[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4022-4061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00372]



[[Page 4021]]

Vol. 82

Thursday,

No. 8

January 12, 2017

Part III





Department of Commerce





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





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Notice of 12-Month 
Finding on a Petition To List Alabama Shad as Threatened or Endangered 
Under the Endangered Species Act; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 82 , No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / 
Notices  

[[Page 4022]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Docket No. 130626570-6999-02]
RIN 0648-XC742


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Notice of 12-Month 
Finding on a Petition To List Alabama Shad as Threatened or Endangered 
Under the Endangered Species Act

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

ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12-month finding and listing 
determination on a petition to list Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae) as 
threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We 
have completed a comprehensive review of the status of Alabama shad in 
response to the petition submitted by the Center for Biological 
Diversity (CBD), Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood 
Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and the 
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy (petitioners). Based on the best 
scientific and commercial information available on the status of 
Alabama shad, we have determined that the species does not warrant 
listing at this time. We conclude that the Alabama shad is not 
currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range and is not likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future.

DATES: This finding was made on January 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The reference list associated with this determination is 
available by submitting a request to the Species Conservation Branch 
Chief, Protected Resources Division, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 
263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5505, Attn: Alabama 
shad 12-month finding. The reference list is also available 
electronically at:http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/listing_petitions/species_esa_consideration/index.html

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Shotts, NMFS, Southeast Regional 
Office (727) 824-5312; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected 
Resources (301) 427-8469.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    In 1997, we added Alabama shad to our Candidate Species List (62 FR 
37562; July 14, 1997). At that time, a candidate species was defined as 
any species being considered by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) 
for listing as an endangered or a threatened species, but not yet the 
subject of a proposed rule (49 FR 38900; October 1, 1984). In 2004, we 
created the Species of Concern list (69 FR 19975; April 15, 2004) to 
encompass species for which we have some concerns regarding their 
status and threats, but for which insufficient information is available 
to indicate a need to list the species under the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA). Twenty-five candidate species, including the Alabama shad, were 
transferred to the Species of Concern list at that time because they 
were not being considered for ESA listing and were better suited for 
Species of Concern status due to some concerns and uncertainty 
regarding their biological status and threats. The Species of Concern 
status does not carry any procedural or substantive protections under 
the ESA.
    On April 20, 2010, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), 
Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf 
Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and the West Virginia 
Highlands Conservancy (petitioners) submitted a petition to the 
Secretaries of Interior and Commerce, as well as to the Regional 
Director of the Southeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(USFWS), to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species from the 
southeastern United States as threatened or endangered under the ESA. 
The petitioners also requested that critical habitat be designated for 
all petitioned species. We notified the USFWS' Southeast Region by 
letter dated May 3, 2010, that the Alabama shad, one of the 404 
petitioned species, would fall under NMFS' jurisdiction based on the 
August 1974 Memorandum of Understanding regarding jurisdictional 
responsibilities and listing procedures between the two agencies. We 
proposed to USFWS that we would evaluate the petition, for Alabama shad 
only, for the purpose of the 90-day finding and any required subsequent 
listing action. On May 14, 2010, we sent the petitioners confirmation 
we would be evaluating the petition for Alabama shad. On February 17, 
2011, we published a negative 90-day finding in the Federal Register 
(76 FR 9320) stating that the petition did not present substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested 
listing of Alabama shad may be warranted.
    On April 28, 2011, in response to the negative 90-day finding, CBD 
filed a notice of intent to sue the Department of Commerce (DOC) and 
NMFS for alleged violations of the ESA in making its finding. CBD filed 
the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on 
January 18, 2012. On June 21, 2013, CBD and DOC/NMFS settled the 
lawsuit. We agreed to reevaluate the original listing petition, as well 
as information in our files, including some additional information we 
acquired after the original 90-day finding published on February 17, 
2011, and publish a new 90-day finding. On September 19, 2013, we 
published a 90-day finding with our determination that the petition 
presented substantial scientific and commercial information indicating 
that the petitioned action may be warranted (78 FR 57611).
    Our 90-day finding requested scientific and commercial information 
from the public to inform a review of the status of the species. We 
requested information on the status of Alabama shad, including: (1) 
Historical and current distribution and abundance of this species 
throughout its range, including data addressing presence or absence at 
a riverine scale; (2) historical and current population sizes and 
trends; (3) biological information (life history, genetics, population 
connectivity, etc.); (4) landings and trade data; (5) management, 
regulatory, and enforcement information; (6) any current or planned 
activities that may adversely impact the species; and (7) ongoing or 
planned efforts to protect and restore the species and its habitat. We 
received information from the public in response to the 90-day finding, 
and we incorporated all relevant information into our review of the 
status of Alabama shad.

