[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 158 (Thursday, August 17, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39160-39274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17207]



[[Page 39159]]

Vol. 82

Thursday,

No. 158

August 17, 2017

Part II





Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 226





Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for 
the Endangered New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina and South 
Atlantic Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon and the 
Threatened Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic 
Sturgeon; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 82 , No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 39160]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 226

[Docket No. 150818735-7452-02]
RIN 0648-BF28


Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for the Endangered New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina and 
South Atlantic Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon and 
the Threatened Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic 
Sturgeon

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We (NMFS) are issuing this final rule to designate critical 
habitat for the threatened Gulf of Maine distinct population segment 
(DPS) of Atlantic sturgeon, the endangered New York Bight DPS of 
Atlantic sturgeon, the endangered Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic 
sturgeon, the endangered Carolina DPS of Atlantic sturgeon and the 
endangered South Atlantic DPS of Atlantic sturgeon pursuant to the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Specific occupied areas designated as 
critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic sturgeon contain 
approximately 244 kilometers (km; 152 miles) of aquatic habitat in the 
following rivers of Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts: Penobscot, 
Kennebec, Androscoggin, Piscataqua, Cocheco, Salmon Falls, and 
Merrimack. Specific occupied areas designated as critical habitat for 
the New York Bight DPS of Atlantic sturgeon contain approximately 547 
km (340 miles) of aquatic habitat in the following rivers of 
Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and 
Delaware: Connecticut, Housatonic, Hudson, and Delaware. Specific 
occupied areas designated as critical habitat for the Chesapeake Bay 
DPS of Atlantic sturgeon contain approximately 773 km (480 miles) of 
aquatic habitat in the following rivers of Maryland, Virginia, and the 
District of Columbia: Potomac, Rappahannock, York, Pamunkey, Mattaponi, 
James, Nanticoke, and the following other water body: Marshyhope Creek. 
Specific occupied areas designated as critical habitat for the Carolina 
DPS of Atlantic sturgeon contain approximately 1,939 km (1,205 miles) 
of aquatic habitat in the following rivers of North Carolina and South 
Carolina: Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico, Neuse, Cape Fear, Northeast Cape Fear, 
Waccamaw, Pee Dee, Black, Santee, North Santee, South Santee, and 
Cooper, and the following other water body: Bull Creek. Specific 
occupied areas designated as critical habitat for the South Atlantic 
DPS of Atlantic sturgeon contain approximately 2,883 km (1,791 miles) 
of aquatic habitat in the following rivers of South Carolina, Georgia, 
and Florida: Edisto, Combahee-Salkehatchie, Savannah, Ogeechee, 
Altamaha, Ocmulgee, Oconee, Satilla, and St. Marys Rivers.

DATES: This rule becomes effective September 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The final rule, maps, Final Impacts Analysis Reports and 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses used in preparation of this final 
rule are available on the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries 
Office (GARFO) Web site at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/, and NMFS Southeast Regional 
Fisheries Office (SERO) Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/, or by 
contacting Lynn Lankshear, NMFS, GARFO, 55 Great Republic Drive, 
Gloucester, MA 01930 or Andrew Herndon, NMFS, SERO, 263 13th Avenue 
South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Lankshear, NMFS, GARFO at the 
address above or at 978-282-8473; Andrew Herndon, NMFS, SERO at the 
address above or at 727-824-5312; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of 
Protected Resources at 301-427-8469.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In 2012, we listed five DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon under the ESA: 
Four were listed as endangered (New York Bight DPS and Chesapeake Bay 
DPS; 77 FR 5880; February 6, 2012; Carolina DPS and South Atlantic DPS; 
77 FR 5914; February 6, 2012) and one as threatened (Gulf of Maine DPS; 
77 FR 5880; February 6, 2012). On March 18, 2014, two non-governmental 
organizations filed a lawsuit alleging we had violated the ESA by 
failing to issue proposed and final rules designating critical habitat 
for the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs. Pursuant to a court-ordered settlement 
agreement, as modified, we agreed to submit proposed rules designating 
critical habitat for all DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon to the Office of the 
Federal Register by May 30, 2016. NMFS met that deadline and the two 
proposed critical habitat rules for the five Atlantic sturgeon DPSs 
were published on June 3, 2016. The proposed designations can be found 
at 81 FR 35701 for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake 
Bay DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon and at 81 FR 36077 for the Carolina and 
South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon. A subsequent correction 
notice clarifying the types of manmade structures not included in the 
proposed designation for the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs was 
published on June 28, 2016 (81 FR 41926). On February 11, 2016, NMFS 
and the USFWS published a final rule, Implementing Changes to the 
Regulations for Designating Critical Habitat (81 FR 7414) (the 
Implementation rule). As the Implementation rule discussed, the changes 
to these regulations were meant to more clearly describe the Services' 
past and ongoing practices for designating critical habitat. The 
proposed rules designating critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon were 
largely drafted at the time the final Implementation rule was 
published, and were based on past practices incorporated into that 
rule. Thus, no substantive changes were made to the Atlantic sturgeon 
proposed rules as a result of finalizing the Implementation rule.
    We solicited comments from the public on all aspects of the 
proposed rules and held public hearings in Gloucester, Massachusetts; 
Brunswick, Georgia; Charleston, South Carolina; and Morehead City, 
North Carolina. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and 
the draft Impacts Analysis (DIA) prepared for each proposed rule 
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the ESA were made available for public 
review and comment along with the proposed rules. Upon request, we re-
opened the public comment period of both proposed rules for an 
additional 15 days, from September 29, 2016, to October 14, 2016 (81 FR 
66911; Sept. 29, 2016); the entire public comment period totaled 105 
days. After receiving public comment, we decided to complete the 
critical habitat designations with one final rule. Combining the 
designations into a single final rule will provide greater clarity to 
the public about the total extent of the Atlantic sturgeon critical 
habitat designations, reduce redundancy, and enable the public to 
better understand the need to designate the affected areas.
    Final regulatory flexibility analyses (FRFAs) and final Impacts 
Analysis reports (IAs) updating the initial analyses and reports, that 
were published with the proposed rules, have been prepared to accompany 
this final rule. Combining the regional FRFAs and

[[Page 39161]]

IAs into single documents would make it difficult for the public to 
keep track of which parts of the single documents built upon the 
underlying data from the individual analyses published with the 
proposed rules. In addition, at the proposed rule stage, our two NMFS 
regions used different methodologies to evaluate impacts, relying on 
consultation databases that are region specific to address the 
different circumstances applicable to a specific region. Courts have 
noted the ESA provides the USFWS and NMFS (the Services) with broad 
discretion and flexibility in determining which particular 
methodologies or approaches are best for each specific set of 
circumstances (See, e.g., Bldg. Indus. Ass'n of the Bay Area et al. v. 
U.S. Dep't. of Commerce et al., No. 13-15132, 9th Cir., July 7, 2015 
(upholding district court's ruling that the ESA does not require the 
agency to follow a specific methodology when designating critical 
habitat under section 4(b)(2)). Accordingly, we maintained the separate 
sets because combining the two distinct sets of regional analyses would 
not have gained any efficiencies and would have created overly 
complicated reports that would be difficult for the public to follow. 
The final analyses are publicly available (see ADDRESSES).
    We determined that a key conservation objective for the Gulf of 
Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs is to increase the 
abundance of each DPS by facilitating increased successful reproduction 
and recruitment to the marine environment. We know that each of these 
DPSs is at a low level of abundance and that successful reproduction 
and recruitment, which are essential to the conservation of the 
species, occur in a limited number of rivers for each DPS. Based on the 
best scientific information available for the life history needs of the 
Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs, the physical 
features essential to the conservation of the species and that may 
require special management considerations or protection are:
    (1) Hard bottom substrate (e.g., rock, cobble, gravel, limestone, 
boulder, etc.) in low salinity waters (i.e., 0.0 to 0.5 parts per 
thousand (ppt) range) for settlement of fertilized eggs, refuge, 
growth, and development of early life stages;
    (2) Aquatic habitat with a gradual downstream salinity gradient of 
0.5 up to as high as 30 ppt and soft substrate (e.g., sand, mud) 
between the river mouth and spawning sites for juvenile foraging and 
physiological development;
    (3) Water of appropriate depth and absent physical barriers to 
passage (e.g., locks, dams, thermal plumes, turbidity, sound, 
reservoirs, gear, etc.) between the river mouth and spawning sites 
necessary to support:
    (i) Unimpeded movement of adults to and from spawning sites;
    (ii) Seasonal and physiologically dependent movement of juvenile 
Atlantic sturgeon to appropriate salinity zones within the river 
estuary; and
    (iii) Staging, resting, or holding of subadults or spawning 
condition adults.
    Water depths in main river channels must also be deep enough (e.g., 
at least 1.2 m) to ensure continuous flow in the main channel at all 
times when any sturgeon life stage would be in the river.
    (4) Water, between the river mouth and spawning sites, especially 
in the bottom meter of the water column, with the temperature, 
salinity, and oxygen values that, combined, support:
    (i) Spawning;
    (ii) Annual and interannual adult, subadult, larval, and juvenile 
survival; and
    (iii) Larval, juvenile, and subadult growth, development, and 
recruitment (e.g., 13 [deg]C to 26 [deg]C for spawning habitat and no 
more than 30 [deg]C for juvenile rearing habitat, and 6 milligrams per 
liter (mg/L) dissolved oxygen (DO) or greater for juvenile rearing 
habitat).
    We determined that the key conservation objectives for the Carolina 
and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon are to increase the 
abundance of each DPS by facilitating increased survival of all life 
stages and facilitating adult reproduction and juvenile and subadult 
recruitment into the adult population. We determined the physical 
features essential to the conservation of the species and that may 
require special management considerations or protection, which support 
the identified conservation objectives, are:
    (1) Hard bottom substrate (e.g., rock, cobble, gravel, limestone, 
boulder, etc.) in low salinity waters (i.e., 0.0-0.5 ppt range) for 
settlement of fertilized eggs and refuge, growth, and development of 
early life stages;
    (2) Transitional salinity zones inclusive of waters with a gradual 
downstream gradient of 0.5- up to 30 ppt and soft substrate (e.g., 
sand, mud) between the river mouths and spawning sites for juvenile 
foraging and physiological development;
    (3) Water of appropriate depth and absent physical barriers to 
passage (e.g., locks, dams, thermal plumes, turbidity, sound, 
reservoirs, gear, etc.) between the river mouths and spawning sites 
necessary to support:
    (i) Unimpeded movement of adults to and from spawning sites;
    (ii) Seasonal and physiologically-dependent movement of juvenile 
Atlantic sturgeon to appropriate salinity zones within the river 
estuary; and
    (iii) Staging, resting, or holding of subadults or spawning 
condition adults.
    Water depths in main river channels must also be deep enough (at 
least 1.2 m) to ensure continuous flow in the main channel at all times 
when any sturgeon life stage would be in the river.
    (4) Water quality conditions, especially in the bottom meter of the 
water column, between the river mouths and spawning sites with 
temperature and oxygen values that support:
    (i) Spawning;
    (ii) Annual and inter-annual adult, subadult, larval, and juvenile 
survival; and
    (iii) Larval, juvenile, and subadult growth, development, and 
recruitment. Appropriate temperature and oxygen values will vary 
interdependently, and depending on salinity in a particular habitat. 
For example, 6.0 mg/L DO or greater likely supports juvenile rearing 
habitat, whereas DO less than 5.0 mg/L for longer than 30 days is less 
likely to support rearing when water temperature is greater than 25 
[deg]C. In temperatures greater than 26 [deg]C, DO greater than 4.3 mg/
L is needed to protect survival and growth. Temperatures of 13 to 26 
[deg]C likely to support spawning habitat.

Atlantic Sturgeon Natural History and Status

    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 in Florida. 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. This rule 
addresses the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), 
which is distributed along the eastern coast of North America. 
Historically, sightings of Atlantic sturgeon have been reported from 
Hamilton Inlet, Labrador, Canada, south to the St. Johns River, 
Florida, United States. Reported occurrences south of the St. Johns 
River, Florida, have been rare but have increased recently with the 
evolution of acoustic telemetry coupled with increased receiver arrays.
    Although there is considerable variability among species, all 
sturgeon species (Order Acipenseriformes) have

[[Page 39162]]

some common life history traits. They all: (1) Occur within the 
Northern Hemisphere; (2) spawn in freshwater over hard bottom 
substrates; (3) generally do not spawn annually; (4) are benthic 
foragers; (5) mature relatively late and are relatively long lived; and 
(6) are relatively sensitive to low DO levels (Dees, 1961; Sulak and 
Clugston, 1999; Billard and Lecointre, 2001; Secor and Niklitschek, 
2002; Pikitch et al., 2005).
    Atlantic sturgeon have all of the above traits. They occur along 
the eastern coast of North America from Hamilton Inlet, Labrador, 
Canada to Cape Canaveral, Florida, United States (Bigelow and Welsh, 
1925; Dees, 1961; Vladykov and Greeley, 1963; NMFS and U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2007; T. Savoy, CT DEEP, pers. comm.). 
Atlantic sturgeon are a long-lived, late-maturing, estuarine-dependent, 
anadromous species with a maximum lifespan of up to 60 years, although 
the typical lifespan is probably much shorter (Sulak and Randall, 2002; 
Balazik et al., 2010). Atlantic sturgeon reach lengths up to 14 ft 
(4.27 m), and weigh over 800 pounds (363 kilograms (kg)). Many datasets 
demonstrate clinal variation in vital parameters of Atlantic sturgeon 
populations, with faster growth and earlier age at maturation in more 
southern systems. 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 
generally 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).
    Analysis of stomach contents for adults, subadults (i.e., sexually 
immature Atlantic sturgeon that have emigrated from the natal estuary 
to the marine environment), and juveniles (i.e., sexually immature 
Atlantic sturgeon that have not yet emigrated from the natal estuary) 
confirms that Atlantic sturgeon are benthic foragers (Ryder, 1888; 
Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953; Johnson et al., 1997; Secor et al., 2000; 
ASSRT, 2007; Guilbard et al., 2007; Hatin et al., 2007; Savoy, 2007; 
Dzaugis, 2013; McLean et al., 2013).
    An anadromous species, Atlantic sturgeon spawns in freshwater of 
rivers that flow into a coastal estuary. Spawning adults migrate 
upriver in the spring, typically 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). A fall spawning 
migration has been hypothesized for many years (Rogers and Weber, 1995; 
Weber and Jennings, 1996; Moser et al., 1998) and was recently verified 
in the Roanoke River, North Carolina, and the Altamaha River, Georgia 
(Smith et. al., 2015; Ingram and Peterson 2016). There is also a 
growing body of evidence that some Atlantic sturgeon river populations 
have two spawning seasons comprised of different spawning adults 
(Balazik and Musick, 2015; Farrae et al., 2017). Since the listings, 
additional evidence of fall as well as spring spawning has been 
obtained for the Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic sturgeon (Balazik et 
al., 2012; Hager et al., 2014; Kahn et al., 2014).
    Spawning typically occurs in flowing water upriver of the salt 
front of estuaries and below the fall line of large rivers (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. Spawning sites are well-
oxygenated areas with flowing water ranging in temperature from 13 
[deg]C (55 [deg]F) to 26 [deg]C (79 [deg]F), and hard bottom substrate 
such as cobble, hard clay, and bedrock (Ryder, 1888; Dees, 1961; 
Vladykov and Greeley, 1963; Scott and Crossman, 1973; Gilbert, 1989; 
Smith and Clugston, 1997; Bain et al., 2000; Collins et al., 2000; 
Balazik et al., 2012; Hager et al., 2014). Depth at which fish spawn 
and water depth leading to spawning sites may be highly variable. 
Atlantic sturgeon in spawning condition have been tracked and captured 
at depths up to 27 m (Borodin 1925; Dees 1961; Hatin et al., 2002; 
Balazik et al., 2012; Hager et al., 2014).
    Within minutes of being fertilized, the eggs become sticky and 
adhere to the substrate for the relatively short and temperature-
dependent period of larval development (Ryder, 1888; Vladykov and 
Greeley, 1963; Murawski and Pacheco, 1977; Smith et al., 1980; Van den 
Avyle, 1984; Mohler, 2003). Hatching occurs approximately 94 to 140 
hours after egg deposition at temperatures of 68.0 to 64.4 [deg]F (20 
to 18 [deg]C), respectively. The newly emerged larvae assume a demersal 
existence (Smith et al., 1980). The yolk sac 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 occurs only at night. During the 
day, larvae use benthic structure (e.g., gravel matrix) as refuge 
(Kynard and Horgan, 2002). During the latter half of migration, when 
larvae are more fully developed, movement to rearing grounds occurs 
during both the day and night.
    Larval Atlantic sturgeon (i.e., less than 4 weeks old, with total 
lengths (TL) less than 30 mm; Van Eenennaam et al., 1996) are assumed 
to inhabit the same areas where they were spawned and live at or near 
the bottom (Ryder, 1888; Smith et al., 1980; Bain et al., 2000; Kynard 
and Horgan, 2002; Greene et al., 2009). The best scientific information 
available for behavior of larval Atlantic sturgeon is described from 
hatchery studies. Upon hatching, larvae are nourished by the yolk sac, 
are mostly pelagic (e.g., exhibit a ``swim-up and drift-down'' behavior 
in hatchery tanks; Mohler, 2003), and move away from light (i.e., 
negative photo-taxis; Kynard and Horgan, 2002; Mohler, 2003). Within 
days, larvae exhibit more benthic behavior until the yolk sac is 
absorbed at about 8 to 10 days post-hatching (Kynard and Horgan, 2002; 
Mohler, 2003). Post-yolk sac larvae occur in the water column but feed 
at the bottom of the water column (Mohler, 2003; Richardson et al., 
2007).
    The next phase of development, referred to as the juvenile stage, 
lasts months to years in brackish waters of the natal estuary (Holland 
and Yelverton, 1973; Dovel and Berggen, 1983; Waldman et al., 1996; 
Shirey et al., 1997; Collins et al., 2000; Secor et al., 2000; 
Dadswell, 2006; Hatin et al., 2007; ASSRT, 2007; Calvo et al., 2010; 
Schueller and Peterson, 2010). Juvenile rearing habitat is that habitat 
necessary for juveniles to grow, develop, and emigrate to the marine 
environment where they begin the subadult life stage, eventually 
maturing into adults. Juveniles occur in oligohaline waters (salinity 
of 0.5 to 5 ppt) and mesohaline waters (salinity of 5 to 18 ppt) of the 
natal estuary during growth and development. They will eventually move 
into polyhaline waters (salinity of 18-30 ppt), if available in the 
natal river estuary, before emigrating from the natal river estuary. 
Larger, presumably older,

[[Page 39163]]

juveniles occur across a broader salinity range than smaller, 
presumably younger, juveniles (Bain, 1997; Shirey et al., 1997; Haley, 
1999; Bain et al., 2000; Collins et al., 2000; Secor et al., 2000; 
Hatin et al., 2007; McCord et al., 2007; Munro et al., 2007; Sweka et 
al., 2007; Calvo et al., 2010).
    The distribution of Atlantic sturgeon juveniles in the natal 
estuary is a function of physiological development and habitat 
selection based on water quality factors of temperature, salinity, and 
DO, which are inter-related environmental variables. In laboratory 
studies with salinities of 8 to 15 ppt and temperatures of 12 and 20 
[deg]C (53.6 and 68 [deg]F), juveniles less than a year old (also known 
as young-of-year [YOY]) had reduced growth at 40 percent DO saturation, 
grew best at 70 percent DO saturation, and selected conditions that 
supported growth (Niklitschek and Secor, 2009 I; Niklitschek and Secor, 
2009 II). Similar results were obtained for age-1 juveniles (i.e., 
greater than 1 year old and less than 2 years old), which have been 
shown to tolerate salinities of 33 ppt (e.g., a salinity level 
associated with seawater), but grow faster in lower salinity waters 
(Niklitschek and Secor, 2009 I; Allen et al., 2014). For the conditions 
tested, the best growth for both age groups occurred at DO 
concentrations greater than 6.5 mg/L (e.g., 70 percent DO saturation 
with salinity of 8 to 15 ppt and temperature of 12 and 20 [deg]C). 
While specific DO concentrations at temperatures considered stressful 
for Atlantic sturgeon are not available, instantaneous minimum DO 
concentrations of 4.3 mg/L protect survival of shortnose sturgeon at 
temperatures greater than 29 [deg]C (84.2 [deg]F) (EPA, 2003). However, 
data from Secor and Niklitschek (2001) show that shortnose sturgeon are 
more tolerant of higher temperatures than Atlantic sturgeon, and the 
``high temperature'' for Atlantic sturgeon is actually considered 26 
[deg]C (78.8 [deg]F) (Secor and Gunderson, 1998).
    Once suitably developed, Atlantic sturgeon leave the natal estuary 
and enter marine waters (i.e., waters with salinity greater than 30 
ppt); this marks the beginning of the subadult life stage. In the 
marine environment, subadults mix with adults and subadults from other 
river systems (Bowen and Avise, 1990; Wirgin et al., 2012; Waldman et 
al., 2013; O'Leary et al., 2014). Atlantic sturgeon travel long 
distances in marine waters, aggregate in both oceanic and estuarine 
areas at certain times of the year, and exhibit seasonal coastal 
movements in the spring and fall (Vladykov and Greeley, 1963; Oliver et 
al., 2013).
    The exact spawning locations for Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, 
Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic DPS Atlantic sturgeon are 
unknown but inferred based on the location of freshwater, hard 
substrate, water depth, tracking of adults to upriver locations and the 
behavior of adults at those locations, historical accounts of where the 
caviar fishery occurred, capture of YOY and, in limited cases, capture 
of larvae and eggs. Spawning sites at multiple locations within the 
tidal-affected river likely help to ensure successful spawning given 
annual changes in the location of the salt wedge.

Public Comments and Our Responses

    We requested comments on the proposed rule to designate critical 
habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay DPSs of 
Atlantic sturgeon (81 FR 35701; June 3, 2016) and on the proposed rule 
to designate critical habitat for the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs 
of Atlantic sturgeon (81 FR 36077; June 3, 2016) for a 90-day period. 
Following requests from the public, we re-opened the public comment 
period for an additional 15 days (81 FR 66911; Sept. 29, 2016), for a 
total comment period of 105 days. Five public hearings were also held 
on the following dates and in the following locations:
    1. Thursday, July 21, 2016, 3 to 5 p.m., Gloucester, Massachusetts.
    2. Thursday, July 21, 2016, 6 to 8 p.m., Gloucester, Massachusetts.
    3. Monday, June 20, 2016, 7 to 9 p.m., Brunswick, Georgia.
    4. Tuesday, June 21, 2016, 7 to 9 p.m., Charleston, South Carolina.
    5. Thursday, June 23, 2016, 7 to 9 p.m., Morehead City, North 
Carolina.
    In addition to the public hearings, during which substantive 
comments on the proposed designations could be provided by the public, 
we held a public informational meeting prior to each public hearing in 
Massachusetts, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. We also 
held public informational meetings in Annapolis, Maryland on July 13, 
2016, and in Portland, Maine on July 18, 2016. These informational 
meetings reviewed the purpose of designating critical habitat and 
answered procedural questions. We did not accept public comment or 
answer substantive questions about the areas proposed for designation 
at the informational meetings; rather, we provided information on the 
public comment process. To further facilitate public participation, the 
proposed rules were made available on our regional Web pages and 
comments were accepted during public hearings, and via standard mail, 
facsimile, and through the Federal eRulemaking portal. In addition to 
the proposed rules, the correction notice for the proposed rule for the 
Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs, maps of the proposed critical habitat 
units, and the DIAs supporting our conclusions under section 4(b)(2) of 
the ESA were made publicly available.
    Twenty-one people attended the public hearings for the proposed 
rule to designate critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York 
Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon, either in-person 
or via telephone, and we received 1,577 responses to the request for 
public comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents through 
Regulations.gov and by mail, including over 1,000 form letters. 
Approximately 40 people attended the public hearings for the proposed 
rule to designate critical habitat for the Carolina and South Atlantic 
DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon, and 354 public comments were received on the 
proposed rule and supporting documents.
    We reviewed all comments received for substantive issues relevant 
to the proposed critical habitat rules. Some comments resulted in 
changes between the proposed and final designation. Changes between the 
proposed designations and final designation are highlighted in the 
``Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rules'' section of this rule. 
The relevant public comments received, both written and oral, are 
addressed below. We have responded to the comments received on the 
proposed rule for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay 
DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon separately from our responses to the comments 
received on the proposed rule for the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs 
of Atlantic sturgeon because it would be difficult for a commenter to 
identify his or her individual comment and our response if we merged 
the comment responses. However, we have assigned comments to major 
issue categories and, where appropriate, have combined similar comments 
from multiple members of the public or referenced the response to 
identical comments received on both proposed rules. We received some 
comments related to the listing and DPS delineation and comments 
critical of our final rule Implementing Changes to the Regulations for 
Designating Critical Habitat (81 FR 7414; February 11, 2016); those 
comments are not relevant to this

[[Page 39164]]

critical habitat designation and are not addressed below.

Comments on the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPS 
Proposed Critical Habitat Designations (81 FR 35701; June 3, 2016)

Comments on Geographical Area Occupied
    Comment 1: A commenter stated that we have not provided any 
evidence that Atlantic sturgeon occupied the Susquehanna River at the 
time the species was listed, or at any time in recent history. They 
stated that the most recent sighting of Atlantic sturgeon occurred in 
1987, nearly 25 years before the species was listed in 2012, and that 
sighting occurred near the mouth of the Susquehanna River rather than 
in the Susquehanna River. The commenter noted that Exelon monitored the 
Susquehanna River for sonic transmitter tagged sturgeons from other 
river systems (Delaware River, Potomac River) during 2010 and 2011 with 
fixed station acoustic telemetry receivers, and no tagged Atlantic 
sturgeon were recorded in the Susquehanna River in either year. In 
addition, they stated that Atlantic sturgeon have not been caught in 
the Conowingo Dam fish lift in 44 years of fish lift operations, there 
have been no reports of anglers catching Atlantic sturgeon or 
observations of breaching Atlantic sturgeon in the Susquehanna River, 
and there are no records for Atlantic sturgeon in the Susquehanna River 
in the USFWS tagging database or the Maryland Department of Natural 
Resources reward program database.
    Our Response: Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define 
``geographical area occupied by the species'' as ``An area that may 
generally be delineated around species' occurrences, as determined by 
the Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may include those areas used 
throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if not used on 
a regular basis (e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and 
habitats used periodically, but not solely, by vagrant individuals).'' 
The range of each DPS is informed by numerous lines of evidence 
including the life history of Atlantic sturgeon, tagging, tracking, and 
genetic analyses. Often at the time of designating critical habitat, we 
do not have detailed information or the same level of detail for every 
part of the species' range. However, the absence of collection or 
sighting of Atlantic sturgeon in any part of their range does not 
equate to absence of Atlantic sturgeon. Atlantic sturgeon can be 
difficult to detect when present in marine and estuarine waters because 
they are benthic fish, spending most of their lives well below the 
water surface, they do not school, they move within the estuary, and 
subadults and adults spend only part of the year in estuarine waters.
    There has been very little effort to detect the presence of 
Atlantic sturgeon in the Susquehanna River in recent times. Receivers 
were placed in the Susquehanna River to detect acoustically tagged 
Atlantic sturgeon in 2010 and 2011 but, at that time, we made it clear 
that an absence of detections was not confirmation of absence of the 
species in the river, given the low number of Atlantic sturgeon that 
were acoustically tagged and the limited number of receivers placed in 
the river below Conowingo Dam.
    Fish behavior rather than fish abundance influences whether a 
sturgeon enters a fish lift that was designed for a different fish 
species. Therefore, absence of Atlantic sturgeon in the fish lift also 
does not equate to absence of Atlantic sturgeon in the river below a 
dam. Many of the rivers for which we have more abundant documentation 
of Atlantic sturgeon presence also have dams with fish lifts (e.g., 
Connecticut, Penobscot, and Saco Rivers), and only one Atlantic 
sturgeon has been observed and documented in a fish lift (at the 
Holyoke Dam in the Connecticut River (ASSRT 2007)).
    The Maryland Reward Program relied upon reports of Atlantic 
sturgeon incidentally caught in fishing gear. The Program operated when 
directed fishing for, and incidental capture of, Atlantic sturgeon was 
prohibited and when abundance of Atlantic sturgeon was unknown and 
estimated to be low (thus later necessitating listing under the ESA). 
The lack of reported captures of Atlantic sturgeon in the Susquehanna 
can be explained by any number of factors including whether: Fishing 
was occurring in the Susquehanna when Atlantic sturgeon were present, 
the gear type fished was conducive to catching Atlantic sturgeon, or 
the fisherman reported the capture. Similarly, to assess whether the 
absence of USFWS tagging database records for Atlantic sturgeon 
captures in the Susquehanna reflects absence of Atlantic sturgeon in 
the Susquehanna River, a measure of the amount of effort to search for, 
capture, and tag Atlantic sturgeon in the Susquehanna River must be 
provided. Based on the best scientific information available, there was 
no directed effort to search for, capture, and tag Atlantic sturgeon in 
the Susquehanna River. Therefore, the absence of records in the USFWS 
tagging database does not inform the presence or absence of Atlantic 
sturgeon in the river.
    The lack of evidence for Atlantic sturgeon presence in the 
Susquehanna based on the scientific studies or recreational fishing in 
the river is more likely the result of methods and gear that do not 
effectively capture sturgeon. Sturgeon tend to sink rather than float 
when exposed to electroshocking (Moser et al., 2000). Electroshocking 
conducted to retrieve other fish species often does not result in 
detection of Atlantic sturgeon because the electric current may only 
penetrate a few feet from the surface of the water and not reach the 
bottom where sturgeon are most likely to occur. Although some sturgeon 
have been detected during electrofishing for other species, 
electroshocking is not an effective means for detecting sturgeon 
presence. Gillnet gear is only effective when selective for the size of 
sturgeon present, and sturgeon can get snagged on recreational hook 
gear but do not typically take a hook. Therefore, creel surveys of 
recreational fisheries are unlikely to provide evidence of sturgeon 
presence, particularly when the recreational fisheries are targeting 
fish species dissimilar to sturgeons (e.g., in size, feeding 
characteristics).
    Since the listing of the Chesapeake Bay DPS in 2012, increased 
effort to detect Atlantic sturgeon in the Pamunkey, Nanticoke, and 
Rappahannock Rivers has led to the discovery of Atlantic sturgeon 
spawning populations and sturgeon presence that were undetected before 
the listing. These include a spawning population in the Pamunkey River 
(Hager et al., 2014; Kahn et al., 2014), a likely spawning population 
in the Nanticoke River, and detection of Atlantic sturgeon in the 
Rappahannock River.
    Comment 2: An industry trade group stated we inappropriately 
delineated the ``geographical area occupied'' by the species as the 
entire ``aquatic habitat (e.g., below the high tide line)'' of inland 
freshwater areas that are currently accessible to the Atlantic 
sturgeon. These commenters stated that we inappropriately included not 
just areas where the species has actually been located, but instead we 
also included wider areas around the species' occurrences and areas 
that may be used only temporarily or periodically by the species. They 
stated that ``areas identified as occupied include vast areas where 
there is no evidence the species even occurs, much less occupies.'' The 
commenter states that the Services' Consultation Handbook provides that 
occupied critical habitat is ``critical habitat that contains

[[Page 39165]]

individuals of the species at the time of the project analysis.''
    Our Response: Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the 
geographical area occupied by the species as an area that may generally 
be delineated around species' occurrences (i.e., range), and this may 
include those areas used throughout all or part of the species' life 
cycle, even if they are not used on a regular basis (e.g., migratory 
corridors, seasonal habitats, and or habitats used periodically, but 
not solely by vagrant individuals). This is consistent with past 
critical habitat designations (e.g., Final Rule Designating Critical 
Habitat for Threatened Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals (73 FR 72210; 
November 26, 2008): ``We have long interpreted `geographical area 
occupied' in the definition of critical habitat to mean the range of 
the species at the time of listing (45 FR 13011; February 27, 1980)''). 
The geographical area occupied as specified in this designation meets 
the regulatory definition, and our application of the term 
``geographical area occupied'' to Atlantic sturgeon is appropriate. As 
the court in Arizona Cattle Growers Ass'n v. Salazar (606 F.3d 1160, 
1164 (9th Cir. 2010)) held, ``[d]etermining whether a species uses an 
area with sufficient regularity that it is `occupied' is a highly 
contextual and fact-dependent inquiry. Cf. Cape Hatteras Access Pres. 
Alliance v. United States DOI, 344 F. Supp. 2d 108, 119-20 (D.D.C. 
2004). Relevant factors may include how often the area is used, how the 
species uses the area, the necessity of the area for the species' 
conservation, species characteristics such as degree of mobility or 
migration, and any other factors that may bear on the inquiry.'' In 
claiming that the 1998 Consultation Handbook provides that occupied 
critical habitat is that which is occupied by individuals of the 
species at the time of a project analysis, the commenter did not 
include the entire discussion about occupied critical habitat. As we 
explained more fully in our Handbook, ``[a] species does not have to 
occupy critical habitat throughout the year for the habitat to be 
considered occupied (e.g. migratory birds).'' The court in Arizona 
Cattle Growers cited this language as appropriately recognizing that 
``a species need not be present continuously for habitat to be 
considered ``occupied.'' 606 F.3d at 1165. The court rejected a narrow 
interpretation of ``occupied'' based solely on documented ''residence'' 
of individual animals, holding that ``[w]here data are inconclusive or 
where habitat is used on a sporadic basis, allowing the FWS to 
designate as `occupied' habitat where the species is likely to be found 
promotes the ESA's conservation goals and comports with the ESA's 
policy of ``institutionalized caution'' (Id. at 1166-1167), and that 
``[t]he fact that a member of the species is not present in an area at 
a given instant does not mean the area is suitable only for future 
occupancy if the species regularly uses the area'' (Id. at 1167).
    For Atlantic sturgeon, we identified the geographical area occupied 
based on the species' well-known anadromous life history, including 
returning to natal rivers to spawn, spawning behaviors, and habitat 
common to sturgeon species and verified for Atlantic sturgeon, as well 
as the need to protect spawning and reproductive habitat for population 
growth and conservation of the species, among other factors. Some 
portion of each river population returns to its natal river to spawn 
every year, and if spawning occurs and is successful, young sturgeon 
use the natal river to forage, develop and mature every year.
    Comment 3: A state agency stated there may be habitat features 
conducive for Atlantic sturgeon reproduction and recruitment in the 
Piscataqua, Salmon Falls, and Cocheco Rivers, but there was no evidence 
that Atlantic sturgeon have used New Hampshire estuaries and coastal 
rivers as spawning and nursery habitat from at least 35 years of 
surveys, studies, etc. The commenter stated that recent evidence from 
acoustical tagging (Micah Kieffer, USGS, personal communication, as 
cited in the comment) leads to the conclusion that sturgeons spend only 
brief periods in the Piscataqua River/Great Bay system during longer 
movements between the Merrimack and Kennebec Rivers. A fisherman 
similarly stated that in all of his fishing trips in the Piscataqua 
River over the course of 20-plus years, he had never encountered 
Atlantic sturgeon in the Piscataqua River, and he does not believe that 
Atlantic sturgeon spawning or juvenile rearing occurs in the 
Piscataqua, Salmon Falls, and Cocheco Rivers.
    Our Response: We disagree with these commenters' assertions that 
Atlantic sturgeon do not occur in these waterbodies. The Piscataqua 
River as well as the Cocheco and Salmon Falls Rivers downriver of their 
respective lowermost dams are part of the geographical area occupied by 
Atlantic sturgeon. Recent evidence of their presence includes detection 
of tagged Atlantic sturgeon (M.Kieffer, USGS, pers. comm.). Because the 
number of tagged Atlantic sturgeon represents only a fraction of the 
total number of sturgeon, and receivers for detecting tags are not in 
the rivers throughout the year, the number of Atlantic sturgeon 
detected in the Piscataqua is very likely less than the total number of 
Atlantic sturgeon that actually occur in the Piscataqua and as far 
upriver as the lowermost dams of the Cocheco and Salmon Falls Rivers.
    We identified the Piscataqua River and portions of the Salmon Falls 
and Cocheco Rivers as a potential critical habitat area for the Gulf of 
Maine DPS because the physical features are present. We considered 
whether the identified area was essential to the conservation of the 
Gulf of Maine DPS and concluded that it was, given the capture of a 
large female Atlantic sturgeon with eggs, at the head-of-tide in the 
Salmon Falls River in South Berwick, Maine on June 18, 1990, thus 
demonstrating behavior consistent with spawning was occurring in the 
system. We also took into consideration the limited number of other 
rivers with spawning and rearing habitat in the Gulf of Maine DPS, the 
continuing threats to the DPS, the threats to the features of critical 
habitat, and the uncertainty for how much spawning and rearing habitat 
is necessary to recover the Gulf of Maine DPS. Together, this 
information supports our conclusion that the Piscataqua River, and 
portions of the Salmon Falls and Cocheco Rivers, are part of the 
geographical area occupied by the Gulf of Maine DPS and these areas are 
essential to the conservation of the Gulf of Maine DPS.
    We are not surprised that there have been very few incidental 
captures of Atlantic sturgeon in fisheries or research surveys and 
studies conducted in the Piscataqua River. We know from other river 
systems that capture of any of the Atlantic sturgeon life stages can be 
difficult even when the proper gear for capturing Atlantic sturgeon is 
used, and used at the time and in the area where Atlantic sturgeon are 
likely to occur. Atlantic sturgeon populations in a number of rivers 
were considered extirpated at one point, only later to find that 
genetically unique populations were present (e.g., the James River and 
York River systems, the Connecticut River, the Nanticoke River, and 
Marshyhope Creek).
    Comment 4: A representative for a power operation on the Hudson 
River stated that atypical passage or straying is not enough to 
constitute critical habitat, and critical habitat shall not include the 
entire geographical area which can be occupied by the threatened or 
endangered species.
    Our Response: We agree that it is inappropriate to designate the 
entire area occupied by a DPS as critical

[[Page 39166]]

habitat. However, we have not done that for any of the Atlantic 
sturgeon DPSs. The geographical area occupied by the New York Bight DPS 
of Atlantic sturgeon is a broad area that includes the Hudson River as 
far upriver as the Federal Dam near Albany, NY. The New York Bight DPS 
consists of all Atlantic sturgeon spawned in the watersheds that drain 
into coastal waters, including Long Island Sound, the New York Bight, 
and Delaware Bay, from Chatham, Massachusetts to the Delaware-Maryland 
border on Fenwick Island. The range of the DPS in marine waters extends 
from Labrador, Canada to Cape Canaveral, Florida, United States. The 
area of the Hudson River that we are designating as critical habitat 
is, therefore, a specific area within the much broader geographical 
area occupied by the DPS.
Comments on Physical or Biological Features (PBFs)
    Comment 5: A commenter stated the critical habitat designation for 
Atlantic sturgeon fails to identify any in-river habitats that are 
important aggregation areas for Atlantic sturgeon. They also stated 
that we designated in-river habitats where sturgeon congregate, 
presumably for resting and energy conservation, for both the southern 
DPS of green sturgeon, and for Gulf sturgeon, and it is likely that 
Atlantic sturgeon have a similar habitat requirement.
    Our Response: While there are similarities between all sturgeon 
species, there are also differences. The proposed rule and the Impacts 
Analysis and Biological Information Source Document summarized the 
literature describing spawning behavior for male and female Atlantic 
sturgeon. Briefly, male Atlantic sturgeon in spawning condition have 
been observed to stage in more saline waters of the coastal estuary 
before moving upriver once the water temperature reaches approximately 
6 [deg]C (43[emsp14][deg]F). They may spend weeks moving upstream and 
downstream of the presumed spawning area(s) before moving back 
downriver to the lower estuary and residing there until outmigration in 
the fall (Smith et al., 1982; Dovel and Berggren, 1983; Smith, 1985; 
Bain, 1997; Bain et al., 2000; Collins et al., 2000; Hatin et al., 
2002; Greene et al., 2009; Balazik et al., 2012; Breece et al., 2013). 
In contrast, spawning females move upriver when temperatures are closer 
to 12 to 13 [deg]C (54 to 55[emsp14][deg]F), return downriver 
relatively quickly, and may leave the estuary and travel to other 
coastal estuaries until outmigration to marine waters in the fall 
(Smith et al., 1982; Dovel and Berggren, 1983; Smith, 1985; Bain, 1997; 
Bain et al., 2000; Collins et al., 2000; Greene et al., 2009; Balazik 
et al., 2012; Breece et al., 2013).
    The use of telemetry tags for Atlantic sturgeon and more widespread 
use of receiver arrays has provided new information on Atlantic 
sturgeon spawning behavior and whether or when staging occurs. In the 
James River, some males moved straight to the hypothesized spawning 
ground without any apparent staging period while others occurred 
downriver in brackish water during the summer before moving upstream in 
August or early September; still others occurred farther upriver for a 
period of time before the spawning period (Balazik and Musick, 2015). 
Given the various movement patterns, it is not clear to what extent 
staging occurs or, for those fish that do appear to stage, whether it 
is essential for successful reproduction. Therefore, we have not 
included specific staging areas as a physical or biological feature of 
Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat. However, we recognize new research 
may lead to better identification regarding whether, where, and when 
Atlantic sturgeon stage. Therefore, the feature addressing access 
includes open passage between the river mouth and spawning sites to 
support life history needs associated with reproduction such as 
staging, resting, or holding of spawning condition adults.
    Comment 6: Two commenters provided information on the presence of 
Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River and in Delaware Bay in proximity 
to sand waves, postulating that sand wave habitat provides the same 
function as deep holes provide for green and Gulf sturgeon, allowing 
Atlantic sturgeon to rest and feed during the spawning season. 
According to the commenters, in the Hudson River, sand waves were found 
in proximity to the Atlantic sturgeon spawning areas. Side scan sonar 
showed a high density of spawning size Atlantic sturgeon in sand wave 
habitat and no sturgeon in sand habitat without waves. A gill net set 
in proximity to the sand wave habitat had high catch rates of Atlantic 
sturgeon. Similarly, in the Delaware Bay, telemetry tagged Atlantic 
sturgeon were detected in high density in a relatively small area (18.8 
acres) within, and bordering sand wave habitat. The commenters point 
out that habitat that provides for rest or cover has been identified as 
an essential feature for other fish species.
    Our Response: The commenters provide new, intriguing information 
for a possible association between Atlantic sturgeon and sand wave 
habitat. When designating critical habitat, we do not have to know 
exactly why the listed species occurs in an area. We do, however, need 
to identify physical or biological features that support the life 
history needs of the species. The commenters postulate that the sand 
waves provide resting and feeding areas for Atlantic sturgeon during 
spawning and feeding in the lower estuary. However, no information was 
provided to support this theory and the literature does not point 
toward evidence of feeding or resting during spawning. On the contrary, 
available references suggest female Atlantic sturgeon make rapid 
upriver and downriver movements during spawning and can completely 
leave the spawning estuary and travel to other estuarine environments, 
presumably for foraging. Males move upriver and downriver of the 
spawning area during the spawning season, and then move downriver at 
the end of the spawning season presumably to rest and forage before 
leaving the spawning estuary in the fall. At this time, we do not have 
sufficient information to determine what life history needs sand waves 
may support.
    Sand waves are a common feature of the Hudson River and Delaware 
Bay as well as other rivers and bays (e.g., see information for the 
Delaware Bay Benthic Mapping Project at http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/coastal/dnerr/documents/benthic4plet.pdf, and Levin et al., 1992). The 
mapping images provided by the commenter for the Hudson River depict 
dynamic wave habitat and approximate spawning area for Atlantic 
sturgeon. Wave habitat is depicted as occurring in a number of areas. 
Some of these are in proximity to spawning areas and some are not. 
Similarly, the information provided by the commenter for Delaware Bay 
depicts sand wave habitat in proximity to an observed aggregation of 
Atlantic sturgeon. However, no information is provided for Atlantic 
sturgeon presence in other areas of the Bay where sand wave habitat 
also occurs and does not occur. Therefore, the information provided and 
the other available information (i.e., published literature) do not 
support the commenter's position that sand waves in the Hudson River 
and Delaware Bay support the life history needs of the New York Bight 
DPS, and we have not included sand waves as a physical or biological 
feature of critical habitat for the New York Bight DPS of Atlantic 
sturgeon.
    Comment 7: A commenter stated that while the proposed designation 
includes soft-bottom habitats for juvenile foraging and development, it 
fails to expressly recognize the need to protect soft-bottom areas that 
serve as

[[Page 39167]]

resting and feeding habitats for spawning adults. The commenter called 
upon us to designate soft-bottom areas of the Hudson River for resting 
and feeding habitats for spawning adults, particularly the areas with 
sand waves, as critical habitat.
    Our Response: Soft-bottom areas of the Hudson River are part of the 
Hudson River critical habitat unit based on the best available 
scientific information that soft bottom substrates and the transitional 
salinity zone are needed for juvenile rearing. We are not aware of any 
information that indicates Atlantic sturgeon spawning adults feed or 
rest in spawning areas, and the commenters did not provide any such 
information. Available references indicate spawning female Atlantic 
sturgeon make rapid upriver movements to spawning areas and quickly 
depart spawning areas while males move upriver and downriver of the 
spawning area during the spawning season. If new information on the use 
of soft substrate by spawning adults becomes available, it will be 
considered by Federal agencies assessing the effects of proposed 
actions on the Hudson River critical habitat, and by us as the 
consulting agency in ESA section 7 consultations. More details of our 
consideration of sand wave habitat as a physical or biological feature 
is provided in our response to Comment 6. As noted there, the best 
scientific information available does not currently support sand waves 
as a physical or biological feature for Atlantic sturgeon critical 
habitat.
    Comment 8: An industry trade group asserted that we must revise our 
proposed designation to explain how each specific critical habitat unit 
to be designated contains the PBFs essential to the conservation of the 
species, suggesting that our approach should be the same as that taken 
in the designation of critical habitat for the Southern DPS of green 
sturgeon (74 FR 52300; October 9, 2009). They also suggested our 
proposed designation is overly broad, improperly used ``ephemeral 
reference points,'' and is unsupported by facts or science. The 
commenters suggested we identified and proposed to designate sweeping 
areas of occupied habitat that undoubtedly capture many areas that do 
not have, and likely never will have, physical or biological 
characteristics essential for the conservation of the species, noting 
that the designations cover manmade areas that they state are not 
important to the species, such as ``manmade features'' below the mean 
high water mark that cannot or would not be accessed by the species 
(e.g., outfalls, enclosures, quays) and industrialized areas used by 
ocean-going vessels. One commenter suggested it appeared we had merely 
designated entire rivers from the confluence of the Atlantic Ocean back 
to either some major tributary or some large impoundment or impassable 
boundary upstream. Several commenters suggested that areas should not 
be designated as critical habitat because environmental conditions in 
certain stretches of rivers are poor and would not support the PBFs. 
Similarly, other commenters stated we had failed to limit the mapped 
areas in our proposed designation to areas where we believe the PBFs 
occur.
    Our Response: We disagree. As we explained in our final rule, 
Implementing Changes to the Regulations for Designating Critical 
Habitat (81 FR 7414; February 11, 2016), in each designation we will 
identify specific areas of critical habitat ``at a scale determined by 
the Secretary to be appropriate.'' We are not required to make 
determinations at an infinitely fine scale, and we need not determine 
that each square inch, square yard, acre, or even square mile 
independently meets the definition of critical habitat. We have 
discretion to determine the appropriate scale for the analysis, which 
is informed by, among other things, the life history of the species, 
the scales at which data are available, and biological or geophysical 
boundaries (such as watersheds). Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 also 
indicate that PBFs may be ephemeral or dynamic, and we may designate 
areas with ephemeral or dynamic PBFs if the other applicable 
requirements of critical habitat designations are met, and if there are 
documented occurrences that a particular habitat type is in the area 
and there is a reasonable expectation of that habitat occurring again 
(81 FR 7414; February 11, 2016). As we acknowledged in the proposed 
rule, there are large areas of most rivers where data are still 
lacking. The available data also represent a snapshot in time, and the 
exact location of a PBF may change over time (e.g., water depth 
fluctuates seasonally, as well as annually, and even hard substrate may 
shift position). Although the PBFs may vary even at the same location, 
if any of the available data regarding a particular PBF fell within the 
suitable range (e.g., salinity of 0-0.5 ppt or hard substrate [gravel, 
cobble, etc.]), we considered that the essential PBF is present in the 
area. When data were not available for certain rivers or portions of 
occupied rivers, we used our general knowledge of Atlantic sturgeon 
spawning and applied river-specific information to determine the 
location of PBFs essential to spawning. Smaller specific areas within 
each unit could not be identified because the submerged nature of the 
essential PBF, the limits of available information on the distribution 
of the PBFs, the varying distribution of the PBFs from time to time, 
and limits on mapping methodologies make it infeasible to define the 
specific areas containing the PBFs more finely than described in this 
rule. The presence of manmade structures that do not provide the PBFs 
within a specific area being designated as critical habitat does not 
render the boundaries of the specific area invalid; we have explained 
that the PBFs must be in a project area for it to function as critical 
habitat. While we agree that manmade structures themselves (e.g., an 
outfall pipe, dock, pier, navigational buoy) cannot and do not contain 
the PBFs and therefore are not part of the critical habitat 
designation, the mere presence of such a manmade structure in an area 
does not mean that the area does not contain one or more PBFs or that 
these areas are not important to the species. We have clarified the 
point in regulatory text that manmade features that do not provide the 
PBFs are not essential to the species and are not included in critical 
habitat. We believe our designation is consistent with our regulations 
and based on the best scientific information available for Atlantic 
sturgeon DPSs.
    Comment 9: Two commenters stated we failed to consider in a 
complete and meaningful way, the role certain aspects of aquatic 
chemistry play on determining whether a river has suitable spawning 
habitat. The commenters suggested we should have considered pH and 
levels of calcium and magnesium ions. They suggest these chemical 
characteristics can determine whether Atlantic sturgeon will spawn in a 
particular reach of river, and thus, it is crucial that these features 
are given special management consideration in future section 7 
consultations and, if need be, protected accordingly.
    Our Response: The literature on Atlantic sturgeon has not typically 
reported pH, calcium, and magnesium levels for rivers where Atlantic 
sturgeon spawn. For example, in their review of essential Atlantic 
sturgeon spawning habitat in Virginia, Bushnoe et al. (2005) reported 
pH for waters of the James, York, Pamunkey, Mattaponi, and Rappahannock 
Rivers where they anticipated Atlantic sturgeon spawning could occur. 
However, with respect to other water parameters, they noted available 
water quality data for the James River measured calcium carbonate 
concentration, not calcium

[[Page 39168]]

concentration, as an indicator of hardness. Therefore, they could not 
directly compare the measured calcium carbonate concentrations with 
reported calcium concentrations measured in other rivers where Atlantic 
sturgeon spawn. Conductivity was measured in the Rappahannock River, 
but neither hardness or conductivity measurements were available for 
the Pamunkey River or Mattaponi River. Recent publications regarding 
Atlantic sturgeon spawning for the Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic 
sturgeon (e.g., Balazik et al., 2012; Hager et al., 2014) do not 
include measures of water pH, calcium, or magnesium in spawning areas.
    We considered the information provided by the commenters in the 
report they provided with their comments and references cited within 
that report. Unfortunately, the report itself does not provide any new 
information regarding pH and levels of calcium and magnesium ions. The 
report mentions a 1976 study that indicated spawning of the European 
Atlantic sturgeon had been successful in the Rione River of the Russian 
Caucasus when the pH ranged from 7.4-7.6. The report also states that a 
pH level of 6.8-7.7 is acceptable to various species of sturgeon 
(Holcik et al., 1989), but continues to state there is no specific 
research on pH levels appropriate for Atlantic sturgeon. Beyond this, 
no further conclusions regarding pH and Atlantic sturgeon were made. 
The provided report also briefly mentioned calcium and magnesium ions. 
It states: ``Salinity was 0.4 psu, which is on the high side of 
Ca[lcium] and M[a]g[nesium] ion levels present in rivers where Gulf 
Sturgeon spawn successfully (Ken Sulak, pers. comm. to B. Kynard, 15 
Aug 2016). Specific acceptable levels of salinity for gametes and eggs 
of Atlantic sturgeon are not known and are not discussed by the 
Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (ASSRT 2007) or in the preamble to 
NMFS' proposed designation. However, based on Gulf Sturgeon tolerance 
and Cherr and Clark (1985), the levels of Ca[lcium] and M[a]g[nesium] 
ions in the Ocklawaha River should not be a problem for egg 
fertilization or egg rearing of sturgeons.'' Beyond this discussion of 
calcium and magnesium, no further information is provided regarding the 
relationship of these ions to successful spawning of Atlantic sturgeon. 
The report provided by the commenters also cited additional literature 
that may discuss these water quality parameters. However, we attempted 
to acquire these references and were unable to because they were not 
readily available to the public. Thus, we determined there was not 
enough information for us to include the specific water quality 
parameters mentioned by the commenter as essential PBFs for any DPS of 
Atlantic sturgeon.
    Comment 10: An association of municipal wastewater agencies stated 
that the preamble of the proposed rule for the Gulf of Maine, New York 
Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPS properly explains that ``specific oxygen 
concentration and temperature values are provided as examples and 
guidance'' but the proposed rule omits this key language from the 
regulatory text. The commenter believes the regulatory text should 
include this explanation or, alternatively, the examples of the water 
feature characteristics should be removed from the final rule or be 
made more specific to the spawning and subsequent stages of development 
of the Atlantic sturgeon in the specific habitats described in the 
proposed rule.
    Our Response: We do not provide explanations of the regulations in 
the regulatory text. The use of ``e.g.'' in the regulatory text informs 
the reader that the DO level and water temperature are provided only as 
guidance, and these are not the only values for either DO or 
temperature that are suitable for all Atlantic sturgeon age classes 
addressed by the PBFs.
    Comment 11: A commenter stated the proposed rule for the Carolina 
and South Atlantic DPSs also frames the features as ``optimal'' and 
``suboptimal'' and recommended that we ``revise Part (a)(4)(iii) of the 
proposed rule for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay 
DPSs'' to frame the features as optimal and suboptimal.
    Our Response: Upon reading the comment, we realized that framing 
the example of dissolved oxygen and temperature values as ``optimal'' 
and ``suboptimal'' can be misinterpreted as establishing specific, 
exclusive values. Since these values were meant to be examples of the 
numerous possible combinations of dissolved oxygen, water temperature, 
and salinity essential to Atlantic sturgeon conservation, we did not 
revise the language for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and 
Chesapeake Bay DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon to frame the features as 
``optimal'' and ``suboptimal.'' This is because there is not one single 
DO level or temperature range that is best for Atlantic sturgeon in 
terms of habitat avoidance. We did revise the language for the Carolina 
and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon by replacing the terms 
``optimal'' and ``suboptimal.'' The new phrases convey that the 
examples provide context, but do not establish static, exclusive values 
for the essential physical feature.
    The dissolved oxygen levels and water temperature values set forth 
in the proposed rules for the Atlantic Sturgeon DPSs were examples 
based on the best available information for conditions in different 
rivers occupied by Atlantic sturgeon and observed responses of sturgeon 
to these variables. Water quality factors of temperature, salinity and 
dissolved oxygen are inter-related environmental variables. Dissolved 
oxygen concentrations in water can fluctuate given a number of factors 
including water temperature (e.g., cold water holds more oxygen than 
warm water) and salinity (e.g., the amount of oxygen that can dissolve 
in water decreases as salinity increases). This means that, for 
example, the dissolved oxygen levels that support growth and 
development will be different at different combinations of water 
temperature and salinity. Similarly, the dissolved oxygen levels that 
we would expect Atlantic sturgeon to avoid would also vary depending on 
the particular water temperature and salinity. As dissolved oxygen 
tolerance changes with age, the conditions that support growth and 
development and likewise, the dissolved oxygen levels that would be 
avoided, change. This combination of factors makes it such that we 
cannot identify a single set of dissolved oxygen, water temperature 
and/or salinity conditions as optimal or suboptimal for any of the 
DPSs.
    Like salinity and dissolved oxygen, water temperature fluctuates in 
the dynamic rivers and estuaries used by Atlantic sturgeon. The 
scientific literature for Atlantic sturgeon does not always include the 
water temperature where Atlantic sturgeon are detected or captured. 
There may also be differences in temperature tolerance of Atlantic 
sturgeon that originate from different rivers, and differences in 
temperature tolerance within the same river depending on the life 
stage. Therefore, while we generally know the ranges of water 
temperature and dissolved oxygen in which Atlantic sturgeon occur, we 
cannot identify a single ``best'' water temperature or dissolved oxygen 
level for all Atlantic sturgeon, in all rivers, under all 
circumstances.
    We stated in the preamble of the proposed rule for the Gulf of 
Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs that, ``Specific areas 
designated as critical habitat based on the four features are not 
expected to have water with oxygen concentration of 6 mg/L and the 
specific water temperatures at all times and within all parts of the

[[Page 39169]]

area.'' We similarly stated for the example in the proposed rule for 
the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon that, 
``Appropriate temperature and oxygen values will vary interdependently, 
and depending on salinity in a particular habitat.'' Thus, we believe 
the terms ``optimal'' and ``suboptimal'' inadvertently conveyed a 
different meaning.
    Comment 12: A commenter recommended that we revise the guidance for 
DO concentrations and temperature values provided in the proposed rule 
to be consistent with existing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Clean Water Act water quality criteria applicable to the Chesapeake Bay 
Watershed. The commenter further stated the proposed regulatory 
language establishing a DO concentration of 6 mg/L and a maximum 
temperature of 30 [deg]C for juvenile rearing habitat is inconsistent 
with existing water quality criteria. The commenter also stated that 
the proposed rule should evaluate and address existing conditions in 
the waters for the features which will dictate where to designate 
critical habitat. This framework will provide a necessary reference for 
both the agency and commenters from which the true implications of the 
proposed habitat components can be evaluated. For example, the proposed 
rule provides that temperature between 13 [deg]C to 26 [deg]C is 
optimal for spawning habitat, but there is no indication of how that 
temperature range compares to the ambient temperature of the waters 
themselves. In other words, does the proposed critical habitat meet the 
habitat component for temperature most of the time, some of the time, 
etc. Second, the proposed rule must include a natural condition 
provision to reflect natural instream temperature and DO levels which 
are outside of the temperature and DO features in the proposed rule. 
Where ambient temperature and/or DO is outside of these levels, the 
natural condition must control. Any regulatory requirements must be 
targeted toward the natural condition and not critical temperature/
dissolved oxygen elements that are not naturally present.
    Our Response: The water quality features are a physical feature 
essential to the corresponding Atlantic sturgeon DPSs. As discussed in 
our response to Comment 11, because DO and temperature vary 
interpedently based on local environmental conditions, the DO and 
temperature values provided in the proposed rules are provided as 
examples only. For example, the earliest life stages are the most 
sensitive to DO levels. Therefore, earlier life stages (e.g., 
juveniles) may avoid areas based on one DO level while older life 
stages (e.g., subadults or adults) may avoid areas based on a different 
DO level. The example provided in the regulatory text in the proposed 
rule for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs of 
Atlantic sturgeon is just one example. We have not included a framework 
for each critical habitat area or a natural condition provision. 
However, we agree that these should be considered when Federal agencies 
are determining whether a proposed Federal agency action may affect 
designated critical habitat for the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs, and 
considered by us when we are consulting on Federal agency actions. See 
our responses to Comments 83, 84 and 85 for more information on the 
water quality feature for the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs of 
Atlantic sturgeon.
Comments on Special Management Considerations or Protection
    Comment 13: A commenter stated the proposal does not specify what 
``special management considerations or protections'' are appropriate or 
necessary for the conservation of Atlantic sturgeon in all and/or each 
specific DPS. Given the areal extent of the proposed designation and 
the potential for consultation on numerous and varied actions (water 
use, wastewater discharges, dredging, etc.), the final rule needs to be 
more specific regarding the special management considerations or 
protections that may be required for all or specific DPSs.
    Our Response: Special management considerations or protections are 
the methods or procedures useful in protecting the PBFs essential to 
conservation of listed species. We provided information in the proposed 
rule for why the PBFs essential to the conservation of each DPS may 
require special management or protection. This provision of a 
designation does not establish measures that may be recommended or 
required during section 7 consultation, such as RPMs and terms and 
conditions. Our impacts analyses and 4(b)(2) report describe the types 
of measures that might be required to address adverse impacts to the 
PBFs for federal actions expected to require consultation.
    Comment 14: An industry trade group believes we failed to provide 
any assessment of current management or protections in place and 
whether those are adequate for the conservation of the Atlantic 
sturgeon. The commenters claim we must consider whether any of the 
proposed critical habitat units are presently under special management 
or protection for Atlantic sturgeon. The commenters acknowledge we have 
identified a number of initiatives that could protect Atlantic sturgeon 
but believe we must actually assess these initiatives to determine 
whether they are sufficient and determine what further management 
actions may benefit from critical habitat designation. The commenters 
go on to state we should consider each feature and specific area 
proposed and assess current management measures in place to make an 
actual determination as to whether special management may be needed in 
the reasonably foreseeable future, and if so, what that management 
would be, and how the critical habitat designation would further that 
management. The commenters conclude that our discussion of special 
management considerations is limited to general discussion regarding 
how barriers, water withdrawals, and dredging can generally affect 
water flow, quality, and depth and/or alter hard substrate, and that we 
have made non-specific assertions that special management for the 
essential PBFs may be required ``as a result of global climate 
change.''
    Our Response: We disagree. When determining whether PBFs may 
require special management considerations or protection, we do not base 
our decisions on whether management is currently in place or whether 
that management is adequate (81 FR 7414; February 11, 2016). In Center 
for Biological Diversity v. Norton, 240 F.Supp. 2d 1090, 1096-1100 (D. 
AZ, 2003), the court rejected reading the ESA to mean that if adequate 
management or protections are already in place, then an area cannot 
meet the definition of critical habitat because special management 
considerations or protections are not required (``Defendant's 
construction of `critical habitat' also adds the term `additional' to 
the statute. As Defendant stated in its final rule, `Additional special 
management is not required if adequate management or protection is 
already in place. . .' There is absolutely nothing in Sec.  1532, or 
its implementing regulations, to support Defendant's inclusion of 
`additional.' As such, Defendant's construction of the `critical 
habitat' definition is impermissible and contrary to law.'') 
Additionally, we are not required to determine if a PBF currently 
requires special management considerations, or to determine what that 
management would be, and how critical habitat designation would further 
that management. We are only required to make a determination that a 
PBF may require special management

