Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 173 I Thursday. September6, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 36641

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

5OCFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AB 31

Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; Determination ofEndangered Status for the PallidSturgeon

AGENCY: Fish andWildlife Service,Interior.

ACTION: Finalrule.

SUMMARY: The Servicedeterminesthepallid sturgeon(Scaphirhjrnchusalbus)to bean endangeredspeciesunderauthority of theEndangeredSpeciesAct(Act) of 1973.Critical habitat is notbeingdesignated.Thepallid sturgeonisalargefish knownonly to occurin theMissouri River, the MississippiRiverdownstreamof theMissouri River, andthe lowerYellowstoneRiver. Thespeciesis threatenedthroughhabitatmodification, apparentlackof naturalreproduction,commercialharvest,andhybridizationin partsof its range.Thisrule identifiesthetaxonasonein needof conservation,implementsprotectivemeasures,andmakesavailablerecoverymeasuresprovidedby theAct.EFFECTIVE DATE: October9, 1990.

ADDRESsES: Thecompletefile for thisrule is availablefor inspection,byappointment,during normalbusinesshoursin theoffice of theMissouri RiverCoordinator,FishandWildlifeEnhancement,U.S. FishandWildlifeService,P.O.Box 986,Pierre,SouthDakota57501.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Dr. Kent D. Keenlyne,Missouri RiverCoordinator,at theaboveaddress,telephone(605) 224—8693.

The pallid sturgeonwasfirstdescribedby S.A. ForbesandR.E.Richardsonin 1905 from nine specimenscollectedfrom theMississippiRivernearGrafton, Illinois, in June1904(ForbesandRichardson1905).Knownlocally asthewhitesturgeon,theynamedit Pcirciscaphirhynchusalbus andsuggestedit beconsideredasits owngenus.Laterclassifications,however,placedit in thegenusScaphirhynchuswhereit hasremained(Bailey andCross1954).

The pallid sturgeonhasaflattened,shovel-shapedsnout; long, slender,andcompletelyarmoredcaudalpeduncle;andlacksaspiracle(Smith1979).Theprincipalfeaturesdistinguishingthepallid sturgeonfrom thedarkershovelnosesturgeonaretheabsenceofbony plateson thebelly, 24 or more analfin rays, 37 or more dorsalfin rays,andinnerbarbelsunderthesnoutthat aremuchshorterthanouterbarbelswiththeinnerbarbelslessthan6 timesthelengthof thehead(Pflieger1975). Aswith othersturgeon,themouth istoothless,protrusible,andfarunderthesnoutwhile theskeletalstructureisprimarily cartilaginous(Gilbraith etal.1988).It is oneof thelargestfish foundin the Missouri-MississippiRiverdrainagewith specimensapproaching39kilograms (85pounds)beingreported(Gilbraith et al. 1988).

Pallid sturgeonsrequirelarge, turbid,free-flowingriverine habitatwith rockyor sandysubstrate(Gilbraith et al. 1988).They arewell adaptedto life on thebottom andinhabit areasof swifterwaterthan doesthe relatedbut smallershovelnosesturgeon(ForbesandRichardson1909; Carlsonet al. 1985).

The iangeof thepallid sturgeonisprimarily theMissouri RiverandtheMississippiRiverdownstreamof thejunction with the Missouri River(Gilbraith et al. 1988).Sightingshavebeenreportedfrom themouthof theMississippito the mouthof theMissouri(1,860kilometersor 1,154 miles), fromthemouth of theMissouri to FortBenton,Montana(3,330kilometersor2,065 miles),andin thelower 320kilometers(200miles) of theYellowstoneRiver. Sightingshaveoccasionallycomefromnearthemouthsof largetributariesto theMississippiRiver (Big SunflowerRiver andtheSt.FrancisRiver) andMissouri River(KansasRiver andPlatteRiver);however,thesearerareandmaybedueto the fishutilizing unusualflowconditions(Cross1987).Thetotal lengthof its rangeis approximately5,725kilometers(3,550miles) of river.

36642 Federal Register I Vol. 55, No, 173 / Thursday, September6. 1900 / Rules and Regulations

A reviewof theliteratureshowsasharpdeclinein pallidsturgeonobservationsover therangeof thespeciesandespeciallyso in theMissouriRiverfrom GavinsPoint Damto theheadwaters.In the 1960’s.500observationswere made(i.e., anaverageof 50 peryear);in the1970’s,209observations(i.e.. anaverageof 21 peryear);andin the1980’s, 65observations(i.e.,an averageof about7 peryear)overtheentire5,725kilometers(3,550miles)of range.Thedeclineof thespeciesappearsto correspondwithexpandedcommercialharvestwhile,duringthe~sameitme, recruitmentbeganto fail. Thedecline,however,alsofollows theextensivedevelopmentsof’the1950’s and1960’sof the Missouri andMississippirivers.Deaconetal. (1979),Kallemeyn(1983),andGilbraith et al.(1988)all attributethe decline,eiiherdirectly or indirectly, to habitatmodification.Factorsincludephysicalhiockingof normal movementpatternsof thefish by constructionof thebigcams;alterationof waterquality andt~rnperature;alterationofflows whichmayaffectreproduction,timing ofreproduction,or food sources;alterationof pre~ions spawninghabitats;reductionof habitatdiversity; andreducedproductivity of theriversystems.