Listing Species Under the ESA

    We are responsible for determining whether Alabama shad warrants 
listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.) To be considered for listing under the ESA, a group of organisms 
must constitute a ``species,'' which is defined in section 3 of the ESA 
to include taxonomic species and ``any subspecies of fish, or wildlife, 
or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of 
vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' Section 3 
of the ESA defines an endangered species as ``any species which is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' and a threatened species as one ``which is likely to become an

[[Page 4023]]

endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' Thus, we interpret an ``endangered 
species'' to be one that is presently in danger of extinction. A 
``threatened species,'' on the other hand, is not presently in danger 
of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
(that is, at a later time). In other words, the primary statutory 
difference between a threatened and endangered species is the timing of 
when a species may be in danger of extinction, either presently 
(endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened).
    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us to make listing 
determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data 
available after conducting a review of the status of the species and 
after taking into account efforts being made by any state or foreign 
nation to protect the species. Under section 4(a) of the ESA, we must 
determine whether any species is endangered or threatened due to any 
one or a combination of the following five factors: (A) The present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence (Sections 4(a)(1)(A) through (E)).
    We followed a stepwise approach in making this listing 
determination for Alabama shad. First we conducted a biological review 
of the species' taxonomy, distribution, abundance, life history, and 
biology. Next, using the best available information, we completed an 
extinction risk assessment using the general procedure of Wainwright 
and Kope (1999). Then, we assessed the threats affecting the status of 
each species using the five factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of 
the ESA.
    In the next step, we evaluated the available information to 
determine whether there is a portion of the species' range that is 
``significant'' in light of the use of the term in the definitions of 
threatened and endangered. We followed the final policy interpreting 
the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 
2014). A portion of the range of a species is ``significant'' if the 
species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of its 
range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the species 
is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species 
would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future, throughout all of its range.
    We describe each of the steps listed above in detail in the 
following sections of this finding.

Review of the Status of Alabama Shad

    We have identified the best available scientific and commercial 
information in order to conduct a comprehensive review of the status of 
Alabama shad. Unlike many of our other 12-month findings, we have not 
developed a separate status review report. Instead we present all 
available relevant information for Alabama shad in this Federal 
Register notice.

Taxonomy

    Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae) was first described by David Starr 
Jordan and Barton Warren Evermann in 1896 in the Black Warrior River 
near Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Jordan and Evermann 1896). Alabama shad was 
depicted earlier as ``white shad'' in documents from the U.S. 
Commission on Fish and Fisheries circa 1860 and was often confused with 
other shad even after it had been described (Daniels 1860, Barkuloo et 
al. 1993). Alabama shad belong to the family Clupeidae and are closely 
related to, as well as similar in appearance and life history to, the 
American shad (A. sapidissima). They also resemble the skipjack herring 
(A. chrysochloris), which occurs in the same areas as Alabama shad. 
Defining characteristics of the Alabama shad are an upper jaw with a 
distinct median notch, and the number of gill rakers (41 to 48) on the 
lower limb of the anterior gill arch. Alabama shad differ 
morphologically from other Alosa species that occur in the same area by 
a lower jaw that does not protrude beyond the upper jaw, black spots 
along the length of the lower jaw, and a dorsal fin that lacks an 
elongated filament.
    Alabama shad are considered a separate species from the closely 
related American shad based on mitochondrial DNA molecular data (Bowen 
2005, 2008, Kreiser and Schaefer 2009), in addition to the physical 
differences. There is limited genetic difference and it is theorized 
that the two species have only recently diverged from a common 
ancestor. Alabama shad is its own monophyletic group (a group of 
organisms descended from a single ancestor) due to limited genetic 
differences among the Clupeidae family and allopatric speciation 
(speciation by geographic isolation, Bowen 2008). There has been no 
significant genetic differentiation among different stocks of Alabama 
shad geographically and there is no evidence of hybridization between 
any of the other Alosa species and Alabama shad (Kreiser and Schaefer 
2009).

Diet

    Alabama shad are likely generalist insect feeders. Mickle et al. 
(2013) conducted stomach content analyses on individuals collected from 
the Pascagoula and Apalachicola Rivers. The stomach contents of the 
smallest juvenile Alabama shad (those less than 50 millimeters), 
collected exclusively from the Pascagoula River, were made up primarily 
of semi-decomposed algae and other unidentifiable organics, suggesting 
filter feeding or particulate feeding of smaller prey. As the size of 
Alabama shad taken from the Pascagoula River increased, the percentage 
of terrestrial and aquatic insects in the stomach contents increased. 
Mickle et al. (2013) found that terrestrial insects dominated the 
stomach contents of all size classes of Alabama shad taken from the 
Apalachicola River. Diet of Alabama shad from both the Apalachicola and 
Pascagoula Rivers changed as the size of the fish increased, with 
insects replacing unidentifiable organic matter. Ephemeroptera nymphs, 
an order of aquatic insects, dominated the diets of larger Alabama shad 
from both rivers. These nymphs produce aquatic juvenile larvae that 
emerge in open water in the same habitats where Mickle et al. (2013) 
collected the Alabama shad for their study. Mickle et al. (2013) noted 
that these observed ontogenetic dietary shifts seemed to coincide with 
habitat shifts and are consistent with a generalist strategy.