[[Page 39170]]

considerations or protection (81 FR 7414; February 11, 2016). 
Consequently, we assessed the need for special management 
considerations for each PBF in the proposed rule and identified 
numerous actions or natural factors that could adversely impact each 
PBF, as is required by the ESA (``Because the emphasis in the 
requirement is on the word `may,' the evidence shown by the Service 
supports the reasonable conclusion that some special management 
considerations or protection may be needed in the future to protect the 
sea ice habitat PCE [primary constituent element]. However, neither the 
Service nor the ESA have to be the vehicles by which the procedures or 
actions involved in the considerations or protection are accomplished. 
The Service has shown that someday, not necessarily at this time, such 
considerations or protection may be required. In other words, the 
Service has shown that it is within the realm of possibility that such 
considerations or protection may be needed now or in the future. 
Furthermore, the Service does not have to identify the source of such 
considerations or protection, merely that the considerations or 
protection may be necessary in the future. For example, the evidence in 
the record showing that sea ice is melting and that it will continue to 
melt in the future, perhaps at an accelerated rate, is more than enough 
proof that protection may be needed at some point'' (Alaska Oil and Gas 
Ass'n v. Salazar, 916 F. Supp. 2d 974, 990-992 (D. AK 2013), (Reversed 
on other grounds and remanded by Alaska Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Jewell, 815 
F.3d 544 (9th Cir. 2016)).
    We also disagree with the commenters' characterization that we made 
non-specific assertions regarding the special management needs of the 
PBFs that may be necessary as a result of global climate change. The 
proposed rule specifically identifies the impact from global climate 
change's impacts to water temperature and DO, as potential threats to 
the survival and recovery of Atlantic sturgeon in the southeastern 
United States.
    Comment 15: A commenter asked if the objective of the special 
management considerations or protections is to create optimal habitat, 
specifically, to create the physical features described in Sec.  
226.225(a)(1) of the proposed rule, even if those features do not 
currently exist.
    Our Response: The answer to this question is no. Critical habitat 
is based on the presence of PBFs essential to the conservation of the 
listed species and which may require special management or protection. 
We only designate critical habitat when the PBFs essential to 
conservation of the listed species may require special management 
considerations or protections. If we identify PBFs essential to the 
listed species but those features do not require special management or 
protection, then we do not designate critical habitat based on those 
PBFs.
    The purpose of designating critical habitat is to prevent the 
destruction or adverse modification of the habitat as a result of 
Federal activities. Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA requires Federal 
agencies to use their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the 
ESA (i.e., aid in the conservation of listed species). However, there 
is not a requirement that Federal agency actions improve or create 
habitat for ESA-listed species.
    Comment 16: Commenters requested that we include language to 
address known, significant, and growing uses that will adversely impact 
Atlantic sturgeon habitat in the Hudson River.
    Our Response: For critical habitat designations we identify 
activities that may necessitate special management or protection of the 
PBFs. We have provided this information for the PBFs identified for the 
critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake 
Bay DPSs. We cannot foresee every activity that would necessitate 
special management or protection of the PBFs. However, we believe the 
list of activities provided by us is comprehensive enough to provide 
adequate notice on which activities may affect critical habitat. The 
impact of Federal agency actions on the critical habitat features are 
assessed through ESA section 7 consultation.
    Comment 17: One commenter requested that we include ``clear 
guidance for considering the effects of a changing climate on critical 
habitat designation for species recovery in the final rule.'' They 
requested we consider ``projected changes to salinity, temperature and 
DO, including changes in sea level rise.'' They further requested that 
we document the extent that climate change was considered when 
assessing the need for the inclusion of currently unoccupied habitat in 
the final rule.
    Our Response: We acknowledge climate change is likely a factor 
contributing to the possible need for special management considerations 
or protection for the PBFs, and we recognize that climate change may 
affect the availability of some PBFs to sturgeon in some areas. As 
discussed in the response to comments for our regulations, Implementing 
Changes to the Regulations for Designating Critical Habitat (81 FR 
7414; 7426; February 11, 2016), in those circumstances where the best 
scientific data available indicate that a species may be shifting 
habitats or habitat use, we may include specific areas accommodating 
these changes in a designation, provided we can explain why the areas 
meet the definition of critical habitat. No information is currently 
available, and none was provided by the commenter, that indicates any 
of the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs may be shifting habitats or habitat use 
in response to the effects of climate change. For example, Breece et 
al. (2016) projected how habitat use by adult Atlantic sturgeon of the 
Delaware River could shift in response to climate change, but did not 
provide evidence that Atlantic sturgeon are, or may be, shifting 
habitats or habitat use in the Delaware River as a result of climate 
change. We are not aware of other publications that indicate that any 
DPS of Atlantic sturgeon is shifting habitats or habitat use in 
response to the effects of climate change.
    The commenter did not include any riverine-specific information 
regarding the areal influence of changes to salinity, temperature and 
DO, or sea level rise. We are designating as critical habitat the river 
areas that capture the varying distribution of the PBFs and that are 
appropriate to encompass the habitat essential for the conservation of 
the species. The designation includes all habitat required for 
reproduction and recruitment essential for the recovery of the DPSs, 
and reflects consideration of in-river changes that may result from 
climate change (e.g., temperature, salt-water intrusion, etc.). We did 
consider the presence of the PBFs in each river, and the variability in 
the salt wedge seasonally and annually that influences where the 
Atlantic sturgeon life stages occur in the estuary, and we accommodated 
for these shifts in the critical habitat designation.
    We considered whether any designations of unoccupied habitat were 
essential for the conservation of the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight or 
Chesapeake Bay DPSs because of the function they are likely to serve as 
climate changes, and we determined there were no such areas. We will 
continue to review Atlantic sturgeon habitat needs as new information 
about potential effects from climate change becomes available. 
Consistent with NMFS guidance in the context of individual section 7 
consultations, we will consider how climate change interacts with a 
proposed action's effects on the PBFs in assessing an action's impacts 
on the critical habitat's

[[Page 39171]]

ability to support the species' recovery. These analyses will 
necessarily be case-by-case and dependent on the action, environmental 
conditions at the time in the affected river (including projected 
changes from climate change, if relevant), and the status of the 
species.
    Comment 18: An industry trade group indicated we failed to map 
potential threats to Atlantic sturgeon (e.g., manmade structures, 
dredging areas). This industry trade group also noted that we did not 
include an exception from critical habitat for manmade structures in 
the regulatory language for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and 
Chesapeake Bay DPSs.
    Our Response: Threats to the species were identified in both the 
Listing Rules (77 FR 5880; February 6, 2012 and 77 FR 5914; February 6, 
2012) and the Status Review (ASSRT, 2007). There is no requirement to 
map the existence of threats to the species in a critical habitat 
designation. Information on activities that may affect critical habitat 
is properly characterized in the impact analyses. We appreciate the 
comment noting that we did not include an exception from critical 
habitat for manmade structures that do not provide the PBFs for 
northeastern DPSs. This was an oversight, as we did include the 
exception for the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs. We have now 
included and clarified this exception for all five DPSs.
Comments on Designation of Unoccupied Critical Habitat
    Comment 19: A commenter asked that the final rules expand on the 
documentation for upstream and downstream critical habitat boundaries 
of the critical habitat units and identify unoccupied habitat essential 
to the conservation of a particular DPS. The commenter noted that many 
of the upstream critical habitat boundaries are defined by dams or 
locks, and that presence of a barrier, in and of itself, should not 
constitute the upstream extent of critical habitat. As one of the 
objectives of the rule is to ``increase the abundance of each DPS by 
facilitating increased successful reproduction and recruitment to the 
marine environment,'' the commenter suggested revisiting consideration 
of these reaches as essential, but currently unoccupied habitat.
    Our Response: Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA allows for consideration 
and inclusion of unoccupied habitat in a critical habitat designation 
if such habitat is essential for conservation of the species. The 1998 
and 2007 status reviews for Atlantic sturgeon, ASMFC's 2009 review of 
Atlantic coast diadromous fish habitat, and the 2012 listing rule for 
the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs (77 FR 5880; 
February 6, 2012) of Atlantic sturgeon reviewed historical and current 
use of rivers within the range of each DPS. We have considered the life 
history, status, and conservation needs information in these reviews, 
the cited literature, and new literature for each DPS (e.g., 
Wippelhauser and Squiers, 2015 for the Gulf of Maine DPS; Breece et 
al., 2013 for the New York Bight DPS; Hager et al., 2014 for the 
Chesapeake Bay DPS). We have concluded that unoccupied habitat is not 
essential to the recovery of the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and 
Chesapeake Bay DPSs because Atlantic sturgeon reproduction and rearing 
habitat for each DPS is available downriver of dams or in rivers that 
are not dammed, and the boundaries of the critical habitat areas take 
into consideration the seasonal and annual variations in the location 
of the salt wedge that influences where Atlantic sturgeon life stages 
occur within the estuary as well as any potential shifts that may occur 
as a result of climate change. Therefore, we are not designating 
unoccupied habitat for these DPSs.
    We agree that presence of a barrier does not necessarily constitute 
the upstream extent of critical habitat; however, in the case of the 
Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs of Atlantic 
sturgeon, the barriers included to denote the upstream limit of the 
designation are the same designators as the upstream limit of the area 
occupied and therefore are appropriate in this case. We recognize that 
the upstream limits of the area occupied at the time of listing is not 
necessarily the historical upstream limit (e.g., there is historical 
reference to the presence of sturgeon below Mohawk Falls which is 
upstream of the modern-day upstream limit of Atlantic sturgeon in the 
Hudson River); however, we have determined that currently unoccupied 
habitat is not essential for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and 
Chesapeake Bay DPSs. Additionally, barriers that occur at a critical 
habitat boundary provide an easily recognizable landmark for where 
critical habitat begins or ends. Non-ephemeral reference points (e.g., 
dams, bridges) can be used in a textual description of the boundaries 
of critical habitat.
Comments Designating Specific River Units or River Areas
    Comment 20: Several environmental organizations stated that we 
incorrectly claimed that we could not designate estuarine or marine 
areas as critical habitat due to insufficient data and that the best 
available scientific information supports identification of PBFs in 
estuarine and marine environments that are essential to Atlantic 
sturgeon conservation. These commenters said that a growing body of 
research has identified critical feeding and seasonal aggregation 
sites, and that the sites identified to date should be designated as 
critical habitat. The commenters stated there is a scientific consensus 
that Atlantic sturgeon use marine waters of particular depths as 
migration corridors; the commenters asserted that available information 
supports the contention that all five DPSs use the same narrow 
migration corridor and known aggregation sites. The commenters stated 
that water depth, available prey, substrates, temperature, salinity and 
seascapes are factors correlated with, and that influence, Atlantic 
sturgeon use of specific estuarine and marine habitats as feeding or 
seasonal (winter, summer) aggregations, and migratory corridors, and 
that these features may require special management considerations or 
protection. The commenters stated that our regulations, Implementing 
Changes to the Regulations for Designating Critical Habitat, (81 FR 
7414; February 11, 2016) support the use of generally-defined PBFs or 
an ecosystem approach. Finally, the commenters discussed our previous 
critical habitat designations for green and Gulf sturgeon as valid 
models for designating estuarine and marine areas as critical habitat 
for Atlantic sturgeon.
    Our Response: We reconsidered the information available, but 
reached the same conclusion that we cannot identify critical habitat 
for adults or subadults of any of the five Atlantic sturgeon DPSs in 
marine or nearshore estuarine waters at this time. We agree that the 
regulatory definition of PBFs is intentionally broad because we cannot 
predict what species will be listed in the future, and what features 
that support the life history needs of those species will be necessary 
for designating their critical habitats. However, as described in the 
response to comments for our regulations, Implementing Changes to the 
Regulations for Designating Critical Habitat (81 FR 7414; February 11, 
2016), ``we need to clearly articulate in our proposed and final rules 
designating critical habitat for each species how the essential 
features relate to the life-history and conservation needs of the 
species. This type of specificity will be in the individual proposed 
and final rules designating critical habitat for

[[Page 39172]]

each species.'' Thus, while prior designations for other species may 
provide important background, critical habitat designations are 
specific to particular species, their life history traits, habitat and 
resource uses, and information available for that species.
    Some of the literature available for Atlantic sturgeon uses the 
term ``critical habitat'' in reference to areas where Atlantic sturgeon 
occur. However, the literature is not applying the term ``critical 
habitat'' as it is defined in the ESA. Similarly, the word 
``essential'' has been used in the literature, but it is not used in 
the same context as it is in the critical habitat regulations. The 
Background of our regulations (81 FR 7414; February 11, 2016) explains 
that ``[t]he purpose of critical habitat is to identify the areas that 
are essential to the species' recovery.'' The explanation makes clear 
that critical habitat is the specific area(s) essential to species 
recovery.
    We reviewed the critical habitat designations for the Southern DPS 
of green sturgeon and for Gulf sturgeon in the event there were 
similarities in the life history of sturgeon species that could inform 
the essential PBFs for the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs. Marine waters were 
designated for Gulf sturgeon and the Southern DPS of green sturgeon 
based on information that certain marine waters were a migratory/
connectivity corridor for subadult and adult sturgeon between estuaries 
and marine foraging areas. However, unlike the Southern DPS of green 
sturgeon and Gulf sturgeon, the available information for Atlantic 
sturgeon foraging in marine waters (Johnson et al., 1997; Dunton, 2014) 
is inconclusive regarding whether any particular marine waters are 
essential foraging areas for Atlantic sturgeon, and thus there are no 
identifiable migratory corridors between specific foraging areas. 
Furthermore, those sources do not provide the necessary information to 
allow us to identify what the PBFs associated with potential marine 
foraging for Atlantic sturgeon might be.
    The scientific information available on Atlantic sturgeon forage 
items does not provide the specificity we need in identifying PBFs that 
are essential to the DPSs. The available information indicates that 
Atlantic sturgeon are opportunistic, benthic-cruisers that consume 
benthic prey over soft (unconsolidated) substrates. Other than being 
benthic prey, the specific Atlantic sturgeon prey items identified in 
the literature were common and vary between sites. Therefore, it is not 
possible to determine if gravel-sand and sand substrate types are 
essential habitat features for Atlantic sturgeon prey or, because 
Atlantic sturgeon are opportunistic foragers, the sturgeon happen to be 
feeding over these substrate types because they are ubiquitous, and we 
lack information to define prey, substrates or feeding areas more 
specifically for Atlantic sturgeon.
    We cited in the preamble of the proposed rules the literature that 
identifies Atlantic sturgeon aggregation areas. The term 
``aggregation'' as it is used in the literature for Atlantic sturgeon 
is not defined by any particular quantitative measure. The number of 
areas described in the literature as an ``Atlantic sturgeon aggregation 
area'' demonstrates the ubiquitous nature of Atlantic sturgeon in the 
marine range as well as the liberal use of the term for characterizing 
the presence of Atlantic sturgeon in an area. For example, the 
commenters referred to literature identifying Atlantic sturgeon feeding 
areas in the Bay of Fundy and Long Island Sound. Our background 
information cited to literature describing other Atlantic sturgeon 
foraging areas, including areas with mud bottom, gravelly-sand 
substrate, and sand substrate. Stein et al. (2004) noted that sturgeon 
were most often incidentally captured over gravelly-sand and sand 
substrate and suggested that their presence was associated with 
foraging. However, Stein et al. (2004) also reflected that the gravel-
sand and sand substrate types were the dominant substrate types along 
the coastline, so it was uncertain if Atlantic sturgeon presence was 
correlated to the substrate type or if Atlantic sturgeon presence was 
coincidental to the substrate type.
    The commenters referred to Laney et al. (2007) as demonstrating 
that ``shallow, nearshore waters off North Carolina are an important 
winter habitat for Atlantic sturgeon.'' The commenters did not provide 
information for why these particular shallow, nearshore waters are 
essential to one or more of the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs compared to all 
shallow, nearshore waters that are accessible to the DPSs. We need to 
have information to be able to make the connection between species' 
presence and presence of one or more PBFs that are essential to the 
conservation of the species and may require special management or 
protection. The commenters did not provide, and we could not find, 
information to distinguish these shallow, nearshore waters from other 
shallow, nearshore waters, or information that identifies more specific 
features of these waters. Tagging work by Erickson et al. (2011) showed 
that adult Atlantic sturgeon from the Hudson River move about within 
the Mid-Atlantic Bight, occurring as far south as Delaware for the late 
fall to early winter and then as far south as the area off Chesapeake 
Bay for the latter part of the winter. The data do not suggest movement 
from the river to a specific overwintering area where the fish reside 
throughout the winter. The available information for where Atlantic 
sturgeon occur in the winter also includes evidence of sturgeon in 
marine waters off estuaries where they were detected in the fall, 
sturgeon making long migrations along the coast to southern coastal 
waters, sturgeon possibly overwintering in an estuary, and at least one 
sturgeon moving in and out of a Gulf of Maine estuary during the winter 
(Laney et al., 2007; Dunton et al., 2010; Oliver et al., 2013; Dunton 
et al. 2015; Taylor et al. 2016; C. Hager, Chesapeake Scientific, pers. 
comm.; T. Savoy, CT DEEP, pers. comm.; G. Zydlewski, Univ. of Maine, 
pers. comm.). Because this information is conflicting, we could not 
determine whether or where overwintering areas are essential to one or 
more of the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs.
    We cannot designate critical habitat based on the presence of the 
species alone. Therefore, while we acknowledge there is literature that 
identifies aggregation areas where Atlantic sturgeon are generally 
found, it does not provide specificity as to the purpose of the 
aggregations or the features that support those purposes. Therefore, we 
do not believe it provides the information we need to meet the 
statutory and regulatory requirements to designate critical habitat.
    The commenters stated that the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs use a narrow 
migratory corridor within marine waters and we should designate this 
narrow corridor as critical habitat. The commenters' characterization 
of these waters as a ``narrow corridor'' is subjective. As we described 
in the preamble for the proposed rules, Atlantic sturgeon generally 
occur within the 50 m depth contour. However, the literature is not 
consistent for the depth contour where Atlantic sturgeon occur in the 
marine environment. Based on fisheries-dependent data for incidental 
captures of Atlantic sturgeon, Stein et al. (2004) described that 
``peak sturgeon captures along the coast were approximately bracketed 
by isobaths ranging from 10 to 50 m'' while Dunton et al., (2010), 
using both fisheries-dependent and fisheries-independent data of 
incidental Atlantic sturgeon captures, concluded that ``Atlantic

[[Page 39173]]

sturgeon were largely confined to water depths less than 20 meters.'' 
Erickson et al. (2011), using location data of tagged Atlantic 
sturgeon, described the mean range of marine waters where Atlantic 
sturgeon occurred as 9.9 to 24.4 m depth depending on time of year. 
Erickson et al. also noted differences between fish, with some sturgeon 
using more shallow waters (5-15 m) and some using deeper waters (35-70 
m) compared to the other tagged Atlantic sturgeon. Given these 
inconsistencies, we could not identify the PBFs that facilitate 
migration for any of the five DPSs.
    The commenters also pointed to the findings of Breece et al. (2016) 
as research that could inform our designation of critical habitat in 
marine waters, nearshore bays, and sounds. Noting that Atlantic 
sturgeons' seasonal coastal migrations are difficult to predict, Breece 
et al. (2016) used ocean color and sea surface temperature recorded 
during the spring to partition waters of the Delaware Bay and ocean 
waters off Delaware Bay into six ``seascapes,'' and tested the 
hypothesis that these seascapes are predictors of the occurrence of 
Atlantic sturgeon during their spring migration in the mid-Atlantic. 
The commenters stated that Seascape E is a physical feature of marine 
waters that is essential to the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs (e.g., for 
migrating between estuaries and marine waters and for where Atlantic 
sturgeon spend most of their life in marine waters) and asked us to 
designate marine waters as critical habitat for the Atlantic sturgeon 
DPSs. We considered and cited the Breece et al. (2016) study for the 
information that it provides for Atlantic sturgeon marine distribution. 
However, we did not conclude that Seascape E was an essential PBF 
because: (1) The equipment to detect sturgeon was primarily placed in 
or occurred within Seascape E, and the information was not provided on 
the presence of Seascape E in other parts of the marine range; and (2) 
because a clear correlation between what specific PBF(s) is essential 
to the conservation of the species could not be determined.
    The Breece et al. (2016) study was temporally and geographically 
limited in scope relative to the range of the DPSs. Detection data were 
collected by fixed receivers and by receivers fixed to a glider for the 
months of April through June, the period of peak Atlantic sturgeon 
abundance during spring migration (Breece et al., 2016). More than half 
of the fixed receivers were located in Delaware Bay. The remaining 
receivers were placed within approximately 20 km of the shoreline along 
the coast from approximately 30 km (i.e., off New Jersey) and south 
(i.e., off Maryland) of the mouth of the Bay. The glider mission 
covered a greater area; within approximately 25 km of the shoreline 
along a 120 km stretch of coastline between Bethany Beach, Delaware 
(south of the mouth of the Bay), and Chincoteague, Virginia. While the 
geographic area covered is large and the time period is when we would 
expect many Atlantic sturgeon to occur in the areas, this is a small 
geographic area, relatively mid-range, of the expansive Atlantic 
sturgeon DPSs' marine range from Canada to Florida, United States. 
Breece et al. (2016) noted that the variables used to define the 
seascapes were so dynamic, that the results of the study were presented 
with respect to an 8-day average of ocean color and sea surface 
temperature for each seascape. Based on the average, Seascape E was the 
most prevalent seascape class in the study area, and the equipment to 
detect the presence of Atlantic sturgeon occurred primarily within 
Seascape E. Additionally, Breece et al. (2016) were unable to determine 
why Atlantic sturgeon were associated with Seascape E. The authors 
state: ``[f]ull understanding of the processes driving the association 
of Atlantic Sturgeon to Seascape E is not yet known; however, it 
appears we can use this global product to estimate spatial occurrence 
without requiring direct observation of individuals to inform coastal 
ocean users during spring migration.'' Therefore, while potentially 
useful to resource managers for identifying potential areas of high 
sturgeon abundance in the Mid-Atlantic Bight region, the information 
still does not help us understand what, if any, PBFs exist in the area 
that may be essential to the conservation of the species.
    Finally, the commenters stated that Atlantic sturgeon aggregation 
areas in marine and nearshore estuarine waters should be designated as 
critical habitat because these require special management and 
protection as a result of vessel strikes of Atlantic sturgeon from 
ships using the marine corridors, strikes from turbine blades in tidal 
estuaries, impingement and entrainment in water intakes, fisheries 
bycatch, and other threats to the fish including dredging, sand mining, 
pipeline and other construction, wind farm development, and impaired 
water quality. However, special management considerations or protection 
in the context of critical habitat designations are the methods or 
procedures useful in protecting the PBFs essential to the conservation 
of the listed species. The threats described by the commenters are 
threats to individual Atlantic sturgeon and not their habitat.
    Comment 21: Several additional environmental organizations, 
including one that established an online form letter submission from 
which we received over 1,000 form letters, as well as a representative 
for New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and 
academics, also pointed to the publications by Dunton et al. (2015) and 
Breece et al. (2016) and stated that we should designate critical 
habitat for the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs in marine waters, bays, and 
sounds.
    Our Response: Some bays are part of the critical habitat 
designations. These include Merrymeeting Bay of the Kennebec River 
critical habitat unit, and Haverstraw Bay of the Hudson River critical 
habitat unit. Bays that occur between the mouth of the river and the 
Atlantic Ocean, such as Chesapeake Bay, are not part of the designated 
critical habitat because we do not have information that these areas 
contain PBFs that are essential to reproduction and recruitment of the 
offspring. The available information describes spawning adults as 
moving into the rivers and either staging in the river for a period of 
time or immediately moving upriver to spawning areas and, similarly, 
after spawning, moving downriver and either remaining in the river 
until outmigration in the fall or leaving immediately to move to other 
estuarine systems (Savoy and Pacileo, 2003; ASSRT, 2007; Greene et al., 
2009; Simpson, 2008; Austin, 2012; Balazik et al., 2012; Breece et al., 
2013; Hager et al., 2014; Kahn et al., 2014). Juveniles spend months to 
years in the natal estuary, moving upriver and downriver with seasonal 
and annual changes in the salt front to access rearing habitat (e.g., 
within their preferred salinity range). There is no information that 
natal juveniles are moving as far downriver as a bay or sound between 
the river mouth and the ocean, and returning to the natal river without 
continuing the outmigration to the ocean. Available information from 
tracking suggests they move downriver through the river estuary, into 
and through any adjoining bay or sound upon their first outmigration to 
the ocean. Thus, while soft substrate between the river mouth and 
spawning sites is essential for successful recruitment, we do not have 
information that soft substrate in these bays and sounds is essential 
to recruitment of the offspring to the marine environment. The comments 
did not provide new information for juvenile use of bays and sounds 
between the natal river and the ocean.

[[Page 39174]]

See also our response to Comment 20, and the biological information for 
the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs in the 
Impacts Analysis and Biological Information Source Document.
    Comment 22: A commenter stated that further spatial delineation of 
the Delaware River critical habitat areas is essential, given the 
multiple and vital uses of this waterway, which include but are not 
limited to: 94 discharges regulated under a Total Maximum Daily Load 
for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) under the Clean Water Act; 
multiple water withdrawals serving regional populations; and 
significant commercial navigation. In addition, given the varying 
requirements of the different life stages of the Atlantic sturgeon, 
temporal delineation of critical habitat should also be considered for 
the final designation.
    Our Response: The PBFs that support reproduction and recruitment 
and that are essential to the conservation of the New York Bight DPS 
are all of those that we have identified in the proposed critical 
habitat designation. These may require special management 
considerations or protection as a result of certain kinds of 
activities, including activities listed by the commenter. We are, 
therefore, required to designate these areas as critical habitat for 
the New York Bight DPS. The boundaries of each critical habitat area, 
including the Delaware River critical habitat area, encompass no more 
and no less than the area containing the PBFs essential to the 
conservation of the DPS and which may require special management 
considerations or protection.
    It appears that the commenter is requesting that we identify the 
specific areas within the Delaware River where each of the features 
occurs; however, this goes beyond the scope of what is required in a 
critical habitat designation. (see Home Builders Ass'n of Northern 
California v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 616 F.3d 983 (9th Cir., 
2010)). We have provided references in the rule, and in the Impacts 
Analysis and Biological Information Source Document that support our 
determination that the PBFs are present in the area designated and can 
provide guidance to Federal agencies when they need to request ESA 
section 7 consultation and consider the effects of their actions on 
critical habitat.
    We do not use temporal designations for critical habitat because 
the PBFs are either present year round or will be present at some 
expected time during the year that cannot be predicted with precision 
(e.g., the location of the salt front moves throughout the year, but 
given the multitude of factors that influence the exact location, we 
could not predict with any reasonable certainty the timing of any 
particular location). The timing of a proposed Federal action and the 
effects it would have on the critical habitat are considered during ESA 
section 7 consultation. For example, the effects of an activity that 
will impact hard substrate in freshwater reaches of the Delaware River 
may be different during the spawning season than during the winter.
    Comment 23: The Navy raised concern that freshwater suitable for 
Atlantic sturgeon spawning was not available to Atlantic sturgeon in 
the Piscataqua River system below the lowermost dams of the Salmon 
Falls and Cocheco Rivers.
    Our Response: Freshwater is available below the lowermost dams of 
the Salmon Falls and Cocheco Rivers. The salinity changes within the 
river estuary seasonally and daily depending on freshwater flow and 
tidal changes. See our response to Comment 3 for additional information 
on the Piscataqua River.
    Comment 24: A commenter stated that nearshore shallow water areas 
of the Potomac River from Key Bridge to at least Marshall Hall should 
not be considered critical habitat because substrate from at least 
Marshall Hall to Key Bridge is deeply silty, and near shore salinity is 
closer to fresh than to 0.5 ppt salinity. The commenter stated that the 
feature is substrate with salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. Therefore, 
this area should not be designated critical habitat.
    Our Response: We are not required to determine that every segment 
of the critical habitat contains all of the PBFs essential to 
conservation of the species, but rather, we demonstrate overall that 
the designated unit contains the PBFs essential to conservation of the 
species. We have provided references in the rule, and in the Impacts 
Analysis and Biological Information Source Document that support our 
determination that the PBFs are present in the area designated as 
critical habitat in the Potomac River. Briefly, the Potomac River 
estuary extends approximately 187 river kilometers (rkm) from the Chain 
Bridge to the mouth of the river. The river is tidal freshwater from 
Chain Bridge to Quantico, VA; the mixing zone of transitional salinity 
occurs from Quantico, VA, to the crossing of the U.S. Highway 301 
Bridge, MD, and the remainder of the river estuary, from the U.S. 
Highway 301 Bridge crossing to the Chesapeake Bay, has a wide channel 
with gradually sloping, shallow flats near shore (USGS, 1984).
    Comment 25: The Virginia Institute of Marine Science provided new 
information, based on their data collections, that adult Atlantic 
sturgeon occur upriver of the Route 360 bridges on both the Pamunkey 
and Mattaponi Rivers.
    In 2015, a receiver placed at rkm 144 of the Pamunkey River, 5 km 
above the Route 360 Bridge, regularly detected 18 acoustically-tagged, 
adult sturgeon during the summer and early fall. The commenter believes 
that the occurrence of the adults in freshwater of the Pamunkey River 
during the spawning period (Hager et al., 2014; Kahn et al., 2014) and 
the detected movements of the adults support that the geographical area 
occupied includes the waters at least 5 km upriver of the Route 360 
Bridge crossing, and suggests that this part of the Pamunkey River has 
the essential PBFs of critical habitat based on patches of sand from 
bank erosion. The commenter recommends that we extend critical habitat 
above the Route 360 bridge in the Pamunkey River approximately 14 rkm 
up to Nelson's Bridge Road Route 615 crossing on the Pamunkey.
    The commenter also recommended extending the upriver boundary of 
the Mattaponi critical habitat unit by 10 rkm above the Route 360 
bridge to rkm 122. In the summer and early fall of 2015, one tagged 
adult female Atlantic sturgeon ascended the Mattaponi River and was 
detected at the uppermost receiver located near the Route 360 bridge 
crossing. This is during the time and in an area where spawning would 
be expected to occur. Based on the time series of detections at this 
receiver, the commenter believes this individual moved past the 
receiver upstream, then moved back down again.
    Our Response: We considered the information provided and agree that 
the detected presence of at least 18 adult Atlantic sturgeon in the 
Pamunkey River above the Route 360 Bridge crossing provides evidence 
that the geographical area occupied by the DPS in the Pamunkey is above 
the Bridge crossing, and the area is used by adults during the fall 
spawning period for the Chesapeake Bay DPS. We did not agree with the 
commenter that sand from bank erosion is evidence that hard substrate 
occurs in the area. However, the literature cited in the comments 
(e.g., Bushnoe et al., 2005) provides additional information for hard 
substrate (gravel) in the area. We, therefore, revised the boundary of 
the York River critical habitat unit by extending critical habitat by

[[Page 39175]]

approximately 14 rkm to the Nelson's Bridge Road Route 615 crossing on 
the Pamunkey River.
    We did not revise the upriver boundary of the critical habitat 
designation on the Mattaponi River. We have considered the information 
provided by VIMS. While their data analysis suggests to them that the 
fish moved further upriver, there is no evidence that it moved upriver 
and, even if it did, these are the movements of just one fish. We 
cannot determine whether the movements of this fish are representative 
of all Atlantic sturgeon that occur in the Mattaponi or are movements 
of a vagrant fish. Additionally, critical habitat is based on the 
presence of the essential PBFs. VIMS did not provide information that 
the PBFs of critical habitat occur in the Mattaponi River upriver of 
the Route 360 Bridge crossing. Therefore, we are not changing the 
upriver boundary for the York River critical habitat unit in the 
Mattaponi River.
    Comment 26: Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR) 
requested amendment of the critical habitat designation for the 
Chesapeake DPS to include: Marshyhope Creek; Broad Creek; Deep Creek; 
and, areas of the Nanticoke River above its confluence with the 
Marshyhope Creek and the lower Nanticoke River down to Chapter Point, 
MD. The MD DNR provided the 2016 project report for riverbed mapping of 
the Broad Creek, Marshyhope Creek, and Nanticoke River (Bruce et al., 
2016), information on the detection of an adult Atlantic sturgeon in 
spawning condition, and salinity, water temperature, and DO in 
Marshyhope Creek, Broad Creek, and the Nanticoke River.
    Our Response: The substrate information for Marshyhope Creek and 
the Nanticoke River was not received in time for us to consider it for 
inclusion in the proposed rule. However, we were aware that a final 
report was imminent and alerted the public in the Impacts Analysis and 
Biological Information Source Document to the proposed rule that the 
presence of adult sturgeon in spawning condition and at the time when 
the Chesapeake Bay DPS spawns suggests that the PBFs essential to 
Atlantic sturgeon reproduction and recruitment are present in 
Marshyhope Creek. We also alerted the public that after receiving the 
report, we would assess whether to expand critical habitat to include 
this area. The final project report was submitted to us by the MD DNR 
during the public comment period. We reviewed the information as well 
as other available information for the Nanticoke River, including the 
MD DNR final report, ``Assessment of Critical Habitats for Recovering 
the Chesapeake Bay Atlantic Sturgeon Distinct Population Segment,'' 
funded by the NOAA Species Recovery Grants to States (ESA Section 6 
Program). The benthic mapping report does provide information to 
confirm the presence of hard substrate in low salinity waters of 
Marshyhope Creek and the Nanticoke River. In addition, the MD DNR 
Section 6 report provides evidence that the area is likely being used 
for spawning. This information along with information related to the 
presence of suitable spawning substrate (Bruce et al., 2016) indicates 
that there is the potential for spawning and recruitment to occur in 
the Nanticoke River and Marshyhope Creek.
    Our review of this best available information confirmed that 
critical habitat for the Chesapeake Bay DPS occurs in the Nanticoke 
River and its tributary, Marshyhope Creek. Designation of the area is a 
natural outgrowth of the proposed rule given that we stated in the 
proposed rule that we suspected spawning was occurring in Marshyhope 
Creek, a tributary of the Nanticoke, and we stated in the Impacts 
Analysis and Biological Information Source Document that we were 
awaiting receipt of substrate information and would consider 
designating critical habitat in the River if we received additional 
information that confirmed that the PBFs are present. The PBFs may 
require special management considerations or protection as a result of 
activities, such as dredging and construction projects (e.g., docks, 
piers), that may affect the PBFs. Therefore, we are designating 
critical habitat in the Nanticoke River and Marshyhope Creek for the 
Chesapeake Bay DPS.
    We are not, however, designating critical habitat in the Nanticoke 
River and Marshyhope Creek as two separate areas as recommended by MD 
DNR, and we are not designating critical habitat in Broad Creek or Deep 
Creek. Critical habitat that is designated within the geographical area 
occupied by the species is based on the presence of the PBFs. While 
information on salinity and water quality is generally available, 
information on hard substrate (e.g., gravel, cobble) in low salinity 
waters is not available for Broad Creek or Deep Creek. The substrate 
study did indicate the presence of gravel-sand, and sand-gravel in 
Broad Creek, but hard substrate such as gravel and cobble that provides 
interstitial spaces for the offspring after hatching is essential for 
spawning. We will reconsider Broad Creek and Deep Creek as new 
information becomes available on hard substrate and information to show 
that these areas could be used by Atlantic sturgeon for spawning (e.g., 
evidence of spawning adult presence in the area, evidence for the 
presence of natal offspring).
    Based on the PBFs essential to the conservation of the Chesapeake 
Bay DPS, the Nanticoke River system critical habitat unit consists of 
the waters of the Nanticoke River from the Maryland State Route 313 
Bridge crossing near Sharptown, MD, to where the main stem discharges 
at its mouth into the Chesapeake Bay as well as Marshyhope Creek from 
its confluence with the Nanticoke River and upriver to the Maryland 
State Route 318 Bridge crossing near Federalsburg, MD, for a total of 
60 rkm of aquatic habitat.
    Comment 27: One commenter requested consideration of additional 
literature and datasets for determining whether to include the Eastern 
River, Abagadasset River, Muddy River, Sheepscot River up to Head Tide 
Dam, Dyer River up to Boynton Trask Dam, Saco River from Cataract Dam 
downstream to its mouth, Mousam River below the confluence with Fernald 
Brook, tributaries of Great Bay (Spruce Creek, Berrys Brook, Sagamore 
Creek, Lubberland Creek, Crommet Creek, Bellamy River, Sturgeon Creek), 
and Penobscot Bay as critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine DPS. The 
commenter also indicated that the Taunton River, MA, up to the 
confluence with the Nemasket River should be included in the critical 
habitat designation for the New York Bight DPS.
    Our Response: We have reviewed the additional information and 
datasets referenced by the commenter. We are not adding these 
additional areas to the critical habitat designations. We discussed in 
our response to Comment 20 why the critical habitat designations for 
the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs do not 
include bays and sounds that occur between the river mouth and the 
ocean, such as Penobscot Bay. No information was provided by the 
commenter that allowed us to identify PBFs in Penobscot Bay.
    As described in our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(1) and the 
proposed rule, critical habitat must contain the PBFs essential to the 
conservation of the DPS, and that may require special management or 
protection. The Cataract Dam is located downriver of freshwater, and 
Atlantic sturgeon do not pass upriver of the dam. The dam is at the 
location of a natural falls that would be impassable to Atlantic 
sturgeon even if the dam was not present. As a result, hard bottom 
substrate (e.g., rock, cobble,

[[Page 39176]]

gravel, limestone, boulder, etc.) in low salinity waters (i.e., 0.0-0.5 
ppt range) for settlement of fertilized eggs, refuge, growth, and 
development of early life stages is not available to Atlantic sturgeon 
in the Saco River. Therefore, we are not designating critical habitat 
in the Saco River since the area of the river within the geographical 
area occupied by the Gulf of Maine DPS does not contain the PBFs 
essential to successful reproduction and recruitment.
    For the other waterways named by the commenter, we do not have 
information on whether Atlantic sturgeon spawn or spawned in that 
particular waterway. Atlantic sturgeon can be identified to their river 
of origin based on genetic analysis, likely due to their strong 
affinity for natal homing (i.e., adults spawn in the river in which 
they were spawned). Some straying occurs and recolonization of rivers 
within a DPS is possible. However, we have no way to determine the 
likelihood that a particular river will be recolonized or the timespan 
over which recolonization would occur. Therefore, just as we considered 
the Union River as described in the Impacts Analysis and Biological 
Information Source Document, we investigated whether there is any 
evidence that sturgeon are now using, or have ever used, a particular 
river or river segment for spawning. The 2007 Status Review for 
Atlantic Sturgeon (ASSRT, 2007) indicated Atlantic sturgeon 
historically spawned in the Taunton River, Massachusetts (Table 1 in 
that document). However, the Status Review report does not provide the 
reference for this conclusion and we could not locate information to 
support the conclusion. There is no recent evidence of spawning for the 
Taunton River. Similarly, the 2007 Status Review report indicated 
Atlantic sturgeon historically spawned in the Sheepscot River and 
possibly spawn presently in the Sheepscot River. However, a study of 
the Kennebec Estuary, including the Sheepscot River, spanning the time 
period 1977-2001 did not find any evidence of Atlantic sturgeon 
spawning in the Sheepscot River (Wippelhauser and Squiers, 2015). Based 
on the best scientific information available, we cannot determine that 
the Taunton River and Sheepscot River are essential to reproduction or 
recruitment of the New York Bight and Gulf of Maine DPSs, respectively. 
Similarly, we do not have evidence that Atlantic sturgeon historically 
spawned or presently spawn in the other waterways named by the 
commenter. Based on the best scientific information available, these 
waterways are not essential to the conservation of the DPSs. Therefore, 
we cannot designate critical habitat in the Eastern River, Abagadasset 
River, Muddy River, Dyer River up to Boynton Trask Dam, Mousam River 
below the confluence with Fernald Brook, or tributaries of Great Bay 
(Spruce Creek, Berrys Brook, Sagamore Creek, Lubberland Creek, Crommet 
Creek, Bellamy River, Sturgeon Creek).
    Comment 28: A commenter was concerned that the critical habitat 
designations for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay 
DPSs do not include all of the rivers listed in Table 1 of the 2007 
Status Review labeled as historically or presently supporting Atlantic 
sturgeon spawning, or having Atlantic sturgeon nursery habitat.
    Our Response: The regulations for identifying critical habitat 
differ from the approach used by the Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review 
Team to label rivers as historically or presently supporting Atlantic 
sturgeon spawning, or having Atlantic sturgeon nursery habitat. For 
example, the Status Review Team considered nursery habitat as any 
habitat used by immature Atlantic sturgeon, including non-natal 
estuaries used by subadult Atlantic sturgeon. For this critical habitat 
designation, we consider nursery habitat to be habitat within the natal 
estuary used by natal juveniles. Therefore, in our approach, a river 
would only be labeled as having nursery habitat if there was also 
evidence that it historically or presently supported Atlantic sturgeon 
spawning. As described in the response to Comment 27, we considered the 
evidence that the 2007 Status Review cited for whether a river 
historically supported or presently supports an Atlantic sturgeon 
spawning population. This information helped to inform whether an area 
contained the PBFs essential to the conservation of the particular DPS 
and that may require special management considerations or protection.
    Comment 29: A commenter stated tributaries are vital components of 
the estuarine habitat that Atlantic sturgeon need to reproduce and 
develop, and conditions in tributaries affect the Hudson River. 
Therefore, the commenter recommended that we designate critical habitat 
for the entire length of, or the segment downstream of a dam or 
impassable rapids, in: Lents Cove, Annsville Creek, Popolopen Creek, 
Constitution Marsh and Foundry Cove, Moodna Creek below Route 9W, 
Wappinger Creek below the rapids, Roundout Creek below the dam, Esopus 
Creek below the dam, Jansen Kill below Route 9G, Ramshorn Creek, 
Catskill Creek below the rapids, Stockport Creek below the dam, 
Coxsackie Creek, Schodack Creek, Moordener Kill, Normans Kill, and the 
Mohawk River below the locks.
    Our Response: The commenter did not provide and we do not have 
information that suggests Atlantic sturgeon spawn or spawned in the 
waterways, all tributaries of the Hudson River, named by the commenter. 
Additionally, the commenter did not provide and we do not have 
information indicating that the features are present in these 
waterways. Based on information provided in the Atlantic Sturgeon 
Status Review (ASSRT, 2007) and the Atlantic Sturgeon Stock Assessment, 
these areas are not essential to the conservation of the DPS, and we 
cannot designate the areas as critical habitat. However, we do 
recognize the connection of tributaries to the main stem Hudson River, 
the importance of a healthy ecosystem to Atlantic sturgeon.
    Comment 30: A commenter stated that the frequency and timing of use 
suggests that PBFs, including foraging areas and cover from predation, 
may occur within certain bays, estuaries and near-shore marine areas. 
The commenter acknowledged that PBFs must be defined under the ESA, and 
that these data are not currently available for the entire range, but 
should be considered for the areas available. The commenter recommended 
that we: Consider the DPS-specific references (Calvo et al., 2010; 
Erickson et al., 2011; and Breece et al., 2016) in the Final Rule; 
continue to consider this information gap to be a research priority; 
and, develop a schedule for designating bay and near-shore critical 
habitats essential to support the successful development, growth and 
migration of sub-adult and adult Atlantic sturgeon.
    Our Response: Our consideration of the best available information 
to identify potential PBFs for the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs in marine 
waters, bays, and sounds is described in the proposed rule, Impacts 
Analysis and Biological Information Source Document, and in our 
response to Comment 20. This information included research findings 
described in Calvo et al., 2010, Erickson et al., 2011, and Breece et 
al., 2016. Based on the best scientific information available for each 
DPS, and information for Atlantic sturgeon in general, we were not able 
to identify any PBFs for marine waters, sounds, or bays, other than for 
those bays that contain the PBFs essential for reproduction and 
recruitment of the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay 
DPSs and that are included as part of the designated critical habitat.

[[Page 39177]]

    Critical habitat designations are based on the best available 
scientific information. We cannot commit to a schedule for designating 
additional critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, or 
Chesapeake Bay DPS because we cannot predict when information will be 
available to inform any potential future modification of this critical 
habitat designation or any new designation.
    Comment 31: A conservation group pointed to a recent report by 
Moberg and DeLucia (2016) that recommended minimum values of DO, water 
temperature, and salinity values to support habitat suitable for 
successful recruitment of Atlantic sturgeon in the Delaware River. 
These values are instantaneous DO greater than or equal to 5.0 mg/L, 
and temperature less than 28 [deg]C when salinity is less than 0.5 ppt. 
The commenter noted that estuaries are naturally dynamic habitats and 
the areas that support habitat suitable for successful recruitment 
could change with migration of the salt front. The commenter 
recommended that designated critical habitat include river segments 
that may serve as reproduction and recruitment habitats that 
accommodate changes in migration of the salt front, DO, and temperature 
conditions.
    Our Response: We agree that estuaries are naturally dynamic 
habitats. In the Background section of the proposed rule we described 
that multiple spawning sites have been identified within many of the 
rivers used for Atlantic sturgeon spawning (Dovel and Berggren, 1983; 
Van Eenennaam et al., 1996; Kahnle et al., 1998; Bain et al., 2000; 
Sommerfield and Madsen, 2003; Bushnoe et al., 2005; Simpson, 2008; 
Hager, 2011; Austin, 2012; Balazik et al., 2012; Breece et al., 2013), 
and spawning sites at different locations within the tidal-affected 
river would help to ensure successful spawning, given annual changes in 
the location of the salt wedge. For example, Breece et al. (2016) 
reported a difference of 30 km in the average location of the Delaware 
River salt front during adult Atlantic sturgeon occupancy in 2011 
compared to 2009 and 2012.
    Designating critical habitat that includes multiple potential 
spawning areas helps to ensure Atlantic sturgeon can select the best 
spawning site, given the natural annual variations in environmental 
conditions within the river estuary. When several habitats, each 
satisfying the requirements for designation as critical habitat, are 
located in proximity to one another, an inclusive area may be 
designated as critical habitat (50 CFR 424.12(d)). Therefore, within 
the geographical area occupied by the DPS in each river, we considered 
all areas that contained the PBFs that are essential to the particular 
DPS and identified the boundaries, accordingly. As described in the 
response to a previous comment, we concluded for purposes of the 
critical habitat designations that unoccupied habitat was not essential 
to the conservation of the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, or Chesapeake 
Bay DPS.
    We are aware of the report by Moberg and DeLucia (2016) that 
focused on DO levels for survival of Delaware River natal juveniles in 
low salinity waters. However, the water quality feature for critical 
habitat is the interrelated variables of salinity, DO, and water 
temperature that are necessary for use of the habitat rather than fish 
survival. Fish avoid, when possible, habitats that would result in 
their death, and studies have shown that fish avoidance of habitat 
occurs before the DO levels of the habitat have dropped so low as to be 
deadly (Breitburg 2002; EPA, 2003). Studies have also shown that the DO 
concentration at which the fish will begin to avoid habitat is 
approximately equal to the DO concentration that reduces their growth 
rate. Therefore, identifying the temperature, DO, and salinity values 
that result in reduced Atlantic sturgeon growth can serve as a proxy 
for identifying the temperature, DO, and salinity values that result in 
Atlantic sturgeon habitat avoidance.
    We considered the available information on Atlantic sturgeon 
growth, and temperature, DO, and salinity (Breitburg, 2002; EPA, 2003; 
Niklitscheck and Secor 2009; Niklitscheck and Secor 2010; Allen et al., 
2014) when we developed the examples provided in the proposed rule. Our 
intent was to provide an example in the proposed rule of a set of 
conditions that we expect to correlate to Atlantic sturgeon use of an 
area; it was not our intent to provide an example of the DO levels that 
are necessary for the survival of any particular age class of Atlantic 
sturgeon.
    Comment 32: A commenter stated that our decision to not designate 
any estuarine areas as critical habitat is arbitrary and capricious, 
noting that natal estuaries are attached to a natal river, which makes 
these estuaries critical and, therefore, they should be designated. The 
commenter also stated that we should also designate estuaries that it 
knows are important (e.g., the mouth of the Merrimack and the Saco 
River).
    Our Response: The critical habitat designated for the Gulf of 
Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs includes estuarine 
waters of the named river. It is a common misconception that all rivers 
are all freshwater and only bays or sounds are the estuarine waters. We 
are designating critical habitat in the Merrimack River, downstream of 
the Essex Dam to the mouth of the Merrimack River. We are not 
designating critical habitat in the Saco River because the area of the 
river within the geographical area occupied by the Gulf of Maine DPS 
does not contain the PBFs essential to the conservation of the DPS. Our 
response to Comment 20 addresses the best available information for 
identifying other PBFs in bays and sounds that are essential to the 
conservation of the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay 
DPSs.
    Comment 33: The commenter believes that areas proposed to be 
designated as critical habitat in the James River exceed what is 
necessary to protect Atlantic sturgeon and will accomplish little 
habitat restoration in the Chesapeake Bay DPS. The commenter states 
that considering the breadth of available information on biological and 
habitat data, critical habitat in the James River could be more 
specifically defined.
    Our Response: The boundaries of the critical habitat areas are 
based on the presence of the PBFs essential to the conservation of the 
Chesapeake Bay DPS, and which may require special management 
considerations or protection. The PBFs are based on substrate, water 
quality, open passage, and the transitional salinity zone necessary for 
Atlantic sturgeon adults to reproduce and juveniles to rear in the 
natal estuary prior to emigration to the marine environment.
    The best available information supports the conclusion that there 
are two spawning groups of Atlantic sturgeon returning to the James 
River, one in the spring and one in the fall. Spawning occurs in 
different areas of the river for each group. Such a difference is not 
unexpected given changes in the location of an estuary's salt wedge 
from spring to fall. Even in rivers where only one spawning season is 
currently known, spawning Atlantic sturgeon may select for the best 
spawning site in the river estuary, given the environmental conditions 
at the time (e.g., flow and salinity), which vary depending on weather 
and other conditions (e.g., more freshwater inflow due to a rainy 
spring or high snowpack can result in the salt front being farther 
downstream). Designating critical habitat that includes multiple 
spawning areas helps to ensure successful spawning, given the natural 
variations in environmental conditions within the

[[Page 39178]]

river estuary. Similarly, critical habitat that encompasses the 
complete habitat needs of Atlantic sturgeon juveniles is necessary 
because Atlantic sturgeon offspring select for the habitat with the 
combined variables of DO, water temperature, and salinity that best 
support their growth and development. Because estuaries are also 
dynamic environments with daily and seasonal changes in salinity, 
Atlantic sturgeon juveniles must be able to move within the natal 
estuary to remain in or access the salinity zone most suitable for the 
stage of development. As such, limiting the designation in the James 
River would not allow for inclusion of all of the PBFs that are 
essential to the conservation of the DPS.
    Comment 34: A commenter stated that we must identify, with 
specificity and substantial evidence, those areas of the Susquehanna 
River that we believe exhibit the PBFs essential to the conservation of 
Atlantic sturgeon. Further, to meet our obligations under the 
Administrative Procedure Act, we must then provide stakeholders with an 
additional opportunity to comment on the justifications for the 
determinations.
    Our Response: The ESA and the regulations implementing the critical 
habitat provision of the ESA (50 CFR part 424) do not require that we 
provide ``substantial evidence'' or articulate a particular level of 
specificity as to where exactly the PBFs may be found in a particular 
unit. The proposed rule did specify that the area containing the PBFs 
of critical habitat in the Susquehanna River is the 16 km of the 
Susquehanna River main stem from the Conowingo Dam to where the river 
drains at its mouth into the Chesapeake Bay. These are the lowermost 16 
km of the river's overall 714 km length.
    Upon reexamination of the information for the PBFs, we determined 
that PBF 2 (i.e., aquatic habitat with a gradual downstream salinity 
gradient of 0.5 to as high as 30 ppt and soft substrate (e.g., sand, 
mud) between the river mouth and spawning sites for juvenile foraging 
and physiological development) is not present in the lowermost 16 rkm 
of the Susquehanna River that we proposed to designate as critical 
habitat. In addition, these waters are likely to remain freshwater 
because saltwater from the ocean generally does not push into the upper 
Chesapeake Bay, and there is a large volume of freshwater flowing into 
the upper Bay from the Susquehanna and other rivers (Chesapeake Bay 
Program, 1987).
    The proposed 16 rkm of the Susquehanna River does not have a 
salinity gradient and is unlikely to have a salinity gradient in the 
future. Because this PBF is not present in the lowermost 16 rkm of the 
Susquehanna River, and we determined that the coexistence of all four 
PBFs is required for successful reproduction and recruitment of the 
Chesapeake Bay DPS, the lowermost 16 rkm of the Susquehanna River are 
not included in critical habitat for the Chesapeake Bay DPS. Further 
information on the salinity, substrate, and water quality below the 
Conowingo Dam is available at http://www.exeloncorp.com/locations/ferc-license-renewals/Conowingo/Pages/Documents.aspx.
    Comment 35: A number of commenters, including a coalition, objected 
to the proposed designations and stated that we provided no data or 
analysis in support of our conclusions that the essential PBFs we have 
identified are actually present throughout the expansive areas we have 
proposed for designation, nor any discussion of the location of 
essential PBFs within the areas.
    Our Response: We are not required to conduct new analyses for 
critical habitat designations. We are required to use the best 
available information. The proposed rule, the biological information in 
the Impacts Analysis and Biological Information Source Document, and 
our administrative record for the critical habitat designations provide 
the sources of information for where the PBFs occur within each 
designated critical habitat area. We balanced the desire to provide 
detail on each critical habitat designation against the need to provide 
transparent and concise information. An excessively lengthy document 
can be perceived as burdensome to read and comment upon. We provided a 
level of detail that we believe was necessary and desired by the 
general public. In all cases, we have cited the sources of information 
for the presence of the PBFs in the specific critical habitat areas.
    We also took into account the dynamic environment in which the PBFs 
occur. Some of the PBFs occur in more than one location or occur in a 
location at certain times of the year. For example, hard bottom 
substrate in low salinity waters (0.0 to 0.5 ppt) may be available 
farther downriver in the spring than in the fall, depending on seasonal 
changes in freshwater input, or may be available farther downriver in 
one year compared to another, depending on the freshwater input to the 
estuary in that particular year. Likewise, the exact boundaries of the 
transitional salinity zone will fluctuate with seasonal changes in 
flow, annual changes in flow, and even tide cycles. The boundaries of 
the critical habitat areas account for these cyclical changes that are 
reasonably expected to occur based on the best available information 
for the particular river within which we are designating critical 
habitat.
    Comment 36: A representative for a power operation stated that the 
area of the Hudson River in the vicinity of the facility should be 
excluded from the critical habitat designation because: this part of 
the Hudson River does not possess characteristics of value to Atlantic 
sturgeon at any life stage, and it is inconceivable that any federally-
approved action within the vicinity of Indian Point would ever rise to 
the level of destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat as 
the Services have defined it.
    Our Response: We are not required to determine that every segment 
of the critical habitat contains all of the PBFs essential to the 
conservation of the species, but rather, we demonstrate overall that 
the designated unit contains the PBFs essential to conservation of the 
species (See Home Builders Ass'n of Northern California v. U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, 616 F.3d 983, 988-989 (9th Cir., 2010)). We 
recognize in the rule that the location of some PBFs may shift daily, 
seasonally, or annually. We disagree that the area noted in the comment 
does not contain the essential PBFs of critical habitat; the area 
contains soft substrate and is within the salinity gradient necessary 
for the development of juveniles. It is also an area of the Hudson 
River where barrier-free passage is necessary for the upstream and 
downstream movement of adults.
    The commenter's determination that activities associated with the 
Indian Point nuclear facility would not destroy or adversely modify the 
critical habitat is not a comment on the designation, but rather a 
conclusion of the effects of the activities that would be considered in 
an ESA section 7 consultation. Even if we agreed with that conclusion, 
there is no means to exclude an area based on the potential impacts of 
the operations of one facility. We also note that the critical habitat 
designated in the vicinity of Indian Point could be affected by other 
Federal actions independent of Indian Point (e.g., dredging, water 
quality regulations, etc.).
    We considered impacts of designating critical habitat for the New 
York Bight DPS, and concluded there was no basis to exclude any 
particular area from the proposed critical habitat because of the 
conservation benefits of the critical habitat designations to the 
species and to society. While we cannot quantify nor monetize these 
benefits, we believe they

[[Page 39179]]

are not negligible and are an incremental effect of the designations. 
See our response to Comments 51, 52 and 53 for further information on 
the Impacts Analysis for the Gulf of Maine, Chesapeake Bay and New York 
Bight DPSs.
    Comment 37: A commenter stated that scientifically demonstrated 
identification of known PBFs needed for physiological development have 
not been specifically determined for the Atlantic sturgeon, and 
designating critical habitat in the Delaware River may be premature. 
The commenter goes on to state that the length and breadth limits of 
the critical habitat area alone apply assumptions that are not well 
documented in science, and, in the case of the downstream limit on the 
Delaware River, arbitrary landmarks were used to identify the beginning 
and end of the designated critical habitat. The commenter also states 
that the down-river boundary is demarcated by a land-based, manmade 
monument that possesses no inherent biological or physiological value 
indicating that sturgeon reproduction, early growth, and population 
maintenance begins or ends here.
    Our Response: The critical habitat designations are not premature. 
The ESA requires that we designate critical habitat at the time a 
species is listed unless designating critical habitat is not prudent 
for the species (this rarely occurs) or is not determinable. If 
critical habitat is not determinable at the time of listing, we are 
allowed one additional year. At the end of that year, we must designate 
critical habitat based on the best available information.
    We concluded that critical habitat was not determinable when the 
Atlantic sturgeon DPSs were listed as endangered and threatened in 
2012. We failed to meet the one-year timeframe for designating critical 
habitat. We proposed critical habitat in June 2016. We have used the 
best available information to determine the essential PBFs that may 
require special management considerations or protection and identify 
where those PBFs occur to develop the critical habitat designation. 
While we agree that more information on the exact location of Atlantic 
sturgeon spawning would be generally informative and could allow us to 
better manage the species, the absence of this more specific 
information did not impair our ability to develop the critical habitat 
designation. This is in part because our critical habitat designation 
was not designed to include only spawning habitat.
    The proposed rule described the PBFs and provided an explanation, 
in the context of Atlantic sturgeon life history, of why the PBFs are 
essential to the conservation of the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs. We 
provided the same background as well as the list of cited literature in 
the Impacts Analysis and Biological Information Source Document.
    All of the PBFs are necessary for successful Atlantic sturgeon 
spawning and recruitment of offspring to the marine environment. Adults 
need habitat suitable for spawning, for traveling to and from spawning 
sites, and for staging, resting, and holding before and after spawning. 
The offspring need habitats in the natal estuary suitable for rearing. 
The habitat needed by juvenile Atlantic sturgeon changes as they grow 
and develop in the natal estuary. All juvenile habitat types in the 
natal estuary are needed for successful rearing of the offspring. 
Laboratory studies have shown differences in Atlantic sturgeon growth 
with different combinations of the combined variables of DO, water 
temperature, and salinity. Captures of Atlantic sturgeon juveniles in 
the natal estuary, likewise, reveal differences in the distribution of 
larger, older Atlantic sturgeon juveniles compared to smaller, younger 
Atlantic sturgeon juveniles. Therefore, we identified the boundaries of 
each critical habitat area that encompassed the PBFs essential to the 
conservation of each Atlantic sturgeon DPS and that may require special 
management considerations or protection. When several habitats, each 
satisfying the requirements for designation as critical habitat, are 
located in proximity to one another, an inclusive area may be 
designated as critical habitat (50 CFR 424.12(d)).
    The boundaries of each critical habitat unit are consistent with 
how we have designated critical habitat for other species in rivers 
(e.g., the southern DPS of green sturgeon, Gulf of Maine DPS of 
Atlantic salmon). One or more of the PBFs occur throughout the 
identified critical habitat areas. Riverbanks are the lateral 
boundaries. The downriver boundary is the mouth of the river because 
that is the downstream limit of the most extensive feature (the 
transitional salinity zone). The upriver boundary is the beginning of 
the named river, a manmade structure that is impassable by sturgeon, a 
natural feature that is impassable by sturgeon, or the upriver extent 
of tidal influence because, depending on the particular river, that is 
the upstream extent of the presence of the PBFs that are essential to 
the conservation of the DPS and that may require special management 
considerations or protection, or the upstream limit of the occupied 
area.
    We cannot use ephemeral reference points (e.g., trees, sand bars) 
to clarify or refine the boundaries of critical habitat. We can use 
physical structures that occur at the boundary of the area containing 
the PBFs in our regulatory description of the critical habitat areas. 
Doing so better informs Federal agencies of the area within which they 
should consider effects of their proposed actions to determine whether 
they are required to consult with us under section 7 of the ESA.
    The Delaware River critical habitat unit extends from the upstream 
point of tidal influence (identified by a bridge that crosses the river 
at that boundary) downriver to where the river enters the Delaware Bay. 
A mouth of a river is often considered to be rkm 0 of that river. 
However, in this case, New Jersey regulations count the mouth of the 
Delaware Bay (i.e., where it drains into the Atlantic Ocean) as rkm 0. 
To avoid confusion, we described the downriver boundary of the critical 
habitat unit based on the pre-established points and markers that 
demarcate the Delaware River and the Delaware Bay.
Comments on Impacts Analysis, Exclusions, and INRMPs
    Comment 38: Many commenters, including those representing maritime 
associations, tug and barge operator associations, pilot associations, 
shipbuilders, and Federal and state agencies, stated we should exclude 
the Federal navigation channels and dredge disposal sites from the 
critical habitat designations (e.g., in the Penobscot, Hudson, 
Delaware, York, and James Rivers). They believe including them will 
prevent or delay dredging of Federal navigation channels, resulting in 
impacts to navigation safety, less commerce, and harm to the 
environment (e.g., by increasing the risk of vessel damage that could 
cause fuel spills). They also stated that including the Federal 
navigation channels and dredge disposal sites does not contribute to 
protecting the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs or their existing habitat.
    Our Response: We disagree. The Federal navigation channels and 
dredge disposal sites are part of the areas that we have identified as 
critical habitat based on the presence of the PBFs essential to the 
conservation of the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay 
DPSs, and because those essential PBFs may require special management 
considerations or protection. There are conservation benefits of the 
critical habitat designations, both to the species and to

