[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 240 (Thursday, December 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-30859]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 15, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part IX





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Fish and Wildlife Service



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Species; Alabama Sturgeon; Proposed Rule
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AB73

 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of 
Proposed Rule for Endangered Status and Critical Habitat for the 
Alabama Sturgeon

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) withdraws the 
proposed rule to determine endangered status and critical habitat for 
the Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This sturgeon is endemic to, and 
was once widespread in, the Mobile River system in Alabama and 
Mississippi. It has significantly declined in both population size and 
range during the past century. The fish was last known to exist in only 
a short, free-flowing reach of the Alabama River downstream of 
Claiborne Lock and Dam in Clarke and Monroe Counties, Alabama; it may 
still exist in some other portions of its historical range. The primary 
factors that have likely contributed to the sturgeon's decline include 
dams, the development of the rivers for navigation, altered river 
flows, gravel-mining operations, general habitat degradation from land 
use practices, and, perhaps, overfishing (particularly at the turn of 
the century). The Service finds there to be insufficient information to 
justify listing a species that may no longer exist.

ADDRESSES: For the first 6 months following the publication of this 
notice, the complete administrative file for the action will be 
available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours 
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Field Office, 330 
Ridgefield Court, Asheville, North Carolina 28806. Six months after 
publication, the administrative file will be transferred to the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View 
Parkway, Suite A, Jackson, Mississippi 39213.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information or comment upon this 
action for the first 6 months following publication, contact Mr. 
Richard G. Biggins at the above Asheville address (704/665-1195, Ext. 
228) or Mr. Robert S. Butler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6620 
Southpoint Drive South, Suite 310, Jacksonville, Florida 32216 (904/
232-2580).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Mobile River system is the largest drainage east of the 
Mississippi River that empties into the Gulf of Mexico. The system 
drains ten physiographic provinces, providing a unique mosaic of 
aquatic habitats and environments (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
1994). Several Southeastern regional aquatic faunas have influenced the 
Mobile River system's aquatic fauna. The influence of these regional 
faunas, coupled with the size of the system and the diversity of its 
aquatic habitats and physiographic features, has resulted in a high 
degree of diversity and endemism. The high percentage of aquatic 
endemism is particularly manifested in the snail (93 percent endemic), 
mussel (40 percent), and freshwater fish (25 percent) faunas, as well 
as in the crayfish and aquatic insect faunas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service 1994).
    Commensurate with the high level of diversity and endemism, the 
Mobile River system also has a high number of federally protected and 
candidate aquatic species. Presently, 17 mussels, 8 fishes, 2 turtles, 
and 1 snail are protected under the Act, and 64 more aquatic taxa are 
candidates for Federal protection (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
1994). The Service has also documented the extinction of 37 endemic 
snail and 18 endemic mussel taxa in the Mobile River system (U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service 1994). The high extinction rate and the number of 
federally protected and candidate taxa in the system clearly define an 
unstable and imperiled riverine ecosystem. Further decline of the 
riverine ecosystem can be expected if the anthropogenic forces 
impacting the fauna continue without considering the needs of this 
aquatic ecosystem.
    The Alabama sturgeon, once called the Alabama shovelnose sturgeon, 
or simply shovelnose sturgeon, has been recognized since 1976 as a 
distinct, undescribed taxon (Ramsey 1976) that is most similar to the 
shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) of the Mississippi 
River system. The Alabama sturgeon is a relatively small sturgeon; the 
maximum standard length is about 72 centimeters (28 inches). It has an 
elongated, heavily armored, depressed body and an attenuated caudal 
peduncle. The caudal fin has a long filament on the upper lobe that is 
characteristic of the genus. Sexual dimorphism is slight. Morphological 
characteristics of the juvenile Alabama sturgeon are unknown. The 
Alabama sturgeon can generally be distinguished from the shovelnose 
sturgeon by several characters; the Alabama sturgeon almost always has 
larger eyes, it has different plate numbers posterior to the anal fin, 
there is a difference in dorsal fin ray numbers (Williams and Clemmer 
1991; Mayden and Kuhajda, in press), and there are diagnostic 
characters associated with its head armature (Mayden and Kuhajda, in 
press).
    The Alabama sturgeon was described as S. suttkusi by Williams and 
Clemmer (1991) and was accepted as a distinct species in the proposed 
rule of June 3, 1993 (58 FR 33148). Subsequently, various scientists 
have examined museum specimens of the Alabama sturgeon and genetically 
analyzed tissue samples from a specimen captured in December 1993. A 
comparison of these specimens was then made with the congeneric 
shovelnose and pallid sturgeons, both of the Mississippi River system. 
(The latter species was listed as endangered on September 6, 1990 (55 
FR 36647).) Various investigators have derived conflicting results as 
to the Alabama sturgeon's taxonomic distinctiveness.
    In the original description of the Alabama sturgeon (Williams and 
Clemmer 1991), a comparison based on morphological characters was made 
of the Alabama sturgeon to several populations, mostly southern or 
lower midwestern, of the shovelnose sturgeon. Mayden and Kuhajda (in 
press), in a study recently accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed 
scientific journal, concluded that the Alabama sturgeon is indeed a 
distinct species. In fact, they found three additional diagnostic 
morphological characters associated with head armature that would 
distinguish the Alabama sturgeon from the shovelnose sturgeon, which 
are based upon a thorough reexamination of the raw data used in the 
original description, combined with data gathered from the recently 
captured Alabama sturgeon and data from additional shovelnose sturgeon 
populations. In addition, there was no evidence of geographic clinal 
variation in these diagnostic features to suggest that the two 
taxonomic entities were not morphologically distinct at the species 
level (Mayden and Kuhajda, in press).
    Unpublished reports by Howell (1993, 1994), Blanchard and 
Bartolucci (1994), and Blanchard (1994) also reevaluated the raw data 
used in the description by Williams and Clemmer (1991). These studies 
questioned the taxonomic validity of S. suttkusi. They concluded that 
the data analyses in the original description were inconclusive and 
that the Alabama sturgeon could not be distinguished from the 
shovelnose sturgeon. In another unpublished report, Howell et al. 
(1994) critiqued Mayden and Kuhajda (in press), questioning their 
statistical methods and repudiating one of the three additional 
taxonomic characters determined to separate the two sturgeon species in 
the latter study. However, the Mayden and Kuhajda study (in press) has 
been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in a scientific 
journal.
    The capture of a single specimen of the Alabama sturgeon in 
December 1993 afforded scientists the opportunity to obtain fresh 
tissue samples and compare its genetic distinctiveness with other 
sturgeons. One completed, but unpublished, report comparing the 
genetics of these two sturgeons (Schill and Walker 1994) concluded that 
the Alabama shovelnose and pallid sturgeons were indistinguishable 
based on estimates of sequence divergence at the mitochondrial 
cytochrome b locus. This result is similar to other studies where no 
cytochrome b differentiation was found among other fish species within 
a genus where the species were based on well-accepted morphological, 
behavioral, and other characteristics (Avise 1994). Therefore, the use 
of the very conservative cytochrome b locus appears to be of little 
taxonomic use in differentiating members of the genus Scaphirhynchus.
    The Service has received a very recent study report prepared for 
the Corps of Engineers and the Service (Genetic Analyses 1994). The 
study compared a number of nuclear DNA markers for the three 
Scaphirhynchus sturgeons and found no measurable difference between 
pallid and shovelnose sturgeons but significant differences between 
those sturgeons and the one Alabama sturgeon. Further, this study shows 
that the single specimen of Alabama sturgeon captured in 1993 was 
considerably different from pallid and shovelnose sturgeons. This 
genetic study also indicated that another specimen of Alabama sturgeon 
would very probably provide conclusive evidence of these consistent 
differences.
    The Service recognizes that the taxonomic status of the Alabama 
sturgeon is being reviewed by the scientific community. However, none 
of the recent taxonomic information has been subjected to peer review 
and published in a scientific journal, with the exception of the study 
of Mayden and Kuhajda (in press), which has been accepted for 
publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Williams and 
Clemmer's (1991) description of the Alabama sturgeon was published in a 
peer-reviewed scientific journal and complied with all the rules of the 
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Sec. 17.11(b)). 
Furthermore, the study by Mayden and Kuhajda (in press) corroborates 
the determination by Williams and Clemmer (1991) that the Alabama 
sturgeon is a distinct species.
    Thus, until such time as the Alabama sturgeon's taxonomic status is 
revised in an appropriate peer-reviewed scientific journal and accepted 
by the scientific community, the Service will consider the Alabama 
sturgeon (S. suttkusi) to be a distinct species based on these two 
studies. The Alabama sturgeon's taxonomy may be subsequently revised to 
subspecies or population status by the scientific community; if so, the 
Alabama sturgeon would still qualify as being eligible for protection 
under the Act (see the response to Issues 22 and 45 in the ``Summary of 
Comments and Recommendations'' section of this notice).
    Section 3(15) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544), specifically 
provides for listing species, subspecies, and distinct population 
segments of vertebrate species as endangered or threatened. Although 
the Service finds that there is some disagreement among ichthyologists 
concerning the Alabama sturgeon's taxonomic status, the Service has 
determined that the Alabama sturgeon warrants recognition as a species 
as defined by the Act.
    The Alabama sturgeon is known only from the Mobile River system of 
Alabama and Mississippi. Historically, this sturgeon was found in the 
Mobile, Tensas, Alabama, Tombigbee, Black Warrior, Cahaba, Tallapoosa, 
and Coosa Rivers of the Mobile River system (Burke and Ramsey 1985). 
The only recent confirmed record of the Alabama sturgeon (since about 
1985) is from the free-flowing portion of the Alabama River downstream 
of Claiborne Lock and Dam, Clarke and Monroe Counties, Alabama.
    The Alabama sturgeon was once common in Alabama. In a statistical 
report to Congress in 1898 (U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries 
1898), the total catch of ``shovelnose sturgeon'' from Alabama was 
19,500 kilograms (kg) (42,900 pounds (lb)). Of this total, 18,000 kg 
(39,500 lb) came from the Alabama River, 1,000 kg (2,300 lb) from the 
Black Warrior River, and 500 kg (1,100 lb) from the Tennessee River. 
The ``shovelnose sturgeon'' reported from the Alabama and Black Warrior 
Rivers was the Alabama sturgeon (S. suttkusi), which averages about 1 
kilogram (2 lb) for a large specimen; the sturgeon from the Tennessee 
River was the shovelnose sturgeon (S. platorynchus). An anonymous 
article in the Alabama Game and Fish News in 1930 stated that the 
Alabama sturgeon was ``not uncommon.''
    Records of this fish supported by preserved specimens are rare. 
Clemmer (1983) listed 23 specimens in museum collections. In their 
status survey, Burke and Ramsey (1985) captured only five Alabama 
sturgeons. Williams and Clemmer (1991) located another nine specimens 
in addition to those examined by Clemmer (1983), making a total of 32 
specimens in museum, university, and private collections. 
Interestingly, since 1953 there has generally been a 7- to 8-year 
hiatus between representative collections of the Alabama sturgeon in 
museums (Mayden and Kuhajda, in press), suggesting that the population 
may cycle in abundance. It would appear that the Alabama sturgeon, 
throughout much of its life, occupies habitat that is inaccessible to 
collectors (Kuhajda, University of Alabama, in litt., 1994). Based on 
museum records, the Alabama sturgeon has been captured in February, 
March, April, May, June, November, and December, with the majority of 
specimens representing spring collections (Kuhajda, in litt., 1994). 
Verified localities of the captures have primarily been large channels 
of big rivers in the Mobile River system. However, a couple of Alabama 
sturgeon records are from oxbow lakes (Williams and Clemmer 1991).
    When the proposed rule was published (June 15, 1993; 58 FR 33148), 
the most recent documented evidence of the Alabama sturgeon's continued 
existence consisted of the capture of five Alabama sturgeons in 1985 
(Burke and Ramsey 1985); two were gravid females and one was a juvenile 
about 2 years old. Biologists from the Alabama Department of 
Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR), with the assistance and 
cooperation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), have in recent 
years (1990 and 1992) conducted periodic searches for the Alabama 
sturgeon, utilizing a variety of sampling gear, without verifying the 
presence of a single specimen (Tucker and Johnson 1991, 1992). 
Nevertheless, the gravid females and juvenile Alabama sturgeons 
captured by Burke and Ramsey (1985) provided sufficient evidence that 
reproduction was occurring during at least the mid-1980s. Coupled with 
a high longevity, the likelihood that the Alabama sturgeon could have 
survived to the present appeared sufficient to warrant making the 
proposal.
    Since the Burke and Ramsey (1985) status survey, there have been 
several anecdotal reports by commercial fishermen that two distinct 
sturgeons have been taken from the Mobile River system in portions of 
the Alabama River upstream of Claiborne Lock and Dam. These reports 
presumably refer to the Alabama sturgeon and the Gulf sturgeon 
(Acipenser oxyrynchus desotoi). The Gulf sturgeon can achieve lengths 
up to 2 meters (m) (6.6 feet), lacks the long filament on the upper 
lobe of the caudal fin, is generally more robust, and has a shorter and 
deeper caudal peduncle than does the Alabama sturgeon. In addition, the 
Gulf sturgeon is anadromous, migrating as adults up rivers from the 
Gulf of Mexico to spawn. The Gulf sturgeon was listed as threatened on 
September 30, 1991 (56 FR 49658).
    The Service and the ADCNR conducted an extensive sampling program 
in 1993 in an effort to locate the Alabama sturgeon in the Mobile River 
system. On December 2, 1993, a mature male Alabama sturgeon was caught 
alive in a gill net by staff of the Service's Panama City, Florida, 
Field Office. The capture site was in the free-flowing portion of the 
Alabama River downstream of Claiborne Lock and Dam, Clarke and Monroe 
Counties, Alabama. This specimen represents the only verified record of 
the Alabama sturgeon in about 8 years. From the chronology of 
commercial harvest and scientific collections of the Alabama sturgeon, 
it is obvious that this fish has experienced a tremendous decline in 
both population size and range in just 100 years.
    After publication of the notice of a 6-month extension of the 
deadline and comment period (June 21, 1994; 59 FR 3197), the Service 
undertook further efforts to capture specimens of the Alabama sturgeon. 
These efforts, which began in late September 1994, are planned to 
continue semi-monthly until May 1995, environmental conditions 
permitting. The Service is primarily using gill nets, with lesser 
emphasis on utilizing trotlines and electrofishing, in efforts to 
capture this fish. Sampling effort is focused on the free-flowing 
portion of the Alabama River downstream of Claiborne Lock and Dam. At 
the time of publication of this notice of withdrawal, the Service had 
not collected any specimens of the Alabama sturgeon in 1994.
    The specific habitat needs of the Alabama sturgeon are largely 
unknown. The shovelnose sturgeon is most common in river channels that 
have strong currents over sand, gravel, and rock substrates (Trautman 
1981, Hurley et al. 1987, Curtis 1990) but may occasionally occur over 
softer sediments (Bailey and Cross 1954). Habitat selection also 
appears to be dictated by current velocities (Hurley et al. 1987). The 
shovelnose sturgeon often uses habitats associated with channel-
training devices (Hurley and Nickum 1984, Hurley et al. 1987, Curtis 
1990), which are water-diversion structures (e.g., training dikes, wing 
walls, and closing dams) used for directing currents to maintain 
channels. The association of the shovelnose sturgeon with these 
habitats may be correlated with higher prey item densities and suitable 
current velocities (Hurley et al. 1987); high silt loads directly 
impact many invertebrates that require a relatively stable substrate. 
The Corps provided funds for the Service to investigate the possibility 
that the Alabama sturgeon also uses habitats associated with channel-
training devices in the Alabama River. However, no conclusions were 
derived from this study as no Alabama sturgeons were captured (Corps, 
in litt., 1993).
    Based upon the limited information available, the Alabama sturgeon 
appears to prefer relatively stable substrates of gravel and sand in 
river channels with swift currents (Burke and Ramsey 1985). Relying 
upon data from Alabama sturgeon prey items and the prey's typical 
habitats, it was hypothesized (Haynes 1994) that the Alabama sturgeon, 
primarily collected from the confluence of the Cahaba and Alabama 
Rivers, was using feeding habitat that could include areas that are 
relatively shallow and sandy and that have a slow to moderate current. 
Limited data collected from a radio-collared Alabama sturgeon suggested 
that it frequented swift currents in water 7.5 to 12.0 m (25 to 40 
feet) deep (Burke and Ramsey 1985).
    Members of the genus Scaphirhynchus are freshwater fish (Bailey and 
Cross 1954) that do not make seasonal migrations to and from the sea. 
Sturgeons are thought to swim upstream to spawn (Becker 1983). 
Shovelnose sturgeons, based on telemetry studies conducted during the 
spawning season, were found to migrate limited distances (Hurley et al. 
1987). Spawning habitats for the Alabama sturgeon are generally 
unknown. Spawning shovelnose sturgeons generally use hard substrates 
that may occur in main-channel areas or deep-water habitats associated 
with channel-training devices in major rivers or possibly in 
tributaries (Hurley and Nickum 1984). Observations by Burke and Ramsey 
(1985) suggest that the Alabama sturgeon prefers spawning habitat 
similar to the shovelnose sturgeon.
    Currents are required for the development of sturgeon's adhesive 
eggs, which require 5 to 8 days to hatch (Burke and Ramsey 1985). 
Shovelnose sturgeon spawning apparently occurs from April to July (Moos 
1978). The spawning period for the shovelnose sturgeon probably depends 
upon water temperature and flows (Moos 1978), as it does for numerous 
other fish species. Henry and Ruelle (1992) conducted a study of 
shovelnose sturgeon reproduction in the Mississippi River system, 
concluding that they do not spawn every year and that poor body 
condition may result in the production of fewer eggs or infrequent 
spawning attempts. The shovelnose sturgeon was reported to reach sexual 
maturity after 4 to 6 years, with spawning occurring at 1- to 3-year 
intervals (Helms 1974, Moos 1978). Little is known about the Alabama 
sturgeon's reproductive biology. However, given what is known 
concerning the chronology of Alabama sturgeon collections and the 
reproductive biology of other sturgeon species, populations of the 
Alabama sturgeon may be cyclical, with peak numbers possibly occurring 
every 7 to 8 years (Mayden and Kuhajda, in press).
    Several studies have aged sturgeon of the genus Scaphirhynchus by 
cross-sectioning pectoral fin spines. Helms (1973) aged shovelnose 
sturgeons in the Mississippi River at up to 12 years. Durkee et al. 
(1979) aged shovelnose sturgeons at up to 14 years in the upper 
Mississippi River system. Ages ranged from 8 to 27 years for the 288 
shovelnose sturgeons sampled from the Missouri River (Zweiacker 1967). 
However, Zweiacker (1967) could not validate the marks interpreted as 
annuli (Moos 1978). Ruelle and Keenlyne (1993) aged three pallid 
sturgeons (S. albus) in the Missouri River at 10, 37, and 41 years. 
Considering the longevity of other members of this genus, the rarity of 
the Alabama sturgeon, the extreme difficulty in capturing specimens, 
and the several-year hiatus that occurs between major year classes, 
frequent Alabama sturgeon encounters should not be expected.
    Burke and Ramsey (1985) conducted stomach analyses of a few Alabama 
sturgeons. They found that aquatic insect larvae were a major dietary 
component, but fish eggs, snails, mussels, and fish were also taken. A 
recent study (Haynes 1994) examined the stomach contents of 12 
additional Alabama sturgeon specimens. Aquatic insects, which were 
found in all 12 stomachs, were represented primarily by true flies 
(mostly Ceratopogonidae and Chironomidae), mayflies (mostly 
Heptageniidae), dragonflies (mostly Gomphidae), and caddisflies (mostly 
Hydropsychidae). Small fish and plant material were also found in five 
and four stomachs, respectively (Haynes 1994). The shovelnose sturgeon, 
based on a study conducted in the Missouri River, is an opportunistic 
feeder (Modde and Schmulbach 1977); various groups of aquatic insect 
larvae generally comprised their diet in that river (Modde and 
Schmulbach 1977, Durkee et al. 1979).