Age and Growth

    Like many clupeids (the family of fish that include shad, herring, 
sardines, and menhaden), egg hatching period and growth of subsequent 
larvae varies by location and environmental factors. Mickle et al. 
(2010) found those Alabama shad that hatched in the Apalachicola River 
had a longer successful hatch window (mean of 58 days) compared to 
those in the Pascagoula River (mean of 33.8 days).
    Juvenile Alabama shad exhibit rapid growth, although the size of 
juveniles varies across the range of the species. Typical juvenile 
Alabama shad increase in size from about 4.7 centimeters total length 
(cm TL, the length of the fish measured from the tip of the snout to 
tip of the tail fin) to about 10.1 cm TL over the summer but variation 
can occur depending on the river drainage. For example, juvenile 
Alabama shad from the Apalachicola River grew faster than those in the 
Pascagoula River despite

[[Page 4024]]

similar environmental conditions (Laurence and Yerger 1967, Mickle 
2010). In the Chipola River, Florida, juveniles move downstream at an 
average size of 6.5 cm TL, while those moving down the nearby 
Apalachicola River averaged 11.5 cm TL (Laurence and Yerger 1967).
    In both the Apalachicola and Choctawhatchee Rivers, Florida, adult 
female shad were typically longer and heavier than the adult males 
(Laurence and Yerger 1967, Mills 1972, Mettee and O'Neil 2003). Age 1-3 
males on average weigh 250 grams and age 1-4 females weigh around 650 
grams before spawning (Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Ingram 2007).
    Two studies have aged otoliths of Alabama shad but only one study 
has fit growth models to observed age data. In the Pascagoula River, 
maximum observed age was 6 years based on otoliths (Mettee and O'Neil 
2003), while Ingram (2007) aged shad from the Apalachicola River to 4 
years.

Reproductive Biology

    Alabama shad is a euryhaline (adapted to a wide range of 
salinities), anadromous fish species that migrates between the ocean 
and medium to large flowing rivers to spawn (reproduce) from the 
Mississippi River basin to the Suwannee River, Florida. Alabama shad 
spawn in February to April at lower latitudes in the south and May to 
June in more northern latitudes, usually over sandy bottoms, gravel 
shoals, or limestone outcrops (Laurence and Yerger 1967, Mills 1972, 
Barkuloo 1993, Kreiser and Schaefer 2009, Mickle et al. 2010). Water 
temperatures between 18 and 22 [deg]C and moderate current velocities 
(0.5-1.0 meters (m) per second) promote successful spawning (Laurence 
and Yerger 1967, Mills 1972). If environmental circumstances are 
unfavorable, mature Alabama shad will sometimes abandon their upstream 
spawning movement (Young 2010).
    Spawning males range in age from 1 to 5 years and females from 2 to 
6 years (Mickle et al. 2010). Some age-1 male Alabama shad move into 
fresh water for their first spawning, but the primary spawning age 
classes tend to be 2-3 years for males and 2-4 years for females; any 
age-4 Alabama shad present in rivers are almost always female (Laurence 
and Yerger 1967, Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Ingram 2007). Males arrive at 
spawning sites first and increase in abundance as the spawning season 
continues, while females appear in large groups slightly later in the 
spawning season (Mills 1972, Mettee and O'Neil 2003). It is unknown 
whether females arrive with ripened eggs, as suggested by Mills (1972), 
or if their gonads ripen as river temperatures increase (Laurence and 
Yerger 1967). Females tend to release their eggs in late April and 
early May when the water temperatures are 20-21 [deg]C (Mettee and 
O'Neil 2003, Ingram 2007). Fecundity (reproductive capacity) is related 
to size, with larger females producing more eggs (Ingram 2007, Young 
2010). Alabama shad produced 26,000-250,000 eggs per female in the 
Apalachicola River and between 36,000-357,000 eggs per female in the 
Choctawhatchee River (Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Ingram 2007). After 
spawning, the younger (age 2 and 3) Alabama shad migrate back to marine 
waters. The older spawners (age-4 and older) either die or are preyed 
upon by other piscivorous fish (Laurence and Yerger 1967).
    Because of the age range among the spawning fish, it is believed 
that individuals may spawn more than once in a lifetime (Laurence and 
Yerger 1967, Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Ingram 2007, Mickle et al. 2010). 
Laurence and Yerger (1967) indicated that 35 percent of Alabama shad 
were likely repeat spawners and noted that 2-4 year old males from the 
Apalachicola River had spawning marks on their scales. Mills (1972) 
also observed 35-38 percent repeat spawners (mostly age-3) as well as 
discernable spawning marks on scales from the Apalachicola River 
population. In addition, Mettee and O'Neil (2003) noted that many 
Alabama shad collected from the Choctawhatchee River were repeat 
spawners, with age-3 and age-4 females comprising the majority of 
repeat spawners in 1994-1995, and age-2 and age-3 females the majority 
in 1999-2000. In contrast, Ingram (2007) has not observed spawning 
marks on the scales of Apalachicola River shad and most fish in the 
Apalachicola may die after spawning (Smith et al. 2011). Alabama shad 
appear to be philopatric and return to the same rivers to spawn, 
resulting in slight genetic differences among river drainages (Meadows 
2008, Mickle 2010). These genetic differences may result in 
characteristics (e.g., faster growth rates, higher temperature 
tolerance, etc.) that lead to variable spawning strategies among river 
drainages. Kreiser and Schaefer (2009) found slight genetic 
distinctions between populations from the Mississippi River basin and 
coastal Gulf of Mexico drainages due to Alabama shad straying from 
their natal rivers, at an estimated rate of about 10 migrants per 
generation.