Dr. MichaelD.Zagata,on behalfoftheNationalAudubonSociety,petitionedtheServiceto list thepallidsturgeonas“threatened”in anApril 17,1Y78 letter.TheServicerespondedthatthe petitionerdid not supplysufficientsubstantialevidenceof the threatstopermit it to movedirectly on the petitionandinformedthepetitionerthatit wasgatheringstatusdataon this andseveralotherspecies.On December30, 1982,theServiceincludedthepallid sturgeonin anoticeofreivew publishedin theFederal Register(47 FR 58456).Thisnoticeaddressedvertebratespeciesthatwerecurrentlyunderreviewfor listingasendangeredor threatened,andindicatedthatsubstantialinformationwasavailableto supportthebiologicalappropriatenessof proposingto list thisspeciesasendangeredorthreatened.OnJune16, 1988,a petition wasreceivedbytheServicefrom PeterCarrelson behalfof theDakotahChapterof theSierraClubrequestingthatthepallid sturgeonbe listedasanendangerdspeciesthroughoutits range.A positivefindingon this petition wasmadein September1988andsubsequentlypublishedby theServicein the February23, 1989,FederalRegister(54FR 7813).OnAugust 30,1989 (54 FR 35901),theServiceprovidednotificationthat thepetitionwaswarrantedand proposedto list thepallid sturgeonasendangered

throughoutits rangeandaskedforinformation relevantto a finaldetermination.OnNovember8, 1989, theServiceextendedthecommentperiodon theproposedrulefrom October30,1989 to November30, 1989 (FederalRegister54 FR 46590).

Summaryof CommentsandRecommendations

In theFebruary23, 1989,FederalRegister(54FR 7813)noticeof finding onthepetitionto list thepallid sturgeonandin theAugust 30, 1989, proposedrule(54 FR 35901),andassociatednotifications,all interestedpartieswererequestedto submitfactualreportsorinformationthatmight contributeto thedevelopmentof aproposedandfinalrule. AppropriateStateagencies,countygovernments,Federalagencies,scientificorganziations,andotherinterestedpartieswerecontactedandrequestedto comment.A newspapernoticewaspublishedin theOmahaWorld Herald(NE) on September18,1989; theKansasCity StarandTimes(MO) on September19, 1989;theSoutheastMissourian(MO). theSiouxFallsArgusLeader(SD),andtheBismarckTribune(ND) on September20, 1989; theDaily CapitolJournal(SD)andtheWilliston DailyHerald (ND) onSeptember21, 1989;theBillings Gazette(MT), theHelenaIndependentRecord(~vlT),theGreatFalls Tribune(MT), andtheRapidCity Journal(SD) onSeptember22, 1989; theForum(ND) onSeptember2.5, 1989; theStateTimes(LA), the SundayAdvocate/MorningAdvocate(LA), andtheArkansasGazette(AR) on September27. 1989;theRandolphCountyHeraldTribune(IL)andtheArkansasDemocrat(AR) onSeptember28, 1989; theCourier-Journal[KY) on September29, 1989;the TimesPacayune/StatesItem (LA) onSeptember30, 1989;andtheClarionLedger(MS) on October5, 1989,all ofwhichinvited generalpublic comment.An extensionof thecommentperiodtoNovember30, 1989,waspublishedin theFederalRegisteronNovember8, 1989(54 FR 46596).The notificationof theextensionof thecommentperiodalsowaspublishedin theaforementionednewspapersin November.

During thecommentperiodon theproposedrule, totaling approximately 3months,46 commentson listing werereceived.Of thecommentsrecieved,19(41 percent)supportedlisting, 24 (52percent)wereneutral,and 3 (7 percent)wereopposed.Thesecommentsandtheconcernsraisedfollowing thenoticeofpetition finding arediscussedbelow.

Supportfor thelisting proposalwasvoicedby two Governors,eight Stategameandfish agencies,two Federal

agenciesor divisions,onenonwildlifeStateagency,andsix conservationorganizations(orbranchesthereof).

Oppositionto listingwasvoicedfromtwo farm organizationsandoneStatelegislativeofficial. A numberof StateandFederalagenciesandorganizationssubmittedcommentsregardingthepossibleeffectsthat listing and,particularly,designationofcriticalhabitat,might haveon plannedactivitiesanddevelopment.Commentsobtainedduring thecommentperiodsarecombinedin thefollowing discussion.Commentsor questionsabouttheruleweregroupedinto anumberof generalissues,depndingon content.TheseIssuesandthe Service’sresponsetoeacharelistedbelow.

Issue1: Onecommenterquestionedwhetheradequateinformationwasavailableto documentadeclinein pallidsturgeonnumbers.Anotherquestionedwhethersightingswereareliableindicatorof abundance,andanothersuggestedthat futurework will benecessaryto betterdefinethecausesofthedecline.

Response:One of theproblemsexperienced12 yearsago,whenthespecieswasfirst petitionedfor listing,wastheinability to documentpopulationdeclinesthroughscientificstudiesthathadbeendirectedspecificallyat thepallid sturgeon.Sincethattime, thework by Kallemeyn(1983)andGilbraith et al. (1988),summarizedmuchof theexistinginformationonpopulationstatusavailablethroughprintedreportsandpersonalcontactwith appropriateStateandFederalagenciesfor data.Both worksconcludedthatpopulationshaddeclinedandweredeclining.In ourefforts,we reviewedcomparablecatch-per-effortdata(particularlyin theUpperMissouri RiverSystem)whichfairly clearlyindicatedthat pallidpopulationshaddeclinedconsiderablyoverthelast10 to 20 years.In someareas,particularlyin thereservoirsystems,populationshaddeclineddramaticallyor hadevenbeenextirpated.The sightingrecordsreferredto areavalid Indicatorof populationnumberssincetheseweregatheredfromscientificreports,StateandFederalresourceagencyfield datareports,orpublic reports(e.g.,fishermen)whichwereverifiedby StateorFederalresourcepersonnel.Reportsfrom thelast 10 to 15 yearsareunlikely tounderstateabundance,forsophisticationin collectingequipment,moreeffectivestudytechniques,andgenerallyincreasedintensityofsamplingwithin therangein recentyearsshouldhavelocatedthis relalivelylargefish, if presentin anykind of

Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 173 / Thursday, September6, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 36643

abundance,We areconfidentthatthefish hassuffereddramaticdeclinesthroughoutits range.During thecommentperiod, 9 of thefish andwildlife agencieswithin the 13-Staterangeof thespeciessupportedlistingofthe speciesasendangered.Theotherfour Statesdid not submitcommentsbutalreadyhavethefish listedasrareorendangeredin their own Stateprogram.Studieshavebegunandwill continueinattemptsto determinespecificreasonsfor populationdeclinesandwhatcan bedoneto remedyfurtherdeclines.

issue2: Onecommenterobservedthatregulatorymechanismsareavailablewithin theStatesto limit harvest;anothersuggestedthat educationofStateagencieswasneededto protectthe species;andanotherofferedthatstiff Statepenaltiesmight bemoreeffectivethan listing to protectthefish.

Response:Most Stateswithin thespeciesrangehavedevelopedprohibitionsagainstkeepingpallidsturgeonthatarecaught.However,notall Statespresentlyhavesuchprovisionsnorarethepenaltiesfortakingassubstantialas theywould beifthe fish werelisted undertheEndangeredSpeciesAct (Act). Thepresentplight is not so muchthatoverharvestis occurringbut, rather,thatanyharvestnow furtherdepletesapopulationthat is notreplenishingitself.Thereis an ongoingeffort amongsomeof theStatesto coordinatetheirrulesregardingprotectionfor thefish. Whilestrongrulesprohibiting harvestareanimportanttool for slowingtheprocess,enforcementalonewill not correcthabitatproblemsaffectingreproductionandotherlife requisiteneeds.Enforcementcanplay animportantrolein slowing theloss of pallid sturgeonwithin its range,andwe haveeveryconfidencethateachof theStatesinvolvedwill do their best,from theregulatorystandpoint,to assistininsuringthat thespecieswill survive.

issue3: Two commentersquestionedwhetherFederallisting couldcorrecttheplight of thepallid sturgeon;anothermentionedthat thereis little FederallandalongthelowerMississippi,whichwould limit the effectivenessofconsultation;andanotherquestionedwhetherconsultationcould improvethewelfareof thespecies.

Response:Theobservationis correctthatFederallisting, in itself, doesnotcorrectthe problems.However,Federallisting triggerstheprotectionsof the Act,suchassection7 consultationonFederalactivities.The entirepresentrangeof this speciesis classifiedasnavigablewatersof the UnitedStatesand,as aresult,is subjectto severalFederaipermit review processeswhich

mayrequireconsultation.Nearlyall therangeis operatedaseitheraFederalmultiuse waterprojector is maintainedby theFederalGovernmentasanavigationprojectwhich allowstheopportunityfor consultation.ListingmandatesFederalconsultationon anyadverseeffectsto insurethat anyactionauthorized,funded,or carriedout by theFederalagencyis not likely tojeopardizethecontinuedexistenceof alistedspecies.Furthermore,theActspecifiesthatall Federalagenciesshallutilize their authoritiesin furtheranceofthepurposesof theAct by carryingoutprogramsfor theconservationof listedspecies.

issue4: Onecommenterindicatedthattherehasneverbeendocumentationofanypallid sturgeonspawning;andanotherofferedthatman cannotcontrolwhetherornot theywill reproducenaturally.

Response:It is obviousthatpallidsmusthavereproducednaturallyat onetime if specimensexist today.Atpresent,thereareno documentedpallidsturgeonspawninglocations.Oneproblemis thatno identificationkeyspresentlyexist to distinguishpallidsturgeonfry or to separatethemfrom itscloserelative,the shovelnosesturgeon.Collectionsmadein 1989 fromshovelnosespawnedin captivity willallow shovelnosefry to bedescribedatvariousstagesof developmentin orderthat theycanbedifferentiatedfromyoungpallids.A lackof youthfulspecimensin thewild in recentyearsmaybeanindication thatthey arenotreproducingtodaymaking samplingforeggsor fry fruitless; or it couldmeanthatsomespawningis occurring,but theyoungfish aredisappearingfor somereason(predation,contaminants,etc.)beforethey areold enoughto bedistinguishedaspallid sturgeon.Studiesareunderwayto determinereproductionrequirementsof the species,and,onceknown,we may havethe opportunitytorectify or createsituationswherenaturalreproductionandrecruitmentcanoccur.

Issue5: Onecomrnenterobservedthatthehybridizationproblemwith theshovelnosesturgeonmay be causedbyanoverlapof reproductiveperiods;anotherofferedthat humaninterventionwill not controlhybridization;andanotherobservedthat, perhapsthis isnature’swayof filling in apresumablyvacatednicheif the pallidbecomesextinct.