Previous Federal Actions

    The Alabama sturgeon was included in Federal Register notices of 
review for candidate animals in 1982, 1985, 1989, and 1991. In the 1982 
notice (47 FR 58454) and in the 1985 notice (50 FR 37958), this fish 
was listed as a category 2 species (sufficient information indicates 
proposing to list may be appropriate, but conclusive data are not 
currently available to support a proposed rule). In the 1989 and 1991 
notices (54 FR 554 and 56 FR 58816), the Alabama sturgeon was listed as 
category 1 species (substantial information supports listing). On June 
15, 1993, the Service proposed the Alabama sturgeon to be listed as 
endangered with critical habitat (58 FR 33148). The Service has 
determined that endangered status for the Alabama sturgeon is not 
appropriate at this time because of insufficient information available 
to conclude that the species still exists (see the responses to Issues 
21, 22, and 45 in the ``Summary of Comments and Recommendations'' 
section and the concluding paragraph in the ``Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species'' section of this notice).

Summary of Notices and Related Actions following Proposal

    In the June 15, 1993, proposed rule and through associated 
notifications, interested parties were requested to submit factual 
reports and information that might contribute to the development of a 
final rule to list the Alabama sturgeon as endangered with critical 
habitat. The initial comment period was open until October 13, 1993. 
Appropriate Federal and State agencies, county governments, scientific 
organizations, and interested parties were contacted by letter dated 
June 21, 1993; a copy of the proposed rule was enclosed, and their 
comments on the rule were solicited. Legal notices were published in 
the Birmingham News, Birmingham, Alabama, on July 25, 1993; the Mobile 
Press-Register, Mobile, Alabama, on July 25, 1993; the Montgomery 
Advertiser, Montgomery, Alabama, on July 24, 1993; and the Clarion 
Ledger, Hinds County, Mississippi, on July 23, 1993. The proposed rule 
also stated that a public hearing would be conducted to answer 
questions and gather additional information on the biology of the 
Alabama sturgeon and discuss issues relating to the proposed listing 
and critical habitat designation.
    The first scheduled public hearing on the Service's proposal to 
list the Alabama sturgeon as an endangered species with critical 
habitat was for August 31, 1993, in Mobile, Alabama. The comment period 
remained open until October 13, 1993. A notice of the hearing was 
published in the Federal Register on July 27, 1993 (58 FR 40109), and a 
legal notice was published in the Birmingham News on August 1, 1993. 
This public hearing was subsequently canceled at the request of some 
members of the Alabama Congressional delegation. A cancellation notice 
was published in the Federal Register on August 24, 1993 (58 FR 44643), 
and legal notices were published in the Birmingham News on August 29, 
1993; the Montgomery Advertiser on August 29, 1993; and the Clarion 
Ledger on August 27, 1993.
    The August 1993 public hearing on this proposal was rescheduled for 
October 4, 1993, at the William K. Weaver Hall Auditorium on the campus 
of Mobile College, Mobile, Alabama. The comment period would remain 
open until October 13, 1993. A notice of the hearing and extension of 
the comment period was published in the Federal Register on September 
13, 1993 (58 FR 47851).
    Due to the tremendous interest in this issue, a large number of 
people who came to the October 4, 1993, hearing had to be turned away 
due to space constraints. Although neither the Act nor the 
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) required that a 
second hearing be held, the Service decided that it was in the best 
interest of all concerned parties that they have an opportunity to 
comment on issues raised in the Alabama sturgeon proposed rule. 
Therefore, an additional public hearing was scheduled in Montgomery, 
Alabama, on November 15, 1993, to allow for additional comments from 
the interested public. A notice of the second hearing, reopening of the 
comment period (from October 25, 1993, to December 8, 1993), and notice 
of availability of a scientific panel report was published in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1993 (58 FR 55036). Legal notices for 
this second hearing appeared in the Birmingham News on October 26, 
1993; the Mobile Press-Register on October 24, 1993; the Montgomery 
Advertiser on October 29, 1993; and the Clarion Ledger on October 29, 
1993.
    In an effort to clarify some of the biological information 
concerning the sturgeon, the Secretary of the Interior committed the 
Service to forming a peer-review panel. The Service completed the 
formation of a panel of biologists in September 1993; the panel was to 
provide a peer review of all the scientific and commercial data then 
available and to prepare individual reports to specifically review 
three issues--(1) the taxonomy of the sturgeon, (2) the likely 
existence of the fish based on available data, and (3) what information 
would be necessary to conclude that the taxon is likely extinct. Just 
prior to submission of their reports, the panel requested permission to 
submit a single consolidated report; the Service agreed to this. The 
report was delivered to the Service on November 5, 1993.
    The November 15, 1993, hearing was canceled in response to a 
preliminary injunction issued on November 9, 1993. The timing of the 
injunction gave the Service insufficient time to publish public hearing 
notices of cancellation in either the Federal Register or area 
newspapers. A second public hearing notice appeared in the Federal 
Register (59 FR 289) dated January 4, 1994. The hearing was scheduled 
for January 13, 1994, and the comment period was extended through 
January 31, 1994. Legal notices for this rescheduled hearing were 
published in the Birmingham News on December 26, 1993; the Mobile 
Press-Register on December 26, 1993; the Montgomery Advertiser on 
December 27, 1993; and the Clarion Ledger on December 28, 1993.
    As outlined in the January 4, 1994, Federal Register notice, the 
preliminary injunction restrained the Service and others from (1) 
disseminating the scientific panel report to the public and (2) 
utilizing or relying upon the scientific panel report or any product of 
the experts' deliberations in connection with the decision-making 
process on the proposal to list the Alabama sturgeon and designate its 
critical habitat. The January 4, 1994, notice also referred to another 
court order issued December 22, 1993; the relevant parts of that court 
order are as follows:


    Federal defendants and defendant-intervenor, and those acting in 
active concert with them, are hereby permanently enjoined from 
publishing, employing and relying upon the advisory Committee report 
. . . for any purpose whatsoever, directly or indirectly, in the 
process of determining whether to list the Alabama sturgeon as an 
endangered species.


