm) per second) and depths 

are 36 to 89 ft (11 to 27 m) (Borodin, 

1925; Leland, 1968; Scott and Crossman, 

1973; Crance, 1987; Bain et al., 2000). 

The fall line is the boundary between an 

upland region of continental bedrock 

and an alluvial coastal plain, sometimes 

characterized by waterfalls or rapids. 

Sturgeon eggs are highly adhesive and 

are deposited on the bottom substrate, 

usually on hard surfaces (e.g., cobble) 

(Gilbert, 1989; Smith and Clugston, 

1997). Hatching occurs approximately 

94 to 140 hours after egg deposition at 

corresponding temperatures of 68.0 to 

64.4 degrees Fahrenheit (20 to 18 

degrees Celsius). The newly emerged 

larvae assume a demersal existence 

(Smith et al., 1980). The yolksac larval 

stage is completed in about 8 to 12 days, 

during which time the larvae move 

downstream to rearing grounds (Kynard 

and Horgan, 2002). During the first half 

of their migration downstream, 

movement is limited to night. During 

the day, larvae use benthic structure 

(e.g., gravel matrix) as refugia (Kynard 

and Horgan, 2002). During the latter half 

of migration, when larvae are more fully 

developed, movement to rearing 

grounds occurs both day and night. 

Juvenile sturgeon continue to move 

further downstream into brackish waters 

and eventually become residents in 

estuarine waters for months to years. 

Recovery of depleted populations is 

an inherently slow process for a latematuring species such as Atlantic 

sturgeon. Their late age at maturity 

provides more opportunities for 

individuals to be removed from the 

population before reproducing. 

However, a long life-span also allows 

multiple opportunities to contribute to 

future generations provided the 

appropriate spawning habitat and 

conditions are available. 

Distribution and Abundance 

Historically, Atlantic sturgeon were 

present in approximately 38 rivers 

throughout their range, of which 35 

rivers have been confirmed to have had 

a historical spawning population. More 

recently, presence has been documented 

in 36 rivers with spawning taking place 

in at least 18 rivers. Spawning has been 

confirmed in the St. Lawrence, 

Annapolis, St. John, Kennebec, Hudson, 

Delaware, James, Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico, 

Cape Fear, Waccamaw, Great Pee Dee, 

Combahee, Edisto, Savannah, Ogeechee, 

Altamaha, and Satilla rivers. Rivers with 

possible, but unconfirmed, spawning 

populations include the St. Croix, 

Penobscot, Androscoggin, Sheepscot, 

York, Neuse, Santee and Cooper Rivers; 

spawning may occur in the Santee and/ 

or the Cooper Rivers, but it may not 

result in successful recruitment. 

Historical records from the 1700s and 

1800s document large numbers of 

sturgeon in many rivers along the 

Atlantic Coast. Atlantic sturgeon 

underwent significant range-wide 

declines from historical abundance 

levels due to overfishing in the late 

1800s, as discussed more fully below. 

Sturgeon stocks were further impacted 

through environmental degradation, 

especially due to habitat loss and 

reduced water quality from the 

construction of dams in the early to 

mid-1900s. The species persisted in 

many rivers, though at greatly reduced 

levels (1 to 5 percent of their earliest 

recorded numbers), and commercial 

fisheries were active in many rivers 

during all or some of the years 1962 to 

1997. Many of these contemporary 

fisheries resulted in continued 

overfishing, which prompted ASMFC to 

impose the Atlantic sturgeon fishing 

moratorium in 1998 and NMFS to close 

the EEZ to Atlantic sturgeon retention in 

1999. 

Abundance estimates of Atlantic 

sturgeon are currently only available for 

the Hudson (NY) and Altamaha (GA) 

rivers, where adult spawning 

populations are estimated to be 

approximately 870 and 343 fish per 

year, respectively (Kahnle et al., 2007; 

Schueller and Peterson, 2006). Surveys 

from other rivers in the species’ U.S. 

range are more qualitative, primarily 

focusing on documentation of multiple 

year classes and reproduction, as well as 

the presence of very large adults and 

gravid females, in the river systems. In 

the Southeast Region, spawning has 

been confirmed in 11 rivers (Roanoke, 

Tar-Pamlico, Cape Fear, Waccamaw, 

Great Pee Dee, Combahee, Edisto, 

Savannah, Ogeechee, Altamaha, and 

Satilla rivers), with possible spawning 

occurring in 3 additional river (the 

Neuse, Santee and Cooper Rivers). 

Based on a comprehensive review of the 

available data, the literature, and 

information provided by local, state, 

and Federal fishery management 

personnel, the Altamaha River is 

believed to have the largest population 

in the Southeast (ASSRT, 2007). The 

larger size of this population relative to 

the other river populations in the 

Southeast is likely due to the absence of 

dams, the lack of heavy development in 

the watershed, and relatively good water 

quality, as Atlantic sturgeon 

populations in the other rivers in the 

Southeast have been affected by one or 

more of these factors. Trammel net 

surveys, as well as independent 

monitoring of incidental take in the 

American shad fishery, suggest that the 

Altamaha population is neither 

increasing nor decreasing. Though 

abundance estimates are not available 

for the other river populations, because 

the Altamaha spawning population is 

the largest, we believe a conservative 

estimate of the other spawning 

populations in the Southeast Region is 

no more than 300 adults spawning per 

year. 

Historically, Atlantic sturgeon were 

abundant in most North Carolina coastal 

rivers and estuaries, with the largest 

fisheries occurring in the Roanoke 

River/Albemarle Sound system and in 

the Cape Fear River (Kahnle et al., 

1998). Historical landings records from 

the late 1800s indicated that Atlantic 

sturgeon were very abundant within 

Albemarle Sound (approximately 

135,600 lbs or 61,500 kg landed per 

year). Abundance estimates derived 

from these historical landings records 

indicated that between 7,200 and 10,500 

adult females were present within North 

Carolina prior to 1890 (Armstrong and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61907 

Hightower, 2002; Secor, 2002). The 

North Carolina Division of Marine 

Fisheries (NCDMF) has conducted the 

Albemarle Sound Independent Gill Net 

Survey (IGNS), initially designed to 

target striped bass, since 1990. During 

that time, 842 young-of-the-year (YOY) 

and subadult sturgeon have been 

captured. Incidental take of Atlantic 

sturgeon in the IGNS, as well as 

multiple observations of YOY from the 

Albemarle Sound and Roanoke River, 

provide evidence that spawning 

continues, and catch records indicate 

that this population seemed to be 

increasing until 2000, when recruitment 

began to decline. Catch records and 

observations from other river systems in 

North Carolina exist (e.g., Hoff, 1980, 

Oakley, 2003, in the Tar and Neuse 

rivers; Moser et al., 1998, and Williams 

and Lankford, 2003, in the Cape Fear 

River) and provide evidence for 

spawning, but based on the relatively 

low numbers of fish caught, it is 

difficult to determine whether the 

populations in those systems are 

declining, rebounding, or remaining 

static. Also, large survey captures 

during a single year are difficult to 

interpret. For instance, abundance of 

Atlantic sturgeon below Lock and Dam 

#1 in the Cape Fear River seemed to 

have increased dramatically during the 

1990–1997 surveys (Moser et al., 1998) 

as the catch per unit effort (CPUE) of 

Atlantic sturgeon was up to eight times 

greater during 1997 than in the earlier 

survey years. Since 1997, Atlantic 

sturgeon CPUE doubled between the 

years of 1997 and 2003 (Williams and 

Lankford, 2003). However, it is 

unknown whether this is an actual 

population increase reflecting the effects 

of North Carolina’s ban on Atlantic 

sturgeon fishing that began in 1991, or 

whether the results were skewed by one 

outlier year. There was a large increase 

observed in 2002, though the estimates 

were similar among all other years of 

the 1997 to 2003 study. 

Atlantic sturgeon were likely present 

in many South Carolina river/estuary 

systems historically, but it is not known 

where spawning occurred. Secor (2002) 

estimated that 8,000 spawning females 

were likely present prior to 1890, based 

on U.S. Fish Commission landing 

records. Since the 1800s, however, 

populations have declined dramatically 

(Collins and Smith, 1997). Recorded 

landings of Atlantic sturgeon in South 

Carolina peaked at 481,050 lbs (218,200 

kg) in 1897, but 5 years later, only 

93,920 lbs (42,600 kg) were reported 

landed (Smith et al., 1984). Landings 

remained depressed throughout the 

1900s, with between 4,410 and 99,210 

lbs (2,000 and 45,000 kg) of Atlantic 

sturgeon reported annually between 

1958 and 1982 (Smith et al., 1984). 

During the last two decades, Atlantic 

sturgeon have been observed in most 

South Carolina coastal rivers, although 

it is not known if all rivers support a 

spawning population (Collins and 

Smith, 1997). Recent sampling for 

shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser 

brevirostrum) conducted in Winyah Bay 

captured two subadult Atlantic sturgeon 

in 2004. Captures of age-1 juveniles 

from the Waccamaw River during the 

early 1980s suggest that a reproducing 

population of Atlantic sturgeon may 

persist in that river, although the fish 

could have been from the nearby Great 

Pee Dee River (Collins and Smith, 1997). 

Until recently, there was no evidence 

that Atlantic sturgeon spawned in the 

Great Pee Dee River, although subadults 

were frequently captured and large 

adults were often observed by fishers. 

However, a fishery survey conducted by 

Progress Energy Carolinas Incorporated 

captured a running ripe male in October 

2003 and observed other large sturgeon, 

perhaps revealing a fall spawning run 

(ASSRT, 2007). There are no data 

available regarding the presence of YOY 

or spawning adult Atlantic sturgeon in 

the Sampit River, although it did 

historically support a population and is 

thought to serve as a nursery ground for 

local stocks (ASMFC, 2009). 

The Santee-Cooper system had some 

of the highest historical landings of 

Atlantic sturgeon in the Southeast. Data 

from the U.S. Fish Commission shows 

that greater than 220,460 lbs (100,000 

kg) of Atlantic sturgeon were landed in 

1890 (Secor, 2002). The capture of 151 

subadults, including age-1 juveniles, in 

the Santee River in 1997 suggests that 

an Atlantic sturgeon population still 

exists in this river (Collins and Smith, 

1997). The status review report 

documents that three adult Atlantic 

sturgeon carcasses were found above the 

Wilson and Pinopolis dams in Lake 

Moultrie (a Santee-Cooper reservoir) 

during the 1990s, and also states that 

there is little information regarding a 

land-locked population existing above 

the dams. There is no effective fish 

passage for sturgeon on the Santee and 

Cooper Rivers, and the lowest dams on 

these rivers are well below the fall line, 

thus limiting the amount of freshwater 

spawning and developmental habitat for 

fish below the dams. In 2007, an 

Atlantic sturgeon entered the lock at the 

St. Stephens dam; it was physically 

removed and translocated downstream 

into the Santee River (A. Crosby, 

SCDNR, pers. comm.) In 2004, 15 

subadult Atlantic sturgeon were 

captured in shortnose sturgeon surveys 

in the Santee River estuary. The 

previous winter, four juvenile (YOY and 

subadults) Atlantic sturgeon were 

captured from the Santee (one fish) and 

Cooper (three fish) rivers. These data 

support previous hypotheses that a fall 

spawning run occurs within this system, 

similar to that observed in other 

southern river systems. However, the 

status review report notes that SCDNR 

biologists have some doubt whether 

smaller sturgeon from the SanteeCooper are resident YOY, as flood 

waters from the Pee-Dee or Waccamaw 

Rivers could have transported these 

YOY to the Santee-Cooper system via 

Winyah Bay and the Intracoastal 

Waterway (McCord, 2004). Resident 

YOY could, however, be evidence of a 

spawning population above the dams, as 

is the case with shortnose sturgeon (S. 

Bolden, pers. comm.). 

From 1994 to 2001, over 3,000 

juveniles have been collected in the 

Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto Rivers (ACE) 

Basin, including 1,331 YOY sturgeon 

(Collins and Smith, 1997; ASSRT, 

2007). Sampling for adults began in 

1997, with two adult sturgeon captured 

in the first year of the survey, including 

one gravid female captured in the Edisto 

River and one running ripe male 

captured in the Combahee River. The 

running ripe male in the Combahee 

River was recaptured one week later in 

the Edisto River, which suggests that the 

three rivers that make up the ACE Basin 

may support a single population that 

spawns in at least two of the rivers. In 

1998, an additional 39 spawning adults 

were captured (ASSRT, 2007). These 

captures show that a current spawning 

population exists in the ACE Basin, as 

both YOY and spawning adults are 

regularly captured. 

The Ashley River, along with the 

Cooper River, drains into Charleston 

Bay; only shortnose sturgeon have been 

sampled in these rivers. While the 

Ashley River historically supported an 

Atlantic sturgeon spawning population, 

it is unknown whether the population 

still exists. There has been little or no 

scientific sampling for Atlantic sturgeon 

in the Broad/Coosawatchie River. One 

fish of unknown size was reported from 

a small directed fishery during 1981 to 

1982 (Smith and Dingley, 1984). 

Prior to the collapse of the fishery in 

the late 1800s, the sturgeon fishery was 

the third largest fishery in Georgia. 

Secor (2002) estimated from U.S. Fish 

Commission landing reports that 

approximately 11,000 spawning females 

were likely present prior to 1890. The 

sturgeon fishery was mainly centered on 

the Altamaha River, and in more recent 

years, peak landings were recorded in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
61908 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1982 (13,000 lbs, 5,900 kg). Based on 

juvenile presence and abundance, the 

Altamaha River currently supports one 

of the healthier Atlantic sturgeon 

populations in the southeast (ASSRT, 

2007). Atlantic sturgeon are also present 

in the Ogeechee River; however, the 

absence of age-1 fish during some years 

and the unbalanced age structure 

suggests that the population is highly 

stressed (Rogers and Weber, 1995). 

Sampling results indicate that the 

Atlantic sturgeon population in the 

Satilla River is also highly stressed 

(Rogers and Weber, 1995). Only four 

spawning adults or YOY, which were 

used for genetic analysis (Ong et al., 

1996), have been collected from this 

river since 1995. In Georgia, Atlantic 

sturgeon are believed to spawn in the 

Savannah, Ogeechee, Altamaha, and 

Satilla rivers. The Savannah River 

supports a reproducing population of 

Atlantic sturgeon (Collins and Smith, 

1997). According to NOAA’s National 

Ocean Service, 70 Atlantic sturgeon 

have been captured since 1999 (ASSRT, 

2007). Twenty-two of these fish have 

been YOY. A running ripe male was 

captured at the base of the dam at 

Augusta during the late summer of 

1997, which supports the hypothesis 

that spawning occurs there in the fall. 

Reproducing Atlantic sturgeon 

populations are no longer believed to 

exist south of the Satilla River in 

Georgia. Recent sampling of the St. 

Marys River failed to locate any 

sturgeon, which suggests that the 

spawning population may be extirpated 

(Rogers et al., 1994; NMFS 2009). In 

January 2010, 12 sturgeon, believed to 

be Atlantics, were captured at the 

mouth of the St. Marys during 

relocation trawling associated with a 

dredging project (J. Wilcox, Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 

Pers. Comm.), the first capture of 

Atlantics in the St. Marys in decades. 

However, because they were not YOY or 

adults captured upstream, these trawlcaptured sturgeon do not provide new 

evidence of a spawning population in 

the St. Marys. There have been reports 

of Atlantic sturgeon tagged in the Edisto 

River (South Carolina) being recaptured 

in the St. Johns River, indicating this 

river may serve as a nursery ground; 

however, there are no data to support 

the existence of a current spawning 

population (i.e., YOY or running ripe 

adults) in the St. Johns (Rogers and 

Weber, 1995; Kahnle et al., 1998). 

Identification of Distinct Population 

Segments 

The ESA’s definition of ‘‘species’’ 

includes ‘‘any subspecies of fish or 

wildlife or plants, and any distinct 

population segment of any species of 

vertebrate fish or wildlife which 

interbreeds when mature.’’ The high 

degree of reproductive isolation of 

Atlantic sturgeon (i.e., homing to their 

natal rivers for spawning) (ASSRT, 

2007; Wirgin et al., 2000; King et al., 

2001; Waldman et al., 2002), as well as 

the ecological uniqueness of those 

riverine spawning habitats, the genetic 

diversity amongst subpopulations, and 

the differences in life history 

characteristics, provide evidence that 

discrete reproducing populations of 

Atlantic sturgeon exist, which led the 

Services to evaluate application of the 

DPS policy in its 2007 status review. To 

determine whether any populations 

qualify as DPSs, we evaluated 

populations pursuant to the joint DPS 

policy, and considered: (1) The 

discreteness of any Atlantic sturgeon 

population segment in relation to the 

remainder of the subspecies to which it 

belongs; and (2) the significance of any 

Atlantic sturgeon population segment to 

the remainder of the subspecies to 

which it belongs. 

Discreteness 

The joint DPS policy states that a 

population of a vertebrate species 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) or 

(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. 

Atlantic sturgeon throughout their 

range exhibit ecological separation 

during spawning that has resulted in 

multiple genetically distinct 

interbreeding population segments. 