Response:It is obviousthat the twospeciesutilize similar spawninghabitat(if not the same)in orderto hybridize. Italsois obviousthat thetwo specieswereseparatedby time or otherparametersdifferentenoughin thepast,

if usingthesamearea,to maintainthemselvesasdistinctspecies.Theliteraturesuggeststhat thepallid mayhavenormallyspawnedlaterthan theshovelnose(as the first commenterinfers)or wasmore proneto utilizefasterwatersormoremain channelsubstratesfor spawningthan theshovelnose.Schmulbach(1974), who hasworkedextensivelywith sturgeonandotherspecieson theMissouri River,indicatesthathybridizationis aphenomenonthatoccursin associationwith amodified (or “hybridized”)habitat.In his early 1970’sstudies,h~concludedthattheincreasedincidenceof hybridizationin theMissouri isassociatedwith thehybridizationof thehabitat.In contactingDoug Carlson,Missouri ConservationDepartment(pers.comm.1989),who didmuchof thesturgeonwork in Missouri wheresignificanthybridizationwasreported,itwaslearnedthat pallidhybridswerespawnedin the late1960’sandearly1970’s. This time periodcorrespondseitherwith or immediatelyaftermuchofthefinal channelizationwork thatwasaccomplishedon the Missouridownstreamof thelowermostdam.Humaninterventionby habitatalterationlikely wasresponsiblefor thesignificantamountof hybridizationnotedby forcing both speciesto jointlyutilize agreatlydiminishedsuitablespawningarea,while temperatureregimesalsowerealteredsufficiently tointerrupt thenormal spacingofspawning,so thatmoreoverlapoccurredresultingin hybridization.Man’sinterventionlikely led to theproblemand, presumably,couldbeutilized toreversethatsituationaswell. Thehybridswerefound,,tobe infertile(Carison,pers.comm.1989),whichmeanstheywill competefor food withthepure strainbut will not be abletocontributeto thesupportof this or othersturgeonpopulations.

Issue6: Two commentersidentified aneedto resolveidentificationproblemsbetweenthepallid andshovelnosesturgeons,andoneexpressedconcernaboutthepossibleneedto list theshovelnosesturgeonas“threateneddueto similarity of appearance”dueto itscloseresemblanceto thepallid.

Response:Thetwo specieshaveastrongresemblancein body shapeandboth haveaflattened,shovel-likenose.However,thereareanumberofcharacteristicsthatcan be usedtodistinguishbetweenthetwo species(seedescriptionin “Background”section).For the lay person,the lighter colorandlargersizeof the pallid aresignalsthatthefish is not themorecommonshovelnose.Somenoticethat it is not as

36644 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 173 / Thursday, September6, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

roughastheproportionatelyhigherscaled(scuted)shovelnose.Somereadilynoticethat thenoseappearslongerin thepallid sturgeon,andsomenoticedifferencesin thebarbellengthsbetweenthetwo. Perhapstheeasiestandmostreliablecharacteristictodistinguishthetwo is to examinethebarbels.The pallidhasits fleshybarbelslocatedaboutone-thirdof thedistancefrom the mouthto the endof its nose,while thebarbelsof theshovelnosearenearlyan equaldistancebetweenmouthandnose.Theinnerbarbelsof thepallidareoftenslightly aheadof theouterbarbelsandonly abouthalf aslong,while the~hovelnosehasbarbelsin ariear!~straight line with allapproximatelythesamelength.Webelievethat,with assistancefrom therespectiveStateagencies,thoserelatively few fishermenthat fish forstcrgeonwill beableto readilydistinguishbetweenthe two species.

issue7: Onecommenterwonderedwhetherviablepallid sturgeonpopulationsstill exist;andanotherwonderedwhetherthe species’declinemaybea naturalevolutionaryprocesseventuallyleadingto extinction.

Response:Thequestionof whether~ny viable pallid populationsstillremainis onewe askourselves.Last~ear,efforts werebegunto developtechniquesto artifically propagateandraiseits closestrelative,theshovelnosesturgeon,asasurrogatespeciesfordevelopingpropagationtechniquesforthe pallid. Biologists,for 2 years,havebeendevelopingtechniquesto betterlocateandcapturethepallid sturgeoninanticipationof successin possiblyartificially propagatingthe species.Sincethespecieshaspersistedforliterally thousandsof years,andnobroadclimaticconditionsor othersignificantnaturalchangeshaveoccurredthroughouttherangeof thespecies,it is highly unlikely thattherecent,relativelyrapiddeclinein thespeciesis anaturalphenomenon.

issue8: Onecommenterasl~edaboutadditionalobservationsin theSt.FrancisRiver, Arkansas;andtwo othersprovidedinformationaboutpossiblesightingsin theupperMississippiandlower Ohiorivers.

Response,’Overtheyearstherehavebeenseveralreportsof pallid sturgeonsobservedoff themainstemMissouri andMississippirivers. Onereportoccurredin 11966on thelowerSt. FrancisRiverinArkansas,onereport in 1987 from12milesnorthwestof Satartiain theBigSunflowerRiverin Mississippi,fivereportsfrom thelower40 miles of theKansasRiver in 1952, and onereportabout21 milesup the PlatteRiver in1979. Onecommenterindicatedthat

therehavebeenunsubstantiatedreportsin thelower Ohio Rivercloseto theMississippi;andanotherreportedapossible1982 observationby acommercialfishermannearthe town ofLouisiana, Missouri, on the Mississippi,about70 milesupriverof themouthoftheMissouri. Most of the theseoffstreamreportshaveoccurredunderspecialcircumstancesof high flowconditions.Eachof thelocationsnoted,however,doeshaveaccessto oneof thetwo largeriverswhich areconsideredtheusualhabitat for thespecies.Thislisting will protectthespeciesthroughoutits 13.Staterenge,whereverfound.

issue9: Sevencommentersexpressedconcernaboutwhat impactlisting mayhaveonvariousactivities.Concernsincludedapossibleimpact on powergeneration,pesticidelabelingrestrictionsby the EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, watermanagement,beneficialusesof water,impactstoirrigation waLeruseorreturns,impactsto mining activities,andpossibleimpactsto future powerplantsitings.