    In a notice appearing in the Federal Register (59 FR 997) on 
January 7, 1994, the January 13, 1994, public hearing was canceled and 
rescheduled for January 31, 1994, at South Hall #1, Montgomery Civic 
Center, Montgomery, Alabama. The comment period was extended to 
February 15, 1994. Cancellation of the second public hearing was made 
to provide more notice of the hearing to the public. Legal notices for 
the rescheduled public hearing appeared on January 19, 1994, in four 
area newspapers--the Birmingham News, Mobile Press-Register, Montgomery 
Advertiser, and Clarion Ledger. Mention was also made in this notice 
that, in keeping with the court restrictions issued in Alabama-
Tombigbee River Development Coalition (Coalition) v. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Civ. No. 93-AR-2322-S, the Service considered itself compelled 
to enforce constraints on the submission of oral and written comments 
while the court restrictions remained in effect. Individuals or 
organizations could not refer to the scientific report or to any drafts 
or other products derived from the preparation of that report in 
presenting any oral statement or written comment and individuals or 
organizations could not attempt to bolster their oral or written 
comments or opinions by referring to the scientific report as 
authority. Therefore, the departmental hearing officer at the next 
hearing was authorized to terminate the opportunity to speak of any 
person making a statement if, in the judgment of the hearing officer, 
that person disregarded the instructions not to address the scientific 
report or its contents. Written comments or materials which contained 
information that violated the above restrictions would be marked and 
thereafter excluded from the administrative record while the court 
restrictions remained in effect.
    The Federal Register (59 FR 31970) on June 21, 1994, contained a 
notice of a 6-month extension of the deadline and reopening of the 
comment period for the proposed rule to list the Alabama sturgeon as an 
endangered species with critical habitat. The Service's rationale for 
the 6-month extension was based on the premise that there continued to 
be a lack of substantial information available concerning whether the 
Alabama sturgeon still existed. The comment period was reopened through 
September 15, 1994, to seek additional comments on the population 
status of the Alabama sturgeon, and the deadline for final action on 
the proposal was extended to December 15, 1994. Legal notices for the 
extension and reopening of the comment period appeared in the 
Birmingham News on August 11, 1994; the Mobile Press-Register on August 
5, 1994; the Montgomery Advertiser on August 8, 1994; and the Clarion 
Ledger on August 12, 1994.
    On September 15, 1994, the Federal Register (59 FR 47294) contained 
a notice that further extended the comment period to October 17, 1994, 
and sought additional comments on only the scientific point of whether 
the Alabama sturgeon still exists. Legal notices for this extension of 
the comment period appeared in the Birmingham News on September 28, 
1994; the Mobile Press-Register on September 24, 1994; the Montgomery 
Advertiser on September 23, 1994; and the Clarion Ledger on September 
28, 1994. By way of 81 letters to scientists dated September 13, 1994, 
the Service requested comments on two specific questions regarding the 
sturgeon's continued existence--(1) Is it likely that the Alabama 
sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) still exists in the Mobile River 
system and (2) what information would be needed to substantiate claims 
that the Alabama sturgeon is likely extinct?
    Eight scientists responded to this inquiry. Five respondents 
strongly supported the assertions that the Alabama sturgeon is extant, 
and that at least several decades of negative data from sturgeon 
sampling efforts would be needed to consider the species extinct. The 
other three respondents did not specifically address the question of 
the present existence of the sturgeon.
    The Service believes that it is premature to make a definitive 
decision on the species' continued existence (see the response to Issue 
15). Therefore, the Service finds that there is insufficient 
information available that the Alabama sturgeon is still extant.