[[Page 39180]]

society. While we cannot quantify or monetize these benefits, we 
believe they are not negligible and are an incremental effect of the 
designations.
    The purpose of designating critical habitat is to contribute to 
species' conservation (i.e., facilitate recovery of the ESA-listed 
species for which critical habitat is designated). Because the Federal 
navigation channels and dredge disposal sites within the critical 
habitat areas are part of the area containing the essential PBFs, we 
are not excluding the Federal navigation channels and areas used for 
dredge disposal.
    Critical habitat designations do not stop or prevent Federal agency 
actions. The sole ESA requirement with respect to designated critical 
habitat is that Federal agencies consult with us (or the USFWS for 
species under their jurisdiction) on any Federal agency action (i.e., 
any action that agency intends to fund, authorize or carry out) that 
may affect critical habitat. The purpose of the consultation is to 
ensure that actions taken by Federal agencies are not likely to result 
in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. ESA 
section 7 consultation is not required if there is no Federal agency 
action. For example, section 7 consultation is not required when a 
private citizen will engage in an activity on private land that does 
not require any authorization from a Federal agency, and does not 
include any Federal funds to carry out the activity.
    For those activities conducted by private citizens that include a 
Federal agency action (e.g., the citizen receives funding from a 
Federal agency or is required to obtain a permit from a Federal 
agency), the Federal agency taking the action is required to consult 
with us if the agency determines the proposed action may affect any 
Atlantic sturgeon DPS, its designated critical habitat, any other ESA-
listed species under our jurisdiction, or its designated critical 
habitat.
    Federal agency actions that are necessary to maintain safe 
navigation (e.g., maintenance dredging) and support commerce are 
expected to continue to occur following the critical habitat 
designation. ESA section 7 consultations considering effects to the 
Atlantic sturgeon DPSs have occurred since the DPSs were listed in 
2012. Because Atlantic sturgeon are generally present in the critical 
habitat areas, designating critical habitat is unlikely to increase the 
number of ESA section 7 consultations because Federal agencies are 
already required to consult with us under section 7 for actions that 
may affect the listed species.
    Comment 39: Commenters expressed concern that designating critical 
habitat would prevent repairs to or new construction of marine 
terminals, docks, and other port infrastructure, thus impacting 
commerce. They commented we should exclude parts of the critical 
habitat areas adjacent to marine terminals, docks, and other port 
infrastructure to avoid such impacts.
    Our Response: Activities such as repairs to or new construction of 
marine terminals, docks, and other port infrastructure can occur when 
such structures are within or in proximity to designated critical 
habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to 
consult with us if the agency will fund, authorize, or carry-out an 
activity that may affect designated Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat. 
If, during consultation, we determine a Federal agency action is likely 
to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we will work with the 
Federal agency to identify modifications to the proposed action to 
remove the likelihood that the action will destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. In that case, we would document our determination in 
a Biological Opinion and provide one or more Reasonable and Prudent 
Alternatives for the Federal agency to implement. If we conclude that 
the proposed activity is not likely to adversely modify or destroy the 
critical habitat, then we will make that determination in a Biological 
Opinion and the action can occur as originally proposed.
    Comment 40: A representative of Bath Iron Works, a shipbuilder for 
the Navy, and a representative of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, 
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc. (collectively, ``Entergy''), an energy company that owns a power 
plant, had similar concerns for the critical habitat designations in 
the Kennebec River for the Gulf of Maine DPS, and in the Hudson River 
for the New York Bight DPS. Both commenters expressed concern that the 
critical habitat designations would increase operational costs, 
adversely affect the ability to operate, or otherwise impact national 
security, and requested that we not designate critical habitat in the 
vicinity of Bath Iron Works on the Kennebec River or in the vicinity of 
Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant on the Hudson River.
    Our Response: We disagree, and appreciate the opportunity to 
correct some common misconceptions about critical habitat. The first 
misconception is what is required or prohibited when critical habitat 
is designated. Critical habitat designations do not create refuges or 
preserves where activities cannot occur. Critical habitat designations 
do require Federal agencies to consult with us if they are funding, 
authorizing or carrying out an action that may affect designated 
critical habitat for ESA-listed species under our jurisdiction. A 
Federal action can occur as proposed if we agree with a Federal 
agency's determination that a proposed action may affect designated 
critical habitat, and that all of the anticipated effects are 
insignificant, discountable, or wholly beneficial. A Federal action can 
also occur as proposed if we agree with a Federal agency's 
determination that a proposed action is likely to adversely affect 
critical habitat, but will not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat. A Federal action is required to be modified if we conclude 
that the proposed action is likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. In that circumstance, we work with the Federal agency 
to identify modifications to the proposed action that allow the 
proposed action to occur without destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. We do not consult on proposed Federal agency actions 
that will have no effect on critical habitat, and we do not consult on 
activities that do not include a Federal agency action (e.g., no 
Federal funding for the action and no required Federal authorization 
for the action).
    There are also misconceptions about what we can exclude and what we 
must not include in critical habitat designations. We must not include 
as part of a critical habitat designation any lands or other 
geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense 
(DOD) or designated for its use, that are subject to an INRMP prepared 
under section 101 of the Sikes Act, if we determine that such plan 
provides a conservation benefit to the species, and its habitat, for 
which critical habitat is proposed for designation. We also do not 
designate critical habitat within foreign countries or in other areas 
outside of United States jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(h)). We can 
exclude an area from a critical habitat designation based on economic, 
national security, or other relevant impacts if the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh those of inclusion, so long as the exclusion will 
not result in the extinction of the species concerned. However, we are 
not required to exclude particular areas from a critical habitat 
designation based on any of these impacts.
    As required, we did consider the economic impacts, impacts to 
national security, and other relevant impacts of the critical habitat 
designations, including the conservation benefits of

[[Page 39181]]

the designation, both to the species and to society. We concluded that 
economic impacts of designating critical habitat for each DPS would be 
low. Our conclusion is based on two determinations. First, the primary 
source of economic impacts as a result of designating critical habitat 
for the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs are the administrative costs of 
conducting ESA section 7 consultations. Second, because Atlantic 
sturgeon occur throughout the critical habitat areas designated for the 
Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs, Federal actions 
that may affect critical habitat are also likely to affect the fish. 
Therefore, a single section 7 consultation would consider both the 
effects to the DPS and to its critical habitat. Our analysis of the 
economic impacts of designating critical habitat also considered 
whether modifications were likely to occur. Based on the best available 
information, including responses from Federal agencies that we are 
likely to consult with, we concluded that modifications to Federal 
actions are unlikely to occur as a result of section 7 consultations on 
effects of the actions to designated Atlantic sturgeon critical 
habitat.
    We considered at the proposed rule stage, the concerns expressed by 
the Navy that designating critical habitat in the Kennebec River 
critical habitat unit adjacent to Bath Iron Works, a private 
shipbuilder for the Navy, would affect the Navy's ability to build and 
test current and future classes of surface ships, resulting in a risk 
to military readiness and national security. The Navy described the 
activities likely to occur as: Flooding and dewatering dry docks, 
updating and maintaining pier structures, including pile driving, and 
dredging activities to maintain proper channel and berthing depths. The 
essential PBFs of critical habitat in the area are salinity suitable 
for older juveniles, open passage for juveniles suitably developed to 
leave the natal river, open passage for adults traveling through the 
area to and from spawning areas, open passage for subadults traveling 
through the area, and soft substrate. Maintaining and/or updating pier 
structures may affect open passage and substrate (e.g., placing more 
pier structures in the area, altering the substrate to make it more 
suitable for the pier structure). Similarly, dredging to maintain 
proper channel and berthing depths may affect (e.g., remove) the 
substrate that supports juvenile foraging, and change the depth 
affecting the salinity (e.g., as a result of changes to mixing in the 
estuarine river or the extent of saltwater intrusion). However, the 
activities also may affect Atlantic sturgeon. For example, construction 
to maintain or update piers can produce sounds that disrupt normal 
behaviors such as sturgeon foraging, staging, and spawning. Dredging 
may injure or kill sturgeon that come into contact with the gear (e.g., 
older juveniles passing through as they leave the natal river, adults 
traveling through the area to and from spawning areas, subadults 
traveling through the area). Because the Navy's activities may also 
affect the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic sturgeon and sturgeon from 
other DPSs that can occur in the area, we do not anticipate any ESA 
section 7 consultations to arise strictly for the purpose of assessing 
the effects of Navy funded, authorized, or conducted activities on 
designated critical habitat in the Kennebec River. In addition, based 
on the best available information, we do not anticipate any ESA section 
7 consultations for Navy activities in the Kennebec River will require 
modifications to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat based on the past consultation history and the nature of the 
identified categories of activities in the area. We considered all of 
the impacts arising from the critical habitat designation for the Gulf 
of Maine DPS, and determined the impacts would be coextensive with the 
impacts from listing the DPS. We will continue to work with the Navy to 
address any concerns about the ESA section 7 consultation process. 
Finally, should it be necessary, the regulations implementing section 7 
of the ESA allow for informal consultation where emergency 
circumstances mandate the need to consult in an expedited manner, for 
situations involving acts of God, disasters, casualties, national 
defense or security emergencies, etc.
    The commenter did not establish how the critical habitat 
designation would impact security zones around private facilities, 
including the Indian Point nuclear facility in the Hudson River 
referenced by the commenter, that are meant to keep unauthorized vessel 
traffic at a distance from a facility. We do not foresee that the 
existence of the security zone and measures in place to maintain that 
security zone will affect the PBFs of critical habitat. For example, 
maintaining the security zone does not alter the substrate or the water 
temperature, nor does it block passage of Atlantic sturgeon moving 
through the area. Given that, we do not anticipate any impacts of the 
critical habitat designation on national security related to the 
security zone at the nuclear facility on the Hudson River. Given the 
lack of any impact to national security, and the benefit of designating 
critical habitat for the New York Bight DPS, we are using our 
discretion to not exclude the security zone area from the critical 
habitat designation in the Hudson River.
    Comment 41: One commenter stated we should allow for exclusion of 
designated critical habitat areas following a facility's submission of 
reports complying with 40 CFR 122.21(r) (i.e., National Pollution 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program Requirements for 
facilities with cooling water intake structures).
    Our Response: The ESA does not provide any mechanism or authority 
to us for establishing criteria that would automatically exclude parts 
of a critical habitat designation after critical habitat has been 
designated. We can change a critical habitat designation based on new 
information regarding the listed species and its habitat. Such changes 
must be made through rulemaking, in accordance with the same 
regulations used to initially designate critical habitat for a species, 
and must include an opportunity for public comment.
    Comment 42: The Navy commented that Naval Weapons Station Earle, 
Naval Support Facility Indian Head, Naval Support Facility Carderock, 
and Joint Base Anacostia Bolling were described in previous 
correspondence to us, but were not addressed in the proposed rule. The 
Navy asked us to confirm that these facilities do not overlap with any 
of the proposed critical habitat units.
    Our Response: We confirm that Naval Weapons Station Earle, Naval 
Support Facility Indian Head, Naval Support Facility Carderock, and 
Joint Base Anacostia Bolling do not overlap with any of the proposed 
critical habitat units. In February 2014, we requested the Department 
of the Navy identify to us facilities that occurred within areas that 
we were considering for proposed critical habitat. After sending the 
letter, we changed the boundaries of the critical habitat areas to 
better identify the in-water habitat in which the PBFs that may require 
special management considerations or protection occur. As a result of 
the change to the boundaries, Naval Weapons Station Earle, Naval 
Support Facility Indian Head, Naval Support Facility Carderock, and 
Joint Base Anacostia Bolling do not occur within the critical habitat 
for the New York Bight or Chesapeake Bay DPSs. Our October 12, 2016, 
letter to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Environment 
provided our determinations for these facilities. A copy of that letter 
is provided in Appendix C of the Impacts Analysis and

[[Page 39182]]

Biological Information Source Document.
    Comment 43: The Navy also commented on our conclusion regarding the 
INRMP for Naval Weapons Station Yorktown, a complex of three facilities 
located on Virginia's Lower Peninsula between the York and James 
Rivers, and asked for confirmation that Restricted Area 33 CFR 334.260 
and Restricted Area 33 CFR 334.270 are included in the 4(a)(3)(B) 
exemption for the York River critical habitat unit.
    Our Response: Yes. As described in section 1.2 of the INRMP for 
Naval Weapons Station Yorktown, the INRMP's scope comprises all lands, 
ranges, nearshore areas, and leased areas: Owned by the United States 
and administered by the Navy; used by the Navy via license, permit, or 
lease for which the Navy has been assigned management responsibility; 
or withdrawn from the public domain for use by the Navy for which the 
Navy has been assigned management responsibility (Navy, 2006).
    The regulations at 33 CFR 334.260 describe three areas of the York 
River associated with Naval Weapons Station Yorktown. Public access is 
prohibited or restricted in some manner (e.g., vessels may pass through 
but not anchor, no trawling or net fishing) for each area, and the 
regulations are enforced by the Commander, Naval Weapons Station 
Yorktown, Virginia, and such agencies as he/she may designate.
    The regulations at 33 CFR 334.270 for waters of the York River 
adjacent to Cheatham Annex Depot of Naval Weapons Station Yorktown 
restrict access by the public. No loitering is permitted within the 
area, and oystermen may work their own leaseholds or public bottom 
within the area, provided they obtain special permission from the 
Officer in Charge, Cheatham Annex Depot, Naval Supply Center, 
Williamsburg, Virginia. The Officer in Charge, Cheatham Annex Depot, is 
responsible for enforcing the regulations at 33 CFR 334.270.
    Based on the information provided in the regulations of Title 33, 
the areas described by sections 334.260 and 334.270 are controlled by 
the DOD and are within the scope of the INRMP for Naval Weapons Station 
Yorktown. We determined that the INRMP provides a conservation benefit 
to the Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic sturgeon and its habitat, for 
which critical habitat is proposed for designation. Therefore, critical 
habitat for the Chesapeake Bay DPS will not include the specific lands 
or other geographic areas of Naval Weapons Station Yorktown, including 
the Restricted Areas described in sections 334.260 and 334.270. 
Consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA is not required for any 
Federal agency action that may affect the features of Atlantic sturgeon 
critical habitat occurring within the areas described at 33 CFR 334.260 
and 33 CFR 334.270. However, consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the 
ESA is required for Federal agency actions if the proposed action may 
affect any ESA-listed species.
    Comment 44: The Navy requested that we consider exclusion of Naval 
Station Norfolk and Portsmouth Naval Shipyard once INRMPs for these 
facilities are complete and we have reviewed the INRMPs.
    Our Response: We cannot designate as critical habitat any lands or 
other geographical areas owned or controlled by the DOD or designated 
for its use, that are subject to an INRMP prepared under section 101 of 
the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if we determine in writing that such 
plan provides a conservation benefit to the species, and its habitat, 
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation. Therefore, once 
any new INRMPs are complete, we will review the documents. If we 
conclude that the INRMP provides a conservation benefit to the 
particular Atlantic sturgeon DPS, we will initiate a rulemaking to 
remove the area from the critical habitat designation.
    Comment 45: The Navy disagrees with our determination that 
consultations for effects of dredging on critical habitat will be fully 
coextensive with consultations to address impacts to Atlantic sturgeon. 
The Navy believes that critical habitat can or will result in an 
additional commitment of resources, and will require modification of 
proposed actions to prevent adverse effects to critical habitat.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that dredging occurring within 
designated critical habitat may require consultation to ensure Federal 
actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 
However, since all of the critical habitat areas for the Gulf of Maine, 
New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs are occupied habitat, nearly 
all those additional consultations will be coextensive to consultations 
that would also occur to consider the impact to the sturgeon that occur 
in those areas. As described in our response to Comment 38, ESA section 
7 consultations considering effects to the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs have 
occurred since the DPSs were listed in 2012. While some existing 
consultations may need to be reinitiated to consider effects to 
critical habitat, Atlantic sturgeon are generally present in the 
critical habitat areas, so designating critical habitat is unlikely to 
increase the number of ESA section 7 consultations.
    Comment 46: The Navy is also concerned that we did not fully 
consider impacts to national security resulting from the designation of 
critical habitat in areas that overlap with naval bases and areas owned 
by naval contractors. A list of areas and additional information was 
provided, including information that identified areas designated as 
Restricted Areas and Surface Danger Zones by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (USACE) pursuant to 33 CFR part 334. As described by the 
Navy, Restricted Areas generally provide security for Government 
property and/or protection to the public from the risks of damage or 
injury arising from the Government's use of that area, and access is by 
permission only. Surface Danger Zones may be closed to public access on 
a full time or intermittent basis.
    Our Response: We carefully considered the information provided by 
the Navy. For the Chesapeake Bay DPS, the Navy provided information on 
some facilities and training areas that are not part of the James River 
critical habitat unit. The Lower James River Boat Training Area 
overlapping with Restricted Areas 33 CFR 334.290, 334.293, and 334.300; 
Lower James River Precision Anchorage and Buoy Mooring Training Areas 
that overlap Restricted Area 33 CFR 334.300; and, portions of the 
Underwater Light Salvage Operations Dive Training Areas (e.g., that 
overlap with Restricted Areas 33 CFR 334.310, 334.320, 334.350, 
334.360, and Danger Zone in Sec.  334.340) do not occur within the 
James River critical habitat unit. The James River critical habitat 
unit is that part of the James River from Boshers Dam and downstream to 
where the main stem river discharges at its mouth. The extent of the 
critical habitat unit may have been unclear, however, because the 
regulatory text of the proposed rule correctly described the boundaries 
of the critical habitat unit, but the map incorrectly depicted the 
James River critical habitat unit as including Hampton Roads. We have 
corrected the map.
    The remaining part of the Lower James River Boat Training Area 
(i.e., overlaps with Restricted Area 33 CFR 334.280) and the remaining 
part of the Underwater Light Salvage Operations Dive Training Area 
(i.e., overlaps with Restricted Area 33 CFR 334.280) occur within the 
James River critical habitat unit. In addition, portions of the 
Underwater Light Salvage Operations Dive Training Area occur within the

[[Page 39183]]

York River critical habitat unit (e.g., Restricted Areas 33 CFR 334.260 
and 334.270) of the Chesapeake Bay DPS. The Navy also provided 
information for and requested exclusion of the in-water parts of the 
Philadelphia Navy Yard Annex Reserve Basin and Piers that occur in the 
Delaware River critical habitat unit of the New York Bight DPS, and of 
the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard that occurs in the Piscataqua River 
critical habitat unit of the Gulf of Maine DPS. We are not excluding 
any of these from the critical habitat designations.
    In their comments, the Navy states that designating critical 
habitat: could shut down, limit or delay operations as a result of the 
need to consult under section 7 of the ESA; could increase the 
frequency and scope of consultation requirements; and would likely 
result in project delays and additional mitigation requirements or 
modifications not considered during planning. Our ESA section 7 
consultation history with the Navy does not support the Navy's 
speculation. The consultation history demonstrates that Navy 
activities, including training, pier maintenance, and dredging, have 
occurred since the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay 
DPSs were listed under the ESA in 2012. As described above, we expect 
any consultation necessary to consider the effects of Navy actions on 
designated critical habitat for these DPSs will be coextensive with 
consultations on the effects of the proposed action on the sturgeon. 
Further, the GARFO ESA Section 7 Team has developed methods and tools 
to help action agencies requesting consultation, and to help expedite 
the consultation process.
    Finally, as described in our response to Comment 38, there are 
conservation benefits of the critical habitat designations, both to the 
species and to society. While we cannot quantify or monetize these 
benefits, we believe they are not negligible. Once we exclude an area 
from a critical habitat designation, we lose the ability to consider 
the effects of Federal agency actions that could adversely modify or 
destroy designated critical habitat. This could allow for actions to 
proceed that would result in the loss of habitat containing the PBFs 
essential to the conservation of a DPS, hindering or even preventing 
recovery of the particular DPS. Therefore, given the benefits of 
designation, we did not exclude any particular area from the critical 
habitat units.
    Comment 47: The Navy provided an illustration of the upper, middle, 
and lower danger zones associated with the Potomac River Test Range 
(PRTR) Complex and explained that the map in the INRMP for Naval 
Support Facility Dahlgren (NSF Dahlgren) does not show the entire 
extent of the danger zones. The Navy further commented that we 
previously determined that the NSF Dahlgren INRMP provides a benefit to 
Atlantic sturgeon and its habitat and, in accordance with section 
4(a)(3)(B) of the ESA, the particular areas of the facility covered 
under the INRMP will not be part of the designated critical habitat.
    Our Response: We thank the Navy for the information. Our 
consideration of the PRTR was based on the description of the danger 
zone provided in the regulations at 33 CFR 334.230 and the Water Range 
Sustainability Environmental Program Assessment for the Potomac River 
Test Range (May 2013) and the NSF Dahlgren INRMP.
    Section 4(a)(3)(B) of the ESA prohibits designating as critical 
habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by 
the DOD or designated for its use, that are subject to an INRMP 
prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the 
Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a conservation 
benefit to the species, and its habitat, for which critical habitat is 
proposed for designation. We determined that the INRMP for NSF Dahlgren 
provides a benefit to the Chesapeake Bay DPS and its habitat. However, 
the PRTR is outside of the scope of that INRMP. The scope of the INRMP 
for NSF Dahlgren is described as natural resources management on those 
lands and near-shore areas at Naval Support Facility Dahlgren that are: 
Owned by the United States and administered by the Navy; used by the 
Navy via license, permit, or lease for which the Navy has been assigned 
management responsibility; withdrawn from the public domain for use by 
the Navy for which the Navy has been assigned management 
responsibility; and, leased lands on the installation and areas 
occupied by non-DOD entities. Specifically, the INRMP describes the NSF 
Dahlgren as divided ``into two land masses by Upper Machodoc Creek. 
Mainside encompasses 2,678 acres on the northern side of Upper Machodoc 
Creek and is used for operational and support activities and military 
housing. Pumpkin Neck, located to the south of Upper Machodoc Creek, is 
1,641 acres and supports two large testing areas and scattered testing 
facilities.'' In addition, the INRMP states that NSF Dahlgren maintains 
real estate transactions to ``18 small range stations located along the 
Potomac River Test Range (PRTR) to support [its] primary tenant's, 
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division (NSWCDD), over water 
testing activities.'' The INRMP describes the PRTR Complex which is 
five land based firing ranges and one water range, the PRTR. However, 
both the INRMP and the Water Range Sustainability Environmental Program 
Assessment describe the PRTR as the responsibility of the NSWCDD. The 
regulations at 33 CFR 334.230 also identify the PRTR as controlled by 
the NSWCDD, including for closing one or more of the three danger zones 
on a full-time or intermittent basis in the interest of public safety 
during hazardous operations.
    The Navy, in their comment, described the PRTR as associated with 
NSF Dahlgren. The INRMP description of the land and nearshore areas for 
NSF Dahlgren supports use of ``associated with'' rather than ``part 
of.'' For example, with the exception of Figure 2-4 depicting the five 
land based firing ranges and the PRTR, the illustrations in the INRMP 
do not include the PRTR as part of NSF Dahlgren. Throughout the INRMP, 
the Potomac River is described as being adjacent to NSF Dahlgren 
whereas certain Potomac River tidal tributaries are described as within 
the installation, and NSF Dahlgren is described as having only 
approximately 6.4 km (4 miles) of Potomac River shoreline.
    The INRMP explains that management of the Dahlgren base previously 
transferred from the NSWCDD to Naval District Washington (NDW), which 
was re-designated as NDW West Area and, in 2005, became NSF Dahlgren. 
The Water Range Sustainability Environmental Program Assessment 
explains that NSF Dahlgren is responsible for oversight and maintenance 
of the land and all structures assigned and constructed on or in the 
land, and the NSWCDD controls the PRTR during hazardous operations, in 
the interest of public safety. Both the INRMP and the Water Range 
Sustainability Environmental Program Assessment state the Potomac River 
is under the jurisdiction of the State of Maryland. In August 2016, we 
contacted the Navy and received confirmation that the Navy does not 
manage the lands or waters of the Potomac River that are the PRTR.
    We agree that the PRTR is designated for use by the Navy. However, 
based on the INRMP, the regulations, and the Water Range Sustainability 
Environmental Program Assessment, the PRTR is not part of those lands 
or near shore areas at NSF Dahlgren that are ``owned by the U.S. and 
administered by the Navy; used by the Navy via license, permit, or 
lease for which the

[[Page 39184]]

Navy has been assigned management responsibility; withdrawn from the 
public domain for use by the Navy for which the Navy has been assigned 
management responsibility; or leased lands on the installation and 
areas occupied by non-DoD entities.'' We, therefore, concluded that the 
lands and waters of the PRTR are not subject to the NSF Dahlgren INRMP, 
and do not meet the requirements of 50 CFR 424.12(h) that would 
prohibit us from including them as critical habitat.
    In revisiting our determination, we considered whether the NSF 
Dahlgren INRMP provides a conservation benefit to the Chesapeake Bay 
DPS of Atlantic sturgeon if the lands and waters of the PRTR were 
subject to the INRMP. We concluded that the INRMP does not because the 
management practices in the INRMP offer limited protection to the 
habitat within the PRTR, and the PRTR covers most of the area that we 
are designating as the Potomac River critical habitat unit. Designating 
this area as critical habitat provides a benefit to the Chesapeake Bay 
DPS, and the PBFs in this area are essential to the conservation of the 
DPS. Therefore, management practices in the INRMP would have to provide 
a similar conservation benefit, either directly or indirectly 
addressing the PBFs that may require special management considerations 
or protection.
    Comment 48: Newport News Shipbuilding expressed concern that 
designating critical habitat in the lower James River would have 
economic impacts and impacts to national security. The commenter 
proposed that we make appropriate exclusions for industries that 
demonstrate insignificant and discountable impact to and/or appropriate 
mitigations for the Atlantic sturgeon.
    Our Response: We considered whether to use our discretion to 
exclude areas from the critical habitat designations. We declined to 
exercise our discretion and did not exclude any areas. Critical habitat 
is the specific areas on which are found the PBFs essential to the 
conservation of the species and which may require special management 
considerations or protection. It is the presence of the PBFs and the 
PBFs' potential need for special management considerations or 
protection that dictates the designation, not the effect a particular 
industry at a given point in time may have on the PBFs.
    We considered the economic impacts of designating critical habitat 
in the James River, impacts to national security, and the expected 
impact to species recovery resulting from the designation. While we 
have used the best available information and an approach designed to 
avoid underestimating impacts, many of the potential impacts are 
speculative and may not occur in the future.
    Our conservative identification of potential incremental economic 
impacts indicates that any such impacts, if they were to occur, would 
be very small and likely to consist solely of the administrative costs 
of consultation. We recognize the potential that ESA section 7 
consultation stemming from these designations may, sometime in the 
future, result in project modifications and associated costs. However, 
discussions with Federal action agencies identified no instances of 
past project modifications that would have been necessary as a result 
of Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat having been designated, and these 
discussions and correspondence with Federal agencies yielded no 
suggestions that project modifications are likely to result from this 
designation in the future. Further, even if modifications were to be 
required to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat, it is extremely unlikely that modifications that would be 
required to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat would not also be required to avoid jeopardizing the species. 
Therefore, project modification costs resulting solely from these 
critical habitat designations are likely to be small, if they were to 
occur.
    Comment 49: An industry trade group pointed to our determinations 
that the majority of the section 7 consultation costs would already be 
incurred based on the listing of the Atlantic sturgeon itself and that 
``[i]t is extremely unlikely that [project] modifications that would be 
required to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat would not also be required because of adverse effects to the 
species.'' They wondered, if there are no categories of permits or 
other Federal activities that would be impacted solely or even 
primarily by consultation over impacts to designated critical habitat 
(rather than impacts to the listed species), what is the purpose of 
designating critical habitat? They went on to state that if designation 
of critical habitat is ``not prudent,'' we should not make such a 
designation.
    Our Response: We are required by section 4(a)(3) of the ESA to 
designate critical habitat when we list a species as endangered or 
threatened. We may decline to designate critical habitat for a species, 
if doing so is ``not prudent.'' Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12) explain 
that designation of critical habitat is not prudent if: (1) The species 
is threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of 
critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of such threat 
to the species; or if designation would not be beneficial to the 
species. The life history of Atlantic sturgeon is fairly well 
described, so designating critical habitat will not increase the degree 
of threat to the species from taking or other human activity. In 
determining whether a designation would not be beneficial, the factors 
we may consider include but are not limited to: Whether the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' 
habitat or range is not a threat to the species, or whether any areas 
meet the definition of ``critical habitat.'' For Atlantic sturgeon, the 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a 
species' habitat or range has been identified as a threat, and the 
areas we have proposed for designation meet the definition of critical 
habitat, and, therefore, designation is clearly prudent. In addition, 
while we have determined that the majority of section 7 consultation 
costs would already be incurred based on the listing of the species, we 
determined there will be additional benefits when impacts to critical 
habitat are assessed during consultations. Designating critical habitat 
identifies areas where Federal agencies can focus their conservation 
programs and use their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA. 
It also helps focus the conservation efforts of other conservation 
partners, such as State and local governmental organizations, and 
individuals. In addition, we found that there will be numerous 
conservation benefits to Atlantic sturgeon, its ecosystem, and to the 
public, resulting from the designation. Therefore, we believe that 
designation of critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon is beneficial to 
the species.
    Comment 50: An industry trade group suggested we had failed to 
perform the requisite analysis of whether certain areas should be 
excluded. They believe that to comply with our statutory mandate to 
consider whether the benefits of excluding areas from the critical 
habitat designation outweigh the benefits of designation, we must 
provide some specific analysis of the conservation benefits derived 
from designating specific areas compared to the economic costs of 
designating those areas. They indicated we made no attempt to carve out 
less valuable areas based on economic, national security, or other 
relevant impacts. They claimed

[[Page 39185]]

our analysis is cursory and grossly inadequate, because we do not 
evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the economic costs 
of designation for particular areas that will be designated (aside from 
areas of concern to the Navy).
    Our Response: The commenters' argument misstates the requirements 
of the ESA. Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA contains two distinct elements: 
An initial mandatory consideration of impacts of a designation, and a 
separate discretionary exclusion provision. The ESA does not require 
use of any particular methodology in the consideration of impacts, let 
alone require comparing the benefits of designation to the benefits of 
excluding certain areas as part of this portion of section 4(b)(2) 
(see, e.g., Building Industry Association of the Bay Area v. U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 792 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2015)). Similarly, the 
ESA does not require that we carve out ``less valuable'' areas of 
critical habitat.
    In our proposed rule, we explained our preliminary determination 
that we would not exercise our discretion to consider exclusions. 
However, based on input received during the public review process 
raising concerns about the impacts and uncertainties associated with 
unoccupied critical habitat, and questions raised about the nature of 
the conservation values these unoccupied units provide, we determined 
that conducting a discretionary exclusion analysis for areas of 
unoccupied critical habitat areas in the Carolina and South Atlantic 
DPS was warranted. Given that occupied units are currently used by 
Atlantic sturgeon for reproduction and recruitment, and due to the 
severely depressed levels of all river populations in all 5 DPSs, 
occupied units are far too valuable to both the conservation and the 
continuing survival of Atlantic sturgeon to be considered for 
exclusion.
    Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA provides that the Secretary may exclude 
any area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of 
such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of 
the critical habitat. This is true unless he determines, based on the 
best scientific and commercial data available, that the failure to 
designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction 
of the species concerned. The legislative history regarding section 
4(b)(2) exclusion analyses suggests that the consideration and weight 
given to impacts is within the Secretary's discretion (H.R. 95-1625), 
and the Secretary is not required to give economic or any other 
`relevant impact' predominant consideration in his specification of 
critical habitat.
    Based on that analysis, we have elected to exclude the Santee-
Cooper river system (CU1) and Savannah River (SAU1) unoccupied units of 
critical habitat, because the benefits of exclusion (that is, avoiding 
some or all of the impacts that would result from designation) outweigh 
the benefits of designation.
    Comment 51: A commenter stated the economic analysis discussed in 
the preamble and supplementary information is focused exclusively on 
the administrative costs to the Federal agencies of ESA section 7 
consultations, and these costs are not inconsequential. They go on to 
state that, for the New York Bight DPS, the projected medium and high 
costs are estimated to equal approximately $2.83 and $5.57 million, 
respectively. The preamble states that ``[a]ny incremental economic 
impacts will consist solely of the administrative costs of 
consultation; no project modifications are projected to be required to 
address impacts solely from the proposed critical habitat.'' The 
commenter claims that no estimates are presented of costs to applicants 
for projects funded, authorized or carried out by Federal agencies (for 
example, projects subject to Clean Water Act actions for which ESA 
consultations are likely), including analyses of the impacts of a 
project, the time needed for consultation, and any specific 
requirements deemed necessary for the project. The commenter also 
states that the estimated administrative costs, the large number of 
activities entailing Federal action, and the complexity of the 
essential PBFs identified and potentially requiring consideration 
dictate that the final rule should address these additional economic 
costs.
    Our Response: The designation of critical habitat requires Federal 
agencies to consult with us under section 7 of the ESA if their 
proposed action may affect critical habitat. Designating critical 
habitat does not affect the activities of private individuals 
conducting activities on private land unless those activities are 
federally-funded or require federal authorization. Therefore, in terms 
of the economic impacts of a critical habitat designation, the costs 
are those associated with conducting informal or formal ESA section 7 
consultations, including preparation of consultation documents. 
Preparation of a license application is not a cost of ESA section 7 
consultation because the license application is required separate from 
any critical habitat designation.
    The economist who drafted the economic analysis contacted Federal 
agencies for input on the number and type of modifications that may 
occur as a result of critical habitat designations. The Federal 
agencies did not identify any modifications. We used a 10-year history 
of ESA section 7 consultations to inform the number and type of ESA 
section 7 consultations likely to occur in the future. To address 
uncertainty, the economist provided three different scenarios that 
affected the overall estimated costs associated with the critical 
habitat designations. Despite receiving information from Federal 
agencies that no modifications were anticipated, the economist also 
presented information for modification costs based on consultations for 
Federal agency actions that may affect ESA-listed salmon species, as 
salmon were considered a reasonable proxy for Atlantic sturgeon for 
this analysis. For example, project modifications might include date 
restrictions, use of silt fences, upland disposal of excavated 
material, maintenance of all heavy equipment to minimize pollutant 
release, use of a bubble curtain to minimize sound effects, and 
pollution and erosion control.
    We consider the incremental impacts of critical habitat 
designations (i.e., the impacts that would occur in the absence of any 
other action (78 FR 53058; August 28, 2013)). The costs of the critical 
habitat designations are the costs of conducting ESA section 7 
consultations (i.e., the administrative costs of section 7 
consultation, which include the projected costs to NMFS, the Federal 
agency taking the action, and the third party (e.g., applicant), and 
the cost of completing a biological assessment). Because the Federal 
agencies would most likely have to consult with us anyway given 
presence of Atlantic sturgeon and, in many cases, other ESA-listed 
species within the critical habitat areas, the incremental cost of the 
critical habitat designations will be low. Therefore, the medium and 
high cost estimates are not likely representative of the costs of the 
critical habitat designations. Even the low cost estimates likely 
overestimate the economic impact of the critical habitat designations 
for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs because 
the critical habitat designations are unlikely to result in more ESA 
section 7 consultations then would have occurred in the absence of 
critical habitat.
    Comment 52: An industry trade group suggested we had significantly 
underestimated the true costs to a permittee, because we had not 
included potential costs associated with employing biologists, other 
consultants, or legal support they believe may be necessary to navigate 
the consultation

[[Page 39186]]

process. They went on to state that consultation could cause project 
modifications, additional avoidance measures, or require additional 
mitigation above what was required by the action agency. The commenters 
reported Sundig (2003) estimated the direct, out-of-pocket costs of 
section 7 consultation for a single-family housing project to be 
several thousand dollars per house. Beyond the consultation process 
itself, the commenters suggested requirements to avoid or mitigate 
impacts to critical habitat could result in economic losses of millions 
of dollars. The commenters concluded that by severely underestimating 
the number of consultations that will be triggered by the proposed 
designations and the costs of those consultations, we failed to provide 
a meaningful analysis of section 7 consultation costs.
    Our Response: We disagree. In our impacts analyses we did not 
assert that no project modifications would be required to address 
impacts to critical habitat. Rather, we concluded that the same project 
modifications would most likely address any adverse impacts to both 
sturgeon and to critical habitat, and as such, these costs are not 
solely attributable to the critical habitat designation. Our impacts 
analyses discuss the types of project modifications that might be 
required to address adverse effects to critical habitat for all the 
Federal activities projected to require consultation over the next 10 
years. The commenters stated we did not include potential costs 
associated with employing biologists, other consultants, or legal 
support that they believe may be necessary to navigate the consultation 
process. As noted previously, we anticipate that in nearly all cases, 
section 7 consultations would likely have been required to consider 
potential adverse effects to Atlantic and/or shortnose sturgeon for any 
action potentially affecting Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat. These 
costs would be incurred even without the designation. However, we also 
projected that every future consultation will involve additional 
administrative costs, including costs to third parties such as 
permittees or applicants, related to the additional analyses added to a 
consultation to address critical habitat. These costs would depend on 
the complexity of the consultation and whether the permittee is 
required to produce a biological assessment (see Economic Analysis for 
the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs, (Table 3-6) 
and Impacts Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the Carolina 
and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic Sturgeon (Industrial Economics, 
2014)). In criticizing our impacts analyses, the commenter cites Sundig 
(2003) and its conclusion that costs of consultation for a single-
family housing project are estimated to be several thousand dollars per 
house. While we find Sundig (2003) to be too hypothetical and 
generalized to warrant changes in our analysis, as discussed above, our 
analysis does include estimated permittee costs of consultation not 
obviously dissimilar to Sundig's (2003) `several thousand dollars' per 
permittee. In addition, it does not appear that Sundig (2003) took into 
account that at least some and possibly most of the impacts and costs 
described are co-extensive with the listing of the species, and not 
attributable solely to critical habitat designation. We see no basis to 
change our impacts analysis based on this comment.
    Comment 53: A commenter representing two agency groups stated that 
the sweeping critical habitat designations would impede critical 
economic growth, including activities that are necessary to sustain the 
U.S. economy, without commensurate benefits to the Atlantic sturgeon.
    Our Response: We disagree. The economic analysis for designating 
critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake 
Bay DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon provides information on the economic 
impacts of the critical habitat designations, and addresses uncertainty 
by presenting costs for scenarios that are not likely to occur. The 
draft economic analysis was peer-reviewed by three experts before it 
was released for public comment at the same time as the proposed rule. 
Our review of the likely economic impacts of the critical habitat 
designations is provided in the proposed rule and Impacts Analysis and 
Biological Information Source Document. As described, the best 
available information supports that incremental economic impacts as a 
result of the critical habitat designations for the Gulf of Maine, New 
York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs will be low.
    There are conservation benefits of the critical habitat 
designations, both to the species and to society. While we cannot 
quantify nor monetize these benefits, we believe they are not 
negligible and are an incremental effect of the designations.
    Comment 54: A commenter stated that many project impacts are 
minimal (e.g., placing a pole on an islet or bar to allow an aerial 
electric line to cross a river) and would not be likely to impact the 
Atlantic sturgeon, but would trigger time-consuming and costly ESA 
section 7 consultation requirements if they intersect and may affect 
areas designated as critical habitat. They stated that consultation 
with NMFS often results in modification, delay, or other changes to 
projects, with potentially significant adverse impacts on their 
customers' access to reliable and secure energy supplies at a 
reasonable cost, and without commensurate (if any) demonstrated benefit 
to the listed species.
    Our Response: The ESA requires consultation when a Federal agency 
action may affect a listed species or critical habitat. We agree that 
many projects have impacts that are minimal. If a project will have no 
effect on critical habitat, there would be no section 7 consultation on 
effects to critical habitat. If effects are insignificant or 
discountable, consultation is completed informally via a letter 
exchange between the Federal agency and NMFS. We do not expect 
consultations on small projects to be time consuming or costly for 
Federal agencies or applicants. The commenter did not provide specific 
information regarding any consultation that had the potential to 
significantly impact access to reliable and secure energy supplies at a 
reasonable cost and we are not sure what consultations the comment 
refers to, on what types of projects or listed species. The commenter 
did not provide context or specific examples supporting the comment 
that consultations with us often result in modification, delay, or 
other changes to projects and we disagree with this claim. The 
contracted economist contacted Federal agencies for information on any 
consultations with us that resulted in project modifications that might 
be required again in the future due to critical habitat designation. 
None of the Federal agencies identified any such consultations. In 
fact, the majority of ESA section 7 consultations with us are concluded 
informally and never rise to the level of a formal consultation with a 
biological opinion issued by us, and thus would not involve 
modifications or delays that result in significant economic impacts.
    We disagree with the commenter's claim that consultation with NMFS 
does not result in demonstrated benefits to listed species. Informal 
consultation (i.e., concurrence with a not likely to adversely affect 
determination) is a simple process that confirms that effects of an 
action will be wholly beneficial, insignificant or discountable. Formal 
consultation, resulting in a Biological Opinion, allows proposed 
Federal actions to move forward and even result

[[Page 39187]]

in adverse effects to listed species, but requires implementation of 
measures that minimize the effects of take of listed species. For 
critical habitat, benefits of consultation include ensuring that 
critical habitat is not likely to be destroyed or adversely modified, 
or identifying minor changes to projects that can avoid or minimize 
adverse effects. The benefits of designating critical habitat as well 
as the requirement to designate critical habitat are described in the 
proposed rulesrules for these Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat 
designations. Recovery of ESA-listed species is often a lengthy 
process. Progress towards meeting recovery goals of down-listing and 
de-listing are anticipated benefits of all of the actions taken to 
recover ESA-listed species, including designating critical habitat.
Comments on ESA Section 7 Consultation
    Comment 55: A commenter sought confirmation that the statement, 
``we determined that any resulting consultations will likely be 
coextensive'' means that there will not be an increased consultation 
burden for updating or maintaining pier structures (including pile 
driving), or for new, currently unpermitted dredging, fill, or 
discharge activities in the Kennebec River, and an Atlantic sturgeon 
critical habitat designation for the Kennebec River will not provide a 
basis to reopen existing dredging permits to require additional 
consultation.
    Our Response: For clarification, the requirement to consult under 
ESA section 7 is for Federal agencies if the agency anticipates taking 
an action that may affect ESA-listed species or designated critical 
habitat. Private citizens do not consult with us under ESA section 7 
but, as applicants for Federal agency actions (e.g., permits) or 
potential recipients of Federal funding, private citizens may engage 
with the action agency (i.e., the Federal agency funding, authorizing, 
or carrying out an action) during the ESA section 7 consultation with 
us.
    We, as the consulting agency, cannot foresee every circumstance 
that might require ESA section 7 consultation. However, based on the 
best available information for the presence of Atlantic sturgeon and 
other ESA-listed species in the Kennebec River critical habitat unit, 
information from Federal agencies regarding anticipated agency actions 
and past modifications to projects as a result of ESA section 7 
consultation, and the past 10-year consultation history, we determined 
the most likely scenario is that agency actions that may affect 
critical habitat, and thus require ESA section 7 consultation, may also 
affect listed species, including Atlantic sturgeon. Therefore, 
designating critical habitat is unlikely to result in an increase in 
the number of ESA section 7 consultations. Consultation that has been 
completed may need to be reinitiated if the reinitiation triggers have 
been met. Reinitiation is required when a new species is listed or 
critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified 
action. We anticipate that consultations will need to be reinitiated 
once the final rule is effective. However, this does not necessarily 
mean that permits will be reopened or that actions will need to be 
modified. Modifications to ongoing activities would only be required 
where a Federal agency has ongoing discretionary control and when the 
action is likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat and we issue a biological opinion that includes 
reasonable and prudent alternatives. It is important to note that in 
nearly all existing section 7 consultations on Atlantic sturgeon, we 
have included an analysis of effects to habitat.
    We have been working closely with action agencies during the 
rulemaking process and have provided information on the triggers for 
reinitiation as well as when conference under section 7(a)(4) of the 
ESA is necessary. Further information about ESA section 7 consultation 
is available at https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/section7/index.html.
    Comment 56: The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission stated 
that we should consider the stock assessment needs and management 
impacts from ESA section 7 consultations, and conduct ESA section 7 
consultations expeditiously to avoid delays in fisheries research or 
sampling.
    Our Response: We acknowledge the concern for the length of time 
that is sometimes necessary to complete ESA section 7 consultations. We 
have taken several steps in the past year to address these concerns, 
including additional online resources for technical assistance, an 
Expedited Consultation Program, and programmatic approaches to 
consultations where possible.
    Currently, there are two biological opinions for federally funded, 
authorized, or implemented actions to support fisheries research and 
sampling in Federal and state waters from Virginia through Maine. These 
are programmatic consultations for (1) the Northeast Fisheries Science 
Center's (NEFSC) fisheries and ecosystem research, and (2) surveys 
undertaken under the USFWS issuance of funds from the Wildlife and 
Sport Fish Restoration Program to 11 Northeast states and the District 
of Columbia. Neither of these biological opinions considers effects of 
the action(s) to proposed critical habitat for any Atlantic sturgeon 
DPS because the biological opinions were completed before the proposed 
critical habitat designations.
    In a memo to the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, the 
NEFSC determined, following publication of the critical habitat 
proposed rule, that the actions described in our biological opinion 
that considered their NEFSC's fisheries and ecosystem research program 
are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat. We concurred with the determination. 
Therefore, because we do not anticipate any changed circumstances, we 
do not anticipate the need to reinitiate the NEFSC programmatic 
consultation at this time. We will continue to work with the NEFSC and 
the USFWS to expeditiously complete ESA section 7 consultations 
necessary for fisheries research and fisheries monitoring.
    Comment 57: A few commenters, including an industry trade group, 
expressed concern about potential delays for projects already 
undergoing consultation that would now have to include an analysis of 
adverse modification for Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat, as well as 
previous consultations that may need to be reinitiated based on the new 
critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: We acknowledge delays are possible. We recommend that 
Federal action agencies work with us to provide the appropriate 
information as identified at 50 CFR 402.14(c)(1)-(6) to assess impacts 
to critical habitat as soon as possible to limit delays. We also note 
that Federal actions undergoing consultation that may affect Atlantic 
or shortnose sturgeon would already be required to analyze impacts to 
those species' habitats, whether they are designated as critical 
habitat or not. Thus, any delays due solely to this rule should not be 
significant.
    Comment 58: The USACE expressed concern that we may be relying on 
historical (1870s) data that may not reflect current day conditions or 
documented scientific data, and cautioned that until detailed 
scientific data are provided that clearly documents the existence of a 
fall spawning season in the Hudson River upstream of Kingston, New 
York, no further restriction to the current dredging window is 
warranted.

[[Page 39188]]

    Our Response: We do not issue restrictions on the timing of 
dredging in the Hudson River Federal Navigation Channel. We have worked 
with the USACE to recommend time of year ``windows'' in which dredging 
is least likely to interact with listed species, including Atlantic 
sturgeon.
    The features of Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat are expected to 
be present year-round. Therefore, ``dredge windows'' are more effective 
for avoiding effects to ESA-listed species than for avoiding effects to 
Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat. Regardless, we would ensure that 
any recommendations to the USACE or any other party are based on the 
best available information.
    We included mention of the 1870s era data as part of our review of 
information for the critical habitat designations, and evidence of fall 
spawning in rivers where Atlantic sturgeon spawn. However, as we stated 
in the Background section of the proposed rule, spring is the only 
currently known spawning period for the New York Bight DPS. There is no 
information that fall spawning currently occurs in the Hudson River.
    Comment 59: A commenter asked if consultation is required even if 
the Federal action does not destroy or adversely modify current 
habitat. The commenter further directed us to address whether actions 
that improve the essential PBFs, such as those for improving water 
quality, are subject to the consultation provisions of section 7(a)(2) 
of the ESA, and to identify the earliest stage in the regulatory 
process that such consultation may be initiated.
    Our Response: Current habitat is not the same as designated 
critical habitat. The ESA and the regulations implementing section 4 of 
the ESA emphasize that, except in those circumstances determined by the 
Secretary, critical habitat shall not include the entire geographical 
area which can be occupied by the threatened or endangered species. 
Once critical habitat is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the ESA 
requires that a Federal agency, in consultation with us (or with the 
USFWS for ESA-listed species under their jurisdiction), insure that any 
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species 
or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 
critical habitat.
    The Greater Atlantic Region, Protected Resources Division provides 
information on the ESA section 7 consultation process, including 
technical assistance, and the Expedited Consultation Program on our Web 
site. For further information, see 
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/section7/index.html. 
Additional information, including links to policies, guidance, and 
regulations associated with ESA section 7 is available at 
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/consultation/. Briefly, a Federal agency must 
consult with us if the agency is authorizing, funding or carrying out 
an action that may affect listed species or critical habitat. An action 
that results in wholly beneficial effects is not exempt from the 
requirements of ESA section 7 consultation.
    Informal consultation is an optional process that includes all 
discussions, correspondence, etc., between us and the Federal agency to 
assist the Federal agency in determining whether formal consultation is 
required. Informal consultation can be initiated as early as the 
effects of a proposed Federal action can be identified. We provide 
information at the web addresses listed above to help Federal agencies 
determine, at the earliest opportunity, whether and when to initiate 
consultation with us. We also provide technical assistance to Federal 
agencies related to questions of whether and where species and 
designated critical habitat occur to help action agencies determine 
whether their actions may affect listed species or critical habitat. 
The ESA section 7 implementing regulations (50 CFR 402.11) address 
``early consultation'' as a preliminary consultation requested by a 
Federal agency on behalf of a prospective permit or license application 
prior to the filing of an application for a Federal permit or license. 
The ESA and its implementing regulations do not identify the earliest 
opportunity for consultation; however, in practice, the earliest 
opportunity for entering into formal consultation is when there is a 
proposed action that is far enough along in development that the 
effects can be predicted and are reasonably certain to occur.
    Comment 60: Two commenters requested we engage with the Virginia 
Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) concerning Dominion's 
Chesterfield Power Station, which they identified as directly adjacent 
to Atlantic sturgeon spawning habitat on the James River. They 
commented that the NPDES Permit (issued by VADEQ) would authorize 
activities at Chesterfield Power Station that are likely to take 
endangered species and/or significantly degrade or destroy Atlantic 
sturgeon critical habitat, and these activities resulted in the 
entrainment of two Atlantic sturgeon larvae at Chesterfield Power 
Station in October 2015. The commenters also requested that we require 
Virginia Power and Electric Company (``Dominion'') to submit a habitat 
conservation plan as soon as possible once the critical habitat 
designations have been finalized, and that we finalize the proposed 
rule as soon as practicable.
    Our Response: Information posted by the VADEQ provides the 
background for our response (for the complete text go to 
www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/PermittingCompliance/PollutionDischargeElimination.aspx). Section 402 of the Clean Water Act 
established the NPDES program to limit pollutant discharges into 
streams, rivers, and bays. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) delegates the authority to implement the NPDES program to states 
where certain conditions have been met. Virginia received authorization 
from EPA to administer the NPDES base program on March 31, 1975; for 
Federal facilities on February 9, 1982; for pretreatment on April 14, 
1989; and for general permits on May 20, 1991. The VADEQ administers 
the program as the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(VPDES), and issues VPDES permits for all point source discharges to 
surface waters, to dischargers of stormwater from Municipal Separate 
Storm Sewer Systems, and to dischargers of storm water from industrial 
activities. Further, the VADEQ issues Virginia Stormwater Management 
Program (VSMP) permits to dischargers of stormwater from Construction 
Activities. The EPA maintains authority to review applications and 
permits for ``major'' dischargers, a distinction based on discharge 
quantity and content.
    The VADEQ issued a VPDES permit to Dominion Chesterfield Power 
Station on September 23, 2016. For further information on this permit, 
go to http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/PermittingCompliance/VPDESPermitActions.aspx#Chesterfield. Because issuance of the permit 
was a state agency action, not a Federal agency action, there is no 
requirement for ESA section 7 consultation on issuance of the VPDES 
permit. A non-Federal entity can apply for an ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) 
Incidental Take Permit to cover otherwise lawful actions that may 
result in takes of an ESA-listed species.
    A representative of Virginia Power and Electric Company notified us 
of the incidental entrainment of the two Atlantic sturgeon larvae 
following their identification. We began discussions with their staff 
regarding application for an ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take 
Permit, including submission of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), in

[[Page 39189]]

June 2015. While a draft HCP has been submitted to us, we cannot 
predict when the HCP will be finalized or when an Incidental Take 
Permit will be issued. We will publish a notice in the Federal Register 
and provide an opportunity for public comment when we determine the 
application is sufficient.