Life History Strategy

    On the spectrum of life history strategies, Alabama shad tend to be 
``r strategists'', species that are typically short-lived, have small 
body size, reach sexual maturity at an early age, and have high natural 
mortality that is balanced by a high growth rate (Adams 1980). Species 
that are r strategists adapt to unstable, unpredictable environments by 
producing higher numbers of offspring as compared to k strategist 
species living in stable, predictable environments. Elliott and 
Quintino (2007) found that species living in unpredictable, variable, 
and even stressed environments are well-adapted to cope with these 
conditions without or with reduced adverse effects. Adapting to highly 
variable environments also produces high natural variability in r 
strategist populations. Adams (1980) noted that fisheries for r 
strategists can have very large catches some years, but are 
characterized by erratic, highly variable production levels overall. 
Most clupeoids (an order of soft-finned fishes that includes Alabama 
shad, other clupeids, and anchovies in the family engraulidae) have a 
short life span and show striking inter-annual or decadal variation in 
productivity and abundance (Mace et al. 2002). Fisheries for clupeoids 
can vanish for 50-100 years then undergo a remarkable recovery with the 
population growing as fast as 40 percent per year (Mace et al. 2002).
    Sammons and Young (2012) noted that the population sizes of species 
in the Alosa genus commonly fluctuate widely. An Alabama shad 
researcher with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) noted 
that as an r strategist, Alabama shad are prone to ``boom and bust'' 
years, but they are also highly fecund (capable of producing an 
abundance of offspring) and can recover quickly from even a small 
number of fish (based on the results of stocking efforts; T. Ingram, 
Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016). In fact, 
the speciation (evolutionary process by which reproductively isolated 
biological populations evolve to become distinct species) of Alabama 
shad likely occurred from a very small number of fish that dispersed 
around the Florida peninsula and became separated from other Alosa 
species during the Pleistocene (Bowen et al. 2008). Modeling conducted 
by Moyer (2012) indicated that the Pleistocene bottleneck for Alabama 
shad was intense. The effective population size for Alabama shad during 
the bottleneck was estimated to be between 76 and 398, meaning 76-398 
individuals is the

[[Page 4025]]

population size during the Pleistocene estimated to have been necessary 
to result in the relatively low genetic diversity observed in members 
of the species today. Moyer (2012) also noted that the bottleneck event 
was prolonged (145-987 shad generations), indicating that the species 
persisted at very low numbers for an extended period of time.

Habitat Use and Migration

    Alabama shad are found in the Gulf of Mexico, although there is 
very little information about their marine habitat use. Only six 
records of Alabama shad collected in marine waters exist. The Florida 
Museum of Natural History reports one specimen was captured in July 
1957 approximately 80 miles (mi) or 129 kilometers (km) south of 
Choctawhatchee Bay, Florida, in about 100 meters of water (Fishnet2 
2015, Catalogue #28671). The National Museum of Natural History, 
Smithsonian Institution, reports another Alabama shad was captured just 
off Dauphin Island, Alabama, in December 1960 in 15 meters of water 
(Fishnet2 2015, Catalogue #293755.5174309). Two Alabama shad were 
collected approximately 115 km southwest of Cape San Blas, Florida in 
November 2007 (Fishnet2 2015, Catalogue #20627). An Alabama shad was 
collected by the Texas A&M University Biodiversity Research and 
Teaching Collections in a trawl about 25 mi (40 km) offshore of 
Florida, between Tampa Bay and the Charlotte Harbor Estuary (Fishnet2 
2016, Catalogue #14540.07). In March 2013, an adult female Alabama shad 
was collected during a fishery independent monitoring survey 
approximately 15 km south of the Pascagoula River just north of Petit 
Bois Island in Mississippi Sound and approximately 5 km east of Horn 
Island Pass, which leads to the open Gulf of Mexico (Mickle et al. 
2015). Microsatellite DNA analysis indicated that the fish was most 
genetically similar to Alabama shad originating from the Pascagoula 
River. She was observed to have well-developed ovaries, and Mickle et 
al. (2015) suggested she may have been preparing to make a spawning 
run. Stomach content analyses showed that the fish was full of small 
invertebrates. Previous studies (e.g., Mills 1972) report few or no 
stomach contents in Alabama shad collected in riverine environments. 
The marine specimen with a full stomach collected by Mickle et al. 
(2015) supports that Alabama shad likely feed primarily in marine 
habitats, similar to other anadromous species.
    As part of their anadromous life cycle, adult Alabama shad leave 
the Gulf of Mexico and move into rivers in the spring to spawn. First 
year (age-0) juveniles stay upriver in freshwater environments until 
late summer or fall and eventually migrate downstream to the Gulf of 
Mexico. Juveniles coming from natal rivers located at more northern 
latitudes (e.g., Ouachita River in Arkansas) begin downstream movement 
throughout the summer, reaching the Gulf of Mexico by autumn. Juveniles 
located at more southern latitudes (e.g., Pascagoula River in Florida) 
will remain in natal rivers as late as December before beginning their 
downstream movement to the Gulf of Mexico. Alabama shad do not 
overwinter in freshwater river systems (Mickle et al. 2010).
    Alabama shad prefer cooler river waters with high dissolved oxygen 
(DO) and pH levels (Mickle et al. 2010). Although there have been no 
studies on the thermal tolerances of Alabama shad, other Alosa species 
cannot tolerate water temperatures greater than 32[deg]C; it is likely 
that Alabama shad also cannot tolerate high water temperatures 
(Beitinger et al. 1999). Mickle et al. (2010) found spawning adults in 
waters as cold as 10 [deg]C, but juveniles have been collected in 
waters as warm as 32 [deg]C (Mickle et al. 2010, Young 2010).
    Water velocity is also believed to be an important habitat feature, 
as this species is rarely found in the still or backwater portions of 
rivers. It is hypothesized that spring floods (increased river flows) 
are a vital environmental cue for spawning adults as well as an 
important aspect for successful hatching. Juveniles tend to occupy 
moderate to fast moving water (approximately 0.5-1.2 m per second) that 
is less than 1 m deep (Mickle 2010). Clear water with minimal benthic 
algal growth also appears to be preferred by this species (Buchanan et 
al. 1999).
    Smaller, younger shad tend to prefer the slightly shallower, more 
protected areas over sandbars, while the older, larger shad can be 
found in channel and bank habitats. Sandbars within the bends of rivers 
that are less than 2 m deep often support juveniles in the early summer 
(Mickle 2010). As the fish grow, they move to bank (greater than 2.5 m 
deep) and channel (1.5-2.5 m deep) habitats, although the shift is not 
always consistent (Mickle 2010). Presumably, this allows the juveniles 
to avoid predators, fulfill foraging needs, or access cooler 
temperatures that might be present in deeper waters (Bystrom 2003, 
Mickle et al. 2010, Mickle 2010).