Tagging studies and genetic analyses 

provide the evidence of this ecological 

separation (Wirgin et al., 2000; King et 

al., 2001; Waldman et al., 2002; ASSRT, 

2007; Grunwald et al., 2008). As 

previously discussed, though adult and 

subadult Atlantic sturgeon originating 

from different rivers mix in the marine 

environment (Stein et al., 2004a), the 

vast majority of Atlantic sturgeon return 

to their natal rivers to spawn, with some 

studies showing one or two individuals 

per generation spawning outside their 

natal river system (Wirgin et al., 2000; 

King et al., 2001; Waldman et al., 2002). 

In addition, spawning in the various 

river systems occurs at different times, 

with spawning occurring earliest in 

southern systems and occurring as 

much as 5 months later in the 

northernmost river systems (Murawski 

and Pacheco, 1977; Smith, 1985; Rogers 

and Weber, 1995; Weber and Jennings, 

1996; Bain, 1997; Smith and Clugston, 

1997; Moser et al., 1998; Caron et al., 

2002). Therefore, the ecological 

separation of the interbreeding units of 

Atlantic sturgeon results primarily from 

spatial separation (i.e., very few fish 

spawning outside their natal river 

systems), as well as temporal separation 

(spawning populations becoming active 

at different times along a continuum 

from north to south). 

Genetic analyses of mitochondrial 

DNA (mtDNA), which is maternally 

inherited, and nuclear DNA (nDNA), 

which reflects the genetics of both 

parents, provides evidence of the 

separation amongst Atlantic sturgeon 

populations in different rivers (Bowen 

and Avise, 1990; Ong et al., 1996; 

Waldman et al., 1996a; Waldman et al., 

1996b; Waldman and Wirgin, 1998; 

Waldman et al., 2002; King et al., 2001; 

Wirgin et al., 2002; Wirgin et al., 2005; 

Wirgin and King, 2006; Grunwald et al., 

2008). Overall, these studies 

consistently found Atlantic sturgeon to 

be genetically diverse, and offered that 

between seven and ten Atlantic sturgeon 

population groupings can be statistically 

differentiated range-wide (King et al., 

2001; Waldman et al., 2002; Wirgin et 

al., 2002; Wirgin et al., 2005; ASSRT, 

2007 (Tables 4 and 5); Grunwald et al., 

2008). 

Given a number of key differences 

amongst the studies (e.g., the analytical 

and/or statistical methods used, the 

number of rivers sampled, and whether 

samples from subadults were included), 

it is not unexpected that each reached 

a different conclusion as to the number 

of Atlantic sturgeon population 

groupings. Wirgin and King (2006) 

refined the genetic analyses for Atlantic 

sturgeon to address such differences in 

prior studies. Most notably, they 

increased sample sizes from multiple 

rivers and limited the samples analyzed 

to those collected from YOY and mature 

adults (greater than 130 cm total length) 

to ensure that the fish originated from 

the river in which it was sampled. The 

results of the refined analysis by Wirgin 

and King (2006) are presented in the 

status review report (ASSRT, 2007; e.g., 

Table 6 and Figure 17); both the mtDNA 

haplotype and nDNA allelic frequencies 

analyzed by Wirgin and King (2006) 

indicated that Atlantic sturgeon river 

populations are genetically 

differentiated. The results of the mtDNA 

analysis used for the status review 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61909 

report were also subsequently published 

by Grunwald et al. (2008). In 

comparison to the mtDNA analyses of 

the status review report, Grunwald et al. 

(2008) used additional samples, some 

from fish in the size range (less than 130 

cm) excluded by Wirgin and King 

because they were smaller than those 

considered to be mature adults. 

Nevertheless, the results were 

qualitatively the same and demonstrated 

that each of the 12 sampled Atlantic 

sturgeon populations could be 

genetically differentiated (Grunwald et 

al., 2008). 

Genetic distances and statistical 

analyses (bootstrap values and 

assignment test values) were used to 

investigate significant relationships 

among, and differences between, 

Atlantic sturgeon river populations 

(ASSRT, 2007; Table 6 and Figures 16– 

18). Overall, the genetic markers used in 

this analysis resulted in an average 

accuracy of only 88 percent for 

determining a sturgeon’s natal river 

origin, but an average accuracy of 94 

percent for correctly classifying it to one 

of five groups of populations (Kennebec 

River, Hudson River, James River, 

Albemarle Sound, and Savannah/ 

Ogeechee/Altamaha Rivers) when using 

microsatellite data collected only from 

YOY and adults (ASSRT, 2007; Table 6). 

A phylogenetic tree (a neighbor joining 

tree) was produced from only YOY and 

adult samples (to reduce the likelihood 

of including strays from other 

populations) using the microsatellite 

analysis (ASSRT, 2007; Figure 17). 

Bootstrap values (which measure how 

consistently the data support the tree 

structure) for this tree were high (equal 

to or greater than 87 percent, and all but 

one over 90 percent) (ASSRT, 2007). 

Regarding sturgeon from southeast 

rivers, this analysis resulted in a range 

of 60 to 92 percent accuracy in 

determining a sturgeon’s natal river 

origin, but 92 and 96 percent accuracy 

in correctly classifying a sturgeon from 

four sampled river populations (the 

Albemarle Sound, Savannah, Ogeechee, 

and Altamaha River populations) to two 

groupings of river populations 

(Albemarle Sound and Savannah/ 

Ogeechee/Altamaha Rivers). These two 

groupings exhibited clear separation 

from northern populations and from 

each other. 

Genetic samples for YOY and 

spawning adults were not available for 

river populations originating between 

the Albemarle Sound and the other 

three rivers. However, nDNA from an 

expanded dataset that included juvenile 

Atlantic sturgeon was used to produce 

a neighbor-joining tree with bootstrap 

values (ASSRT, 2007; Figure 18). This 

dataset included additional samples 

from the Santee-Cooper, Waccamaw, 

and Edisto populations in the Southeast. 

Atlantic sturgeon river populations also 

grouped into five population segments 

in this analysis. Atlantic sturgeon from 

the Santee-Cooper system grouped with 

the Albemarle Sound population, while 

the other two river populations grouped 

with the Savannah/Ogeechee/Altamaha 

River population segment. With the 

exception of the Waccamaw River 

population, all river populations 

sampled within each population 

segment along the entire East Coast were 

geographically adjacent. The Waccamaw 

River population grouped with the 

Edisto/Savannah/Ogeechee/Altamaha 

River population segment, even though 

it is geographically located between 

Albemarle Sound and the Santee and 

Cooper Rivers. However, we attributed 

this to the small sample size (21 fish) 

from the Waccamaw River. From the 

seven Southeast river populations 

included in the analysis, we determined 

that river populations from the ACE 

Basin southward grouped together and 

that river populations between the 

Santee-Cooper system and Albemarle 

Sound (Roanoke River) grouped 

together. 

The higher accuracy in identifying 

Atlantic sturgeon to one of two 

population groupings (Albemarle 

Sound/Santee-Cooper Rivers and 

Ogeechee/Savannah/Altamaha/Edisto 

Rivers) compared to their natal rivers 

supports the fact that these multipleriver population segments are discrete 

from each other. 

We have considered the information 

on Atlantic sturgeon population 

structuring provided in the status 

review report and Grunwald et al. 

(2008). The nDNA analyses described in 

the status review report provide 

additional genetics information, and 

include chord distances and bootstrap 

values to support the findings for 

population structuring of Atlantic 

sturgeon within the United States. 

Therefore, based on genetic differences 

observed between certain river 

populations and the assumption that 

adjacent river populations are more 

likely to breed with one another than 

river populations from rivers that are 

not adjacent to each other, five discrete 

Atlantic sturgeon population segments 

in the United States meet the DPS 

Policy’s Discreteness criterion, with two 

located in the Southeast: (1) The 

‘‘Carolina’’ population segment, which 

includes Atlantic sturgeon originating 

from the Roanoke, Tar/Pamlico, Cape 

Fear, Waccamaw, Pee Dee, and SanteeCooper Rivers, and (2) the ‘‘South 

Atlantic’’ population segment, which 

includes Atlantic sturgeon originating 

from the ACE Basin (Ashepoo, 

Combahee, and Edisto rivers), 

Savannah, Ogeechee, Altamaha, and 

Satilla Rivers. 

Significance 

When the discreteness criterion is met 

for a potential DPS, as it is for the 

Carolina and South Atlantic population 

segments in the Southeast identified 

above, the second element that must be 

considered under the DPS policy is 

significance of each DPS to the taxon as 

a whole. The DPS policy cites examples 

of potential considerations indicating 

significance, including: (1) Persistence 

of the discrete population segment in an 

ecological setting unusual or unique for 

the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the 

discrete population segment would 

result in a significant gap in the range 

of the taxon; (3) evidence that the DPS 

represents the only surviving natural 

occurrence of a taxon that may be more 

abundant elsewhere as an introduced 

population outside its historic range; or, 

(4) evidence that the discrete population 

segment differs markedly from other 

populations of the species in its genetic 

characteristics. 

We believe that the Carolina and 

South Atlantic population segments 

persist in ecological settings unique for 

the taxon. This is evidenced by the fact 

that spawning habitat of each 

population grouping is found in 

separate and distinct ecoregions that 

were identified by The Nature 

Conservancy (TNC) based on the 

habitat, climate, geology, and 

physiographic differences for both 

terrestrial and marine ecosystems 

throughout the range of the Atlantic 

sturgeon along the Atlantic coast (Figure 

1). TNC descriptions do not include 

detailed information on the chemical 

properties of the rivers within each 

ecoregion, but include an analysis of 

bedrock and surficial geology type 

because it relates to water chemistry, 

hydrologic regime, and substrate. It is 

well established that waters have 

different chemical properties (i.e., 

identities) depending on the geology of 

where the waters originate. 

Riverine spawning habitat of the 

Carolina population segment occurs 

within the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain 

ecoregion, which is described as 

consisting of bottomland hardwood 

forests, swamps, and some of the 

world’s most active coastal dunes, 

sounds, and estuaries. Natural fires, 

floods, and storms are so dominant in 

this region that the landscape changes 

very quickly. Rivers routinely change 

their courses and emerge from their 

banks. The TNC lists the most 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
61910 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

significant threats (sources of biological 

and ecological stress) in the region as: 

global climate change and rising sealevel; altered surface hydrology and 

landform alteration (e.g., flood-control 

and hydroelectric dams, inter-basin 

transfers of water, drainage ditches, 

breached levees, artificial levees, 

dredged inlets and river channels, beach 

renourishment, and spoil deposition 

banks and piles); a regionally receding 

water table, probably resulting from 

both over-use and inadequate recharge; 

fire suppression; land fragmentation, 

mainly by highway development; landuse conversion (e.g., from forests to 

timber plantations, farms, golf courses, 

housing developments, and resorts); the 

invasion of exotic plants and animals; 

air and water pollution, mainly from 

agricultural activities including 

concentrated animal feed operations; 

and over-harvesting and poaching of 

species. Many of the Carolina 

population segment’s spawning rivers, 

located in the Mid-Coastal Plain, 

originate in areas of marl. Waters 

draining calcareous, impervious surface 

materials such as marl are likely to be 

alkaline, dominated by surface run-off, 

have little groundwater connection, and 

be seasonally ephemeral. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61911 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

The riverine spawning habitat of the 

South Atlantic population segment 

occurs within the South Atlantic Coastal 

Plain ecoregion. TNC describes the 

South Atlantic Coastal Plain ecoregion 

as fall-line sandhills to rolling longleaf 

pine uplands to wet pine flatwoods; 

from small streams to large river 

systems to rich estuaries; from isolated 

depression wetlands to Carolina bays to 

the Okefenokee Swamp. Other 

ecological systems in the ecoregion 

include maritime forests on barrier 

islands, pitcher plant seepage bogs and 

Altamaha grit (sandstone) outcrops. The 

primary threats to biological diversity in 

the South Atlantic Coastal Plain listed 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP06OC10.005</GPH>
61912 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

by TNC are intensive silvicultural 

practices, including conversion of 

natural forests to highly managed pine 

monocultures and the clear-cutting of 

bottomland hardwood forests. Changes 

in water quality and quantity, caused by 

hydrologic alterations (impoundments, 

groundwater withdrawal, and ditching), 

and point and nonpoint pollution, are 

threatening the aquatic systems. 

Development is a growing threat, 

especially in coastal areas. Agricultural 

conversion, fire regime alteration, and 

the introduction of nonnative species 

are additional threats to the ecoregion’s 

diversity. The South Atlantic DPS’ 

spawning rivers, located in the South 

Atlantic Coastal Plain, are primarily of 

two types: brownwater (with 

headwaters north of the Fall Line, siltladen) and blackwater (with headwaters 

in the coastal plain, stained by tannic 

acids). 

Therefore, the ecoregion delineations 

support that the physical and chemical 

properties of the Atlantic sturgeon 

spawning rivers utilized by the Carolina 

and South Atlantic DPSs are unique to 

each population segment. Since 

reproductive isolation accounts for the 

discreteness of each population 

segment, the Carolina and South 

Atlantic population segments of 

Atlantic sturgeon are ‘‘significant’’ as 

defined in the DPS policy given that the 

spawning rivers for each population 

segment occur in a unique ecological 

setting. 

The loss of either the Carolina or the 

South Atlantic population segments of 

Atlantic sturgeon would create a 

significant gap in the range of the taxon. 

The loss of the Carolina population 

segment would result in a 475-mile 

(764-kilometer (km)) gap between the 

northern population segments and the 

South Atlantic population segment. The 

loss of the South Atlantic population 

segment would truncate the southern 

range of Atlantic sturgeon by greater 

than 150 miles (241 km). Though 

Atlantic sturgeon travel great distances 

in the marine environment and may use 

multiple river systems for foraging and 

nursery habitat, the range occupied by 

the Carolina and South Atlantic 

population segments would likely not 

be recolonized by a new, viable 

spawning population if either 

population segment was lost. Based on 

genetic analyses showing that fewer 

than two individuals per generation 

spawn outside their natal rivers (Secor 

and Waldman, 1999), we do not expect 

Atlantic sturgeon that originate from 

other population segments to recolonize extirpated systems and 

establish new spawning populations, 

except perhaps over a long time frame 

(i.e., many Atlantic sturgeon 

generations). Therefore, the loss of 

either the Carolina or South Atlantic 

population segments would result in a 

significant gap in the range of Atlantic 

sturgeon over a long time frame, and 

negatively impact the species as a whole 

because the loss of either population 

segment would constitute an important 

loss of genetic diversity for the Atlantic 

sturgeon. 

The information presented above 

describes: (1) Persistence of the Carolina 

and South Atlantic population segments 

in ecological settings that are unique for 

the Atlantic sturgeon as a whole; and (2) 

evidence that loss of either population 

segment would result in a significant 

gap in the range of the taxon. Based on 

this information, we concur with the 

SRT’s conclusion that the Carolina and 

South Atlantic population segments 

meet the discreteness and significance 

criteria outlined in the DPS policy. We 

hereafter refer to these DPSs as the 

Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs. 

Figure 2 shows the riverine and U.S. 

marine ranges of the Carolina and South 

Atlantic DPSs. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61913 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Conservation Status 

We will now consider the 

conservation status of the two DPSs in 

the Southeast Region’s jurisdiction, the 

Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs, in 

relation to the ESA’s standards for 

listing. We will determine whether each 

DPS meets the definition of 

‘‘endangered’’ or ‘‘threatened’’ as defined 

in section 3 of the ESA, and whether 

that status is a result of one or a 

combination of the factors listed under 

section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. An 

endangered species is ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a threatened species is 

one ‘‘which is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP06OC10.006</GPH>
61914 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

The abundance of Atlantic sturgeon 

has decreased dramatically within the 

last 150 years. A major fishery for 

Atlantic sturgeon developed in 1870 

when a caviar market was established 

(Smith and Clugston, 1997). Record 

landings in the U.S. were reported in 

1890, with over 7,385,000 lbs (3,350,000 

kg) of Atlantic sturgeon landed from 

coastal rivers along the entire Atlantic 

Coast (Smith and Clugston, 1997; Secor 

and Waldman, 1999). Ten years after 

peak landings, the fishery collapsed in 

1901, when less than 10 percent 

(650,365 lbs, 295,000 kg) of the U.S. 

1890 peak landings were reported. The 

landings continued to decline 

coastwide, reaching about 5 percent of 

the peak in 1920. During the 1950s, the 

remaining U.S. fishery switched to 

targeting sturgeon for flesh, rather than 

caviar, and coastwide landings 

remained between 1 and 5 percent of 

the 1890 peak levels until the Atlantic 

sturgeon fishery was closed by ASMFC 

in 1998. 