Other Comments on the Process for Designating Critical Habitat and 
Comments Outside the Scope of This Rulemaking

    Comment 61: A commenter stated the driving force behind the 
proposed critical habitat designations has been the pressure and 
deadlines of litigation, not the underlying science or an urgent need 
to designate critical habitat to protect the Atlantic sturgeon. The 
commenter concluded that NMFS has not taken sufficient time to make 
careful critical habitat determinations, nor has it afforded the public 
a sufficient opportunity for meaningful participation.
    Our Response: As described in our response to Comment 37, the ESA 
requires that we designate critical habitat at the time a species is 
listed or, if not determinable at that time, within 1 year of listing. 
The only other exception is if designating critical habitat is not 
prudent for the species. However, this circumstance rarely occurs. We 
failed to meet this 1-year deadline and are currently subject to a 
statutory deadline and a court-order to complete the designation. While 
we agree that litigation has influenced our timeline, we disagree that 
we have not made careful determinations or provided the public with 
opportunities for meaningful participation.
    The critical habitat designations for the Gulf of Maine, New York 
Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon were proposed more 
than 4 years after the DPSs were listed as endangered or threatened. We 
began the process of designating critical habitat in 2012. We initially 
provided a comment period of 90 days, 30 days longer than typical for 
critical habitat designations. In response to requests for extension, 
we reopened the comment period for an additional 15 days of comment, 
making the total comment period 105 days.
    We must hold a public hearing on a proposed critical habitat 
designation at the request of the public. Despite receiving no such 
requests, we chose to hold two public hearings and announced those in 
the proposed rule and on our Web page, in emails sent to our 
distribution lists, and a newspaper with regional readership. We made 
the public hearings available by telephone as well as in person to 
increase opportunities for the interested public that would otherwise 
have had to travel to the hearing location. We did not receive any 
public comments during the public hearings, and we did not receive any 
requests for additional public hearings. We also held four 
informational meetings during which we provided an overview of the 
proposed rule as a slide presentation, answered procedural questions to 
help the public formulate their comments, and clarified the 
instructions for submitting comments. Additionally, we posted 
information on our Web page, including the slide deck presented at the 
public information meetings and public hearings, and held an 
informational webinar for Federal agencies. We used our discretion to 
go beyond the requirements of the ESA and its implementing regulations 
and provided multiple means for public participation.
    Comment 62: A commenter stated there is no substantial value to 
designating critical habitat which requires additional regulatory 
burden with limited value to increasing population levels of the 
species. The commenter stated that each Federal action in the Delaware 
River associated with permitting considers the presence of shortnose 
and Atlantic sturgeon, and considers how each aspect of a project will 
affect the species. The commenter notes that consultation is initiated 
when appropriate and that the opportunity for any additional benefits 
associated with critical habitat designation would be limited.
    Our Response: The ESA requires that we designate critical habitat 
for each species (including subspecies and DPSs) that we list under the 
ESA unless designation is not prudent for the listed species. A 
determination that critical habitat is not prudent is rare and is made 
only when the species is threatened by taking or other human activity, 
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species, or when designation of critical 
habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
    The designation of critical habitat provides a significant 
regulatory protection--the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in 
consultation with the Services under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, that 
their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat. The Federal Government, through its role in water management, 
flood control, regulation of resource extraction and other industries, 
Federal land management, and the funding, authorization, and 
implementation of myriad other activities, may propose actions that may 
affect critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat ensures 
that the Federal Government considers the effects of its actions on 
habitat important to species' conservation and avoids or modifies those 
actions that are likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat. There are conservation benefits of the critical habitat 
designations, both to the species and to society. While we cannot 
quantify or monetize these benefits, we believe they are not negligible 
and are an incremental effect of the designations.
    Comment 63: The commenter acknowledged that spawning occurs for 
shortnose sturgeon in the upper Delaware River and believes that 
Atlantic sturgeon possibly spawn in the upper Delaware River but stated 
actual spawning of Atlantic sturgeon has never been directly 
documented.
    Our Response: Atlantic sturgeon are spawning in the Delaware River. 
There are several lines of evidence demonstrating spawning occurs. 
First, Atlantic sturgeon less than 1-to 2-years old are captured in the 
Delaware River. Atlantic sturgeon this young do not have the salinity 
tolerance to leave the natal estuary and travel through full saline 
waters to other lower salinity, estuarine waters that are necessary for 
rearing. Therefore, presence of Atlantic sturgeon less than 2 years old 
in the Delaware River is evidence that Atlantic sturgeon are spawning 
in the Delaware.
    Genetic analyses have shown that Atlantic sturgeon natal to the 
Delaware River have a unique genetic structure. Such uniqueness arises 
when adults characteristically return to spawn in the river in which 
they were spawned and mixing with other populations is limited.
    Year after year, male and female Atlantic sturgeon in spawning 
condition occur in the Delaware River in areas and at times when 
spawning would occur. In addition, the reporting and retrieval of dead 
large, adult Atlantic sturgeon in the Delaware River, sometimes with 
evidence of spawning condition such as ripe eggs or milt, occurs more 
frequently in the spring; the time period when we expect Atlantic 
sturgeon spawn in the Delaware River.
    The opportunity to witness sturgeon spawning is difficult given the 
environment in which they spawn, and human observation of spawning 
sturgeon is potentially harmful to sturgeon (e.g., as a result of 
disrupting spawning). Sturgeon researchers are required to minimize 
harm to Atlantic sturgeon, including minimizing disruptions of spawning 
behavior, and

[[Page 39190]]

the public is cautioned to not approach areas where spawning may be 
occurring (e.g., as evidenced by breaching sturgeon). The available 
information is sufficient to establish that spawning occurs in the 
Delaware River, despite spawning activity, eggs, or larvae, not being 
observed in the River.
    Comment 64: An industry trade group indicated we made no attempt to 
establish any connection between the threats to Atlantic sturgeon 
described in the listing rule and critical habitat. They suggested we 
have not evaluated or explained how designation of critical habitat 
will benefit the species, or help address injury/death resulting from 
inshore trawling or overfishing. Additionally, they indicated we have 
not explained how the designation of ``these vast areas would provide 
new or additional minimization of habitat alteration or destruction.''
    Our Response: The ESA does not require that critical habitat 
address the specific threats that led to the listing of the species or 
avoid injury or death from particular activities. However, in the case 
of Atlantic sturgeon, designation of critical habitat will help address 
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
the species' habitat or range, which was identified as a threat 
contributing to the threatened or endangered status for these DPSs. 
Critical habitat designations identify habitat features and areas 
essential to the conservation, and thus recovery, of the species. In 
terms of benefits of critical habitat in providing protection from 
habitat alteration or destruction, designation of critical habitat also 
provides significant regulatory protection--the requirement that 
Federal agencies ensure, during section 7 consultation, that their 
actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 
Designating critical habitat also identifies areas where Federal 
agencies can focus their conservation programs and use their 
authorities under ESA section 7(a)(1) to further the purposes of the 
ESA by carrying out programs for the conservation of listed species. It 
also helps focus the conservation efforts of other conservation 
partners, such as State and local governmental organizations, and 
individuals. Therefore, we believe that designation of critical habitat 
for Atlantic sturgeon is beneficial to the species and will directly 
address habitat alteration and destruction issues.
    Comment 65: A commenter stated that even in advance of a final 
rule, EPA has signaled potential changes to requirements under the 
Clean Water Act based upon a critical habitat designation that could 
have a significant effect, along with related costs, on non-Federal 
government entities, including small governments (municipalities) and 
private parties. The commenter asked if this will result in unfunded 
mandates.
    Our Response: We are unaware of any changes to the Clean Water Act 
as a result of a critical habitat designation. We encourage the 
commenter to discuss their concerns with the EPA.
    Comment 66: A commenter stated that development and industrial 
practices have hindered recovery of Atlantic sturgeon. They stated that 
there is an immediate need to lower pollution in all tributaries and to 
eliminate all unnecessary killing of larvae and young sturgeon, and the 
invertebrates they feed upon and that all facilities that currently 
draw water from our rivers or bays for cooling purposes should change 
over to closed-loop operations. In addition, the commenter stated that 
pollution could be lowered, and DO improved, using natural vegetation 
in a manner that does not infringe on navigation.
    Our Response: We appreciate the information for addressing water 
quality for Atlantic sturgeon. This comment is beyond the scope of this 
critical habitat designation. However, once critical habitat is 
designated, we will work with action agencies if a proposed or ongoing 
Federal action may affect that habitat. Finally, there are other laws 
that address water quality, including the Clean Water Act, in areas 
where Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat occurs. Section 316(b) of the 
Clean Water Act requires EPA to issue regulations on the design and 
operation of cooling water intake structures, in order to minimize 
adverse impacts. Further information can be found on the EPA Web site 
at https://www.epa.gov/cooling-water-intakes.
    Comment 67: A commenter stated the Department of Interior must 
address present-day impacts in Delaware such as beach fill projects, 
the Delaware River Deepening project, maintenance dredging of the 
Delaware River for the next 50 years, the proposed ocean outfall off 
Rehoboth Beach, as well as the impacts of past and present industrial 
sites which contributed to the decline in water quality. They stated 
that deepening of the Delaware Bay (2015) and the new USACE sand borrow 
site Area B (2016) in Delaware have compromised and will undoubtedly 
continue to compromise the health of the benthic food chain for the 
sturgeon. The commenter stated that a strong and applicable critical 
habitat designation and subsequent modification or elimination of the 
non-Federal project is an essential requirement for preservation and 
conservation of the species in question.
    Our Response: We have been delegated authority from the Secretary 
of Commerce to carry out the requirements of the ESA for species under 
our jurisdiction, including the five Atlantic sturgeon DPSs. The 
consultation process, as described in section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, 
provides opportunity for us to work with Federal agencies to address 
impacts of agency actions on the species. If we determine a Federal 
agency action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 
listed species (a ``jeopardy biological opinion'') or result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (a 
``destruction or adverse modification'' biological opinion), the 
biological opinion will include reasonable and prudent alternatives to 
modify the action to avoid the likelihood that the action will 
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Comment 68: A commenter stated that the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement for the City of Rehoboth Beach proposed ocean outfall 
incorrectly concludes the outfall will not have an impact on the 
diversity and density of the benthic region. The commenter stated that 
establishment of sturgeon critical habitat in this important area 
should disavow this conclusion, and protect and conserve the benthos.
    Our Response: We are not designating critical habitat in marine 
waters, including marine waters off Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. The 
marine waters off Rehoboth Beach are part of the geographical area 
occupied by each of the five Atlantic sturgeon DPSs. To designate 
critical habitat for one or more of the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs in the 
marine environment, we must first identify the PBFs essential to the 
DPSs, and which may require special management considerations or 
protections. See our response to Comment 20.
    Comment 69: A commenter requested that as soon as levels are 
sustainable, a limited catch and release fishery for Atlantic sturgeon 
should be established, with a special permit, for once a year use and a 
high fee, $500 to $1,000, and the fee should be used to enhance that 
fishery.
    Our Response: Consideration of any new Atlantic sturgeon fishery is 
beyond the scope of this critical habitat designation.
    Comment 70: One commenter asked us to ensure that the Salem Nuclear 
Power Plant, Mercer Generating Station,

[[Page 39191]]

and the Delaware City Refinery, which processes 200,000 barrels of 
petroleum per day, install cooling towers and at the latter refinery, 
remove intake screens that kill millions of fish and entrains millions 
more small fish, eggs, and larvae that circulate through the refinery's 
cooling system pipes and get boiled to death.
    Our Response: This comment is beyond the scope of this critical 
habitat designation. Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA 
to issue regulations on the design and operation of cooling water 
intake structures, in order to minimize adverse impacts. Further 
information can be found on the EPA Web site at https://www.epa.gov/cooling-water-intakes.
    Comment 71: A commenter representing the interests of two 
industries provided numerous comments on the recently revised joint 
Service regulations for designating critical habitat (81 FR 7414; 
February 11, 2016) and asserted that these critical habitat 
designations for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay 
DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon were flawed as a result of relying upon the 
revised regulations.
    Our Response: There was a lengthy public comment period for the 
revised joint Service regulations. The comments and the Service's 
responses to the comments were provided with the final rule. It is not 
within the scope of these critical habitat designations for the 
Atlantic sturgeon DPSs to revisit the response to comments or recommend 
changes to the joint Service regulations. All critical habitat 
designations proposed after March 14, 2016, are required to follow the 
revised joint Service regulations, and we have done so for the Gulf of 
Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPS critical habitat 
designations.
    Comment 72: The U.S. Coast Guard provided comment assuring us that 
they will consult with us in accordance with section 7 of the ESA for 
establishing new anchorage grounds on the Hudson River because 
establishing anchorage grounds may impact Atlantic sturgeon, its 
habitat, or its critical habitat.
    Our Response: We appreciate the U.S. Coast Guard's commitment to 
ESA section 7 consultation for activities that may affect Atlantic 
sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat.
    Comment 73: A representative of the Rhode Island Department of 
Environmental Management agreed there are not specific areas within 
Rhode Island state waters that meet the requirements for designation as 
critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, and concurred with the proposal 
not to designate any critical habit areas in Rhode Island state waters.
    Our Response: We appreciate the input and concurrence from the 
Department of Environmental Management.

Comments on the Carolina and South Atlantic DPS Critical Habitat 
Designations (81 FR 36077, June 3, 2016; 81 FR 41926, June 28, 2016)

Comments on Geographical Area Occupied
    Comment 74: A few commenters asserted that our designation is 
inconsistent with section 3(5)(C) of the ESA, which provides that 
``except in those circumstances determined by the Secretary, critical 
habitat shall not include the entire geographical area which can be 
occupied by the threatened or endangered species.''
    Our Response: The areas being designated do not include the entire 
geographical area which can be occupied, and include only a portion of 
the ranges of the two DPSs. These areas do not include rivers that do 
not support spawning but which may be used for foraging, marine 
habitats, or estuarine habitats below rkm 0 in each designated river.
    Comment 75: An industry trade group believed we inappropriately 
delineated the ``geographical area occupied'' by the species as the 
entire ``aquatic habitat (e.g., below the high tide line)'' of inland 
freshwater areas that are currently accessible to the Atlantic 
sturgeon. These commenters stated that we inappropriately included not 
just areas where the species has actually been located, but instead we 
also included wider areas around the species' occurrences and areas 
that may be used only temporarily or periodically by the species. They 
stated that ``areas identified as occupied include vast areas where 
there is no evidence the species even occurs, much less occupies.''
    Our Response: See response to Comment 2.
Comments on the Physical or Biological Features (PBFs)
    Comment 76: One commenter asserted that the broad nature of the 
PBFs fails to provide notice to the regulated public whether the PBFs 
are present in an area without asking NMFS for case-by-case 
determinations. The commenters further asserted that the broadness of 
the PBFs renders them not actually essential to the species and 
provided the example that for the Biological Opinion for Continued 
Operations of the Indian Point Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, NER 
2012-2252 at 42 (Jan. 30, 2013), NMFS characterized one spawning area 
for Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River as being ``freshwater year 
round with bedrock, silt and clay substrates and water depths of 12-24 
m,'' and another area as having ``clay, silt, and sand substrates and 
water depth of approximately 21-27 meters deep.''
    Our Response: As we explained in our final rule, Implementing 
Changes to the Regulations for Designating Critical Habitat (81 FR 
7414; February 11, 2016), broadly-defined PBFs are not necessarily 
inappropriate. The level of specificity in our description of the PBFs 
is primarily determined by the state of the best scientific information 
available for the species at issue. As held by the court in Arizona 
Cattle Growers v. Kempthorne, 534 F. Supp. 2d 1013, 1025 (D. AZ 2008), 
so long as we have used the best available information and endeavored 
to provide as much notice as is practicable to the public as to the 
nature of the PBFs, specification of some quantitative aspects of the 
PBFs may be deferred to the consultation process. The commenter did not 
point to any available information that we should have considered to 
provide additional specificity in the definition of the PBFs, or why 
the PBFs as defined by us are not actually essential. Moreover, the 
commenter overlooked important details in the PBFs that make them 
readily discernible. For example, the commenter stated that hard bottom 
substrate in low salinity waters, aquatic habitat with a gradual 
downstream salinity gradient of 0.5 to 30 ppt and soft substrate 
downstream of spawning sites, water of appropriate depth and absent 
physical barriers to passage, and water with the temperature, salinity, 
and oxygen values that, combined, support spawning, survival, growth, 
development, and recruitment, are too broad. But our description of the 
PBFs is more detailed than that. Hard bottom is described as rock, 
cobble, gravel, limestone, boulder, etc. This hard-bottom substrate 
must be in low salinity waters specified as 0.0-0.5 ppt, and the 
substrate must be of a type that can facilitate settlement of 
fertilized eggs, and refuge, growth and development of early life 
stages. Transitional salinity zones with a gradual downstream gradient 
of 0.5-30 ppt, and sand or mud soft substrate between river mouths and 
spawning sites is designated for juvenile foraging and physiological 
development (this final rule clarifies the gradient is from 0.5 up to 
30 ppt). Water must be of an appropriate depth and lack barriers to 
passage. Appropriate depths

[[Page 39192]]

and lack of barriers are those that allow unimpeded movement of adults 
to and from spawning sites, seasonal and physiologically-dependent 
movement of juveniles to appropriate salinity zones within the river 
estuary, and staging, resting, or holding of subadults or spawning 
condition adults. Appropriate depths are explained as at least 1.2 m, 
to facilitate all life stages of sturgeon including effective adult 
migration and spawning behavior. Barriers that would eliminate or 
degrade this feature were described in the proposed rule as, locks, 
dams, reservoirs, gear, and are clarified in this final rule to include 
thermal plumes, sound, and turbidity. Essential water quality is 
qualified as temperature and DO, especially in the bottom meter of the 
water column, and illustrative examples of how variations in these 
parameters can adversely affect sturgeon are provided. The essential 
PBFs are all common attributes of aquatic habitat that are easy to 
understand and readily measurable; the various parameters--depth, 
temperature, DO, salinity, etc., are typically included in assessments 
of proposed projects' impacts on the environment. Proponents of future 
projects within Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat will know without 
consulting us whether their project has the capacity to affect 
salinity, hard or soft substrate, water depth, openness of river 
channels, temperature, and DO. Most, if not all, project proponents 
will be able to determine whether the PBFs exist in their project area, 
and what their baseline conditions are, without first consulting us. 
Thus, we believe the PBFs of Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat have 
been described with appropriate specificity, based on the best 
scientific information available.
    With respect to the example provided by the commenter, the 
commenter mischaracterized our use of the language cited from the 
Indian Point Biological Opinion. We provided the text in the biological 
opinion and cited the source of the information as part of the review 
of available literature for Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River. The 
best available information that we used to describe the PBFs of 
Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat is cited in the Background of this 
rule and in the Impacts Analysis and Biological Source Document for the 
Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs.
    Comment 77: An industry trade group asserted that we must revise 
our proposed designation to explain how each specific critical habitat 
unit to be designated contains the PBFs essential to the conservation 
of the species, suggesting that our approach should be the same as that 
taken in the designation of critical habitat for the Southern DPS of 
green sturgeon (74 FR 52300; October 9, 2009). They also suggested our 
proposed designation is overly broad, improperly used ``ephemeral 
reference points,'' and unsupported by facts or science. The commenters 
suggested we identified and proposed to designate sweeping areas of 
occupied habitat that undoubtedly capture many areas that do not have, 
and likely never will have, physical or biological characteristics 
essential for the conservation of the species. One commenter suggested 
it appeared we had merely designated entire rivers from the confluence 
of the Atlantic Ocean back to either some major tributary or some large 
impoundment or impassable boundary upstream. Several commenters 
suggested that areas should not be designated as critical habitat 
because environmental conditions in certain stretches of rivers are 
poor and would not support the PBFs. Similarly, other commenters stated 
we had failed to limit the mapped areas in our proposed designation to 
areas where we believe the PBFs occur.
    Our Response: See response to Comment 8.
    Comment 78: The North Carolina Water Quality Association (NCWQA) 
and the South Carolina Water Quality Association (SCWQA) stated that we 
must include a natural condition provision to reflect natural instream 
temperature and DO levels that are outside of the temperature and DO 
critical elements in the proposed rule. They charged that any 
regulatory requirements must consider the natural condition and not 
critical temperature/DO elements that are not naturally present. They 
also suggested that we should have provided more context regarding 
whether the proposed PBFs for temperature and DO exist in an area most 
of the time, some of the time, etc.
    Our Response: As we discussed in the proposed rule, values of 
temperature and DO that provide critical habitat functions to sturgeon 
will vary interdependently, and vary with changes in salinity. Because 
we are designating known spawning rivers, we are confident the PBFs are 
present in each unit at a temporal scale necessary to support sturgeon 
in their reproductive and developmental activities. We agree that the 
occurrence of the PBFs will fluctuate across, and even within, rivers, 
and over time, and can be affected by natural and manmade factors. But 
these fluctuations and the ephemeral nature of the PBFs make it 
impractical to describe them as static in condition and location. We 
agree that consideration of the natural conditions and underlying 
environmental parameters at a given project location will be important 
in evaluating the impact, if any, of future projects on critical 
habitat. In this regard, we believe a meaningful evaluation of the 
natural baseline condition of project area is best done during the 
site-specific ESA section 7 consultation and not in this final rule.
    Comment 79: The NCWQA and SCWQA suggested that we insert 
information included in the preamble of the GARFO proposed rule to 
designate critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and 
Chesapeake Bay DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon (81 FR 35701; June 3, 2016) 
that makes it clear that the ``specific oxygen concentration and 
temperature values are provided as examples and guidance'' and that 
``areas designated as critical habitat based on the 4 features are not 
expected'' to have these oxygen concentrations and temperature values 
``at all times and within all parts of the area.''
    Our Response: We believe our regulatory text for the Carolina DPS 
and South Atlantic DPS makes it clear that the oxygen concentration and 
temperature values described are examples, and that the presence of 
PBFs within a river system may vary temporally. Additionally, the 
preamble to the proposed rule for the Carolina DPS and South Atlantic 
DPS discussed the variable and ephemeral nature of these environmental 
features. However, we have added additional text to the preamble of 
this rule to clarify that the identified values of the PBFs are not 
required in all parts of designated areas, at all times.
    Comment 80: A few commenters noted that environmental conditions 
(i.e., levels of DO, salinity, and temperature) as well as the location 
of spawning habitat may be affected by climatic conditions, which could 
influence the actual location of suitable habitat from week to week or 
from year to year. Additionally, a few commenters indicated critical 
habitat should include suspected spawning grounds and nurseries for 
Atlantic sturgeon. They also believe that because Atlantic, as well as 
shortnose, sturgeon are excellent colonizers of available habitat, we 
should more expansively designate spawning habitat. A report cited by 
these commenters (Kynard, 2016) states that, ``Given the typical low 
subpopulation abundance of the species throughout its range, a poor 
biological understanding of most subpopulations, a lack of 
identification of rivers with subpopulations, and increasing threats to 
successful spawning and rearing in rivers, recovery could likely depend 
on

[[Page 39193]]

many rivers with habitat for all life stages being colonized by non-
natal adults.'' On this basis, Kynard (2016) states that NMFS should 
include three types of rivers in the critical habitat designation: (1) 
All rivers with a subpopulation that has freshwater spawning and 
nursery habitats and estuarine nursery (natal) habitat; (2) all rivers 
without a current subpopulation but with a documented historical 
subpopulation, and having freshwater spawning and nursery habitats, and 
estuarine nursery habitats that can be colonized by non-natal adults; 
and (3) rivers with no evidence of current or historical populations, 
but which have freshwater spawning and nursery habitats, as well as 
estuarine nursery habitats that can be colonized by non-natal adults. 
Ultimately, the commenters requested we designate critical habitat as 
widely as possible, and not limit it to just rivers with spawning and 
rearing habitat, but for all areas ``that may serve as these habitats 
with migration of the salt front, DO, and temperature conditions.''
    Our Response: As noted in the proposed rule, our conservation 
objective is to ``increase the abundance of each DPS by facilitating 
increased survival of all life stages . . . by facilitating adult 
reproduction and juvenile and subadult recruitment into the adult 
population.'' Based on the best scientific information available, the 
biological needs and tolerances of Atlantic sturgeon, and environmental 
conditions in southeast rivers, we believe we have identified suspected 
spawning grounds and nursery areas for Atlantic sturgeon; in other 
words, we do not have reason to suspect Atlantic sturgeon may be 
spawning and rearing in other rivers. We agree that the conditions and 
combinations of the PBFs will vary temporally, over short and long 
timescales. That variation will affect the sturgeon's use of the 
within-river habitat, including spawning locations, as mentioned by the 
commenters. Our approach to the designation considered this variation 
and has included the areas where we anticipate the PBFs occur and will 
occur. Also, we determined that some areas outside the area occupied by 
the species are essential to their conservation. We therefore 
designated unoccupied critical habitats in areas where the spawning 
portion of the river is limited by dams. We believe we have included 
rivers in the first two categories Kynard (2016) states should be 
included in a designation, based on identification of PBFs essential to 
the species' conservation. We do not believe, however, that inclusion 
of additional rivers that have no current or historical evidence of 
supporting spawning is warranted, based on the fidelity of sturgeon to 
their natal rivers for spawning and because many of the omitted rivers 
are largely located in the coastal plains and do not provide the range 
of habitat types known to be used for spawning and juvenile 
development. Therefore, we are not including additional rivers on the 
basis of possible future colonization.
    Comment 81: Several commenters stated we should designate critical 
habitat only in areas upriver to a point where flows, eddies, and 
spawning substrate are available, and we should not designate migratory 
corridors because they are less critical. One commenter remarked that 
there is no identified range of water velocity necessary for the 
conservation of the species, only the need for continuous flow. This 
commenter asserted that entire stretches of river up to the fall line 
are not needed to meet the conservation objectives, and that features 
essential for conservation of the species exist in adequate quantity 
well downstream of the fall line of some of the rivers.
    Our Response: We identified the need to increase the abundance of 
each DPS by facilitating increased survival of all life stages and 
facilitating adult reproduction and juvenile and subadult recruitment 
into the adult population as the conservation objectives for critical 
habitat. To achieve that objective, we must not only protect upriver 
spawning sites, but also the in-river habitats that allow adult 
Atlantic sturgeon to move safely and efficiently to and from those 
spawning habitats. Additionally, for larval and juvenile Atlantic 
sturgeon to survive to adulthood and become spawners themselves, 
habitats downstream from the spawning areas require protection so those 
life stages can successfully develop. We disagree that we were over-
inclusive by setting the unit boundaries to include the fall line (the 
boundary between an upland region of continental bedrock and an 
alluvial coastal plain) of the spawning rivers, where applicable, and 
we realize we were somewhat unclear as to the basis for upstream 
boundaries on every unit and how that relates to the fall line on each 
river, so we are clarifying that in this final rule. As we stated in 
the proposed rule, given the need to maximize the potential for 
increasing spawning and population sizes, and the fact that Atlantic 
sturgeon are known to spawn between the salt front and the fall line of 
large rivers, we endeavored to include the farthest upstream extent of 
spawning habitat within unit boundaries. The physical characteristics 
of the fall line provide the conditions that promote successful 
sturgeon spawning, e.g., well-oxygenated water flowing over hard 
substrates. Given the severely depressed populations of Atlantic 
sturgeon, and our conservation objective of facilitating increases in 
these populations, we believe including all potential spawning areas, 
up to the fall line as applicable, is appropriate. Finally, we 
determined that specifying the need for continuous flowing water was 
more appropriate than attempting to specify water velocities. Water 
velocity is one specific aspect of flowing water. However, continuous 
flowing water also influences temperature, oxygen concentrations, 
turbidity, etc., which are also important features to Atlantic 
sturgeon. Therefore, given the lack of data on particular velocities 
that may be needed by Atlantic sturgeon, and the fact that flow regimes 
vary widely between spawning rivers in the southeast, we believe our 
focus on continuous flowing water is appropriate.
    Comment 82: The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 
stated that our method for determining areas of critical habitat was 
flawed because we included areas as critical habitat if any of the PBFs 
were present, but they believe all PBFs must be present in contiguous 
segments of rivers for an area to adequately support the life history 
needs of the species and, thus, be critical to the conservation of the 
species. They acknowledged there may be specific areas that contain the 
PBFs essential to conservation of the species, but claim these areas 
are not specifically identified.
    Our Response: All PBFs do not need to be present in a stretch of 
river for that stretch to be designated as critical habitat. As noted 
elsewhere, we determined the identified PBFs are essential to the 
conservation of the DPSs, they may require special management 
considerations or protection, and they are located on specific areas 
within the geographical area occupied by the DPSs. There is no 
requirement that all PBFs occur in a single location or at the same 
time. Indeed, because our goal was to support all life stages of 
Atlantic sturgeon, some of our PBFs are mutually exclusive. For 
example, by definition, the PBF of hard bottom substrate in low 
salinity (0.0-0.5 ppt) water, can never occur simultaneously with the 
PBF for transitional salinity zones, inclusive of waters with a gradual 
downstream gradient of 0.5-up to 30 ppt and soft substrate (e.g., sand, 
mud) between the

[[Page 39194]]

river mouths and spawning sites for juvenile foraging and physiological 
development. The available scientific evidence on Atlantic sturgeon 
spawning and spawning behaviors in the designated rivers, and 
information on habitat characteristics in the ivers, indicates that the 
PBFs are present in each of the units.
    Comment 83: The NCWQA and SCWQA recommended that if we choose to 
maintain our instantaneous minimum DO levels needed to protect Atlantic 
sturgeon at 4.3 mg/L, we should revise the temperature trigger for 
those instantaneous minimum levels from 26 [deg]C to 29 [deg]C. The 
commenters indicated we justified our selection of 26 [deg]C based on 
the EPA's 2003 Guidance and two studies cited therein, stating 
``shortnose sturgeon are more tolerant of higher temperatures than 
Atlantic sturgeon and the `high temperature' for Atlantic sturgeon is 
actually considered 26 [deg]C[.]'' The commenters indicated that one of 
the studies we used to support our decision (Secor and Gunderson, 1998) 
considered the exposure of YOY Atlantic sturgeon to DO concentrations 
ranging between 2.8 and 3.3 mg/L over a period of 10 days at 26 [deg]C. 
The commenters believe that because this ``long-term exposure'' 
occurred at DO concentrations far below and less optimal than those 
required by North and South Carolina regulations, our benchmarks are 
overly conservative. The commenters believe additional support for 
their contention that our 26 [deg]C threshold may be too conservative 
can be found in the EPA's 2003 Guidance, which explains that the 
difference in temperature sensitivities between the Atlantic and 
shortnose sturgeons ``could be because the shortnose sturgeon were from 
Savannah River progeny and were held at higher temperatures than the 
Atlantic sturgeon, which came from Hudson River progeny'' (EPA, 2003). 
The commenters requested that if we choose to maintain an instantaneous 
DO value (rather than a range of 4.0-4.3 mg/L), we should establish a 
29 [deg]C threshold consistent with EPA's 2003 Guidance.
    Our Response: We agree with the commenter that Secor and Gunderson 
(1998) exposed YOY Atlantic sturgeon to DO concentrations ranging 
between 2.8 and 3.3 mg/L over a period of 10 days at 26 [deg]C. In 
fact, the experiment actually consisted of two treatments, one in a 
completely sealed tank and another with access to air at the surface of 
the tank. Of the 32 YOY exposed to concentrations between 2.8 and 3.3 
mg/L over a period of 10 days at 26 [deg]C in the unsealed tanks, only 
four (12.5 percent) actually survived the entire 10-day trial; 14 (43.8 
percent) were dead by Day 4 and 20 (62.5 percent) of the animals were 
dead by Day 5. Of the 16 YOY exposed to those concentrations in the 
completely sealed tanks, 15 (93.8 percent) died by the end of Day 1 and 
all were dead by Day 2. Thus, while the treatments were 10-days, we 
believe the high mortality rates over the shorter time periods indicate 
how sensitive small Atlantic sturgeon are to DO. This led to our 
decision to identify the more conservative value for this endangered 
species. Similarly, because these mortality rates occurred at the 26 
[deg]C temperature threshold, and we have acknowledged that DO and 
water temperature need to be interdependently assessed, we conclude the 
PBF as written correctly identifies the environmental conditions 
necessary to protect this critical life stage.
    Comment 84: The NCWQA and SCWQA recommended that if we choose to 
maintain our instantaneous minimum DO levels needed to protect Atlantic 
sturgeon at 4.3 mg/L, it should be characterized as an exposure level 
over a short-term period of several hours, rather than an instantaneous 
threshold. The commenter indicates the EPA's 2003 Guidance suggests DO 
levels of greater than 4.3 mg/L for a period of 2 hours at stressful 
temperatures was found to be protective.
    Our Response: First, it must be understood that critical habitat 
PBFs are essential to the conservation of a species, not just its 
survival, and a metric that is ``protective'' in a broad, water quality 
context may still lead to injury and even mortality of individual 
organisms, and thus may not be the best metric to foster conservation. 
We agree that exposure time is a critical consideration. We clarify the 
information provided in EPA (2003) was based primarily on Campbell and 
Goodman (2003), who evaluated, among other things, the DO 
concentrations causing mortality in 50 percent or more of shortnose 
sturgeon (called ``LC<INF>50</INF>'') held under stressful (29 [deg]C) 
and non-stressful temperatures (22 to 26 [deg]C). Secor and Niklitschek 
(2001) report shortnose sturgeon are more tolerant of higher 
temperatures than Atlantic sturgeon. Campbell and Goodman (2003) 
considered 29 [deg]C a stressful temperature for shortnose sturgeon. 
Conversely, Secor and Gunderson (1998) report Atlantic sturgeon 
becoming stressed at a lower temperature of 26 [deg]C. Based on the 
information provided in Secor and Gunderson (1998), we consider the 
stressful temperature for Atlantic sturgeon to be 26 [deg]C. The EPA 
(2003) calculated DO concentrations they believed would be protective 
of sturgeon exposed to both non-stressful and stressful temperatures 
based on findings reported in Campbell and Goodman (2003). They 
estimated a DO concentration of 4.3 mg/L should be protective under 
stressful temperatures. The EPA (2003) recognized that the 
LC<INF>50</INF> DO concentrations reported in Campbell and Goodman 
(2003) were not instantaneous but occurred within the first 2 to 4 
hours of the tests. However, they concluded using their estimated value 
of 4.3 mg/L as an instantaneous value would be more protective for the 
species. Additionally, because the EPA estimates produced thresholds 
that still led to some level of injury or death, we believe more 
conservative values are appropriate to promote conservation of Atlantic 
sturgeon.
    Comment 85: The NCWQA and SCWQA recommended we change our PBF 
associated with the instantaneous minimum DO levels needed to protect 
Atlantic sturgeon in North and South Carolina from 4.3 mg/L to a range 
of 4.0-4.3 mg/L because it matches the water quality standards in those 
states. They claimed this recommended range is appropriate because the 
North and South Carolina water quality standards for DO are a daily 
average of 5.0 mg/L and instantaneous minimum of 4.0 mg/L, and that the 
daily average requirement of 5.0 mg/L is more protective than the 30-
day average of 5.0 mg/L in the proposed rule. Because there is 
significantly less potential daily stress to the sturgeon from the 
daily average DO criterion, the commenters stated that establishing a 
short-term instantaneous range of 4.0-4.3 mg/L is appropriate and 
should be fully protective. The commenters indicated this approach 
would be even more protective if we changed our temperature threshold 
to 26 [deg]C rather than 29 [deg]C.
    Our Response: The values for water temperature and DO, as part of 
the water quality PBF, are based on the best available scientific 
information. As discussed in the previous response, we believe that the 
4.3 mg/L value for DO is the best interpretation of the presently 
available scientific information and best supports the conservation of 
Atlantic sturgeon. DO requirements are dependent on the associated 
water temperature, the sturgeon's life stage and physiological 
condition, and the duration of exposure, and the values included in the 
PBF are examples of appropriate levels and combinations. We recognize 
that information on all of these combinations is limited, and 
additional information is likely to refine our understanding of the 
different

[[Page 39195]]

combinations of required values. While we decline to change the DO 
values presented in the PBF, we are not necessarily saying that DO 
values in other combinations with temperature, salinity, water flow, 
exposure duration, and animal age and condition would be unacceptable, 
depending on the particular circumstances of a proposed project. 
Additionally, the rule does link the 4.3 mg/L DO value to a temperature 
threshold of 26 [deg]C rather than 29 [deg]C.
    Comment 86: Two commenters stated we failed to consider in a 
complete and meaningful way, the role certain aspects of aquatic 
chemistry play on determining whether a river has suitable spawning 
habitat. The commenters suggested we should have considered pH and 
levels of calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) ions. They suggested these 
chemical characteristics can determine whether Atlantic sturgeon will 
spawn in a particular reach of river, and thus, it is crucial that 
these features are given special management consideration in future 
section 7 consultations and, if need be, protected accordingly.
    Our Response: See response to Comment 9.

Comments on Special Management Considerations or Protection

    Comment 87: An industry trade group believed we failed to provide 
any assessment of current management or protections in place and 
whether those are adequate for the conservation of the Atlantic 
sturgeon. The commenters claimed we must consider whether any of the 
proposed critical habitat units are presently under special management 
or protection for Atlantic sturgeon. The commenters acknowledged we 
have identified a number of initiatives that could protect Atlantic 
sturgeon, but they believed we must actually assess these initiatives 
to determine whether they are sufficient and determine what further 
management actions may benefit from critical habitat designation. The 
commenters went on to state we should consider each feature and 
specific area proposed and assess current management measures in place 
to make an actual determination as to whether special management may be 
needed in the reasonably foreseeable future, and if so, what that 
management would be, and how the critical habitat designation would 
further that management. The commenters concluded that our discussion 
of special management considerations is limited to general discussion 
regarding how barriers, water withdrawals, and dredging can generally 
affect water flow, quality, and depth and/or alter hard substrate, and 
that we have made non-specific assertions that special management for 
the essential PBFs may be required ``as a result of global climate 
change.''
    Our Response: See response to Comment 14.
    Comment 88: One commenter requested that we include ``clear 
guidance for considering the effects of a changing climate on critical 
habitat designation for species recovery in the final rule.'' The 
commenter requested we consider ``projected changes to salinity, 
temperature and DO, including changes in sea level rise'' and further 
requested that we document the extent that climate change was 
considered when assessing the need for the inclusion of currently 
unoccupied habitat in the final rule.
    Our Response: See Response to Comment 17.

Comments on Decision Not To Designate Critical Habitat in Estuarine or 
Marine Environments

    Comment 89: One commenter agreed with our decision not to designate 
any critical habitat in the marine ecosystem; however, other commenters 
disagreed. Two commenters indicated we should designate estuarine 
habitat that not only encompasses natal estuaries, but also certain 
estuaries that are not natal for a subpopulation, because coastally 
migrating juveniles use estuaries for foraging, including estuaries 
with and without spawning subpopulations. They asserted we were waiting 
for ``perfect'' information and being overly restrictive, and that the 
amount of scientific information currently available is enough to 
determine PBFs in these areas. They also indicated that all estuaries 
have human activity that requires special management to preserve the 
estuarine habitat for sturgeon foraging (i.e., management to avoid 
impacts from dredging, boat strikes, benthic habitat destruction, 
sediment contamination, cooling water intakes, etc.).
    Our Response: We agree with the commenters that estuaries and 
nearshore marine waters along the Atlantic Coast are important habitat 
of Atlantic sturgeon; we specifically discussed them in the proposed 
rule. However, as we described in the proposed rule, we lack sufficient 
data to identify the specific features in the marine/estuarine 
environment Atlantic sturgeon are using. We agree that there is 
scientific information describing environmental correlates with 
locations of Atlantic sturgeon; however, we do not believe that it is 
sufficiently informative of the features being used by sturgeon, or the 
conservation function they serve. More information is provided in the 
response to comment 20.
    Comment 90: Two municipalities commented that our proposed rule 
suggests erroneously that offshore data are unavailable to determine 
essential conservation needs. They noted we failed to mention 
information gathered from the annual offshore striped bass tagging 
cruises that have tagged numerous adult sturgeon coincident to the 
fishing grounds of large offshore trawlers, gillnets, and longline 
fisheries.
    Our Response: We are aware of the offshore striped bass tagging 
cruises. We carefully examined the information available from this 
study, which included parameters such as location of capture, size of 
fish, weight of fish, etc. Unfortunately, that information was 
insufficient to identify PBFs that are essential to the conservation of 
the species.
    Comment 91: One commenter stated that while the ``Large Coastal 
Rivers that Lack Essential Features'' section of the proposed rule 
states: ``. . . short coastal plains rivers . . . most likely do not 
contain suitable habitat for Atlantic sturgeon,'' these systems may 
provide foraging habitat for subadult and adult Atlantic sturgeon. The 
commenter continued by stating that although relatively large numbers 
of Atlantic sturgeon have been acoustically tagged and their movements 
recorded in recent years, their numbers are highly depleted relative to 
historical levels of abundance, and acoustic receiver coverage is 
relatively sparse. The commenter stated the use of these systems as 
foraging habitat by subadult and adult fish should not be discounted, 
once populations are fully restored and population density is higher.
    Our Response: We agree that foraging habitat is extremely 
important. However, as described in the proposed rule, due to the 
paucity of data on specific habitat or resource utilization, we could 
not identify any PBFs essential for the conservation of the Carolina 
and South Atlantic DPSs that support adult and subadult foraging in 
estuarine or marine environments (see also the response to Comment 20). 
We did include PBFs related to juvenile foraging and developmental 
habitat in spawning rivers, downstream of spawning sites, but, as the 
commenters noted, the non-designated short coastal plain rivers do not 
support spawning and therefore would not support downstream-migrating, 
developing juveniles. The limited availability of Atlantic sturgeon 
tracking data from short coastal plain rivers was not a

[[Page 39196]]

factor in our decision not to include those areas in the designation.
    Comment 92: Several environmental organizations stated that we 
incorrectly claimed that we could not designate estuarine or marine 
areas as critical habitat due to insufficient data and that the best 
available scientific information supports identification of PBFs in 
estuarine and marine environments that are essential to Atlantic 
sturgeon conservation. These commenters said that a growing body of 
research has identified critical feeding and seasonal aggregation 
sites, and that the sites identified to date should be designated as 
critical habitat. The commenters stated there is a scientific consensus 
that Atlantic sturgeon use marine waters of particular depths as 
migration corridors; the commenters asserted that available information 
supports the contention that all 5 DPSs use the same narrow migration 
corridor and known aggregation sites. The commenters stated that water 
depth, available prey, substrates, temperature, salinity and seascapes 
are factors correlated with, and that influence, Atlantic sturgeon use 
of specific estuarine and marine habitats as feeding or seasonal 
(winter, summer) aggregations, and migratory corridors, and that these 
features may require special management considerations or protection. 
The commenters stated that our regulations, Implementing Changes to the 
Regulations for Designating Critical Habitat (81 FR 7413, 7414; 
February 11, 2016), support the use of generally-defined PBFs or an 
ecosystem approach. Finally, the commenters discussed our previous 
critical habitat designations for green and Gulf sturgeon as valid 
models for designating estuarine and marine areas as critical habitat 
for Atlantic sturgeon.
    Our Response: See response to Comment 20.

Comments on Data and Approaches Used in the Proposed Designation, 
Generally

    Comment 93: NCDOT suggested areas of rivers were determined to be 
critical habitat based on ``knowledge'' instead of documented data.
    Our Response: We considered the best available scientific 
information, including the 2007 Atlantic sturgeon status review (ASSRT, 
2007), the ESA listing rule (77 FR 5914; February 6, 2012), scientific 
research reports, information and data gathered during the peer-review 
process, and a database developed by the U.S. Geological Survey that 
mapped environmental parameters within East Coast rivers to identify 
sturgeon habitat. We also considered information on the location of 
sturgeon spawning activity from scientific reports, as active spawning 
or spawning activity in an area would indicate that the PBF(s) 
necessary for spawning are likely present. Even in places where 
information is available, those data may represent a snapshot in time 
and the exact location of a habitat feature may change over time (e.g., 
water depth fluctuates seasonally, as well as annually, and even hard 
substrate may shift position). While the best available information 
was, at many times, location specific, we worked pursuant to our 
regulations and identified specific areas at the appropriate scale for 
critical habitat (i.e., specific rivers), taking into consideration the 
life history of the species, as described in the preamble of the 
proposed rule.
    Comment 94: An industry trade group indicated we made no attempt to 
establish any connection between the threats to Atlantic sturgeon 
described in the listing rule and critical habitat. They suggested we 
have not evaluated or explained how designation of critical habitat 
will benefit the species, or help address injury/death resulting from 
inshore trawling or overfishing. Additionally, they indicated we have 
not explained how the designation of ``these vast areas would provide 
new or additional minimization of habitat alteration or destruction.''
    Our Response: See response to Comment 64.
    Comment 95: One commenter asked us to explain more clearly in the 
final rule, why we stopped the upstream extent of some critical habitat 
units at locks or dams. The commenter acknowledged that in some cases, 
manmade barriers occur at a natural barrier (impassable falls), and 
therefore they would not expect the historical species ranges to extend 
above the location of those barriers. However, the commenter continued 
by stating the presence of a barrier, in and of itself, should not 
constitute the upstream extent of critical habitat. The commenter 
argued that dams could be removed, which would open up those habitats. 
The commenter requested we reconsider these reaches as essential, but 
currently unoccupied habitat.
    Our Response: Our approach to establishing the upper boundaries of 
the units was in the first instance to identify and evaluate the 
upstream extent of available essential spawning habitat features. We 
evaluated available information on the nature and distribution of 
likely spawning habitat up to the first impassable barrier, natural or 
manmade. We also evaluated available information on historical Atlantic 
sturgeon spawning or occurrence, and current estimated extent of 
spawning and estimated population status in each river. Thus, the 
upstream unit boundaries are fact-specific to each river system. We 
agree that the presence of a barrier does not necessarily correspond 
with the historical species ranges. However, the barriers denoting the 
upstream limit of the designation are the same designators as the 
upstream limit of the occupied areas and barriers that occur at a 
critical habitat boundary need to provide an easily recognizable 
landmark for where critical habitat begins or ends. Non-ephemeral 
reference points (e.g., dams, bridges) can be used in a textual 
description of the boundaries of critical habitat, thus we believe it 
is appropriate to use currently impassable dams as the terminus for 
occupied critical habitat.
    Comment 96: An industry trade group indicated we also failed to map 
potential threats to the Atlantic sturgeon (e.g., manmade structures, 
dredging areas).
    Our Response: See response to Comment 18.

Comments on Designation of Unoccupied Critical Habitat, Generally

    Comment 97: Several commenters, including South Carolina Department 
of Transportation (SCDOT) and South Carolina Department of Natural 
Resources (SCDNR), asserted that unoccupied critical habitat should not 
be designated at this time. Some questioned how we could consider these 
areas critical if animals are not even using them currently. Others 
suggested it was premature to designate these areas because passage of 
animals into unoccupied habitats was uncertain or unproven in some 
areas. Still others suggested we wait to designate these areas as 
critical habitat until data show Atlantic sturgeon were successfully 
being passed up to and were using these areas.
    Our Response: ESA section 3(5)(A)(ii) defines critical habitat to 
include specific areas outside the geographical area occupied if the 
areas are determined to be essential to the conservation of the 
species. As described in the proposed rule, we determined that there is 
insufficient spawning and developmental habitat in occupied stretches 
of three river systems: The Cape Fear, Santee-Cooper, and Savannah, and 
on this basis determined these areas are essential to the species' 
conservation. However, based on concerns raised about the impacts and 
uncertainties associated with these unoccupied units, and

[[Page 39197]]

questions the commenters raise about the nature of the conservation 
value these units provide to sturgeon, we determined that conducting a 
discretionary exclusion analysis on these units was warranted. As a 
result of that analysis, we have chosen to exercise our discretion 
under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and exclude unoccupied units of 
critical habitat, including the unoccupied Santee-Cooper unit. We 
determined the benefits of exclusion (that is, avoiding some or all of 
the impacts that would result from designation) outweigh the benefits 
of designation.
    Comment 98: North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) 
suggested that until we clarify how we will evaluate projects in the 
unoccupied critical habitat, we should not designate critical habitat 
in those areas. SCDNR insisted that we remove all unoccupied habitat 
areas from consideration. However, they requested that if we still 
intended to designate unoccupied habitat areas, we should clarify how 
unoccupied versus occupied critical habitat designations will be 
handled in regards to section 7 consultations for projects.
    Our Response: As stated previously, we have chosen to exercise our 
discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and exclude the unoccupied 
units of critical habitat. Therefore, section 7 consultations will not 
be required based on impacts solely to these unoccupied areas. Section 
7 consultation will still be required to assess potential impacts to 
shortnose sturgeon and its habitats in the area proposed as the 
unoccupied Santee-Cooper unit, and consultation will be required if 
effects of actions in the areas previously proposed as unoccupied have 
effects to sturgeon or their habitats downstream, in occupied areas.

Comments on Designating Specific River Units or River Areas

Carolina Unit Rivers
    Comment 99: NCDOT indicated they do not believe that ``sparse 
spawning data justifies an extensive proposed area of critical 
habitat.'' They indicated that literature searches they conducted found 
that spawning in specific areas in the Southeast is rare. The commenter 
also stated that the proposed rule says, ``[t]here are large areas of 
most rivers where data is still lacking'' and ``substrate types can 
change from year to year.'' Further, the commenter stated in relation 
to extending ``historical habitat'' into the ``critical area,'' they 
should not be required to comply with moratoria and limited 
construction times, based on habitat that may be critical at some 
future point in time.
    Our Response: We agree that site-specific information describing 
spawning location in the Southeast is relatively rare. We could not 
compare our information to that referenced by the commenter as they did 
not provide their search results. We are designating critical habitat 
by describing PBFs essential to the conservation of the species. The 
areas we are including in the final rule have one or more of the PBFs 
present that are essential to the conservation of the species and which 
may require special management considerations or protection. 
Additionally, our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 support the designation 
of areas that contain PBFs that may be ephemeral or dynamic. We believe 
the proposed rule clearly outlines our step-wise approach for how we 
identified each PBF and the rivers in which they are located. Regarding 
moratoria or construction restrictions, we reiterate that the critical 
habitat designation does not create any moratoria, refuges, or closed 
areas.
    Comment 100: One commenter suggested we had not used the best 
scientific information available, and they believed that the positions 
taken by SCDNR in their public comments support their conclusion. 
Specifically, the commenter stated: ``[t]he proposed rule was 
apparently developed with little or no input from [SCDNR] and the 
scientific data it has collected. SCDNR finds the critical habitat 
designations to be presumptuous and impertinent. In fact, SCDNR insists 
that all currently labeled unoccupied habitat be removed.''
    Our Response: We disagree that we have not used the best scientific 
information available in this designation. We believe the commenter 
mischaracterized SCDNR's statements. The SCDNR suggested critical 
habitat designations were ``presumptuous'' and ``impertinent'' until 
further genetic analyses verify the DPS classification of Atlantic 
sturgeon. SCDNR commented that ``the Carolina DPS is based upon a 
limited sample of individuals with no representation from the Great Pee 
Dee, Santee and Cooper Rivers in South Carolina. The samples used to 
genetically characterize the Carolina DPS were obtained from Albemarle 
Sound, an area where sturgeon from multiple river basins are known to 
occur. The limited data input used to define the boundaries of the 
Carolina DPS causes concern and warrants further genetic sampling to 
truly define the Carolina DPS. SCDNR finds the critical habitat 
designations presumptuous and impertinent and advocates that these 
designations be deferred until further genetic analyses occur to verify 
the DPS classification of Atlantic sturgeon . . .'' The SCDNR is 
essentially commenting on the determination of DPS identities and 
boundaries in the 2012 final rule listing the Carolina DPS. A critical 
habitat designation is not the vehicle to revisit a species listing 
determination, and so long as a species has been listed, we have a 
statutory duty to designate critical habitat for the species. Moreover, 
we believe the DPS listing determinations continue to represent the 
best scientific information available on the identity and boundaries of 
the DPSs.
    The commenter seems to believe that because our determinations 
differ from SCDNR's on certain aspects of the designation, for example 
the use of shortnose sturgeon as a proxy for Atlantic sturgeon or how 
to interpret the lack of data regarding Atlantic sturgeon presence in 
certain stretches of a river, our rule did not use the best scientific 
information available. Our determinations were based on the 2007 
Atlantic sturgeon status review (ASSRT, 2007), the ESA listing rules 
(77 FR 5914; February 6, 2012), scientific research reports, 
information and data gathered during the peer-review process, a 
database developed by the U.S. Geological Survey for mapping 
environmental parameters within East Coast rivers to identify sturgeon 
habitat, as well as information on the location of sturgeon spawning 
activity from scientific reports. We also reviewed reports from a NMFS-
funded multi-year, multi-state grant on movement and migration of 
Atlantic sturgeon that included information collected by the SCDNR. 
Finally, the SCDNR provided a peer-reviewer to evaluate the biological 
information that went into the proposed rule. The reviewer provided 
critiques which were incorporated into the proposed rule. Thus, while 
the SCDNR may disagree with our approach in certain cases (e.g., 
critical habitat should not be designated without confirmed sturgeon 
presence), we disagree with the assertion that we did not use the best 
scientific information available when developing the rule.
    Comment 101: Multiple commenters said they believe the inclusion of 
extensive river reaches, including ``unoccupied'' areas and reservoirs, 
for the Carolina DPS of Atlantic sturgeon would result in a poor 
allocation of conservation resources. They suggested we focus on 
estuarine environments, spawning aggregations, and fisheries bycatch 
because it would result in

[[Page 39198]]

greater benefits for the conservation of the species.
    Our Response: The ESA requires that we designate critical habitat 
for listed species. As described in the proposed rule, we know Atlantic 
sturgeon use estuaries for foraging, growth, and movement. We also know 
subadults and non-spawning adults use estuaries seasonally, likely for 
foraging. However, the lack of data on specific habitat or resource use 
by Atlantic sturgeon in the estuaries meant we could not identify any 
specific PBFs essential for the conservation of the species in these 
areas. Also, we believe we are protecting the habitat of spawning 
aggregations with these designations. Because Atlantic sturgeon spawn 
far upstream on hard bottom substrates in low salinity waters (PBF #1), 
designating critical habitat protects these habitats. Impacts from 
fisheries bycatch are direct impacts on the species, not habitat-
related effects, and are beyond the scope of critical habitat 
designation.
    As stated previously, we have chosen to exercise our discretion 
under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and exclude unoccupied units of 
critical habitat, including the reservoirs of Lake Moultrie and Lake 
Marion.
    Comment 102: One commenter stated they supported our designation of 
occupied and unoccupied critical habitat. However, they requested we 
consider regional datasets and literature sources not cited in the 
proposed rule that they believe support the inclusion of the Ashepoo 
River, South Carolina, up to the confluence of Doctors Creek (Route 64 
Bridge).
    Our Response: We appreciate the commenter bringing these datasets 
to our attention. We considered designation of the Ashepoo River, South 
Carolina, as critical habitat. As stated in the proposed rule, our 
review of the best scientific information available for the Ashepoo 
(Post et al., 2014) determined it is a short, coastal plain river that 
most likely does not contain the PBFs suitable to support spawning and 
juvenile recruitment of Atlantic sturgeon. Although the commenter did 
not identify which element we failed to fully consider, we evaluated 
the regional datasets and literature sources suggested by the 
commenter. Those data sources may show species occurrence in the 
Ashepoo, but not necessarily sturgeon spawning. We do not disagree that 
Atlantic sturgeon could use the Ashepoo River; rather we do not believe 
it contains the necessary PBFs that support our conservation objective 
for designating critical habitat.
    Comment 103: Two municipalities asserted we failed to consider the 
best available information in the overall analysis because data was 
only as recent as 2006, and proceeding with critical habitat 
designations in unconfirmed areas without the benefit of updated and 
better data is inappropriate. They note that North Carolina has had a 
gillnet Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for Atlantic sturgeon since around 
2012[hyphen]2013. The commenters stated the Neuse River in North 
Carolina, described as Area C in the ITP, is allowed very few Atlantic 
sturgeon interactions prior to closure of the gillnet fishery because 
of how rare they are in this river system. The commenters state 
additional information indicated (1) sturgeon abundance, particularly 
for the Carolina DPS, is far greater than originally believed in areas 
that have actual, documented spawning aggregations; (2) discard 
mortality of juveniles taken in traditional fishing gear is very low; 
and (3) estuarine interactions with adult sturgeon are exceedingly rare 
as they are not retained in traditional gillnet fishing gear. The 
commenters concluded that extensive data associated with the ITP were 
not mentioned in the proposed rule but confirmed there is low Atlantic 
sturgeon abundance in the Neuse River. Additionally, the commenters 
concluded that changes in fishing behavior and seasonality have 
dramatically reduced the potential for bycatch in North Carolina, but 
this information is also not considered in the proposed rule.
    Our Response: When designating critical habitat we are to identify 
PBFs that are essential to conservation of the species that may require 
special management considerations or protections, and then identify 
specific areas in which those PBFs are located. It is unclear how the 
information the commenter suggests we overlooked (e.g., data on 
sturgeon abundance, fishing behavior, discard mortality, incidental 
takes) is in any way informative regarding our PBFs or the areas we are 
designating as critical habitat. As we have noted, critical habitat 
designations in occupied areas are based on the presence of PBFs that 
are essential to a species' conservation, and which may require special 
management considerations or protections. Specific areas containing 
these PBFs are then identified, and the impacts of including the 
specific areas in the designation are considered. Whether sturgeon 
abundance or interactions with fisheries have changed over time would 
not affect how we made our critical habitat designations.
    Comment 104: Two municipalities stated we provided no evidence of 
spawning or the presence of Atlantic sturgeon YOY in the Neuse River, 
North Carolina. They suggested the size of the juveniles collected to 
date prove nothing in terms of spawning origin as those fish could, and 
likely did, migrate from other rivers where spawning adult sturgeon 
have been observed and captured (e.g., Roanoke River, North Carolina). 
Further, the commenters stated we provided no direct evidence that the 
Neuse River was used by the Carolina DPS of Atlantic sturgeon when we 
listed the DPS in 2012, and they suggested there has been no evidence 
of Atlantic sturgeon in freshwater portions of the river for decades.
    Our Response: Following receipt of this comment we had extensive 
contact with the USFWS staff, as well as with state natural resource 
managers. They suggested there was additional evidence of YOY occurring 
in the Neuse River. Specimens available from North Carolina State 
University indicated three YOY (less than 350 mm) were captured in the 
Neuse River in 1974 (J. Hightower, NCSU, to A. Herndon, NMFS, pers. 
comm. March 2017). An additional record of a YOY captured in the Neuse 
River in 1974, was also provided by the North Carolina Museum of 
Natural Sciences (G. Hogue, NCMNS, to A. Herndon, NMFS, pers. comm. 
March 2017). Also, Bain (1997) reports that ``early juveniles'' (20-440 
mm FL) remain in their natal rivers until they become ``intermediate 
juveniles'' (450-630 mm FL) and begin gradually emigrating from the 
river during periods of rapid growth. Hoff (1980) reports sturgeon 
studies in the Neuse and Pamlico Rivers and Pamlico Sound captured low 
numbers of small (400-600 mm TL) sturgeon. The North Carolina Division 
of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) also provided information collected via 
observers and during their Independent Gill Net Survey. From 2001-2012, 
those sources reported 13 Atlantic sturgeon captured in the Neuse that 
were less than 440 mm FL size range (M. Loeffler, NCDMF, to A. Herndon, 
NMFS, pers. comm. March 2017). Based on the information in Bain (1997), 
we believe these animals are unlikely to have strayed into the Neuse 
River from other river systems, leading us to conclude they were likely 
born there. Additionally, the final listing rule (77 FR 5914; February 
6, 2012) indicates the Neuse River was used by the Carolina DPS at the 
time of listing and that spawning may be occurring in the river. 
Moreover, ``occupied at the time of listing'' in the statute refers to 
the geographical range, which we have defined to include all marine and 
freshwaters available to be used by

[[Page 39199]]

Atlantic sturgeon, for any life function. Finally, regardless of 
whether animals have been documented in the freshwater portions of the 
river, our critical habitat determinations are based on areas where 
PBF(s) essential to conservation of the species occur; it is not 
specifically tied to animal presence. Therefore, we believe including 
the Neuse River in the designation of critical habitat is appropriate.
    Comment 105: Two municipalities objected to the designation of 
proposed critical habitat upstream of rkm 75 on the Neuse River, North 
Carolina. The commenters stated ``the most westward location of a 
sturgeon [on the Neuse River, North Carolina] was at rkm 75'' and, in 
their opinion, Atlantic sturgeon do not use areas upstream of rkm 75 
and critical habitat designation would impose an unnecessary 
administrative burden on municipalities at or above rkm 75.
    Our Response: We considered the information presented by the 
commenters, and we believe our upstream boundary is appropriate. We 
have identified critical habitat based on areas where PBF(s) essential 
to conservation of the species are located, not necessarily where 
individual animals have been documented. Moreover, our data include an 
observed Atlantic sturgeon around rkm 80 on the Neuse River and likely 
suitable spawning substrate at the base of the Milburnie Dam. 
Additionally, the commenter provided no information suggesting the PBFs 
are absent above rkm 75. For these reasons, we believe our upstream 
boundary for the Neuse River is correct.
    Comment 106: Two municipalities questioned our decision to consider 
the Neuse River, North Carolina, as spawning habitat for Atlantic 
sturgeon. They suggested that substantial water quality concerns call 
into question the notion that the Neuse River could support the 
spawning of Atlantic sturgeon. They cited our statement that ``hard 
bottom in fresh water on spawning grounds and sufficient DO are 
critical needs for spawning success.'' The commenters stated that 
without any evidence of spawning activity in the Neuse, it is unknown 
whether the hard bottom criteria are met. They concluded the required 
physical spawning conditions have not been shown to exist in the Neuse 
River because no spawning locations have been identified and the water 
quality conditions are unlikely to favor the survival of larvae and 
early juveniles. However, they acknowledged that the upper reaches of 
the Neuse River at the Milburnie Dam do have areas of suitable 
substrate, but stated that it is far from the salt wedge around New 
Bern and any measureable salinity for many river miles under normal 
conditions. On this point, they concluded that any supposition about 
the availability of suitable substrate with no knowledge of actual 
spawning location is erroneous. The commenters stated that flow 
regimes, critical for spawning success, are significantly manipulated 
in the Neuse River. They acknowledged that while flow regimes of 
Milburnie Dam have been increased on occasion to simulate natural 
conditions on the Neuse River, these flow regimes are not permanently 
established and could change. They suggested unnatural, manipulated 
flows are unlikely to change in a measureable way in the future, and 
thus, establishing the Neuse River as critical habitat for Atlantic 
sturgeon is not supported by the data. The commenters also suggested 
the proposed rule does not identify how we determined the water of 
appropriate depth and absent physical barriers to passage between the 
mouth and spawning sites and water quality conditions that support 
spawning and recruitment for larval, juvenile and subadult growth PBFs 
occur in the Neuse. Finally, they stated that to spawn in the Neuse 
River, the Atlantic sturgeon must pass through the heavily impaired 
waters of the lower Neuse River and the Neuse Estuary. They also 
suggested that the newly hatched sturgeon fry must pass through the 
same waters on their journey to reach estuarine waters immediately 
after being hatched. They believed 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.
    Our Response: We disagree. As noted in the proposed rule and 
explained in our response to Comment 104, we believe there is evidence 
that Atlantic sturgeon spawning has occurred in the Neuse River. The 
commenter supported our determination that the PBF of substrate to 
support spawning does exist in the Neuse at the Milburnie Dam. The 
commenters' confirmation that hard bottom substrate in low salinity 
waters far from the salt wedge exists in the Neuse River validates our 
determination that PBF # 2 (transitional salinity zones inclusive of 
waters with a gradual downstream gradient of 0.5-up to 30 ppt and soft 
substrate) is present. The commenter also expressed concern over the 
water quality of the Neuse River and estuary, calling into question its 
suitability as spawning habitat. However, the information provided by 
the commenters regarding water quality is not specific to DO or 
temperature; it discusses nitrogen and phosphorus. The information 
provided gives no indication of how these nutrients may be affecting DO 
or temperature in the river, or how these nutrients prevent the PBFs 
from occurring or becoming established in the future. Similarly, the 
commenters expressed concerns about water flows on the Neuse River, but 
did not provide any information regarding how past and future flow 
manipulations of the Neuse River would affect the PBFs. With respect to 
our approach to determining that the PBFs occur in the Neuse River, we 
acknowledged in the proposed rule that there are large areas of most 
rivers where data are still lacking. The available data also may 
represent a snapshot in time, and the exact location of a habitat 
feature may change over time (e.g., water depth fluctuates seasonally 
and annually, and even hard substrate may shift position). As we 
described, although habitat features may vary even at the same 
location, if any of the available data regarding a particular feature 
fell within the suitable range (e.g., salinity of 0-0.5 ppt or hard 
substrate [gravel, cobble, etc.]), we considered that the essential PBF 
is present in the area. When data were not available for certain rivers 
or portions of occupied rivers, we used our general knowledge of 
Atlantic sturgeon spawning and applied river-specific information to 
determine the location of PBFs essential to spawning. For these 
reasons, we believe designation of the Neuse River as critical habitat 
is appropriate and supported by the available data.
    Comment 107: NCDOT said there are no confirmed data to support 
designating the Cape Fear River, North Carolina, above Lock and Dam # 
l, if there is sufficient spawning habitat below this point. If the 
habitat is not accessible at the time of listing it is not critical to 
the survival of the species.
    Our Response: The proposed rule describes the information we used 
to designate occupied areas on the Cape Fear River Lock and Dam #1 
includes a newly constructed fish passage feature, and there have been 
reports of Atlantic sturgeon above the lock and dam. We therefore 
included the area between Lock and Dam #1 and Lock and Dam #2 as 
occupied habitat in our proposed designation (Carolina Unit 4). We had 
proposed to designate the area between Lock and Dam #2 and Lock and Dam 
#3 as unoccupied critical habitat because we believed it may provide 
additional spawning habitat that was essential to the conservation of 
the species. However, further conversations with

[[Page 39200]]