Response:Although thesecommentsarenot relevantto the determinationofwhether the speciesis, indeed,threatenedor endangeredand, thus,should or shouldnot beli8ted, theServiceduly notestheseconcerns.It isprematureat this tmeto discusswhatchangesmayneedto bemade,if any, totheseactivitiesto protectthepallidsturgeon;theywill beaddressedif andwhenconsultationis initiatedon aFederalaction.

Issue10: Onecommentersuggestedthat alterationof habitat for navigationhasbeenmoredevastatingto thespeciesthan alterationsfor hydropower.Anotherdisagreedthat thelowerMississippihasbeenchannelized.

Response:hi ourevaluation,noattemptwasmadeto evaluatewhichofthehabitatalterationshadthegreatestadverseeffect on the species.Rather,our assessmentwasto determineifhabitatalterations,whetherbythemselvesor in combination,hadadverselyaffectedthespeciesto theextentthat its existencewasthreatened.Virtually all of the pallid sturgeonrangehasbeenalteredin oneform or anotherto thedetrimentof the species’survival.Futurework will haveto focuson thosespecificfactorsthat areadverselyimpactingthespeciesin orderto recoverthespecies.

issue11:Two commenterspointedoutadditional threatsnot mentionedin theproposedrule. Onesuggestedthatadditional diversionsandplannedinterbasintransfersarefuturethreatstothespecies.Another suggestedthatcontinuingscouringandsiltation setin

motionby thepasthabitatalterationsarethreatsto the.remnantspawningandnurseryareasthatremainfor thepallid.

Response’We do not disagreeandappreciatethesepotentialthreatsbeingpointedout to us.Thesecommentshavebeenincludedin thediscussionofFactor“A”.

issue 12:Onecommantersuggestedthat the locationof eachfisheryharvestadvisoryareabe notedasit relatedto apotentialpolluton threatto thespecies.

Response:Overtheyears,anumberof fish consumptionadvisorieshavebeenpostedon certainreachesof thelower Missouri andmiddle andlowerMississippi riters.Forthepurposeofdeterminingwhetherapollution threatmay exist, it i8 sufficientto identifywhat thosethreatsmay beratherthantheexactlocationof eachpossiblethreat.In thecaseof thepallid, whichisrelatively long lived andwhichmaymoveextensivelyin theunobstructedreachesof thelower Missouri andtheMississippi duringits lifetime, it mayenterseveralfishery consumptionadvisoryareasthroughoutits life andbeexposedto severaltoxic substances.Itwould beof no particularvaluetoidentify specificareasat this time. Moreimportant to noteis thenatureof thevariousadvisories,which usuallyareforpersistentindustrialchemicalsor toxicmetalsor metalcompounds.

Issue13:Thegreatestnumberofcommentsreceivedwerein relationtothedeterminationof critical habitat.Threeagicedthat no criticalhabitatshouldbedeclaredat this time; oneobsert’edthatportionsof theMissouriRiver~ arealreadydeclaredcriticalhabitatunderStatelaw; andonewasconcernedaboutdeterminationofcritical habitaton theMissouri Riverasit may impactoperationof the system.Onecommentercontendedthat thelower MississippiRiveralreadyhasallthefavorablehabitatconditionsforpallid sturgeonlife requisites,whileanotherrequestedthat the Servicereservewaterrightsnecessaryformaintenanceof importantpallidsturgeonhabitatin theUpperMissouriBasin.Onecommenterformallyrequestedthat the Servicedeclaretheentire ruligeof thespeciesto becriticalhabitat,at a minimum designatingtheYellowstoneRiverandMissouri Riverdownstreamto LakeOahe,theMissouriRiverfrom Fort RandallDamto justaboveSt. Louis, andtheMississippiRiver from its junctionwith theOhioRiverdownstreamto BatonRouge.Thiscomrnentercontendedthatlisting theseareasof critical habitatwill benefitthespeciesandhelpalertFederal,State,andlocal plannersto potentialconflicts.

FederalRegister/ Vol. 55, No. 173 j Thursday, September6, 1990 / Rides and Regulations 36645

Respor’se:Certainly oneof the maloradvantagesof designatingcriticalhabitat i8 to alertplannersto the criticalimportanceof thenotedareato thespeciesinvolved.WhethercriticalhabitathasbeendedaredunderStatelaw hasno bearingon critical habitatbeingdesignatedundertheauthorityofthe Act. Thoughwe agreethatsomeoftheareasidentifiedarelikely to beveryimportant to the species,we are unable,at this time, to adequatelydemonstrateanyspecificareasas critical to itssurvival.This is not to say that,onceaddñionalinformationis obtainedregardingthespeciesthat demonstratesthecriticalnatureof certainareasto thesurvivalor recoveryof thespecies,criticalhabitatwould not bedeclaredthroughappropriateprocesses.Thissubjectis discussedfurtherin theCritical Habitatsectionof thisrule.

issue14: Onecommentersuggestedthatnotenoughis known aboutthepallidsnirgeonso developameaningfulrecoveryplan.