The Carolina DPS includes all 

Atlantic sturgeon that spawn in the 

watersheds from the Roanoke River, 

Virginia, southward along the southern 

Virginia, North Carolina, and South 

Carolina coastal areas to the Cooper 

River. The marine range of Atlantic 

sturgeon from the Carolina DPS extends 

from the Bay of Fundy, Canada, to the 

Saint Johns River, Florida. While 

Atlantic sturgeon exhibit a high degree 

of spawning fidelity to their natal rivers, 

multiple riverine, estuarine, and marine 

habitats may serve various life (e.g., 

nursery, foraging, and migration) 

functions. Rivers known to have current 

spawning populations within the range 

of this DPS include the Roanoke, TarPamlico, Cape Fear, Waccamaw, and 

Pee Dee Rivers. There may also be 

spawning populations in the Neuse, 

Santee and Cooper Rivers, though it is 

uncertain at this time. Historically, both 

the Sampit and Ashley Rivers were 

documented to have spawning 

populations at one time. However, the 

spawning population in the Sampit 

River is believed to be extirpated and 

the current status of the spawning 

population in the Ashley River is 

unknown. Both rivers may be used as 

nursery habitat by young Atlantic 

sturgeon originating from other 

spawning populations. This represents 

our current knowledge of the river 

systems utilized by the Carolina DPS for 

specific life functions, such as 

spawning, nursery habitat, and foraging. 

However, fish from the Carolina DPS 

likely use other river systems than those 

listed here for their specific life 

functions. The Carolina DPS also 

includes Atlantic sturgeon held in 

captivity (e.g., aquaria, hatcheries, and 

scientific institutions) and which are 

identified as fish belonging to the 

Carolina DPS based on genetics 

analyses, previously applied tags, 

previously applied marks, or 

documentation to verify that the fish 

originated from (hatched in) a river 

within the range of the Carolina DPS, or 

is the progeny of any fish that originated 

from a river within the range of the 

Carolina DPS. NMFS has no records of 

Atlantic sturgeon from the Carolina DPS 

being held in captivity. 

Historical landings data indicate that 

between 7,000 and 10,500 adult female 

Atlantic sturgeon were present in North 

Carolina prior to 1890 (Armstrong and 

Hightower, 2002; Secor, 2002). Secor 

(2002) estimates that 8,000 adult 

females were present in South Carolina 

during that same timeframe. Prior 

reductions from the commercial fishery 

and ongoing threats have drastically 

reduced the numbers of Atlantic 

sturgeon within the Carolina DPS. 

Currently, the Atlantic sturgeon 

spawning population in at least one 

river system within the Carolina DPS 

has been extirpated, with a potential 

extirpation in an additional system. The 

abundance of the remaining river 

populations within the DPS, each 

estimated to have fewer than 300 

spawning adults, is estimated to be less 

than 3 percent of what it was 

historically (ASSRT, 2007). Though 

directed fishing and possession of 

Atlantic sturgeon is no longer legal, the 

Carolina DPS continues to face threats 

such as habitat alteration and bycatch. 

The presence of dams has resulted in 

the loss of over 60 percent of the 

historical sturgeon habitat on the Cape 

Fear River and in the Santee-Cooper 

system. This has resulted in the loss of 

important spawning and juvenile 

developmental habitat and has reduced 

the quality of the remaining habitat by 

affecting water quality parameters (such 

as depth, temperature, velocity, and 

dissolved oxygen) that are important to 

sturgeon. 

The South Atlantic DPS includes all 

Atlantic sturgeon that spawn in the 

watersheds of the ACE Basin in South 

Carolina to the St. Johns River, Florida. 

The marine range of Atlantic sturgeon 

from the South Atlantic DPS extends 

from the Bay of Fundy, Canada, to the 

Saint Johns River, Florida. While 

Atlantic sturgeon exhibit a high degree 

of spawning fidelity to their natal rivers, 

multiple riverine, estuarine, and marine 

habitats may serve various life (e.g., 

nursery, foraging, and migration) 

functions. Rivers known to have current 

spawning populations within this DPS 

include the Combahee, Edisto, 

Savannah, Ogeechee, Altamaha, and 

Satilla Rivers. Historically, both the 

Broad-Coosawatchie and St. Marys 

Rivers were documented to have 

spawning populations at one time; there 

is also evidence that spawning may 

have occurred in the St. Johns River or 

one of its tributaries. However, the 

spawning population in the St. Marys 

River, as well as any historical 

spawning population present in the St. 

Johns, is believed to be extirpated, and 

the status of the spawning population in 

the Broad-Coosawatchie is unknown. 

Both the St. Marys and St. Johns Rivers 

are used as nursery habitat by young 

Atlantic sturgeon originating from other 

spawning populations. The use of the 

Broad-Coosawatchie by sturgeon from 

other spawning populations is unknown 

at this time. The presence of historical 

and current spawning populations in 

the Ashepoo River has not been 

documented; however, this river may 

currently be used for nursery habitat by 

young Atlantic sturgeon originating 

from other spawning populations. This 

represents our current knowledge of the 

river systems utilized by the South 

Atlantic DPS for specific life functions, 

such as spawning, nursery habitat, and 

foraging. However, fish from the South 

Atlantic DPS likely use other river 

systems than those listed here for their 

specific life functions. The South 

Atlantic DPS also includes Atlantic 

sturgeon held in captivity (e.g., aquaria, 

hatcheries, and scientific institutions) 

and which are identified as fish 

belonging to the South Atlantic DPS 

based on genetics analyses, previously 

applied tags, previously applied marks, 

or documentation to verify that the fish 

originated from (hatched in) a river 

within the range of the South Atlantic 

DPS, or is the progeny of any fish that 

originated from a river within the range 

of the South Atlantic DPS. Ten Atlantic 

sturgeon taken from the Altamaha River 

are currently being held at the Bears 

Bluff National Fish Hatchery in Warm 

Springs, Georgia, though it is not certain 

whether those fish were spawned in the 

Altamaha or were migrants from another 

river system. NMFS has no other 

records of Atlantic sturgeon from the 

South Atlantic DPS being held in 

captivity. 

Secor (2002) estimated that 8,000 

spawning female Atlantic sturgeon were 

present in South Carolina. Historically, 

the population of spawning female 

Atlantic sturgeon in Georgia was 

estimated at 11,000 fish per year prior 

to 1890 (Secor, 2002). Prior reductions 

from the commercial fishery and 

ongoing threats have drastically reduced 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61915 

the numbers of Atlantic sturgeon within 

the South Atlantic DPS. Currently, the 

Atlantic sturgeon spawning population 

in one (possibly two) river systems 

within the South Atlantic DPS have 

been extirpated. The Altamaha River, 

with an estimated 343 spawning adults 

per year, is suspected to be less than 6 

percent of its historical abundance, 

extrapolated from the 1890s commercial 

landings; the abundance of the 

remaining river populations within the 

DPS, each estimated to have fewer than 

300 spawning adults, is estimated to be 

less than 1 percent of what it was 

historically (ASSRT, 2007). While the 

directed fishery that originally 

drastically reduced the numbers of 

Atlantic sturgeon has been closed, other 

impacts have contributed to their low 

population numbers, may have 

contributed to the extirpation of some 

spawning populations, and are likely 

inhibiting recovery of extant river 

populations. Historically, Atlantic 

sturgeon likely accessed all parts of the 

St. Johns River, as American shad were 

reported as far upstream as Lake 

Poinsett (reviewed in McBride, 2000). 

However, the construction of 

Kirkpatrick Dam (originally Rodman 

Dam) at river mile (RM) 95 (river km 

(RKM) 153) restricted migration to 

potential spawning and juvenile 

developmental habitat upstream. 

Approximately 63 percent of historical 

sturgeon habitat is believed to be 

blocked due to the dam (ASSRT, 2007), 

and there is no longer a spawning 

population in the St. Johns River. 

Small numbers of individuals 

resulting from drastic reductions in 

populations, such as occurred with 

Atlantic sturgeon due to the commercial 

fishery, can remove the buffer against 

natural demographic and environmental 

variability provided by large 

populations (Berry, 1971; Shaffer, 1981; 

Soule, 1980). Though the Carolina and 

South Atlantic DPSs, made up of 

multiple river populations of Atlantic 

sturgeon, were determined to be 

genetically discrete, interbreeding 

population units, the vast majority of 

Atlantic sturgeon return to their natal 

rivers to spawn, with fewer than two 

migrants per generation spawning 

outside their natal system (Wirgin et al., 

2000; King et al., 2001; Waldman et al., 

2002). Therefore, it is important to look 

at each riverine spawning population 

within each DPS when considering the 

effects of a small population size on the 

extinction risk for the DPS. Though 

there is no absolute population size 

above which populations are ‘‘safe’’ and 

below which they face an unacceptable 

risk of extinction (Gilpin and Soule, 

1986; Soule and Simberloff, 1986; 

Ewens et al., 1987; Goodman, 1987; 

Simberloff, 1988; Thomas, 1990), some 

have argued that ‘‘rules of thumb’’ can 

and should be applied (Soule, 1987; 

Thompson, 1991). Salwasser et al. 

(1984) prescribe a minimum viable 

population size of at least 1,000 adults. 

Belovsky (1987) indicates that a 

minimum viable population in the range 

of 1,000 to 10,000 adults should be 

sufficient for a mid-sized vertebrate 

species. Soule (1987) suggests that 

minimum viable population sizes for 

vertebrate species should be in the ‘‘low 

thousands’’ or higher. Thomas (1990) 

offers a population size of 5,500 as ‘‘a 

useful goal,’’ but suggests that where 

uncertainty is extreme ‘‘we should 

usually aim for population sizes from 

several thousand to ten thousand.’’ In a 

NOAA Technical Memorandum 

‘‘Determining Minimum Viable 

Populations under the ESA,’’ Thompson 

(1991) states the ‘‘50/500’’ rule of thumb 

initially advanced by Franklin (1980) 

and Soule (1980) comes the closest of 

any to attaining ‘‘magic number’’ status. 

Franklin (1980) has suggested that, 

simply to maintain short-term fitness 

(i.e., prevent serious in-breeding and its 

deleterious effects), the minimum 

effective population size should be 

around 50. He further recommended 

that, to maintain sufficient genetic 

variability for adaptation to changing 

environmental conditions, the 

minimum effective population size 

should be around 500. Soule (1980) has 

pointed out that, above and beyond 

preserving short-term fitness and 

genetic adaptability, long-term 

evolutionary potential (at the species 

level) may well require a number of 

substantially larger populations. It is 

important to note that the 50/500 rule is 

cast in terms of effective population 

size, a concept introduced by Wright 

(1931). The effective population size 

refers to an ideal population of breeding 

individuals produced each generation 

by random union of an equal number of 

male and female gametes randomly 

drawn from the previous generation. To 

the extent that this ideal is violated in 

nature, the effective population size is 

generally smaller than the overall 

number of mature individuals in the 

population. It is not possible to 

calculate the effective population sizes 

of the riverine spawning populations in 

the Carolina or the South Atlantic DPS. 

However, even under ideal 

circumstances where the effective 

population size is equal to the overall 

numbers of adults, the spawning 

populations are all believed to be 

smaller than the 500 recommended by 

Thompson (1991) to maintain sufficient 

genetic variability for adaptation to 

changing environmental conditions, and 

certainly smaller than the 1,000 to 

10,000 recommended by other authors. 

It is not known if certain riverine 

populations are at an abundance smaller 

than the minimum effective population 

size of 50 that would prevent serious inbreeding (Thompson, 1991). Moreover, 

in some rivers, spawning by Atlantic 

sturgeon may not be contributing to 

population growth because of lack of 

suitable habitat and other stressors on 

juvenile survival and development. 

The concept of a viable population 

able to adapt to changing environmental 

conditions is critical to Atlantic 

sturgeon, and the low population 

numbers of every river population in the 

Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs put 

them in danger of extinction throughout 

their ranges; none of the populations are 

large or stable enough to provide with 

any level of certainty for continued 

existence of Atlantic sturgeon in this 

part of its range. While the directed 

fishery that originally drastically 

reduced the numbers of Atlantic 

sturgeon has been closed, recovery of 

depleted populations is an inherently 

slow process for a late-maturing species 

such as Atlantic sturgeon, and they 

continue to face a variety of other 

threats that contribute to their risk of 

extinction. Their late age at maturity 

provides more opportunities for 

individual Atlantic sturgeon to be 

removed from the population before 

reproducing. While a long life-span also 

allows multiple opportunities to 

contribute to future generations, it also 

increases the timeframe over which 

exposure to the multitude of threats 

facing the Carolina and South Atlantic 

DPS can occur. These threats include 

the loss, reduction, and degradation of 

habitat resulting from dams, dredging, 

and changes in water quality parameters 

(such as depth, temperature, velocity, 

and dissolved oxygen). Even with a 

moratorium on directed fisheries, 

bycatch is a threat to both the Carolina 

and South Atlantic DPSs. Fisheries 

known to incidentally catch Atlantic 

sturgeon occur throughout the marine 

range of the species and in some 

riverine waters as well. Because Atlantic 

sturgeon mix extensively in marine 

waters and may use multiple river 

systems for spawning, foraging, and 

other life functions, they are subject to 

being caught in multiple fisheries 

throughout their range. In addition to 

direct mortality, stress or injury to 

Atlantic sturgeon taken as bycatch but 

released alive may result in increased 

susceptibility to other threats, such as 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
61916 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

poor water quality (e.g., exposure to 

toxins). This may result in reduced 

ability to perform major life functions, 

such as foraging and spawning, or even 

post-capture mortality. While some of 

the threats to the Carolina and South 

Atlantic DPS have been ameliorated or 

reduced due to the existing regulatory 

mechanisms, such as the moratorium on 

directed fisheries for Atlantic sturgeon, 

bycatch is currently not being addressed 

through existing mechanisms. Further, 

water quality continues to be a problem 

even with existing controls on some 

pollution sources and water withdrawal, 

and dams continue to curtail and 

modify habitat, even with the Federal 

Power Act. 

We have reviewed the status review 

report, as well as other available 

literature and information, and have 

consulted with scientists and fishery 

resource managers familiar with 

Atlantic sturgeon in the Carolina and 

South Atlantic DPSs. After reviewing 

the best scientific and commercial 

information available, we find that both 

the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs 

are in danger of extinction throughout 

their ranges and thus meet the ESA’s 

definition of an endangered species. 

Atlantic sturgeon populations declined 

precipitously decades ago due to 

directed commercial fishing. The failure 

of Atlantic sturgeon numbers within the 

Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs to 

rebound even after the moratorium on 

directed fishing was established in 1998 

indicates that impacts and threats from 

limits on habitat for spawning and 

development, habitat alteration, and 

bycatch are responsible for the risk of 

extinction faced by both DPSs. In 

addition, the persistence of these 

impacts and threats points to the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms to address and reduce 

habitat alterations and bycatch. We will 

address the threats of habitat alteration, 

bycatch, and the inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms and their 

contributions to the endangered statuses 

of the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs 

in detail in the following sections of this 

proposed rule. 

Analysis of Section 4(a)(1) Factors’ 

Effects on the Species 

The ESA requires us to determine 

whether any species is endangered or 

threatened because of any of the 

following factors: (A) Present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. Listing determinations are 

made solely on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and after 

taking into account any efforts being 

made by any state or foreign nation to 

protect the species. The SRT examined 

each of the aforementioned five factors 

for their impacts on the Atlantic 

sturgeon DPSs. The following is a 

summary of its relevant findings, any 

additional information that has become 

available since the status review report 

was published, and the conclusions that 

we have made based on the available 

information. 

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of the 

Species’ Habitat or Range 

Habitat alterations considered by the 

SRT that affect the status of sturgeon 

populations include: dam and tidal 

turbine construction and operation; 

dredging, disposal, and blasting; and 

water quality modifications, such as 

changes in levels of DO, water 

temperature, and contaminants. Atlantic 

sturgeon, like all anadromous fish, are 

vulnerable to a host of habitat impacts 

because they use rivers, estuaries, bays, 

and the ocean at various points of their 

life. In addition to the habitat alterations 

considered by the SRT, other emerging 

threats to habitat considered in this 

section are drought, intra- and interstate water allocation issues, and 

climate change. These threats have the 

potential to further exacerbate habitat 

modifications evaluated by the SRT. 

Because they were not evaluated in the 

status review report, they are considered 

in more detail in this section. In this 

section, we summarize the threats for 

each DPS that we believe represent a 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification or curtailment of the DPS’s 

habitat or range and are contributing to 

the endangered status of both DPSs. 

Dams 

Dams are a threat to the Carolina and 

South Atlantic DPS that contributes to 

their endangered status by curtailing the 

extent of available habitat, as well as 

modifying sturgeon habitat downstream 

through a reduction in water quality. As 

noted in the status review report, dams 

for hydropower generation, flood 

control, and navigation adversely affect 

Atlantic sturgeon habitat by impeding 

access to spawning, developmental and 

foraging habitat, modifying free-flowing 

rivers to reservoirs, physically damaging 

fish on upstream and downstream 

migrations, and altering water quality in 

the remaining downstream portions of 

spawning and nursery habitat. Attempts 

to minimize the impacts of dams using 

measures such as fish passage have not 

proven beneficial to Atlantic sturgeon, 

as they do not regularly use existing fish 

passage devices, which are generally 

designed to pass pelagic fish. To date, 

only four Atlantic sturgeon have been 

documented to have passed via a fish 

lift (three at the St. Stephens fish lift in 

South Carolina and one at the Holyoke 

Dam in Massachusetts), as these passage 

facilities are not designed to 

accommodate adult-sized sturgeon. 