USFWS and state resource managers made us uncertain about the 
conservation value for this specific stretch of the Cape Fear River 
between Lock and Dam #2 and Lock and Dam #3. Therefore, while we 
continue to believe that this habitat is important to Atlantic 
sturgeon, we do not believe the area between Lock and Dam #2 and Lock 
and Dam #3 is essential to the conservation of the species based on our 
current understanding of what habitat is likely there. Additional 
information would be necessary resolve the uncertainty surrounding what 
portion, if any, of the Cape Fear River above Lock and Dam #2 is 
essential for the conservation of the species. Therefore, we are not 
designating unoccupied critical habitat on the Cape Fear River at this 
time.
    Comment 108: The USFWS recommended changing the upstream terminus 
of Carolina Unoccupied Unit 1--Cape Fear River, North Carolina, by 
extending the boundary to Duke Energy's Buckhorn Dam, North Carolina, 
rather than ending at Huske Lock and Dam (Lock and Dam #3) as proposed. 
The commenter referenced the recent notice by the National Fish and 
Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) (reference NFWF Agreement #5406) to Bladen 
County, North Carolina. The notice indicates Bladen County has been 
awarded funds through the NFWF-Duke Energy Settlement for the Lock and 
Dams #2 and #3 Project. The project would conduct an extensive 
alternative analysis and advanced hydraulic modeling, design a weir 
wall, support continued tagging/telemetry work by the North Carolina 
Division of Marine Fisheries, conduct anadromous fish egg sampling at 
all three Locks and Dams, and support a USACE Rivers and Harbors Act 
section 408 review and coordination. Based on this, the commenter 
believed upstream passage is reasonably foreseeable. The commenter 
believed this reach of the Cape Fear River would, when re-opened, 
provide suitable spawning and migratory habitats needed to facilitate 
sturgeon reproduction and recruitment. Thus, they believed it is 
appropriate to extend this unoccupied unit upstream to the next 
currently impassable barrier.
    Our Response: We appreciate the commenter bringing this development 
to our attention. We were not aware that passage above Lock and Dam #3 
may occur in the reasonably foreseeable future. Following receipt of 
this comment we had extensive contact with USFWS staff, as well as with 
state natural resource managers. They reiterated input we received 
during the development of the rule from a state sturgeon expert who 
stated the type of river bottom and currents most suitable for Atlantic 
sturgeon spawning would be found above Lock and Dam #3. They also 
provided information from historical fishing records that report 
Atlantic sturgeon had been captured far upstream from Lock and Dam #3. 
We believe the most likely explanation for why Atlantic sturgeon were 
captured that far upstream historically is because they were attempting 
to spawn. The indication that suitable spawning habitat exists above 
Lock and Dam #3, and the historical evidence suggesting Atlantic 
sturgeon moved that far upstream, suggests to us that spawning likely 
occurred there in the past and may again in the future, once the 
animals have access to the area. This information suggests to us that 
this stretch of the Cape Fear River may be of high conservation value. 
However, moving the upstream boundary to Buckhorn Dam would be an 
increase of 115 rkms. We believe this is a significant change that the 
public was not aware of and on which it did not have an opportunity to 
provide comment. Therefore, we are not making the change recommended by 
the commenter at this time.
    Comment 109: One commenter questioned our conclusion regarding 
Atlantic sturgeon spawning migration in the Cape Fear River, North 
Carolina, specifically our statement that fish passage present at the 
dam is successful or that fish pass through the lock at Lock and Dam 
#1. The commenter indicated that unless the policy has changed very 
recently, locking for fish passage is not conducted at Lock and Dam #1 
and tracking of sonic-tagged Atlantic sturgeon has not shown any 
upstream movement past Lock and Dam #1. The commenter continued, 
stating upstream passage at the rock arch ramp at Lock and Dam #1 has 
been good for American shad but poor for striped bass and while neither 
species is a perfect proxy for Atlantic sturgeon, the results are mixed 
regarding effectiveness of this rock arch ramp. The commenter added 
that intensive gillnet sampling did not detect any Atlantic sturgeon 
above Lock and Dam #1 in 1996-1997 (Moser et al., 1998). The commenter 
stated the most likely conclusion is that the locks and dams have long 
hindered or prevented upstream passage of Atlantic sturgeon in the Cape 
Fear River (and may have increased the importance of the unobstructed 
Northeast Cape Fear River).
    Our Response: We agree that the locks and dams typically provide 
limited opportunities for passage of Atlantic sturgeon. However, the 
best scientific information available indicates that sturgeon are 
passing above Lock and Dam #1 on the Cape Fear River, even as recently 
as September 2016, and that would have been either through the lock, or 
over the rock ramp. Additionally, modifications to the rock ramp at 
Lock and Dam #1 will be completed by 2019, which is anticipated to 
increase the efficiency of sturgeon passage above the Lock and Dam #1. 
Thus, we believe our statement about successful passage is correct.
    Comment 110: Two utility companies suggested the best scientific 
data available do not support designation of the area in the vicinity 
of the Blewett Falls Dam tailrace on the Pee Dee River because this 
area has previously been disturbed as a result of necessary hydropower 
operations and maintenance. As a result, this area does not contain the 
prescribed PBFs for the key habitat-based conservation objectives for 
spawning and juvenile development habitat. These commenters stated the 
biological opinion issued for FERC's issuance of the Yadkin-Pee Dee 
(YPD) hydropower license requires a spawning and incubation habitat 
characterization assessment for an 88-mile-long reach of the Pee Dee 
River, downstream from Blewett Falls Dam. The assessment seeks to 
determine the amount of suitable sturgeon spawning and incubation 
habitat created as a result of the spring minimum flow requirements and 
the actual flows provided by YPD under the new license. The commenters 
believe the assessment should provide scientific data that can be used 
to pinpoint areas for designation as critical habitat. Until the 
initial 10-year phase of this assessment is completed, the commenters 
requested we refrain from designating the area downstream of Blewett 
Falls Dam within the YPD project area boundary as critical habitat.
    Our Response: The commenters suggest we omit areas within the YPD 
project boundary from critical habitat, but it is not clear what the 
YPD project boundary is. We believe that the scale and boundaries of 
the specific areas that we are including in the critical habitat 
designation are appropriate. For the Pee Dee River unit, aerial imagery 
suggests spawning habitat does exist immediately downstream from 
Blewett Falls Dam. Further, we are required to define each critical 
habitat unit using easily recognized reference points. We agree that 
the spawning and incubation habitat characterization assessment is 
likely to provide additional scientific data that will be useful in 
determining more precisely the location, timing, etc., of the PBFs, 
though the studies will only be another snapshot in time and

[[Page 39201]]

will not account for temporal variability in location of PBFs. Further, 
when designating critical habitat, our regulations state that we shall 
designate, at a scale that we determine to be appropriate, the areas 
that contain the PBFs essential for the conservation of the species. 
The areas do not need to be limited to only the precise locations where 
the PBFs have been specifically determined to exist. We believe that we 
have appropriately used the best scientific information available at 
this time and have selected an appropriate scale for these 
designations. The ESA does not allow us to identify areas containing 
the PBFs and then decline to designate them until better data become 
available. In identifying and designating the areas containing the PBFs 
that are essential to the conservation of the Atlantic sturgeon, we are 
meeting our statutory and regulatory requirements. For these reasons, 
we have included as critical habitat on the Pee Dee River the area up 
to the Blewett Falls Dam.
    Comment 111: Two utility companies also suggested that the areas 
around the intakes for two ``steam-electric plants'' located on the 
Neuse River, North Carolina, within ``Carolina Unit 3 Neuse Unit'' and 
one ``steam-electric plant'' located on the Cape Fear River, North 
Carolina, within ``Carolina Unit 4 (Cape Fear Unit),'' are previously 
disturbed areas that require dredging in order to maintain the 
operation of the steam-electric plants, and these areas do not include 
``ideal habitat'' for the Carolina DPS of Atlantic sturgeon; in another 
part of their letter the commenters stated that the intake areas do not 
provide spawning habitat. The commenters asserted that the areas around 
the intakes at the steam-electric plants on the Neuse and Cape Fear 
Rivers should be excluded from critical habitat in order to minimize 
the potential burden they expect will result from additional and 
unnecessary regulatory reviews.
    Our Response: We disagree that foregoing designation would 
alleviate additional cost, complexity, and administrative burden of 
carrying out activities at these plants. As noted previously, we 
anticipate that designation of critical habitat will impose only 
minimal administrative burdens and costs that will be added to ESA 
consultations that would be required to address impacts to the species 
even in the absence of critical habitat. The commenters requested that 
we omit discrete areas around the intakes for three plants on the Cape 
Fear and Neuse River, but they were not specific regarding the location 
or sizes of the areas that should be excluded. The commenters also were 
not specific about their statement that the areas are not ideal habitat 
for Atlantic sturgeon, other than to say the areas do not provide 
spawning habitat. However, the commenters did not state that all of the 
other PBFs are absent from these areas. The commenters suggested that 
dredging would make the areas less than ideal habitat for sturgeon. But 
based on our experience with the effects of dredging on aquatic 
habitat, we do not believe dredging would permanently remove the PBFs 
such that the areas would not provide conservation value to sturgeon in 
the periods between dredging events. We believe that we have 
appropriately used the best scientific information available at this 
time and have selected an appropriate scale for these designations.
    Comment 112: SCDNR said that while telemetry data were not 
available above Pine Tree Landing on the Black River, South Carolina 
(Carolina Unit 6), they believed the river is extremely braided in this 
area and likely provides limited ideal habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. 
They recommended the upstream limit of designated critical habitat in 
the Black River should stop at June Burn Road, South Carolina.
    Our Response: The comment was unclear as to whether telemetry data 
were not available because no receivers capable of detecting 
acoustically tagged sturgeon had been deployed above Pine Tree Landing 
or if receivers were there, but they just had not ever detected a 
sturgeon. A review of Post et al. (2014) confirms the former. 
Regardless, we reviewed the geospatial information available around 
June Burn Road, South Carolina, and agree that the main stem of the 
Black River becomes increasingly difficult to identify in this area. We 
were able to consistently identify the main stem of the river up to 
approximately Interstate 95, upstream of which the main stem is no 
longer discernable. As a result we have modified the upstream boundary 
of the Black River (Carolina Unit 6) to be the Interstate 95 Bridge, 
approximately eight miles southwest of Turbeville, South Carolina. This 
results in a decrease of 50 rkm for this unit. Aerial imagery does not 
indicate that any hard bottom substrate is being excluded from the unit 
by changing this upstream boundary, thus the unit will still provide 
sturgeon access to the maximum upstream extent of spawning habitat, and 
the change will not affect the conservation value of the unit in 
facilitating increased survival of all life stages and facilitating 
adult reproduction and juvenile and subadult recruitment into the adult 
population. We are not projecting a decrease in impacts in this unit 
associated with the decrease in length, given the actions predicted to 
occur here and require consultation are not location-specific and could 
still occur within the modified unit boundaries.
    Comment 113: Two utility companies suggested we had not used the 
best available information when we determined there is a spawning run 
or spawning patterns of movement for the Carolina DPS of Atlantic 
sturgeon in the Santee River below Wilson Dam (or anywhere in the 
Santee) in South Carolina. They said there is no evidence of spawning 
in the Santee River, and very little evidence of YOY Atlantic sturgeon 
using the river, and those specimens that have been captured were 
thought to be pushed in from Winyah Bay, South Carolina, via the 
Intracoastal Waterway. The commenters acknowledged the Santee River 
downstream of Wilson Dam may be used for feeding and refuge, but they 
reported Post et al. (2014) do not support the conclusion that the 
Santee River supports a spawning run or a pattern of movement for 
Atlantic sturgeon, and thus does not support the inclusion of the 
Santee River as critical habitat. SCDNR questioned our assumption that 
an Atlantic sturgeon captured at the St. Stephen Fish Lift on the 
Santee River, South Carolina (Carolina Unit 7), had presumably been 
making a spawning run. They indicated the direction of travel of this 
individual animal is unknown. SCDNR said that the exit channel of the 
fish lift is monitored via three video cameras, two of which are 
underwater and one that captures images through a viewing window of the 
exit channel in the lift. They concluded that a review of the video 
footage could not determine whether the sturgeon entered the lift 
downstream of the dam or if the sturgeon entered the fish lift via the 
exit channel in Lake Moultrie.
    Our Response: We disagree. Sturgeon movement upstream in the Santee 
River has clearly been restricted due to the Santee-Cooper Navigation 
and Hydro-Electric Project, and the operational impacts of the St. 
Stephen hydropower dam have restricted sturgeon access to or ability to 
use the Santee River below Wilson Dam. But there is evidence of 
spawning migration as far as fish can move until they are deterred by 
impacts of the projects. Further, we do not find the unknown direction 
of travel of the Atlantic sturgeon captured in the St. Stephen fish 
lift to undermine our assessment that the fish was moving between the 
upstream freshwater and the downstream estuarine waters.

[[Page 39202]]

Whether the animal was trying to get above the St. Stephen Dam or had 
been above the dam and was moving downstream, either direction suggests 
spawning movement.
    Prior to the construction of the Santee-Cooper Project, the Santee 
River system supported a significant spawning population of Atlantic 
sturgeon. As described in the final listing rule (77 FR 5880; February 
6, 2012), based on Secor (2002), the Santee-Cooper system had some of 
the highest historical landings of Atlantic sturgeon in the Southeast. 
From 1970-1995, 151 subadult Atlantic sturgeon, including age-1 
juveniles, were collected from the Santee River (Collins and Smith, 
1997). In 2004, 15 subadult Atlantic sturgeon were captured in surveys 
targeting shortnose sturgeon in the Santee River estuary with a 
juvenile Atlantic YOY captured the year prior in the Santee River (77 
FR 5880; February 6, 2012). These data, considered the best scientific 
information available, provide evidence of an existing spawning 
population in the Santee River. The best scientific information 
available also indicates the PBFs essential to the conservation and 
recovery of the species occur in the Santee River, including potential 
spawning habitat in the reach of the river below Wilson Dam. Fish 
passage that is a requirement of the new hydropower license to the 
South Carolina Public Service Authority (SCPSA) will provide access to 
historical spawning grounds once passage is implemented. Thus, an 
occupied critical habitat designation is appropriate to protect the 
PBFs existing below the dams.
    Comment 114: Two utility companies suggested the designation of the 
entirety of the 165,000 acres of lakes within the Santee-Cooper system, 
South Carolina (Lake Moultrie and Lake Marion, along with the 5-mile-
long Diversion Canal that joins the reservoirs), is excessive and 
unnecessary, and this entire area is unlikely to be used by Atlantic 
sturgeon. They suggested limiting any critical habitat designation in 
the reservoirs, once occupied, to a corridor for passage, rather than 
including 165,000 acres of inferior habitat as ``critical habitat,'' 
would alleviate many of the burdens on these commenters. The commenters 
also said we had relied on the collection of a single juvenile in the 
reservoirs to ``verify'' that Lake Moultrie and Lake Marion in South 
Carolina can support successful recruitment of juvenile shortnose 
sturgeon.
    Our Response: We acknowledge, as the commenter suggests, that 
portions of these areas may not be used at all times, and possibly not 
at all. However, the collection of three Atlantic sturgeon carcasses 
from Lake Moultrie during the 1990s confirms that Atlantic sturgeon use 
the lakes at least for migration (77 FR 5880; February 6, 2012). More 
recently, an Atlantic sturgeon was documented in Lake Marion in 
December 2016; it passed from the Cooper River into Lake Marion via the 
Pinopolis Dam Lock then presumably made its way into Lake Marion via 
Lake Moultrie and the Diversion Canal (SCDNR pers com., 2017). 
Additionally, we believe the persistence of a dam-locked population of 
shortnose sturgeon, a congeneric, in these reservoirs (Collins et al., 
2003), indicates appropriate habitat for Atlantic sturgeon is present. 
However, as stated previously, we have chosen to exercise our 
discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and exclude the unoccupied 
units of critical habitat including Lake Moultrie and Lake Marion.
    Comment 115: Two utility companies stated that we should consider 
whether designating Lake Moultrie and Lake Marion in South Carolina as 
``unoccupied'' critical habitat would preclude any options for fish 
passage and protection at the Santee-Cooper Project.
    Our Response: As part of the re-licensing process for the Santee-
Cooper Project, we prescribed fish passage at both the Wilson and 
Pinopolis Dams. The Federal Power Act (FPA) requires FERC to make fish 
passage prescriptions mandatory conditions of licenses. We are 
currently in section 7 consultation with FERC regarding the re-
licensing of the Santee-Cooper Project, and that consultation must 
treat the fish passage prescription as part of the proposed action. 
Thus, nothing about this rulemaking will affect the fish passage 
prescription. Regardless, as we stated previously, we have chosen to 
exercise our discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and exclude 
the unoccupied units of critical habitat including Lake Moultrie and 
Lake Marion.
    Comment 116: Several commenters questioned our conclusion that 
there is ``a good deal of data'' on sturgeon spawning in the Broad, 
Congaree, and Wateree Rivers in South Carolina. Other commenters, 
including SCDNR, questioned our decision to use shortnose sturgeon 
behavior or likely habitat preferences as a proxy for Atlantic sturgeon 
when designating critical habitat. We also received comments from SCDNR 
indicating the only documented shortnose sturgeon spawning was in the 
Congaree River and none has been documented in the Wateree or Broad 
Rivers. The commenters stated the evidence we used to support 
designating unoccupied habitat above the Wilson and Pinopolis Dams in 
South Carolina as suitable spawning habitat and juvenile habitat for 
Atlantic sturgeon was based on extremely limited evidence and 
conjecture. Specifically, they felt we overemphasized the value of the 
Wateree River as spawning habitat, and inappropriately used information 
related to shortnose sturgeon spawning in the Congaree River, South 
Carolina, to assume that the conditions in the Wateree River support 
spawning of Atlantic sturgeon.
    Our Response: We used the best scientific information available 
(e.g., Collins et al., 2003; Cooke and Leach, 2003; Leach and Cooke, 
2006; Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team, 2010; conversations with 
South Carolina state biologists) on habitat preferences and spawning 
behaviors of shortnose sturgeon to inform our conclusions regarding 
available spawning habitat and activity in the Broad, Congaree, and 
Wateree Rivers in South Carolina. We did not mean to suggest there is a 
good deal of information on spawning per se, but we included spawning 
type activity and behavior in our assessment. Additionally, because the 
likely spawning habitats for shortnose sturgeon (Dadswell, 1979; 
Squires et al., 1993; Kieffer and Kynard, 2011) and Atlantic sturgeon 
are the same or highly similar (Gilbert, 1989; Smith and Clugston, 
1997), we believe it is appropriate to use information available from 
the shortnose sturgeon to identify Atlantic sturgeon habitat. We 
acknowledge there is limited information on actual spawning by Atlantic 
and shortnose sturgeon in the Broad, Congaree, and Wateree Rivers. We 
also acknowledge the exact location of spawning sites on many rivers in 
the Southeast is not known and even when known generally, may change 
from time to time as water depth and substrate availability changes. 
However, aerial imagery confirms the presence of hard bottom habitat in 
the Wateree River, and in our biological opinion for the relicensing of 
the Catawba-Wateree project (NMFS, 2013), we concluded that given the 
fish passage requirements at the Santee-Cooper project, Atlantic and 
shortnose sturgeon presence in the Wateree River below the Wateree Dam 
is reasonably certain to occur. Suitable spawning habitat has been 
documented in several locations below the Wateree Dam. The flow 
releases required under the new license were specifically based, in 
part, on providing more extensive and better quality spawning habitat 
for

[[Page 39203]]

sturgeon. Duke Energy is required to quantify and map spawning habitat 
available to sturgeon below the Wateree Dam, with implementation of the 
new flows, as a term and condition of the biological opinion.
    Additionally, in March 2011, SCDNR captured 19 adult shortnose 
sturgeon in the tailrace of the Pinopolis Dam and tagged 18 with 
acoustic telemetry tags and released them; the other fish had been 
tagged previously. Two of the tagged shortnose sturgeon moved through 
Pinopolis Lock, through Lakes Marion and Moultrie, and both fish 
entered the Wateree River. One shortnose sturgeon was recorded on the 
receiver at the Wateree Tailrace (approximately \1/4\ mile [0.4 km] 
downstream from the Wateree Dam) on both March 16 and 18, 2011, and 
spent 8 days in the Wateree River. The other was recorded within 4 
miles (6.4 km) of the Wateree Dam, and spent 14 days in the Wateree 
River (NMFS, 2013). This movement is indicative of attempted spawning 
behavior. Because we have evidence that shortnose sturgeon released 
near the Pinopolis Dam have moved up to this spawning habitat below the 
Wateree Dam, we believe Atlantic sturgeon in the future will also use 
that existing spawning habitat.
    There is little information on sturgeon movement in the Congaree 
River and Broad River. However, biological information was available 
for us to prescribe sturgeon passage when relicensing the Columbia 
Hydropower Project in 2002 given: (1) The 1.758 acres (7,115 square 
meters) of shoal habitats that exist above the project, and (2) the 
Broad River was likely an important spawning habitat for sturgeons 
(DOC, 2002).
    However, as stated previously, we have decided to exercise our 
discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and exclude these 
unoccupied areas from the designation.
    Comment 117: One commenter stated that, based on the assumption 
that Atlantic sturgeon spawning habitat requirements are likely similar 
to shortnose sturgeon and because shortnose sturgeon are known to spawn 
in the Congaree River, South Carolina, downstream of the Interstate 77 
bridge, Atlantic sturgeon would likely use spawning habitat in the 
Congaree River below Interstate 77 as well. Thus, the commenter 
suggested there is sufficient spawning habitat in the Congaree already, 
and the Broad River above the Columbia Dam should not be considered 
essential to the conservation of the species.
    Our Response: As stated previously, we have chosen to exercise our 
discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and exclude the unoccupied 
units of critical habitat. Therefore, the areas on the Congaree and 
Broad rivers are not included in the designation.
    Comment 118: One commenter noted that the biological opinion for 
the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project requires Duke Energy 
Carolinas (NMFS, 2013) to quantify and map potential spawning habitat 
under the new flow regime approved in the project license from the 
Wateree Dam to the confluence with the Congaree River. The commenter 
suggested we delay designating critical habitat in this reach until 
Atlantic sturgeon are present and the information required by the 
biological opinion has been developed.
    Our Response: We agree that the information collected during this 
study will likely provide additional scientific data that will be 
useful in determining more precisely the location, timing, etc., of the 
spawning habitat. Also, as stated previously, we have chosen to 
exercise our discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and exclude 
these unoccupied areas from the critical habitat designation.
    Comment 119: Several commenters asserted that we should not 
designate the Broad River in South Carolina upstream of the Columbia 
Dam as unoccupied critical habitat because the dam is at the fall line 
and we said animals do not go above the fall line.
    Our Response: The commenter is correct, generally, in that we do 
believe Atlantic sturgeon cannot pass dams or natural features such as 
waterfalls and rapids found at the fall line of rivers. However, the 
geology of the southeastern United States is such that in some cases 
the fall line is not as pronounced as other areas within the range of 
the species. We clarified in this final rule where these conditions led 
to an upstream boundary above the fall line. On the Broad River, we 
believe the fall line likely did not act as an impediment to sturgeon 
migration historically. Rather, only manmade features (e.g., dams) are 
likely blocking access to the historical spawning grounds on this 
river. However, as stated previously, we have chosen to exercise our 
discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and exclude the unoccupied 
units of critical habitat.
    Comment 120: Two utility companies asserted the information in the 
proposed rule was insufficient to conclude that the failure to 
designate the ``unoccupied'' reaches of the Santee and Wateree Rivers 
in South Carolina as critical habitat will result in the extinction of 
the species. Similarly, another commenter said not only had we ``failed 
to demonstrate why the proposed unoccupied critical habitat areas are 
essential to the conservation of the species,'' but we also ``failed to 
demonstrate why the proposed occupied habitat is inadequate to ensure 
the conservation of the species.''
    Our Response: These commenters have applied the wrong standards for 
unoccupied critical habitat: That unoccupied critical habitat can only 
be designated if omitting the area will result in the extinction of the 
species, and that designating unoccupied critical habitat may only 
occur after first determining that occupied habitat is inadequate to 
support conservation. ESA section 3(5)(A) defines critical habitat as: 
The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or 
biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species 
and (b) which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and any specific areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination 
by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species. The ESA imposes no requirement that we must determine the 
species will go extinct without unoccupied critical habitat. Similarly, 
there is no step-wise requirement that we first determine occupied 
critical habitat is somehow insufficient before designating unoccupied 
critical habitat. Admittedly, our previous regulations had incorporated 
such an approach. However, NMFS and the USFWS (the Services) concluded 
that a rigid step-wise approach does not necessarily serve the best 
conservation strategy for species. Regardless, we have chosen to 
exercise our discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and exclude 
the unoccupied units of critical habitat.
    Comment 121: The Department of the Navy stated that the Final Joint 
Base Charleston (JBC) INRMP demonstrates a conservation benefit to 
Atlantic sturgeon and requested critical habitat not be designated in 
those areas of the Cooper River, South Carolina (Carolina Unit 7), 
adjacent to JBC properties pursuant to ESA section 4(a)(3)(B).
    Our Response: We appreciate the Navy developing an INRMP that 
includes benefits to Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon. We reviewed the 
information provided during the comment period and agree the INRMP 
demonstrates an applicable conservation benefit, as defined in our 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(h). Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA 
states that we may not designate as critical habitat any

[[Page 39204]]

lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the DOD, or 
designated for its use, that are subject to an INRMP prepared under 
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary 
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species 
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation. The ESA further 
states that this provision does not affect the requirement to consult 
under section 7(a)(2), nor does it affect the obligation of the DOD to 
comply with section 9. We have provided our detailed evaluation of the 
JBC INRMP and how it meets our regulatory requirements in the 
Application of ESA Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) (Military Lands) section of 
this final rule.
    Comment 122: The Navy stated that designation of critical habitat 
in Carolina Unit 3 would affect its ability to conduct training 
exercises at the Lower Neuse River Small Boat Training Area in North 
Carolina, forcing units to travel to Norfolk, Virginia, or Camp 
Lejeune, North Carolina, which increases costs and reduces time for 
training. They stated this would ultimately cause adverse impacts to 
national security.
    Our Response: Based on the information provided by the Navy, we 
could not determine the route of effect (i.e., the aspect of the action 
that could cause direct or indirect impacts on critical habitat) the 
training exercises would have on any of the PBFs. Therefore, we do not 
believe that the designation of critical habitat will require 
consultation under the ESA, and thus, there will be no impact to this 
training or to national security from this designation.
South Atlantic Unit Rivers
    Comment 123: SCDNR and another commenter stated the upstream limits 
of the Edisto River (South Atlantic Unit 1) should be moved downstream 
to U.S. Hwy 301. They believed this is appropriate based on telemetry 
data from 2010-2016 that showed 84 Atlantic sturgeon tagged in the 
Edisto River did not pass above this area. Similarly, SCDNR said the 
upstream limits of the Combahee-Salkehatchie River unit (South Atlantic 
Unit 2) should be moved downstream to U.S. Hwy 21, because they 
believed the telemetry data from 2010-2014 showed five Atlantic 
sturgeon tagged in the Combahee River did not pass above this area.
    Our Response: It is quite possible no acoustically tagged Atlantic 
sturgeon have been detected above U.S. Hwy 301. An illustration of 
acoustic receivers on the Edisto River in Post et al. (2014) shows no 
receivers even reach to U.S. Hwy 301 on the North Fork of the Edisto 
River. The same illustration does show four receivers at or above U.S. 
Hwy 301 on the South Fork of the Edisto River. Based on this 
information, we do not believe a lack of detections on the Edisto above 
U.S. Hwy 301 is entirely surprising, nor indicative that our upstream 
boundary is incorrect. Moreover, we determine critical habitat 
boundaries based on areas where PBF(s) essential to conservation of the 
species are located, not necessarily where individual animals have been 
documented. Our data indicate historical spawning likely occurred 
upstream of U.S. Hwy 301 and suitable spawning substrate likely exists 
near the fall line in both the North and South Forks of the Edisto 
River. The commenter provided no information suggesting the PBFs are 
absent above U.S. Hwy 301. For these reasons, we believe our upstream 
boundary for the Edisto River is appropriate.
    For similar reasons, we believe our upstream boundary on the 
Combahee-Salkehatchie River is correct. Post et al. (2014) reports 
there are no acoustic receivers above Interstate 95, approximately two 
miles (3.2 km) (upstream from U.S. Hwy 21). Given the lack of receivers 
farther upstream, it is not possible to validate the commenter's 
assertion that sturgeon do not pass U.S. Hwy 21. Additionally, the 
commenter provided no information contradicting our determination that 
the PBFs extend above U.S. Hwy 21. For these reasons, we believe our 
upstream boundary for the Combahee-Salkehatchie River is appropriate.
    Comment 124: SCDNR suggested that while it was possible two 
individual Atlantic sturgeon successfully passed through the NSBL&D on 
the Savannah River at the Georgia/South Carolina border in 2011, they 
believed these incidental successes are rare and inconsistent with the 
fishway description in section 18 of the FPA and the ruling found in 
section 1701(b) of the National Energy Policy Act that indicate a 
fishway should be safe, timely, and effective for all life stages of 
such fish. As a result, the commenter recommended that the upper extent 
of the critical habitat designation on the Savannah River should be 
limited to ``occupied'' habitat ending at the NSBL&D. Additionally, one 
commenter suggested the area upstream of the NSBL&D should not be 
considered essential to the conservation of the species because they 
believed Atlantic sturgeon spawn downstream of NSBL&D between rkm 213 
and rkm 301 (Post et al., 2014; Collins and Smith, 1997). This 
commenter concluded that if Atlantic sturgeon are able to spawn and 
produce larvae downstream of NSBL&D, then habitat upstream of the dam 
should not be considered essential to the conservation of the species.
    Our Response: As we discussed in the proposed rule, sturgeon are 
currently frequently seen at the base of the NSBL&D during spawning 
season, indicating either crowding below the dam or individual 
motivation to spawn farther upriver, or both. Regardless, as stated 
previously, we have chosen to exercise our discretion under section 
4(b)(2) of the ESA and exclude the unoccupied units of critical 
habitat.
    Comment 125: One commenter pointed out that the proposed rule 
states Atlantic sturgeon typically cannot pass dams or natural features 
such as waterfalls and rapids found at the fall line of rivers. Based 
on this statement, they asserted that if any area upstream of NSBL&D 
becomes accessible to Atlantic sturgeon, then the fall line near the 
Interstate 20 Bridge should be considered the upstream limit of 
Atlantic sturgeon spawning habitat. The commenter concluded that unless 
the best available information indicates that some other landmark 
should be used, the fall line should be considered the upper limit of 
spawning habitat.
    Our Response: As we explained in the proposed rule, our objective 
was to include the farthest upstream extent of spawning habitat 
essential features within critical habitat unit boundaries. Generally, 
Atlantic sturgeon cannot pass dams or natural features such as 
waterfalls and rapids found at the fall line of rivers. However, the 
geology of the southeastern United States is such that in some cases 
the fall line is not as pronounced as in other areas within the range 
of the species and suitable spawning habitat for sturgeon is present 
above this zone, and we have clarified this reasoning in this final 
rule. On the Savannah River, we believe the fall line is not likely to 
act as an impediment to sturgeon migration. Rather, only manmade 
features (e.g., dams) are likely blocking access to historical spawning 
grounds. We believe once above NSBL&D, Atlantic sturgeon will be able 
to continue upstream until the next manmade impediment (i.e., Augusta 
Diversion Dam). Aerial imagery confirms there are large areas of hard 
bottom substrate above the Interstate 20 Bridge and at the base of the 
Augusta Diversion Dam. Once sturgeon gain access to this area in the 
future, it will likely provide spawning habitat. However, as stated 
previously, we do not believe the benefits of designating this area as 
unoccupied critical habitat

[[Page 39205]]

at this time will outweigh the benefits of excluding this area from the 
designation. Thus, we have chosen to exercise our discretion under 
section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and exclude this area of unoccupied critical 
habitat.
    Comment 126: The Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) 
had objections to our upstream boundary on the Ogeechee River, Georgia. 
They said that the river becomes very shallow and impassable by boats 
during droughts and low flow periods, and it is possible that sturgeon 
move upstream of Louisville, Georgia, but only during high flow years. 
Further, they said they had documented some limited rocky habitat 
upstream of the U.S. 1 Bridge in Louisville. The commenter also 
reported two potential physical impediments to sturgeon passage, 
upstream of State Road 88, at a steep shoal at Shoals, Georgia, 
(33.253671 degrees lat., -82.756736 degrees long.) where flows do not 
create 1.2 m depths at any point in the channel and at Mayfield Mill 
Dam, which is not passable by sturgeon (33.364799 degrees lat., -
82.805872 degrees long.). They requested we consider revising the 
upstream boundary to the crossing at State Road 88 near Davisboro, 
Georgia.
    Our Response: After reviewing the information provided by the 
commenter, we agree that our upstream boundary should be adjusted 
downstream by 28 rkm for South Atlantic Unit 4 (Ogeechee River) to the 
base of the Mayfield Mill Dam (33.364799 degrees lat., -82.805872 
degrees long.), north of Mayfield, Georgia. We confirmed the dam is 
likely to be an impediment to upstream movement of Atlantic sturgeon 
and fish passage at the dam is not foreseeable. The commenter suggested 
the shoals at Shoals, Georgia, could act as an impediment to Atlantic 
sturgeon passage under certain flow conditions; these shoals are 
located at the fall line. While potentially an impediment, we believe 
passage could occur during higher flow conditions. Conversely, the 
Mayfield Mill Dam is impassable and likely represents the extent of 
upstream spawning habitat on the Ogeechee River. For these reasons, we 
do not believe Atlantic sturgeon can access habitat above the dam now, 
or in the foreseeable future. Moreover, the fall line and associated 
spawning habitat is about 20 rkm downstream of the Mayfield Mill Dam 
and thus, excluding areas above the dam from critical habitat will not 
affect our conservation objective for this unit. The commenter 
suggested we move our upstream boundary to the crossing at State Road 
88 near Davisboro, Georgia. However, we could not clearly identify what 
information they based that suggestion upon. In the absence of clear 
information suggesting that would be the appropriate boundary, we chose 
the Mayfield Mill Dam as our revised upstream boundary. Based on this 
information, we have modified the location of the upstream extent of 
South Atlantic Unit 4 (Ogeechee River). We are not projecting a 
decrease in impacts in this unit associated with decreasing the length 
of the unit; given that the activities we predict will occur and 
require consultation are not location-specific, they could still occur 
within the modified unit boundaries.
    Comment 127: The GADNR also suggested including the lower Canoochee 
River, Georgia, up to the confluence of Canoochee Creek at Fort 
Stewart, Georgia, as critical habitat. The commenter suggested this 
area because of its large size (``medium-main stem river''), because 
adult Atlantic sturgeon have been observed in the Canoochee River, and 
juvenile Atlantic sturgeon have been observed downstream in the 
Ogeechee River. They stated they believe the Canoochee River has 
sufficient depth for movement of adult Atlantic sturgeon.
    Our Response: We reviewed the information provided by the 
commenter. We also conferred with state resource agency staff and 
academic researchers to evaluate the addition of the Canoochee River as 
critical habitat. We followed the same process in assessing the 
designation of the Canoochee River as we did with other rivers. To be 
considered critical habitat, the Canoochee River needed to have 
information supporting one or more of the following: (1) Capture 
location and/or tracking locations of Atlantic sturgeon identified to 
its DPS by genetic analysis; (2) capture location and/or tracking 
locations of adult Atlantic sturgeon identified to its DPS based on the 
presence of a tag that was applied when the sturgeon was captured as a 
juvenile in its natal estuary; (3) capture or detection location of 
adults in spawning condition (i.e., extruding eggs or milt) or post-
spawning condition (e.g., concave abdomen for females); (4) capture or 
detection of YOY and other juvenile age classes; and (5) collection of 
eggs or larvae. While the information reviewed and opinions expressed 
by experts suggested that Atlantic sturgeon may use the Canoochee 
River, none of these necessary criteria were met for the Canoochee 
River. Thus, we did not consider it as having met our criteria for a 
spawning river or for designation as critical habitat.
    Comment 128: The GADNR suggested the upstream extents of the 
Ogeechee, Satilla, and St. Marys Rivers proposed for designation in 
Georgia were inappropriate because they likely do not contain hard 
bottom substrate and/or water of appropriate depth that is free of 
barriers. They referred to a river classification framework developed 
by the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership that classified rivers 
(from smallest to largest) based on upstream drainage and/or mean 
annual flow as: Headwaters, Creeks, Small Rivers, Medium Tributary 
Rivers, Medium Mainstem Rivers, Large Rivers and Great Rivers (http://southeastaquatics.net/sarps-programs/sifn/instream-flow-resources/river-classification-framework-2). GADNR stated waterbody size is 
correlated with river depths and can help approximate the distribution 
of potential spawning habitat, which occurs ``below the fall line of 
large rivers'' as described in the proposed rule. They added that the 
smallest water body size that Atlantic sturgeon are known to spawn in 
and migrate through in Georgia is the ``medium-main stem river'' 
category in the upper Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers in Georgia. The 
commenter indicated some of the upstream reaches we proposed for 
designation in the Ogeechee and Satilla Rivers in Georgia, and St. 
Marys Rivers, Florida, are categorized as ``small rivers,'' which is 
two categories smaller than ``medium-main stem river.'' The commenter 
suggested the appropriate boundary for the St. Marys River, Florida, 
should be the confluence with Boone Creek, approximately 5 miles (8 km) 
north-northeast of St. George, Georgia. The commenter recommended we 
change the upstream boundary of the Satilla River, Georgia, to the 
confluence with Hog Creek, approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) east of Talmo, 
Georgia.
    Our Response: Our use of ``large'' rivers in the proposed rule was 
not intended to imply a specific classification system. It was meant 
more colloquially as a way to differentiate the main stem of 
significant coastal rivers from their smaller tributaries. Our 
determinations are based on the likelihood that one or more PBFs are 
present, not on a specific river classification system. GADNR did not 
provide any site-specific information that the PBFs are not present in 
these areas, and therefore we are not changing the upstream boundaries 
on these rivers.
    Comment 129: One commenter supported our designation of occupied 
and unoccupied critical habitat. However, they requested we consider 
regional datasets including the: Southeastern Aquatic Connectivity

[[Page 39206]]

Assessment Project, the National Fish Habitat Partnership (NFHAP) 
database (Crawford et al., 2016), the Multistate Aquatic Resources 
Information System (MARIS http://www.marisdata.org/), and the North 
Carolina Museum Collection data (http://collections.naturalsciences.org/). They also asked us to consider 
additional literature sources including Martin et al. (2014), ASMFC 
(2004), and Esselman et al. (2013), which they believe support the 
inclusion of the Satilla River, Georgia, up to its headwater above 
Route 32 in Georgia.
    Our Response: We evaluated the regional datasets and literature 
sources suggested by the commenter. While the commenter suggested we 
review ASMFC (2004) and Esselman et al. (2013), they did not provide 
the citation for these references; thus, we could not review those 
documents. Generally, we found the regional datasets the commenter 
suggested either referred to species occurrence information (i.e., 
North Carolina Museum Collection) or wide-ranging subject matter (i.e., 
MARIS). Both NFHP and Martin et al. (2014) provided information 
focusing on disturbances such as urban land use, dams, crop land use, 
and impervious surface cover, but neither discuss the proposed PBFs 
specifically. None of the references provided information indicating 
the PBFs occur anywhere outside our current designation. The best 
available information from U.S. Geological Survey (http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/) shows the main stem of the Satilla 
River runs out well before the fall line. Thus, we believe the upstream 
extent of spawning habitat in the river is at the confluence of the 
Satilla and Wiggins Creeks approximately 2 miles (3.2 km) north of the 
State Route 158 in Georgia, and that the proposed boundaries for 
critical habitat on the Satilla River are appropriate.
    Comment 130: Two commenters suggested our decision not to designate 
inaccessible parts of the St. Johns River, Florida, is inconsistent 
with our treatment of other rivers that we designated based on the 
existence of historical spawning habitat being temporarily blocked by 
dams, including on the Cape Fear River, North Carolina, the Broad and 
Wateree Rivers in South Carolina, and the Savannah River at the 
Georgia/South Carolina border.
    In requesting that we designate the St. Johns River, Florida as 
critical habitat, the commenters contend: (1) The St. Johns River may 
have historically had a subpopulation of Atlantic sturgeon; (2) 
freshwater spawning and rearing habitats are available in the Ocklawaha 
River, a tributary to the St. Johns River; and (3) spawning habitat 
exists above the Kirkpatrick Dam on the St. Johns River, which would 
become accessible if the dam were breached or removed. To this latter 
point, the commenters provided a letter from the U.S. Forest Service 
indicating the removal of the dam infrastructure and restoration of the 
Ocklawaha River would result in substantial downstream and upstream 
benefits. The commenters indicated that while they could not predict 
exactly when the Ocklawaha River would be accessible to Atlantic 
sturgeon, the U.S. Forest Service's support for the removal of the dam 
and restoration of the river creates a reasonable assumption that the 
Kirkpatrick Dam will be ``passable in the future.'' Further, they 
suggested designating the area as critical habitat may hasten the 
restoration of the river to its natural course.
    The same commenters also stated the South Atlantic DPS is 
endangered with only nine rivers listed to produce juveniles over the 
entire DPS range but listing a tenth (the St. Johns) river would add 
another river with the potential to produce juveniles in the DPS. They 
also suggest colonizing juveniles (and adults) are available from the 
Altamaha River, which is within easy swimming range (about 200 miles; 
321 km) from the St. Johns River. Finally, they indicated that fish in 
the southernmost rivers in the species' range will likely have 
adaptations important for the entire range of subpopulations in the DPS 
during the future period of climate warming. They stated, 
``Subpopulations in the South Atlantic can share genetic adaptations 
within their DPS and with more northerly DPS during spawning to more 
quickly adapt the species to a changing environment.''
    Our Response: Based on available information, the St. Johns River 
does not meet the criteria we established for inclusion of rivers in 
this critical habitat designation, outlined in our response to Comment 
127. We found historical and/or current information indicating Atlantic 
sturgeon are using the Cape Fear River, North Carolina, the Santee-
Cooper System in South Carolina, and the Savannah River at the Georgia/
South Carolina border to spawn. In contrast, we could find no such 
information for the St. Johns River, Florida, and the commenters did 
not provide any new information. Thus, the St. Johns River does not 
meet the criteria to be considered critical habitat for Atlantic 
sturgeon.

Comments on Impacts Analysis

    Comment 131: An industry trade group pointed to our determinations 
that the majority of the section 7 consultation costs would already be 
incurred based on the listing of the Atlantic sturgeon itself and that 
``[i]t is extremely unlikely that [project] modifications that would be 
required to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat would not also be required because of adverse effects to the 
species.'' They wondered, if there are no categories of permits or 
other Federal activities that would be impacted solely or even 
primarily by consultation over impacts to designated critical habitat 
(rather than impacts to the listed species), what is the purpose of 
designating critical habitat? They went on to state that if designation 
of critical habitat is ``not prudent,'' we should not make such a 
designation.
    Our Response: See response to Comment 49.
    Comment 132: An industry trade group suggested we had failed to 
perform the requisite analysis of whether certain areas should be 
excluded. They believe that to comply with our statutory mandate to 
consider whether the benefits of excluding areas from the critical 
habitat designation outweigh the benefits of designation, we must 
provide some specific analysis of the conservation benefits derived 
from designating specific areas compared to the economic costs of 
designating those areas. They indicated we made no attempt to carve out 
less valuable areas based on economic, national security, or other 
relevant impacts. They claimed our analysis is cursory and grossly 
inadequate because we do not evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the economic costs of designation for particular areas that 
will be designated (aside from areas of concern to the Navy).
    Our Response: The commenters' argument misstates the requirements 
of the ESA. The ESA does not require the use of any particular 
methodology in the consideration of impacts. The ESA also does not 
require that we carve out ``less valuable'' areas of critical habitat. 
However, section 4(b)(2) of the ESA provides that the Secretary may 
exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines that the 
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such 
area as part of the critical habitat. This is true unless he 
determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, 
that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result 
in the extinction of the species concerned. The legislative

[[Page 39207]]

history regarding section 4(b)(2) exclusion analyses suggests that the 
consideration and weight given to impacts is within the Secretary's 
discretion (H.R. 95-1625) and the Secretary is not required to give 
economic or any other `relevant impact' predominant consideration in 
his specification of critical habitat. In our proposed rule, we 
explained our preliminary determination that we would not exercise our 
discretion to consider exclusions. However, based on input received 
during the public review process, we determined that conducting a 
discretionary exclusion analysis for areas of unoccupied habitat within 
the range of the Carolina and South Atlantic DPS was warranted (given 
that occupied units are currently used by Atlantic sturgeon for 
reproduction and recruitment, and due to the severely depressed levels 
of all river populations, occupied units are far too valuable to both 
the conservation and the continuing survival of Atlantic sturgeon to be 
considered for exclusion).
    Based on that analysis, we have elected to exclude the Santee-
Cooper river system (CU1) and Savannah River (SAU1) unoccupied units of 
critical habitat. We determined the benefits of exclusion (that is, 
avoiding some or all of the impacts that would result from designation) 
outweigh the benefits of designation.
    Comment 133: Several commenters suggested our DIA was incomplete 
and largely ignored the costs to permittees associated with ESA 
consultation. They also believed the DIA underestimated the costs 
associated with implementing and maintaining changes to facilities and 
operations required to prevent destruction or degradation of critical 
habitat. The commenters suggested instead that the DIA focused on the 
administrative costs to NMFS created by the designation while 
underestimating the costs incurred by the regulated community and by 
responsible state agencies. Specifically, one commenter estimated 
additional costs of $10,000 to $70,000 (related to preparing for and 
holding stakeholder meetings, developing and executing field studies, 
etc.) would be incurred during the hydropower relicensing process if 
the proposed designation were adopted without changes.
    Our Response: We do not believe the DIA underestimated the 
potential costs to state agencies, permittees, or other members of the 
regulated communities. Economic impacts of the critical habitat 
designation result through implementation of section 7 of the ESA in 
consultations with Federal agencies to ensure their proposed actions 
are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. These 
economic impacts may include both administrative and project 
modification costs. As stated previously, we examined the ESA section 7 
consultation record over the last 10 years to identify the types of 
Federal activities that may adversely affect proposed Atlantic sturgeon 
critical habitat. In addition, we contacted Federal agencies that 
conduct, permit or fund activities in the areas covered by critical 
habitat and asked them whether our assessment of the types and numbers 
of activities likely to require consultation over the next 10 years 
appeared accurate. The only agency that identified specific actions 
that we should add to our analysis was EPA, and we have added 
consultations on approval of state water quality standards to the 
Impacts Analysis.
    In terms of costs to permittees, we took a conservative approach in 
estimating that each type of Federal action that could involve a third-
party permittee, would actually involve a permittee in the future, and 
included estimated administrative costs for those entities in our 
analysis (see IA, Section 3.3.1).
    Our review determined no category of future Federal action would 
have routes of effects solely to the PBF(s) of critical habitat and not 
also have potential routes of adverse effects to Atlantic and/or 
shortnose sturgeon. However, in the case of USACE issuance of permits 
under section 404 of the CWA or section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 
Act (RHA), we conservatively estimated that every one of these future 
actions would result in incremental impacts because these types of 
actions could in theory be implemented while migratory sturgeon are not 
present in a project's action area. Regarding the specific types of 
costs mentioned by the commenter, it is not clear that these costs 
would be attributable incrementally to the ESA, and would not instead 
be a baseline requirement of the FPA that governs the re-licensing 
process. If the types of activities are identified by FERC as required 
to comply with the ESA, it is likely that these studies and meetings 
would address potential impacts to both sturgeon and critical habitat, 
and as such these costs are part of the baseline requirement to consult 
to evaluate potential impacts to these species. Thus, we do not agree 
that designation of critical habitat would create the additional, 
incremental costs suggested by the commenter.
    Comment 134: Two utility companies believed we grossly 
underestimated both the economic cost and the administrative burden 
that will be caused by designation of the unoccupied reaches of the 
Santee River, Lake Moultrie, Lake Marion and, to a lesser extent, the 
Wateree River in South Carolina. The commenters stated Santee Cooper 
and Duke Energy Carolinas are responsible for administering FERC 
licenses for their respective projects. They indicated all FERC 
licenses include a standard land use article that allows licensees to 
authorize certain types of use and occupancy of project lands and 
waters. This standard land use article also allows licensees to grant 
easements, rights-of-way, or leases of project lands and waters for a 
number of activities. The standard land use article also allows for 
more significant types of use and occupancy on project lands or waters 
if 60-day prior notice is provided to FERC. The commenters stated the 
proposed rule is unclear on whether FERC and the licensee are protected 
by any incidental take statement included in the licensee's biological 
opinion issued for the relicensing of the projects or whether section 7 
consultation under the ESA is required for each discrete activity. The 
commenter suggested that if the latter is the case, then licensees and 
their designees will be required to prepare the equivalent of a 
biological assessment to submit a 60-day prior notice to FERC for each 
of the prior notice activities contemplated by the standard land use 
article that could affect critical habitat, and FERC will be required 
to assess the impacts and determine if consultation with us is 
warranted within this time period. The commenters indicated they 
believe this could include hundreds of activities over a license term. 
At a minimum, the commenters request that we clarify that an incidental 
take statement, issued as part of the FERC licensing process, covers 
all activities authorized or required pursuant to the FERC license, 
including activities conducted pursuant to the standard land use 
article, maintenance activities, and installation of required fish 
passage. Otherwise, the commenters suggested we must analyze the burden 
on licensees and agencies in our DIA.
    Our Response: Incidental take statements included in biological 
opinions issued at the conclusion of a formal ESA section 7 
consultation pertain to the incidental taking of threatened or 
endangered species, not for impacts to critical habitat. In any event, 
when we consult on FERC's proposed issuance of a hydropower license, 
the incidental take contemplated should include any take associated 
with the activities the commenter describes, if FERC or the

[[Page 39208]]

applicant have identified those types of activities as part of the 
scope of the action being consulted on. FERC will need to determine 
whether reinitiation of consultation is required for any biological 
opinions we have issued, based on determining whether the ongoing 
action may affect newly-designated critical habitat. Because 
consultations on a listed species must also evaluate impacts to their 
habitat, whether designated as critical habitat or not, most or all 
biological opinions issued may evaluate impacts to habitat features now 
being included in the critical habitat designation. To be conservative, 
in our Impacts Analysis we assumed reinitiation would be required on 
FERC actions. During any reinitiated consultation that they request, 
FERC should include the standard land use article that allows licensees 
to authorize certain types of use and occupancy of project lands and 
waters as part of the Federal action, in which case any impacts from 
activities under the article over the term of the license would be 
analyzed under the associated biological opinion and would not require 
separate consultation. However, as stated previously, we have chosen to 
exercise our discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and exclude 
the unoccupied reaches of the Santee River, Lake Moultrie, Lake Marion 
and the Wateree River from the designation.
    Comment 135: Two commenters suggested the benefits we describe as 
likely to occur with the proposed designation of ``Carolina Unoccupied 
Unit 2'' as critical habitat (e.g., conservation benefit of species 
recovery, ecosystem health benefits, ecosystem service benefits, use 
benefits such as commercial and recreational fishing of sturgeon and 
tourism) are ``illusory or likely will not accrue for some time into 
the future'' because Atlantic sturgeon are not currently present in the 
``unoccupied'' reaches of the Wateree and Santee Rivers in South 
Carolina, and the reservoirs. They further stated many of the ecosystem 
health and service benefits we identified are already being provided as 
a result of the requirements of other Federal licenses or state/Federal 
permit authorizations. They claimed designation would impose 
considerable economic, administrative, and other burdens on industry 
and resource agencies. Thus, they believed we should determine that the 
benefits of excluding ``Carolina Unoccupied Unit 2'' far outweigh any 
minor, incremental benefits associated with designation of these areas.
    Our Response: When we designate critical habitat we must evaluate 
the impacts of that designation, both positive (benefits) and negative 
(costs), whether or not the benefits are immediately realized. We are 
not required to determine that benefits, or positive impacts, of 
designation will be significant or accrue over any particular 
timeframe; however, if we determine it is appropriate to conduct an 
exclusion analysis on some or all areas of a designation, it is our 
general practice to exclude areas under section 4(b)2 when the benefits 
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. Following our 
consideration of the costs and benefits of designating unoccupied 
critical habitat, we have chosen to exercise our discretion under 
section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and exclude those areas, which includes 
Carolina Unoccupied Unit 2.
    Comment 136: The USACE suggested our DIA does not adequately 
address the potential increase in informal consultations. They said the 
DIA concluded most of the projects considered under General Permits 
(Nationwide/Regional/Programmatic) issued by the USACE are very small-
scale, and the impacts to listed species and designated critical 
habitat from these types of projects have already been considered under 
programmatic biological opinions. As a result, future projects will 
generally not require individual section 7 consultation. The commenter 
stated that this assumption is not true for every USACE District; not 
all Districts have programmatic biological opinions in place. They 
stated the USACE makes effects determinations based on the effect the 
activity would have on the species and/or critical habitat, not on the 
type of authorization. Thus, they seemed to indicate some future 
projects in proposed critical habitat would not have required 
consultation for potential effects to Atlantic sturgeon, but would now 
require consultation to consider potential effects to Atlantic sturgeon 
critical habitat. They suggested our estimate of 20 CWA section 404/RHA 
section 10 projects permitting construction or dredge and fill in 
proposed Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat in the DIA is an 
underestimate. They claimed their information suggests the new 
designation would lead to at least 20 additional consultations per year 
in the USACE's Savannah District and at least 17 in the Wilmington, 
North Carolina, and Charleston, South Carolina Districts per year, or 
370 new consultations over a 10-year period across those 3 districts.
    Our Response: We used the best scientific information available 
when determining the likely future section 7 consultations for Federal 
actions in critical habitat. As noted previously, we queried PCTS, 
going back 10 years, to identify relevant consultations that occurred 
in each of the proposed critical habitat areas or units that, if 
implemented in the future, could affect one or more of the proposed 
PBF(s), or could affect both the critical habitat and Atlantic 
sturgeon. We also requested that Federal action agencies, including the 
USACE, provide us with information on future consultations if we 
omitted any future actions likely to affect the proposed critical 
habitat. The USACE's comment enumerates numbers of consultations by 
USACE district, but not whether those numbers include actions that may 
occur solely in marine and estuarine environments. It is also unclear 
from the information provided by the commenter whether the actions they 
referenced have been ongoing and would affect both the species and 
critical habitat in the future, but were simply not consulted on for 
effects to the species. It is also unclear whether these projects were 
not consulted on because the action agency determined there would be no 
effect to Atlantic or shortnose sturgeon. The USACE has not provided us 
tangible information with which to modify our Impacts Analysis. Simply 
stating that more consultations are expected is not sufficient. As a 
result, we believe our final Impacts Analysis still accurately reflects 
the likely number of future consultations.
    Comment 137: The NCWQA and SCWQA stated the DIA does not discuss 
the impacts of the proposed designation on NPDES permit programs, state 
water quality standards, or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 
determinations. They pointed out that these potential impacts were 
discussed in GARFO's proposed rule to designate critical habitat for 
the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight and Chesapeake Bay DPSs of Atlantic 
sturgeon (81 FR 35701; June 3, 2016), and because we did not mention 
them in our DIA we must republish the ``North Carolina proposal.''
    Our Response: We disagree. Our query of the PCTS database returned 
no TMDL or NPDES consultations in the southeast within the last 10 
years. There are differences between GARFO's and SERO's impacts 
analyses regarding the potential impacts of critical habitat 
designation on NPDES permit programs, state water quality standards, or 
TMDL determinations. Those differences are appropriate due to 
differences in whether the EPA has delegated authority to particular 
states to administer programs under the CWA. In the Southeast, the EPA 
has delegated the authority to administer NPDES programs to the States 
of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North

[[Page 39209]]

Carolina. Upon authorization to states, those NPDES activities are no 
longer Federal actions. Similarly, the TMDL programs are largely 
implemented by states, meaning they too are not Federal actions that 
require consultation. Our DIA determined the primary source of impacts 
of critical habitat designation is the cost of section 7 consultations. 
Because ESA section 7 consultations are only required for Federal 
actions, non-Federal activities are not affected, and were not 
considered in our DIA or final Impacts Analysis. Additionally, we also 
contacted the EPA to determine if we had missed any categories of 
activities likely to occur in the next 10 years that were not reflected 
in results of PCTS query. The EPA indicated they were not aware of any 
NPDES permit program or TMDL consultations that should be included in 
our analysis for southeast rivers. However, they did anticipate 9 
nationwide pesticide consultations and an additional 12 consultations 
over the next 10 years to address state water quality standards; the 
final Impacts Analysis reflects these consultations. The commenter did 
not provide any information on potential NPDES permit actions or TMDL 
approvals that may require consultation in the southeast critical 
habitat units.
    Comment 138: A utility company suggested we failed to mention the 
additional analysis that may be required to consider critical habitat 
when they seek to obtain an NPDES permit for the intake and discharge 
of water by the Cross station into and from Lake Moultrie pursuant to 
section 316 of the CWA. It was concerned that if ``unoccupied'' 
critical habitat is designated near the station, it may be required to 
prepare an unnecessary biological assessment to ensure that this 
unoccupied critical habitat is not affected by the activities 
authorized in the NPDES permit. A separate utility company expressed 
similar concerns. It suggested we had not identified the power plants 
described in Comment 111 in our DIA and had not discussed the 
permitting associated with the plants and the anticipated increase in 
consultation and delay costs associated with permits issued pursuant to 
section 316 of the CWA concerning intakes and thermal discharges from 
power plants through the state NPDES programs. Similarly, two utility 
companies indicated there can be a lengthy process for review by NMFS 
with additional time potentially required to find a compromise if the 
state agency issuing the section 316 permit disagrees with our 
recommendations. They expressed concern that because a section 7 
consultation may include measures to minimize take, but the section 
316/NPDES permit does not authorize incidental take, the owners/
operators of these plants may also need to obtain a section 10 permit 
under the ESA authorizing such incidental take if there is any doubt as 
to whether power plant intakes or discharges may be adversely modifying 
critical habitat.
    Our Response: As noted previously, our DIA and final Impacts 
Analysis do not consider NPDES activities because they are not Federal 
actions, thus there would be no consultations and no impacts resulting 
from this designation associated with NPDES activities.
    Section 316(b) of the CWA requires cooling water intake structures 
(CWIS) to reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing 
adverse environmental impacts. Adverse environmental impacts include, 
but are not limited to, impingement and entrainment of organisms at 
CWIS, and changes in flow regime, caused by the withdrawal of water. 
Under section 316(b), the EPA is required to issue regulations on the 
design and operation of intake structures to minimize adverse impacts. 
The EPA issued its Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for 
Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities and Amend 
Requirements at Phase I Facilities on August 15, 2014 (79 FR 48300). 
The following is a summary of EPA's description of the main components 
of the rule as follows. First, existing facilities that withdraw at 
least 25 percent of their water from an adjacent waterbody exclusively 
for cooling purposes and have a design intake flow of greater than 2 
million gallons (7.6 million liters) per day (MGD) are required to 
reduce fish impingement under the final regulations. To ensure 
flexibility, the owner or operator of the facility will be able to 
choose one of seven options for meeting best technology available 
requirements for reducing impingement. Second, existing facilities that 
withdraw very large amounts of water--at least 125 MGD (473 million 
liters per day)--are required to conduct studies to help their 
permitting authority determine whether and what site-specific controls, 
if any, would be required to reduce the number of aquatic organisms 
entrained by cooling water systems. This decision process would include 
public input. Third, new units that add electrical generation capacity 
at an existing facility are required to add technology that achieves 
one of two alternatives under the national BTA standards for 
entrainment for new units at existing facilities. Under the first 
alternative new unit entrainment standard, the owner or operator of a 
facility must reduce actual intake flow (AIF) at the new unit, at a 
minimum, to a level commensurate with that which can be attained by the 
use of a closed-cycle recirculating system. Under the second 
alternative new units entrainment standard, the owner or operator of a 
facility must demonstrate to the permit issuer (e.g., a state) that it 
has installed, and will operate and maintain, technological or other 
control measures for each intake at the new unit that achieves a 
prescribed reduction in entrainment mortality of all stages of fish and 
shellfish that pass through a sieve with a maximum opening dimension of 
0.56 inches.
    The commenters did not provide information for us to determine 
whether and to what extent they are affected by EPA's section 316(b) 
regulations. Nonetheless, we do not believe this critical habitat 
designation will increase any impacts to commenters related to section 
316(b), for the following reasons. The Services consulted with EPA on 
the impacts of its nationwide application of the section 316(b) rule 
and issued a biological opinion concluding the rule would not 
jeopardize any listed species or destroy or adversely modify any 
critical habitat under the Services' jurisdictions (USFWS and NMFS, 
2014). No additional consultations are required under the biological 
opinion and EPA's rule; instead, the Services are engaged by permit 
issuers (EPA, or state or Tribal governments) in a 60-day review of 
permits under consideration, prior to the permits being published for 
public comment. A provision of EPA's rule requires affected permit 
applicants to include threatened or endangered species or critical 
habitat that may be in the action area of their facilities in the 
assessments required for their permit applications. The Services may 
provide recommendations on measures to protect listed species, 
including measures that would minimize any incidental take of listed 
species, and/or avoid likely jeopardy to a listed species or 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. If we reviewed 
a 316(b) permit application for a CWIS in Atlantic sturgeon critical 
habitat, we would first evaluate whether there are any routes of 
adverse effects to listed species or to the critical habitat. 
Conceivably, CWIS could affect the water quality essential features of 
water depth, temperature, DO and salinity values, depending on the 
amount and timing of the water withdrawals/discharges. However, any 
such effects would also affect listed species including Atlantic and 
shortnose