Response:Following final listing, theServicewill begintherecoveryplanningprocessforthis~peciesasquicldyasposs.ible.it is likely that therecoveryplan will ha~’eastrongresearchcomponentthatwill guiderecoveryefforts.

Issue15: Onecommenterindicatedthat thereis a needto launchneweffortsfor habitatrestorationfor thespecies.

Response:We appreciatethe coracernof thecommonterandagreethat somehabitatrestorationmaybenecessarytoinsurenaturalsurvival of the species.Oneof thebenefitsof listing is that itprovidesavehiclefor newefforts to belaunchedin recoveryorresiorationofsuitablelrabitat,in accordancewith thespecies’-reix)veryplan.

Summary~f FactorsAffecting theSpecies

After athoroughreview andconsiderationof all informationavailable,theServicehasdeterminedthat thepallid sturgeonshouldbeclassifiedasanendangeredspecies.Proceduresfoundat section4~a~(l)oftheEndangeredSpeciesAct (16 U.S.C.1531at seq.)anti regulations(50CFRpart424)promulgated to implementthelisting provisionsof theAct-werefollowed. A speciesmaybedeterminedto beanendangeredorthreatenedspeciesdueto oneor more of thefivefactorsdescribedin section41a)tl).Thesefactorsandtheir appficationtothepallid sturgeonfScrrphirhync~ioveThos)areasfollows:

A. Thepresentr threcrlerr&~1estraction,moi~1fic’ctiini,or cnrtailmentof its&rbitat or range. Alteration of

habitatthroughriverc.hannelization,impoundment,andalteredflow regimeshasbeena majorfactorin the declineofthis species(‘Kalleineyn 1933, Gitbraiihet al. 1988,endWilliams etal.1989).Approximately-Si percentof its rangehasbeenchannelized,28 percentimpounded,andtheremaining21percentaffectedby upstreamimpoundmentsandalteredflow regimes.Thesefactorshaveadverselyaffectedthefish by blockingmovementsof fishto spawningand/orfeeding-areas,destroyingspawningareas,alteringconditionsor flawsof potentialremainingspawningareas,reducingfood sourcesortheability to obtainfood, or alteringremainingsubstratesandconditionsnecessaryfor thefish’ssurviva~l.Of thenpproxismte}y5,725Kilometers{3,550miles)of formerhabitatfor thepallid, virtually all of ithasbeendrasticallymodified in onemanneror another.

lnterbasintransferof waterfrom thebasin,or otherfuture waterdepletions.also-couldadverselyaffect the species.Continuedscouringand;si-Itation setinmotionby pastandpresentalterationsmayposeathreatto remainingsuitablesturgeonspawningor nurseyareas.

B. Overo?ilizetionfor commercial,recreational.scientific,or educe!,‘analpurposes.Sinceit wasnot describedasaseparatespeciesuntil 1905, manyoftheearlyreportsofsturgeoncatchesduringtheheydayof commercialfishingin the late1800’s,duringwhich timemanyof thesturgeonpopulationswereseverelyreduced,likely groupedthepallid sturgeonwith the lakeorshovelnosesturgeon.Duringtheearlyyearsof theupper-Missourireservoirs(1950’s and1960’s),pallid sturgeonwererelativelycommonaridwereharvestedcommerciallyin both SouthDakota(Casaway1970)andNorthDakota(Carufel1953)wherethey werelocallycalled~‘lake”sturgeon.During this sameperiod,however,researchersbegantonoticethattheywereunableto findevidenceof reproductionof the species.eventhoughlargeadultswerestillpresent(Beck]7ranandElrod 1971, June1976,andWthburg1977).By 1988,11 ofthe 13 Stateswhichrepresentits rangehadclassifiedit asaspeciesof concernundertheir variousprogramstGiThrsithet al. 1988).

Thepallid sturgeonis consideredafine eatingfish, andtheroeis suitablefur caviar,its largesizema’kesit adesirableIrojihy sportfish (Gilbraith ata!. 1988).

C. Disease or predation.Noinformationis availableregardingdiseasesof thepallid sturgeon.We arenot awareof specificdiseaseorpredationproblems.

U. Theinadequacyof existingr~guJatorymechon’isms.Adequateregulatorymechanismsdo not present!~exist to protectthefish. This hespeciallyso conakieringthatmost of it~rangeconstitutesinierjuiisdictionalwatersor is connectedto intei-Staiewaters.The speciesis presentlynotclassifiedundertheStatelistingprogramsin Arkansasor Mississippiandpresumablymaybe harvested.Kentuckystill tillows harvestof thespecies.Sturgeonover16 pounds(presumedto be apiillid sturgeonii overthatweight) mustbereleasedinMontana.Weightprovisions,however,do not protectyoungor smallerpallidsturgeons.Cooperativestudiesarenowunderwayin Montana,NorthDakota.andSouthDakotato betterdistinguishphysicaldifferencesbetweenthepallidandtheshovelimsesturgeon.Pallidsturgeonsmustbereleasedin low-it,Kansas,-Mis~ouis,Nebraska,andSouthDakota(Gilbraith et at.1988).Allsturgeonsmusthereleasedin NortliDakota.