While there has not been a large loss of 

Atlantic sturgeon habitat throughout the 

entire species’ range due to the presence 

of dams, individual riverine systems 

have been severely impacted by dams, 

as access to large portions of historical 

sturgeon spawning and juvenile 

developmental habitat has been 

eliminated or restricted. The SRT used 

GIS tools and dam location data 

collected by Oakley (2003) as reference 

points for river kilometer measurements 

to map historical rivers in which 

Atlantic sturgeon spawned. This 

information was then used to determine 

the number of kilometers of available 

habitat. Within the Carolina and South 

Atlantic DPSs, the Cape Fear, SanteeCooper, and St. Johns River systems 

have lost greater than 60 percent of the 

habitat historically used for spawning 

and juvenile development. 

The Cape Fear River has three locks 

and dams (constructed from 1915 to 

1935) between Wilmington and 

Fayetteville that are located below the 

fall line; two additional dams, Buckhorn 

and B. Everette Jordan, are located 

above the fall line. Atlantic sturgeon 

movement is blocked at the first lock 

and dam located in Riegelwood, North 

Carolina, which was constructed in 

1915. Pelagic species can pass over the 

three locks and dams during high water, 

but the benthic Atlantic sturgeon is not 

known to pass over these three locks/ 

dams. No Atlantic sturgeon have been 

captured upstream of Lock and Dam #1 

despite extensive sampling efforts 

(Moser et al., 1998). Exact historical 

spawning locations are unknown in the 

Cape Fear River, but Atlantic sturgeon 

spawning is generally believed to occur 

in flowing water between the salt front 

and fall line of large rivers (Borodin, 

1925; Leland, 1968; Scott and Crossman, 

1973; Crance, 1987; Bain et al., 2000). 

Therefore, sturgeon researchers judge 

the fall line to be the likely upper limit 

of spawning habitat. Using the fall line 

as a guide, only 36 percent of the 

historical habitat is available to Atlantic 

sturgeon. In some years, the salt water 

interface reaches the first lock and dam; 

therefore, spawning adults in the Cape 

Fear River either do not spawn in such 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61917 

years or spawn in the major tributaries 

of the Cape Fear River (i.e., Black River 

or Northeast Cape Fear Rivers) that are 

not obstructed by dams. 

The Santee-Cooper Hydroelectric 

Project is located in the coastal plain of 

the Santee Basin on the Santee and 

Cooper Rivers, South Carolina. The 

project was finished in 1942 and 

includes Lake Marion, which is 

impounded by the Santee Dam (Wilson 

Dam) on the Santee River at RM 87 

(RKM 140), and Lake Moultrie, which is 

impounded by the Pinopolis Dam on the 

Cooper River at RM 48 (RKM 77). Using 

the fall line as the upper region of 

spawning habitat, it is estimated that 

only 38 percent of the historical habitat 

is available to Atlantic sturgeon today. 

Although fish lifts operate at the 

Pinopolis and St. Stephens Dams during 

the spring, observations of sturgeon in 

the lifts are extremely rare (traditional 

fish passage designs are not typically 

successful for sturgeon). There is no 

record of an adult Atlantic sturgeon 

being lifted, although three dead 

Atlantic sturgeon were observed in Lake 

Marion between 1995 and 1997, and in 

2007, an Atlantic sturgeon entered the 

St. Stephens fishway and was 

physically removed and translocated 

downstream into the Santee River (A. 

Crosby, SCDNR, Pers. Comm.) 

In addition to blocking access to 

habitat, dams can degrade spawning, 

nursery, and foraging habitat 

downstream by reducing water quality. 

Flow, water temperature, and oxygen 

levels in the Roanoke River are affected 

by the Kerr Dam and the Gaston Dam/ 

Roanoke Rapids facilities, which engage 

in peaking operations. Riverine water 

flow has already been modified by the 

dam operators during the striped bass 

spawning season to simulate natural 

flow patterns; these modifications 

undoubtedly benefit Atlantic sturgeon. 

Regardless of the temporary 

modifications, lower water temperatures 

resulting from the hypolimnetic 

discharge from Kerr Dam have caused 

temporal shifts in the spawning peaks 

for both American shad and striped bass 

and likely have had the same impact for 

other diadromous species, including 

Atlantic sturgeon (ASSRT, 2007). High 

flows from Kerr Dam during the summer 

are coupled with high ambient 

temperatures and an influx of swamp 

water with low DO, creating a large, 

hypoxic plume within the river. Fish 

kills have been documented to occur 

during this time (ASSRT, 2007), and 

sturgeon are more highly sensitive to 

low DO (less than 5 milligrams per liter 

(mg/L)) than other fish species 

(Niklitschek and Secor, 2009a, 2009b). 

Low DO in combination with high 

temperature is particularly problematic 

for Atlantic sturgeon, and studies have 

shown that juvenile Atlantic sturgeon 

experience lethal and sublethal 

(metabolic, growth, feeding) effects as 

DO drops and temperatures rise 

(Niklitschek and Secor, 2009a, 2009b; 

Niklitschek and Secor, 2005; Secor and 

Gunderson, 1998). Therefore, it is likely 

that dam operations are negatively 

affecting Atlantic sturgeon nursery 

habitat in the lower Roanoke River. 

Dredging 

Dredging is a present threat to both 

the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs 

and is contributing to their endangered 

status by modifying the quality and 

availability of Atlantic sturgeon habitat. 

Riverine, nearshore, and offshore areas 

are often dredged to support commercial 

shipping and recreational boating, 

construction of infrastructure, and 

marine mining. Environmental impacts 

of dredging include the direct removal/ 

burial of organisms; turbidity/siltation 

effects; contaminant resuspension; 

noise/disturbance; alterations to 

hydrodynamic regime and physical 

habitat; and actual loss of riparian 

habitat (Chytalo, 1996; Winger et al., 

2000). According to Smith and Clugston 

(1997), dredging and filling impact 

important habitat features of Atlantic 

sturgeon as they disturb benthic fauna, 

eliminate deep holes, and alter rock 

substrates. To reduce the impacts of 

dredging on anadromous fish species, 

most of the Atlantic states impose work 

restrictions during sensitive time 

periods (spawning, migration, feeding) 

when anadromous fish are present. 

NMFS also imposes seasonal 

restrictions to protect shortnose 

sturgeon populations (where present) 

through Section 7 consultations that 

may have the added benefit of 

protecting Atlantic sturgeon where the 

two species co-occur. Within the 

Carolina DPS, dredging operations 

(including the blasting of rock) on the 

lower Cape Fear River, Brunswick River, 

and port facilities at the U.S. Army’s 

Sunny Point Military Ocean Terminal 

and Port of Wilmington are extensive. 

To protect diadromous fish, restrictions 

are placed on dredging to avoid 

sensitive seasons and locations, such as 

potential spawning habitat (February 1 

through June 30) and suspected nursery 

grounds (April 1 through September 30). 

However, while the restrictions prevent 

dredging from occurring when Atlantic 

sturgeon are expected to be present, the 

effects of dredging on Atlantic sturgeon 

habitat remain long after the dredging 

has been completed. Moser and Ross 

(1995) found that some of the winter 

holding sites favored by sturgeon in the 

lower Cape Fear River estuary also 

support very high levels of benthic 

infauna and may be important feeding 

stations. Repeated dredging in the Cape 

Fear River can modify sturgeon habitat 

through the removal or burial of benthic 

infauna in feeding grounds and creation 

of unsuitable substrate in spawning 

grounds (ASSRT, 2007). Similar habitat 

modifications are occurring in the 

Cooper River, which flows into 

Charleston Harbor, one of the busiest 

ports on the Atlantic Coast, and is 

dredged regularly. The river channel is 

maintained by dredging all the way to 

the Pinopolis Dam. No seasonal 

restrictions are placed on dredging in 

the Cooper River, potentially 

interrupting spawning activities 

(ASSRT, 2007). 

In the South Atlantic DPS, 

maintenance dredging in Atlantic 

sturgeon nursery habitat in the 

Savannah River is frequent, and 

substantial channel deepening took 

place in 1994. The Georgia Ports 

Authority is seeking to expand its port 

facility on the Savannah River. Within 

the 1999 Water Resources Development 

Act, Congress authorized the deepening 

of the Savannah Navigation Channel 

from the current depth of –42 to –48 ft 

(–12.8 to –14.6 m) mean low water. 

Hydrodynamic and water quality 

models have been developed to predict 

changes in water quality across depth 

and throughout the channel. The 

channel deepening is predicted to alter 

overall water quality (e.g., salinity and 

DO), creating inhospitable foraging/ 

resting habitat in the lower Savannah 

River for sturgeon. The lower Savannah 

River is heavily industrialized and 

serves as a major shipping port. Nursery 

habitat in the lower river has been 

heavily impacted by diminished water 

quality and channelization. Reduced DO 

levels and upriver movement of the salt 

wedge are predicted to result from 

channel deepening. Sturgeon are highly 

sensitive to low DO, more so than other 

fish species (Niklitschek and Secor, 

2009a, 2009b). Because Atlantic 

sturgeon spawn above the interface 

between fresh water and salt water, the 

upriver movement of the salt wedge will 

curtail the extent of Atlantic sturgeon 

habitat in the Savannah River. Dredging 

also commonly occurs within the St. 

Johns River and has been linked to the 

reduction in submerged aquatic 

vegetation where Atlantic sturgeon 

likely forage (Jordan, 2002). Though 

there is currently no resident spawning 

population in the St. Johns, it still 

provides nursery habitat for juvenile 

Atlantic sturgeon in the South Atlantic 

DPS (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). Over 60 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
61918 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

percent of the historical sturgeon habitat 

in the St. Johns River has already been 

curtailed by the presence of a dam, and 

dredging modifies the quality of the 

remaining nursery habitat in the river. 

Water Quality 

Degraded water quality is a present 

threat to the Carolina and South 

Atlantic DPSs and is contributing to 

their endangered status by modifying 

and curtailing the extent of available 

habitat for spawning and nursery areas. 

Atlantic sturgeon rely on a variety of 

water quality parameters to successfully 

carry out their life functions. Low DO 

and the presence of contaminants 

modify the quality of Atlantic sturgeon 

habitat and in some cases, curtail the 

extent of suitable habitat for life 

functions. Secor (1995) noted a 

correlation between low abundances of 

sturgeon during this century and 

decreasing water quality caused by 

increased nutrient loading and 

increased spatial and temporal 

frequency of hypoxic conditions. Of 

particular concern is the high 

occurrence of low DO coupled with 

high temperatures in the river systems 

throughout the range of the Carolina and 

South Atlantic DPSs. Sturgeon are more 

highly sensitive to low DO than other 

fish species (Niklitschek and Secor, 

2009a, 2009b) and low DO in 

combination with high temperature is 

particularly problematic for Atlantic 

sturgeon. Studies have shown that 

juvenile Atlantic sturgeon experience 

lethal and sublethal (metabolic, growth, 

feeding) effects as DO drops and 

temperatures rise (Niklitschek and 

Secor, 2009a, 2009b; Niklitschek and 

Secor, 2005; Secor and Gunderson, 

1998). Water quality within the river 

systems in the range of the Carolina and 

South Atlantic DPSs is also negatively 

impacted by contaminants and large 

water withdrawals. 

For the Carolina DPS, water quality in 

the Pamlico system, especially in the 

lower Neuse River, is highly degraded 

(Paerl et al., 1998; Qian et al., 2000; 

Glasgow et al., 2001). The entire basin 

has been designated as nutrientsensitive, and additional regulatory 

controls are being implemented to 

improve water quality. Both the Neuse 

and Pamlico portions of the estuary 

have been subject to seasonal episodes 

of anoxia that significantly affect the 

quality of Atlantic sturgeon nursery 

habitat. Concentrated animal feeding 

operations (CAFOs) cause at least some 

portion of the current water quality 

problems in the Pamlico watershed 

(Mallin and Cahoon, 2003). Farms that 

produce hogs, turkeys, and chickens 

have proliferated throughout the coastal 

portion of the basin in the last decade, 

with increases in both aquatic and 

atmospheric deposition of nitrogenous 

waste products. North Carolina passed a 

moratorium in 1997 limiting additional 

hog operations and is conducting a 

study of measures to address the 

problem; the moratorium was renewed 

in 1999 and 2003. Water quality in the 

Cape Fear River is poor for aquatic life, 

due largely to industrial development 

and use, including the Port of 

Wilmington and numerous industrial 

point-source discharges. Development 

of CAFOs in the coastal portion of the 

Cape Fear River basin has been 

especially heavy (most concentrated 

operations of CAFOs occur in the Cape 

Fear River drainage within North 

Carolina) and contributes to both 

atmospheric and aquatic inputs of 

nitrogenous contamination, possibly 

causing DO levels to regularly fall below 

the 5 mg/L state standard (Mallin and 

Cahoon, 2003). In recent years, fish kills 

have been observed, usually as a result 

of blackwater swamps (with low DO) 

being flushed after heavy rainfall. 

Industrialization also threatens the 

habitat of the Carolina DPS. Paper and 

steel mills in the Winyah Bay system, 

which includes the Waccamaw, Pee 

Dee, and Sampit rivers, have impacted 

water quality. Riverine sediment 

samples contain high levels of various 

toxins including dioxins (NMFS and 

USFWS, 1998). Though the effects of 

these contaminants on Atlantic sturgeon 

are unknown, Atlantic sturgeon are 

particularly susceptible to impacts from 

contaminated sediments due to their 

benthic foraging behavior and long-life 

span, and effects from these compounds 

on fish include production of acute 

lesions, growth retardation, and 

reproductive impairment (Cooper, 1989; 

Sinderman, 1994). It should be noted 

that the effect of multiple contaminants 

or mixtures of compounds at sublethal 

levels on fish has not been adequately 

studied. Atlantic sturgeon use marine, 

estuarine, and freshwater habitats and 

are in direct contact through water, diet, 

or dermal exposure with multiple 

contaminants throughout their range. 

Habitat utilized by the South Atlantic 

DPS in the Savannah River has also 

been modified by mercury 

contamination (ASSRT, 2007). While 

water quality in the Altamaha River is 

good at this time, the drainage basin is 

dominated by silviculture and 

agriculture, with two paper mills and 

over two dozen other industries or 

municipalities discharging effluent into 

the river. Nitrogen and phosphorus 

concentrations are increasing, and 

eutrophication and loss of thermal 

refugia are growing concerns for the 

South Atlantic DPS. In the Ogeechee 

River, the primary source of pollution 

results from non-point sources, which 

results in nutrient-loading and 

decreases in DO. These problems result 

from the cumulative effect of activities 

of many individual landowners or 

managers. The Ogeechee River Basin 

Watershed Protection Plan developed by 

the Georgia Environmental Protection 

Division (GAEPD, 2001b) states that 

because there are so many small sources 

of non-point loading spread throughout 

the watershed, non-point sources of 

pollution cannot effectively be 

controlled by state agency permitting 

and enforcement, even where regulatory 

authority exists. The increases in 

nutrients and resulting decreases in DO 

are coupled with increases in water 

temperature resulting from clearing of 

the riparian canopy and increased 

paved surface areas. Downstream 

sturgeon nursery habitat is 

compromised during hot, dry summers 

when water flow is minimal, and nonpoint sources of hypoxic waters have a 

greater impact on the system as 

potential thermal refugia are lost when 

the aquifer is lowered. Since 1986, 

average summer DO levels in the 

Ogeechee have dropped to 

approximately 4 mg/L (GAEPD, 2001b). 

Low DO (less than 5 mg/L), most likely 

due to non-point sources, was a 

common occurrence observed during 

1998 and 1999 water quality surveys 

(GAEPD, 2002) in the Satilla River, 

which serves as both spawning and 

nursery habitat for sturgeon in the South 

Atlantic DPS. The extirpation of the 

Atlantic sturgeon spawning population 

in the St. Marys River is believed to 

have been caused by reduced DO levels 

during the summer in the nursery 

habitat, probably due to eutrophication 

from non-point source pollution 

(ASSRT, 2007). Both the St. Marys and 

St. Johns Rivers continue to be used as 

nursery habitat by Atlantic sturgeon in 

the South Atlantic DPS; however, low 

DO is a common occurrence during the 

summer months when water 

temperatures rise. At times, it is so 

severe in the St. Marys that it 

completely eliminates juvenile nursery 

habitat during the summer (D. Peterson, 

UGA, Pers. Comm.). 

Water allocation issues are a growing 

threat in the Southeast and exacerbate 

existing water quality problems. Taking 

water from one basin and transferring it 

to another fundamentally and 

irreversibly alters natural water flows in 

both the originating and receiving 

basins, which can affect DO levels, 

temperature, and the ability of the basin 

of origin to assimilate pollutants 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61919 

(Georgia Water Coalition, 2006). Water 

allocation issues increasingly threaten 

to exacerbate the present threat of 

degraded water quality on the 

endangered status of the Carolina DPS. 