[[Page 39210]]

sturgeon, and any measures we would recommend to avoid such effects 
would not be incremental impacts, including delay, attributable to the 
critical habitat designation. Therefore, any future ESA section 7 or 
section 10 requirements related to CWA section 316 or NPDES 
consultation requests for critical habitat would be coextensive to 
consultations for the listed species; thus, we do not believe there 
would be any significant delay or costs incurred for the consultations 
assessing impacts to critical habitat. The commenters' concern about 
the lack of authorization of incidental take of listed species through 
the 316/NPDES permit is not a critical habitat issue, and thus there 
are no impacts attributable to this rule.
    Comment 139: A farm-industry trade group expressed concern that the 
DIA did not comprehensively evaluate the potential economic impacts to 
private landowners, particularly farmers. They were specifically 
concerned farmers would bear the burden of additional permit review and 
regulatory requirements under the ESA, including EPA prohibitions of 
certain crop protection products, permits for minor impacts to 
wetlands, and potentially even curtailment of water withdrawals.
    Our Response: The requirements to consider potential adverse 
effects to critical habitat in section 7 consultations only apply to 
activities funded, carried out, or authorized by Federal agencies. 
Because these requirements only apply to activities with a ``Federal 
nexus,'' we do not anticipate the designation of critical habitat to 
result in additional costs or burden to strictly private or state 
activities. The commenter is correct that some additional review may be 
required during Federal permitting to consider the potential effects of 
a Federal action on designated critical habitat. However, as noted 
previously, we anticipate any Federal action potentially affecting 
Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat would have already required ESA 
section 7 consultation to consider the potential impacts to Atlantic or 
shortnose sturgeon, and thus any added burden due solely to this rule 
will be minimal. Our analysis includes a conservative estimate of the 
consultation impacts due to EPA's authorization of pesticides over the 
next 10 years, noting these are national consultations that will 
require evaluating impacts on all NMFS listed species and designated 
critical habitat. Our conservative estimate is that these consultations 
would result in $1,474.84 per unit attributable to Atlantic sturgeon 
critical habitat over 10 years, for Federal agencies and permittees 
combined. The commenter did not provide information on any particular 
water withdrawals of concern and whether those would have a Federal 
nexus to potentially trigger consultation requirements. Similarly, no 
information on minor impacts to wetlands that may affect Atlantic 
sturgeon critical habitat and require consultation was provided. If 
projects with a Federal nexus that impacted wetlands occurred in the 
past in areas being included in the critical habitat units and required 
consultation, it would be included in our database and would be 
included in this analysis, likely under the USACE CWA section 404/RHA 
section 10 permitting--dredge, fill, construction category. We 
conservatively assumed these actions could result in fully incremental 
informal consultations in the future, and assigned them a cost of 
$7,200 per consultation. Of this, a permittee could incur $1,500-
$3,000, depending on whether a biological assessment is required and is 
prepared by the permittee (see, Impacts Analysis Table 3-19).
    Comment 140: Two commenters stated that the area immediately 
downstream from Blewett Falls Dam on the Pee Dee River at the North 
Carolina/South Carolina border (Carolina Unit 5) should be excluded 
from designation as critical habitat. The commenters asserted this area 
does not offer suitable spawning habitat, and exclusion would alleviate 
the additional cost, complexity, and administrative burden of carrying 
out activities authorized or required by the YPD license, including 
fish passage activities.
    Our Response: We disagree. As discussed in our response to Comment 
110 above, potential spawning habitat does exist immediately downstream 
from Blewett Falls Dam, and it was appropriate to set the upstream 
boundary of the unit at the dam. We also disagree that foregoing 
designation would alleviate additional cost, complexity, and 
administrative burden of carrying out activities authorized or required 
by the YPD license. As noted previously, we do not anticipate the 
designation of critical habitat will impose additional administrative 
burdens or costs that would not have already been associated with ESA 
section 7 consultations to address impacts to Atlantic and shortnose 
sturgeon.
    Comment 141: An industry trade group suggested we had significantly 
underestimated the true costs to a permittee, because we had not 
included potential costs associated with employing biologists, other 
consultants, or legal support they believe may be necessary to navigate 
the consultation process. They went on to state that consultation could 
cause project modifications, impose additional avoidance measures, or 
require additional mitigation above what was required by the action 
agency. The commenters reported Sundig (2003) estimated the direct, 
out-of-pocket costs of section 7 consultation for a single-family 
housing project to be several thousand dollars per house. Beyond the 
consultation process itself, the commenters suggested requirements to 
avoid or mitigate impacts to critical habitat could result in economic 
losses of millions of dollars. The commenters concluded that by 
severely underestimating the number of consultations that will be 
triggered by the proposed designations and the costs of those 
consultations, we failed to provide a meaningful analysis of section 7 
consultation costs.
    Our Response: We disagree. As explained in our responses to 
comments 52, 133, 135 and 136 above, we believe our estimate of the 
numbers of future consultations is correct, and commenters provided no 
information to the contrary.
    Comment 142: Several commenters, including GADNR, SCDNR, and NCDOT, 
expressed concern that requirements to consult under section 7 of the 
ESA would increase administrative costs/burdens and cause long delays 
potentially affecting project costs, timelines, and fisheries 
management activities.
    Our Response: As outlined in the Impacts Analysis and described 
previously, our review of all Federal actions that may adversely affect 
designated Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat indicates that none of 
those types of actions would solely affect the PBFs of critical habitat 
and not also have potential routes of adverse effects to Atlantic and/
or shortnose sturgeon. We acknowledge that actions occurring within 
designated critical habitat will require an analysis and additional 
administrative cost to ensure Federal actions are not destroying or 
adversely modifying critical habitat. Yet, those additional analyses 
will be added to consultations that would occur anyway to consider 
potential impacts to sturgeon. Therefore, the designation of critical 
habitat is not anticipated to cause the significant additional costs or 
delays suggested by the commenter.
    Comment 143: The Navy also expressed concern about potential delays 
and administrative costs/burdens associated with the designation. The 
Navy also questioned our determination that impacts of dredging are 
coextensive with the listing rather than incremental

[[Page 39211]]

impacts of this rule, and they identified some areas on the Neuse River 
that they believe will lead to impacts to national security due to 
impacts of the designation on training conducted in those areas.
    Our Response: See our response to Comment 142 above regarding costs 
and delays generally. As we discussed in the proposed rule, dredging to 
maintain navigation channels may affect several of the essential PBFs 
of Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat. Dredging to deepen or widen 
navigation channels may involve removing rock, gravel, or soft 
substrate that is providing adult sturgeon spawning habitat or juvenile 
foraging habitat. Extensive dredging for harbor expansion may allow 
saltwater to intrude farther up a river, and adversely impact the area 
containing the salinity range necessary for young sturgeon. Other 
potential effects of dredging projects on the essential PBFs of 
Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat are increased siltation on spawning 
substrate, and the blockage of migratory pathways through channels and 
inlets.
    At the same time, dredging may adversely affect Atlantic and 
shortnose sturgeon. The types of adverse effects are not likely to be 
temporary and limited to periods of sturgeon absence, and they are 
likely to be implemented in lower parts of the units where sturgeon can 
be expected to be present year-round. Thus, adverse effects of 
navigation maintenance dredging activities are likely to involve 
coextensive formal consultations to address impacts to both the species 
and the essential PBFs. Removal or covering of spawning substrate could 
interfere with the services this PBF is designed to provide--settlement 
of fertilized eggs and refuge, growth and development of early life 
stages. These effects to the essential PBF would also be adverse 
effects to sturgeon eggs, larvae and early life stages that were not 
able to settle, grow, develop or seek refuge. Project modifications to 
address both these impacts to the PBF and the sturgeon could involve 
limiting the amount or location of substrate removed, or turbidity 
controls to prevent sediment deposition on hard substrate. Similarly, 
adverse effects of dredging in removing the soft substrate PBF that 
would interfere with provision of juvenile foraging services, could 
also injure or kill juveniles seeking to use that foraging habitat. 
Coextensive project modifications might be similar to those mentioned 
for impacts to the hard substrate feature. Changing the salinity regime 
by deepening harbors and parts of rivers would remove portions of the 
transitional salinity zone feature that is being designated to provide 
foraging and developmental habitat services to juveniles; loss of 
portions of this habitat could impede development of juveniles using 
the remaining habitat, or prevent the habitat from supporting some 
juveniles. Coextensive project modifications that might be required to 
prevent or lessen these impacts could involve changes in the depth of 
deepening a harbor, port, or river. The deepening of harbors and ports 
may also create hypoxic zones which would impact the water quality PBF 
that is designed to ensure survival of sturgeon. Coextensive project 
modifications that might be required to prevent hypoxic zones could 
include limiting the amount of deepening or requiring the use of 
aeration systems. Thus, we did not assert there would be no project 
modifications to avoid adverse effects to critical habitat, but as 
described above, project modifications would address adverse impacts to 
both critical habitat and sturgeon, thus the costs of such 
modifications would not be incremental impacts of this rule.
    The Navy described training activities that occur on the lower 
Neuse River as including small boat launch and recovery, high-speed 
boat tactics training, small boat defense drills, and small arms fire. 
We do not see a route of potential effects from these activities to the 
PBFs of critical habitat, and thus there would be no additional 
consultation burdens beyond any requirements to address impacts to the 
species. Thus, the designation would not impact military training 
related to national security in these areas.
    Comment 144: Several commenters, including SCDNR, asserted that 
designation of critical habitat (both unoccupied and occupied) means 
projects that previously would have qualified for USACE Nationwide 
Permits or General Permits would no longer qualify, resulting in 
individual project review/analysis/certification.
    Our Response: Whether a project is permitted by the USACE under a 
Nationwide or General Permit or another permitting mechanism, the USACE 
must assess the effects of the project on listed species and critical 
habitat and consult with us if listed species and/or designated 
critical habitat may be affected. As previously stated, our review of 
all previously consulted-on Federal actions that may adversely affect 
designated Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat determined that none of 
those types of actions would solely affect the PBFs of critical habitat 
and not also have potential routes of adverse effects to Atlantic and/
or shortnose sturgeon. We acknowledge that actions occurring within 
designated critical habitat will require an analysis to ensure Federal 
actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 
Yet, those additional analyses will be added to consultations that 
would be required anyway, to consider potential impacts to sturgeon.
    Comment 145: NCWRC and SCDOT requested that we develop programmatic 
ESA section 7 consultations or allocate additional resources to reduce 
the time associated with addressing new consultations.
    Our Response: We cannot require a Federal action agency to consult 
on a programmatic basis, as it is up to the action agency to define the 
scope of a programmatic activity. However, we are committed to continue 
working with our Federal partners as we have in the past to identify 
opportunities for streamlining consultations or ways to increase 
efficiencies in the consultation process. Within SERO, we are already 
fully committing the available resources to ESA section 7 
consultations, and we agree that investigating the possibility for 
programmatic consultations is a valuable tool.
    Comment 146: A few commenters, including an industry trade group, 
expressed concern about potential delays for projects already 
undergoing consultation that would now have to include an analysis of 
adverse modification for Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat, as well as 
previous consultations that may need to be reinitiated based on the new 
critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: See response to Comment 57.
    Comment 147: One commenter worried that important research projects 
funded through time-limited Federal grants, occurring within proposed 
critical habitat units, may be delayed. The commenter expressed concern 
over the length of time required to complete section 7 consultations. 
The commenter expressed the belief that the timely completion of 
section 7 consultations will help to ensure these projects can provide 
data under the grant deadlines.
    Our Response: We agree with the commenter that delays of important 
research projects within proposed critical habitat units should be 
avoided if possible. We are committed to working with action agencies 
to complete section 7 consultations as a quickly as possible.
    Comment 148: SCDNR requested that we develop guidance and Best 
Management Practices for how in-water work should be conducted in 
critical habitat.

[[Page 39212]]

    Our Response: We appreciate the recommendation.
    Comment 149: SCDNR recommended we establish a list of activities 
authorized by the USACE Nationwide Permits that would not affect this 
species or its critical habitat and thus not require the section 7 
consultation.
    Our Response: It is the responsibility of the USACE, as the Federal 
action agency for the Nationwide Permits, to make determinations about 
their actions and request consultation if species and/or critical 
habitat may be affected. We are available to provide technical 
assistance and consultation, if requested by the USACE or other action 
agencies. We have information readily available on our Web sites for 
all Federal action agencies, and the public, providing guidance on 
effects determinations. Additionally, SERO and GARFO are jointly 
drafting a consultation framework specific to analyzing impacts to 
Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat to assist USACE and other agencies 
with consultations.
    Comment 150: NCDMF and North Carolina Division of Coastal 
Management (NCDCM) suggested that even minor modifications to trawl 
sampling designs can affect the comparability of survey results across 
time series, which may span multiple decades. They requested we 
consider the importance of maintaining consistency across sampling 
programs if any new consultations are required due to the proposed 
critical habitat designations. The commenter also expressed concern 
that other bottom disturbing activities such as cultch planting and 
artificial reef and oyster reef construction could be impacted by our 
habitat designation. They concluded that while the critical habitat 
designations may not impact these activities, additional consultations 
for critical habitat (either formal or informal) will be required.
    Our Response: We agree that there is great value in consistency 
across sampling programs and do not seek to change them without cause. 
However, if we determine through section 7 consultation that a sampling 
program funded or permitted by a Federal agency may adversely affect 
sturgeon or their habitats, including critical habitat, the Federal 
agency is required to ensure the action is not likely to jeopardize 
listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In the 
extreme case that a sampling program is found to be likely to destroy 
or adversely modify critical habitat, we would be required to work with 
the parties involved to develop a reasonable and prudent alternative to 
that program, that would still achieve the sampling program's 
objectives but avoid destruction or adverse modification of the 
critical habitat.
    With respect to the consultation requirements for the bottom 
disturbing activities identified, as outlined in the IA, our review of 
all Federal actions that may adversely affect designated Atlantic 
sturgeon critical habitat determined none of those types of actions, 
including federally-permitted fishery research, would solely affect the 
PBFs of critical habitat and not also have potential routes of adverse 
effects to Atlantic and/or shortnose sturgeon. We acknowledge that 
actions occurring within designated critical habitat will require an 
analysis and additional administrative cost to ensure Federal actions 
are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Yet, 
those additional analyses will be added to consultations that would 
occur anyway, to consider potential impacts to sturgeon. Therefore, the 
designation of critical habitat is not anticipated to cause the 
significant additional costs or delays suggested by the commenter.
    Comment 151: One commenter expressed concern that the proposed 
designation could prevent in-water construction, dredging and bridge 
work needed to: (1) Maintain safety margins for large, ocean-going 
vessels navigating into and out of port, (2) transit near or under 
bridges, and (3) moor/unmoor safely at marine terminals, from receiving 
Federal funding. The commenter stated that section 7(a)(2) of the ESA 
requires Federal agencies to ensure actions they fund, authorize, or 
carry out are not likely to destroy or adversely modify that habitat, 
and pointed out we have determined a wide variety of activities may 
affect critical habitat. The commenter seems to imply that because we 
have indicated one or more of the activities above may have effects to 
critical habitat, we could impose a blanket moratorium on any such 
activity and/or block those activities from gaining Federal funding in 
the future. They believed stopping these projects would not only have a 
dramatic economic impact, but would also have a severe negative impact 
on navigation safety. The commenter requested we explicitly state in 
the final rule that all ``federally-improved dredged channels'' and 
areas adjacent to marine terminals are excluded from critical habitat.
    Our Response: We agree that the proper maintenance of bridges, 
shipping channels, and marinas is not only important to ensure the flow 
of commerce, but also to ensure safety. The commenter is also correct 
that the ESA requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions they 
fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat. However, section 7 of the ESA is written to 
ensure that federally-funded projects go forward, so long as they do 
not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Even if a proposed 
action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, the 
section 7 consultation process is specifically designed so that a 
reasonable and prudent alternative, consistent with intended scope of 
proposed action, could be identified that would allow the action to 
proceed but without the same degree of impact to critical habitat. 
Thus, we do not believe it is necessary to exclude all ``federally-
improved dredged channels'' and areas adjacent to marine terminals from 
critical habitat on the basis that such actions may be prevented from 
being implemented in the future.
    Comment 152: The EPA stated we underestimated the number of section 
7 consultations, and associated costs, likely to occur by failing to 
include their triennial state water quality standard reviews.
    Our Response: After reviewing the information provided by the EPA 
regarding future water quality standard consultations, per their 
request we added three consultations for each of the states covered by 
this designation to the impacts analysis.
    Comment 153: An electric cooperative requested that we confirm that 
the proposed rule does not contemplate any change in flow regime for 
the USACE's projects on the Roanoke River, North Carolina, and the 
Savannah River at the South Carolina/Georgia Border. They stated that 
any changes to the flow regimes would require an update or revision to 
the Water Control Manuals, which in turn would require an analysis of 
the environmental impact of the proposed rule under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). They asked for this confirmation 
because they believe our DIA makes a number of references to the 
relation of river flows to critical habitat needs without providing any 
details on whether the rule specifically contemplates changes to flow 
regimes.
    Our Response: The designation of critical habitat would impose no 
direct regulatory requirements and would not, in and of itself, have 
any effect on existing flow patterns. It is possible that flows may 
need to be altered to address adverse effects to critical habitat if 
such effects were identified during ESA section 7 consultation on a new 
or ongoing Federal action that affects water flows in a way that also 
affects the PBFs of critical habitat. Additionally,

[[Page 39213]]

environmental analysis under NEPA is not required for critical habitat 
designations (see, Markle Interests, L.L.C. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Serv., 827 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2016); Bldg. Indus. Ass'n of the Bay Area 
v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 792 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2015); Douglas 
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 
S.Ct. 698 (1996)).
    Comment 154: One commenter suggested the proposed rule was unclear 
regarding whether hydropower projects occurring outside, but upstream, 
of proposed critical habitat units may need to be altered to facilitate 
the objective of the critical habitat designation. The commenter 
asserted that if we intended to require alterations to existing flow 
patterns in the geographical units currently under consideration for 
designation as critical habitat, then our analysis in the proposal was 
deficient. They requested that we clarify our intentions on this point.
    Our Response: Dams and regulation of water releases upstream of 
occupied critical habitat could affect the PBFs downstream, even if the 
dams themselves are not located within the critical habitat area. 
However, these downstream impacts occurring within occupied critical 
habitat units will also affect sturgeon, and consultation would be 
required even without the designation. In all of our past consultations 
on dams immediately above habitat used by sturgeon, we found that only 
the structure operated or authorized by the action agency at hand and 
undergoing consultation would have adverse effects on sturgeon and 
their habitats. Thus, but for additional administrative costs, the 
majority of the costs of these consultations are not incremental 
impacts of this rule. It is possible that flow regimes may need to be 
altered if current regimes are adversely affecting sturgeon and the 
essential PBFs of critical habitat, if such effects are identified 
during ESA section 7 consultation.
    We evaluated all existing dams and other structures that are 
upstream of the proposed upper boundaries of all of the critical 
habitat units. We found that for the specific existing facilities at 
issue, dams outside of critical habitat and upstream from a dam that 
forms the boundary of critical habitat are not expected to have adverse 
effects to either unoccupied or occupied critical habitat and would not 
require consultation. This is due to large distances between upstream 
dams and the dams that form the boundary of critical habitat, and the 
presence of intervening structures, dams, or water bodies that dilute 
the effects of upstream dams relative to the effects of dams on the 
border of critical habitat.
    Comment 155: The Navy expressed concern over our determination that 
consultations for effects of dredging on critical habitat will be fully 
coextensive with consultations to address impacts to Atlantic sturgeon. 
They believe designation of critical habitat can or will result in an 
additional commitment of resources and expected requirements to modify 
proposed actions to prevent adverse effects to critical habitat.
    Our Response: We believe dredging may affect critical habitat, but 
we believe consultations to consider those effects on critical habitat 
will be fully-coextensive with consultations to address impacts to 
sturgeon (both shortnose and Atlantic). The effects of dredging on the 
PBF(s) would also result in injury or death to individual sturgeon, and 
thus constitute take. Removal or covering of spawning substrate could 
prevent effective spawning or result in death of eggs or larvae that 
are spawned. Changing the salinity regime by deepening harbors and 
parts of rivers could result in permanent decreases of available 
foraging and developmental habitat for juveniles. These types of 
adverse effects are not likely to be temporary and limited to periods 
of sturgeon absence. Thus, adverse effects of dredging activities 
identified by the Navy would be likely to be coextensive in formal 
consultations to address impacts to both the species and the PBF(s), 
and thus no new requirements or project modifications are anticipated 
as a result of the critical habitat designation.
    In our long history of past and ongoing consultations, we have 
considered the effects that in-river activities (including dredging) 
would have on both Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon and their shared 
habitats, where applicable. A main focus of all our past consultations 
on Federal actions in rivers (e.g., dredging, hydropower permitting) 
has been on expected impacts to these species' habitats. Adverse 
effects to habitat, including critical habitat, that will result in 
either injury or mortality of individual sturgeon of any life stage 
constitute take of the species. We have regularly determined that 
projects with adverse effects to sturgeon habitat will result in take 
of the species. It is this consultation history and experience that 
leads us to project that if actions in areas occupied by Atlantic and/
or shortnose sturgeon affect their habitats, those actions would have 
the same effects on Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat, and the 
consultations and impacts would be largely coextensive.
Comments on Our Coastal Zone Management Act Determinations
    Comment 156: NCDMF-NCDCM suggested our consistency determination 
regarding designating critical habitat is incomplete and does not meet 
the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1451, et 
seq. (CZMA) and its implementing regulations. They maintained that we 
submitted an incomplete negative determination, because we had not 
provided an evaluation of the North Carolina coastal program's 
enforceable policies.
    Our Response: We disagree. While we recognize the State's goals of 
coastal resource protection and economic development, we determined 
that any effects of the proposed action on North Carolina's coastal 
uses and resources are not reasonably foreseeable at this time. As 
indicated in our negative determination, this designation of critical 
habitat will not restrict any coastal uses, affect land ownership, or 
establish a refuge or other conservation area; rather, the designation 
only affects the ESA section 7 consultation process for Federal 
actions. Through the ESA consultation process, we will receive 
information on proposed Federal actions and their effects on listed 
species and this critical habitat upon which we base our biological 
opinions. It will then be up to the Federal action agencies to decide 
how to comply with the ESA in light of our opinion, as well as to 
ensure that their actions comply with the CZMA's Federal consistency 
requirement.

Comments on Executive Order 13211--Statement of Energy Effects

    Comment 157: One commenter indicated we failed to meet the 
requirements of Executive Order 13211 to prepare a Statement of Energy 
Effects. The commenter indicated changes in utility facilities and 
operations required by Federal ESA section 7 consultations, as a result 
of this critical habitat designation, have the potential to adversely 
affect in a material way the productivity and prices in the energy 
sector within the region.
    Our Response: We disagree. The commenter provided no information, 
aside from the conclusion that the designation has the potential to 
adversely affect in a material way, productivity and prices in the 
energy sector within the region, on which we can base changes in our 
impacts analysis. The only Federal actions on which we may consult that 
have

[[Page 39214]]

material effects on energy are FERC hydropower licensing actions. These 
actions have the potential to adversely affect sturgeon as well as 
critical habitat, and thus most of the impacts of these consultations 
will result from the ESA listing of the Atlantic sturgeon rather than 
incremental impacts of the designation. Moreover, the FPA, which FERC 
implements in issuing hydropower licenses, has independent requirements 
to avoid adverse effects on fisheries resources and habitats, and thus 
modifications to hydropower facilities to avoid impacts to critical 
habitat may also be coextensive with the FPA, rather than from 
incremental impacts of the designation.

General Support or Disapproval of the Proposed Designation

    Comment 158: We received five comments from the general public that 
were generally unsupportive of protecting sturgeon, their habitats, or 
their ecosystem.
    Our Response: We appreciate the time these commenters took to 
provide input to us.
    Comment 159: We received approximately 300 comments from the 
general public that were generally supportive of protecting sturgeon, 
their habitats, or their ecosystem. We received an additional two 
comments of general support from non-governmental organizations.
    Our Response: We appreciate the supportive feedback received from 
these commenters.

Necessary Editorial Changes

    Comment 160: One commenter pointed out that we cited Flowers and 
Hightower (2015) but that reference was not included in the list of 
references.
    Our Response: We agree with the commenter. We erroneously omitted 
that reference from our list of references. We have updated the list of 
references to include this citation.
    Comment 161: One commenter pointed out that we cited Smith et al. 
(2014) in several locations, but the reference did not appear in the 
list of references; however, Smith et al. (2015) does. The commenter 
suggested we may have erroneously referred to Smith et al. (2014) as 
Smith et al. (2015), in which case the citation needed to be updated, 
or the former is missing from the list of references and should be 
added.
    Our Response: We appreciate the commenter bringing this discrepancy 
to our attention. While cited differently, both citations actually 
refer to the same document. This final rule has been updated to reflect 
the proper citation as Smith et al. (2015). As a result of this 
comment, we reviewed the final rule to ensure the literature cited 
section was accurate and complete, and made changes when necessary.
    Comment 162: One commenter pointed out that we had erroneously 
cited them as a source of information in a personal communication, when 
the source was someone else.
    Our Response: We agree with the commenter and apologize. We 
erroneously cited the commenter as the source for information 
indicating that Atlantic sturgeon had passed above Lock and Dam #1 on 
the Cape Fear River, North Carolina, and we have corrected that error 
in this final rule.
    Comment 163: SCDNR and another commenter pointed out that we 
stated: ``The capture of 151 subadults, including age-one fish in 1997 
indicates a population exists in the Santee River (Collins and Smith, 
1997).'' They indicated that the Collins and Smith's 1997 publication 
was a synthesis of all historical and recent records of both Atlantic 
and shortnose sturgeons in South Carolina waters from 1970-1995. Thus, 
the number reported, 151, was not collected in a single year, 1997, but 
instead was a sum of all Atlantic sturgeon records from 1970-1995.
    Our Response: We agree with the commenters. We erroneously 
characterized the capture of 151 subadults, including age-1 fish, as 
occurring in a single year when those captures actually occurred from 
1970-1995 and we have corrected this error.
    Comment 164: SCDNR noted the difference between the Columbia Dam 
and the Columbia Canal Diversion Dam, indicating the names are not 
interchangeable and both are part of the Columbia Hydroelectric 
Project. They stated ``the Columbia Dam has a constructed fishway that 
allows for the passage of American shad, blueback herring and American 
eel; although `sturgeon-friendly' features were incorporated in its 
design, to date, no sturgeon have been documented utilizing this 
fishway nor have sturgeon been documented in surveys above the Columbia 
Dam.''
    Our Response: We appreciate the commenter bringing this to our 
attention. We believe we properly referred to the Columbia Dam and 
associated fish passage in the proposed rule.
    Comment 165: SCDNR pointed out that the proposed rule erroneously 
stated the St. Stephen Powerhouse was on the Santee River, South 
Carolina, when it is actually located on the Rediversion Canal.
    Our Response: We appreciate the commenter bringing this discrepancy 
to our attention. We have updated the final rule to reflect this 
correction.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rules

    Based on the comments received for the proposed rule, Designation 
of Critical Habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and 
Chesapeake Bay DPSs of Atlantic Sturgeon (81 FR 35701; June 3, 2016), 
we have made several changes in the final rule:
    1. The boundary for the upstream extent of the Pamunkey River, has 
been moved upstream by 14 rkm. This change was based on a comment we 
received from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science that, based on 
new data, the area with suitable hard bottom substrate and used by 
spawning Atlantic sturgeon in the York River System extends farther 
upstream on the Pamunkey River than what we proposed. This supplements 
the existing data we relied upon for the proposed rule. We determined 
that the additional 14 km of Pamunkey River habitat was essential to 
the conservation of the Chesapeake Bay DPS and should be part of the 
designated critical habitat for the York River System. The York River 
System critical habitat unit now includes 206 rkm instead of 192 rkm.
    2. The 16 rkm of the proposed Susquehanna River Critical Habitat 
Unit are not designated as critical habitat. We received comments 
requesting removal of the Susquehanna River critical habitat unit and 
comments requesting inclusion of the upper Chesapeake Bay. Upon review, 
we determined that PBF number 2 (a salinity gradient to support 
juvenile growth and physiological development) is not present in the 
Susquehanna River unit, and is not likely to be present in the future. 
Therefore, because we determined that the coexistence of all four 
features is essential to reproduction and recruitment, based on the 
information available, the lowermost 16 rkm of the Susquehanna River do 
not contain the PBFs essential to the reproduction or recruitment of 
the Chesapeake Bay DPS and we are not designating this area as 
Chesapeake Bay DPS critical habitat.
    3. The 60 rkm of the Nanticoke River from the Maryland State Route 
313 Bridge crossing near Sharptown, MD, to where the main stem 
discharges at its mouth into the Chesapeake Bay as well as Marshyhope 
Creek from its confluence with the Nanticoke River and upriver to the 
Maryland State Route 318 Bridge crossing near Federalsburg, MD, are 
designated as critical habitat for the Chesapeake Bay DPS, and it will 
be called the Nanticoke River critical habitat unit. We announced in 
the supplementary document for the

[[Page 39215]]

proposed rule that we did not have substrate information for the 
Nanticoke River and Marshyhope Creek, MD, but that a study was ongoing 
to obtain that information. We received the information through public 
comment from the MD DNR. Based on the new information and existing 
information discussed in the proposed rule related to the presence of 
Atlantic surgeon in spawning condition at a time spawning would occur, 
we determined that portions of the Nanticoke River and Marshyhope Creek 
are essential to the conservation of the Chesapeake Bay DPS and should 
be designated as critical habitat.
    4. We corrected the map for the James River critical habitat unit. 
The map used in the proposed rule incorrectly placed the downriver 
boundary of critical habitat in the area of Hampton Roads. The textual 
description of the James River critical habitat in the proposed rule 
was correct.
    5. The table describing the states and counties in which critical 
habitat is being designated has been updated. It now includes 
Dorchester and Wicomico Counties on the Nanticoke River.
    6. The description of PBF number 2 includes two changes. The phrase 
``between the river mouths and spawning sites'' replaces ``downstream 
of spawning sites.'' As previously written, we were concerned the 
public might construe ``downstream of spawning sites'' to include bays 
or sounds below rkm 0; this was not our intent. We believe the change 
more accurately reflects the boundaries of critical habitat. 
Additionally, the words ``up to as high as '' were added after 0.5 and 
before 30 to clarify acceptable salinity ranges. Because the freshwater 
inputs vary from year to year, and river to river, it is possible that 
during a high freshwater flow year, the salinity levels within a unit 
may never reach 30 ppt. As previously written, the wording suggested 
that the gradual downstream gradient would have to encompass the entire 
0.5-30 ppt salinity range; this was not our intent. This change is 
meant to acknowledge that the entire salinity range is not required.
    7. In PBF number 3, the examples of what may constitute barriers 
were expanded, and the phrase ``at least 1.2 m'' replaces ``>=1.2 m'' 
for clarity.
    8. The phrase ``between the river mouths and spawning sites'' was 
inserted in the language of PBF number 4. This change clarifies the 
areas designated as critical habitat as described under PBF number 2. 
Additionally, for clarity of the example, the phrase ``6 mg/L DO or 
greater'' replaces ``6 mg/L dissolved oxygen.''
    9. We have included and clarified in regulatory provisions for all 
five DPSs that manmade structures that do not provide the essential 
PBFs are not included in critical habitat.
    Based on the comments received for the proposed rule, Critical 
Habitat for the Endangered Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic 
Sturgeon (81 FR 36077; June 3 2016), we have made several changes in 
the final rule:
    10. The boundary for the upstream extent of the Ogeechee River has 
been moved downstream by 28 rkm, from the confluence of North Fork and 
South Fork Ogeechee Rivers to Mayfield Mill Dam; the Unit now includes 
420 rkm instead of 448 rkm.
    11. The boundary for the upstream extent of the Black River, South 
Carolina, has been moved downstream by 50 rkm from Interstate Highway 
20 to Interstate Highway 95; the Unit now includes 203 rkm instead of 
253 rkm.
    12. The description of South Atlantic Unit 3 has been updated to 
include a number of significant branches of the Savannah River that we 
intended to be considered critical habitat, and were included in the 
maps of the critical habitat unit, but were not specifically mentioned 
in the regulatory text. The unit description now includes: The Back 
River, Middle River, Front River, Little Back River, South River, 
Steamboat River, and McCoy's Cut.
    13. Carolina Unoccupied Unit 1 has been removed due to uncertainty 
regarding whether that stretch of the Cape Fear River contains spawning 
habitat that would make it essential to the conservation of the 
species.
    14. We have chosen to exercise our discretion under section 4(b)(2) 
of the ESA and exclude Carolina Unoccupied Unit 2 and South Atlantic 
Unoccupied 1,
    15. The table describing the states and counties in which critical 
habitat is being designated has been updated. It now includes Monroe 
and Wilcox counties on the Ocmulgee River, Treutlen County on the 
Oconee River, and Warren County on the Ogeechee River. All four 
counties occur in Georgia and were inadvertently omitted from the 
table. Additionally, we changed the upstream boundary of the Black 
River, South Carolina, and the Ogeechee River, Georgia, and removed all 
three unoccupied critical habitat units entirely. As a result of these 
changes, Calhoun, Fairfield, Kershaw, Lee, Lexington, New Berry, 
Sumter, Orangeburg, and Richland counties, South Carolina; Columbia, 
Edgefield and Taliaferro counties, Georgia; and Bladen County, North 
Carolina, will no longer be affected; those counties have been removed 
from the table. We also removed Irwin and Jasper counties, Georgia, 
from the list because they are not affected by any critical habitat 
unit.
    16. The description of PBF number 1 initially referred to 
``suitable hard bottom substrate (e.g., rock, cobble, gravel, 
limestone, boulder, etc.) in low salinity waters (i.e., 0.0-0.5 parts 
per thousand [ppt] range) . . .'' The word ``suitable'' was dropped 
because the term suggests there may be hard bottom that is unsuitable 
for spawning, which is not the case.
    17. The description of PBF number 2 includes three changes. 
Initially it said ``[t]ransitional salinity zones inclusive of waters 
with a gradual downstream gradient of 0.5-30 ppt and soft substrate 
(e.g., sand, mud) downstream of spawning sites for juvenile foraging 
and physiological development.'' The phrase ``aquatic habitat'' 
replaces the phrase ``transitional salinity zone'' because the latter 
was redundant with ``gradual downstream gradient,'' and we believe the 
revision better illustrates the river areas we intended to include. 
Additionally, the phrase ``between the river mouths and spawning 
sites'' replaces ``downstream of spawning sites.'' As previously 
written, we were concerned the public might construe ``downstream of 
spawning sites'' to included bays or sounds below rkm 0; this was not 
our intent. We believe the change more accurately reflects the 
boundaries of critical habitat. Finally, the words ``up to as high as'' 
were added after 0.5 and before 30 to clarify acceptable salinity 
ranges. Because the freshwater inputs vary from year to year, and river 
to river, it is possible that during a high freshwater flow year, the 
salinity levels within a unit may never reach 30 ppt. As previously 
written, the wording suggested that the gradual downstream gradient 
would have to encompass the entire 0.5-30 ppt salinity range; this was 
not our intent. This change is meant to acknowledge that the entire 
salinity range is not required.
    18. In PBF number 3, we were concerned the term ``physical'' might 
be confusing to the public with regards to the full suite of potential 
barriers that can impede sturgeon movement. As a result, we provided 
additional examples of physical barriers, including thermal plumes, 
turbidity, and sound.
    19. The phrase ``between the river mouths and spawning sites'' 
replaces ``downstream of spawning sites'' in the language of PBF number 
4. This change clarifies the areas designated as critical habitat as 
described under PBF number 2.
    20. For the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs, paragraph (iii) of 
PBF

[[Page 39216]]

number 4 initially used the terms ``optimal'' and ``suboptimal'' when 
discussing DO and temperature range examples. We were concerned the use 
of those terms may be misinterpreted as establishing specific, 
exclusive values. Because there is no single DO level or temperature 
range that is best for Atlantic sturgeon in terms of habitat avoidance 
or use, we replaced those terms. The example now states ``For example, 
6.0 mg/L DO or greater likely supports juvenile rearing habitat, 
whereas DO less than 5.0 mg/L for longer than 30 days is less likely to 
support rearing when water temperature is greater than 25 [deg]C.'' Our 
example language for temperature ranges has also been updated to state: 
``Temperatures of 13 to 26 [deg]C likely support spawning habitat.''
    Additionally, an example used in paragraph (iii) of PBF number 4 
referenced a single value of DO that was likely to support juvenile 
rearing habitat (i.e., ``For example, 6.0 mg/L DO for juvenile rearing 
habitat . . .''). The modifier ``or greater'' has been added to ``6.0 
mg/L DO'' because without it, the current language suggests only a 
single value of DO is likely to support juvenile rearing habitat, 
whereas anything above 6.0 mg/L would also be beneficial for the 
species as discussed in the preamble of the proposed rule.
    21. Seven rkms of the Cooper River, South Carolina, are no longer 
being designated as critical habitat pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B) of 
the ESA. Our analysis determined the Joint Base Charleston base has an 
INRMP that provides an applicable benefit to the species that would 
have been otherwise afforded by critical habitat, and therefore the 
area of the Cooper River is not eligible for designation as critical 
habitat for Atlantic sturgeon.
    22. We have clarified our reasoning for determining the upstream 
extent of each unit in the descriptions of each river.

Critical Habitat Identification and Designation

    We used the same approach to identify and designate critical 
habitat for the five DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon. However, our approach 
for designating critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, 
and Chesapeake Bay DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon was described in the 
supplemental information to the Impacts Analysis, whereas our approach 
for designating critical habitat for the Carolina and South Atlantic 
DPSs of Atlantic Sturgeon was described in the proposed rule (81 FR 
36077; June 3, 2016). Therefore, much of the information in the Impacts 
Analysis and proposed rule is repeated in this final rule that 
designates critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, 
Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon 
to show that we used the same approach for all five DPSs.
    Critical habitat represents the habitat that contains the PBFs that 
are essential to the conservation of the listed species and that may 
require special management considerations or protection (78 FR 53058; 
August 28, 2013). For example, specifying the geographical location of 
critical habitat facilitates implementation of section 7(a)(1) of the 
ESA by identifying areas where Federal agencies can focus their 
conservation programs and use their authorities to further the purposes 
of the ESA by carrying out programs for the conservation of listed 
species. Designating critical habitat also provides a significant 
regulatory protection by ensuring that the Federal Government considers 
the effects of its actions in accordance with section 7(a)(2) of the 
ESA and avoids or modifies those actions that are likely to destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat. This requirement is in addition to 
the section 7 requirement that Federal agencies ensure that their 
actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-
listed species. Critical habitat requirements do not apply to citizens 
engaged in activities on private land that do not involve a Federal 
agency. However, designating critical habitat can help focus the 
efforts of other conservation partners (e.g., State and local 
governments, individuals and nongovernmental organizations).
    Critical habitat is defined by section 3 of the ESA as (1) the 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at 
the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological 
features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) which 
may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) 
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at 
the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such 
areas are essential for the conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. 
1532(5)(A)). Conservation is defined in section 3 of the ESA as ``to 
use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to 
bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at 
which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer 
necessary'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)). Therefore, critical habitat includes 
specific areas within the occupied geographical area of the species at 
the time of listing that contains the features essential for the 
species' recovery. Critical habitat may also include unoccupied areas 
determined to be essential to species' conservation and recovery. 
However, section 3(5)(C) of the ESA clarifies that except in those 
circumstances determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not 
include the entire geographical area which can be occupied by the 
threatened or endangered species.
    To identify and designate critical habitat, we considered 
information on the distribution of Atlantic sturgeon, the major life 
stages, habitat requirements of those life stages, and conservation 
objectives that can be supported by identifiable PBFs. In the final 
rule listing the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs 
of Atlantic sturgeon (77 FR 5880; February 6, 2012), destruction, 
modification or curtailment of habitat, overutilization, lack of 
regulatory mechanisms for protecting the fish, and other natural or 
manmade factors (e.g., vessel strikes) were found to be the threats 
contributing to the threatened status of the Gulf of Maine DPS, and the 
endangered status of the New York Bight and Chesapeake Bay DPS. In the 
final rule listing the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic 
sturgeon (77 FR 5978; February 6, 2012), habitat curtailment and 
alteration, bycatch in commercial fisheries, and inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms were found to be the threats contributing to the 
endangered status of both DPSs. The Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs 
were found to be at 3 percent and 6 percent of their historical 
abundances, respectively, due to these threats. Therefore, we evaluated 
PBFs of the marine, estuarine, and riverine habitats of Atlantic 
sturgeon to determine what PBFs are essential to the conservation of 
each DPS.
    Accordingly, our step-wise approach for identifying potential 
critical habitat areas for the five Atlantic sturgeon DPSs was to 
determine: The geographical area occupied by each DPS at the time of 
listing; the PBFs essential to the conservation of the DPSs; whether 
those PBFs may require special management considerations or protection; 
the specific areas of the occupied geographical area where these PBFs 
occur; and, whether any unoccupied areas are essential to the 
conservation of any DPS.

Geographical Area Occupied by the Species

    ``Geographical area occupied by the species'' in the definition of 
critical habitat is interpreted to mean the entire

[[Page 39217]]

range of the species at the time it was listed, inclusive of all areas 
they use and move through seasonally (81 FR 7413; February 11, 2016). 
The marine ranges of the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, 
Carolina, and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon extend from the 
Hamilton Inlet, Labrador, Canada, to Cape Canaveral, Florida, USA (77 
FR 5880 and 77 FR 5978; February 6, 2012). We did not consider 
geographical areas within Canadian jurisdiction (e.g., Minas Basin, Bay 
of Fundy), because we cannot designate critical habitat areas outside 
of U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(g)).
    The listing rules identified the known spawning rivers for each of 
the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs but did not describe the in-river ranges for 
the DPSs. The river ranges of each DPS consist of all areas downstream 
of the first obstacle to upstream migration (e.g., the lowest dam 
without fish passage for sturgeon or significant waterfalls at the fall 
line) on each river within the range of the DPS. We identified the Gulf 
of Maine DPS in-river range as occurring in the watersheds from the 
Maine/Canadian border and extending southward to include all associated 
watersheds draining into the Gulf of Maine as far south as Chatham, 
Massachusetts. We identified the New York Bight DPS in-river range as 
occurring in the watersheds that drain into coastal waters, including 
Long Island Sound, the New York Bight, and Delaware Bay, from Chatham, 
Massachusetts to the Delaware-Maryland border on Fenwick Island. We 
identified the Chesapeake Bay DPS in-river range as occurring in the 
watersheds that drain into the Chesapeake Bay and into coastal waters 
from the Delaware-Maryland border on Fenwick Island to Cape Henry, 
Virginia. We identified the Carolina DPS in-river range as occurring in 
the watersheds (including all the rivers and tributaries) from 
Albemarle Sound, North Carolina, to Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. 
We identified the South Atlantic DPS in-river range as occurring in the 
watersheds (including all the rivers and tributaries) from the Ashepoo-
Combahee-Edisto (ACE) Basin in South Carolina to the St. Johns River, 
Florida.

Physical or Biological Features Essential for Conservation That May 
Require Special Management Considerations or Protection

    Within the geographical area occupied by the species, critical 
habitat consists of specific areas on which are found those PBFs 
essential to the conservation of the species and that may require 
special management considerations or protection. PBFs are defined as 
the features that support the life-history needs of the species, 
including water characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, 
prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may 
be a single habitat characteristic, or a more complex combination of 
habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics 
that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also 
be expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, 
such as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity (50 CFR 
424.02).
    The ability of subadults to find and access food is necessary for 
continued survival, growth, and physiological development to the adult 
life stage. Likewise, given that Atlantic sturgeon mature late and do 
not necessarily spawn annually, increased adult survival would improve 
the chances that adult Atlantic sturgeon spawn more than once. We 
determined that facilitating increased survival of all Atlantic 
sturgeon life stages as well as successful adult reproduction, and 
juvenile and subadult recruitment into the adult population, would 
likely increase the abundance of each DPS. We considered these 
conservation objectives to help us identify the physical or biological 
features of the critical habitat designations when we reviewed the 
literature describing the various types of habitat used by the Gulf of 
Maine, New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic 
DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon for the various life functions.
    Within the area occupied by Atlantic sturgeon, we considered the 
various types of habitat used by the DPSs for various life functions. 
Atlantic sturgeon spend the majority of their adult lives in offshore 
marine waters. They are known to travel extensively up and down the 
East Coast. As summarized in a number of summary documents, including 
the Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review (ASSRT, 2007) and the ASMFC's 
review of Atlantic coast diadromous fish habitat (Green et al., 2009), 
Atlantic sturgeon are benthic foragers and prey upon a variety of 
species in marine and estuarine environments (Bigelow and Schroeder, 
1953; Scott and Crossman, 1973; Johnson et al., 1997; Guilbard et al., 
2007; Savoy, 2007; Dzaugis, 2013; McLean et al., 2013). In the ocean, 
Atlantic sturgeon typically occur in waters less than 50 m deep, travel 
long distances, exhibit seasonal coastal movements, and aggregate in 
estuarine and ocean waters at certain times of the year (Vladykov and 
Greeley, 1963; Holland and Yelverton 1973; Dovel and Berggren, 1983; 
Dadswell et al., 1984; Gilbert, 1989; Johnson et al., 1997; Rochard et 
al., 1997; Kynard et al., 2000; Savoy and Pacileo, 2003; Eyler et al., 
2004; Stein et al., 2004; Dadswell, 2006; Eyler, 2006; Laney et al., 
2007; ASSRT, 2007; Dunton et al., 2010; Erickson et al., 2011; Dunton 
et al., 2012; Oliver et al., 2013; Wirgin et al., 2015). Several winter 
congregations of Atlantic sturgeon in the marine environment are known 
to occur, though the exact location and importance of those areas in 
the southeast is not known, nor whether Atlantic sturgeon are drawn to 
particular areas based on PBFs of the habitat. While we can identify 
general movement patterns and behavior in the marine environment (e.g., 
aggregating behavior), due to the paucity of data on the DPSs' offshore 
needs and specific habitat utilization, we could not at this time 
identify PBFs essential to conservation in the marine environment for 
any of the DPSs.
    Atlantic sturgeon use estuarine areas for foraging, growth, and 
movement. Atlantic sturgeon subadults and adults in non-spawning 
condition use estuarine waters seasonally, presumably for foraging 
opportunities, although evidence in the form of stomach content 
collection and analysis is limited (Savoy and Pacileo, 2003; Dzaugis, 
2013). We considered all studies that have collected Atlantic sturgeon 
stomach contents. All of the prey species identified are indicative of 
benthic foraging, but different types of prey were consumed and 
different substrates were identified for the areas where Atlantic 
sturgeon were foraging (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953; Johnson et al., 
1997; ASSRT, 2007; Guilbard et al., 2007; Savoy, 2007; Dzaugis, 2013; 
McLean et al., 2013). Adding to our uncertainty of the PBF(s) that 
support successful foraging for growth and survival of subadults and 
adults, Atlantic sturgeon move between estuarine environments in the 
spring through fall and can occur in estuarine environments during the 
winter as well (Collins et al., 2000; Savoy and Pacileo, 2003; Simpson, 
2008; Balazik et al., 2012). Subadult Atlantic sturgeon spawned in one 
riverine system may use multiple estuaries for foraging and growth, 
including those not directly connected to their natal river. The 
benthic invertebrates that comprise the diet of Atlantic sturgeon are 
found in soft substrates that are common and widespread in most 
estuaries. Limited data are available to differentiate areas of 
preferred prey items or higher prey abundance within or across 
estuaries. Due to the paucity of data on specific

[[Page 39218]]

habitat or resource utilization, we could not at this time identify any 
specific PBFs essential for the conservation of any of the DPSs that 
support adult and subadult foraging in estuarine or marine 
environments.
    Atlantic sturgeon spawning behavior and early life history have 
been extensively studied and are fairly well understood, though the 
exact location of spawning sites on many rivers (particularly in the 
Southeast) is not known or can change from time to time as water depth 
and substrate availability changes. However, there is substantial 
information in the scientific literature indicating the physical 
characteristics of Atlantic sturgeon spawning and early life history 
habitat. Therefore, to evaluate potential critical habitat, we focused 
on identifying the PBFs that support Atlantic sturgeon reproduction and 
survival of early life stages.
    The scientific literature indicates that Atlantic sturgeon spawning 
occurs well upstream, at or near the fall line of rivers, over hard 
substrate consisting of rock, pebbles, gravel, cobble, limestone, or 
boulders (Gilbert, 1989; Smith and Clugston, 1997). Hard substrate is 
required so that highly adhesive Atlantic sturgeon eggs have a surface 
to adhere to during their initial development and young fry can use the 
interstitial spaces between rocks, pebbles, cobble, etc., to hide from 
predators during downstream movement and maturation (Gilbert, 1989; 
Smith and Clugston, 1997).
    Very low salinity (i.e., 0.0-0.5 ppt) is another important feature 
of Atlantic sturgeon spawning habitat. Exposure to even low levels of 
salinity can kill Atlantic sturgeon during their first few weeks of 
life; thus, their downstream movement is limited until they can endure 
brackish waters (Bain et al., 2000). Shortnose sturgeon tend to spawn 
200-300 km upriver, preventing the youngest life stages from salt 
exposure too early in their development (Parker and Kynard, 2005; 
Kynard, 1997). Parker and Kynard (2005) also noted that long larval/
early juvenile downstream movement is common in both shortnose sturgeon 
from the Savannah River and Gulf sturgeon (a sub-species of Atlantic 
sturgeon), and that this may be a widespread adaptation of sturgeon 
inhabiting river systems in the southern United States. Due to their 
similar life history, Atlantic sturgeon most likely adapted a similar 
spawning strategy. Therefore, it is essential that the spawning area 
has low salinity, and that the spawning location is far enough upstream 
to allow newly-spawned Atlantic sturgeon to develop and mature during 
their downstream movement before encountering saline water. During 
their downstream movement, it is important for developing fish to 
forage in areas of soft substrate and to encounter transitional 
salinity zones to allow physiological adaptations to higher salinity 
waters.
    Minimum water depths for Atlantic sturgeon spawning are necessary 
to: (1) Allow adult fish to access spawning substrate, (2) adequately 
hydrate and aerate newly deposited eggs, and (3) facilitate successful 
development and downstream movement of newly spawned Atlantic sturgeon. 
However, water depth at these important spawning areas in the Southeast 
can be dynamic and portions of rivers may be dry or have little water 
at times due to natural seasonal river fluctuations, temporary drought 
conditions, and/or regulation by manmade structures such as dams; thus, 
these sites require protection to provide consistent services for 
sturgeon. The scientific literature indicates that Atlantic sturgeon 
spawn in water depths from 3-27 m (9.8-88.6 ft) (Borodin, 1925; Leland, 
1968; Scott and Crossman, 1973; Crance, 1987; Bain et al., 2000). 
However, much of this information is derived from studies of Atlantic 
sturgeon in northern United States and Canadian river systems. Atlantic 
sturgeon in the Southeast are likely spawning in much shallower water 
depths based on repeated observations by biologists of sturgeon with 
lacerations on their undersides from moving into extremely shallow 
water to spawn on hard substrate. Based on the available information, 
and the body depth and spawning behavior of Atlantic sturgeon, water 
depths of at least 1.2 m (4 ft) are deep enough to accommodate Atlantic 
sturgeon spawning.
    We considered fluid dynamic features as another potential essential 
feature of Atlantic sturgeon spawning critical habitat. The scientific 
literature provides information on the importance of appropriate water 
velocity within Atlantic sturgeon spawning habitat and provides optimal 
flows for some rivers. Atlantic sturgeon spawn directly on top of 
gravel in fast flowing sections often containing eddies or other 
current breaks. Eddies promote position holding between spawning 
individuals, trap gametes facilitating fertilization, and diminish the 
probability of egg dislocation by currents--facilitating immediate 
adhesion of eggs to the gravel substrate (Sulak and Clugston, 1999). 
However, velocity data are lacking for many rivers, and where data are 
available, the wide fluctuations in velocity rates on a daily, monthly, 
seasonal, and annual basis make it difficult to identify a range of 
water velocity necessary for the conservation of the species. However, 
we do know that water flow must be continuous.
    Adult Atlantic sturgeon must be able to safely and efficiently move 
from downstream areas into upstream spawning habitats in order to 
successfully spawn. In addition, larvae and juvenile Atlantic sturgeon 
must be able to safely and efficiently travel from the upstream 
spawning areas downstream to nursery and foraging habitat. Therefore, 
an essential PBF for Atlantic sturgeon spawning is unobstructed 
migratory pathways for safe movement of adults to and from upstream 
spawning areas as well as safe movement for the larvae and juveniles 
moving downstream. An unobstructed migratory pathway means an 
unobstructed river or a dammed river that still allows for passage.
    Water quality can be a critically limiting factor to Atlantic 
sturgeon in the shallow, warm, poorly oxygenated rivers of the 
southeast United States. Conditions in these river systems can change 
rapidly, particularly in rivers managed for hydropower production, and 
conditions can quickly become suboptimal or lethal for sturgeon. We 
considered essential water quality PBFs that support movement and 
spawning of adults and growth and development of juvenile Atlantic 
sturgeon. The distribution of Atlantic sturgeon juveniles in the natal 
estuary is a function of physiological development and habitat 
selection based on water quality factors of temperature, salinity, and 
DO, which are inter-related environmental variables. In laboratory 
studies with salinities of 8 to 15 ppt and temperatures of 12 and 20 
[deg]C, juveniles less than a year old had reduced growth at 40 percent 
DO saturation, grew best at 70 percent DO saturation, and selected 
conditions that supported growth (Niklitschek and Secor, 2009 I; 
Niklitschek and Secor, 2009 II). Results obtained for age-1 juveniles 
(i.e., greater than 1 year old and less than 2 years old) indicated 
that they can tolerate salinities of 33 ppt (i.e., a salinity level 
associated with seawater), but grow faster in lower salinity waters 
(Niklitschek and Secor, 2009 I; Allen et al., 2014). The best growth 
for both age groups occurred at DO concentrations greater than 6.5 mg/
L. While specific DO concentrations at temperatures considered 
stressful for Atlantic sturgeon are not available, instantaneous 
minimum concentrations of 4.3 mg/L protect survival of shortnose 
sturgeon at temperatures greater than 29 [deg]C (EPA, 2003). Secor and 
Niklitschek (2001) report shortnose sturgeon are

[[Page 39219]]

more tolerant of higher temperatures than Atlantic sturgeon. This is 
why Campbell and Goodman (2003) considered 29 [deg]C a stressful 
temperature for shortnose sturgeon, while Secor and Gunderson (1998) 
report Atlantic sturgeon becoming stressed at a lower threshold of 26 
[deg]C.
    In summary, within the area occupied by Atlantic sturgeon, we 
considered the various types of habitat used by the species for various 
life functions. We determined that Atlantic sturgeon spend the majority 
of their adult lives in offshore marine waters where they are known to 
travel extensively up and down the East Coast. However, we could not 
identify any PBFs in marine waters essential to the conservation of the 
species. We also determined Atlantic sturgeon subadults and adults use 
estuarine areas for foraging, growth, and movement. The ability of 
subadults to find and access food is necessary for continued survival, 
growth, and physiological development to the adult life stage. 
Likewise, given that Atlantic sturgeon mature late and do not 
necessarily spawn annually, increased adult survival would improve the 
chances that adult Atlantic sturgeon spawn more than once. Therefore, 
we determined a conservation objective for the Gulf of Maine, New York 
Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic DPSs is to increase 
the abundance of each DPS by facilitating increased survival of all 
life stages. After examining the information available on spawning and 
early life history behavior and habitat, we also concluded that 
facilitating adult reproduction and juvenile and subadult recruitment 
into the adult population are other conservation objectives for the 
Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South 
Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon. We could not identify any specific 
PBFs essential to the conservation of the species that support adult 
and subadult foraging in estuarine or marine environments. We 
determined that protecting spawning areas, juvenile development 
habitat, the in-river habitats that allow adults to reach the spawning 
areas and newly spawned sturgeon to make a safe downstream migration, 
and water quality to support all life stages, will facilitate meeting 
the conservation objectives discussed above.
    Given the biological needs and tolerances, and environmental 
conditions for Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs 
of Atlantic sturgeon as summarized previously, and the habitat-based 
conservation objectives, we identified the following PBFs essential to 
their conservation. As we have discussed, these PBFs may be ephemeral 
or vary spatially across time. Thus, areas designated as critical 
habitat are not required to have the indicated values at all times and 
within all parts of the area:
    <bullet> Hard bottom substrate (e.g., rock, cobble, gravel, 
limestone, boulder, etc.) in low salinity waters (i.e., 0.0-0.5 ppt 
range) for settlement of fertilized eggs, refuge, growth, and 
development of early life stages;
    <bullet> Aquatic habitat with a gradual downstream salinity 
gradient of 0.5 up to as high as 30 ppt and soft substrate (e.g., sand, 
mud) between the river mouth and spawning sites for juvenile foraging 
and physiological development;
    <bullet> Water of appropriate depth and absent physical barriers to 
passage (e.g., locks, dams, thermal plumes, turbidity, sound, 
reservoirs, gear, etc.) between the river mouth and spawning sites 
necessary to support: Unimpeded movements of adults to and from 
spawning sites; seasonal and physiologically dependent movement of 
juvenile Atlantic sturgeon to appropriate salinity zones within the 
river estuary, and; staging, resting, or holding of subadults or 
Spawning condition adults. Water depths in main river channels must 
also be deep enough (e.g., at least 1.2 m) to ensure continuous flow in 
the main channel at all times when any sturgeon life stage would be in 
the river, and
    <bullet> Water, between the river mouth and spawning sites, 
especially in the bottom meter of the water column, with the 
temperature, salinity, and oxygen values that, combined, support: 
Spawning; annual and interannual adult, subadult, larval, and juvenile 
survival; and larval, juvenile, and subadult growth, development, and 
recruitment (e.g., 13 [deg]C to 26 [deg]C for spawning habitat and no 
more than 30 [deg]C for juvenile rearing habitat, and 6 mg/L or greater 
DO for juvenile rearing habitat).
    Given the biological needs and tolerances, and environmental 
conditions for Atlantic sturgeon in rivers of the Southeast as 
summarized previously, and the habitat-based conservation objectives, 
we identified the following PBFs essential to Atlantic sturgeon 
conservation. As we have discussed, these PBFs may be ephemeral or vary 
spatially across time. Thus, areas designated as critical habitat are 
not required to have the indicated values at all times and within all 
parts of the area:
    <bullet> Hard bottom substrate (e.g., rock, cobble, gravel, 
limestone, boulder, etc.) in low salinity waters (i.e., 0.0-0.5 ppt 
range) for settlement of fertilized eggs and refuge, growth, and 
development of early life stages;
    <bullet> Aquatic habitat inclusive of waters with a gradual 
downstream gradient of 0.5 up to as high as 30 ppt and soft substrate 
(e.g., sand, mud) between the river mouths and spawning sites for 
juvenile foraging and physiological development;
    <bullet> Water of appropriate depth and absent physical barriers to 
passage (e.g., locks, dams, thermal plumes, turbidity, sound, 
reservoirs, gear, etc.) between the river mouth and spawning sites 
necessary to support: (1) Unimpeded movement of adults to and from 
spawning sites; (2) seasonal and physiologically dependent movement of 
juvenile Atlantic sturgeon to appropriate salinity zones within the 
river estuary; and (3) staging, resting, or holding of subadults and 
spawning condition adults. Water depths in main river channels must 
also be deep enough (at least 1.2 m) to ensure continuous flow in the 
main channel at all times when any sturgeon life stage would be in the 
river.
    <bullet> Water quality conditions, especially in the bottom meter 
of the water column, between the river mouths and spawning sites with 
temperature and oxygen values that support: (1) Spawning; (2) annual 
and inter-annual adult, subadult, larval, and juvenile survival; and 
(3) larval, juvenile, and subadult growth, development, and 
recruitment. Appropriate temperature and oxygen values will vary 
interdependently, and depending on salinity in a particular habitat. 
For example, 6.0 mg/L DO or greater likely supports juvenile rearing 
habitat, whereas DO less than 5.0 mg/L for longer than 30 days is less 
likely to support rearing when water temperature is greater than 25 
[deg]C. In temperatures greater than 26 [deg]C, DO greater than 4.3 mg/
L is needed to protect survival and growth. Temperatures of 13 to 26 
[deg]C likely support spawning habitat.

