[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 242 (Thursday, December 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69613-69615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33465]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 040795A]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 
Availability for the Final Recovery Plan for Shortnose Sturgeon

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

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the availability of the final recovery plan for 
the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), as required by the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA).

ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of the final recovery plan should be 
addressed to: Nancy Haley, NMFS, 212 Rogers Avenue, Milford, 
Connecticut 06460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Haley, (203) 783-4264, Marta 
Nammack, (301) 713-1401, or David Bernhart, (727) 570-5312.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The shortnose sturgeon is an endangered fish species that occurs in 
large coastal rivers of eastern North America. Nineteen distinct 
population segments of shortnose sturgeon inhabit rivers ranging from 
the Saint John River in New Brunswick, Canada, to the St. Johns River, 
Florida. In addition, a captive broodstock from the Savannah River 
distinct population segment and its cultured progeny are housed at 
three hatcheries operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, shortnose 
sturgeon were commonly taken in a commercial fishery for the closely 
related, and commercially valuable, Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser 
oxyrinchus). Shortnose sturgeon were originally listed as an endangered 
species by FWS in March 1967 (32 FR 4001), under the Endangered Species 
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.). Pollution and overfishing, 
including bycatch in the shad fishery, were listed as principal reasons 
for the species' decline. Shortnose sturgeon remained on the endangered 
species list when Congress passed the ESA in 1973 (ESA)(16 U.S.C. 1531 
et seq.). NMFS assumed jurisdiction for shortnose sturgeon under a 1974 
government reorganization plan (39 FR 41370).
    Section 4(f)(1) of the ESA directs NMFS and FWS, the Federal 
agencies responsible for implementing the ESA, to develop and implement 
recovery plans to promote conservation and survival of endangered and 
threatened species, unless a recovery plan would not help to promote 
species conservation. Highest priority is given to those species that 
are or may be in conflict with development projects or other commercial 
activities. Shortnose sturgeon spend their entire life in waters that 
are heavily impacted by various construction and industrial activities. 
Hence, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries determined that a 
recovery plan, which comprehensively addresses these factors and 
describes ways to mitigate or minimize harm to shortnose sturgeon, was 
necessary to promote rangewide recovery of the species. The recovery 
plan for the shortnose sturgeon, prepared for NMFS by a seven-member 
recovery team, provides a framework for addressing a multitude of 
biological concerns and outlines Federal agency responsibilities under 
the ESA with the sole purpose of insuring long-term survival of the 
shortnose sturgeon. NMFS published a notice of availability of the 
draft recovery plan for shortnose sturgeon in the Federal Register on 
August 4, 1997 (62 FR 41951). Comments were received from eight parties 
during the 30-day comment period. Most comments were editorial and were 
incorporated as received. Some comments indicated that the readers were 
confused by the wording in certain sections, and NMFS tried to clarify 
these parts of the plan. More substantive comments from the reviewers 
and the NMFS' responses to these comments are listed here.

Comments and Responses

    Comment 1: Several reviewers noted that much of the plan relies on 
data that are not available in peer-reviewed publications and that some 
sections are based on speculation and conjecture.
    Response: NMFS used the best available information to develop this 
recovery plan. Unfortunately, even though there has been a relatively 
great amount of research interest in shortnose sturgeon, not all 
aspects of its biology or factors affecting its recovery have been well 
documented in the scientific literature. Moreover, while detailed 
information on the fish exists in some parts of its range, little 
published data are available for other shortnose sturgeon populations. 
Therefore, in some cases, NMFS reported, and identified as such, recent 
information that has not yet been peer reviewed. Certain recovery tasks 
were identified to fill gaps in our knowledge of this species and 
factors affecting its recovery. NMFS determined that it was necessary 
to outline all possible impacts to this species. If future research 
indicates that some perceived threats are not significantly affecting 
shortnose sturgeon recovery, they will be omitted from future versions 
of the recovery plan.
    NMFS has updated some sections and added additional references to 
support sections where reviewers noted a lack of substantiation. In 
addition, the References section has been amended to reflect the recent 
publication of information that was originally cited as unpublished 
data or personal communications.
    Comment 2: Reviewers expressed conflicting views regarding the 
importance of poaching as a threat to shortnose sturgeon populations 
and argued from both sides that statements in the recovery plan 
regarding poaching are based on little hard evidence.
    Response: The impact of poaching on shortnose sturgeon populations 
is unknown and likely varies across the range of this species. NMFS 
recognizes that poaching is likely to be a significant source of 
mortality in some population segments (e.g., southern populations). 
Consequently, NMFS identified poaching in the Factors Affecting 
Recovery Section and listed increased enforcement of the ESA section 9 
prohibition to further discourage this illegal activity as a recovery 
task (task 2.2C). As suggested, the importance of genetic data as a 
forensic enforcement tool was added to the Recovery section.
    Comment 3: One reviewer suggested that the potential importance of 
diseases should be emphasized more in the recovery plan, and another 
reviewer said that a greater consideration of potential threats from 
Atlantic sturgeon stocking was needed.
    Response: Stocking of Atlantic sturgeon has been a very recent 
development, and there is no conclusive information concerning the 
impacts of this action on shortnose sturgeon. The potential for 
increased incidence of disease resulting from this activity is