Distribution and Abundance

    NMFS documented the current known distribution and abundance of 
Alabama shad in a technical memorandum published in August 2011 (Smith 
et al. 2011). In addition to conducting an extensive search of all 
publications, technical reports, and theses available, NMFS staff 
surveyed scientists at universities, state and Federal facilities, and 
non-profit organizations throughout the historical range of Alabama 
shad for any recent recorded captures. Surveys were sent by email, and 
information was requested on capture dates, location, and number of 
Alabama shad captured, if available. Additionally, capture information 
and observations were provided by state and Federal agencies during the 
public comment period on our 90-day finding.
    Information on the historical and current distribution and 
abundance of Alabama shad is largely lacking. Alabama shad was never an 
economically important species, therefore information from fisheries 
statistics, such as landings data, is rare. Hildebrand (1963) noted 
that Alabama shad were considered unfit for human consumption, and the 
lack of demand produced no incentive to capture the species or record 
its presence and abundance. Very few directed research studies on 
Alabama shad have occurred, with the exception of recent studies in the 
Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint (ACF) and Pascagoula River systems. 
The recent studies in the ACF River system have produced the only 
abundance estimates, either historical or current, for Alabama shad in 
any river system. The historical and current distribution of Alabama 
shad in other systems is based on capture data from general multi-
species surveys, project monitoring, captures incidental to other 
research studies, and anecdotal information. Information received from 
state resource agencies (e.g., during the public comment period on the 
90-day finding and during development of this determination, presented 
in the sections below) corroborates that long-term, strategic studies 
of the species in their states are lacking. For instance, the Arkansas 
Fish and Game Commission stated in their comments on the Alabama shad 
positive 90-day finding they could not assess the status of Alabama 
shad in their state because of the scarcity of information on the 
species, the lack of targeted surveys, and the unknown detectability of 
the species (M. Oliver, Chief of Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game 
Commission, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, November 5, 2013).
    Mettee and O'Neil (2003) note that low numbers of recorded Alabama 
shad individuals may be due, at least in part, to insufficient sampling 
effort during

[[Page 4026]]