Specific Areas Containing the Essential Features Within the 
Geographical Area Occupied by the Species

    The definition of critical habitat instructs us to identify 
specific areas on which the PBFs essential to the species' conservation 
are found. Our regulations state that critical habitat will be defined 
by specific limits using reference points and lines on standard 
topographic maps of the area, and referencing each area by the state, 
county, or other local governmental unit in which it is located (50 CFR 
424.12(c)). To identify where the PBF(s) occur within areas occupied by 
Atlantic sturgeon, we reviewed the best scientific information 
available,

[[Page 39220]]

including the 2007 Atlantic sturgeon status review (ASSRT, 2007), the 
ESA listing rules (77 FR 5880 and 77 FR 5914; February 6, 2012), 
scientific research reports, information and data gathered during the 
peer-review process, and a database developed by the U.S. Geological 
Survey for mapping environmental parameters within East Coast rivers to 
identify sturgeon habitat. We also considered information on the 
location of sturgeon spawning activity from scientific reports, as 
active spawning in an area would indicate that the PBF(s) necessary for 
spawning are likely present. As noted previously, while we used the 
same approach for designating critical habitat for the five DPSs, the 
Impacts Analysis and Biological Source Document for the Gulf of Maine, 
New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs describes that approach for 
those DPSs and therefore is not repeated here. Because the critical 
habitat designation approach and information on specific rivers within 
the range of the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs was described in the 
proposed rule, and not in a separate document, it is provided here for 
reference.
    Information on documented spawning in specific areas in the 
Southeast is rare, but some does exist. For example, large sections of 
the Altamaha River have been found to support Atlantic sturgeon 
spawning activities for many years (Peterson et al., 2006; Peterson et 
al., 2008). We reviewed reports from a NMFS-funded multi-year, multi-
state research project on movement and migration of Atlantic sturgeon 
(Species Recovery Grant number NA10NMF4720036, Post et al., 2014). In 
these reports, researchers determined which portions of Southeastern 
rivers support spawning activities by looking at the upriver extent of 
sturgeon movements during spawning season.
    There are large areas of most rivers where data are still lacking. 
The available data also may represent a snapshot in time, while the 
exact location of a habitat feature may change over time (e.g., water 
depth fluctuates seasonally, as well as annually, and even hard 
substrate may shift position). For example, some data indicate a change 
in substrate type within a given location from year to year (e.g., from 
sand to gravel). It is not always clear whether such changes are due to 
an actual shift in substrate sediments or if the substrate sample was 
collected in a slightly different location between samplings. Although 
the habitat features may vary even at the same location, if any of the 
available data regarding a particular feature fell within the suitable 
range (e.g., salinity of 0-0.5 ppt or hard substrate [gravel, cobble, 
etc.]), we considered that the essential PBF is present in the area.
    For Southeast rivers, when data were not available for certain 
rivers or portions of occupied rivers, we used our general knowledge of 
Atlantic sturgeon spawning and applied river-specific information to 
determine the location of PBFs essential to spawning. We considered 
salinity tolerance during the earliest life stages to determine 
appropriate habitat for larvae to develop as they mature. Available 
telemetry data suggest that most Atlantic sturgeon spawning activity in 
the Savannah and Altamaha Rivers starts around rkm 100 (Post et al., 
2014). Similar evidence from the Edisto, Neuse, and Tar-Pamlico Rivers 
indicates spawning activity starts around rkm 80. Peer review comments 
on the Draft Economic and Biological Information to Inform Atlantic 
Sturgeon Critical Habitat Designation (for the Carolina and Southeast 
DPSs) indicated that Atlantic sturgeon spawn below the fall line, 
unlike shortnose sturgeon that may spawn well above the fall line.
    To encompass all areas important for Atlantic sturgeon spawning, 
reproduction, and recruitment within rivers where spawning is believed 
to occur or may occur, we identified specific areas of critical habitat 
from the mouth (rkm 0) of each spawning river to the upstream extent of 
the spawning habitat. For rivers that are not dammed and do not reach 
the fall line, an easily identifiable landmark (e.g., a dam or a 
bridge) was located to serve as the upstream boundary of the units. 
Similarly, the ordinary high water mark on the banks of the rivers 
encompasses all areas that are expected to contain one or more of the 
PBFs and provides an easily identifiable lateral boundary for the 
units.
    To identify specific habitats used by an Atlantic sturgeon DPS in 
occupied rivers, we considered the best scientific information 
available that described: (1) Capture location and/or tracking 
locations of Atlantic sturgeon identified to its DPS by genetic 
analysis; (2) capture location and/or tracking locations of adult 
Atlantic sturgeon identified to its DPS based on the presence of a tag 
that was applied when the sturgeon was captured as a juvenile in its 
natal estuary; (3) capture or detection location of adults in spawning 
condition (i.e., extruding eggs or milt) or post-spawning condition 
(e.g., concave abdomen for females); (4) capture or detection of YOY 
and other juvenile age classes; and (5) collection of eggs or larvae.
    Several large coastal rivers within the geographical area occupied 
by the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon do not 
appear to support spawning and juvenile recruitment or to contain 
suitable habitat features to support spawning. These rivers are the 
Chowan and New Rivers in North Carolina; the Waccamaw (above its 
confluence with Bull Creek which links it to the Pee Dee River), 
Sampit, Ashley, Ashepoo, and Broad-Coosawhatchie Rivers in South 
Carolina; and the St. Johns River in Florida. We have no information, 
current or historical, of Atlantic sturgeon using the Chowan and New 
Rivers in North Carolina. Recent telemetry work by Post et al. (2014) 
indicates that Atlantic sturgeon do not use the Sampit, Ashley, 
Ashepoo, and Broad-Coosawhatchie Rivers in South Carolina. These rivers 
are short, coastal plains rivers that most likely do not contain 
suitable habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. Post et al. (2014) also found 
Atlantic sturgeon only use the portion of the Waccamaw River downstream 
of Bull Creek. Due to manmade structures and alterations, spawning 
areas in the St. Johns River are not accessible and therefore do not 
support a reproducing population. For these reasons, we are not 
designating these coastal rivers, or portions of the rivers, as 
critical habitat. For rivers we are proposing to designate as critical 
habitat, we have historical or current information that they support 
spawning and juvenile recruitment as described below.

Roanoke River

    The Roanoke River was identified as a spawning river for Atlantic 
sturgeon based on the capture of juveniles, the collection of eggs, and 
the tracking location of adults. Further, there was information 
indicating the historical use of the Roanoke River by Atlantic 
sturgeon.
    Atlantic sturgeon were historically abundant in the Roanoke River 
and Albemarle Sound, but declined dramatically in response to intense 
fishing effort in the late 1800s (Armstrong and Hightower, 2002). There 
is still a population present in the Albemarle Sound and Roanoke River 
(Armstrong and Hightower, 2002; Smith et al., 2015). DNA analyses of 
juveniles captured in Albemarle Sound indicate that these fish are 
genetically distinct from Atlantic sturgeon collected in other systems 
(Wirgin et al., 2000; King et al., 2001).
    Historical records and recent research provide accounts of Atlantic 
sturgeon spawning within the fall zone (rkm 204-242) of the Roanoke 
River (Yarrow, 1874; Worth, 1904; Armstrong and Hightower, 2002; Smith 
et al., 2015).

[[Page 39221]]

Atlantic sturgeon remains from archaeological sites on the Roanoke 
River have been found as far upstream as rkm 261, approximately 19 
miles (30.5 km) above the upper end of the fall zone (VanDerwarker, 
2001; Armstrong and Hightower, 2002); however, that was prior to the 
construction of dams now located throughout the river. The farthest 
downstream dam, the Roanoke Rapids Dam, is located near the fall line 
at rkm 221. No fish passage exists at this dam, so all Atlantic 
sturgeon are restricted to the lower 17 rkm of fall zone habitat, which 
extends from the Roanoke Rapids Dam to Weldon, North Carolina at rkm 
204 (Armstrong and Hightower, 2002; Smith et al., 2015).
    Historical and current data indicate that spawning occurs in the 
Roanoke River, where both adults and small juveniles have been 
captured. Since 1990, the NCDMF has conducted the Albemarle Sound 
Independent Gill Net Survey (IGNS). From 1990 to 2006, 842 sturgeon 
were captured ranging from 15.3 to 100 cm fork length (FL), averaging 
47.2 cm FL. One hundred and thirty-three (16 percent) of the 842 
sturgeon captured were classified as YOY (41 cm total length (TL), 35 
cm FL); the others were subadults (ASSRT, 2007). A recent study by 
Smith et al. (2015), using acoustic telemetry data and egg collection 
during the fall of 2013, identified a spawning location near Weldon, 
North Carolina (rkm 204). The location contains the first shoals 
encountered by Atlantic sturgeon as they move upstream to spawn (Smith 
et al., 2015). The channel in this area is approximately 100 m wide and 
the substrate is primarily bedrock, along with fine gravel and coarse 
sediments in low-flow areas (Smith et al., 2015). During the study, 38 
eggs were collected during 21 days that spawning pads were deployed 
(Smith et al., 2015).
    A scientific survey also shows the presence of adult Atlantic 
sturgeon in the Roanoke River. Using side-scan sonar, Flowers and 
Hightower (2015) conducted surveys near the freshwater-saltwater 
interface with repeated surveys performed over 3 days. The surveys 
detected 4 Atlantic sturgeon greater than 1 m TL. Based on these 
detections, an abundance estimate for riverine Atlantic sturgeon of 
10.9 (95 percent confidence interval 3-36) fish greater than 1 m was 
calculated for the Roanoke River. This estimate does not account for 
fish less than 1 m TL, occurring in riverine reaches not surveyed, or 
in marine waters.

Tar-Pamlico River

    The Tar-Pamlico River was identified as a spawning river for 
Atlantic sturgeon based on the evidence of spawning and the capture of 
juveniles. The Tar-Pamlico River, one of two major tributaries to 
Pamlico Sound, is dammed. However, all riverine spawning habitat is 
accessible to Atlantic sturgeon in the Tar-Pamlico River, because the 
lower-most dam, the Rocky Mount Mill Pond Dam (rkm 199), is located at 
the fall line.
    Evidence of spawning was reported by Hoff (1980), after the capture 
of very young juveniles in the Tar River. Two juveniles were observed 
dead on the bank of Banjo Creek, a tributary to the Pamlico System 
(ASSRT, 2007). A sampling program similar to the Albemarle Sound IGNS 
collected 14 Atlantic sturgeon in 2004. These fish ranged in size from 
460 to 802 mm FL and averaged 575 mm FL. The NCDMF Observer Program 
reported the capture of 12 Atlantic sturgeon in the Pamlico Sound from 
April 2004 to December 2005; these fish averaged 600 mm TL (ASSRT, 
2007).

Neuse River

    The Neuse River was identified as a spawning river for Atlantic 
sturgeon based on the capture of small juveniles. Bain (1997) reports 
that ``early juveniles'' (20-440 mm FL) remain in their natal rivers 
until they become ``intermediate juveniles'' (450-630 mm FL) and begin 
gradually emigrating from the river during periods of rapid growth. 
Hoff (1980) reports sturgeon studies in the Neuse and Pamlico Rivers 
and Pamlico Sound captured low numbers of small (400-600 mm TL) 
sturgeon. The NCDMF Observer Program and an independent gill net survey 
report the captures of Atlantic sturgeon in the Neuse River were low 
during the period 2001-2003, ranging from zero to one fish/year. 
However, in 2004, this survey collected 5 Atlantic sturgeon ranging 
from 470-802 mm FL; none could be classified as early juveniles and 3 
could be classified as intermediate juveniles. In 2005, 23 Atlantic 
sturgeon were captured ranging from 365-650 mm FL; 9 could be 
classified as early juveniles and 14 could be classified as 
intermediate juveniles. From 2006-2013, another nine Atlantic sturgeon 
were captured ranging in size from 480-2,300 mm FL; the most caught in 
any given year during that period was four (2004). Of those nine 
animals, none would be classified as early juveniles but four could be 
classified as intermediate juveniles. One 720 mm TL Atlantic sturgeon 
was captured in 2014. Seventeen Atlantic sturgeon were caught in 2015 
ranging in size from 365-1,435 mm FL; four could be classified as early 
juveniles and eight could be classified as intermediate juveniles. In 
2016, three Atlantic sturgeon were captured ranging in size from 464-
656 mm FL; none could be classified as early juveniles and two could be 
classified as intermediate juveniles (M. Loeffler, NCDMF, to A. 
Herndon, NMFS, pers. comm. March 2017). From 2002-2003, four Atlantic 
sturgeon (561-992 mm FL) were captured by North Carolina State 
University personnel sampling in the Neuse River (Oakley, 2003). 
Similarly, the NCDMF Observer Program documented the capture of 12 
Atlantic sturgeon in the Pamlico Sound from April 2004 to December 
2005; none of these were YOY or spawning adults, averaging 
approximately 600 mm TL (ASSRT, 2007). Three additional specimens of 
YOY captured in the Neuse River in 1974 were found in a collection at 
North Carolina State University (J. Hightower, NCSU, to A. Herndon, 
NMFS, pers. comm. March 2017). An additional record of a YOY captured 
in the Neuse River in 1974, was provided by the North Carolina Museum 
of Natural Sciences (G. Hogue, NCMNS, to A. Herndon, NMFS, pers. comm. 
March 2017). Because sturgeon cannot pass above the Milburnie Dam, we 
believe that dam is likely the farthest upstream extent of spawning 
habitat accessible to Atlantic sturgeon.

Cape Fear River System

    The Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers were identified as 
spawning rivers for Atlantic sturgeon based on the capture of 
juveniles, the capture of adults in spawning condition, and the 
tracking location of adults, and information indicating the historical 
use by Atlantic sturgeon. In the late 1800s, the Cape Fear River had 
the largest landings of sturgeon in the southeastern United States 
(Moser and Ross, 1995). While species identification (i.e., shortnose 
or Atlantic sturgeon) is not possible, these landings suggest large 
populations of both species. The Cape Fear River is tidally influenced 
by diurnal tides up to at least rkm 96, and is also dredged extensively 
to maintain a depth of 12 m up to rkm 49 and then a depth of 4 m up to 
Lock and Dam #1. There are numerous deep holes (>10 m) throughout this 
extent.
    A gill net survey for adult shortnose and juvenile Atlantic 
sturgeon was conducted in the Cape Fear River drainage from 1990 to 
1992, and replicated from 1997 to 2005. Each sampling period included 
two overnight sets. The 1990-1992 survey captured 100 Atlantic sturgeon 
below Lock and Dam #1 (rkm 95). In 1997, 16 Atlantic sturgeon were 
captured below Lock and

[[Page 39222]]

Dam #1, an additional 60 Atlantic sturgeon were caught in the Brunswick 
(a tributary of the Cape Fear River), and 12 were caught in the 
Northeast Cape Fear River (Moser et al. 1998). Additionally, Ross et 
al. (1988 in Moser and Ross, 1995) reported the capture of a gravid 
female in the Cape Fear River.
    Recent telemetry work conducted in the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape 
Fear Rivers showed that subadult Atlantic sturgeon movement and 
distribution followed seasonal patterns (Loeffler and Collier in Post 
et al., 2014). During summer months, Atlantic sturgeon distribution was 
shifted upriver with limited large-scale movements; during the coldest 
time of year, subadult fish were absent from the rivers and had 
migrated to the estuary or ocean (Loeffler and Collier in Post et al., 
2014). The high inter-annual return rates of tagged fish to the system 
demonstrate that Atlantic sturgeon have fidelity to these rivers; this 
implies that the Cape Fear River system may be the natal system for 
these fish (Loeffler and Collier in Post et al., 2014).
    Further evidence of the importance of this system is demonstrated 
by the movement patterns of one of five adult Atlantic sturgeon tagged 
during the study that has shown site fidelity. This individual fish was 
in ripe and running condition at the time of tagging. This fish 
subsequently returned to the Cape Fear River system each of the 
following years (2013 and 2014) and has been detected farther upstream 
in both the Cape Fear (rkm 95) and Northeast Cape Fear (rkm 132) rivers 
than any tagged subadult fish during this study. This fish did not use 
the fish passage rock arch ramp at Lock and Dam #1; however, at the 
time when it was present at the base of the dam, the rock arch ramp 
structure was only partially complete. In all years of the study this 
fish had movement patterns that are consistent with spawning behavior, 
and this demonstrates that both the Northeast Cape Fear and Cape Fear 
Rivers may be important spawning areas. While telemetry data have not 
indicated Atlantic sturgeon presence above Lock and Dam #1, we believe 
the fish passage present at the dam is successful or that fish pass 
through the lock. We base this determination on reports of Atlantic 
sturgeon above Lock and Dam #1 (F. Rohde, NMFS, pers. comm. to J. 
Rueter, NMFS, July 14, 2015). Because sturgeon cannot currently pass 
above the Lock and Dam #2, we believe that dam is likely the farthest 
upstream extent of spawning habitat currently accessible to Atlantic 
sturgeon in the occupied unit of the river. The Northeast Cape River is 
not dammed and does not extend all the way to the fall line. For these 
reasons we used an easily identifiable landmark (e.g., upstream side of 
Rones Chapel Road Bridge) to serve as the upstream boundary.

Pee Dee River System

    The Pee Dee River System was identified as providing spawning 
habitat used by Atlantic sturgeon based on the capture of juveniles, 
the capture of adults in spawning condition, and the tracking location 
of adults. Captures of age-1 juveniles from the Waccamaw River during 
the early 1980s suggest that a reproducing population of Atlantic 
sturgeon existed in that river, although the fish could have been from 
the nearby Pee Dee River (Collins and Smith 1997). Additionally, 
telemetry data from tagged adult Atlantic sturgeon appear to show 
individuals making spawning runs into the Pee Dee River by traveling up 
the Waccamaw River, through Bull Creek, and into the Pee Dee River. (B. 
Post, SCDNR, pers. comm. to J. Rueter, NMFS, July 9, 2015).
    Based on preliminary analyses of sturgeon detections during their 
study, Post et al. (2014) concluded the Pee Dee River system appears to 
be used by Atlantic sturgeon for summer/winter seasonal habitat as well 
as for spawning. From 2011 to 2014, 41 sturgeon were detected in 
upstream areas of the Pee Dee River that were considered to be spawning 
areas. All 10 Atlantic sturgeon that were originally implanted with 
transmitters in the Pee Dee System were later detected displaying 
upstream and downstream movement. Distinct movement patterns were 
evident for these fish as similar patterns were observed each year of 
the study period. Two of the 10 fish originally tagged in the Pee Dee 
System and many tagged fish from other systems made spawning runs in 
the Pee Dee River (Post et al., 2014). The fall line is located 
approximately 35 rkm below Blewett Falls Dam, which is impassable to 
sturgeon. Thus, we believe the dam represents the upstream extent of 
spawning habitat accessible to Atlantic sturgeon on the Pee Dee River 
system.

Black River, South Carolina

    The Black River was identified as a spawning river for Atlantic 
sturgeon based on the capture of juveniles and the tracking location of 
adults. During a telemetry study from 2011 to 2014, Post et al. (2014) 
detected 10 juveniles and 10 adults using the Black River. An adult 
male was detected at the last receiver station in the river one year 
(rkm 70.4) and the next to last receiver station in a subsequent year. 
While the receiver stations were not at the fall line, they were very 
far upriver, and it is likely that the only reason this fish traveled 
so far upriver was to spawn (B. Post, SCDNR, pers. comm. to J. Rueter, 
NMFS PRD, July 9, 2015). Juveniles were located as far upstream as rkm 
42.1, suggesting the Black River is also an important foraging/refuge 
habitat. The main stem of the Black River becomes braided before 
reaching the fall line and is no longer identifiable above Interstate 
Highway 95. Thus, setting the boundary at that highway includes the 
upstream extent of spawning habitat within the unit.

Santee and Cooper Rivers

    The Santee-Cooper River system was identified as a spawning river 
system for Atlantic sturgeon based on the capture of YOY. The Santee 
River basin is the second largest watershed on the Atlantic Coast of 
the United States; however, with the completion of Wilson Dam in the 
1940s, upstream fish migrations were restricted to the lowermost 145 
rkms of the Santee River. Following construction of the Wilson and 
Pinopolis Dams, the connectivity between the coastal plain and piedmont 
was lost. In the 1980s, a fish passage facility at the St. Stephen 
powerhouse, designed to pass American shad and blueback herring, was 
completed that attempted to restore connectivity throughout the system. 
The passage facility has not been successful for Atlantic sturgeon 
(Post et al., 2014). However, in 2007 an Atlantic sturgeon entered the 
fish passage facility at the fishway to the lift, presumably in an 
attempt to migrate upstream to spawn, and was subsequently physically 
removed and then released downstream into the Santee River (A. Crosby, 
SCDNR, pers. comm.).
    Historically, the Cooper River was a small coastal plain river that 
fed into Charleston Harbor. The completion of the Santee Cooper 
hydropower project in the 1940s dramatically changed river discharge in 
the Cooper River. From the 1940s into the 1980s, nearly all river 
discharge of the Santee River was diverted through the Santee Cooper 
project, run through the hydroelectric units in Pinopolis Dam, and 
discharged down the Tailrace Canal and into the Cooper River. In the 
1980s, the Rediversion Project redirected part of the system's 
discharge back to the Santee River; however, a significant discharge of 
freshwater still flows into the Cooper River. The Cooper River provides 
the dominant freshwater input for the Charleston Harbor and provides 77 
rkm of riverine habitat (Post et al., 2014).

[[Page 39223]]

    The capture of 151 subadults, including age-1 fish, from 1970-1995 
indicates a population exists in the Santee River (Collins and Smith, 
1997). Four juvenile Atlantic sturgeon, including YOY, were captured in 
the winter of 2003, one in the Santee and three in the Cooper Rivers 
(McCord, 2004). These data support the existence of a spawning 
population, but SCDNR biologists working in the Santee-Cooper system 
believe the smaller fish are pushed into the system from the Pee Dee 
and/or Waccamaw Rivers during flooding conditions (McCord, 2004). This 
hypothesis is based on the lack of access to suitable spawning habitat 
due to the locations of the Wilson Dam on the Santee River, the St. 
Stephen Powerhouse on the Rediversion Canal, and the Pinopolis Dam on 
the Cooper River. Nonetheless, the Santee-Cooper River system appears 
to be important foraging and refuge habitat and could serve as 
important spawning habitat once access to historical spawning grounds 
is restored through a fishway prescription under the FPA (NMFS, 2007). 
In addition, hard substrate that could be used for spawning exists in 
the reach of the Santee River below the Wilson Dam, but has been 
rendered inaccessible by inadequate flow regimes below the dam. We 
anticipate this will be addressed in the new hydropower license for the 
Santee-Cooper project.
    In a recent telemetry study by Post et al. (2014), four Atlantic 
sturgeon were tagged in the Santee River from 2011 to 2014. Of these 
four, one was detected in the river, one was detected at the mouth of 
the river, and the other two have not been detected in the Santee River 
system since being tagged. There was no detectable spawning run or 
pattern of movement for the tagged fish that remained in the Santee 
River (Post et al., 2014). There were no Atlantic sturgeon captured in 
the Cooper River during the Post et al. (2014) study. There were seven 
Atlantic sturgeon detected in the Cooper River that had been tagged in 
other systems. The Atlantic sturgeon that were detected in the Cooper 
River were more commonly detected in the saltwater tidal zone, with the 
exception of one that made a presumed spawning run to Pinopolis Dam in 
the fall of 2013 (Post et al., 2014). The upstream extents of potential 
spawning habitat available to Atlantic sturgeon in the occupied 
portions of the Santee and Cooper Rivers are at the Wilson and 
Pinopolis Dams, respectively.

Edisto River

    The Edisto is the largest river in the Ashepoo, Combahee, Edisto 
(ACE) Basin. It begins in the transition zone between piedmont and 
coastal plain and is unimpeded for its entire length. It is the longest 
free flowing blackwater river in South Carolina. During excessive rainy 
seasons it will inundate lowlands and swamps, and the flow basin 
increases to a mile (1.6 km) wide or more. The Edisto River was 
identified as a spawning river for Atlantic sturgeon based on the 
capture of an adult in spawning condition and capture location and 
tracking of adults.
    Spawning adults (39 in 1998) and YOY (1,331 from 1994-2001) have 
been captured in the ACE basin (Collins and Smith, 1997; ASSRT, 2007). 
One gravid female was captured in the Edisto River during sampling 
efforts in 1997 (ASSRT, 2007). Seventy-six Atlantic sturgeon were 
tagged in the Edisto River during a 2011 to 2014 telemetry study (Post 
et al., 2014). After tagging, 58 of the 76 Atlantic sturgeon tagged 
were detected again in the Edisto River during the study. Distinct 
movement patterns of Atlantic sturgeon were evident. Fish entered the 
river between April and June and were detected in the saltwater tidal 
zone until water temperature decreased below 25 [deg]C. They then moved 
into the freshwater tidal area, and some fish made presumed spawning 
migrations in the fall around September-October. Spawning migrations 
were thought to be occurring based on fish movements upstream to the 
presumed spawning zone between rkm 78 and 210. Fish stayed in these 
presumed spawning zones for an average of 22 days. The tagged Atlantic 
sturgeon left the river system by November. A number of tagged 
individuals were detected making such movements during multiple years 
of the study. Only those fish that were tagged in the Edisto River were 
detected upstream near presumed spawning grounds, while fish detected 
in the Edisto River, but tagged elsewhere, were not detected near the 
presumed spawning areas. In the winter and spring, Atlantic sturgeon 
were generally absent from the system except for a few fish that 
remained in the saltwater tidal zone (Post et al., 2014). The North and 
South Forks of the Edisto River represent the upstream boundary for the 
Edisto River. Both forks occur at or very near the fall line, and 
likely represent the upstream extent of spawning habitat accessible to 
Atlantic sturgeon on the Edisto River.

Combahee-Salkehatchie River

    The Combahee-Salkehatchie River was identified as a spawning river 
for Atlantic sturgeon based on capture location and tracking locations 
of adults and the spawning condition of an adult. Spawning adults (39 
in 1998) and YOY (1,331 from 1994-2001) have been captured in the ACE 
basin (Collins and Smith, 1997; ASSRT, 2007). One running ripe male was 
captured in the Combahee River during a sampling program in 1997 
(ASSRT, 2007). Seven Atlantic sturgeon were captured and five were 
tagged during a 2010 and 2011 telemetry study (Post et al., 2014). 
Atlantic sturgeon that were tagged in the Combahee River were absent 
from the system for the majority of the study period. An Atlantic 
sturgeon that was tagged in June of 2011 left the system in the fall of 
2011, returned in July 2012 and left the system again in the fall of 
2012. This fish was detected the farthest upstream of any tagged 
Atlantic sturgeon in the Combahee River (rkm 56). Another individual 
was identified as a running ripe male at capture in the Combahee River 
in March 2011, was detected again exhibiting spawning behavior in the 
North East Cape Fear River, North Carolina, in March 2012, and in 2014 
was detected from February-April in the Pee Dee System. The main stem 
of the Combahee-Salkehatchie River runs out well before the fall line. 
Thus, we believe the upstream extent of spawning habitat in the rivers 
is at the confluence of the Buck and Rosemary Creeks, which also marks 
the upstream boundary for the Combahee-Salkehatchie River.

Savannah River

    The Savannah River was identified as a spawning river for Atlantic 
sturgeon based on capture location and tracking locations of adults and 
the collection of larvae. Forty-three Atlantic sturgeon larvae were 
collected in upstream locations (rkm 113-283) near presumed spawning 
locations (Collins and Smith, 1997). Seven Atlantic sturgeon were also 
tagged from 2011 to 2014 and distinct movement patterns were evident 
(Post et al., 2014). In 2011, one individual was detected travelling 
upstream in mid-April and remained at a presumed spawning area (rkm 
200-301) through mid-September. Two Atlantic sturgeon migrated into the 
system and upstream to presumed spawning grounds in 2012. The first 
entered the system in mid-August and returned downriver in mid-
September; the other entered the system in mid-September and returned 
downriver in mid-October. Four Atlantic sturgeon entered the Savannah 
River and migrated upstream during the late summer and fall months in 
2013. Two Atlantic sturgeon previously tagged in the Savannah River 
made upstream spawning movements; this was the second year (2011) one 
of these fish was

[[Page 39224]]

detected making similar upstream movements. These two fish were also 
detected immediately upstream of the NSBL&D (rkm 301). It is unknown if 
they passed through the lock or swam over the dam during high flows. 
There is a strong possibility that one fish may have been detected by 
the receiver directly upstream while still remaining downstream of the 
dam and while flow control gates were in a full open position. Atlantic 
sturgeon in the Savannah River were documented displaying similar 
behavior 3 years in a row--migrating upstream during the fall and then 
being absent from the system during spring and summer. Because sturgeon 
cannot currently pass above the NSBL&D, we believe that dam is the 
farthest upstream extent of spawning habitat accessible to Atlantic 
sturgeon in the occupied reaches of the river.

Ogeechee River

    The Ogeechee River was identified as a spawning river for Atlantic 
sturgeon based on tracking of adults and YOY. Seventeen Atlantic 
sturgeon (each measuring less than 30 cm TL) considered to be YOY were 
collected in 2003 by the Army's Environmental and Natural Resources 
Division (AENRD) at Fort Stewart, Georgia. An additional 137 fish were 
captured by the AENRD in 2004. Nine of these fish measured less than 41 
cm TL and were considered YOY. During a telemetry study from 2011 to 
2014, there were no capture or tagging efforts conducted in the 
Ogeechee River; however, 40 Atlantic sturgeon were detected in the 
Ogeechee River (Ingram and Peterson, 2016). A rock shoal exists at the 
fall line on the Ogeechee River. However, it is possible that during 
certain high flow periods Atlantic sturgeon could pass above those 
shoals. Instead, the impassable Mayfield Mill Dam likely represents the 
extent of upstream spawning habitat accessible to Atlantic sturgeon on 
the Ogeechee River.

Altamaha River

    The Altamaha River and its major tributaries, the Oconee and 
Ocmulgee Rivers, were identified as spawning rivers for Atlantic 
sturgeon based on capture location and tracking of adults and the 
capture of adults in spawning condition. The Altamaha River supports 
one of the healthiest Atlantic sturgeon subpopulations in the 
Southeast, with over 2,000 subadults captured in trammel nets in a 
2003-2005 study, 800 of which were nominally age-1 as indicated by size 
(ASSRT, 2007). A survey targeting Atlantic sturgeon was initiated in 
2003 by the University of Georgia. By October 2005, 1,022 Atlantic 
sturgeon had been captured using trammel and large gill nets. Two 
hundred and sixty-seven of these fish were collected during the spring 
spawning run in 2004 (74 adults) and 2005 (139 adults). From these 
captures, 308 (2004) and 378 (2005) adults were estimated to have 
participated in the spring spawning run, representing 1.5 percent of 
Georgia's historical spawning stock (females) as estimated from U.S. 
Fish Commission landing records (Schueller and Peterson, 2006; Secor 
2002).
    In a telemetry study by Peterson et al. (2006), most tagged adult 
Atlantic sturgeon were found between rkm 215 and 420 in October and 
November when water temperatures were appropriate for spawning. There 
are swift currents and rocky substrates throughout this stretch of 
river (Peterson et al., 2006). Two hundred thirteen adults in spawning 
condition were captured in the Altamaha system in 2004-2005 (Peterson 
et al., 2006).
    Forty-five adult Atlantic sturgeon were captured and tagged from 
2011 to 2013 (Ingram and Peterson, 2016). Telemetry data from the 
tagged individuals indicated that the fish were present in the system 
from April through December. Twenty-six fish made significant (>160 
rkm) migrations upstream with eight fish making the migration in at 
least two of the years and four making the migration in all three years 
of the study. No site fidelity was apparent based on these data; 
however, an upriver site near the confluence of the Ocmulgee (rkm 340-
350) was visited by multiple fish in multiple years. Fish migrated 
upstream into both the Ocmulgee and Oconee Rivers, but the majority 
entered the Ocmulgee River. The maximum extent of these upriver 
migrations was rkm 408 in the Ocmulgee River and rkm 356 in the Oconee 
River (Ingram and Peterson, 2016).
    Two general migration patterns were observed for fish in this 
system. Early upriver migrations that began in April-May typically 
occurred in two steps, with fish remaining at mid-river locations 
during the summer months before continuing upstream in the fall. The 
late-year migrations, however, were typically initiated in August or 
September and were generally non-stop. Regardless of which migration 
pattern was used during upstream migration, all fish exhibited a one-
step pattern of migrating downstream in December and early January 
(Ingram and Peterson, 2016). Sinclair Dam is approximately 15 rkm above 
the fall line on the Oconee River and represents the upstream boundary 
of critical habitat on the river. The Juliette Dam on the Ocmulgee 
River is approximately 40 rkm above the fall line and represents the 
upstream boundary of critical habitat on the river.

Satilla River

    The Satilla River was identified as a spawning river for Atlantic 
sturgeon based on the capture of adults in spawning condition. Ong et 
al. (1996) captured four reproductively mature Atlantic sturgeon on 
spawning grounds during the spawning season in the Satilla River. The 
main stem of the Satilla River runs out well before the fall line. 
Thus, we believe the upstream extent of spawning habitat in the river 
is at the confluence of the Satilla and Wiggins Creeks.

St. Marys River

    The St. Marys River was identified as a spawning river for Atlantic 
sturgeon based on the capture of YOY Atlantic sturgeon. Atlantic 
sturgeon were once thought to be extirpated in the St. Marys River. 
However, nine Atlantic sturgeon were captured in sampling efforts 
between May 19 and June 9, 2014. Captured fish ranged in size from 293 
mm (YOY) to 932 mm (subadult). This is a possible indication of a slow 
and protracted recovery in the St. Marys (D. Peterson, UGA, pers. comm. 
to J. Rueter, NMFS PRD, July 8, 2015). The main stem of the St. Marys 
River runs out well before the fall line. Thus, we believe the upstream 
extent of spawning habitat in the river is at the confluence of the 
Middle Prong St. Marys and St. Marys Rivers.
    Using this information, we identified 14 areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs, at 
the time of listing, that contain the PBFs essential to conservation of 
the species. Our descriptions of the critical habitat units and PBFs 
for the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs use both the terms ``river 
mouth'' and ``rkm 0.'' Those terms are interchangeable and we use them 
as such.
    The ordinary high water mark on each bank of the river and 
shorelines is the lateral extent of the following occupied critical 
habitat units:
    Carolina Unit 1 includes the Roanoke River main stem from the 
Roanoke Rapids Dam downstream to rkm 0;
    Carolina Unit 2 includes the Tar-Pamlico River main stem from the 
Rocky Mount Millpond Dam downstream to rkm 0;
    Carolina Unit 3 includes the Neuse River main stem from the 
Milburnie Dam downstream to rkm 0;
    Carolina Unit 4 includes the Cape Fear River main stem from Lock 
and

[[Page 39225]]

Dam #2 downstream to rkm 0 and the Northeast Cape Fear River from the 
upstream side of Rones Chapel Road Bridge downstream to the confluence 
with the Cape Fear River;
    Carolina Unit 5 includes the Pee Dee River main stem from Blewett 
Falls Dam downstream to rkm 0, the Waccamaw River from Bull Creek 
downstream to rkm 0, and Bull Creek from the Pee Dee River to the 
confluence with the Waccamaw River;
    Carolina Unit 6 includes the Black River main stem from Interstate 
Highway 95 downstream to rkm 0;
    Carolina Unit 7 includes the Santee River main stem from the Wilson 
Dam downstream to the fork of the North Santee River and South Santee 
River distributaries, the Rediversion Canal from the St. Stephen 
Powerhouse downstream to the confluence with the Santee River, the 
North Santee River from the fork of the Santee River and South Santee 
River downstream to rkm 0, the South Santee River from the fork of the 
Santee River and North Santee River downstream to rkm 0, the Tailrace 
Canal from Pinopolis Dam downstream to the West Branch Cooper River, 
the West Branch Cooper River from the Tailrace Canal downstream to the 
confluence with the East Branch Cooper River, and the Cooper River from 
the confluence of the West Branch Cooper River and East Branch Cooper 
River tributaries downstream to rkm 0;
    South Atlantic Unit 1 includes the North Fork Edisto River from 
Cones Pond downstream to the confluence with the South Fork Edisto 
River, the South Fork Edisto River from Highway 121 downstream to the 
confluence with the North Fork Edisto River, the Edisto River main stem 
from the confluence of the North Fork Edisto River and South Fork 
Edisto River tributaries downstream to the fork at the North Edisto 
River and South Edisto River distributaries, the North Edisto River 
from the Edisto River downstream to rkm 0, and the South Edisto River 
from the Edisto River downstream to rkm 0;
    South Atlantic Unit 2 includes the main stem Combahee--Salkehatchie 
River from the confluence of Buck and Rosemary Creeks with the 
Salkehatchie River downstream to the Combahee River, and the Combahee 
River from the Salkehatchie River downstream to rkm 0;
    South Atlantic Unit 3 includes the main stem Savannah River from 
the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam downstream to rkm 0;
    South Atlantic Unit 4 includes the main stem Ogeechee River from 
the Mayfield Mill Dam downstream to rkm 0;
    South Atlantic Unit 5 includes the main stem Oconee River from 
Sinclair Dam downstream to the confluence with the Ocmulgee River, the 
main stem Ocmulgee River from Juliette Dam downstream to the confluence 
with the Oconee River, and the main stem Altamaha River from the 
confluence of the Oconee River and Ocmulgee River downstream to rkm 0;
    South Atlantic Unit 6 includes the main stem Satilla River from the 
confluence of Satilla and Wiggins Creeks downstream to rkm 0; and
    South Atlantic Unit 7 includes the main stem St. Marys River from 
the confluence of Middle Prong St. Marys and the St. Marys Rivers 
downstream to rkm 0.

Need for Special Management Considerations or Protection

    We concluded that each of the PBFs defined above for the Gulf of 
Maine, New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic 
DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon may require special management considerations 
or protection. Barriers (e.g., dams, tidal turbines) to generate power 
or control water flow in rivers used by Atlantic sturgeon can damage or 
destroy bottom habitat needed for spawning and rearing of juveniles, 
restrict movement of adults to and from spawning grounds, prevent 
juveniles from accessing the full range of salinity in the natal 
estuary, and alter water quality parameters, including water depth, 
temperature and DO, to the detriment of sturgeon reproduction, growth, 
and survival. Water withdrawals can similarly adversely impact water 
quality for Atlantic sturgeon spawning, recruitment, and development. 
Land development and commercial and recreational activities on a river 
can contribute to sediment deposition that affects water quality 
necessary for successful spawning and recruitment. A build-up of fine 
sediments may, for example, reduce the suitability of hard spawning 
substrate for Atlantic sturgeon egg adherence and reduce the 
interstitial spaces used by larvae for refuge from predators. Dredging 
to remove sediment build-up, to deepen harbors and facilitate vessel 
traffic, or to mine construction materials may remove or alter hard 
substrate that is necessary for egg adherence and that serves as refuge 
for larvae or soft substrate needed for juvenile foraging, and may 
change the water depth, resulting in shifts in the salt wedge within 
the estuary, or change other characteristics of the water quality 
(e.g., temperature, DO) necessary for the developing eggs, larvae, and 
juveniles.
    The PBFs essential for successful Atlantic sturgeon reproduction 
and recruitment may also require special management considerations or 
protection as a result of global climate change. Conditions in the 
rivers of the Southeast used by sturgeon already threaten the species' 
survival and recovery due to exceedances of temperature tolerances and 
the sensitivity of sturgeon to low DO levels; these impacts will worsen 
as a result of global climate change and predicted warming of the U.S. 
Atlantic Coast. Many communities and commercial facilities withdraw 
water from the rivers containing the PBFs essential to Atlantic 
sturgeon reproduction. Water withdrawals during drought events can 
affect flows, depths, and the position of the salt wedge, further 
impacting the water flow necessary for successful sturgeon 
reproduction, and they can also affect DO levels. Attempts to control 
water during floods (e.g., spilling water from dams upriver of Atlantic 
sturgeon spawning and rearing habitat) can similarly alter flows to the 
point of dislodging fertilized eggs, washing early life stages 
downstream into more saline habitat before being developmentally ready, 
and creating barriers (e.g., from debris) to upstream and downstream 
passage of adults and juveniles. We therefore conclude that the PBFs 
essential to the conservation of the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, 
Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic DPSs may require special 
management considerations or protections.

Unoccupied Areas

    ESA section 3(5)(A)(ii) defines critical habitat to include 
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied if the areas are 
determined by the Secretary to be essential for the conservation of the 
species. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(g) also state: ``The 
Secretary will not designate critical habitat within foreign countries 
or in other areas outside of the jurisdiction of the United States.''
    There are riverine areas outside of the geographical area occupied 
by the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs as a 
result of dams and natural falls. We considered whether these 
unoccupied areas were essential to the conservation of the respective 
DPSs and concluded that they were not essential because nearly all 
known historical habitat is accessible to the Gulf of Maine, New York 
Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs (ASSRT, 2007; 77 FR 5880; February 6, 
2012) and, because additional unoccupied habitat is not necessary in 
light of any

[[Page 39226]]

anticipated impacts of climate change. Therefore, we are not 
designating critical habitat within any unoccupied areas for the Gulf 
of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs.
    For the Carolina and South Atlantic DPS, we had proposed to 
designate areas of unoccupied critical habitat. However, based on input 
received during the public review process, we reconsidered those 
proposals. After discussion with USFWS and state resource managers, we 
are uncertain whether the Cape Fear River unoccupied unit (i.e., the 
area between Lock and Dam #2 and Lock and Dam #3) contains spawning 
habitat that would make it essential for the conservation of species. 
In addition,, following the conclusion of our discretionary exclusion 
analysis we have elected to exercise our discretion under section 
4(b)(2) of the ESA and exclude the Santee-Cooper river system and 
Savannah River unoccupied units of critical habitat. We determined the 
benefits of exclusion (that is, avoiding some or all of the impacts 
that would result from designation) outweigh the benefits of 
designation.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 39227]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.000

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

[[Page 39228]]

Application of ESA Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) (Military Lands)

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA prohibits designating as critical 
habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by 
the DOD, or designated for its use, that are subject to an INRMP 
prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the 
Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to 
the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation. The 
legislative history to this provision explains:

    The conferees would expect the [Secretary] to assess an INRMP's 
potential contribution to species conservation, giving due regard to 
those habitat protection, maintenance, and improvement projects and 
other related activities specified in the plan that address the 
particular conservation and protection needs of the species for 
which critical habitat would otherwise be proposed. Consistent with 
current practice, the Secretary would establish criteria that would 
be used to determine if an INRMP benefits the listed species for 
which critical habitat would be proposed. (Conference Committee 
report, 149 Cong. Rec. H. 10563 (November 6, 2003)).

    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(h) provide that in determining 
whether an applicable benefit is provided, we must consider:
    (1) The extent of the area and features present;
    (2) The type and frequency of use of the area by the species;
    (3) The relevant elements of the INRMP in terms of management 
objectives, activities covered, and best management practices, and the 
certainty that the relevant elements will be implemented; and
    (4) The degree to which the relevant elements of the INRMP will 
protect the habitat from the types of effects that would be addressed 
through a destruction-or-adverse-modification analysis.
    In accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA, the particular 
areas of the U.S. Military Academy--West Point, New York, Joint Base 
Langley--Eustis, Virginia, Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, Naval 
Support Facility Dahlgren, and Naval Weapons Station Yorktown, that 
overlap with a New York Bight DPS or Chesapeake Bay DPS critical 
habitat unit are not part of the designated critical habitat unit 
because the INRMP for each facility provides a benefit to the 
respective Atlantic sturgeon DPS and its habitat. A copy of the letter 
providing our determination for each facility is provided in Appendix C 
of the Impacts Analysis and Biological Source Document for the Gulf of 
Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon. 
That Appendix also includes our analysis supporting the conclusion that 
the relevant INRMPs provide the types of benefits to Atlantic sturgeon 
described in our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(h)); therefore, that 
analysis is not repeated here.

Consideration of Whether the Joint Base Charleston INRMP Provides a 
Conservation Benefit to the Carolina DPS

    Joint Base Charleston (JBC) in South Carolina is the only 
installation controlled by the DOD which coincides with any area under 
consideration for critical habitat for the Carolina DPS. Prior to 
development of the proposed rule, we asked JBC to determine if they 
owned or controlled any lands that should not be designated as critical 
habitat pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA. They responded 
stating they did not believe they owned or controlled any lands 
eligible for section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) non-inclusion. However, during the 
public comment period, the Navy requested in writing that the 
restricted area on the Cooper River, South Carolina (defined at 33 CFR 
334.460), not be designated as critical habitat, citing that it is 
covered by the 2015 INRMP for JBC and should not be included pursuant 
to ESA section 4(a)(3)(B)(i).
    The regulations at 33 CFR 334.460 identify 16 specific areas, 
including some far from JBC. We determined the areas described in those 
regulations fall into three categories: (1) Areas outside the 
boundaries of critical habitat and therefore ineligible for non-
designation consideration under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) and not included 
in critical habitat (no need to request that these areas not be 
included); (2) areas within the boundaries of critical habitat, but not 
subject to an INRMP, and thus ineligible for non-designation 
consideration; and (3) areas within critical habitat, subject to an 
INRMP, which are eligible for non-designation consideration.
    Of the 16 areas identified in 33 CFR 334.460, we determined seven 
entire areas (33 CFR 334.460 (a)(2), (3), (7), (8)(i), (11)-(13)), and 
a portion of another (33 CFR 334.460 (a)(1)--Noisette Creek), did not 
meet the definition of critical habitat and were ineligible for non-
designation consideration. We determined four additional areas (33 CFR 
334.460 (a)(1), (4)-(6)) were in the second category and also 
ineligible for non-designation consideration.
    However, we did conclude the five remaining areas (33 CFR 334.460 
(a)(8)(ii)-(iv), (9), (10)) fell under the JBC INRMP and were eligible 
for non-designation consideration. The JBC INRMP covers the lands 
encompassed by JB CHS Air (formerly Joint Base Charleston Air Force 
Base) in Charleston County and lands encompassed by JB CHS Weapons 
(formerly Naval Weapons Station Charleston) in Charleston and Berkeley 
Counties. JB CHS Air also includes North Auxiliary Airfield in 
Orangeburg County. Within the area covered by the INRMP, three of the 
four PBF(s) could be present (all but the spawning substrate). Atlantic 
sturgeon are expected to use the features in this area in the same way 
that they would all other areas of designated critical habitat; in 
other words, there is nothing unique or limiting about the critical 
habitat in this area.
    The INRMP for JBC acknowledges that the estuarine waters of the 
Cooper River in the vicinity of JBC Weapons provide foraging and 
migratory habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The INRMP notes that water 
pollution at JBC Weapons is a concern due to the large amount of 
essential fish habitat on and around the installation. The INRMP 
discusses that there are 26 water quality monitoring stations in the 
vicinity of JBC that are on the Clean Water Act section 303(d) list of 
impaired waterbodies, that these stations are located in a designated 
TMDL watershed, and that 16 of the stations are located within the 
Cooper River drainage surrounding JBC Weapons. While none of the 
monitoring stations have a TMDL, in 2013 the State of South Carolina 
revised their TMDL for DO for Charleston Harbor, and the Cooper, Ashley 
and Wando Rivers (SCDHEC, 2013). In the revised TMDL, the South 
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) notes 
that a number of monitoring stations in the covered area, including the 
Cooper River, are designated as not supporting aquatic life use due to 
low DO. SCDHEC also notes that available data and modeling indicate 
that regulated and unregulated stormwater and nonpoint sources are not 
contributing to allowable DO depression on main stem segments in 
Charleston Harbor, or the Cooper, Ashley, and Wando Rivers. JBC Weapons 
has three NPDES permits--one industrial and two stormwater. JBC is 
implementing a Stormwater Management Plan that addresses water quality 
for the entire storm sewer collection system.
    Section 7.4 of the INRMP addresses management of threatened and 
endangered species, species of concern, and their habitats. In the 
subsection for Atlantic sturgeon, the INRMP

[[Page 39229]]

appropriately acknowledges that the Atlantic sturgeon requires access 
to expansive areas of high quality freshwater habitats and that the 
waters of the Cooper River in the vicinity of JBC Weapons provide 
foraging and migratory habitat for the species. The INRMP describes a 
number of management activities that benefit Atlantic sturgeon and its 
habitat. The INRMP summarizes the benefits of this suite of activities 
as follows: ``Management activities would improve water quality by 
identifying, correcting, or preventing pollution or sediment 
discharges; limiting substrate disturbance; maintaining DO content by 
reducing nutrients entering the water that result in an increased 
biological oxygen demand from organisms processing the nutrients; and 
maintaining or improving water clarity by reducing erosion and limiting 
sediment in runoff.'' These objectives are directly relevant to 
protection of the transitional salinity, soft substrate, and water 
quality facets of the PBFs of Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat. We 
identified several management activities discussed in the INRMP that we 
believe can help accomplish these objectives, including:
    (1) Repairing/revitalizing stormwater drainage systems;
    (2) Updating the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and the 
Stormwater Management Plan;
    (3) Repairing forestry roads and culverts;
    (4) Including performance-based goals in grounds maintenance to 
help minimize erosion and sediment transport to the Cooper River;
    (5) Implementing BMPs to improve water quality discharged to the 
Cooper River, including training, identifying and correcting illicit 
discharges, enforcing erosion and sedimentation controls;
    (6) Limiting dredge operations in the Nuclear Power Training Unit 
ship channel and other shipping/receiving facilities to the minimum 
extent required;
    (7) Maintaining and/or developing protective buffer strips where 
feasible around wetlands along streams; and
    (8) Practicing ecologically-sound forest management.
    These activities provide a benefit to the PBFs identified in the 
critical habitat designations, particularly the transitional salinity 
zone/soft substrate and water quality PBFs, by reducing sediment and 
nutrient discharges into nearshore waters, which addresses some of the 
conservation and protection needs that critical habitat would afford. 
These activities are similar to those that we describe below as project 
modifications for avoiding or reducing adverse effects to the critical 
habitat. Therefore, were we to consult with the DOD on the activities 
in the INRMP that may affect the critical habitat, we would likely not 
require any project modifications based on the best management 
practices in the INRMP. Further, the INRMP includes provisions for 
monitoring and evaluating conservation effectiveness, which will ensure 
continued benefits to the species. The INRMP must be reviewed by 
participating Federal and state resource management agencies on a 
regular basis, but not less often than every five years. JB CHS will 
also provide us an opportunity to review the INRMP, as protected 
species under our jurisdiction (i.e., Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon) 
may be affected by measures in the INRMP. We believe the JBC INRMP 
provides the types of benefits to Atlantic sturgeon described in our 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(h)) and, thus, the restricted areas in the 
Cooper River covered by the INRMP should not be included in designated 
critical habitat.

Application of ESA Section 4(b)(2)

    Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires that we consider the economic 
impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of 
designating any particular area as critical habitat. Additionally, the 
Secretary has the discretion to consider excluding any area from 
critical habitat if [s]he determines, based upon the best scientific 
and commercial data available, the benefits of exclusion (that is, 
avoiding some or all of the impacts that would result from designation) 
outweigh the benefits of designation. The regulations at 50 CFR 
424.19(h) provide the framework for how we intend to implement section 
4(b)(2) of the ESA. These regulations were revised in 2016 (81 FR 7413; 
February 11, 2016). In particular, Congress has authorized the 
Secretary to ``exclude any area from critical habitat if [s]he 
determines that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless [s]he 
determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, 
that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result 
in the extinction of the species concerned'' (ESA section 4(b)(2)). 
Because the authority to exclude is discretionary, exclusion is not 
required for any particular area, under any circumstances; however, 
under the final policy (81 FR 7226; February 11, 2016), if NMFS 
determines it is appropriate to conduct an exclusion analysis on some 
or all areas of a designation, it is our general practice to exclude an 
area when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
    The ESA provides the Services with broad discretion in how to 
consider impacts. See, H.R. Rep. No. 95-1625, at 17, reprinted in 1978 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 9453, 9467 (1978) (``Economics and any other relevant 
impact shall be considered by the Secretary in setting the limits of 
critical habitat for such a species. The Secretary is not required to 
give economics or any other `relevant impact' predominant consideration 
in his specification of critical habitat . . . The consideration and 
weight given to any particular impact is completely within the 
Secretary's discretion.''). Courts have noted the ESA does not contain 
requirements for any particular methods or approaches. See, e.g., Bldg. 
Indus. Ass'n of the Bay Area et al.. v. U.S. Dep't. of Commerce et 
al.., No. 13-15132, 9th Cir., July 7, 2015 (upholding district court's 
ruling that the ESA does not require the agency to follow a specific 
methodology when designating critical habitat under section 4(b)(2)). 
For this final rule, we followed the same approach to describing and 
evaluating impacts as we have for other recent critical habitat 
rulemakings.
    The following discussion of impacts summarizes the analysis 
contained in our final Impacts Analysis and Biological Source Document 
for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs of 
Atlantic sturgeon. The administrative cost of conducting ESA section 7 
consultations was determined to be the primary source of economic 
impacts as a result of designating critical habitat for the Gulf of 
Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs. The number of 
incremental consultations over the next 10 years will likely be 
relatively small, because Atlantic sturgeon of a given life stage are 
likely to be either directly or indirectly affected by the Federal 
activities projected to occur within the proposed critical habitat. 
Since nearly all, if not all, the ESA section 7 consultations we 
anticipate to occur over the next 10 years will need to evaluate 
potential effects to both the Atlantic sturgeon DPS(s) present in the 
area and the critical habitat, the impacts will be coextensive. 
Therefore, the low administrative cost estimates are the most realistic 
cost estimates. The projected low administrative costs of designating 
all of the Gulf of Maine DPS critical habitat units total $816,574.20 
over the next 10 years. The projected low administrative costs for the 
New York Bight DPS critical habitat units total $1,418,299.30 over the 
next 10

[[Page 39230]]

years. The projected low administrative costs of designating all of the 
Chesapeake Bay DPS critical habitat units total $501,774.20 over the 
next 10 years. Currently, there is no information indicating that any 
of the ESA section 7 consultations expected to result from the critical 
habitat designations will result in project modifications. However, 
because we cannot predict every Federal action that will be proposed in 
the future or what the impacts of those actions will be on critical 
habitat, we recognize that there may be some future costs associated 
with project modifications. The timing of the ESA section 7 
consultation process, which is designed to occur as early as possible 
in the action planning process and before there have been any 
irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources, minimizes the 
potential for the outcome of a consultation to be costly project 
modifications.
    We considered information provided by the Navy for impacts to 
national security the Navy expects to result from critical habitat 
designation for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay 
DPSs. We determined that any resulting ESA section 7 consultations for 
Navy activities within the critical habitat areas will likely be 
coextensive and that based on this, as well as the types of activities 
the Navy will undertake in the critical habitat, there will be no 
impacts to national security resulting from the designation of critical 
habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight or Chesapeake Bay DPS.
    There are a number of potential beneficial impacts of designating 
critical habitat that extend beyond the conservation benefits to 
Atlantic sturgeon. Because it is often difficult to quantify the 
benefits of designating critical habitat, Executive Order (EO) 12866, 
Regulatory Planning and Review, provides guidance on assessing costs 
and benefits. The EO directs Federal agencies to assess all costs and 
benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and to select those 
approaches that maximize net benefits.
    The designation of critical habitat will provide conservation 
benefits such as improved education and outreach by informing the 
public about areas and features important to the conservation of the 
Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs. Specifying the 
geographical location of critical habitat facilitates implementation of 
section 7(a)(1) of the ESA by identifying areas where Federal agencies 
can focus their conservation programs and use their authorities to 
further the purposes of the ESA. Designating critical habitat can also 
help focus the efforts of other conservation partners (e.g., State and 
local governments, individuals and nongovernmental organizations), and 
could be beneficial to the ecosystem by protecting features that are 
also necessary for the conservation of other species.
    Based on our consideration of impacts, we are not excluding any 
areas from the critical habitat designations for the Gulf of Maine, New 
York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon based on 
economic, national security, or other relevant impacts. The designation 
of critical habitat will provide conservation benefits such as improved 
education and outreach by informing the public about areas and features 
important to the conservation of the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and 
Chesapeake Bay DPSs. There are also a number of potential beneficial 
impacts of designating critical habitat that extend beyond the 
conservation benefits to Atlantic sturgeon. For example, protecting 
essential PBFs of sturgeon habitat, including preserving water quality 
and natural flow regimes, will benefit other organisms that are co-
located in these areas. While we cannot quantify nor monetize the 
benefits, we believe they are not negligible and would be an 
incremental benefit of this designation. Therefore, we have declined to 
exercise our discretion to exclude any particular area from the 
proposed critical habitat units for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, 
and Chesapeake Bay DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon.
    The Impacts Analysis and Biological Source Document for the Gulf of 
Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs provides specific 
information on the Economic, National Security and Other Relevant 
Impacts considered for the critical habitat designations for these DPSs 
and therefore is not repeated here. Specific information for these 
impacts as well as the determination for Discretionary Exclusions under 
section 4(b)(2) for the critical habitat designations for the Carolina 
and South Atlantic DPSs is provided below.
    The following discussion of impacts summarizes the analysis 
contained in our final ``Impacts Analysis of Critical Habitat 
Designation for the Carolina and South Atlantic Distinct Population 
Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus)'' (IA), 
which identifies the economic, national security, and other relevant 
impacts that we projected would result from including each of the 14 
occupied and 2 unoccupied specific areas in the critical habitat 
designation. We considered these impacts when deciding whether to 
exercise our discretion to propose excluding particular areas from the 
designation. Both positive and negative impacts were identified and 
considered (these terms are used interchangeably with benefits and 
costs, respectively). Impacts were evaluated in quantitative terms 
where feasible, but qualitative appraisals were used where that is more 
appropriate to particular impacts. The final Impacts Analysis is 
available on our Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/sturgeon/index.html.
    The primary impacts of a critical habitat designation result from 
the ESA section 7(a)(2) requirement that Federal agencies ensure their 
actions are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat, and that they consult with us in 
fulfilling this requirement. Determining these impacts is complicated 
by the fact that section 7(a)(2) also requires that Federal agencies 
ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the species' 
continued existence. One incremental impact of designation is the 
extent to which Federal agencies modify their proposed actions to 
ensure they are not likely to destroy or adversely modify the critical 
habitat beyond any modifications they would make because of listing and 
the results of a jeopardy analysis. When the same modification would be 
required due to impacts to both the species and critical habitat, the 
impact of the designation is coextensive with the ESA listing of the 
species (i.e., attributable to both the listing of the species and the 
designation critical habitat). Relevant, existing regulatory 
protections are referred to as the ``baseline'' and are also discussed 
in the Impacts Analysis. In this case, notable baseline protections 
include the ESA listings of not only Atlantic sturgeon, but the co-
occurring endangered shortnose sturgeon.
    The Impacts Analysis describes the projected future Federal 
activities that would trigger section 7 consultation requirements 
because they may affect the PBF(s), and consequently may result in 
economic costs or negative impacts. The report also identifies the 
potential national security and other relevant impacts that may arise 
due to the critical habitat designation, such as positive impacts that 
may arise from conservation of the species and its habitat, state and 
local protections that may be triggered as a result of designation, and 
education of the public to the importance of an area for species 
conservation.

[[Page 39231]]

Economic Impacts of Designating Critical Habitat for the Carolina and 
South Atlantic DPSs

    Economic impacts of the critical habitat designation result through 
implementation of section 7 of the ESA in consultations with Federal 
agencies to ensure their proposed actions are not likely to destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat. These economic impacts may include 
both administrative and project modification costs; economic impacts 
that may be associated with the conservation benefits of the 
designation are described later.
    When identifying costs, we examined the ESA section 7 consultation 
record over the last 10 years, as compiled in our PCTS database, to 
identify the types of Federal activities that may adversely affect 
Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat. We also requested that Federal 
action agencies provide us with information on future consultations if 
we omitted any future actions likely to affect the proposed critical 
habitat. No new categories of activities were identified through this 
process. Of the types of past consultations that ``may affect'' some or 
all of the PBF(s) in any unit of critical habitat, we determined that 
no activities would solely affect the PBFs essential for conservation. 
That is, all categories of the activities we identified that could 
impact the PBFs also had the potential of ``take'' resulting from the 
listing of the species.
    In the proposed rule we identified 15 categories of activities 
implemented by 10 different Federal entities as likely to recur in the 
future and have the potential to affect the PBF(s). Based on comments 
from EPA, we added a category for EPA for the triennial approval of 
state water quality standards. Listed below is the agency, description 
of the activity, and total number of projected consultations 
anticipated over the next 10 years indicated in parentheses:

    1. USACE--Navigation maintenance dredging, harbor expansion 
(14);
    2. USACE--Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) flood control, 
ecosystem restoration studies (6);
    3. USACE--WRDA dam operations, repair, fishway construction (3);
    4. USACE--Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404/Rivers and Harbors 
Act (RHA) section 10 permitting--dredge, fill, construction (20);
    5. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)--Bridge repair, 
replacement (67);
    6. U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)--Bridge repair, replacement 
permitting (3);
    7. FERC--Hydropower licensing (5);
    8. FERC--Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities, pipelines 
authorization (5);
    9. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)--Nuclear power plant 
construction/operation licensing (8);
    10. NMFS--ESA research and incidental take permitting (section 
10) (46);
    11. USFWS--Fishery management grants (11);
    12. EPA--Nationwide pesticide authorizations (9);
    13. EPA--State water quality standard reviews (12);
    14. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)--Disaster 
assistance/preparation grants (5); and
    15. Department of Energy (DOE)--Nuclear fuel management (3).