Summary of Public Comments

    The Service received several thousand written and oral comments 
associated with the two hearings, the two extended comment periods 
regarding the proposed listing of the Alabama sturgeon with critical 
habitat, and the two comment periods associated with the 6-month 
extension of the deadline. Several hundred individuals and 
organizations supported the listing; however, the vast majority of the 
respondents did not support the listing and most of these comments were 
opinions based upon perceived economic impacts and not scientific data, 
as required under the Act. Following is a summary of the comments, 
concerns, and questions (referred to as ``Issues'' for the purpose of 
this summary) expressed in writing or presented orally during the 
comment periods and at the public hearings. Issues of similar content 
have been addressed under one issue heading. These issues and the 
Service's response to each are presented below.
    Issue 1: Various respondents were concerned that listing the 
Alabama sturgeon would require the Corps' maintenance dredging of the 
Alabama River to be sharply curtailed or even eliminated, ultimately 
ceasing barge navigation on the river and costing millions, or 
billions, of dollars in lost revenue and possibly 20,000 jobs to the 
Alabama economy.
    Response: Maintenance dredging by the Corps to maintain the 
navigation channel on the Alabama and lower Tombigbee Rivers annually 
removes 1.5 to 3.8 million cubic meters (2 to 5 million cubic yards) of 
unconsolidated aggregate (e.g., sand, mud, and silt). Dredge material 
from the Tombigbee River downstream of Coffeeville, Alabama, is 
disposed of at upland sites and within the banks of the river. On the 
Alabama River, fewer upland disposal areas have been established, and 
the majority of the dredge material is placed within the shallow 
reaches of the river.
    Based on limited information on the Alabama sturgeon and studies of 
the shovelnose sturgeon, it appears that these fish require currents 
over relatively stable substrates for feeding and spawning (see 
``Background'' section of this notice). They are generally not 
associated with those unconsolidated substrates that settle in slower 
current areas and must be removed annually to maintain navigation. 
Therefore, removal and disposal of unconsolidated materials is not 
perceived as a threat to the sturgeon or to its feeding or spawning 
habitat.
    In the proposed rule, the Service expressed concern that turbidity 
increases associated with the Corps' annual maintenance dredging could 
affect the sturgeon, and the Service still has some concern regarding 
this issue. The Corps and the Service agree that (1) the Alabama and 
Tombigbee Rivers are currently characterized as turbid rivers; (2) 
channel maintenance activities produce only localized and temporary 
elevation of turbidity; (3) the extent to which turbidity impacts the 
Alabama sturgeon is unknown; and (4) the Corps, in cooperation with the 
Service, will pursue research (within 3 years and based on the 
availability of funds) regarding the potential impacts of maintenance 
dredging activities, including turbidity, on the shovelnose sturgeon. 
Consequently, the Service has concurred with the Corps' determination 
that, based on current information, their annual maintenance dredging 
program does not adversely affect the Alabama sturgeon.
    Thus, as it is currently believed that the Corps' annual 
maintenance dredging program on the Alabama and lower Tombigbee Rivers 
is not likely to affect the Alabama sturgeon, these channel maintenance 
activities will not need to be eliminated, modified in timing or 
duration, or altered to protect any surviving Alabama sturgeon. 
Therefore, no loss of revenue from diminished annual channel 
maintenance activities would have been associated with the listing of 
the Alabama sturgeon (see response to Issue 19).
    Issue 2: Numerous respondents felt that the Service had failed to 
meet the minimum standard of proof that the Alabama sturgeon was an 
endangered species. Therefore, the Service cannot comply with the Act's 
best available information standard for making a listing determination.
    Response: The Service agrees that little information exists on the 
species' life history, environmental requirements, or its historic and 
current population levels. However, the best available information 
standard (section 4(b)(1)(A)--``A determination to list a species shall 
be based on the best available scientific and commercial information on 
the species' status'') does not require the Service to possess detailed 
or extensive information upon the general biology of the species or an 
actual determination of the causes for this status in order to make a 
listing determination. The Act's information standard requires only 
that the best available information must support a conclusion that the 
species meets the Act's definition for threatened or endangered species 
status after consideration of the five factors discussed in the 
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section of this notice.
    On July 1, 1994, the Service announced (59 FR 34271) an interagency 
policy to provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance 
to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the best 
available scientific and commercial data available. The Service has 
complied with those procedures and criteria of the policy in making 
this decision and has carefully reviewed all data submitted on this 
matter.
    For example, the best available information clearly supports the 
conclusion that the species has experienced a significant population 
decline in the last 100 years. The Alabama sturgeon was common in the 
late 1890s (U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries 1898) and was 
reported to be ``not uncommon'' in the 1930s (Anonymous 1930). However, 
Burke and Ramsey (1985) were able to capture only five Alabama 
sturgeons in the mid-1980s. After searches by the ADCNR in 1990, 1991, 
and 1992, utilizing a variety of sampling gear (Tucker and Johnson 
1991, 1992), and by the ADCNR and the Service in 1993, only one 
specimen was captured. Based on these factors and other information 
discussed in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section 
of this notice, the Service is confident that the best available 
information standard, as required by the Act, was met in the decision 
to withdraw the proposal to list the Alabama sturgeon as endangered.
    Issue 3: Several respondents believed that the Service should defer 
any decision to list the species until solid, verifiable scientific 
information is available on the fish's habitat requirements, threats, 
and population status.
    Response: As discussed in the response to Issue 2, the Act does not 
require the Service to possess detailed or extensive information on the 
first two factors in order to make a listing determination. However, 
the Service has concluded that there is insufficient information 
available to substantiate the present existence of this species.
    Issue 4: A few respondents stated that the Alabama sturgeon did not 
need Federal protection because Alabama State law provided sufficient 
protection for the species.
    Response: Alabama State law does prohibit take and possession of 
the Alabama sturgeon without a State scientific collecting permit. 
However, this law does not protect the species from other threats. 
Federal listing would provide significant additional protection for the 
species by requiring Federal agencies to consult with the Service when 
projects they fund, authorize, or carry out may adversely affect the 
Alabama sturgeon. In addition, listing would make section 6 funding 
under the Act available to the State of Alabama for Alabama sturgeon 
recovery activities.
    Issue 5: One respondent contended that listing the sturgeon would 
have a significant effect on the cost and duration of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) boll weevil eradication program.
    Response: In a March 23, 1994, letter, the Service informed the 
USDA of specific pesticide use restrictions that USDA must meet in 
order to avoid adverse effects to listed aquatic species by their boll 
weevil eradication program. As the Alabama sturgeon inhabited the same 
riverine systems as other federally listed aquatic species covered by 
the March letter, the Service does not believe that listing the Alabama 
sturgeon would have a separate or significant impact on the cost or 
duration of the boll weevil eradication program.
    Issue 6: Several respondents stated that listing the sturgeon would 
require changes in the State's water quality standards.
    Response: Although it is possible that some point-source discharges 
negatively impact the Alabama sturgeon, there is no evidence to support 
the conclusion that the State's water quality standards must be changed 
if the fish were ever to be listed. As discussed in the proposed rule, 
the potential exists for point discharges to impact the Alabama 
sturgeon, and it is noted that there is an increasing demand for 
discharge permits in the Mobile River system. However, there are two 
factors that work to minimize any impacts to this fish from point-
source discharges--(1) as the Alabama sturgeon inhabits larger channel 
areas, the effects of any point discharge into its habitat would likely 
be minimized by dilution and (2) the State of Alabama, with assistance 
from and oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), sets 
water quality standards that are presumably protective of aquatic life.
    It is the Service's position, as stated in the proposed rule, that 
as long as current fish and wildlife standards under the Clean Water 
Act of 1977 (CWA) are used to issue discharge permits and the 
conditions of the permits are enforced, there is no need to modify the 
State's water quality standards to protect the Alabama sturgeon. A 
violation of State water quality standards would be a violation of the 
CWA, and listing the Alabama sturgeon could potentially increase 
noncompliance penalties. However, based on current information, the 
need for changes in State water quality standards would not have 
increased if the species had been listed.
    Issue 7: A respondent stated that if the Alabama sturgeon was 
listed the resulting recovery plan would restrict land use practices.
    Response: Recovery plans do not impose restrictions on private land 
use practices. However, as there is a strong, direct correlation 
between poor land use practices and unhealthy aquatic ecosystems, the 
Service encourages landowners to consider any impacts their activities 
might have on aquatic resources. A recovery plan for the sturgeon would 
likely address this issue and suggest best management practices for 
various land uses. Recovery plan development would proceed under the 
policy announced by the Service on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272); this 
policy provides, among other points, for participation by all 
stakeholders in the development of a plan and the minimization of the 
social and economic impacts of its implementation.
    Issue 8: Several respondents stated that listing the sturgeon would 
adversely impact the gravel-mining industry.
    Response: In-stream gravel mining involves work in navigable waters 
of the United States and includes the discharge of the noncommercial 
dredge material back into the waterway. Thus, in-stream gravel mining 
comes under the Corps' authority, pursuant to section 10 of the River 
and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA) (33 U.S.C. 403) and section 404 of the 
CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344). The Service believes that the Alabama sturgeon 
likely uses relatively stable substrate for breeding and feeding 
habitat (see ``Background'' section of this notice for a more detailed 
discussion of this fish's life history and biology). Thus, mining of 
this stable substrate could threaten the species. However, the Service 
believes the mining of unconsolidated material or relatively stable 
material that is covered by several inches of fine sediment would not 
be likely to jeopardize the species' continued existence.
    Prior to the issuance of a permit by the Corps for in-stream gravel 
mining, the applicant must receive State water quality certification 
from the State of Alabama pursuant to section 401 of the CWA. As the 
Service does not believe that more restrictive water quality standards 
would have been needed to protect the Alabama sturgeon from this 
activity, the likelihood of an applicant's receiving State water 
quality certification will not be affected by the listing of the 
Alabama sturgeon. However, as in-stream gravel mining generally 
produces higher turbidity levels than are produced by maintenance 
dredging, the Service believes that increases in turbidity within 
Alabama sturgeon habitat from in-stream gravel mining activities could 
be considered a ``may adversely affect'' situation that the Corps would 
need to address through section 7 consultation with the Service, if the 
species were to have been listed. However, the Service does not 
anticipate that turbidity produced from gravel-mining of unconsolidated 
substrates would likely jeopardize the continued existence of the 
Alabama sturgeon.
    Issue 9: Several respondents were concerned that if the Alabama 
sturgeon were listed anyone could file a class action suit and stop a 
Federal project (such as maintenance dredging) or stop the issuance of 
discharge permits.
    Response: Citizen suits, not class action suits, are available 
under the Act. However, it is unlikely that suits challenging 
activities already determined by the Service not to be likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a species would be successful.
    Issue 10: A few respondents felt that the Service should not change 
its position on various issues addressed within the proposed rule after 
the rule had been published.
    Response: The Service has modified its position on a number of 
issues addressed in the proposed rule; these changes are reflected in 
this final decision document (see the response to Issue 39). As new 
information becomes available, the Service, as part of its review 
process, is expected to and should modify and clarify its position from 
what was stated in the proposed rule. This is a normal procedure. A 
species is considered for Federal protection through the proposed rule 
process as a means of soliciting comments. The period in which comments 
are solicited in a proposed rule is typically 60 to 90 days but may be 
much longer, as was the case with the proposed rule for the Alabama 
sturgeon. The Service is then expected and required to modify and 
clarify its position based on any pertinent comments that the Act 
allows the Service to consider.
    Issue 11: Some respondents wanted to know if the Alabama sturgeon 
has any economic value.
    Response: The Alabama sturgeon, according to historic records, once 
sustained a significant commercial fishery (see the response to Issue 
18 and the ``Background'' section of this notice); if the species is 
recovered, it may again be a valuable economic resource. However, 
section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires that a decision to list a 
species shall be based solely on the best scientific and commercial 
data available on the species' status. Therefore, the Service cannot 
weigh a species' economic value when it is being considered for 
protection under the Act.
    Issue 12: Several respondents wanted to know who would make the 
final listing decision.
    Response: The decision on whether to add a species to the Federal 
list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants (50 CFR part 17) 
is made by the Director of the Service under authority delegated by the 
Secretary of the Interior.
    Issue 13: Several respondents supported the proposed rule and urged 
the Service to protect the Alabama sturgeon.
    Response: The Service finds that such action is not presently 
supportable but will continue to survey for the sturgeon and can 
repropose its listing at any future time should sufficient information 
that the species still exists become available.
    Issue 14: One respondent stated that the decline of the sturgeon 
was an early warning sign of a decline in the Alabama River's 
ecosystem.
    Response: The Service agrees that the sturgeon's decline over the 
past 100 years or more is likely another warning that the ecosystem may 
be in trouble (see the ``Background'' section of this notice).
    Issue 15: Several respondents felt that there was no firm evidence 
that the Alabama sturgeon still existed and therefore should not be 
listed.
    Response: An Alabama sturgeon was captured in December 1993 and 
comments were received from scientists pertaining to the species' 
continued existence (see chronological history of the proposal in the 
above ``Previous Federal Actions'' section for a further discussion of 
this issue). Based on all available information, the Service does not 
assume that the Alabama sturgeon still exists, even in low numbers. It 
is possible that future surveys will reveal an existing population of 
this fish. There are numerous other examples of the rediscovery of 
fishes long thought to be extirpated or extinct in the scientific 
literature (Kuhajda, in litt., 1994).
    Issue 16: Several respondents felt it was disrespectful that 
Service personnel were not present in the hearing room during the 
entire January 31, 1994, hearing, and some respondents felt that 
Service personnel should have been present at all times so they could 
hear every comment that was made.
    Response: Senior-ranking Service personnel (a Deputy Director from 
the Service's Washington Office and two Assistant Regional Directors 
from the Service's Southeast Regional Office) were present in the 
audience during the hearing in question. This represents a greater 
Service presence than is normal or required by the public hearing 
process. Furthermore, transcripts of all oral statements made during 
the public hearing have been reviewed by the Service in making this 
final decision.
    Issue 17: Some respondents questioned the Service's use of life 
history and habitat preference information from related species to make 
assumptions regarding the behavior of the Alabama sturgeon. Other 
respondents provided copies of some sturgeon publications that the 
Service did not reference in the ``References Cited'' section of the 
proposed rule and felt the Service should use all relevant papers on 
sturgeon species from the Mississippi River system.
    Response: It is a common practice in science to use information on 
closely related species to help form judgments on the needs of rare 
species where little information exists (Mayden and Kuhajda, in press). 
For example, when the Service was researching reintroduction techniques 
for the rare California condor and whooping crane, the Service used the 
related Andean condor and sandhill crane as substitutes, respectively. 
Certainly, specific studies of a species would be the ideal. However, 
when a species is rare and little data exist, information on related 
species provides valuable insights. Most of the inferences regarding 
the Alabama sturgeon's life history and environmental requirements were 
derived from studies of the closely related shovelnose sturgeon.
    The Service appreciates receiving additional information on the 
biology of sturgeons from the Mississippi River system. The Service has 
incorporated some information from these publications, where 
appropriate. However, the Act does not require the Service to cite 
every publication on related species in order to make a determination 
that a species qualifies for the Act's protection.
    Issue 18: One respondent stated that the Service should not use an 
``arcane'' report that is a century-old in its assessment of the 
historic abundance of the Alabama sturgeon.
    Response: The Service did use a nearly century-old report to 
Congress concerning commercial fish harvests from interior waters of 
the United States (U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries 1898) in 
concluding that the Alabama sturgeon was historically more common in 
the Mobile River system. This 1898 report, which estimated a commercial 
Alabama sturgeon harvest of 18,000 kg (39,500 lb) from the Alabama 
River, provides valuable historic insight into the Alabama sturgeon's 
abundance at the turn of the century. As discussed in the responses to 
Issues 2, 11, and 27, the Service is required by the Act to make a 
listing determination utilizing the best available scientific and 
commercial information. Thus, the Service concludes that it was 
appropriate to use these available commercial fisheries data as to the 
former historical abundance of this sturgeon.
    Issue 19: Several respondents were concerned that Service 
biologists contacted individuals and reporters to discuss the listing 
and tried to sway public opinion concerning issues that developed 
subsequent to publication of the proposed rule. This concern was 
expressed particularly with reference to the Service's explanation 
regarding the extent of any impact the listing might have on 
maintenance dredging and navigation in the Mobile River system and the 
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway (TTW).
    Response: The proposed rule stage of the listing process provides 
an opportunity to gather information on a species and to discuss the 
merits and effects of protecting that species under the Act. During the 
proposed rule stage, misconceptions often develop regarding the 
potential impacts of the listing on existing programs and activities. 
When a misconception exists or when the Service recognizes that the 
media, local officials, or others have made erroneous statements, the 