[[Page 69614]]

noted in the Factors Affecting Recovery section. In addition, a 
recovery task (task 2.4I) specifically recommends investigation of 
disease, competition for resources, and direct mortality to shortnose 
sturgeon resulting from introduced species or stock transfers. New 
information on disease research was added to the Recovery section. In 
the Implementation Schedule, the duration of recovery task 2.4I 
activities was updated to ``ongoing'' to reflect one reviewer's 
statement that FWS is surveying wild fish to assess incidence level and 
impacts of fish pathogens on wild populations of shortnose sturgeon.
    Comment 4: Several reviewers emphasized the need to establish the 
point at which a population segment is functionally extirpated before 
restoration efforts can be considered.
    Response: NMFS agrees that this is an important issue and should be 
added to the recovery plan to guide future restoration actions. 
Accordingly, two new recovery tasks were added to the plan: 1.1E - 
develop a standardized sampling protocol and determine minimum sampling 
required to assess the presence of shortnose sturgeon; and 3.3B - 
determine minimum population size below which restoration may be 
considered. NMFS has already initiated development of the sampling 
protocol (1.1E); thus, this task is ongoing. NMFS envisions that task 
3.3B would be conducted at the same time that listing criteria are 
developed.
    Comment 5: One reviewer questioned the designation of certain 
population segments in the recovery plan, specifically those in the 
Penobscot River.
    Response: In the Introduction section, NMFS defined the criterion 
and reviewed background justification (per NMFS/FWS policy on distinct 
population segments, 61 FR 4722) used to designate population segments. 
In the Recovery Approach section under Introduction, the process for 
revising the list of recognized population segments is newly outlined. 
That is, after sufficient sampling has been conducted to determine that 
a population segment has been extirpated (task 1.1E, see Comment 4) or 
is below a minimum size (task 3.2B, see Comment 4), the list in Table 1 
could be revised. NMFS reviewed the designation of the Penobscot River 
and concluded that this system should remain on the list in Table 1. 
Additional information that supports this decision was added to 
pertinent sections of the Population Status narrative.
    Comment 6: One reviewer recommended that the recovery plan specify 
additional uses of cultured sturgeon to promote recovery.
    Response: In response to this suggestion, NMFS added as recovery 
tasks: (1) the use of cultured fish to study the effects of 
contaminants on shortnose sturgeon growth, survival, and reproduction 
(task 2.4F); and (2) the use of cultured fish to develop genetic 
markers to identify illegally marketed shortnose sturgeon products 
(task 2.2D). NMFS advocates the use of cultured shortnose sturgeon as 
surrogate study specimens to relieve sampling on wild populations and 
to enhance the recovery of the species. Stocking cultured fish in river 
systems where wild shortnose sturgeon populations still exist provides 
limited research value and may be detrimental to wild stocks.
    Comment 7: A reviewer requested that the recovery plan address the 
potential for commercial aquaculture of shortnose sturgeon.
    Response: The ESA prohibits commerce in endangered species or their 
products. Therefore, NMFS did not address the development of commercial 
aquaculture operations for this species.
    Comment 8: Several reviewers felt that restoration of shortnose 
sturgeon in areas where they historically occurred should be given a 
higher priority in the recovery plan. Other reviewers felt that 
restoration attempts with other anadromous species have been too costly 
and of limited success; therefore, they should receive even less focus 
as a recovery option for shortnose sturgeon.
    Response: NMFS maintains that reintroduction of cultured shortnose 
sturgeon in systems where they have been extirpated is a viable 
recovery action provided the conditions for breeding, stocking, and 
monitoring (as outlined in an approved Shortnose Sturgeon Breeding and 
Stocking Protocol) are adequately met. While restoration activities are 
potentially important, NMFS cannot justify elevating the priority of 
these tasks, particularly in light of the more critical actions needed 
to preserve extant population segments, the high cost of stocking 
efforts, and the problems encountered with restoration efforts for 
other anadromous species. Therefore, restoration efforts were assigned 
``priority 3'' in the Implementation Schedule.
    Comment 9: One reviewer expressed concern that there were 
inadequate mechanisms in the plan to successfully implement recovery 
actions.
    Response: Recovery plans do not, in and of themselves, recover 
listed species. This plan provides a stepping stone from which all 
concerned parties may systematically and collectively advance shortnose 
sturgeon recovery. One recovery task (task 2.6A) specifically addresses 
the need for NMFS to appoint a Recovery Coordinator and an 
Implementation Team(s) to promote the recovery plan's recommendations, 
organize recovery efforts, and seek funding for specific recovery 
tasks. While this recovery plan identifies actions needed to recover 
shortnose sturgeon, a long-term commitment by NMFS, other Federal and 
state agencies, and the public is necessary to assure the long-term 
recovery goal for shortnose sturgeon.