    In total, we estimated that 217 activities would require section 7 
consultation over the next 10 years to consider impacts to Atlantic 
sturgeon critical habitat for the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs. As 
discussed in more detail in our final IA, all the activities identified 
as having the potential to adversely affect one or more of the PBF(s) 
also have the potential to take Atlantic sturgeon. For most, if not 
all, of the projected future activities, if the effects to critical 
habitat will be adverse and require formal consultation, those effects 
would also constitute adverse effects to the species, either directly 
when they are in the project area, or indirectly due to the effects on 
their critical habitat. This is due to the ecological functions of 
these PBFs. For example, water quality is being identified as an 
essential PBF to facilitate successful spawning, annual and inter-
annual adult, larval, and juvenile survival, and larval, juvenile and 
subadult growth, development, and recruitment. Effects to the water 
quality PBF that impede that conservation objective could injure or 
kill individual Atlantic sturgeon, for example, by preventing adult 
reproduction, or rendering reproduction ineffective or resulting in 
reduced growth or mortality of larvae, juveniles or subadults. In these 
circumstances, the same project modifications would be required to 
address effects to both the species and effects to the critical 
habitat. Thus, projects that adversely affect the PBF(s) are likely to 
always also take the species and the project impacts would not be 
incremental.
    For some of the projected activities, it may be feasible to conduct 
the action when sturgeon are out of the action area. If effects to 
critical habitat are temporary such that the PBF(s) return to their 
pre-project condition by the time the sturgeon return and rely on the 
PBFs, there might not be any adverse effects to either the species or 
the critical habitat. In these circumstances, consultations would be 
fully incremental consultations only on critical habitat, and the 
consultations would be informal (i.e., impacts to critical habitat 
would not be permanent and would not be significant). This would likely 
only apply to actions that affect spawning habitat in the upper parts 
of the rivers, as sturgeon of various ages are present year-round in 
the lower reaches of the rivers and the estuaries. The costs of fully 
incremental, informal consultations are higher than the marginal costs 
of adding critical habitat analyses to coextensive, formal 
consultations. Thus, to be conservative and avoid underestimating 
incremental impacts of this designation, and based on the activities we 
identified, we assumed that two categories of activities could result 
in incremental, informal consultations. Those activities, both 
implemented by the USACE, are CWA section 404/Rivers and Harbors Act 
permitting and WRDA dam operations/repair. Administrative costs include 
the cost of time spent in meetings, preparing letters, and in some 
cases, developing a biological assessment and biological opinion, 
identifying and designing reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs), and 
so forth. For this impacts report, we estimated per-project 
administrative costs based on critical habitat economic analyses by 
Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) (2014). This impacts report estimates 
administrative costs for different categories of consultations as 
follows: (1) New consultations resulting entirely from critical habitat 
designation; (2) new consultations considering only adverse 
modification (unoccupied habitat); (3) reinitiation of consultation to 
address adverse modification; and (4) additional consultation effort to 
address adverse modification in a new consultation. Most of the 
projected future consultations we project to result from this final 
rulemaking will be coextensive formal consultations on new actions that 
would be evaluating impacts to sturgeon as well as impacts to critical 
habitat, and the administrative costs for these 194 consultations would 
be in category 4 above. The remaining 23 actions are projected to 
involve incremental informal consultation due to impacts to critical 
habitat alone. Based on the IEc reports (2014), we project that each 
formal consultation will result in the following additional costs to 
address critical habitat impacts: $1,400 in costs to us; $1,600 in 
action agency costs; $880 in third party (e.g., permittee) costs, if 
applicable; and $1,200 in costs to the action agency or third party to 
prepare a biological assessment. Costs for the incremental informal 
consultations would be as follows: $1,900 in costs to us; $2,300 in 
action agency costs; $1,500 in third party (e.g.,

[[Page 39232]]

permittee) costs, if applicable; and $1,500 in costs to the action 
agency or third party to prepare a BA.
    Costs of the nine EPA nationwide pesticide consultations were 
treated differently. These consultations will involve all listed 
species and all designated critical habitat under our jurisdiction, and 
thus costs attributable solely to this final rule designating critical 
habitat for Atlantic sturgeon are expected to be only a very small part 
of that cost. To be conservative, we added nine consultations to each 
critical habitat unit for all five DPSs. We spread the costs of these 9 
consultations ($5,080 each) evenly across all 31 critical habitat 
units. This resulted in a total cost of $1,474.84 per unit over 10 
years.
    The 12 consultations on EPA approval of state water quality 
standards were also treated differently. EPA expects to conduct three 
statewide consultations regarding their approval of state water quality 
standards in each of the four states covered by the designation of 
critical habitat for the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs. For these 
two DPSs, we have split the incremental administrative costs of 3 
statewide consultations ($15,240) equally across all the units within 
each state, added these costs to the 10-year totals, and derived the 
annual totals from these figures, because these are not annual actions. 
We added the costs projected across two states to units that occur in 
two states. Total costs for these consultations are $3,048 per unit in 
North Carolina, $2,540 per unit in Georgia, and $2,177.14 in South 
Carolina. Costs for units bordering 2 states are $5,225.14 in the Pee 
Dee River unit, $4,717.14 in the Savannah River unit, and $17,780 in 
the St. Marys unit (the costs of the 3 statewide water quality 
standards (WQS) consultations in Florida are attributed wholly to this 
single unit in the state, added to the costs of Georgia WQS 
consultations). We have added three consultations to the number 
expected in each unit, but the total number of consultations for each 
DPS consists of three consultations per each state with units in that 
DPS. This approach avoids underestimating the costs in any unit but 
would overestimate the total costs expected.
    In our impacts analysis, we concluded that none of the projected 
future activities are likely to require project modifications to avoid 
adverse effects to critical habitat PBFs that would be different from 
modifications required to avoid adverse effects to sturgeon. In other 
words, we projected no incremental costs for actions in a critical 
habitat unit other than the administrative costs of section 7 
consultations. While there may be serious adverse impacts to critical 
habitat from projected future projects that require project 
modifications to avoid destroying or adversely modifying critical 
habitat, impacts of these magnitudes to the PBF(s) as defined would 
also result in adverse effects to Atlantic sturgeon, either directly 
when they are in the project area, or indirectly as harm, resulting 
from impacts to their habitat that result in injury or death. The same 
project modifications would be required to avoid destroying or 
adversely modifying critical habitat and avoiding jeopardy, or 
minimizing take of Atlantic sturgeon caused by impacts to its habitat.
    Based on our final Impacts Analysis for the Carolina and South 
Atlantic DPSs, we project that the costs that will result from the 
designation of critical habitat will total $1,154,475 over the next 10 
years. The total incremental cost resulting from the designation for 
the Carolina DPS is $526,447, and the total incremental cost resulting 
from the designation for the South Atlantic DPS is $628,027, over 10 
years. The annual cost per-unit ranges widely from $873 (Carolina Unit 
6--Black River, Carolina DPS) to $23,523 (South Atlantic Unit 3--
Occupied Savannah River, South Atlantic DPS).

National Security Impacts of Designating Critical Habitat for the 
Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs

    Previous critical habitat designations have recognized that impacts 
to national security result if a designation would trigger future ESA 
section 7 consultations because a proposed military activity ``may 
affect'' the PBFs essential to the listed species' conservation. 
Anticipated interference with mission-essential training or testing or 
unit readiness, through the additional commitment of resources to an 
adverse modification analysis and expected requirements to modify the 
action to prevent adverse modification of critical habitat, has been 
identified as a negative impact of critical habitat designations. (See, 
e.g., Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Southern Resident 
Killer Whales; 69 FR 75608, Dec. 17, 2004, at 75633.)
    On February 14, 2014, and again in October 7, 2015, we sent letters 
to the DOD and the Department of Homeland Security requesting 
information on national security impacts of the proposed critical 
habitat designations, and we received responses from the Navy, Air 
Force, Army, and USCG. We discuss the information contained within the 
responses thoroughly in the Impacts Analysis, and we summarize the 
information below.
    The Navy's first submission provided information on its facilities 
and operations. However, the Navy was not able to make a full 
assessment of whether there would be any national security impacts. The 
Navy indicated that as we define our PBF(s) and areas more precisely, 
they would be able to provide a more detailed response to our requests 
and would update their INRMPs as necessary for the protection of 
Atlantic sturgeon and its critical habitat. The Navy's second 
submission noted that Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay was adjacent to 
the South Atlantic DPS critical habitat unit in the St. Marys River. 
The Navy stated it did not own or control any land or waters within the 
St. Marys channel, but that the TRIDENT-class submarines used 4.9 km of 
the waterway transiting to and from the Atlantic Ocean. The Navy stated 
that any operational or dredging restrictions that would impede 
maintenance of the channel from the Intracoastal Waterway and St. Marys 
channel intersection, downstream, could pose a national security risk. 
Typically we consult with the USACE for dredging actions, and in this 
case the Navy would be the permit applicant. We determined that 
dredging has the potential to affect critical habitat, but we also 
concluded that consultations for effects of dredging on critical 
habitat will be fully-coextensive with consultations to address impacts 
to sturgeon (both shortnose and Atlantic). The effects of dredging on 
PBF(s) would also result in injury or death to individual sturgeon, and 
thus constitute take. Removal or covering of spawning substrate could 
prevent effective spawning or result in death of eggs or larvae that 
are spawned. Changing the salinity regime by deepening harbors and 
parts of rivers could result in permanent decreases of available 
foraging and developmental habitat for juveniles. These types of 
adverse effects are not likely to be temporary and limited to periods 
of sturgeon absence. Thus, adverse effects of dredging activities 
identified by the Navy would be likely to be coextensive in formal 
consultations to address impacts to both the species and the PBF(s), 
and thus no new requirements or project modifications are anticipated 
as a result of the critical habitat designation. Therefore, after 
considering the action identified by the Navy at Kings Bay, we find 
there will be no impact on national security as a consequence of the 
critical habitat designation for these actions.
    Both the Navy and Air Force expressed concern that designating the 
Cooper River, including the riverine

[[Page 39233]]

area on the west bank adjacent to the Joint Base Charleston Naval 
Weapons Station, could have significant impacts on the Navy's ability 
to adequately support mission-essential military operations, thereby 
impacting national security. The Navy and Air Force were concerned that 
designation of critical habitat could affect training facilities and 
the maintenance of their facilities. Additional concerns were expressed 
regarding shipping and receiving operations from two waterfront 
facilities. Because no specifics were given on how designation of 
critical habitat could affect these activities, and because we 
determined there are no routes of effects to PBF(s) from these 
activities based on the information provided, we concluded that 
designation of critical habitat will have no impact on these activities 
and thus will not result in impacts to national security. Upon further 
discussion with the Navy, we determined the area was covered by the 
2015 INRMP and should not be included as critical habitat pursuant to 
ESA section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) (see Consideration of Whether the Joint Base 
Charleston INRMP Provides a Conservation Benefit to the Carolina DPS 
above).
    The Army noted that Military Ocean Terminal-Sunny Point was located 
on the Cape Fear River, North Carolina, and Fort Stewart was located on 
the Ogeechee River, Georgia. The Army was not able to make a full 
assessment whether there would be any national security impacts and 
concluded that technical assessments to occur between the installations 
and NMFS at the regional level would identify any specific impacts.
    The USCG provided information on its facilities and operations. The 
USCG was not able to make a full assessment whether there would be any 
national security impacts. The USCG indicated that as we develop our 
PBF(s) and areas more precisely in the final rule, they would be able 
to provide a more detailed response to our requests. Our PCTS database 
indicated the USCG consulted with us three times on authorizations for 
bridge repairs or replacements. In developing this final rule we 
determined if those actions were conducted in the future, the 
activities may affect critical habitat PBFs, but the effects would be 
fully coextensive with effects to the listed sturgeons. Based on this 
information regarding potential future USCG action in Atlantic sturgeon 
critical habitat, we do not expect any national security impacts as a 
consequence of the critical habitat designation.
    Based on a review of our PCTS database, and the information 
provided by the Navy, Air Force, Army, and USCG on their activities 
conducted within the specific areas being designated as Atlantic 
sturgeon critical habitat, we determined that only one military action 
identified as a potential area of national security impact has routes 
of potential adverse effects to PBF(s)--river channel dredging. As 
discussed, this activity will require consultation due to potential 
impacts to listed Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, and any project 
modifications needed to address impacts to these species would also 
address impacts to critical habitat. Thus, no incremental project 
modification impacts are expected due to this designation. On this 
basis, we conclude there will be no national security impacts 
associated with the critical habitat designation for the Carolina and 
South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon.

Other Relevant Impacts

    Other relevant impacts of critical habitat designations can include 
conservation benefits to the species and to society, and impacts to 
governmental and private entities. The Impacts Analysis for the 
designation of critical habitat for the Carolina and South Atlantic 
DPSs discusses conservation benefits of designating the 14 occupied and 
2 unoccupied areas, and the benefits of conserving the Carolina and 
South Atlantic sturgeon DPSs to society, in both ecological and 
economic metrics.
    As discussed in the Impacts Analysis for the Carolina and South 
Atlantic DPSs and summarized here, Atlantic sturgeon currently provide 
a range of benefits to society. Given the positive benefits of 
protecting the PBFs essential to the conservation of these DPSs, this 
protection will in turn contribute to an increase in the benefits of 
this species to society in the future as the species recovers. While we 
cannot quantify nor monetize these benefits, we believe they are not 
negligible and would be an incremental benefit of this designation. 
However, although the PBFs are essential to the conservation of 
Atlantic sturgeon DPSs, critical habitat designation alone will not 
bring about the recovery of the species. The benefits of conserving 
Atlantic sturgeon are, and will continue to be, the result of several 
laws and regulations.
    The Impacts Analysis identifies both consumptive (e.g., commercial 
and recreational fishing) and non-consumptive (e.g., wildlife viewing) 
activities that occur in the areas being designated as critical 
habitat. Commercial and recreational fishing are components of the 
economy related to the ecosystem services provided by the resources 
within Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat areas. The PBF(s) contribute 
to fish species diversity.
    Education and awareness benefits stem from the critical habitat 
designation when non-Federal government entities or members of the 
general public responsible for, or interested in, Atlantic sturgeon 
conservation change their behavior or activities when they become aware 
of the designation and the importance of the critical habitat areas and 
features. Designation of critical habitat raises the public's awareness 
that there are special considerations that may need to be taken within 
the area. Similarly, state and local governments may be prompted to 
carry out programs to complement the critical habitat designation and 
benefit the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon. 
Those programs would likely result in additional impacts of the 
designation. However, it is impossible to quantify the beneficial 
effects of the awareness gained or the secondary impacts from state and 
local programs resulting from the critical habitat designation.

Discretionary Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) for the Carolina and 
South Atlantic DPSs

    In our proposed rule, we described our preliminary determination 
that we would not perform a discretionary exclusion analysis. Input 
received during the public comment period resulted in our determination 
that an exclusion analysis for the unoccupied Santee-Cooper and 
Savannah River units was warranted. On the other hand, given that 
occupied units are currently used by Atlantic sturgeon for reproduction 
and recruitment, and due to the severely depressed levels of all river 
populations, occupied units are far too valuable to both the 
conservation and the continuing survival of Atlantic sturgeon to be 
considered for exclusion.
    Based on the analysis included in our IA, the likely benefits of 
excluding the unoccupied Santee-Cooper and Savannah river units include 
avoiding consultation costs of $23,972 and $11,272 over ten years, 
respectively. In addition, there may be ancillary benefits of exclusion 
to Federal agencies that would conduct activities in these areas, and 
to their project applicants.
    Our qualitative analysis of the benefits derived from designation 
include benefits associated with section 7 consultations (e.g., 
proactive coordination with other federal agencies

[[Page 39234]]

to avoid impacts to critical habitat); increased likelihood of 
specifically protecting habitat necessary for Atlantic sturgeon 
recovery; and opportunities for federal agency conservation programs 
under section 7(a)(1) of the ESA. These benefits would be limited in 
the unoccupied Santee-Cooper and Savannah River units, given the low 
number of unique federal agency actions projected to require 
consultation over the next ten years (4 and 1 action, respectively). 
Other benefits of designation include ancillary benefits to other 
commercially-important aquatic species associated with Atlantic 
sturgeon habitat; non-use values for sturgeon and their habitats; and 
increased state, local and public awareness of the importance of these 
areas, that could generate non-federal conservation efforts and 
benefits. As we discuss in the IA, given the particular facts and 
circumstances for these DPSs and this critical habitat designation, it 
is likely that many or most of these benefits will result from baseline 
protections for sturgeon and their habitats, even if the unoccupied 
areas are excluded from the designation. As such, we do not conclude 
that conservation and recovery of the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs 
would be impaired by excluding these areas from the designation.
    We determined the potential economic impacts of the designation of 
unoccupied critical habitat are relatively small. We determined there 
are significant conservation benefits associated with designation of 
unoccupied critical habitat, but we could not conclude that these 
benefits are incremental impacts of including the unoccupied units in 
the designation. Therefore, it is our judgment that the benefits of 
excluding the unoccupied Santee-Cooper and Savannah River units 
outweigh the benefits of including these units in the designation.
    Exclusion of these unoccupied units will not result in the 
extinction of the Carolina or South Atlantic DPS of Atlantic sturgeon. 
Atlantic sturgeon will need the additional spawning habitat in these 
units to increase their reproductive success and population growth in 
order to recover, and thus if these habitats were lost to sturgeon they 
would not recover. However, based on the Federal actions expected to 
occur in these areas over the next ten years, and because the areas are 
protected through a number of baseline requirements including the 
listing of shortnose sturgeon, we do not expect impacts to these areas 
would prevent them from supporting Atlantic sturgeon conservation once 
fish passage to these areas is established in the near future.
    We also note that FERC and USACE submitted some significant new 
information late during the interagency review process on the final 
rule, outside of the public comment period. One agency suggested 
exclusion of unoccupied critical habitat was needed to prevent third 
party litigation seeking fish passage or removal of dams the agency 
owns and operates on the Cape Fear River to allow migration of 
sturgeon. That agency estimated the average cost to provide fish 
passage would range from $8 million and $15 million. The other agency 
submitted hypothetical costs that might result if consultation were 
required solely to protect unoccupied critical habitat from the effects 
of numerous facilities they regulate in the watersheds extending 
hundreds of miles above the proposed unoccupied units. Cost estimates 
provided by that agency ranged from $0 to over $1.7 million annually 
for the range of facilities identified. Those estimates were projected 
based on past environmental compliance costs for similar facilities. We 
decided to remove the unoccupied Cape Fear unit because it is not 
essential to sturgeon conservation. Because we decided to exclude the 
unoccupied Santee-Cooper and Savannah River units based on the impacts 
identified in our proposed impacts assessment, and because the public 
was not afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the new cost 
information and assumptions, consideration of this late input was not 
necessary and did not play a role in our determinations. If the types 
of impacts identified by these agencies would be potential impacts of 
including the unoccupied units in the designation, it would bolster our 
conclusion that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion.
Final Determinations and Critical Habitat Designation
    We conclude that specific areas meet the definition of critical 
habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, 
Carolina, and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon, that a critical 
habitat designation is prudent, and that critical habitat is 
determinable.
    We found approximately 244 km (152 miles) of aquatic habitat within 
the Penobscot, Kennebec, Androscoggin, Piscataqua, Cocheco, Salmon 
Falls, and Merrimack Rivers are critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine 
DPS of Atlantic sturgeon. We found approximately 547 km (340 miles) of 
aquatic habitat within the Connecticut, Housatonic, Hudson, and 
Delaware Rivers are critical habitat for the New York Bight DPS of 
Atlantic sturgeon. We found approximately 773 km (480 miles) of aquatic 
habitat within the Potomac, Rappahannock, York, Pamunkey, Mattaponi, 
James, Nanticoke Rivers and Marshyhope Creek are critical habitat for 
the Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic sturgeon.
    We found approximately 1,939 km (1,205 miles) of aquatic habitat 
within the Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico, Neuse, Cape Fear, Northeast Cape Fear, 
Waccamaw, Pee Dee, Black, Santee, North Santee, South Santee, and 
Cooper Rivers and Bull Creek are critical habitat for the Carolina DPS 
of Atlantic sturgeon.
    Likewise, we found approximately 2,883 km (1,791 miles) of aquatic 
habitat within the Edisto, Combahee-Salkehatchie, Savannah, Ogeechee, 
Altamaha, Ocmulgee, Oconee, Satilla, and St. Marys Rivers are critical 
habitat for the South Atlantic DPS of Atlantic sturgeon.

Activities That May Be Affected

    Section 4(b)(8) of the ESA requires that to the maximum extent 
practicable, we describe briefly and evaluate, in any proposed or final 
regulation to designate critical habitat, those activities that may 
destroy or adversely modify such habitat or that may be affected by 
such designation. As described in our Impacts Analysis and Biological 
Source Document for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake 
Bay DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon, and in our final Impacts Analysis for 
the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon, a wide 
variety of activities may affect critical habitat and, when carried 
out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, will require an ESA 
section 7 consultation because they may affect one or more of the PBFs 
of critical habitat. Such activities include in-water construction for 
a variety of Federal actions, dredging for navigation, harbor expansion 
or sand and gravel mining, flood control projects, bridge repair and 
replacement, hydropower licensing, natural gas facility and pipeline 
construction, ESA research and incidental take permits or fishery 
research grants, and CWA TMDL program management. Private entities may 
also be affected by these critical habitat designations if they are a 
proponent of a project that requires a Federal permit, Federal funding 
is received, or the entity is involved in or receives benefits from a 
Federal project. Future activities will need to be evaluated with 
respect to their potential to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat. For example, activities may adversely modify the substrate 
essential PBF by removing or altering the

[[Page 39235]]

substrate. The open passage PBF may be adversely modified by the 
placement of structures such as dams and tidal turbines, research nets, 
or altering the water depth so that fish cannot swim. The salinity PBF 
may be adversely modified by activities that impact fresh water input 
such as operation of water control structures and water withdrawals, 
and impacts to water depth such as dredging. The water quality PBF may 
be adversely modified by land development as well as commercial and 
recreational activities on rivers that contribute to nutrient loading 
that could result in decreased DO levels and increased water 
temperature, and increased sediment deposition that reduces Atlantic 
sturgeon egg adherence on hard spawning substrate and reduces the 
interstitial spaces used by larvae for refuge from predators. Dredging 
to remove sediment build-up or to facilitate vessel traffic may remove 
or alter hard substrate that is necessary for egg adherence and as 
refuge for larvae, and may change the water depth resulting in shifts 
in the salt wedge within the estuary or change other characteristics of 
the water quality (e.g., temperature, DO) necessary for the developing 
eggs, larvae, and juveniles. These activities would require ESA section 
7 consultation when they are implemented, funded, or carried out by a 
Federal agency.
    We believe this critical habitat designation provides Federal 
agencies, private entities, and the public with clear notification of 
critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, 
Carolina, and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon, the PBF(s), and 
the boundaries of those habitats. These designations allow Federal 
agencies and others to evaluate the potential effects of their 
activities on critical habitat to determine if ESA section 7 
consultation with us is needed, given the specific definition of each 
PBF.

Information Quality Act and Peer Review

    On December 16, 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 
(Bulletin), 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 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 scientific 
information or highly influential scientific assessments disseminated 
on or after June 16, 2005. The biological information describing the 
Atlantic sturgeon DPSs, and the information in the draft economic 
impacts analyses supporting the critical habitat designation for the 
five DPSs is considered influential scientific information and subject 
to peer review. To satisfy our requirements under the OMB Bulletin, we 
obtained independent peer review of the biological information and the 
information used to draft the impacts analyses. We incorporated the 
peer review comments into the proposed rules prior to dissemination. 
Comments received from peer reviewers were summarized and are available 
on the web at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prplans/ID294.html and http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prplans/ID336.html.

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that an environmental analysis as provided for 
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for critical 
habitat designations made pursuant to the ESA is not required. See 
Markle Interests, L.L.C. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 827 F.3d 452 
(5th Cir. 2016); Bldg. Indus. Ass'n of the Bay Area v. U.S. Dept. of 
Commerce, 792 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 201); Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 698 (1996).

Regulatory Flexibility Act Determinations

    The ESA does not require use of any particular methodology in the 
consideration of impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) (see, e.g., 
Building Industry Association of the Bay Area v. U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 792 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2015)). In preparing the rules 
proposing critical habitat for the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs, we used 
different methodologies to conduct the respective impacts analyses. 
While those differences in analyses are reflected below, we note the 
conclusions are the same, i.e., that designation of critical habitat 
for the five DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon will not have significant 
economic impacts on small entities. The Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analyses (FRFA) were prepared pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.). A FRFA includes: A statement 
of the need for, and objectives of, the rule; a statement of the 
significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a statement of the 
assessment by the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes 
made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments; the response of 
the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration (SBA) in response to the proposed 
rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule 
in the final rule as a result of the comments; a description of and an 
estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply 
or an explanation of why no such estimate is available; a description 
of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance 
requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small 
entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of 
professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; 
and, a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the 
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the 
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the 
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative 
adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant 
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the 
impact on small entities was rejected. We received no comments 
specifically on the IRFAs from the public or from the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the SBA. The FRFA for the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
determinations for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight and Chesapeake Bay 
DPSs and the FRFA for the Regulatory Flexibility Act determinations for 
the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon analyze the 
impacts of this rule on small entities, are included as Appendix A of 
the respective Impacts Analysis, and are available upon request (see 
ADDRESSES). A summary of each analysis follows.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Determinations for the Gulf of Maine, New 
York Bight and Chesapeake Bay DPSs (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    As explained in the FRFA for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight and 
Chesapeake Bay DPSs, the economic analysis described and estimated the 
number of small entities to which this rule may apply. These estimates 
are based on the best available information and take into account 
uncertainty. Using the number of employees as the criteria for 
determining whether or not an establishment is a small business, on 
average, 99 percent of businesses in the counties and cities in which 
the

[[Page 39236]]

proposed Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat units occur are considered 
small businesses. For purposes of projecting the impacts of 
administrative ESA section 7 costs on small businesses in each critical 
habitat unit, it was assumed that the percentage of private entities 
that are involved in those consultations that are small businesses is 
the same as the percentage of businesses that are small businesses in 
counties that include critical habitat units.
    To address uncertainty, costs were estimated as low, medium, and 
high. However, this approach likely overestimates the costs because the 
majority of consultations have been informal and, thus, have lower 
costs than formal consultations. In addition, this analysis was based 
on the critical habitat areas as defined by hydrographic unit codes. We 
subsequently revised and narrowed how we define the boundaries of the 
critical habitat units. As a result, fewer small businesses are likely 
to be affected by the critical habitat designations than were projected 
based on the information available to the economist at that time. 
Finally, because Atlantic sturgeon are present in the areas that we are 
designating as critical habitat, consultation is likely to have 
occurred even if critical habitat was not designated. Therefore, the 
section 7 consultation costs attributed to the designation of critical 
habitat, alone, are likely to be very small.
    We considered the effect to small businesses throughout our 
analysis and, as stated above, there will be no significant economic 
impact to small businesses; therefore, it was unnecessary to make any 
changes from the proposed rule with the goal of minimizing any 
significant economic impacts on small entities. It is unlikely that the 
rule will significantly reduce profits or revenue for small businesses. 
The administrative costs of ESA section 7 consultation are likely to be 
small given, in the absence of critical habitat designation, nearly the 
same number and type of consultations would have occurred to consider 
the effects of Federal actions on the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs.
    In the IRFA, we considered the alternative of not proposing 
critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, or Chesapeake 
Bay DPS. We rejected this alternative because we determined the PBFs 
forming the basis for the critical habitat designations are essential 
to the conservation of the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and 
Chesapeake Bay DPSs. The lack of protection of the critical habitat 
PBFs from adverse modification and/or destruction could result in 
continued declines in abundance of these Atlantic sturgeon DPSs, would 
not provide for the conservation of the DPSs, and would not meet the 
legal requirements of the ESA.
    We also analyzed designating a subset of the identified critical 
habitat areas. We rejected this alternative because designating only 
some of the areas containing the PBFs that are essential to the 
conservation of each DPS would not provide for the conservation of the 
DPSs and, thus, this alternative does not meet the legal requirements 
of the ESA.
    Finally, we analyzed designating all critical habitat areas 
identified for the DPS. We analyzed the economic, national security, 
and other relevant impacts of designating critical habitat. Our 
conservative identification of potential, incremental, economic impacts 
indicates that any such impacts, if they were to occur, would be very 
small. Any incremental economic impacts will consist solely of the 
administrative costs of consultation; no project modifications are 
projected to be required to address impacts solely to the proposed 
critical habitat. There are conservation benefits of the critical 
habitat designations, both to the species and to society. While we 
cannot quantify nor monetize these benefits, we believe they are not 
negligible and are an incremental effect of the designations.
    This final rule does not introduce any new reporting, record-
keeping requirements, or other compliance requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Determinations for the Carolina and 
Southeast DPSs

    As explained in the FRFA for the Carolina and Southeast DPSs, this 
final rule is needed to comply with the ESA's requirement to designate 
critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable when 
species are listed as threatened or endangered. The objective of this 
rule is to identify Atlantic sturgeon habitat areas and features, the 
protection of which will support the conservation of these endangered 
DPSs.
    The FRFA estimates the number of small entities to which the rule 
may apply, based on the information in the Impacts Report. The SBA has 
established size standards for all for-profit economic activities or 
industries in the North American Industry Classification System (13 CFR 
121.201; 78 FR 37398; June 20, 2013; 78 FR 77343, December 23, 2013; 79 
FR 33467, June 12, 2014) (https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf).
    Businesses in North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 
Subsector 325320, Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical 
Manufacturing, could be involved in 5 projected nationwide pesticide 
authorization consultations. A small business in this subsector is 
defined by the SBA as having 1,000 employees. Businesses in NAICS 
Sector 22 (Utilities) could be involved in 14 consultations projected 
to occur for hydropower licensing, LNG facility or pipelines 
authorization, or nuclear power plant construction/operation licensing. 
For hydropower generation and natural gas distribution enterprises, a 
small business is defined by the SBA as one having a total of 500 
employees. For nuclear power generation, a small business is defined by 
the SBA as one having a total of 750 employees. Businesses in NAICS 
Sector 54 could be involved as contractors assisting with ESA section 7 
consultation in any of the 155 projected future Federal actions that 
could involve third parties. Relevant subsectors could include 541370, 
Surveying and Mapping, 541620, Environmental Consulting Services, or 
541690, Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services. A small 
business in any of these subsectors is defined by the SBA as one having 
average annual receipts of $15 million.
    Businesses in NAICS Sector 23, Construction, could be involved in a 
number of categories of projected future actions, where they could 
incur administrative costs of construction. These could include 
businesses from the subsector 237120, Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related 
Structures Construction, or subsector 237310, Highway, Street, and 
Bridge Construction. A small business in subsector 237120 has average 
annual receipts of $36.5 million, and a small business in subsector 
237310 has average annual receipts of $36.5 million. Businesses in 
subsector 238, Other Specialty Trade Contractors, could be involved as 
construction contractors in 20 future USACE section 404/RHA permitting 
actions and 5 FEMA disaster assistance actions. Small businesses in 
this subsector have average annual receipts of $15 million.
    Cities could be involved in many of the 70 projected bridge repair 
or replacement projects, and some proportion of the 20 projected 
section 404/RHA permitting actions. The SBA defines a small 
governmental jurisdiction as cities, counties, towns, townships, 
villages, school districts, or special districts with a population of 
less than 50,000.

[[Page 39237]]

    Our consultation database does not track the identity of past third 
parties involved in consultations, or whether the third parties were 
small entities; therefore we have no basis to determine the percentage 
of the 155 third parties that may potentially be involved in future 
consultations due to impacts to critical habitat that may be small 
businesses, small nonprofits or small government jurisdictions.
    There is no indication in the data evaluated in the Impacts 
Analysis Report, which serves as the basis for this FRFA, that the 
designation would place small entities at a competitive disadvantage 
compared to large entities. Incremental economic impacts due to the 
designation for the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs will be minimal 
overall. These costs will result from participation in the Section 7 
consultation process, and will be spread over 14 critical habitat units 
totaling over 2,996 river miles (4,822 rkm) in 4 states. Federal 
agencies will bear the majority of the costs (59 percent to 83 
percent), which will be limited to administrative costs of consultation 
for all parties involved. There are no apparent concentrations of 
costs. For most if not all of the Federal activities predicted to occur 
in the next 10 years, if the effects to critical habitat will be 
adverse and require formal consultation, those effects would also 
constitute adverse effects to Atlantic sturgeon or shortnose sturgeon, 
either directly when they are in the project area, or indirectly due to 
the effects on their habitat, and these consultations would be 
coextensive formal consultations. Assuming a third party would be 
involved and incur costs for each of the 179 projects in all of the 
categories of Federal activity that involved third parties in the past, 
the costs to third parties that could be involved in the projected 
future consultations other than those with EPA would be between $880 
and $2,080 for each action for coextensive formal consultations, and 
between $1,500 and $3,000 for each of the 23 fully incremental informal 
consultations we conservatively estimated could be required due to the 
rule. The total costs over the next 10 years to all third parties for 
these 2 classes of actions would be between $30,000 and $60,000 for the 
incremental informal consultations and between $136,400 and $322,400 
for the coextensive formal consultations. The total costs over the next 
10 years to third parties involved in the EPA pesticides consultations 
are conservatively estimated to be $25,072 across all units.
    There are no record-keeping or reporting requirements associated 
with the rule. Third parties would only be required to keep records or 
submit reports pursuant to ESA section 7 consultations on future 
proposed projects that may affect critical habitat. Similarly, there 
are no other compliance requirements in the rule. There are no 
professional skills necessary for preparation of any report or record.
    We considered the effect to small businesses throughout our 
analysis and, as stated above, there will be no significant economic 
impact to small businesses. Changes from the proposed rule that would 
minimize significant economic impacts on small entities were therefore 
unnecessary.
    In the IRFA, we considered the alternative of not proposing new 
critical habitat for the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic 
sturgeon. We rejected this alternative because we determined 
designating critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon is prudent and 
determinable, and the ESA requires critical habitat designation in that 
circumstance. In the IRFA, we also analyzed the alternative of 
including all large coastal rivers from the North Carolina/Virginia 
border southward to the St Johns River, Florida, in the designation, 
instead of just documented spawning rivers. This alternative would 
likely have involved many more consultations on Federal actions each 
year, potentially impacting many more small entities. Several large 
coastal rivers within the geographical area occupied by the Carolina 
and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon do not appear to support 
spawning and juvenile recruitment or to contain suitable habitat 
features to support spawning and we determined it would not promote 
Atlantic sturgeon conservation by including those rivers in the rule.

Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (Executive 
Order 13175)

    The longstanding and distinctive relationship between the Federal 
and tribal governments is defined by treaties, statutes, executive 
orders, judicial decisions, and agreements, which differentiate tribal 
governments from the other entities that deal with, or are affected by, 
the Federal Government. This relationship has given rise to a special 
Federal trust responsibility involving the legal responsibilities and 
obligations of the United States toward Indian Tribes and the 
application of fiduciary standards of due care with respect to Indian 
lands, tribal trust resources, and the exercise of tribal rights.
    Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments, outlines the responsibilities of the Federal 
Government in matters affecting tribal interests. If NMFS issues a 
regulation with tribal implications (defined as having a substantial 
direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes), we must consult with those governments or the Federal 
Government must provide funds necessary to pay direct compliance costs 
incurred by tribal governments. The critical habitat designations for 
Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South 
Atlantic DPSs do not have tribal implications because designated 
critical habitat will not have a substantial direct effect on one or 
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government 
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Takings (Executive Order 12630)

    Under E.O. 12630, Federal agencies must consider the effects of 
their actions on constitutionally protected private property rights and 
avoid unnecessary takings of property. A taking of property includes 
actions that result in physical invasion or occupancy of private 
property, and regulations imposed on private property that 
substantially affect its value or use. In accordance with E.O. 12630, 
this rule would not have significant takings implications. The 
designation of critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, 
Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon 
will not impose additional burdens on land use or affect property 
values. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required.

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898)

    The designation of critical habitat is not expected to have a 
disproportionately high effect on minority populations or low-income 
populations.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    This final rule will not produce a Federal mandate. The designation 
of critical habitat does not impose a legally-binding duty on non-
Federal government entities or private parties. The only regulatory 
effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions

[[Page 39238]]

do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7 of 
the ESA. Non-Federal entities which receive Federal funding, 
assistance, permits or otherwise require approval or authorization from 
a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly impacted by the 
designation of critical habitat, but the Federal agency has the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat.
    This rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. Therefore, a Small Government Action Plan is not required.

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13771)

    The OMB determined that this final rule is significant under 
Executive Order 12866 because it may create a serious inconsistency or 
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. 
Final Economic and Regulatory Impact Review Analyses and 4(b)(2) 
analyses as set forth and referenced herein have been prepared to 
support the exclusion process under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA. To 
review these documents see ADDRESSES section above.
    In addition, as explained above, OMB classified this rule as 
significant under E.O. 12866. Therefore, this final rule is considered 
an E.O. 13771 regulatory action. This rule is not subject to the 
requirements of E.O. 13771 because this rule results in no more than de 
minimis costs.

Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

    Pursuant to the Executive Order on Federalism, E.O. 13132, we 
determined that this final rule does not have significant federalism 
effects and that a federalism assessment is not required. However, in 
keeping with Department of Commerce policies and consistent with ESA 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(1)(ii), we requested information from, 
and coordinated this critical habitat designation with, appropriate 
state resource agencies in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 
Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, 
Virginia, the District of Columbia, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
Georgia, and Florida.

Coastal Zone Management Act

    Under section 307(c)(1)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act 
(CZMA) (16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(1)(A)) and its implementing regulations, each 
Federal activity within or outside the coastal zone that has reasonably 
foreseeable effects on any land or water use or natural resource of the 
coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner which is consistent to 
the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of 
approved State coastal management programs. We have determined that any 
effects of this designation of critical habitat on coastal uses and 
resources in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New 
York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida are not reasonably 
foreseeable at this time. However, the State of North Carolina 
suggested SERO's consistency determination regarding designating 
critical habitat was incomplete and did not meet the requirements of 
the CZMA and its implementing regulations. The State maintained SERO 
submitted an incomplete negative determination, because it had not 
provided an evaluation of the North Carolina coastal program's 
enforceable policies; SERO disagrees. While SERO recognizes the State's 
goals of coastal resource protection and economic development, it 
determined that any effects of the proposed action on North Carolina's 
coastal uses and resources are not reasonably foreseeable at this time. 
As indicated in SERO's negative determination, this designation of 
critical habitat will not restrict any coastal uses, affect land 
ownership, or establish a refuge or other conservation area; rather, 
the designation affects only the ESA section 7 consultation process for 
Federal actions. These consultations will consider effects of Federal 
actions on coastal uses and resources to the extent they overlap with 
critical habitat. We considered the range of Federal actions that this 
designation may affect (e.g., dredging, bridge construction/repair, 
water withdrawals) and which may affect coastal uses and resources in 
the affected States. However, we do not have sufficient information on 
the specifics of any future activities (e.g., when, where and how they 
will be carried out) to characterize any of these as reasonably 
foreseeable. Therefore, because the effects are not reasonably 
foreseeable, we cannot make a determination as to whether the Federal 
activities will be consistent with any enforceable policies of approved 
State coastal management programs. Through the consultation process, we 
will receive information on proposed Federal actions and their effects 
on listed species and the designated critical habitat. Any related 
biological opinions will analyze this information. It will then be up 
to the Federal action agencies to decide how to comply with the ESA in 
light of our biological opinion, as well as to ensure that their 
actions comply with the CZMA's Federal consistency requirement. At this 
time, we do not anticipate that this designation is likely to result in 
any additional management measures by other Federal agencies.

Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use (Executive Order 13211)

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking an action expected to lead to the 
promulgation of a final rule or regulation that is a significant 
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and is likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. OMB 
Guidance on Implementing E.O. 13211 (July 13, 2001) states that 
significant adverse effects could include any of the following outcomes 
compared to a world without the regulatory action under consideration: 
(1) Reductions in crude oil supply in excess of 10,000 barrels per day; 
(2) reductions in fuel production in excess of 4,000 barrels per day; 
(3) reductions in coal production in excess of 5 million tons per year; 
(4) reductions in natural gas production in excess of 25 million cubic 
feet per year; (5) reductions in electricity production in excess of 1 
billion kilowatt-hours per year or in excess of 500 megawatts of 
installed capacity; (6) increases in energy use required by the 
regulatory action that exceed any of the thresholds above; (7) 
increases in the cost of energy production in excess of one percent; 
(8) increases in the cost of energy distribution in excess of one 
percent; or (9) other similarly adverse outcomes. A regulatory action 
could also have significant adverse effects if it: (1) Adversely 
affects in a material way the productivity, competition, or prices in 
the energy sector; (2) adversely affects in a material way 
productivity, competition or prices within a region; (3) creates a 
serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with an action taken or 
planned by another agency regarding energy; or (4) raises novel legal 
or policy issues adversely affecting the supply, distribution or use of 
energy arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or 
the principles set forth in E.O. 12866 and 13211. We do not believe 
this rule will have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. The only Federal actions we may consult 
on that may have material effects on energy are FERC hydropower 
licensing and Nuclear Regulatory Commission actions. These actions have 
the potential to adversely affect sturgeon as well as its

[[Page 39239]]

critical habitat, and thus most of the impacts of these consultations 
will not be incremental impacts of this rule. Moreover, the FPA, which 
FERC implements in issuing hydropower licenses, has independent 
requirements to avoid adverse effects on fisheries resources and 
habitats, and thus modifications to hydropower facilities to avoid 
impacts to critical habitat may also be coextensive with the FPA, and 
not incremental impacts of the designation. Therefore, we have not 
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This final rule does not contain any new or revised collection of 
information. This rule, if adopted, would not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking can be 
found on our Web sites at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/sturgeon/index.html and https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/atlsturgeon/ and is 
available upon request from the NMFS SERO and GARFO offices (see 
ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 226

    Endangered and threatened species.

    Dated: August 10, 2017.
Samuel D Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, we amend 50 CFR part 226 
as follows:

PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

0
1. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1533.


0
2. Add Sec.  226.225 to read as follows:


Sec.  226.225  Critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, 
Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic distinct population 
segments (DPSs) of Atlantic Sturgeon.

    Critical habitat is designated for the Gulf of Maine, New York 
Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic 
sturgeon as described in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section. 
The maps, clarified by the textual descriptions in paragraphs (d) 
through (h) of this section, are the definitive source for determining 
the critical habitat boundaries.
    (a) Critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and 
Chesapeake Bay DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon. The physical features 
essential for the conservation of Atlantic sturgeon belonging to the 
Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs are those 
habitat components that support successful reproduction and 
recruitment. These are:
    (1) Hard bottom substrate (e.g., rock, cobble, gravel, limestone, 
boulder, etc.) in low salinity waters (i.e., 0.0-0.5 parts per thousand 
range) for settlement of fertilized eggs, refuge, growth, and 
development of early life stages;
    (2) Aquatic habitat with a gradual downstream salinity gradient of 
0.5 up to as high as 30 parts per thousand and soft substrate (e.g., 
sand, mud) between the river mouth and spawning sites for juvenile 
foraging and physiological development;
    (3) Water of appropriate depth and absent physical barriers to 
passage (e.g., locks, dams, thermal plumes, turbidity, sound, 
reservoirs, gear, etc.) between the river mouth and spawning sites 
necessary to support:
    (i) Unimpeded movement of adults to and from spawning sites;
    (ii) Seasonal and physiologically dependent movement of juvenile 
Atlantic sturgeon to appropriate salinity zones within the river 
estuary; and
    (iii) Staging, resting, or holding of subadults or spawning 
condition adults. Water depths in main river channels must also be deep 
enough (e.g., at least 1.2 meters) to ensure continuous flow in the 
main channel at all times when any sturgeon life stage would be in the 
river;
    (4) Water, between the river mouth and spawning sites, especially 
in the bottom meter of the water column, with the temperature, 
salinity, and oxygen values that, combined, support:
    (i) Spawning;
    (ii) Annual and interannual adult, subadult, larval, and juvenile 
survival; and
    (iii) Larval, juvenile, and subadult growth, development, and 
recruitment (e.g., 13 to 26 [deg]C for spawning habitat and no more 
than 30 [deg]C for juvenile rearing habitat, and 6 milligrams per liter 
(mg/L) or greater dissolved oxygen for juvenile rearing habitat).
    (5) Pursuant to ESA section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), critical habitat for the 
New York Bight and Chesapeake Bay DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon does not 
include the following areas owned or controlled by the Department of 
Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated 
natural resource management plan prepared under section 101 of the 
Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), and for which we have determined that such 
plan provides a conservation benefit to the species, and its habitat, 
for which critical habitat is designated.
    (i) The Department of the Army, U.S. Military Academy--West Point, 
NY;
    (ii) The Department of the Air Force, Joint Base Langley--Eustis, 
VA;
    (iii) The Department of the Navy, Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA;
    (iv) The Department of the Navy, Naval Weapons Station Yorktown, 
VA; and,
    (v) The Department of the Navy, Naval Support Facility Dahlgren, 
VA.
    (6) Pursuant to ESA section 3(5)(A)(i), critical habitat for the 
Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs of Atlantic 
sturgeon does not include existing (already constructed), as of 
September 18, 2017, manmade structures that do not provide the physical 
features such as aids-to-navigation (ATONs), artificial reefs, boat 
ramps, docks, or pilings within the legal boundaries of designated 
critical habitat.
    (b) Critical habitat for the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs of 
Atlantic sturgeon. The physical features essential for the conservation 
of Atlantic sturgeon belonging to the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs 
are those habitat components that support successful reproduction and 
recruitment. These are:
    (1) Hard bottom substrate (e.g., rock, cobble, gravel, limestone, 
boulder, etc.) in low salinity waters (i.e., 0.0-0.5 parts per thousand 
range) for settlement of fertilized eggs and refuge, growth, and 
development of early life stages;
    (2) Aquatic habitat inclusive of waters with a gradual downstream 
gradient of 0.5 up to as high as 30 parts per thousand and soft 
substrate (e.g., sand, mud) between the river mouth and spawning sites 
for juvenile foraging and physiological development;
    (3) Water of appropriate depth and absent physical barriers to 
passage (e.g., locks, dams, thermal plumes, turbidity, sound, 
reservoirs, gear, etc.) between the river mouth and spawning sites 
necessary to support:
    (i) Unimpeded movement of adults to and from spawning sites;
    (ii) Seasonal and physiologically dependent movement of juvenile 
Atlantic sturgeon to appropriate salinity zones within the river 
estuary; and
    (iii) Staging, resting, or holding of subadults or spawning 
condition adults. Water depths in main river channels must also be deep 
enough (at least 1.2 meters) to ensure continuous flow in the

[[Page 39240]]

main channel at all times when any sturgeon life stage would be in the 
river;
    (4) Water quality conditions, especially in the bottom meter of the 
water column, with temperature and oxygen values that support:
    (i) Spawning;
    (ii) Annual and inter-annual adult, subadult, larval, and juvenile 
survival; and
    (iii) Larval, juvenile, and subadult growth, development, and 
recruitment. Appropriate temperature and oxygen values will vary 
interdependently, and depending on salinity in a particular habitat. 
For example, 6.0 mg/L dissolved oxygen or greater likely supports 
juvenile rearing habitat, whereas dissolved oxygen less than 5.0 mg/L 
for longer than 30 days is less likely to support rearing when water 
temperature is greater than 25 [deg]C. In temperatures greater than 26 
[deg]C, dissolved oxygen greater than 4.3 mg/L is needed to protect 
survival and growth. Temperatures of 13 to 26 [deg]C likely support 
spawning habitat.
    (5) Pursuant to ESA section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), critical habitat for the 
Carolina DPS of Atlantic sturgeon does not include certain waters of 
the Cooper River, South Carolina, adjacent to Joint Base Charleston. 
These areas are described in 33 CFR 334.460(a)(8)(ii)-(iv), 33 CFR 
334.460(a)(9), and 33 CFR 334.460(a)(10).
    (6) Pursuant to ESA section 3(5)(A)(i), critical habitat for the 
Carolina and the South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon does not 
include existing (already constructed), as of September 18, 2017, 
manmade structures that do not provide the physical features such as 
aids-to-navigation (ATONs), artificial reefs, boat ramps, docks, or 
pilings within the legal boundaries of designated critical habitat.
    (c) States and counties affected by this critical habitat 
designation. Critical habitat is designated for the following DPSs in 
the following states and counties:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                DPS                            State--Counties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf of Maine.....................  ME--Androscoggin, Cumberland,
                                     Kennebec, Lincoln, Penobscot,
                                     Sagadahoc, Somerset, Waldo, and
                                     York.
                                    NH--Rockingham and Stafford.
                                    MA--Essex.
New York Bight....................  CT--Fairfield, Hartford, Litchfield,
                                     Middlesex, New Haven, New London,
                                     and Tolland.
                                    NJ--Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape
                                     May, Cumberland, Gloucester,
                                     Hudson, Mercer, Monmouth, and
                                     Salem.
                                    NY--Albany, Bronx, Columbia,
                                     Dutchess, Greene, Kings, New York,
                                     Orange, Putnam, Queens, Rensselaer,
                                     Richmond, Rockland, Saratoga,
                                     Ulster, and Westchester.
                                    DE--Kent, New Castle, and Sussex.
                                    PA--Bucks, Delaware, and
                                     Philadelphia.
Chesapeake Bay....................  DC--District of Columbia.
                                    MD--Charles, Dorchester, Montgomery,
                                     Prince George's, St. Mary's, and
                                     Wicomico.
                                    VA--Arlington, Caroline, Charles
                                     City, Chesterfield, Dinwiddie,
                                     Essex, Fairfax, Gloucester,
                                     Hanover, Henrico, Isle of Wight,
                                     King George, James City, King and
                                     Queen, King William, Lancaster,
                                     Loudoun, Middlesex, New Kent,
                                     Northumberland, Prince George,
                                     Prince William, Richmond,
                                     Spotsylvania, Stafford, Surry,
                                     Westmoreland, and York.
Carolina..........................  NC--Anson, Bertie, Beaufort,
                                     Brunswick, Carteret, Columbus,
                                     Craven, Duplin, Edgecombe, Halifax,
                                     Hyde, Johnston, Lenoir, Martin,
                                     Nash, New Hanover, Northampton,
                                     Pamlico, Pender, Pitt, Richmond,
                                     Wake, Washington, and Wayne.
                                    SC--Berkeley, Charleston,
                                     Chesterfield, Clarendon,
                                     Darlington, Dillon, Florence,
                                     Georgetown, Horry, Marion,
                                     Marlboro, and Williamsburg.
South Atlantic....................  SC--Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg,
                                     Barnwell, Beaufort, Charleston,
                                     Colleton, Dorchester, Edgefield,
                                     Hampton, and Jasper.
                                    GA--Appling, Atkinson, Baldwin, Ben
                                     Hill, Bibb, Bleckley, Brantley,
                                     Bryan, Bulloch, Burke, Camden,
                                     Charlton, Chatham, Coffee, Dodge,
                                     Effingham, Emanuel, Glascock,
                                     Glynn, Hancock, Houston, Jeff
                                     Davis, Jefferson, Jenkins, Johnson,
                                     Jones, Laurens, Long, McIntosh,
                                     Monroe, Montgomery, Pierce,
                                     Pulaski, Richmond, Screven,
                                     Tattnall, Telfair, Toombs,
                                     Treutlen, Twiggs, Ware, Warren,
                                     Washington, Wayne, Wheeler, Wilcox,
                                     and Wilkinson.
                                    FL--Baker and Nassau.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Critical habitat boundaries for the Gulf of Maine DPS. Critical 
habitat for the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic sturgeon is the waters 
of:
    (1) Penobscot River main stem from the Milford Dam downstream to 
where the main stem river drainage discharges at its mouth into 
Penobscot Bay;
    (2) Kennebec River main stem from the Ticonic Falls/Lockwood Dam 
downstream to where the main stem river discharges at its mouth into 
the Atlantic Ocean;
    (3) Androscoggin River main stem from the Brunswick Dam downstream 
to where the main stem river drainage discharges into Merrymeeting Bay;
    (4) Piscataqua River from its confluence with the Salmon Falls and 
Cocheco rivers downstream to where the main stem river discharges at 
its mouth into the Atlantic Ocean as well as the waters of the Cocheco 
River from its confluence with the Piscataqua River and upstream to the 
Cocheco Falls Dam, and waters of the Salmon Falls River from its 
confluence with the Piscataqua River and upstream to the Route 4 Dam; 
and
    (5) Merrimack River from the Essex Dam (also known as the Lawrence 
Dam) downstream to where the main stem river discharges at its mouth 
into the Atlantic Ocean.
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 39241]]

    (6) Maps of the Gulf of Maine DPS follow:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.001
    

[[Page 39242]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.002


[[Page 39243]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.003

    (e) Critical habitat boundaries of the New York Bight DPS. Critical 
habitat for the New York Bight DPS of Atlantic sturgeon is the waters 
of:
    (1) Connecticut River from the Holyoke Dam downstream to where the 
main stem river discharges at its mouth into Long Island Sound;
    (2) Housatonic River from the Derby Dam downstream to where the 
main stem discharges at its mouth into Long Island Sound;
    (3) Hudson River from the Troy Lock and Dam (also known as the 
Federal Dam) downstream to where the main stem river discharges at its 
mouth into New York City Harbor; and
    (4) Delaware River at the crossing of the Trenton-Morrisville Route 
1 Toll Bridge, downstream to where the main stem river discharges at 
its mouth into Delaware Bay.

[[Page 39244]]

    (5) Maps of the New York Bight DPS follow:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.004
    

[[Page 39245]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.005


[[Page 39246]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.006


[[Page 39247]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.007


[[Page 39248]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.008

    (f) Critical habitat boundaries of the Chesapeake Bay DPS. Critical 
habitat for the Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic sturgeon is the waters 
of:
    (1) Potomac River from the Little Falls Dam downstream to where the 
main stem river discharges at its mouth into the Chesapeake Bay;
    (2) Rappahannock River from the U.S. Highway 1 Bridge, downstream 
to where the river discharges at its mouth into the Chesapeake Bay;
    (3) York River from its confluence with the Mattaponi and Pamunkey 
rivers downstream to where the main stem river discharges at its mouth 
into the Chesapeake Bay as well as the waters of the Mattaponi River 
from its confluence with the York River and upstream to the Virginia 
State Route 360 Bridge of the Mattaponi River, and waters of the 
Pamunkey River from its confluence with the York River and upstream to 
the Nelson's Bridge Road Route 615 crossing of the Pamunkey River;
    (4) James River from Boshers Dam downstream to where the main stem 
river discharges at its mouth into the Chesapeake Bay at Hampton Roads; 
and
    (5) Nanticoke River from the Maryland State Route 313 Bridge 
crossing near Sharptown, MD to where the main stem discharges at its 
mouth into the Chesapeake Bay as well as Marshyhope Creek from its 
confluence with the Nanticoke River and upriver to the Maryland State 
Route 318 Bridge crossing near Federalsburg, MD.

[[Page 39249]]

    (6) Maps of the Chesapeake Bay DPS follow:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.009
    

[[Page 39250]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.010


[[Page 39251]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.011


[[Page 39252]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.012


[[Page 39253]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.013

    (g) Critical habitat boundaries of the Carolina DPS. The lateral 
extent for all critical habitat units for the Carolina DPS of Atlantic 
sturgeon is the ordinary high water mark on each bank of the river and 
shorelines. Critical habitat for the Carolina DPS of Atlantic sturgeon 
is:
    (1) Carolina Unit 1 includes the Roanoke River main stem from the 
Roanoke Rapids Dam downstream to rkm 0;
    (2) Carolina Unit 2 includes the Tar-Pamlico River main stem from 
the Rocky Mount Millpond Dam downstream to rkm 0;
    (3) Carolina Unit 3 includes the Neuse River main stem from the 
Milburnie Dam downstream to rkm 0;
    (4) Carolina Unit 4 includes the Cape Fear River main stem from 
Lock and Dam #2 downstream to rkm 0 and the Northeast Cape Fear River 
from the upstream side of Rones Chapel Road Bridge downstream to the 
confluence with the Cape Fear River;
    (5) Carolina Unit 5 includes the Pee Dee River main stem from 
Blewett Falls Dam downstream to rkm 0, the Waccamaw River from Bull 
Creek downstream to rkm 0, and Bull Creek from the Pee Dee River to the 
confluence with the Waccamaw River;
    (6) Carolina Unit 6 includes the Black River main stem from 
Interstate Highway 95 downstream to rkm 0 (the confluence with the Pee 
Dee River); and
    (7) Carolina Unit 7 includes the Santee River main stem from the 
Wilson Dam downstream to the fork of the North Santee River and South 
Santee River distributaries, the Rediversion Canal from the St. Stephen 
Powerhouse downstream to the confluence with the Santee River, the 
North Santee River from the fork of the Santee River and South Santee 
River downstream to rkm

[[Page 39254]]

0, the South Santee River from the fork of the Santee River and North 
Santee River downstream to rkm 0, the Tailrace Canal from Pinopolis Dam 
downstream to the West Branch Cooper River, the West Branch Cooper 
River from the Tailrace Canal downstream to the confluence with the 
East Branch Cooper River, and the Cooper River from confluence of the 
West Branch Cooper River and East Branch Cooper River tributaries 
downstream to rkm 0, not including the area described in paragraph 
(b)(5) of this section.
    (8) Maps of the Carolina DPS follow:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.014
    

[[Page 39255]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.015


[[Page 39256]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.016


[[Page 39257]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.017


[[Page 39258]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.018


[[Page 39259]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.019


[[Page 39260]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.020


[[Page 39261]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.021


[[Page 39262]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.022


[[Page 39263]]


    (h) Critical habitat boundaries of the South Atlantic DPS. The 
lateral extent for all critical habitat units for the South Atlantic 
DPS of Atlantic sturgeon is the ordinary high water mark on each bank 
of the river and shorelines. Critical habitat for the South Atlantic 
DPS of Atlantic sturgeon is:
    (1) South Atlantic Unit 1 includes the North Fork Edisto River from 
Cones Pond downstream to the confluence with the South Fork Edisto 
River, the South Fork Edisto River from Highway 121 downstream to the 
confluence with the North Fork Edisto River, the Edisto River main stem 
from the confluence of the North Fork Edisto River and South Fork 
Edisto River tributaries downstream to the fork at the North Edisto 
River and South Edisto River distributaries, the North Edisto River 
from the Edisto River downstream to rkm 0, and the South Edisto River 
from the Edisto River downstream to rkm 0;
    (2) South Atlantic Unit 2 includes the main stem Combahee-
Salkehatchie River from the confluence of Buck and Rosemary Creeks with 
the Salkehatchie River downstream to the Combahee River, the Combahee 
River from the Salkehatchie River downstream to rkm 0;
    (3) South Atlantic Unit 3 includes the main stem Savannah River 
(including the Back River, Middle River, Front River, Little Back 
River, South River, Steamboat River, and McCoy's Cut) from the New 
Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam downstream to rkm 0;
    (4) South Atlantic Unit 4 includes the main stem Ogeechee River 
from the Mayfield Mill Dam downstream to rkm 0;
    (5) South Atlantic Unit 5 includes the main stem Oconee River from 
Sinclair Dam downstream to the confluence with the Ocmulgee River, the 
main stem Ocmulgee River from Juliette Dam downstream to the confluence 
with the Oconee River, and the main stem Altamaha River from the 
confluence of the Oconee River and Ocmulgee River downstream to rkm 0;
    (6) South Atlantic Unit 6 includes the main stem Satilla River from 
the confluence of Satilla and Wiggins Creeks downstream to rkm 0; and
    (7) South Atlantic Unit 7 includes the main stem St. Marys River 
from the confluence of Middle Prong St. Marys and the St. Marys Rivers 
downstream to rkm 0.

[[Page 39264]]

    (8) Maps of the South Atlantic DPS follow:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.023
    

[[Page 39265]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.024


[[Page 39266]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.025


[[Page 39267]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.026


[[Page 39268]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.027


[[Page 39269]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.028


[[Page 39270]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.029


[[Page 39271]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.030


[[Page 39272]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.031


[[Page 39273]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.032


[[Page 39274]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU17.033

[FR Doc. 2017-17207 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-C