appropriate times (i.e., spawning migrations) and with the appropriate 
gear to target the species. Hildebrand (1963) noted the importance of 
proper gear, citing greatly increased catches of Alabama shad that 
occurred in Kentucky when surface-fishing seines were substituted for 
bottom-fishing seines. Short-term studies may also fail to accurately 
demonstrate the status of a given river population of Alabama shad 
since this r strategist species is prone to high natural variability 
and long-term studies would be necessary to reveal any population 
trajectory.
    In reviewing data provided by the Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission (FFWCC) during the public comment period on the 
positive 90-day finding (J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, 
NMFS, November 12, 2013), less than 50 Alabama shad were reported since 
1999. The shad were collected during multispecies surveys not 
specifically targeting Alabama shad. The research with positive reports 
of Alabama shad was conducted using otter trawls, seines, and 
electrofishing during winter (December, January, February), spring 
(May), summer (June, July, August), and fall (September, October, 
November) months between 2002 and 2011. It is notable that none of the 
FFWCC surveys were conducted in March or April, when the largest 
catches of Alabama shad have occurred during targeted research in the 
ACF River system (Kern 2016, Sammons 2013, 2014). Further, although 
FFWCC caught less than 50 Alabama shad from 2002-2011, researchers 
targeting Alabama shad in the ACF River system captured 128-1,497 
Alabama shad per year during an overlapping time period (2005-2011; 
Young 2010, 2011). This demonstrates the importance of the sampling 
gear and time of year in interpreting available data and why short-term 
and/or non-targeted research is not always a good indicator of 
distribution and abundance.
    Even studies designed to target Alabama shad have yielded 
difficulties in detecting the species. Researchers studying Alabama 
shad in the ACF River system noted they had great difficulty finding 
Alabama shad in portions of the Flint River and expressed their 
surprise at the difficulty, given the small size of the river (Kern 
2016; S. Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, 
NMFS, Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam (JWLD) Fish Passage Year-End Summary 
Meeting, January 2014; S. Sammons, Auburn University, pers. comm. to K. 
Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End Summary Meeting, January 
2015). Large gaps in detections of Alabama shad were observed in the 
Flint River (Kern 2016; S. Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, pers. 
comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End Summary Meeting, 
January 2014; S. Sammons, Auburn University, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, 
NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End Summary Meeting, January 2015). 
Alabama shad were detected at upstream and downstream locations on 
acoustic receivers, but were not detected by receivers in between. 
Multiple methods were used with limited success to improve the 
detectability of Alabama shad, including passive (anchored receivers), 
boat, and airplane tracking of acoustically and radio-tagged shad (S. 
Sammons, Auburn University, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish 
Passage Year-End Summary Meeting, January 2015). Kern (2016) believed a 
combination of behavioral and environmental factors reduced the 
detectability of Alabama shad. Kern (2016) notes there are many ``blue 
hole'' springs along the river's length that are substantially deeper 
than the surrounding river and it is possible that Alabama Shad may use 
these features as refugia during the spawning migration. High water 
conditions were also experienced during portions of the sampling 
period. Kern (2016) stated that increased water depth during periods of 
high river discharge, swimming depth of Alabama Shad, and the presence 
of significantly deeper habitats than what is available in the rest of 
the river could lead to decreased detection probability by exceeding 
the detection range of passive and manual receivers. Kern (2016) also 
noted that Alabama shad are capable of long, rapid migration runs and 
if those migration runs occur at night, Alabama shad will not be 
detected by manual tracking (from boats and airplanes) that occurs 
exclusively during the day. The same detection problems (gaps in 
Alabama shad detection at receivers between two positive detection 
points) were experienced during Alabama shad conservation locking 
studies in the Alabama River system (Kern 2016; S. Sammons, Auburn 
University, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End 
Summary Meeting, January 2015).
    It is unknown to what degree the lack or low numbers of Alabama 
shad reported for many river systems accurately reflects the abundance 
in those systems or whether it is indicative of the lack of targeted 
studies or the detectability of this species.
    Distribution and abundance information is summarized below by 
rivers, starting with the Apalachicola River where we have the most 
information regarding Alabama shad, then information is presented by 
rivers from west to east.
Apalachicola River Drainage
    The Apalachicola River drainage is made up of the Apalachicola, 
Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers and drains water from parts of Florida, 
Alabama, and Georgia. Alabama shad were known to have migrated from the 
Apalachicola River up the Chattahoochee River to Walter F. George 
Reservoir in the early 1970s (Smith et al. 2011), even with the 
construction downstream of the Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam (JWLD) in the 
early 1950s and George W. Andrews Lock and Dam in the early 1960s. 
Alabama shad were able to pass upstream and downstream when the 
navigation locks were open. Located at the confluence of the 
Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, JWLD is the first major obstacle on the 
Apalachicola River to the upstream migration of Alabama shad to their 
historical spawning grounds. River traffic on the Apalachicola River 
resulted in the lock being operated frequently, allowing passage and 
sustaining reproduction of the resident Alabama shad population. 
Historically, JWLD was operated continuously 24 hours per day for 
commercial barge traffic (Sammons 2013). With the elimination of 
commercial traffic in the late 1960s, lock operation was reduced to 8 
hours per day for on-demand passage of recreational boats, reducing the 
number of lockages to less than 100 per year from a high of 1200. Barge 
traffic decreased and lock operation became less frequent when 
navigational dredging ceased in 2001 (J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. to 
K. Shotts, NMFS, November 12, 2013). Researchers believe Alabama shad 
spawn in shoal habitat downstream of JWLD based on observations of the 
species congregating over the shoals during spawning season, as well as 
usage by other spawning anadromous species, such as Gulf sturgeon 
(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi; T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to 
K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016).
    During the public comment period, the FFWCC reported collecting 
fewer than 50 Alabama shad in the lower Apalachicola River since 1999 
(J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, November 12, 2013). 
In reviewing the data provided by FFWCC during the public comment 
period on the positive 90-day finding, the fewer than 50 Alabama shad 
reported since 1999 were collected during multispecies surveys (i.e., 
Alabama shad were not specifically targeted). The research with 
positive reports of Alabama shad was