Even with its generous natural supply of 

water, North Carolina is experiencing 

problems where somewhat limited 

natural availability of water is coupled 

with high demand or competition 

among water users. Some of these 

emerging pressure points are the Central 

Coastal Plain, where the Cretaceous 

aquifers have a relatively slow recharge 

rate; the headwater areas of the 

Piedmont river basins, where 

streamflows are greatly reduced during 

dry weather; and some areas near the 

coast and on the Outer Banks, where the 

natural availability of fresh water is 

limited (NCDENR, 2001a). Interbasin 

water transfers are increasingly being 

looked at to deal with the inadequate 

water availability. In 1993, the North 

Carolina Legislature adopted the 

Regulation of Surface Water Transfers 

Act (G.S. § 143–215.22I). This law 

regulates large surface water transfers 

between river basins by requiring a 

certificate from the North Carolina 

Environmental Management 

Commission. The act has been modified 

several times since it was first adopted, 

most recently in 2007 when G.S. § 143– 

215.22I was repealed and replaced with 

G.S. § 143–215.22L. A transfer 

certificate is required for a new transfer 

of 2 million gallons per day (mgd) 

(7,600 m3pd) or more and for an 

increase in an existing transfer by 25 

percent or more (if the total including 

the increase is more than 2 mgd). 

Certificates are not required for facilities 

that existed or were under construction 

prior to July 1, 1993, up to the full 

capacity of that facility to transfer water, 

regardless of the transfer amount. 

The North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources 

reports that 20 facilities, with a 

combined average (not maximum) daily 

transfer of 66.5 mgd (252,000 m3pd), 

were grandfathered in when G.S. § 143– 

215.22I was enacted (NCDENR, 2009). 

Since then, five additional facilities 

have received certificates to withdraw 

up to a combined maximum total of 

167.5 mgd (634,000 m3pd). The most 

significant certified interbasin transfer 

in this group is the withdrawal of 60 

mgd (227,000 m3pd) of water from Lake 

Gaston (part of the Roanoke River Basin) 

by Virginia Beach, Virginia. Virginia 

Beach began pumping in 1998 following 

a very lengthy and contested Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

approval process, during which North 

Carolina opposed the withdrawals 

(NCDENR, 2001b). Certificates are 

pending for three facilities, totaling 

almost 60 mgd (227,000 m3pd). This 

includes the Kerr Lake Regional Water 

System (KLRWS), a regional provider of 

drinking water. The KLRWS has an 

existing, grandfathered, surface water 

transfer capacity of 10 mgd (38,000 

m3pd). The grandfathered capacity 

allows the system to move water from 

the Roanoke River Basin (Kerr Lake) to 

sub-basins of the Tar-Pamlico River 

Basin. On February 18, 2009, KLRWS 

submitted a Notice of Intent to Request 

an Interbasin Transfer Certificate to the 

Environmental Management 

Commission. In that notice, KLRWS 

requested to increase the authorized 

transfer from 10 mgd to 24 mgd (38,000 

m3pd to 91,000 m3pd), and to transfer 

2.4 mgd (9,100 m3pd) from the Roanoke 

River Basin to the Neuse River Basin. 

These transfer amounts are based on 

water use projections to the year 2040. 

Water allocation issues also 

increasingly threaten to exacerbate the 

present threat of degraded water quality 

on the endangered status of the South 

Atlantic DPS. Water allocation issues 

are occurring on the Atlantic Coast of 

South Carolina and Georgia (Ruhl, 

2003). This area is served by five major 

rivers—the Savannah, Altamaha 

(including its two major tributaries, the 

Oconee and Ocmulgee rivers), 

Ogeechee, Satilla, and St. Marys Rivers. 

A 2006 study by the Congressional 

Budget Office (CBO) reported that 

Georgia had the sixth highest 

population growth (26.4 percent) in the 

nation, followed by Florida (23.5 

percent) (CBO, 2006). The University of 

Georgia (UGA) reports that the per 

capita water use in Georgia has been 

estimated to be 8 to 10 percent greater 

than the national average, and 17 

percent higher than per capita use in 

neighboring states (UGA, 2002). Water 

shortages have already occurred and are 

expected to continue due to increasing 

periods of drought coupled with the 

rapid population growth expected in the 

region over the next 50 years 

(Cummings et al., 2003). Two of the 

largest and most rapidly expanding 

urban areas in the Savannah River 

basin, Augusta-Richmond County and 

Savannah, currently utilize both ground 

water and surface water for drinking 

water uses (GAEPD, 2001a). Surface 

water use in the Savannah River basin 

is expected to increase in the near 

future, due to a population increase in 

the basin. Predictions for 2050 estimate 

the population will increase to nearly 

900,000 (GAEPD, 2001a). It is important 

to note that the two water supply 

sources are not independent, because 

ground water discharge to streams is 

important in maintaining dry-weather 

flow. Thus, withdrawal of ground water 

also results in reduction in surface 

water flow. 

The Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

consists of two nuclear reactors and 

currently uses up to 64 mgd of water 

from the Savannah River to generate 

power. In March 2008, the Southern 

Nuclear Operating Company applied to 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 

a license to build two additional nuclear 

reactors at the plant, increasing the 

potential water usage to 80 mgd. Up to 

100 mgd (379,000 m3pd) of Savannah 

River water may be withdrawn to 

support the growth of South Carolina 

communities located outside of the 

Savannah River basin, such as 

Greenville and Beaufort County 

(Spencer and Muzekari, 2002). While 

Georgia has laws restricting interbasin 

transfers of water, South Carolina has 

yet to adopt stream flow protections and 

does not regulate surface water 

withdrawals (Rusert and Cummings, 

2004). Savannah has been withdrawing 

water from its coastal aquifer since the 

city became established. However, 

Savannah has grown to the point that 

the aquifer has been depleted over 100 

ft (31 m) beneath the city due to growth 

and increased water usage. This 

decrease in aquifer storage water has 

resulted in salt water intrusion into the 

water wells used by Hilton Head, just 

north of Savannah. Currently, 5 of 

Hilton Head’s 12 wells are unusable and 

the problem is expected to escalate if no 

action is taken to prevent further salt 

water intrusion. The South Carolina 

team on the Savannah River Basin 

Advisory Group has begun looking at 

withdrawing surface water from the 

Savannah River to ease the aquifer 

problem (State of South Carolina, 2007; 

Spencer and Muzekari, 2002). 

New surface water withdrawal 

permits in the Savannah, Ogeechee, and 

Altamaha Rivers pose potential threats 

to water quality in those rivers (Alber 

and Smith, 2001). Approximately 

126,500 people depend on the Altamaha 

basin for water. The Ocmulgee River, a 

tributary of the Altamaha, is located in 

North Georgia and passes through 

Atlanta and Macon before joining the 

Altamaha River. Of the seven river 

basins in Georgia, the Ocmulgee River 

Basin has the highest population of 

1,714,722 people. The Ocmulgee River 

Basin is home to a diverse industrial 

and attraction base, from agriculture to 

defense. It has the highest agriculture 

production and the most agricultural 

water withdrawal permits in Georgia 

(Fisher et al., 2003). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
61920 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

It is not known how much water is 

already being removed from rivers 

utilized by the South Atlantic DPS for 

spawning and nursery habitat because 

there is little information concerning 

actual withdrawals and virtually no 

information concerning water 

discharges. This is particularly the case 

for municipal and industrial uses 

because water use permits are not 

required for withdrawals less than 

100,000 gpd (379 m3pd) (Cummings et 

al., 2003) and discharge permits are not 

required unless discharge contains 

selected toxic materials. Agricultural 

water use permits are not quantified in 

any meaningful way, thus neither water 

withdrawals nor return flows are 

measured (Fisher et al., 2003). Large 

withdrawals of water (such as those for 

municipal use) result in reduced water 

quality (altered flows, higher 

temperatures, and lowered DO), and 

reduced water quality is already 

contributing to the endangered status of 

the South Atlantic DPS. Therefore, 

water withdrawals from the rivers in the 

range of the South Atlantic DPS, which 

are highly likely to occur based on 

current water shortages and increasing 

demand, threaten to exacerbate water 

quality problems that are currently 

modifying and curtailing Atlantic 

sturgeon habitat in the South Atlantic 

DPS. 

Climate Change 

Climate change threatens to 

exacerbate the effects of modification 

and curtailment of Atlantic sturgeon 

habitat caused by dams, dredging, and 

reduced water quality on the 

endangered status of the Carolina and 

South Atlantic DPSs. A major advance 

in climate change projections is the 

large number of simulations available 

from a broader range of climate models, 

run for various emissions scenarios. The 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) reports in its technical 

paper ‘‘Climate Change and Water’’ that 

best-estimate projections from models 

indicate that decadal average warming 

over each inhabited continent by 2030 

(i.e., over the next 20-year period) is 

insensitive to the choice of emissions 

scenarios and is ‘‘very likely’’ to be at 

least twice as large (around 0.36 degrees 

Fahrenheit or 0.2 degrees Celsius per 

decade) as the corresponding modelestimated natural variability during the 

20th century (IPCC, 2008). Continued 

greenhouse gas emissions at or above 

current rates under non-mitigation 

emissions scenarios would cause further 

warming and induce many changes in 

the global climate system during the 

21st century, with these changes ‘‘very 

likely’’ to be larger than those observed 

during the 20th century. In addition, the 

IPCC expects the rate of warming to 

accelerate in the coming decades. 

Because 20 years is equal to at least one 

generation of Atlantic sturgeon (ASSRT, 

2007), and possibly multiple 

generations in the Southeast where 

Atlantic sturgeon may mature as early as 

5 years (Smith et al., 1982), the 

modifying effects of climate change over 

the next 20 years on vital parameters of 

the Carolina and South Atlantic DPS’ 

habitat will occur on a scale relevant to 

their endangered status. Researchers 

anticipate that the frequency and 

intensity of droughts and floods will 

change across the nation (CBO, 2006). 

The IPCC report states that the most 

important societal and ecological 

impacts of climate change in North 

America stem from changes in surface 

and groundwater hydrology (IPCC, 

2008). 

Both the Carolina and South Atlantic 

DPSs are within a region the IPCC 

predicts will experience decreases in 

precipitation. Since the status review 

report was completed, the Southeast 

experienced approximately 3 years of 

drought. During this time, South 

Carolina experienced drought 

conditions that ranged from moderate to 

extreme (South Carolina State 

Climatology Office, 2008). From 2006 

until mid-2009, Georgia experienced the 

worst drought in its history. In 

September 2007, many of Georgia’s 

rivers and streams were at their lowest 

levels ever recorded for the month, and 

new record low daily streamflows were 

recorded at 15 rivers with 20 or more 

years of data in Georgia (USGS, 2007). 

The drought worsened in September 

2008. All streams in Georgia except 

those originating in the extreme 

southern counties were extremely low. 

While Georgia has periodically 

undergone periods of drought—there 

have been 6 periods of drought lasting 

from 2 to 7 years since 1903 (USGS, 

2000)—drought frequency appears to be 

increasing (Ruhl, 2003). Abnormally 

low stream flows restrict access to 

habitat areas, reduce thermal refugia, 

and exacerbate water quality issues, 

such as water temperature, reduced DO, 

nutrient levels, and contaminants. 

The Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs 

are already threatened by reduced water 

quality resulting from dams, inputs of 

nutrients, contaminants from CAFOs, 

industrial activities, and non-point 

sources, and interbasin transfers of 

water. The IPCC report projects with 

high confidence that higher water 

temperatures and changes in extremes 

in this region, including floods and 

droughts, will affect water quality and 

exacerbate many forms of water 

pollution—from sediments, nutrients, 

dissolved organic carbon, pathogens, 

pesticides, and salt, as well as thermal 

pollution, with possible negative 

impacts on ecosystems. In addition, sealevel rise is projected to extend areas of 

salinization of groundwater and 

estuaries, resulting in a decrease of 

freshwater availability for humans and 

ecosystems in coastal areas. Some of the 

most populated areas of this region are 

low-lying, and the threat of salt water 

entering into its aquifers with projected 

sea-level rise is a concern (U.S. Global 

Research Group, 2004). Existing water 

allocation issues would be exacerbated, 

leading to an increase in reliance on 

interbasin water transfers to meet 

municipal water needs, further stressing 

water quality. Dams, dredging, and poor 

water quality have already modified and 

curtailed the extent of suitable habitat 

for Atlantic sturgeon spawning and 

nursery habitat. Changes in water 

availability (depth and velocities) and 

water quality (temperature, salinity, DO, 

contaminants, etc.) in rivers and coastal 

waters inhabited by Atlantic sturgeon 

resulting from climate change will 

further modify and curtail the extent of 

suitable habitat for the Carolina DPS. 

Effects could be especially harmful 

since these populations have already 

been reduced to low numbers. The 

spawning populations within the 

Carolina DPS are all estimated to 

number fewer than the 500 

recommended by Thompson (1991) to 

maintain sufficient genetic variability 

for adaptation to changing 

environmental conditions, and certainly 

smaller than the 1,000 to 10,000 

recommended by other authors 

(Salwasser et al., 1984; Belovsky, 1987; 

Soule, 1987; Thomas, 1990). 

The SRT concluded that habitat 

modifications due to the placement of 

dams, dredging, and degraded water 

quality present a moderate to 

moderately high threat to all river 

populations within the Carolina DPS, 

with the exception of the Roanoke 

River. For the South Atlantic DPS, the 

SRT concluded that dredging and water 

quality issues are having a moderately 

low to moderate impact on the river 

populations. We believe that the 

modification and curtailment of Atlantic 

sturgeon habitat resulting from dams, 

dredging, and degraded water quality is 

contributing to the endangered status of 

both the Carolina and South Atlantic 

DPSs. Further, additional threats arising 

from water allocation and climate 

change threaten to exacerbate water 

quality problems already present 

throughout the range of both DPSs. 

Existing water allocation issues will 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61921 

likely be compounded by population 

growth and potentially climate change. 

Climate change is also predicted to 

elevate water temperatures and 

exacerbate nutrient-loading, pollution 

inputs, and lower DO, all of which are 

current threats to the Carolina and 

South Atlantic DPSs. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Overutilization for commercial 

purposes is a factor that contributed to 

the historical drastic decline in Atlantic 

sturgeon populations throughout the 

species’ range. Data on the total weight 

of Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon 

harvested were collected by each state 

starting in 1880, and in the late 1800s 

commercial fisheries were landing 

upwards of 6,800,000 lbs (3,084 kg) of 

sturgeon annually (Murawski and 

Pacheco, 1977). By 1905, only 15 years 

later, this number had dropped to 

20,000 lbs (9,071 kg). The population 

sizes were then further reduced by 

overfishing in the 1900s, when the 

landings drastically fell to a total of 215 

lbs (98 kg) in 1990 (Stein et al., 2004b). 

The total landings recorded include 

shortnose sturgeon as well as Atlantic 

sturgeon; however, the harvest is 

thought to have been primarily Atlantic 

sturgeon due to the large mesh-size nets 

commonly used at that time. A complete 

moratorium on possession of Atlantic 

sturgeon has been implemented in both 

state and Federal waters since 1998 to 

eliminate the threat of directed catch 

and incentives to retain Atlantic 

sturgeon bycatch. However, Atlantic 

sturgeon are taken as bycatch in various 

commercial fisheries along the entire 

U.S. Atlantic Coast within inland, 

coastal, and Federal waters. While 

Atlantic sturgeon caught incidentally 

can no longer be legally landed, bycatch 

may still be a threat if fish are injured 

or killed in the act of being caught. 

Based on their life history, Atlantic 

sturgeon are more sensitive to fishing 

mortality than other coastal fish species. 

They are a long-lived species, have an 

older age at full maturity, have lower 

maximum fecundity values, with 50 

percent of the lifetime egg production 

for Atlantic sturgeon occurring later in 

life (Boreman, 1997). Boreman (1997) 

looked at the relationship between 

fishing mortality (F) and the 

corresponding percentage of the 

maximum lifetime egg production of an 

age 1 female. The F50 is the fishing rate 

at which a cohort produces 50 percent 

of the eggs that it would produce with 

no fishing effort. Boreman calculated a 

sustainable fishing (bycatch) mortality 

rate of 5 percent per year for adult 

Atlantic sturgeon based on the F50. 

While many fishery models use a less 

conservative target fishing level of F30 or 

F20, the more conservative choice of F50

for Atlantic sturgeon is justified by their 

late age at maturity and because they are 

periodic spawners (Boreman, 1997). 

We currently do not have all the data 

necessary to determine whether the 

percentage of Atlantic sturgeon 

populations lost annually due to 

bycatch mortality exceeds a sustainable 

rate of 5 percent per year suggested by 

Boreman (1997) as we do not have 

abundance estimates for the Carolina 

and South Atlantic DPSs and bycatch 

remains highly underreported. 

However, bycatch is occurring 

throughout the range of the Carolina and 

South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic 

sturgeon, and the bycatch mortality 

associated with the dominant fishing 

gear in the Southeast is relatively high. 

All the spawning populations in the 

Southeast Region are quite small, which 

means that the loss of a small number 

of fish to bycatch mortality could 

exceed the sustainable rate of 5 percent 

per year. Overutilization of Atlantic 

sturgeon through commercial bycatch is 

presently a threat to the Carolina and 

South Atlantic DPSs, and we believe it 

is contributing to their endangered 

status. 