Recent Capture of Shortnose Sturgeon in Albemarle Sound

    During the final agency review of the recovery plan, NMFS received 
new information concerning the occurrence of shortnose sturgeon in 
Albemarle Sound (North Carolina). On April 18, 1998, the North Carolina 
Division of Marine Fisheries captured an adult shortnose sturgeon (652 
millimeters in fork length) in Bachelors Bay in western Albemarle 
Sound. Although historical accounts indicate that shortnose sturgeon 
were once collected in Salmon Creek, a small tributary of the Chowan 
River, the species was thought to be extirpated from this region. Per 
recovery plan criterion, the capture of a shortnose sturgeon, within 
the generation time of the species (30 years), provides evidence for 
the existence of a shortnose sturgeon population segment within the 
capture region. Further investigation is necessary to determine in 
which tributary or tributaries of Albemarle Sound reproduction occurs. 
Shortnose sturgeon may spawn in the Roanoke or Chowan Rivers or, 
possibly, other smaller tributaries of Albemarle Sound based on 
physical characteristics of these systems and historical and anecdotal 
reports. Therefore, NMFS amends the list of distinct shortnose sturgeon 
population segments to include an Albemarle Sound population, bringing 
the number of shortnose sturgeon population segments to 20. This 
information is not included in this version of the recovery plan but, 
along with any additional changes, should be added to subsequent 
versions of the recovery plan.

Recovery Task Priority Assignments

    Priority 1 recovery tasks are actions that must be taken to prevent 
extinction or to identify those actions necessary to prevent 
extinction. An action that must be taken to prevent a significant 
decline in population numbers, habitat quality, or other significant 
negative impacts

[[Page 69615]]

short of extinction is a priority 2 task. All other actions necessary 
to provide for full recovery of listed species are priority 3 tasks.
    NMFS has modified the priorities assigned to certain recovery tasks 
in the Implementation Schedule to better reflect NMFS guidance on 
priority rankings (55 FR 24296). These changes resulted in downgrading 
from priority 1 to 2 the following recovery tasks: 1.2B, 1.2C, 1.3A, 
2.2C, 2.3A, 2.4A, 2.4B, 2.4E, and 2.4F. Recovery task 1.1D was changed 
from priority 1 to priority 3, and tasks 2.6A, 2.6B, and 3.1H were 
changed from priority 2 to priority 3. In many cases, the above changes 
were made in recognition that there is insufficient information 
available for many shortnose sturgeon populations to determine which 
factors may be limiting recovery and threatening the survival of 
specific populations. As new information becomes available, priority 
rankings for recovery tasks may warrant additional changes.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 et seq.

    Dated: December 10, 1998.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 98-33465 Filed 12-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F