[[Page 4027]]

conducted using otter trawls, seines, and electrofishing during winter 
(December, January, February), spring (May), summer (June, July, 
August), and fall (September, October, November) months between 2002 
and 2011. It is notable that none of the surveys were conducted in 
March or April, when the largest catches of Alabama shad have occurred 
during research targeting Alabama shad in the ACF River system, which 
occurs annually between March and May to coincide with the spring 
spawning migration (Kern 2016, Sammons 2013, 2014). Further, although 
FFWCC caught less than 50 Alabama shad from 2002-2011, researchers 
targeting Alabama shad in the ACF River system captured 128-1,497 
Alabama shad per year during an overlapping time period (2005-2011; 
Young 2010, 2011). This demonstrates the importance of the sampling 
gear and time of year in interpreting available data and why short-term 
and/or non-targeted research is not always a good indicator of 
distribution and abundance.
    The ACF River system likely contains the largest spawning 
population of Alabama shad within its range, although the population 
may be several orders of magnitude smaller than historical levels 
(Schaffler et al. 2015). Because this population has remained self-
sustaining even with apparent declines, a project to restore passage to 
upstream spawning habitats was initiated (Schaffler et al. 2015). 
Beginning in 2005, a cooperative study supported by multiple local, 
academic, state, and Federal conservation partners started tracking 
movements of Alabama shad and other fish species in the Apalachicola 
River (USFWS 2008, Ely et al. 2008, TNC 2010). The study also evaluated 
the feasibility of moving fish upriver of JWLD during the spawning 
season. The results of this collaborative study showed that the 
existing lock at JWLD could be operated to allow fish to move upriver 
through the lock where they could access additional spawning habitat. 
Based on these results, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began 
``conservation locking'' (operating the lock at JWLD to provide Alabama 
shad access to upstream habitat) in 2005.
    In 2012, the ``cooperator'' organizations (USACE, USFWS, NMFS, 
Georgia DNR, FFWCC, and TNC) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 
clarifying their commitments and responsibilities in the continued 
implementation of fish passage at JWLD. The contents of the MOU are 
described in more detail in the ``Regulations on Dams'' section in ``D. 
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms.'' In fulfillment of the 
cooperation outlined in the MOU, an annual meeting to discuss the 
issues and outcomes from the previous spring conservation locking cycle 
is held, usually in the early part of the following year (i.e., January 
or February). At the annual meetings, the cooperators and other 
interested parties (e.g., universities that are not signatories to the 
MOU, but are heavily involved in research activities associated with 
the conservation locking in the ACF River system) discuss lessons 
learned from the previous year and participate in planning the next 
cycle of spring conservation locking, including whether the locking 
operation and schedule can be improved. For example, during the planned 
lock maintenance that occurred during the 2013-2014 season, the 
cooperators were able to upgrade the method of delivering the 
attractant flow (a stream of high velocity water used to attract 
spawning fish) from a manual system to an electric pump as a more 
efficient way to direct shad through the lock when conservation locking 
resumed (S. Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. 
Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End Summary Meeting, January 
2014).
    Population abundance estimates for Alabama shad in the ACF River 
system were determined through mark-recapture methods from 2005-2016. 
The estimated abundances for 2005-2016 are listed in the following 
table (the asterisks indicate years in which no conservation locking 
occurred due to maintenance and upgrades to the lock at JWLD). The 
table also shows the catch per unit effort (CPUE) of adult and juvenile 
Alabama shad during spring and fall sampling, respectively.

                Table 1--Adult and Juvenile Alabama Shad Research Results in the ACF River System
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Adult
                                       population     Confidence interval     Adult CPUE
                Year                    estimate            (spring)           (spring)    Juvenile CPUE (fall)
                                        (spring)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005................................        25,935  17,715-39,535..........        20.47  n/a.
2006................................         2,767  838-5,031..............         6.10  0.1.
2007................................         8,511  5,211-14,674...........        13.17  5.75.
2008................................         5,253  1,592-9,551............        13.00  16.17.
2009................................        10,753  3,258-19,551...........         9.20  0.
2010................................        98,469  51,417-127,251.........         7.17  22.4.
2011................................        26,193  22,371-43,713..........        72.93  25.
2012................................       122,578  57,911-282,872.........       100.6   1.9.
2013 *..............................         2,039  618-3,706..............        17.2   1.33.
2014 *..............................           n/a  n/a [86 fish captured;          6.5   3.33.
                                                     no re-captures].
2015................................           324  58-3,240...............         6.8   0.
2016................................           n/a  [0 fish captured]......         0     CPUE not yet
                                                                                           calculated [20
                                                                                           juveniles captured].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the period of conservation locking, Alabama shad have been 
successfully passed through the navigational lock at the most 
downstream dam on the ACF, JWLD, providing upstream migration to higher 
quality spawning and juvenile rearing habitat, which has potentially 
improved recruitment and lead to population increases (Ely et al. 2008, 
Young et al. 2012, Schaffler et al. 2015). Since conservation locking 
began, Alabama shad have been reported above JWLD in both the 
Chattahoochee River and the Flint River (2008-2010) by the Georgia DNR 
(Smith et al. 2011). The USACE reported Alabama shad in Lake George W. 
Andrews in the Chattahoochee River during recent sampling of the area 
(Smith et al. 2011). Only a few Alabama shad have been found in the 
Chattahoochee River, with the vast majority being found in the Flint 
River (Young 2010). In years when conservation locking occurred, the 
locks were operated twice a day to correspond with the natural movement 
patterns of migrating fish during spawning seasons (February through 
May) each year. During conservation locking, acoustically tagged 
Alabama shad