E. Othernotoral or manmadefactorsaffecting its continoedeicistence.Although moreinformationis needed,pollution couldbea likely threatto thespeciesoverportionsof its range.Various fishharvestandconsumptionadvisoriesexist or-haveexistedasaresultof manmadepoilittion from nearKansasCity,Missouri,‘to themanib ‘oftheMississippi.Most‘of theadvisoriesrepresentindustrialpdlhltarit concernsdownriverof inchistrial areas.Like othersturgeons,thepallid sturgeonis anopportunisticfeeder-thaifeedsonaqublic insects,crustaceans,mollusks.annelids,eggsof otherfish, andsometimesotherfish. Although utilizingaquaticinsetts,thepallid is notedashavingahigh incidenceof fish in its diet(Cross1967,T(allemeyn19133,andCarlsonet al. 1985.).Beinga bottomfeederof aquaticforms,onewouldexpectit to beexposedto any persistentpollutantssusceptibleto i.~ptakeiii thefood chain.

Inability .to documentpallid sturgeonreproductionin recentyearshas beenpreviouslynoted.Gilbraith etal. (1988)indicatethat therehasbeennodocumentedreproductionin adecade.Ifreproductionis occurring.survival of theyoungis not thus leading to ‘theconclusionThatreduotioric,rof suitablespawningor nurseryareasissuchthatpredationof’eggsor youngiscomplete,thattheyoung fish ae nolongersatisfactorilynompete-forfoodsor other necessarylife re~piisites,or thatsomeother’tntknownfactor(suchascontaminants)is causingthem to perish

36646 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 173 / Thursday, September6, 1990 I Rules and Regulations

In extensivesturgeonstudiesin thelate 1970’s,Carlsonet at. (1985) foundthathybridizationhadoccurredbetweenthepallid sturgeonin Missouriandthemuchmoreabundantshovelnosesturgeon.In 2yearsof study(1978and1979), only 11 pallid sturgeonand12hybrids werefound.Thestudyareacomprisedapproximately25percentof theentirerangeof thepallidsturgeon.Thesmallnumberof pallidsfound, thelow freqencyor lackofreproduction,andtheapparentlack ofrecruitmentin the species,plus thehighrateof hybridizationoverasignificantportion of its range.portendsseriousproblemsfor thefish in theareastudied,andin otherareasaswell if the samephenomenonhasor is occurringelsewhere.

TheServicehascarefullyassessedthebestscientificandcommercialinformation availableregardingthepast,present,andfuture threatsfacedby thisspeciesin determiningto makethis rulefinal. Basedon this evaluation,thepreferredactionis to list thepallidsturgeonasanendangeredspecies.Endangeredstatus,whichmeansthatthespeciesis in dangerof extinctionthroughoutall, ora significantportionofits rangeis appropriate becauseScaphi’rhynchusa/busis in dangerofextinctionthroughoutits rangeduetotheapparentlackof recruitmentof thespeciesfor over15 years,andcurrenthabitatthreatswhichhavebroughtthespeciesto this low level arenot likely tobemodifiedto avoidjeopardyto thespecieswithout protectionundertheAct. Thehabitatof thespecieshasbeenalteredthroughdamming,channelization,alteredand/ordegradedwaterquality, andalteredflow regimesto the detrimentof the fish. Pastharvestfor commercialpurposesmayhavesurpassedreplenishmentcapability.Commercialharvestof pallid sturgeonmaystill posea threat in certainareasof its range.Existing regulationsareinadequateto protectthespeciesfromfurtherdecline. Industrialor residentialpollution may beaseriousthreatoverasignificantportion of its range,andhybridizationis aknown threat.Forreasonsgivenbelow, critical habitatisnot proposed.

Critical Habitat

Section4(a)(3)of the Act, asamended,requiresthat, to the maximumextentprudentanddeterminable,theSecretarydesignatecritical habitatat thetime aspeciesis determinedto beendangeredor threatened.The Servicefinds thatdesignationof critical habitatis notpresentlydeterminableor prudentforthis species.Thoughit is likely thatthereareareasvery important to the

species,we areunableto adequatelydemonstrateanyspecificareasascritical to its survival. Informationoncritical areasis lackingbecauseverylittle is known aboutthespecies.Therehavebeenno significantstudiesdonetoobtaininformation on the needsof thespeciesat differentlife stagesor on itshabitatrequirements.Pastspawningornurseryareaswerenot identified in theliterature,andlackof recentreproductionhaspreventedresearchersfrom identifying thesecrucial areasforthe species.CooperativeStateandFederalstudies,now underwayon theupperMissouri River, havenotidentifiedanyof thesecrucialareas.Evenif critical habitatcouldbeidentified,it maynot beprudenttoidentify it to thepublic. As notedinFactor“B” of the “Summaryof FactorsAffecting theSpecies,”the pallidsturgeonis alargesturgeonandmightbesoughtby sport fishermenasa trophyspecimen.Furthermore,sturgeonroemaybe harvestedascaviar.Publicationof critical habitatmapsanddescriptionsin theFederalRegistercouldnegativelyimpactthespeciesby stimulatinginterestin thepallid sturgeon,makingitmore vulnerable to take, arid increasingenforcementproblems.Protectionof thisspecies’habitatwill be addressedthroughtherecoveryprocessandthroughthesection7 jeopardystandard.Therefore,the Servicedoesnot proposeto determinecritical habitatfor thepallid sturgeonat this time.

Available ConservationMeasures

Conservationmeasuresprovidedtospecieslisted as endangeredorthreatenedundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct include recognition,recoveryactions,requirementsforFederalprotection,andprohibitionsagainstcertainpractices.Recognitionthroughlisting encouragesandresultsinconservationactionby Federal,State,andprivateagencies,groups,andindividuals.TheEndangeredSpeciesAct providesfor possiblelandacquisitionandcooperationwith theStatesandrequiresthat recoveryactionsbecarriedout for all listedspecies.The protectionrequiredofFederalagenciesandthe prohibitionsagainsttakingandharmarediscussed,in part, below.