Service is obligated to inform the public that a misconception or 
misinformation exists.
    For example, the Service stated in the proposed rule that 
maintenance dredging was a threat to the Alabama sturgeon. This 
statement was interpreted by many to mean that if the fish were listed, 
maintenance dredging would be stopped, navigation would cease, and as a 
result the region would be left in economic ruin. The Service agrees 
that if navigation in the Mobile River system were stopped, the 
economic impact would be tremendous. However, the Service does not 
believe nor did it intend to imply that maintenance dredging for 
navigation and the Alabama sturgeon cannot coexist; they can coexist, 
and the Service pledges to continue working with the Corps toward this 
end (see the response to Issues 1, 46, and 47 for a detailed discussion 
of why listing would not have significantly affected maintenance 
dredging or navigation).
    Section 7 of the Act and implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) 
make a clear distinction between activities that may adversely affect a 
species and activities that are likely to jeopardize a species' 
continued existence. Federal agencies are required to avoid the 
likelihood of jeopardizing a listed species' continued existence, but 
the Act does not require Federal agencies to avoid all negative impacts 
to a listed species. Thus, at public hearings, in interviews with 
reporters, and during conversations with individuals and agencies, 
Service biologists attempted to clarify this issue regarding any listed 
species. These attempts at clarification were not improper.
    Issue 20: A few respondents stated that the Act should balance the 
needs of listed species with the needs of people.
    Response: Since the Act's inception in 1973, the Service has 
consulted on tens of thousands of projects and has developed a long 
record of balancing the needs of species with the needs of society. 
Section 7 of the Act requires the Service to assist Federal agencies in 
determining whether their actions will likely jeopardize the continued 
existence of listed species. However, the Act also calls for the 
Service to recommend alternative courses of action that are protective 
of the species but still allow for project objectives to be met. Only a 
few situations have arisen in the past 2 decades where disagreements 
between the Act and development interests could not be resolved. In all 
other cases, the Service, through the cooperative efforts of 
governmental agencies, industry, and individuals, was able to reach 
equitable solutions.
    If after consulting in good faith the Service and the Federal 
agency cannot resolve a jeopardy situation, the Act provides a further 
means to balance human needs with the needs of species. Section 
7(h)(1)(A)(ii) provides for exemptions to the requirements of the Act 
when, among other things, the benefits of a Federal action clearly 
outweigh the benefits of an alternative course of action that would 
conserve the species.
    The Service's section 7 consultation history in the State of 
Alabama provides a good example of how the Service has been able to 
balance the needs of species and people in section 7 consultations. The 
citizens of Alabama have been coexisting with many endangered species 
for a number of years. As of November 30, 1994, the State of Alabama 
had the fourth largest number of federally listed species (88) of any 
State in the nation. From 1988 to 1993 the Service's Daphne, Alabama, 
Field Office, reviewed about 10,000 Federal actions in Alabama for 
compliance with the Act. During that time period, they issued only one 
jeopardy biological opinion that resulted in stopping a project. In 
that particular case, there were no reasonable and prudent alternatives 
to the proposed action; the project proponent elected to withdraw the 
project, rather than initiate the Act's exemption process (50 CFR parts 
450-453).
    Issue 21: Scientists who closely examined the data that were used 
to describe the Alabama sturgeon generally agreed that Williams and 
Clemmer (1991) made statistical and procedural errors in their 
analysis. Some biologists, upon examination of those data and 
additional data to that provided by Williams and Clemmer (1991), 
concluded that the Alabama sturgeon was still a valid species. Other 
biologists, based on their analyses, maintained that the Alabama 
sturgeon and the shovelnose sturgeon (S. platorynchus) were the same 
species.
    Response: Ichthyologists provided considerable information 
concerning the taxonomic status of the Alabama sturgeon during the 
comment period (see the ``Background'' section of this notice for a 
discussion of this material). However, all of the taxonomic information 
has consisted of unpublished reports; none of this taxonomic 
information has been subjected to peer-review and accepted for 
publication in a scientific journal, with the exception of the study by 
Mayden and Kuhajda (in press). The description of the Alabama sturgeon 
as a full species by Williams and Clemmer (1991) is the only taxonomic 
account that has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. 
However, the study by Mayden and Kuhajda (in press) corroborates the 
determination of Williams and Clemmer (1991) that the Alabama sturgeon 
is a distinct species. Thus, until such time that the Alabama 
sturgeon's current taxonomic status is revised in an appropriate peer-
reviewed scientific journal, the Service will consider the Alabama 
sturgeon (S. suttkusi) to be a full species that is distinct from the 
shovelnose sturgeon (S. platorynchus) (see the response to Issue 22 for 
a discussion of why the Alabama sturgeon would still qualify for 
protection under the Act even if it were determined to be a subspecies 
or population of the shovelnose sturgeon).
    As indicated in the Background section, the Service has received a 
very recent study report prepared for the Corps of Engineers and the 
Service (Genetic Analyses 1994). The study compared a number of nuclear 
DNA markers for the three Scaphirhynchus sturgeon and found no 
measurable difference between pallid and shovelnose sturgeons but 
significant differences between those sturgeons and the one Alabama 
sturgeon. Further, this study does show that the single specimen of 
Alabama sturgeon captured in 1993 was considerably different from 
pallid and shovelnose sturgeons. This genetic study also indicated that 
another specimen of Alabama sturgeon would very likely provide 
conclusive evidence of these consistent differences.
    Issue 22: Several respondents recognized that if the Alabama 
sturgeon's taxonomic status could not be resolved, the Act would allow 
the Service to list the Alabama sturgeon as an endangered subspecies or 
distinct population of the shovelnose sturgeon (S. platorynchus). 
However, opinions differed greatly concerning the appropriateness of 
such a listing. A few respondents stated that the Service should defer 
any decision to list the Alabama sturgeon until a full taxonomic review 
of the species is completed.
    Response: Taxonomic questions regarding the Alabama sturgeon's 
status as a full species have been raised, and the Service admits that 
there is controversy surrounding this issue. However, as discussed in 
the response to Issue 21, the only peer-reviewed scientific publication 
on the Alabama sturgeon's taxonomic status is Williams and Clemmer 
(1991). Further, a study by Mayden and Kuhajda (in press), which has 
been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, 
corroborates the determination of Williams and Clemmer (1991) that the 
Alabama sturgeon is a distinct taxonomic species. Upon publication of 
the study by Mayden and Kuhajda (in press), two peer-reviewed 
scientific publications will support the distinct taxonomic status of 
the Alabama sturgeon.
    The Alabama sturgeon (S. suttkusi) has been recognized in both the 
proposed rule, the June 21, 1994, notice of extension, and this notice 
of withdrawal as a distinct species, not a population or subspecies 
(see the response to Issue 21 and the ``Background'' section of this 
notice). However, the Act (section 3(15)) provides for listing 
subspecies or distinct population segments of vertebrate species as 
endangered or threatened. Thus, if the Alabama sturgeon is subsequently 
recognized as a distinct subspecies or population segment of the 
shovelnose sturgeon (S. platorynchus), it would still qualify as being 
eligible for the Act's protection. This second conclusion is based on 
the fact that, even if the sturgeon in the Mobile River system is the 
shovelnose sturgeon and not recognized as a subspecies of that species, 
it is a distinct population segment of a vertebrate species and is a 
population that may be in danger of extinction (see the ``Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species'' section of this notice).
    To explain further, all members of the genus Scaphirhynchus are 
freshwater fish (Bailey and Cross 1954), and there are no known records 
of any member of this genus in marine waters or the intermediate rivers 
between the mouths of the Mississippi and Mobile Rivers. Thus, if the 
Alabama sturgeon's taxonomy is subsequently revised to population 
status in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and the revision is 
generally accepted by the scientific community, the Service would 
recognize that information to reflect the most current nomenclature.
    Issue 23: A few respondents presented a list of potential impacts, 
including impacts to recreation, flood control, existing interstate 
water disputes, and numerous other water-related issues. However, 
little specific information was presented to indicate how the listing 
would impact these activities.
    Response: Without specific information on how these activities 
would have been impacted if this species had been listed, the Service 
is unable to evaluate the extent of the impacts and in any case is not 
allowed to consider such impacts when determining any species to be 
endangered or threatened. However, the Service does not foresee 
significant impacts to these activities if the Alabama sturgeon were to 
be listed in the future.
    Issue 24: One respondent commented that the Service should not list 
another species because the Service has a poor record of recovering 
species and the Service cannot take care of all the species already on 
the list.
    Response: As outlined in the response to Issue 2, the Act allows 
the Service to consider only information related to the species' status 
when deliberating as to whether a determination of endangered or 
threatened status is warranted under the Act. Therefore, the Service 
cannot and does not consider its historic recovery record or its 
current recovery workload in determining whether a species deserves 
protection of the Act.
    Issue 25: Several respondents commented that, as the Service had 
not prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis or complied with the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, it could not proceed with the listing.
    Response: In dealing with this rulemaking process, the Service has 
complied with all applicable laws, regulations, and departmental 
guidance. Preparation of a Regulatory Impact Analysis was an element of 
Executive Order 12291, which was revoked by Executive Order 12866. The 
Service is exempt from the requirements to comply with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act with respect to the listing process under section 4 of 
the Act in accordance with the intent of Congress.
    Issue 26: There were allegations from some respondents that the 
minimum flow requirement of 90 cubic meters per second (cms) (3,000 
cubic feet per second (cfs)) for the Alabama sturgeon, which was stated 
in the proposed rule, was arrived at arbitrarily. There was also 
concern that if any minimum flow releases were necessary, substantial 
loss of revenue from hydropower facilities at Robert F. Henry and 
Millers Ferry Locks and Dams would occur and that hydroelectric dams 
further upstream in the Alabama River system could also be affected by 
the listing.
    Response: A series of dams now control water flows in much of the 
Mobile River system. Changes in the natural flow patterns have probably 
had both direct and indirect effects on the Alabama sturgeon and its 
habitat. In the proposed rule, it was stated that ``The Service expects 
that continuous minimum flows of approximately 3,000 [cfs] will be 
required [to sustain the Alabama sturgeon] below both Robert F. Henry 
and Millers Ferry Locks and Dams on the lower Alabama River'' and that 
``. . . minimum flows below Claiborne Lock and Dam are already 
maintained at approximately 5,000 cfs to provide for cooling water 
intake of downstream industry.'' Although the Service concedes that 
little information on the flow needs of the sturgeon is available, a 
minimum figure of approximately 90 cms (3,000 cfs) was arrived at by 
Service and other biologists familiar with the Alabama River and its 
fish populations.
    The Service now has information that the Alabama Power Company 
(APC), through an agreement with the Corps, attempts to maintain (for 
the purposes of navigation) a minimum average daily flow of 
approximately 149 cms (4,640 cfs) over any seven consecutive day period 
and a minimum average daily flow of approximately 81 cms (2,667 cfs) 
over any three consecutive day period downstream of Claiborne Lock and 
Dam. Further, the average daily flows over the last decade downstream 
of Claiborne Lock and Dam have ranged from 114 to 6912 cms (3,800 to 
244,000 cfs). Therefore, the Service believes that the minimum average 
daily flows, as agreed to by the Corps and the APC, coupled with 
historic and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)-ordered flow 
patterns, are likely adequate to sustain any Alabama sturgeon in this 
river reach.
    The Service's opinion on flow requirements for river segments 
upstream of Claiborne Lock and Dam, as stated in the proposed rule, has 
changed somewhat. The Service's position remains that the best 
biological judgment at this time is that a combined minimum average 
daily flow of approximately 90 cms (3,000 cfs) from the Robert F. Henry 
and Millers Ferry Locks and Dams would be required to maintain a 
population of the Alabama sturgeon upstream of Claiborne Lock and Dam. 
However, the continued existence of the sturgeon upstream of Claiborne 
Lock and Dam has not been substantiated in nearly a decade, although 
anecdotal evidence exists.
    Therefore, based on our current knowledge of the Alabama sturgeon, 
no changes in water releases from these structures or from structures 
located in the headwaters of the Alabama River system (e.g., Coosa and 
Tallapoosa Rivers) would have been suggested for the benefit of the 
sturgeon nor would they have been anticipated by the Service as a 
result of listing. Thus, without changes in flow releases from power-
generating dams, there would have been no loss of electrical power 
revenue resulting from any listing of the Alabama sturgeon.
    Issue 27: Numerous respondents maintained that the listing of the 
Alabama sturgeon would devastate Alabama's economy and requested that 
the Service consider economic, social, or other impacts that might 
occur if the Alabama sturgeon was listed. They also requested that the 
Service, as a result of these forecasted impacts, withdraw the proposal 
to list the Alabama sturgeon.
    Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Service to 
base its decision on whether to list a species solely on the best 
scientific and commercial data available on the species' status and 
precludes the Service from considering economic or other impacts that 
might result from the listing. Public comments directed to economic or 
other impacts are outside the scope of topics that the Service can 
consider in making any final rule determination. However, even though 
economic impacts cannot be considered in the listing process, the 
Service believes that the impact from a listing action on the region's 
economy would have been minimal (see the responses to Issues 1, 6, 26, 
30, 46, and 47).
    Issue 28: In the proposed rule, the Service maintained that 
channel-training devices could be used to further reduce the need to 
conduct extensive maintenance dredging operations in the Mobile River 
system. Some respondents disagreed, stating that the Corps was using as 
many channel-training devices as was necessary.
    Response: In the proposed rule, the Service cited studies by the 
Corps and others that the use of channel-training devices (e.g., 
training dikes, jetties, sills, and revetments) in several rivers in 
the eastern half of the United States reduced dredging requirements by 
over 50 percent. The Corps' own data stated that structures in the 
Alabama River were assumed to eliminate about 60 percent of dredging 
requirements at the specific location where such structures were 
designed and constructed in the last phase of training works on the 
Alabama River. The present system on the Alabama River consists of 67 
channel training works at 16 locations. The Corps has subsequently 
stated that, based on the Mobile District's criteria for the use of 
training works, these structures are already used to the maximum extent 
practicable. However, the Service understands that the Corps will 
continue to evaluate their use, will modify existing structures as 
necessary, and may construct additional training devices when 
justified.
    Although the Service believes that training devices could reduce 
impacts to the Alabama sturgeon and encourages the Corps to consider 
their use in future planning, the Service does believe that more 
training devices would not be required to avoid jeopardy to the Alabama 
sturgeon, if ever listed in the future.
    Issue 29: Several respondents expressed concern as to why non-
Service biologists were permitted only 15 minutes to examine the dead 
Alabama sturgeon captured in December 1993 and why the Service decided 
that live tissue samples could not then be taken from the fish.
    Response: The Service concedes that the 15 minutes granted to 
biologists associated with the Coalition to examine a specimen of a 
rare, poorly known sturgeon on or about January 7, 1994, may have been 
an insufficient amount of time in which to make a detailed 
identification. However, a short time for examination was considered 
best in order to prevent significant thawing of the frozen specimen and 
thus prevent further deterioration. Additionally, the 15-minute time 
interval was mutually agreed upon by biologists with both the Coalition 
and the Service but was negotiable, as subsequently clarified in a 
letter from the Service to the Coalition dated January 19, 1994. This 
letter stated, in part, ``* * * additional time could have been 
arranged [to examine the sturgeon] had there been a request for such.'' 
No official request was made to the Service or hatchery staff for 
additional time to examine the fish prior to or during the Coalition's 
visit to the State of Alabama's Marion Fish Hatchery. No Service 
representative was present for this examination, but a representative 
from the Corps was in attendance to view the sturgeon. Hatchery 
personnel were informed of the agreement between the Coalition and the 
Service and thus allowed the Coalition representatives only the 
previously agreed-upon 15 minutes in which to study the specimen.
    The Coalition sent a letter to the Service on December 7, 1993, 
requesting fresh blood and muscle tissue samples from the live sturgeon 
that had been captured a few days earlier. In a letter dated December 
17, 1993, the Service stated that it did not take muscle and blood 
samples from the sturgeon because of the intrusive nature of the 
sampling and the potential to traumatize or cause the death of the 
fish. However, fin clips were made and frozen for future study. When 
the Coalition received word that the sturgeon had been found dead on 
December 31, 1993, they arranged an examination of the fish. A January 
6, 1994, letter from the Coalition and a January 12, 1994, letter from 
the Corps formally requested that the Service provide tissue samples 
from the now-frozen sturgeon and subsamples of the fin clips obtained 
prior to its death.
    However, Service biologists decided that no intrusive tissue 
samples should be taken from the sturgeon prior to the necropsy that 
was to be conducted at the National Biological Survey's laboratory in 
Leetown, West Virginia. It was stated in Service letters dated January 
18, 1994, to the Corps and January 19, 1994, to the Coalition that 
samples of tissue removed from the fish might jeopardize any chance for 
a determination of its cause of death but that a muscle tissue sample 
would be provided to Coalition biologists after the necropsy was 
completed. Immediately after the examination of the fish by biologists 
representing the Coalition, the carcass was shipped to the West 
Virginia laboratory. Following the necropsy, muscle tissue samples were 
sent to Coalition biologists and to the Corps.
    Issue 30: Some respondents expressed concern regarding the 
potential effects the listing of the Alabama sturgeon would have on 
coalbed methane-associated industries.
    Response: The extraction of coalbed methane can necessitate the 
release of produced water into the environment, and this discharge was 
mentioned as a potential threat to the Alabama sturgeon in the proposed 
rule. The Corps authorizes produced-water discharge structures pursuant 
to section 10 of the RHA (33 U.S.C. 403) if the outfall structure is 
placed into navigable waters of the United States. The Corps typically 
authorizes these structures with a Letter of Permission. Letters of 
Permission are a type of permit issued through an abbreviated 
processing procedure that includes coordination with Federal (including 
the Service) and State fish and wildlife agencies, as required by the 