Mortality rates of Atlantic sturgeon 

taken as bycatch in various types of 

fishing gear range between 0 and 51 

percent, with the greatest mortality 

occurring in sturgeon caught by sink 

gillnets (Stein et al., 2004b; ASMFC, 

2007). The ASMFC Sturgeon Technical 

Committee (TC) determined that 

bycatch losses principally occur in sink 

gillnet fisheries, though there may be 

losses in the trawl fisheries, as well. 

Atlantic sturgeon are particularly 

vulnerable to sink gillnets due to their 

demersal nature (tendency to be at the 

bottom of the water column). If the nets 

are not tended often enough, it can be 

detrimental to the sturgeon, resulting in 

suffocation because their operculum or 

gills can be held closed by the net. 

Using the NMFS ocean observer dataset, 

the NEFSC estimated that bycatch 

mortality of sturgeon captured in sink 

gillnets between 2001 and 2006 was 

13.8 percent (ASMFC, 2007). The 

ASMFC Sturgeon TC notes that any 

estimate of bycatch from the NMFS 

ocean observer dataset will be an 

underestimate because bycatch is underreported in state waters and no observer 

coverage exists in the South Atlantic 

(North Carolina to Florida) Federal 

waters. In addition, bycatch mortality 

estimates do not account for postcapture mortality. The 13.8 percent 

mortality rate for sink gillnets estimated 

by the NEFSC may further 

underestimate the mortality rate in sink 

gillnets in the Carolina and South 

Atlantic DPSs because bycatch survival 

is greater in colder water temperatures 

of the north compared to warmer 

southern waters occupied by these DPSs 

(ASSRT, 2007). Mortality of Atlantic 

sturgeon captured by trawls seems to be 

low, with most surveys reporting 0 

percent mortality. However, these 

studies do not include post-capture 

mortality, and studies of mortality from 

trawl fisheries conducted in the south, 

where tow times are longer and water 

temperatures are higher, are very 

limited. 

Sink gillnets and trawls are used 

throughout riverine, estuarine, and 

marine waters in the range of the 

Carolina DPS to target a wide array of 

finfish and shellfish. Data on Atlantic 

sturgeon bycatch in Albemarle and 

Pamlico Sound commercial fisheries 

come from three sources: (1) NCDMF 

independent gillnet surveys (IGNS) that 

were initially designed to monitor 

striped bass; (2) the NCDMF Observer 

Program; and (3) the NC Sea Grant 

Fishery Resource Grant project that 

examined sturgeon bycatch in the 

flounder fishery (White and Armstrong, 

2000). The Albemarle and Pamlico IGNS 

used sink and drift gillnets, similar to 

those used by the shad/herring and the 

flounder fisheries. Only a few fish have 

been captured in the Pamlico Sound 

gillnet survey since 2000, although 842 

Atlantic sturgeon were captured in the 

Albemarle Sound between 1990 and 

2005. The NCDMF Observer Program 

sampled both the Albemarle and 

Pamlico Sound monthly from April 

2004 to December 2005. Thirty Atlantic 

sturgeon were observed in Albemarle 

Sound, and 12 Atlantic sturgeon were 

observed in Pamlico Sound. Overall, 

five observed mortalities (12 percent of 

captures) occurred in June 2004 and 

April, August, January, and March 2005. 

No overall bycatch estimates have been 

extrapolated from these observer data. 

Commercial fishermen in Albemarle 

and Pamlico Sound and Cape Fear River 

reported catches of zero to two sturgeon 

per fishery per year. However, White 

and Armstrong (2000) reported that 

sturgeon bycatch in flounder gillnets 

fished from 1998 to 2000 by a single 

fishermen in the Albemarle Sound 

flounder fishery included the capture of 

131 Atlantic sturgeon. Of the 131 

Atlantic sturgeon captured, no 

mortalities were reported, although four 

individuals were noted as having minor 

injuries. These data indicate that 

underreporting of sturgeon bycatch is 

occurring in this area. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
61922 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

A sink gillnet survey conducted in the 

Cape Fear River by UNCW personnel 

noted that 25 percent of sturgeon 

intercepted (22 of 88 caught) were 

killed. The gillnets were set one day, 

checked the second, and retrieved on 

the third. The greatest mortality 

occurred during periods of highest 

water temperature (Moser et al., 1998). 

This survey was continued by the 

NCDMF, and it has reported mortality 

rates of 37 percent overall. Similar to 

earlier findings, mortality was greatest 

during the summer months (June 

through August), averaging 49 percent 

(34 of 69 sturgeon died) (ASSRT, 2007). 

This study has been discontinued due to 

lack of funding. There are no estimates 

of bycatch in fishery dependent surveys. 

Winyah Bay is currently fished for 

American shad (Alosa sapidissima) 

using both sink and drift gillnets. This 

fishery has an estimated bycatch of 158 

Atlantic sturgeon per year, of which 16 

percent (25 fish) die and another 20 

percent are injured to some degree, 

although this estimate is dated (Collins 

et al., 1996). Shad fishers also operate 

within the rivers, but neither fishing 

effort nor average numbers of Atlantic 

sturgeon encountered are known. 

Poaching of adult Atlantic sturgeon has 

been reported from the Winyah Bay area 

in recent years. Carcasses of large 

females have been found with the 

ovaries (caviar) removed. 

The mouth of the Santee River, just 

south of Winyah Bay, has the largest 

shad landings in the Southeast (ASSRT, 

2007), likely resulting in mortality and 

injury of sturgeon similar to that in the 

Winyah Bay shad fishery. Upriver 

bycatch levels are unknown. The 

Cooper River also has an active hook 

and line shad fishery because gillnets 

are restricted (ASSRT, 2007). 

The two largest commercial fisheries 

likely to capture Atlantic sturgeon from 

the South Atlantic DPS in the state 

waters of South Carolina and Georgia 

are the American shad gillnet and 

shrimp trawl fisheries. Studies in 

Georgia on commercial gillnet fisheries 

for American shad showed that they 

accounted for 52 percent of Atlantic 

sturgeon bycatch and the shrimp trawl 

fisheries accounted for 39 percent 

(Collins et al., 1996). The American 

shad fisheries use sink gillnets and drift 

gillnets. Collins et al. (1996) 

documented a 16 percent captureinduced mortality rate for sturgeon in 

the American shad fishery. 

There was a directed commercial 

fishery for Atlantic sturgeon in the ACE 

Basin prior to the 1985 fishery closure. 

The commercial sturgeon fishery 

operated in the lower and middle 

portions of both the Combahee and 

Edisto rivers. Commercial shad fisheries 

captured some juvenile Atlantic 

sturgeon, but most fishermen operate 

upriver from the areas of greatest 

abundance during that time of year. The 

shrimp trawl fishery in St. Helena 

Sound also captures juveniles, as 

evident from tag returns (ASSRT, 2007). 

Although a few commercial sturgeon 

fishers apparently operated in the Port 

Royal river system prior to 1985, the 

landing of only one Atlantic sturgeon 

has been recorded (Smith and Dingley, 

1984). Little, if any, shad fishing takes 

place in this system. It is not known 

whether there is any significant bycatch 

in the shrimp trawl fishery in this area. 

During 1989 to 1991, the commercial 

shad gillnet fishery’s bycatch in the 

Savannah River included more 

endangered shortnose sturgeon than 

juvenile Atlantic sturgeon. Collins et al. 

(1996) reported that two commercial 

fishermen collected 14 Atlantic and 189 

shortnose sturgeon over the period of 

1990 to 1992. It appears that abundance 

within the Savannah River is extremely 

low, as evidenced from low bycatch and 

reported captures over the last 15 years. 

Thus, bycatch may be a more serious 

impact if abundance is low and fishing 

effort is high. 

Bycatch in the shad fishery in the 

Ogeechee River is a heightened concern 

because evidence suggests that this 

Atlantic sturgeon population is stressed 

and that complete recruitment failure 

has occurred in some years (ASSRT, 

2007). Bycatch mortality in the 

estuarine and lower river shad fishery is 

suspected to be high, but no estimates 

of take are available (ASSRT, 2007). 

Estimated annual total bycatch of 

Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon in the 

shad gillnet fishery in the tidal portion 

of the Altamaha River during 1982 and 

1983 averaged 372 sturgeon (Collins et 

al., 1996). Percent mortality was not 

determined. During a study conducted 

between 1986 and 1992 in the Altamaha 

River, 97 of 1,534 tagged juvenile 

Atlantic sturgeon were recaptured 

primarily by shad gillnets (52 percent) 

and shrimp trawls (39 percent) (Collins 

et al., 1996). Juvenile Atlantic sturgeon 

from the Altamaha are relatively 

abundant in comparison to other rivers 

in the region, so a large percentage of 

the individuals in winter mixed-stock 

aggregations on the shelf are likely from 

this river. Most sturgeon occurring as 

shrimp trawl bycatch are from mixedstock aggregations. Using the 

percentages of Atlantic and shortnose 

sturgeon from the 1986 to 1992 

Altamaha catch data and applying them 

to the 1982 and 1983 total estimated 

sturgeon bycatch, it is expected that 89 

percent (331 fish) of the catch consisted 

of Atlantic sturgeon (ASSRT, 2007). 

Also, assuming a 10 percent bycatch 

mortality rate for Atlantic sturgeon from 

drift nets (Stein et al., 2004b), the 

dominant gear used in the shad gillnet 

fishery, it is estimated that 33 Atlantic 

sturgeon would die each year from the 

fishery. 

Shad fishing effort is low in the 

Satilla River due to an apparently 

depleted shad population. However, 

because the Atlantic sturgeon 

population is depleted and highly 

stressed, any bycatch mortality could 

have an impact on the population 

(ASSRT, 2007). 

The SRT concluded that bycatch 

presents a moderate threat to the 

Carolina DPS, while the threat of 

bycatch to the South Atlantic DPS was 

characterized as moderately low in each 

of the populations, with the exception 

of the Altamaha, where bycatch was 

deemed to pose a moderate threat. 

Overutilization of Atlantic sturgeon 

from directed fishing caused initial 

severe declines in Atlantic sturgeon 

populations in the southeast, from 

which they have never rebounded. 

Further, we believe continued 

overutilization of Atlantic sturgeon from 

bycatch in commercial fisheries is an 

ongoing impact to the Carolina and 

South Atlantic DPSs that is contributing 

to their endangered status. Atlantic 

sturgeon are particularly vulnerable to 

being caught in sink gillnets; therefore, 

fisheries using this type of gear account 

for a high percentage of Atlantic 

sturgeon bycatch. Little data exist on 

bycatch in the Southeast, and high 

levels of bycatch underreporting are 

suspected. Further, total population 

abundances for the Carolina and South 

Atlantic DPSs are not available; 

therefore, it is not possible to calculate 

the percentages of the Carolina and 

South Atlantic DPSs subject to bycatch 

mortality based on the available bycatch 

mortality rates for individual fisheries. 

However, fisheries known to 

incidentally catch Atlantic sturgeon 

occur throughout the marine range of 

the species and in some riverine waters 

as well. Because Atlantic sturgeon mix 

extensively in marine waters and may 

access multiple river systems, they are 

subject to being caught in multiple 

fisheries throughout their range. 

Atlantic sturgeon taken as bycatch may 

suffer immediate mortality. In addition, 

stress or injury to Atlantic sturgeon 

taken as bycatch but released alive may 

result in increased susceptibility to 

other threats, such as poor water quality 

(e.g., exposure to toxins and low DO). 

This may result in reduced ability to 

perform major life functions, such as 

foraging and spawning, or even postVerDate Mar<15>2010 19:22 Oct 05, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP2.SGM 06OCP2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61923 

capture mortality. Several of the systems 

in the South Atlantic DPS (e.g., the 

Ogeechee and the Satilla) are stressed to 

the degree that any level of bycatch 

could have an adverse impact on the 

status of the DPS (ASSRT, 2007). 

C. Disease or Predation 

Very little is known about natural 

predators of Atlantic sturgeon. The 

presence of bony scutes is likely an 

effective adaptation for minimizing 

predation of sturgeon greater than 25 

mm (Gadomski and Parsley, 2005). 

Gadomski and Parsley (2005) have 

shown that catfish and other species do 

prey on juvenile sturgeon, and concerns 

have been raised regarding the potential 

for increased predation on juvenile 

Atlantic sturgeon by introduced flathead 

catfish (Brown et al., 2005). Atlantic 

sturgeon populations are persisting in 

the Cape Fear River, North Carolina, and 

Altamaha River, Georgia, where 

flatheads have been present for many 

years, at least in the absence of any 

directed fisheries for Atlantic sturgeon. 

Thus, further research is warranted to 

determine at what level, if any, 

flatheads and other exotic species prey 

upon juvenile Atlantic sturgeon and to 

what extent such predation is affecting 

the sturgeon populations. 

While some disease organisms have 

been identified from wild Atlantic 

sturgeon, they are unlikely to threaten 

the survival of the wild populations. 

Disease organisms commonly occur 

among wild fish populations, but under 

favorable environmental conditions, 

these organisms are not expected to 

cause population-threatening 

epidemics. There is concern that nonindigenous sturgeon pathogens could be 

introduced, most likely through 

aquaculture operations. Fungal 

infections and various types of bacteria 

have been noted to have various effects 

on hatchery Atlantic sturgeon. Due to 

this threat of impacts to wild 

populations, the ASMFC recommends 

requiring any sturgeon aquaculture 

operation to be certified as disease-free, 

thereby reducing the risk of the spread 

of disease from hatchery origin fish. The 

aquarium industry is another possible 

source for transfer of non-indigenous 

pathogens or non-indigenous species 

from one geographic area to another, 

primarily through release of aquaria fish 

into public waters. With millions of 

aquaria fish sold to individuals 

annually, it is unlikely that such activity 

could ever be effectively regulated. 

Definitive evidence that aquaria fish 

could be blamed for transmitting a nonindigenous pathogen to wild fish 

(sturgeon) populations would be very 

difficult to collect (ASSRT, 2007). 

In their extinction risk analysis, the 

SRT ranked the threat from disease and 

predation as a low risk. While 

information on the impacts of disease 

and predation on Atlantic sturgeon is 

limited, there is nothing to indicate that 

either of these factors is currently 

having any measurable adverse impact 

on Atlantic sturgeon. Therefore, we 

concur with the SRT, and we conclude 

that disease and predation are not 

contributing to the endangered status of 

either the Carolina or the South Atlantic 

DPS. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

As a wide-ranging anadromous 

species, Atlantic sturgeon are subject to 

numerous Federal (U.S. and Canadian), 

state and provincial, and interjurisdictional laws, regulations, and 

agency activities. These regulatory 

mechanisms are described in detail in 

the status review report (see Section 

3.4). We believe that the inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms to control 

bycatch and the modification and 

curtailment of Atlantic sturgeon habitat 

is contributing to the endangered status 

of the Carolina and South Atlantic 

DPSs. 

Current regulatory mechanisms have 

effectively removed threats from legal, 

directed harvest in the United States, as 

well as incentives for retention of 

bycatch. The ASMFC was given 

management authority in 1993 under 

the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries 

Cooperative Management Act 

(ACFCMA) (16 U.S.C. 5101–5108), and 

it manages Atlantic sturgeon through an 

interstate fisheries management plan 

(IFMP). The moratorium prohibiting 

directed catch of Atlantic sturgeon was 

developed as an Amendment to the 

IFMP. The ACFCMA, authorized under 

the terms of the ASMFC Compact, as 

amended (Pub. L. 103–206), provides 

the Secretary of Commerce with the 

authority to implement regulations that 

are compatible to ASMFC FMPs in the 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the 

absence of an approved MagnusonStevens FMP. In 1999, it was under this 

authority that a similar moratorium was 

implemented for Atlantic sturgeon in 

Federal waters. The Amendment 

includes a stock rebuilding target of at 

least 20 protected mature age classes in 

each spawning stock, which is to be 

achieved by imposing a harvest 

moratorium. The Amendment requires 

states to monitor, assess, and annually 

report Atlantic sturgeon bycatch and 

mortality in other fisheries. The 

Amendment also requires that states 

annually report habitat protection and 

enhancement efforts. Finally, the 

Amendment states that each jurisdiction 

with a reproducing population should 

conduct juvenile assessment surveys 

(including CPUE estimates, tag and 

release programs, and age analysis), and 

states with rivers that lack a 

reproducing sturgeon population(s) but 

support nursery habitat for migrating 

juveniles should also conduct sampling. 

While the ASMFC and NMFS have 

made significant strides in reducing the 

threats from direct harvest and retention 

of bycatch, those threats have not been 

eliminated, and continued bycatch of 

Atlantic sturgeon is contributing to the 

endangered status of the Carolina and 

South Atlantic DPSs. Although the FMP 

contains requirements for reporting 

bycatch, fishery managers, such as the 

ASMFC Atlantic Sturgeon Management 

Board, widely accept that Atlantic 

sturgeon bycatch is underreported or 

not reported at all based on research and 

anecdotal evidence (ASMFC, 2005; 

ASSRT, 2007; White and Armstrong, 

2000). Abundance estimates are 

available only for two river systems (the 

Hudson and the Altamaha) even though 

the FMP states that each jurisdiction 

with a reproducing population should 

conduct juvenile assessment surveys 

(including CPUE estimates, tag and 

release programs, and age analysis). 