Section7(a)of theAct, asamended,requiresFederalagenciesto evaluatetheir actionswith respectto anyspeciesthat is proposedor listed asendangeredor threatenedandwith respectto itscritical habitat,if anyis beingdesignated.Regulationsinplementingthis interagencycooperationprovisionof theAct arecodifiedat 50CFR part402. Section7(a)(2)requiresFederal

agenciesto insurethat activitiestheyauthorize,fund,or carry out arenotlikely to jeopardizethecontinuedexistenceof sucha speciesor destroyoradverselymodify its critical habitat.If aFederalactionmayadverselyaffectalistedspeciesor its critical habitat,theresponsibleFederalagencymustenterinto formalconsultationwith theService.

Sincethe pallidsturgeonis foundprimarily in navigablewatersof theUnitedStatesandin areasofconsiderableFederalland ownershipinterests,consultationprocedurescouldplay asignificantrolein improving itswelfare. A varietyof Federalagencieshavejurisdiction andresponsibilitieswithin pallid sturgeonhabitat, andsection7 consultationmight berequiredin anumberof instances.Knownproposalsthat couldrequireconsultationinclude:Actionswithregardto the operationof theMissouriRiverdams(ArmyCorpsof Engineers(Corps)andBureauof Reclamation),rehabilitationof Fort Peckpenstocks(Corps),actionswith regardto theoperationandmaintenanceof thenavigationchannelonthe Missouri andMississippiRivers(Corps), andactionswith regardto the operationof Wild andScenicRiver segmentson the MissouriRiver(NationalParkServiceandU.S.ForestService).

TheAct andimplementingregulationsfoundat 50 CFR 17.21 setforth a seriesof generalprohibitionsandexceptionsthatapplyto all endangeredwildlife.Theseprohibitions,in part, makeitillegal for anypersonsubjectto thejurisdiction of the UnitedStatesto take(includesharass,harm,pursue,hunt,shoot,wound,kill, trap, or collect, or toattemptanyof these),import or export.ship in inter-Statecommercein thecourseof a commercialactivity, orsellor offer for salein inter-Stateor foreigncommerceanylistedspecies.It also isillegal to possess,sell, deliver, carry,transport,or ship anysuchwildlife thathasbeentakenillegally. Certainexceptionsapplyto agentsof theServiceandStateconservationagencies.

Permitsmaybe issuedto carryoutotherwiseprohibitedactivitiesinvolvingendangeredwildlife speciesundercertaincircumstances.Regulationsgoverningpermitsareat50 CFR 17.22and17.23. Such permitsareavailableforscientificpurposes,to enhancethepropagationor survival of thespecies.and/orfor incidentaltakein connectionwith otherwiselawful activities.In someinstances,permitsmaybe issuedfor aspecifiedperiodof time to relieve undueeconomichardshipthat would be

FederalRegister ./ Vol. 55, No. 173 / Thursday, September6, 1990 / ‘Rules and Regulations 36647

sufferedIf suchrelief werenotavailable.With respecttoScaphiz’hyrichusa/bus,it is anticipatedthatfew. if any, tradepermitswouldeverbe soughtor issued,sincethespeciesis not‘commonin the-wild andisnot cultivatedfor roe.

NationalEnvironmentalPolicy ActTheFishandWildlife Servicehas

determinedthatanEnvironmentalAssessment,asdefinedundertheauthorityoftheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct of 1969, neednot bepreparedin connectionwith regulationsadoptedpursuantto section4(a) of theEndangered.SpeciesAct of 1.973,asamended.A noticeoutlining theService’sreasonsfor fins determinationwaspublishedIn theFederalRegisteronOctober25, 1983f48 FR 49244).

ReferencesCited

A completelist of all referencescitedhereinis availableuponrequestfromtheService’sPierreStateOffice (seeADDRESSESabove).

Author

The primarynuthorofthis final rule isDr. Kent D. Keenlyne,Missouri RiverCoordinatorjseeADDRESSESsection).

List of Subjects In 50 CFRPart17

Endangeredandthreatenedspecies,Export,Imports, Reporting,andrecord-keepingrequirements,11’ransportatian-

ReBulationProinulgalion

Accordingly, part17,-subchapterB ofchapter1, title 50 of theCodeofFederal

Regulations,is amendedassetforth

below:

PART 17—EAMEN~Dl

1. The authoritycitation for part17continuesto readasfollows:

AuthorIty: 16U.S.t.1351-1407:16 U.S.C.

1531—1543~16 U.S.C.4201—4245.2. Amend * 17.11(h) by addingthe

following, in alphabetical‘orderunder“Fishes,”to theList of EndangeredendThreatenedWildlife:

§ 17.11 Endangeredandthreatenedwildlife.* -* . * 4

(h) * * *

SpeciesHistoturange

toewnon name ScieiThficname

Vertebratepopulationwnereendangeredor S’,atus

threatenedWhen listed

.

~-

Specialrule

Fishes

Pallid sturgeon ... Scaptiithynct’uus athi~ USA iAR, IA. ‘IL, KS,KY, LA, MO, MS. LIT,ND, NE, SD, TN).

Entire -. .... E 399 NA WA

Dated:August26. 1590.

ConstanceB. )lsrrunan,AssistoniSecretoryforFishandWildlifeandParks.(FR Doc. 90-20974Filed9-5-.908:45 am)BILLiNG COOS4310—55—U