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), and a public interest 
evaluation, but without publishing an individual public notice. Letters 
of Permission may be used in those cases subject to section 10 of the 
RHA when, in the opinion of the District Engineer, the proposed work 
would be minor, would not have significant individual or cumulative 
impacts on environmental values, and should encounter no appreciable 
opposition. Additionally, prior to discharge, the applicant must 
receive a permit from the State of Alabama under National Pollution and 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) guidelines. As the last known 
occupied habitat of the Alabama sturgeon existed far downstream of 
these permit activities, the Service does not believe that any 
modification to existing discharge structure authorization procedures 
is needed to protect the Alabama sturgeon.
    The potential coalbed methane wells are far upstream of known 
Alabama sturgeon habitat and any discharge must meet State water 
quality standards (the Service has stated that the water quality 
standards will not have to be modified in order to protect the Alabama 
sturgeon). Therefore, the Service does not anticipate any direct or 
indirect impacts to the Alabama sturgeon from properly permitted 
produced-water discharges.
    Issue 31: One respondent stated that he had seen sturgeon swim 
through locks and that the recently caught Alabama sturgeon might 
actually be a shovelnose sturgeon that had passed down the TTW from the 
Tennessee River system.
    Response: Based upon morphological characters that can be used to 
differentiate the two sturgeon populations (see the ``Background'' 
section of this notice), various ichthyologists verified that the 
sturgeon caught in the Alabama River in December 1993 was an Alabama 
sturgeon. In addition, it is true that the opening of the TTW 
potentially facilitates the movement of certain fishes between the 
Tennessee and Tombigbee Rivers. However, passage of a shovelnose 
sturgeon from the Tennessee River system through the TTW, down the 
entire length of the Tombigbee River, and up the lowermost portion of 
the Alabama River to where the specimen was captured would require 
swimming downstream through a total of 12 locks. The shovelnose 
sturgeon is thought to migrate limited distances (see the 
``Background'' section of this notice), but the likelihood of an 
individual sturgeon traversing a distance of over 645 kilometers (km) 
(400 miles (mi)) and getting caught in a gill net in the Alabama River 
is remote. Furthermore, populations of the shovelnose sturgeon in the 
lower Tennessee River are thought to be low, based on reports from 
commercial fishermen (John Conder, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, 
personal communication, 1994).
    Issue 32: One respondent quoted from a newspaper article that 
stated the Act's scatter-shot attempt to preserve everything made 
little sense and that unless the law was changed, biologists eventually 
would identify enough rare species for Federal protection to make 
everywhere off limits to humans. Another respondent noted that nature 
itself has destroyed the vast majority of life forms and that 
extinction is an inevitable fact of evolution.
    Response: The Act specifically states that the Service is to list 
those species that are in danger of extinction throughout a significant 
portion of their range and that only the best biological information 
available can be used in these determinations (see the responses to 
Issues 2 and 27). At the present time, over 900 native species have 
been listed and tens of thousands of consultations (informal or formal) 
have been made with only a small percentage creating significant 
problems for the project or local economy. While it is true that 
catastrophic events over geological time have resulted in the 
extinction of millions of species since life evolved on our planet, the 
rate of extinctions in the past couple of centuries has accelerated 
dramatically as a direct result of human activities.
    Issue 33: One respondent noted that the listing of the Alabama 
sturgeon would impact individuals conducting private activities by 
forcing them to pay for implementing costly habitat conservation plans 
(HCPs).
    Response: The Service assumes that these activities are land-use 
activities that have no Federal permit requirement or funding source. 
Section 9 of the Act lists prohibited activities with respect to 
endangered species, including ``take'' (e.g., kill, wound, harm). 
Section 10(a) of the Act provides that private individuals whose 
activities would incidentally take a species may obtain an ``incidental 
take permit'' provided they prepare and are able to implement a habitat 
conservation plan (HCP) that meets the requirements of section 
10(a)(2)(B). However, there is no need to prepare and implement an HCP 
unless it is established that an individual's activity would 
incidentally result in the take of a listed species.
    Issue 34: Some respondents noted that some sturgeon species 
actually might benefit from deep-water habitats created by various 
dredging activities.
    Response: Other sturgeons have been documented from deep dredge 
holes of rivers. However, dredging should not be construed as an 
activity that is totally compatible with the well-being of the 
sturgeons (see the responses to Issues 1 and 8). Certain dredging 
activities may compromise foraging and spawning habitat for a sturgeon 
by removing relatively stable substrate and destabilizing adjacent 
habitat. Dredging, therefore, should not necessarily be viewed as a 
means of creating deep-water habitats with stable substrates for any 
sturgeon.
    Issue 35: Several respondents stated that commercial fishing should 
be implicated in the overall decline of the Alabama sturgeon. Another 
respondent speculated that overexploitation of the paddlefish (Polyodon 
spathula) for its eggs in the 1980s may have resulted in an increased 
incidental catch of the Alabama sturgeon. This may have contributed to 
the sturgeon's decline.
    Response: There is an historic account of commercial harvest for 
sturgeons in the Mobile River system at the turn of the century (U.S. 
Commission of Fish and Fisheries 1898) that stated that 18,000 kg 
(39,500 lb) of Alabama sturgeon were harvested. However, without 
historic population information, the Service cannot conclude that the 
Alabama sturgeon was overharvested during that period. Furthermore, the 
Service has no evidence, other than anecdotal reports, that incidental 
catches of the Alabama sturgeon occurred during the paddlefish fishery 
in the 1980s and contributed to the sturgeon's decline (see Factor B in 
the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section of this 
notice). The Service believes that massive alteration of the river's 
aquatic ecosystem has played the most significant role in the Alabama 
sturgeon's decline (see Factor A in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting 
the Species'' section of this notice and the response to Issue 36). 
However, the Act does not require that the specific causative agents be 
known or even be well understood for a species to qualify for Federal 
protection.
    Issue 36: Several respondents stated that the Service 
overemphasized the impact that recent impoundments may have had on the 
decline of the Alabama sturgeon.
    Response: The Service acknowledges that the specific causes of the 
Alabama sturgeon's current status are poorly understood. However, the 
Service believes that it is reasonable to conclude that the 
impoundments constructed on the Alabama River in the late 1960s and 
early 1970s likely played a significant role in the decline of the 
Alabama sturgeon (see Factor A in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting 
the Species'' section of this notice). Additionally, even if reservoirs 
were not a factor, the Act does not require that the Service know all 
the specific causes of a species' decline before the Service can decide 
to list the species. The Act requires only that the Service use the 
best available information on the species' status to support the 
conclusion to list any species that is in danger of extinction (see the 
response to Issue 2). With respect to the Alabama sturgeon, as 
discussed under Factor A in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species'' section of this notice, the best available information 
demonstrates that it has suffered a dramatic decline in both population 
size and range over the past 100 years, even if there are some 
uncertainties as to the cause(s) of this decline.
    Issue 37: Several respondents stated that the Service should not 
use anecdotal information in this rulemaking process.
    Response: The Service has included some anecdotal information in 
this notice. However, the decision whether to list this species was not 
been based on anecdotal information (see the ``Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species'' section of this notice).
    Issue 38: One respondent contradicted statements made by the 
Service in the proposed rule that the shovelnose sturgeon had changed 
its diet, allegedly because of the effects of channelization 
activities.
    Response: The Service concedes that the reference in the proposed 
rule to a shift in the shovelnose sturgeon's diet, attributed to 
channelization activities, was erroneous. Any assertion that changes in 
the shovelnose sturgeon's food habits resulted from channelization 
activities has been deleted from this notice and was not considered 
when making the decision to withdraw the proposal.
    Issue 39: Several respondents expressed concern over differences 
between how the Service addressed certain issues in the June 15, 1993, 
proposed rule and how the Service addressed these issues in subsequent 
oral presentations and official documents, especially the June 21, 
1994, notice of a 6-month extension of the deadline and reopening of 
the comment period.
    Response: The Service has received numerous comments and has had 
discussions with other Federal agencies (including the Corps) regarding 
the Alabama sturgeon's biology and taxonomic status and how listing the 
species could impact and be impacted by Federal activities. When 
clarifying information was provided by all these contacts, the Service 
considered it and has altered, as it should, its position on some 
factors addressed in the proposed rule (see the response to Issue 10 
for a further discussion of this issue). These modifications of Service 
positions were partially reflected in the June 21, 1994, notice of a 6-
month extension of the deadline. However, a full discussion of the 
Service's position on these issues, as influenced and modified by 
public comments, is contained in this notice.
    Issue 40: A few respondents stated that the June 21, 1994, notice 
of a 6-month extension of the deadline did not make it clear to them 
what type of comments the Service was seeking.
    Response: The Service stated in the June 21, 1994, notice of a 6-
month extension of the deadline that the Service was primarily seeking 
additional information on the population status of the Alabama 
sturgeon. However, in the development of this notice, the Service has 
considered all the comments received through October 17, 1994, the end 
of last open comment period.
    Issue 41: In the June 15, 1993, proposed rule, the Service referred 
to the sturgeon that was being proposed for endangered species status 
as the ``Alabama sturgeon.'' However, in the June 21, 1994, notice of a 
6-month extension of the deadline, the Service referred to this same 
sturgeon as the ``Mobile River system population of the Alabama 
sturgeon.'' Several respondents stated that this change created 
confusion as to whether the Service was proposing a species or a 
population of a species for Federal protection.
    Response: The reference to the Alabama sturgeon as the ``Mobile 
River system population of the Alabama sturgeon'' in the June 21, 1994, 
notice was an error, and the Service regrets any confusion that may 
have been generated by this statement. The Alabama sturgeon was 
proposed as a distinct taxonomic species for endangered species status 
in the June 15, 1993, proposed rule, and the Alabama sturgeon was 
recognized as a full species in the June 21, 1994, notice (see 59 FR 
31972, col. 3, lines 4-11), as well as in this notice (see the 
``Background'' section of this notice and the response to Issues 21 and 
22).
    Issue 42: Several representatives of industries located along the 
Alabama River commented that they had, through their NPDES permit 
activities, collected large numbers of fish from the Alabama River, but 
they had never seen a sturgeon.
    Response: Considering the rarity of the Alabama sturgeon and the 
difficulty of collecting the species as shown by the effort expended by 
the Service and the State of Alabama over the past several years that 
resulted in the capture of only one Alabama sturgeon, the Service is 
not surprised that fish collections associated with NPDES activities 
failed to encounter this species (see the ``Background'' section of 
this notice).
    Issue 43: Several respondents stated that the Service should extend 
the comment period beyond the October 17, 1994, deadline to allow for 
public comments regarding the Service's Alabama sturgeon collection 
efforts.
    Response: The comment period on the Alabama sturgeon proposed rule 
was reopened from September 15, 1994, through October 17, 1994 
(September 15, 1994; 59 FR 47294) to allow for additional scientific 
peer review regarding the Alabama sturgeon's continued existence. The 
closing date of the comment period was set at October 17, 1994, to 
provide sufficient time for the Service to review all available 
information and comments and then draft this notice in order to publish 
the document by the December 15, 1994, deadline. The time allowed for 
the development and review of the document is far less than is normally 
provided, and the Service believed that the comment period could not 
have been extended beyond October 17, 1994, without compromising the 
Service's ability to meet the December 15, 1994, publication deadline.
    Issue 44: A few respondents raised the issue of the viability of 
the remaining Alabama sturgeon population, and one individual commented 
that the Service should not list the Alabama sturgeon because there are 
not enough of them left in the river to maintain a viable population.
    Response: The Alabama sturgeon population was significantly reduced 
in numbers, and there is not enough information presently available to 
conclude that the species still exists.
    Issue 45: One respondent stated that the Service had used Williams 
and Clemmer (1991) as the taxonomic authority for the Alabama sturgeon 
in the proposed rule but used Mayden and Kuhajda (in press) as the 
taxonomic authority in the notice of a 6-month extension of the 
deadline.
    Response: The Service did not intend to imply that the study by 
Mayden and Kuhajda (in press), which had not been accepted for 
publication at that time, was the taxonomic authority for the Alabama 
sturgeon when the notice of a 6-month extension was published. As 
referenced in Issue 21 and 22, as well as in the ``Background'' section 
of this notice, Williams and Clemmer (1991) have the only peer-reviewed 
scientific publication regarding the taxonomic status of the Alabama 
sturgeon. Therefore, the Service continues to consider Williams and 
Clemmer (1991) to be the taxonomic authority for the Alabama sturgeon. 
However, Mayden and Kuhajda (in press) has recently been accepted for 
publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Upon publication of 
the study by Mayden and Kuhajda (in press), two peer-reviewed 
scientific publications will support the Service's contention that the 
Alabama sturgeon is a distinct taxonomic species.
    Issue 46: Concern was expressed that listing the Alabama sturgeon 
would significantly impact commercial barge traffic if the Corps could 
not remove rock shelves from the navigation channel.
    Response: The Alabama and Tombigbee Rivers naturally move 
laterally, and to some extent, vertically. This natural river channel 
movement exposes rock shelves at the outer bends of the river. In order 
to provide for a reliable and safe navigation channel, these rock 
shelves must sometimes be removed, and similar channel alignment 
improvements of covered consolidated material are sometimes necessary 
on the inside bends. Although the removal of these obstructions to 
navigation are usually infrequent and restricted to isolated areas, 
this activity may adversely affect the Alabama sturgeon.
    The Corps and the Service have informally discussed the potential 
impacts to the Alabama sturgeon of removing these rock shelves, and 
both agencies agree that, if the Alabama sturgeon were ever listed, 
section 7 consultation would be required prior to the commencement of 
any rock shelf removal project within or adjacent to potential Alabama 
sturgeon habitat. However, since both agencies agree that rock shelf 
removal projects are generally not emergency projects, there will be a 
significant period of time prior to the next dredging season for both 
agencies to consider the timing and habitat improvements that may be 
possible by the design and construction of the remaining shelf after 
excavation and by the selective placement of the excavated material. 
Thus, the Service does not anticipate that any consultations would 
result in a jeopardy situation or result in delays in these maintenance 
dredging activities should the species ever be listed.
    Issue 47: Several respondents expressed concern that listing the 
Alabama sturgeon could significantly impact maintenance dredging for 
non-Federal activities.
    Response: The Corps authorizes maintenance dredging for non-Federal 
navigation projects. Although these projects are usually on a much 
smaller scale than the Corps' annual maintenance dredging activities, 
they involve the removal of unconsolidated aggregate from navigable 
waters of the United States and include the discharge of some material 
back into the waterways. Thus, maintenance dredging by non-Federal 
entities comes under the Corps' authority pursuant to section 10 of the 
RHA (33 U.S.C. 403) and section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344).
    Maintenance dredging by non-Federal entities for navigation removes 
unconsolidated aggregate (e.g., sand, mud, and silt) that washes down 
from upstream portions of the river and from tributaries. Based on 
limited information on the Alabama sturgeon and studies of the 
shovelnose sturgeon, it appears that these fish require currents over 
relatively stable substrates for feeding and spawning (see 
``Background'' section of this notice). They are generally not 
associated with the unconsolidated substrates that settle in slower 
current areas. Therefore, removal and disposal of unconsolidated 
materials is not perceived as a direct threat to the sturgeon or to its 
feeding or spawning habitat.
    Prior to the Corps' issuance of a section 404 permit for non-
Federal maintenance dredging, the applicant must receive State water 
quality certification from the State of Alabama pursuant to section 401 
of the CWA. As the Service does not believe that more restrictive water 
quality standards will be needed to protect the Alabama sturgeon from 
this activity, the likelihood of an applicant receiving a State water 
quality certification will not be affected by the listing of the 
Alabama sturgeon. Additionally, as addressed above under Issue 1, 
temporary increases in turbidity associated with maintenance dredging 
activities are not currently believed to adversely effect the Alabama 
sturgeon; and, as dredge material from non-Federal maintenance dredging 
projects is traditionally disposed of at upland sites, potential 
impacts to the sturgeon are further reduced.
    Issue 48: Comments from the Corps and others concerned the effect 
of listing the Alabama Sturgeon would have upon other Corps regulatory 
activities, such as authorizing pipeline crossings, piers, wharves, and 
small boat channels. These non-Federal activities are regulated through 
the Corps' regulatory program and evaluated on a case by case basis. 
Thus, concern has been expressed that if the Alabama sturgeon were ever 
listed permit applicants would be burdened by time delays and by 
requirements to conduct sturgeon surveys.
    Response: Although these activities are on a much smaller scale 
than most other activities authorized by the Corps, these actions are 
more numerous and, therefore, could present a greater number of 
opportunities for the Service to consider impacts to the sturgeon. The 
Service recognizes that some of the non-Federal activities authorized 
by the Corps (e.g., bridge pier placement and pipeline crossings) in 
the Alabama River system may have been delayed by a requirement to 
conduct endangered species surveys (Alabama sturgeon, if listed, plus 
other listed species). However, it has been the experience of the 
Service that most of these non-Federal activities do not require a 
survey and, further, are not delayed because of endangered species 
issues.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    After a thorough review and consideration of all available 
information, the Service has determined that there is insufficient 
evidence available to justify listing the Alabama sturgeon. Procedures 
found at section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated to implement the listing 
provisions of the Act were followed. A species may be determined to be 
an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five 
factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their 
application to the Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) are as 
follows:

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

    The Alabama sturgeon has experienced a highly significant decline 
in the last 100 years. An 1898 report to Congress on commercial fish 
harvests from the interior waters of the United States (U.S. Commission 
of Fish and Fisheries 1898) estimated a commercial Alabama sturgeon 
harvest of 18,000 kg (39,500 lb) from the Alabama River near the turn 
of the century. In the 1930s an Alabama Game and Fish News article 
(Anonymous 1930) stated that the fish was ``not uncommon.'' However, by 
the 1980s and into the early 1990s the Alabama sturgeon had become a 
rare component of the Mobile River ecosystem. Burke and Ramsey (1985) 
conducted a wide-ranging survey for the fish in the mid-1980s and found 
only five individuals; the ADCNR searched the river for the Alabama 
sturgeon in 1990, 1991, and 1992, utilizing a variety of sampling gear, 
and was unable to capture any specimens (Tucker and Johnson 1991, 
1992); and the ADCNR and the Service captured only one Alabama sturgeon 
after extensive searches in 1993. There is little question that a 
population that could yield 18,000 kg (39,500 lb) of fish at about 1 
kilogram (2 lb) each in the late 1890s, only five fish in the early 
1980s, and only one fish in the early 1990s has experienced a highly 
significant decline.
    The distribution or range of the Alabama sturgeon has also been 
significantly reduced. Based on a review of historic records by Burke 
and Ramsey (1985), the Alabama sturgeon's range once included 1,635 km 
(1,022 mi) of the Mobile River system (Black Warrior, Tombigbee, 
Alabama, Coosa, Tallapoosa, Mobile, Tensas, and Cahaba Rivers) in 
Alabama and Mississippi. During the early to mid-1980s, when Burke and 
Ramsey (1985) conducted their Alabama sturgeon status survey, they 
estimated that the Alabama sturgeon had been extirpated from over half 
(57 percent; 938 km [586 mi]) of its range and that only 15 percent 
(243 km [152 mi]) of its former habitat had the potential to support a 
good Alabama sturgeon population. They felt that another 19 percent 
(310 km [194 mi]) of the fish's remaining potential habitat was 
marginal. They were unable to judge the status of another 9 percent 
(144 km [90 mi]) of the historic habitat. Since Burke and Ramsey 
(1985), there has been only one confirmed Alabama sturgeon captured. 
That individual was captured after searches by the ADCNR in 1990, 1991, 
and 1992, utilizing a variety of sampling gear (Tucker and Johnson 
1991, 1992), and further searches by the ADCNR and the Service in 1993. 
It is possible that the Alabama sturgeon may now exist in only a short 
reach of the free-flowing Alabama River below the Claiborne Lock and 
Dam, where this last specimen was captured.
    From a historic perspective, it is likely that not one but many 
factors have worked in concert to push the Alabama sturgeon to the 
brink of extinction. Land clearing for silviculture, agriculture, urban 
and industrial development, and gravel-mining operations have increased 
silt loads to the river and altered its water quality. Impoundments 
constructed for navigation, recreation, power production, and flood 
control have reduced the amount of riverine habitat, blocked spawning 
migrations, and changed the river's flow patterns. Uncontrolled 
discharges of polluted waste once occurred in the river. An early 
commercial fishery, as reported by the U.S. Commission of Fish and 
Fisheries (1898), may have played a role in the fish's initial decline. 
The physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the Mobile 
River system have been altered, and the Alabama sturgeon, which evolved 
long before these changes occurred, has suffered.
    The large-river portions of the Mobile River system are controlled 
by a series of dams that have changed this once free-flowing river 
system into a series of artificial impoundments. When rivers are 
dammed, the physical and chemical environment of the impounded waters 
changes, and these environmental alterations cause changes in the 
river's biological communities. Some species respond favorably to this 
altered environment and increase in numbers and range. Other species 
that rely on free-flowing large-river habitat for their survival are 
reduced in numbers or are eliminated.
    As the Alabama sturgeon evolved and adapted to survive in a large, 
free-flowing river ecosystem, the construction of reservoirs likely 
played a significant role in its decline. The specific mechanisms by 
which reservoirs in the Mobile River system may have affected the 
Alabama sturgeon are not fully understood, and there is little specific 
life history information on the Alabama sturgeon from which to draw 
conclusions. However, studies of closely related sturgeons provide some 
insight into how the Mobile River system's reservoirs may have impacted 
this fish.
    The Alabama sturgeon, like the shovelnose sturgeon, probably 
migrates upstream to spawn (Becker 1983). The dams in the Mobile River 
system likely either block their migration or at least impede it. The 
shovelnose sturgeon apparently forages and spawns on relatively stable 
substrates (Trautman 1981, Hurley and Nickum 1984, Curtis 1990). As the 
impounded river reaches above the dams accumulate silt, any stable 
substrate used for spawning could, over a period of time, become 
unavailable to the fish. Asian scientists in studies of sturgeons 
(genera Acipenser and Huso) (Khoroshko 1972, Zakharyan 1972, Veshchev 
1982, Veshchev and Novikova 1983) have reported that reservoirs alter 
flows and temperature regimes and that these factors adversely affect 
Asian sturgeons by decreasing their growth rates, decreasing spawning 
activity, altering gonad development, increasing egg predation, 
reducing egg survival, and increasing juvenile mortality. Although the 
Asian studies cited above refer to anadromous sturgeons, some of these 
same factors may be affecting the Alabama sturgeon.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    As discussed under Factor A and in the ``Background'' section of 
this notice, the Alabama sturgeon was commercially harvested around the 
turn of the century. Also, there are anecdotal reports of incidental 
catches of the Alabama sturgeon as part of a paddlefish fishery in the 
1980s (see the response to Issue 35 in the ``Summary of Comments and 
Recommendations'' section of this notice). However, without any other 
population information, the Service cannot quantify what impact 
overfishing may have had on the Alabama sturgeon. The Service believes 
that a massive alteration of the river's aquatic ecosystem has played 
the most significant role in the Alabama sturgeon's decline and that 
commercial harvest is not currently a threat to the species. Alabama 
State law requires the immediate release of any incidentally caught 
sturgeons. As a result, this sturgeon is currently neither commercially 
nor recreationally valuable and is not pursued by humans. Based on 
limited numbers, if any, and the difficulty of capture, overutilization 
of Alabama sturgeon is unlikely.