While the aforementioned mechanisms 

have addressed impacts to Atlantic 

sturgeon through directed fisheries, 

there are currently no mechanisms in 

place to address the significant impacts 

and risks posed to Atlantic sturgeon 

from commercial bycatch. 

State and Federal agencies are 

actively employing a variety of legal 

authorities to implement proactive 

restoration activities for this species, 

and coordination of these efforts is 

being furnished through the ASMFC. 

Due to existing state and Federal laws, 

water quality and other habitat 

conditions have improved in many 

riverine habitats, although many 

systems still have DO and toxic 

contaminants issues, and habitat quality 

and quantity continue to be affected by 

dams, dredging, and/or altering natural 

flow conditions. 

Though statutory and regulatory 

mechanisms exist that authorize 

reducing the impact of dams on riverine 

and anadromous species, such as 

Atlantic sturgeon, and their habitat, 

these mechanisms have proven 

inadequate for preventing dams from 

blocking access to habitat upstream and 

degrading habitat downstream. 

Hydropower dams are regulated by the 

FERC. The Federal Power Act (FPA), 

originally enacted in 1920, provides for 

cooperation between FERC and other 

Federal agencies, including resource 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
61924 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

agencies, in licensing and relicensing 

power projects. The FPA authorizes 

NMFS to recommend hydropower 

license conditions to protect, mitigate 

damages to, and enhance anadromous 

fish, including related habitat. The FPA 

also provides authority for NMFS to 

issue mandatory fishway prescriptions. 

FERC licenses have a term of 30 to 50 

years, so NMFS’ involvement in the 

licensing process to ensure the 

protection and accessibility of upstream 

habitat, and to improve habitat degraded 

by changes in water flow and quality 

from dam operations, only occurs twice 

or thrice a century. The FPA does not 

apply to non-hydropower dams, such as 

those operated by the Army Corps of 

Engineers for navigation purposes. Even 

where fish passage currently exists, 

evidence is rare that they effectively 

pass sturgeon, including Atlantic 

sturgeon. As mentioned in previous 

sections, dams in the Southeast are 

currently blocking over 60 percent of 

the habitat in three rivers with historical 

and/or current spawning Atlantic 

sturgeon populations (the Cape Fear 

River and Santee-Cooper System in the 

Carolina DPS and the St. Johns River in 

the South Atlantic DPS). In addition to 

the loss of important spawning and 

juvenile developmental habitat 

upstream, dam operations reduce the 

quality of the remaining habitat 

downstream by affecting water quality 

parameters (such as depth, temperature, 

velocity, and DO) that are important to 

Atlantic sturgeon. Therefore, the 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to 

ensure safe and effective upstream and 

downstream passage to Atlantic 

sturgeon and prevent degradation of 

habitat downstream from dam 

operations in riverine habitat is 

contributing to the endangered status of 

the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs. 

Inadequacies in the regulation of 

water allocation also impact the South 

Atlantic DPS. Data concerning 

consumptive water use in this region 

are, at best, very limited. While 

extensive data exist concerning 

permitted water withdrawals, there is 

little information concerning actual 

withdrawals and virtually no 

information concerning water 

discharges. This is particularly the case 

for municipal and industrial uses 

because water use permits are not 

required for withdrawals less than 

100,000 gpd (379 m3pd) (Cummings et 

al., 2003) and discharge permits are not 

required unless discharge contains 

selected toxic materials. Agricultural 

water use permits are not quantified in 

any meaningful way, thus neither water 

withdrawals nor return flows are 

measured (Fisher et al., 2003). While 

several other states have similar 

permitting thresholds, the majority 

require permits for water withdrawals 

less than 100,000 gpd (379 m3pd) and 

some require a permit for any water 

withdrawal. The State of Georgia allows 

access to water in amounts required to 

satisfy the household needs of more 

than 300 households without a permit 

(Cummings et al., 2003). 

Even the most fundamental requisites 

for basin water planning—data for 

historical, unimpaired flows in the 

coastal regions’ rivers—simply do not 

exist (Fisher et al., 2003). There are 125 

river gauges in the region’s 7 river 

basins. However, 72 of these gauges are 

inactive, and 28 of the remaining 53 

gauges do not provide consistent flow 

information. Moreover, historical data 

from many gauges have gaps, reflecting 

periods (sometimes extending over 

months) during which the gauge was 

inoperative. Also, there are extensive 

discharge areas between the last gauge 

in each river system and the point at 

which the river discharges into the 

ocean—thus, there are potentially large 

water supplies about which absolutely 

nothing is known (Fisher et al., 2003). 

Water quality continues to be a 

problem, even with existing controls on 

some pollution sources. Data required to 

evaluate water allocation issues are 

either very weak, in terms of 

determining the precise amounts of 

water currently being used, or nonexistent, in terms of our knowledge of 

water supplies available for use under 

historical hydrologic conditions in the 

region. Current regulatory regimes are 

not necessarily effective in controlling 

water allocation (e.g., no permit 

requirements for water withdrawals 

under 100,000 gpd (379 m3pd) in 

Georgia and no restrictions on 

interbasin water transfers in South 

Carolina). 

In their extinction risk analysis, the 

SRT ranked the threat from the 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms as 

moderately low to moderate. While 

some of the threats to the Carolina and 

South Atlantic DPSs have been 

ameliorated or reduced through the 

existing regulatory mechanisms, such as 

the moratorium on directed fisheries for 

Atlantic sturgeon, bycatch is currently 

not being addressed through existing 

mechanisms. Further, water quality 

continues to be a problem even with 

existing controls on some pollution 

sources and water withdrawal, and 

dams continue to curtail and modify 

habitat, even with the Federal Power 

Act. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

The SRT considered several manmade 

factors that may affect Atlantic sturgeon, 

including impingement and 

entrainment, ship strikes, and artificial 

propagation. The vast withdrawal of 

water from rivers that support Atlantic 

sturgeon populations was considered to 

pose a threat of impingement and 

entrainment; however, data are lacking 

to determine the overall impact of this 

threat on sturgeon populations, as 

impacts are dependent on a variety of 

factors (e.g., the species, time of year, 

location of the intake structure, and 

strength of the intake current). Multiple 

suspected boat/ship strikes have been 

reported in several rivers. A large 

number of the mortalities observed in 

these rivers from potential ship strikes 

have been of large adult Atlantic 

sturgeon. Lastly, potential artificial 

propagation of Atlantic sturgeon was 

also a concern to SRT members, as both 

stock enhancement programs and 

commercial aquaculture can have 

negative impacts on a recovering 

population (e.g., fish disease, 

escapement, outbreeding depression). In 

order to circumvent these potential 

threats, stock enhancement programs 

follow culture and stocking protocols 

approved by the ASMFC. Commercial 

aquaculture facilities are expected to 

maintain disease-free facilities and have 

safeguards in place to prevent 

escapement of sturgeon into the wild. 

While in at least one instance cultured 

Atlantic sturgeon have gone 

unaccounted for from a commercial 

aquaculture facility in Florida, this is 

not considered to be a significant threat, 

as this was a rare event. Mechanisms are 

in place at all facilities to prevent 

escapement of sturgeon; facilities are all 

land based, and most are not located in 

close proximity to any Atlantic sturgeon 

rivers. 

Along the range of Atlantic sturgeon 

from the Carolina and South Atlantic 

DPSs, most, if not all, populations are at 

risk of possible entrainment or 

impingement in water withdrawal 

intakes for commercial uses, municipal 

water supply facilities, and agricultural 

irrigation intakes. In North Carolina, 

over two billion gallons of water per day 

were withdrawn from the Cape Fear, 

Neuse, Tar, and Roanoke rivers in 1999 

by agriculture and non-agricultural 

industries (NCDENR, 2006). Currently, 

there are only three surveys that have 

shown the direct impacts of water 

withdrawal on Atlantic sturgeon: (1) 

Hudson River Utility Surveys, (2) 

Delaware River Salem Power Plant 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61925 

survey, and (3) Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear 

Power Plant (HNP) survey. The Edwin 

I. Hatch Nuclear power plant is located 

11 miles north of Baxley, Georgia. The 

HNP uses a closed-loop system for main 

condenser cooling that withdraws from, 

and discharges to, the Altamaha River. 

Pre-operational drift surveys were 

conducted and only two Acipenser sp. 

larvae were collected. Entrainment 

samples at HNP were collected for the 

years 1975, 1976, and 1980, and no 

Acipenser sp. were observed in the 

samples (Sumner, 2004). Though most 

rivers have multiple intake structures 

which remove millions of gallons a day 

during the spring and summer months, 

it is believed that the migratory behavior 

of larval sturgeon allows them to avoid 

intake structures, since migration is 

active and occurs in deep water (Kynard 

and Horgan, 2002). Effluent from these 

facilities can also affect populations, as 

some facilities release heated water that 

acts as a thermal refuge during the 

winter months, but drastic changes in 

water temperature have the potential to 

cause mortality. 

Locations that support large ports and 

have relatively narrow waterways are 

more prone to ship strikes (e.g., 

Delaware, James, and Cape Fear rivers). 

One ship strike per 5 years is reported 

for the Cape Fear River within the 

Carolina DPS. Ship strikes have not 

been documented in any of the rivers 

within the South Atlantic DPS. While it 

is possible that ship strikes may have 

occurred that have gone unreported or 

unobserved, the lack of large ship traffic 

on narrow waterways within the range 

of the DPS may limit potential 

interactions. 

Artificial propagation of Atlantic 

sturgeon for use in restoration of 

extirpated populations or recovery of 

severely depleted wild populations has 

the potential to be both a threat to the 

species and a tool for recovery. Within 

the range of the Carolina DPS, several 

attempts were made by Smith et al. 

(1980 and 1981) to hormonally-induce 

spawning and culture Atlantic sturgeon 

captured in the Atlantic Ocean off the 

Winyah Bay jetties. Fry were hatched in 

each instance, but lived less than a year. 

As a result of successful spawning of 

Hudson River Atlantic sturgeon from 

1993 to 1998, USFWS’ Northeast 

Fisheries Center (NEFC) is currently 

rearing five year-classes of domestic 

fish. These fish could potentially be 

used as broodstock for aquaculture 

operations and stock enhancement, 

provided that there is no risk to wild 

fish. Aquaculturists along the East 

Coast, including some in North Carolina 

and South Carolina, have contacted the 

NEFC and expressed interest in 

initiating commercial production of 

Atlantic sturgeon. In 2006, La Paz 

Aquaculture Group was approved by 

North Carolina state resource agencies 

and ASMFC to produce Atlantic 

sturgeon for flesh and caviar sales. 

However, their first year of production 

was halted because remnant storms 

from Hurricane Katrina destroyed their 

fry stock. In August 2006, ASMFC 

reevaluated the La Paz permit, and 

voted to draft an addendum to allow La 

Paz to acquire Atlantic sturgeon from 

multiple Canadian aquaculture 

companies (previously restricted to one 

company), allowing them to resume 

Atlantic sturgeon culture. Resource 

managers who reviewed the permit 

found the La Paz facility to pose little 

threat to Atlantic sturgeon or shortnose 

populations due to the facility location 

(far inland), use of a recirculating 

system, and land application of any 

discharge (ASSRT, 2007). 

In the range of the South Atlantic 

DPS, artificial propagation has been 

attempted for the purposes of both 

restoration and commercial profit. The 

St. Marys Fish Restoration Committee 

(SMFRC) is working with Florida and 

Georgia to reestablish Atlantic sturgeon 

in the St. Marys River. Efforts are 

currently underway to refine restoration 

approaches within the system. Phase 1 

of the restoration plan includes a 

population and habitat assessment. 

Field investigations are being funded 

through ESA Section 6 and coordinated 

through Georgia DNR. The State of 

Florida has been involved in fish 

sampling and will continue to explore 

and refine sturgeon sampling strategies. 

Aquatic habitat and water quality 

surveillance work will continue to be 

accomplished by the St. Johns River 

Water Management District, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, USFWS, TNC, and the St. 

Marys River Management Committee. 

Phase 2 of the plan would include 

experimental transplanting of Atlantic 

sturgeon to assess environmental 

factors, habitat use at different lifestages, contaminants, migration-homing, 

etc. Upon approval from the ASMFC, 

the SMFRC transferred 12 Atlantic 

sturgeon from the Altamaha River in 

Georgia to the Bears Bluff National Fish 

Hatchery in South Carolina. The SMFRC 

hopes to develop and refine captive 

propagation techniques for predictable 

spawning and provide fish to approved 

researchers. 

Aquaculturists in South Carolina and 

Florida have also contacted the NEFC 

and expressed interest in initiating 

commercial production of Atlantic 

sturgeon through use of the Hudson 

River broodstock. In 2001, the Canadian 

Caviar Company shipped 18,000 

Atlantic sturgeon sac fry to the 

University of Florida. These fry were 

used to conduct early larval and feeding 

trials. Survivors of these experiments 

were transferred to four aquacultural 

businesses: (1) Evan’s Fish Farm in 

Pierson, Florida; (2) Watts Aquatics in 

Tampa, Florida; (3) Hi-Tech Fisheries of 

Florida in Lakeland, Florida; and (4) 

Rokaviar in Homestead, Florida. Evan’s 

Fish Farm experienced a catastrophic 

systems failure in 2004 and currently 

has five Atlantic sturgeon on its 

premises. The farm intends to use these 

remaining sturgeon as broodstock and 

would like to acquire more Atlantic 

sturgeon. Watts Aquatics went out of 

business, and the status of the Atlantic 

sturgeon this farm received is unknown. 

Hi-Tech Fisheries of Florida currently 

has around 300 Atlantic sturgeon which 

have been transferred to a quarry, and 

the company is in the process of 

evaluating stock size and health 

condition. Rokaviar originally received 

100 sturgeon, but due to a malfunction 

with the life support systems, the 

company now holds only 20 Atlantic 

sturgeon. All of these facilities are 

periodically screened for disease by a 

University of Florida Institute for Food 

and Agricultural Science (IFAS) 

veterinarian. None have reported 

diseases. All facilities are above the 100- 

year flood plain and have zero 

discharge, where tank culture or quarry 

culture is utilized (Roberts and Huff, 

2004). These facilities may sell meat, 

fingerlings, and caviar in accordance 

with state, Federal, and international 

laws. 

The SRT ranked the threats from 

impingement/entrainment, ship strikes, 

and artificial propagation as low for 

both DPSs, with the exception of the 

threat from ship strikes as moderately 

low for the Carolina DPS. We concur 

with these rankings and conclude that 

none of these threats are contributing to 

the endangered status of the DPS. 

Current Protective Efforts 

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires 

the Secretary, when making a listing 

determination for a species, to take into 

account those efforts, if any, being made 

by any State or foreign nation to protect 

the species. In judging the efficacy of 

existing protective efforts, we rely on 

the Services’ joint ‘‘Policy for Evaluation 

of Conservation Efforts When Making 

Listing Decisions’’ (‘‘PECE;’’ 68 FR 

15100; March 28, 2003). The PECE is 

designed to guide determinations on 

whether any conservation efforts that 

have been recently adopted or 

implemented, but not yet proven to be 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
61926 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

successful, will result in recovering the 

species to the point at which listing is 

not warranted or contribute to forming 

a basis for listing a species as threatened 

rather than endangered. The purpose of 

the PECE is to ensure consistent and 

adequate evaluation of future or recently 

implemented conservation efforts 

identified in conservation agreements, 

conservation plans, management plans, 

and similar documents when making 

listing decisions. The PECE provides 

direction for the consideration of such 

conservation efforts that have not yet 

been implemented, or have been 

implemented but have not yet 

demonstrated effectiveness. The policy 

is expected to facilitate the development 

by states and other entities of 

conservation efforts that sufficiently 

improve a species’ status so as to make 

listing the species as threatened or 

endangered unnecessary. 

The PECE established two basic 

criteria: (1) The certainty that the 

conservation efforts will be 

implemented, and (2) the certainty that 

the efforts will be effective. Satisfaction 

of the criteria for implementation and 

effectiveness establishes a given 

protective effort as a candidate for 

consideration, but does not mean that 

an effort will ultimately change the risk 

assessment for the species. Overall, the 

PECE analysis ascertains whether the 

formalized conservation effort improves 

the status of the species at the time a 

listing determination is made. 

We evaluated the current 

conservation efforts underway to protect 

and recover Atlantic sturgeon in making 

our listing determination. We 

determined that only the following 

conservation efforts warrant 

consideration under the PECE for the 

Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs: the 

1998 ASMFC FMP and the proposal by 

the SMFRC to restore Atlantic sturgeon 

to the St. Marys River. 

The 1998 Amendment to the ASMFC 

Atlantic Sturgeon FMP strengthens 

conservation efforts by formalizing the 

closure of the directed fishery, and by 

banning possession of bycatch, 

eliminating any legal incentive to retain 

Atlantic sturgeon. However, bycatch is 

known to occur in several fisheries 

(ASMFC, 2007) and it is widely 

accepted that bycatch is underreported. 