C. Disease or Predation

    There are no known threats from disease or natural predators. To 
the extent that disease or predation occurs, it becomes a more 
important consideration as the total population decreases in number.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Existing Alabama State law precludes the possession of, and 
requires the release of, all sturgeons caught with any gear, whether 
dead or alive (Burke and Ramsey 1985; Fred Harders, ADCNR, personal 
communication, 1991). Although the needs of the Alabama sturgeon, if 
ever it becomes protected under the Act, could be considered when 
Federal activities are authorized or permitted, there is currently no 
requirement within the scope of other environmental laws to 
specifically consider the Alabama sturgeon or ensure that a project 
will not jeopardize its continued existence.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    In addition to impacts discussed under Factor A, the Alabama 
sturgeon's reproductive capability has likely been adversely impacted 
by low numbers of mature individuals. As the Alabama sturgeon's range 
and population were severely reduced, populations became more scattered 
and isolated. This isolation has probably reduced levels of successful 
reproduction and also reduced gene flow among populations. As genetic 
diversity is reduced, the sturgeon's ability to adapt to adversity has 
likely been reduced. Reduction in reproductive success will exacerbate 
the problems impacting this fish and, if not reversed, may ultimately 
lead to its extinction.
    The creation of the TTW has created the potential for the 
previously allopatric (geographically isolated) shovelnose sturgeon to 
pass between the Tennessee River (Mississippi River system) and the 
Mobile River system (see the response to Issue 31 in the ``Summary of 
Comments and Recommendations'' section of this notice) and interbreed 
with the Alabama sturgeon. However, given the small size of the 
populations of both fishes in these artificially connected river 
systems and the adversity that dispersing through numerous locks and 
dams and swimming hundreds of kilometers creates, the probability of 
genetic mixing between the shovelnose sturgeon and the Alabama sturgeon 
is presently very low.
    The Service has carefully assessed the status of the Alabama 
sturgeon, as well as, the best scientific and commercial information 
available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the 
species in making this decision. Based on this evaluation, the Service 
has decided that insufficient information is available to justify 
listing the Alabama sturgeon (S. suttkusi) at this time. This decision 
is based primarily on the lack of evidence that the sturgeon still 
exists.

References Cited

Anonymous. 1930. The sturgeon. Alabama Game and Fish News 
1930(1):13.
Avise, J.C. 1994. Molecular markers, natural history & evolution. 
Chapman & Hall, New York.
Bailey, R.M., and F.B. Cross. 1954. River sturgeons of the American 
genus Scaphirhynchus: characters, distribution, and synonymy. Papers 
of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, 39:109-208.
Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin 
Press, Madison, WI. 1,053 pp.
Blanchard, P.D. No date [ca. 1994]. Comments on the taxonomic status 
of the Alabama sturgeon. Unpublished report. 33 pp.
Blanchard, P.D., and A.A. Bartolucci. 1994. Comments on the 
statistical analyses employed to describe the Alabama sturgeon as a 
distinct species. Unpublished report. 31 pp.
Burke, J.S., and J.S. Ramsey. 1985. Status survey on the Alabama 
shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus sp. cf. platorynchus) in the 
Mobile Bay drainage. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Jackson, MS. 61 pp.
Clemmer, G.H. 1983. A status report on the Alabama sturgeon, 
Scaphirhynchus. A report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Washington, DC. 9 pp.
Curtis, G.L. 1990. Habitat use by shovelnose sturgeon in Pool 13, 
upper Mississippi River, Iowa. Master's thesis, Iowa State Univ., 
Ames, IA. 51 pp.
Durkee, P., B. Paulson, and R. Bellig. 1979. Shovelnose sturgeon 
(Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) in the Minnesota River. Journal of the 
Minnesota Academy of Science 45:18-20.
Genetic Analyses Inc. 1994. Genetic studies of Scaphirhynchus spp. 
Unpublished report for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha 
District; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bismarck; U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers, Mobile District. 41 pp.
Haynes, C.G. 1994. Report on the Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus 
suttkusi) stomach content analysis. Unpublished report. 10 pp.
Helms, D. 1973. Progress report on the second year study of 
shovelnose sturgeon in the Mississippi River. Project 2-156-R-2, 
Iowa Conservation Commission, Des Moines, IA.
Helms, D. 1974. Shovelnose sturgeon in the Mississippi River, Iowa. 
Iowa Fisheries Research Technical Series No. 74-3. State 
Conservation Commission, Des Moines, IA. 61 pp.
Henry, C.J., and R. Ruelle. 1992. A study of pallid sturgeon and 
shovelnose sturgeon reproduction. Report by U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Pierre, SD. 19 pp.
Howell, W.M. 1993. Written comments on proposed endangered status 
and designation of critical habitat for the Alabama sturgeon: 
proposed rule. Unpublished report. 37 pp. + appendices.
Howell, W.M. 1994. Written comments on proposed endangered status 
and designation of critical habitat for the Alabama sturgeon: 
proposed rule. Unpublished report. 33 pp. + appendices.
Howell, W.M., P.D. Blanchard, and A. Bartolucci. 1994. A critique of 
the written comments submitted by R.L. Mayden and B.R. Kuhajda to 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service entitled: ``Reevaluation of the 
taxonomic, systematic, and conservation status of the Alabama 
sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus suttkusi Williams and Clemmer 
(Actinopterygii, Acipenseridae).'' Unpublished report. 67 pp. + 
appendices.
Hurley, S.T., and J.G. Nickum. 1984. Spawning and early life history 
of shovelnose sturgeon. Project report, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA. 
40 pp.
Hurley, S.T., W.A. Hubert, and J.G. Nickum. 1987. Habitats and 
movements of shovelnose sturgeons in the upper Mississippi River. 
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116:655-662.
Khoroshko, P.N. 1972. The amount of water in the Volga Basin and its 
effect on the reproduction of sturgeons (Acipenseridae) under 
conditions of normal and regulated discharge. Journal of Ichthyology 
12:608-616.
Mayden, R.L., and B.R. Kuhajda. In press. Reevaluation of the 
taxonomic, systematic, and conservation status of the Alabama 
sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus suttkusi Williams and Clemmer 
(Actinopterygii, Acipenseridae). Copeia.
Modde, T., and J.D. Schmulbach. 1977. Food and feeding behavior of 
the shovelnose sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus platorynchus, in the 
unchannelized Missouri River, South Dakota. Transactions of the 
American Fisheries Society 106:602-608.
Moos, R.E. 1978. Movement and reproduction of shovelnose sturgeon, 
Scaphirhynchus platorynchus (Rafinesque), in the Missouri River, 
South Dakota. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of South Dakota, Pierre, SD. 
213 pp.
Ramsey, J.S. 1976. Freshwater fishes. Page 55. In: Boschung, H.T. 
(ed.), Endangered and threatened plants and animals of Alabama. 
Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History No. 2. Univ. of 
Alabama, University, AL.
Ruelle, R., and K.D. Keenlyne. 1993. Contaminants in Missouri River 
pallid sturgeon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report, Pierre, SD. 
11 pp.
Schill, W.B., and R.L. Walker. 1994. Phylogenetic relationships of 
sturgeon inferred from cytochrome b sequences. Unpublished report. 
19 pp.
Trautman, M.B. 1981. The fishes of Ohio. 2nd edition. Ohio State 
University Press, Columbus, OH. 782 pp.
Tucker, W.H., and L.A. Johnson. 1991. Survey of the Alabama 
shovelnose sturgeon in the lower Mobile Bay drainage. Final Report, 
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 
Montgomery, AL. 5 pp.
Tucker, W.H., and L.A. Johnson. 1992. Survey of the Alabama 
shovelnose sturgeon in the lower Mobile Bay drainage. Final Report, 
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 
Montgomery, AL. 5 pp.
U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries. 1898. Statistics of the 
fisheries of the interior waters of the United States. A report to 
the 55th Congress, House of Representatives. Pp. 489-497, 531-533.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Technical/agency draft Mobile 
River Basin ecosystem recovery plan. Jackson, MS. 128 pp.
Veshchev, P.V. 1982. Reproduction of sterlet, Acipenser ruthenus 
(Acipenseridae), in the lower Volga. Journal of Ichthyology 22:40-
47.
Veshchev, P.V., and A.S. Novikova. 1983. Reproduction of the 
stellate sturgeon Acipenser stellatus (Acipenseridae), under 
regulated flow conditions in the Volga River. Journal of Ichthyology 
23:42-51.
Williams, J.D., and G.H. Clemmer. 1991. Scaphirhynchus suttkusi, a 
new sturgeon (Pisces: Acipenseridae) from the Mobile Basin of 
Alabama and Mississippi. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural 
History 10:17-31.
Zakharyan, G.B. 1972. The natural reproduction of sturgeons in the 
Kura River following its regulation. Journal of Ichthyology 12:249-
258.
Zweiacker, P. 1967. Aspects of the life history of the shovelnose 
sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus platorynchus (Rafinesque), in the Missouri 
River. Master's thesis, Univ. of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD.

Proposed Rule Withdrawal

    The Service withdraws the proposed rule of June 3, 1993, (58 FR 
33148) to list the Alabama sturgeon as an endangered species and 
designate its critical habitat. If sufficient new information becomes 
available to demonstrate the present existence of the Alabama sturgeon, 
the Service may take action to determine the species to be endangered 
in accordance with 50 CFR part 424. For the present, the Service places 
this species in Category 2 of its list of candidate species; category 2 
is for those species for which sufficient information is not available 
to determine whether to proceed with a proposed rule to list or to 
consider the species no longer an active candidate (e.g., extinct).

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544).

    Dated: December 12, 1994.
Mollie H. Beattie,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 94-30859 Filed 12-14-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P