With respect to its effectiveness, 

contrary to information available in 

1998 when the Amendment was 

approved, Atlantic sturgeon bycatch 

mortality is a major stressor affecting the 

recovery of Atlantic sturgeon, despite 

actions taken by the states and NMFS to 

prohibit directed fishing and retention 

of Atlantic sturgeon. Therefore, there is 

considerable uncertainty that the 

Atlantic Sturgeon FMP will be effective 

in meeting its conservation goals. In 

addition, though the 1998 Amendment 

contains requirements for population 

surveys, it is highly uncertain these will 

be implemented, as there are limited 

resources for assessing current 

abundance of spawning females for each 

of the DPSs and to date, abundance 

estimates have only been completed for 

one river within the range of the two 

DPSs considered here. For these 

reasons, there is no certainty of 

implementation and effectiveness of the 

intended ASMFC FMP conservation 

effort for the Carolina and South 

Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon. 

The SMFRC is working with Florida 

and Georgia with the intention of 

reestablishing Atlantic sturgeon in the 

St. Marys River. Efforts are currently 

underway to refine restoration 

approaches within the system. As 

discussed in Section E, Phase 1 of the 

restoration plan includes a population 

and habitat assessment, and Phase 2 

includes experimental transplanting of 

Atlantic sturgeon to assess 

environmental factors, habitat use at 

different life-stages, contaminants, 

migration-homing, etc. Atlantic sturgeon 

are believed to be extirpated in the St. 

Marys River. This conservation effort 

may increase our knowledge and 

understanding of Atlantic sturgeon 

status and habitat conditions in the St. 

Marys River, as well as provide methods 

for restoring a population there in the 

future. As previously discussed, 

artificial propagation of Atlantic 

sturgeon for use in restoration of 

extirpated populations or recovery of 

severely depleted wild populations has 

the potential to be both a threat to the 

species and a tool for recovery. Because 

it is in the earliest stages of planning, 

development, and authorization, the 

feasibility of any project or the potential 

degree of success for this effort is 

unknown. Therefore, the SMRFC efforts 

do not satisfy the PECE policy’s 

standards for certainty of 

implementation or effectiveness. 

Conclusion 

Finding for the Carolina DPS 

The Carolina DPS is estimated to 

number less than 3 percent of its 

historical population size (ASSRT, 

2007). Prior to 1890, Secor (2002) 

estimated there were between 7,000 and 

10,000 adult females in North Carolina 

and 8,000 adult females in South 

Carolina. Currently, there are estimated 

to be less than 300 spawning adults 

(total of both sexes) in each of the major 

river systems occupied by the DPS, 

whose freshwater range occurs in the 

watersheds from the Roanoke River 

southward along the southern Virginia, 

North Carolina, and South Carolina 

coastal areas to the Cooper River. We 

have reviewed the status review report, 

as well as other available literature and 

information, and have consulted with 

scientists and fishery resource managers 

familiar with the Atlantic sturgeon in 

the Carolina DPS. After reviewing the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available, we find that the 

Atlantic sturgeon Carolina DPS is in 

danger of extinction throughout its 

range as a result of a combination of 

habitat curtailment and alteration, 

overutilization in commercial fisheries, 

and inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms in ameliorating these 

impacts and threats, and we propose to 

list it as endangered. 

Finding for the South Atlantic DPS 

The South Atlantic DPS is estimated 

to number less than 6 percent of its 

historical population size (ASSRT, 

2007), with all river populations except 

the Altamaha estimated to be less than 

1 percent of historical abundance. Prior 

to 1890, Secor (2002) estimated there 

were 8,000 adult spawning females in 

South Carolina and 11,000 adult 

spawning females in Georgia. Currently, 

there are an estimated 343 spawning 

adults in the Altamaha and less than 

300 spawning adults (total of both 

sexes) in each of the other major river 

systems occupied by the DPS, whose 

freshwater range occurs in the 

watersheds of the ACE Basin in South 

Carolina to the St. Johns River, Florida. 

We have reviewed the status review 

report, as well as other available 

literature and information, and have 

consulted with scientists and fishery 

resource managers familiar with the 

Atlantic sturgeon in the South Atlantic 

DPS. After reviewing the best scientific 

and commercial information available, 

we find that the Atlantic sturgeon South 

Atlantic DPS is in danger of extinction 

throughout its range as a result of a 

combination of habitat curtailment and 

alteration, overutilization in commercial 

fisheries, and inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms in ameliorating these 

impacts and threats, and we propose to 

list it as endangered. 

Role of Peer Review 

In December 2004, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) issued 

a Final Information Quality Bulletin for 

Peer Review establishing minimum peer 

review standards, a transparent process 

for public disclosure of peer review 

planning, and opportunities for public 

participation. The OMB Bulletin, 

implemented under the Information 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61927 

Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554), is 

intended to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Federal government’s 

scientific information, and applies to 

influential or highly influential 

scientific information disseminated on 

or after June 16, 2005. To satisfy our 

requirements under the OMB Bulletin, 

the Atlantic sturgeon status review 

report was peer reviewed by six experts 

in the field, with their substantive 

comments incorporated in the final 

status review report. 

On July 1, 1994, the NMFS and 

USFWS published a series of policies 

regarding listings under the ESA, 

including a policy for peer review of 

scientific data (59 FR 34270). The intent 

of the peer review policy is to ensure 

that listings are based on the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available. Prior to a final listing, NMFS 

will solicit the expert opinions of three 

qualified specialists selected from the 

academic and scientific community, 

Federal and State agencies, and the 

private sector on listing 

recommendations to ensure the best 

biological and commercial information 

is being used in the decisionmaking 

process, as well as to ensure that 

reviews by recognized experts are 

incorporated into the review process of 

rulemakings developed in accordance 

with the requirements of the ESA. 

Effects of Listing 

Conservation measures provided for 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the ESA include 

recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)), 

critical habitat designations, Federal 

agency consultation requirements (16 

U.S.C. 1536), and prohibitions on taking 

(16 U.S.C. 1538). Recognition of the 

species’ plight through listing promotes 

conservation actions by Federal and 

state agencies, private groups, and 

individuals. Should the proposed 

listings be made final, a recovery 

program would be implemented, and 

critical habitat may be designated. 

Federal, state, and the private sectors 

will need to cooperate to conserve listed 

Atlantic sturgeon and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)) as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by a species, 

at the time it is listed in accordance 

with the ESA, on which are found those 

physical or biological features (a) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (b) that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and (2) specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by a 

species at the time it is listed upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use 

of all methods and procedures needed 

to bring the species to the point at 

which listing under the ESA is no 

longer necessary. Section 4(a)(3)(a) of 

the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) 

requires that, to the extent prudent and 

determinable, critical habitat be 

designated concurrently with the listing 

of a species. If we determine that it is 

prudent and determinable, we will 

publish a proposed designation of 

critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon in 

a separate rule. Public input on features 

and areas that may meet the definition 

of critical habitat for the Carolina and 

South Atlantic DPSs is invited. 

Identifying the DPS(s) Potentially 

Affected by an Action During Section 7 

Consultation 

The Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs 

are distinguished based on genetic data 

and spawning locations. However, 

extensive mixing of the populations 

occurs in coastal waters. Therefore, the 

distributions of the DPSs outside of 

natal waters generally overlap with one 

another, and with fish from Northeast 

river populations. This presents a 

challenge in conducting ESA section 7 

consultations because fish from any DPS 

could potentially be affected by a 

proposed project. Project location alone 

will likely not inform the section 7 

biologist as to which populations to 

consider in the analysis of a project’s 

potential direct and indirect effects on 

Atlantic sturgeon and their habitat. This 

will be especially problematic for 

projects where take could occur because 

it is critical to know which Atlantic 

sturgeon population(s) to include in the 

jeopardy analysis. One conservative, but 

potentially cumbersome, method would 

be to analyze the total anticipated take 

from a proposed project as if all Atlantic 

sturgeon came from a single DPS and 

repeat the jeopardy analysis for each 

DPS the taken individuals could have 

come from. However, recently funded 

research may shed some light on the 

composition of mixed stocks of Atlantic 

sturgeon, relative to their rivers of 

origin, in locations along the East Coast. 

The specific purpose of the study is to 

evaluate the vulnerability to coastal 

bycatch of Hudson River Atlantic 

sturgeon, thought to be the largest stock 

contributing to coastal aggregations from 

the Bay of Fundy to Georgia. However, 

the mixed stock analysis will also allow 

NMFS to better estimate a project’s 

effects on different components of a 

mixed stock of Atlantic sturgeon in 

coastal waters or estuaries other than 

where they were spawned. Results from 

the study are expected in February 

2011. Genetic mixed stock analysis, 

such as proposed in this study, requires 

a high degree of resolution among stocks 

contributing to mixed aggregations and 

characterization of most potential 

contributory stocks. Fortunately, almost 

all extant populations, at least those 

with reasonable population sizes, have 

been characterized in previous genetic 

studies, though some additional 

populations will be characterized in this 

study. Genetic testing of mixed stocks 

will be conducted in eight coastal 

locales in both the Northeast and 

Southeast Regions. Coastal fisheries and 

sites were selected based on sample 

availabilities, bycatch concerns, and 

specific biological questions (i.e., real 

uncertainty as to stock origins of the 

coastal aggregation). We are specifically 

seeking public input on the mixing of 

fish from different DPSs in parts of their 

ranges, particularly in the marine 

environment. 

Identification of Those Activities That 

Would Constitute a Violation of Section 

9 of the ESA 

On July 1, 1994, we and USFWS 

published a policy to identify, to the 

maximum extent possible, those 

activities that would or would not 

constitute a violation of section 9 of the 

ESA (59 FR 34272; July 1, 1994). The 

intent of this policy is to increase public 

awareness of the effect of this listing on 

proposed and ongoing activities within 

the species’ range. We will identify, to 

the extent known at the time of the final 

rule, specific activities that will not be 

considered likely to result in violation 

of section 9, as well as activities that 

will be considered likely to result in 

violation. Activities that we believe 

could result in violation of section 9 

prohibitions against ‘‘take’’ of the 

Atlantic sturgeon in the Carolina and 

South Atlantic DPSs include, but are not 

limited to, the following: (1) Bycatch 

associated with commercial and 

recreational fisheries; (2) poaching of 

individuals for meat or caviar; (3) 

marine vessel strikes; (4) destruction of 

riverine, estuarine, and marine habitat 

through such activities as agricultural 

and urban development, commercial 

activities, diversion of water for 

hydropower and public consumption, 

and dredge and fill operations; (5) 

impingement and entrainment in water 

control structures; (6) unauthorized 

collecting or handling of the species 

(permits to conduct these activities are 

available for purposes of scientific 

research or to enhance the propagation 

or survival of the DPSs); (7) releasing a 

captive Atlantic sturgeon into the wild; 

and (8) harming captive Atlantic 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
61928 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

sturgeon by, among other things, 

injuring or killing them through 

veterinary care, research, or breeding 

activities outside the bounds of normal 

animal husbandry practices. We believe 

that, based on the best available 

information, the following actions will 

not result in a violation of section 9: (1) 

Possession of Atlantic sturgeon acquired 

lawfully by permit issued by NMFS 

pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, or by 

the terms of an incidental take statement 

in a biological opinion pursuant to 

section 7 of the ESA; (2) Federally 

approved projects that involve activities 

such as agriculture, managed fisheries, 

road construction, discharge of fill 

material, stream channelization, or 

diversion for which consultation under 

section 7 of the ESA has been 

completed, and when such activity is 

conducted in accordance with any terms 

and conditions given by NMFS in an 

incidental take statement in a biological 

opinion pursuant to section 7 of the 

ESA; (3) continued possession of live 

Atlantic sturgeon that were in captivity 

or in a controlled environment (e.g., in 

aquaria) at the time of this listing, so 

long as the prohibitions under an ESA 

section 9(a)(1) are not violated. If listed, 

NMFS will provide contact information 

for facilities to submit information on 

Atlantic sturgeon in their possession, to 

establish their claim of possession; and 

(4) provision of care for live Atlantic 

sturgeon that were in captivity at the 

time of this listing. 

Section 9(b)(1) of the ESA provides a 

narrow exemption for animals held in 

captivity at the time of listing: Those 

animals are not subject to the import/ 

export prohibition or to protective 

regulations adopted by the Secretary, so 

long as the holding of the species in 

captivity, before and after listing, is not 

in the course of a commercial activity; 

however, 180 days after listing, there is 

a rebuttable presumption that the 

exemption does not apply. Thus, in 

order to apply this exemption, the 

burden of proof for confirming the 

status of animals held in captivity prior 

to listing lies with the holder. The 

section 9(b)(1) exemption for captive 

wildlife would not apply to any progeny 

of the captive animals that may be 

produced post-listing. 

References 

A complete list of the references used 

in this proposed rule is available upon 

request (see ADDRESSES). 

Classification 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in 

section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 

information that may be considered 

when assessing species for listing. Based 

on this limitation of criteria for a listing 

decision and the opinion in Pacific 

Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 

825 (6th Cir. 1981), NMFS has 

concluded that ESA listing actions are 

not subject to the environmental 

assessment requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). (See 

NOAA Administrative Order 216–6.) 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

As noted in the Conference Report on 

the 1982 amendments to the ESA, 

economic impacts cannot be considered 

when assessing the status of a species. 

Therefore, the economic analysis 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act are not applicable to the 

listing process. In addition, this 

proposed rule is exempt from review 

under Executive Order 12866. This 

proposed rule does not contain a 

collection-of-information requirement 

for the purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

Federalism 

E.O. 13132 requires agencies to take 

into account any federalism impacts of 

regulations under development. It 

includes specific consultation directives 

for situations where a regulation will 

preempt state law, or impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on state and 

local governments (unless required by 

statute). Pursuant to the Executive Order 

on Federalism, E.O. 13132, the Assistant 

Secretary for Legislative and 

Intergovernmental Affairs will provide 

notice of the proposed action and 

request comments from the governors of 

the states in which the two DPSs 

proposed to be listed occur. 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 requires that 

Federal actions address environmental 

justice in the decision-making process. 

In particular, the environmental effects 

of the actions should not have a 

disproportionate effect on minority and 

low-income communities. The proposed 

listing determination is not expected to 

have a disproportionately high effect on 

minority populations or low-income 

populations. 

Coastal Zone Management Act (16 

U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) 

Section 307(c)(1) of the Federal 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

requires that all Federal activities that 

affect any land or water use or natural 

resource of the coastal zone be 

consistent with approved state coastal 

zone management programs to the 

maximum extent practicable. We have 

determined that this action is consistent 

to the maximum extent practicable with 

the enforceable policies of approved 

Coastal Zone Management Programs of 

each of the states within the range of the 

two DPSs. Letters documenting NMFS’ 

determination, along with the proposed 

rule, will be sent to the coastal zone 

management program offices in each 

affected state. A list of the specific state 

contacts and a copy of the letters are 

available upon request. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Endangered and threatened 

species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Dated: September 24, 2010. 

Eric C. Schwaab, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 224 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

1. The authority citation for part 224 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16 

U.S.C. 1361 et seq. 

2. In § 224.101(a), amend the table by 

adding entries for Atlantic SturgeonCarolina DPS and Atlantic SturgeonSouth Atlantic DPS at the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 224.101 Enumeration of endangered 

marine and anadromous species. 

* * * * * 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61929 

Species 1

Where listed 

Citation(s) for 

listing 

determination(s) 

Citation(s) for 

critical habitat 

Common name Scientific name designation(s) 

* * * * * * * 

Atlantic Sturgeon— 

Carolina DPS.

Acipenser 

oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus.

The Carolina DPS includes all Atlantic sturgeon that 

spawn in the watersheds from the Roanoke River, Virginia, southward along the southern Virginia, North 

Carolina, and South Carolina coastal areas to the Cooper River. The marine range of Atlantic sturgeon from 

the Carolina DPS extends from the Bay of Fundy, Canada, to the Saint Johns River, Florida. The Carolina 

DPS also includes Atlantic sturgeon held in captivity 

(e.g., aquaria, hatcheries, and scientific institutions) 

and which are identified as fish belonging to the Carolina DPS based on genetics analyses, previously applied tags, previously applied marks, or documentation 

to verify that the fish originated from (hatched in) a 

river within the range of the Carolina DPS, or is the 

progeny of any fish that originated from a river within 

the range of the Carolina DPS.

[INSERT FR CITATION & DATE 

WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 

FINAL RULE].

NA. 

Atlantic Sturgeon— 

South Atlantic 

DPS.

Acipenser 

oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus.

The South Atlantic DPS includes all Atlantic sturgeon that 

spawn in the watersheds of the ACE Basin in South 

Carolina to the St. Johns River, Florida. The marine 

range of Atlantic sturgeon from the South Atlantic DPS 

extends from the Bay of Fundy, Canada, to the Saint 

Johns River, Florida. The South Atlantic DPS also includes Atlantic sturgeon held in captivity (e.g., aquaria, 

hatcheries, and scientific institutions) and which are 

identified as fish belonging to the South Atlantic DPS 

based on genetics analyses, previously applied tags, 

previously applied marks, or documentation to verify 

that the fish originated from (hatched in) a river within 

the range of the South Atlantic DPS, or is the progeny 

of any fish that originated from a river within the range 

of the South Atlantic DPS.

[INSERT FR CITATION & DATE 

WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 

FINAL RULE].

NA. 

1Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 

1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–24461 Filed 10–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2