[[Page 4028]]

released below the dam have been found to pass upstream of the lock 
with 45 percent efficiency (Young 2010). Alabama shad can more easily 
access over 150 mi (241.4 km) of historical habitat and spawning areas 
in the ACF River system for the first time in more than 50 years now 
that the lock is operated to correspond with their natural spawning 
cues (TNC 2010).
    Schaffler et al. (2015) completed a study on shad collected in 2010 
and 2011 to determine whether fish passage efforts at JWLD were 
contributing recruits to the adult Alabama shad population. They 
evaluated otolith (inner ear bone) chemistry from spawning adult 
Alabama shad to determine the river reach within the ACF basin the fish 
originated from. They first examined the otolith chemistry of known-
origin juveniles captured in freshwater reaches both upstream and 
downstream of JWLD. Then, they compared the distinct chemical 
signatures of the juvenile otoliths to those from returning spawning 
adults of unknown origin captured below the dam to assign river-reach 
natal origins. The results showed that the Flint River, inaccessible to 
Alabama shad prior to conservation locking, is the dominant source of 
recruits returning to spawn in the ACF River system making up 86 
percent of the individuals captured. Schaffler et al. (2015) found no 
evidence that collection year, sex, or age impacted the origin of 
returning Alabama shad in the ACF River system, meaning the Flint River 
produced the majority of recruits in the ACF River system for the 2008-
2010 cohorts of both males and females. The results from this study 
indicate that conservation locking is making a tremendous contribution 
to Alabama shad in the ACF River system, the bulk of the Alabama shad 
population in the ACF River system is spawning in the Flint River, and 
juvenile Alabama shad are able to successfully move downstream to 
contribute to the adult stock.
    In 2005, the population estimate in the ACF River system was about 
26,000 individuals, but decreased to less than 10,000 in both 2006 and 
2007 (Ely and Young 2008). In 2008 and 2009, mark-recapture methods 
yielded an Alabama shad population estimate of approximately 5,200-
10,700. However, one of the researchers noted that the Alabama shad 
population estimates for 2008 and 2009 (5,253 and 10,753 shad, 
respectively) are likely underestimates of the actual population 
numbers based on the results of a companion electrofishing study by 
Clemson University (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, 
NMFS, February 8, 2016). Based on a predictive model developed by 
Clemson, the 2008 and 2009 Alabama shad population estimates would be 
closer to 8,500 and 26,000 shad, respectively.
    Young (2010) estimated the number of Alabama shad in the ACF River 
system at 98,469 in 2010, almost 4 times larger than the previous high 
estimate of 25,935 in 2005 (Ely et al. 2008). Alabama shad were the 
most abundant species observed in the Apalachicola during spring 
sampling in 2010 (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, 
NMFS, June 6, 2016).
    Within the ACF River system, the number of Alabama shad in 2011 was 
estimated at 26,193; this is lower than the 2010 value but slightly 
higher than the maximum abundance in the 2005-2009 period (Young 2011). 
The major difference between the 2010 and 2011 Alabama shad spawning 
runs was a lack of age-1 males in 2011. Ingram (2007) noted that fewer 
age classes and lower numbers of older, more mature, fish are 
indicative of a declining population. The 2011 run was dominated by 
older, larger adult females in excellent condition, a potential 
indicator of strong year classes in the future (Young 2011). Sammons 
and Young (2012) provided a report from the Apalachicola River, 
estimating the number of Alabama shad at 122,578 in 2012 (the largest 
since 2005). This spawning run was composed of many males presumed to 
be from the 2010 year class, as well as numerous older, larger adults 
of both sexes (presumably recruits from 2008 and 2009). In 2012, the 
abundance of 3- and 4-year-old fish made up the largest percentage of 
spawning Alabama shad, rather than 1- and 2-year-olds as in previous 
years (Ingram 2007), indicating a healthier population (T. Ingram, 
Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016). Sammons and 
Young (2012) noted that a year of higher than average flows in 2009 may 
have contributed to spawning and recruitment successes in 2010 and 
2012.
    While conservation locking of Alabama shad at JWLD and monitoring 
of Alabama shad populations in the ACF River system continue to receive 
support and funding Alabama shad were not passed through the lock in 
2013 and 2014 due to maintenance on the structure. However, 74 Alabama 
shad out of a total of 251 captured by researchers during 2013 were 
tagged and transported above JWLD and released (Kern 2016, Sammons 
2013) in order to access habitat above the dam. Of the 74 tagged fish, 
11 were verified as post-release mortalities, with another 3 suspected 
mortalities (Sammons 2013). It is unknown whether Alabama shad not 
captured by researchers successfully spawned at the shoal habitat below 
JWLD where they spawned prior to conservation locking (Acipenser 
oxyrinchus desotoi; T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, 
NMFS, June 6, 2016). Also, during the maintenance period on the lock, 
the method of delivering the attractant flow (a stream of high velocity 
water used to attract spawning fish) was upgraded from a manual system 
to an electric pump as a more efficient way to direct shad through the 
lock when conservation locking resumed (S. Herrington, The Nature 
Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End 
Summary Meeting, January 2014).
    Conservation locking appears to have enhanced spawning and 
recruitment of Alabama shad in the ACF River system (Young 2010, 2011, 
Sammons and Young 2012, Schaffler et al. 2015). Although the ACF 
population of Alabama shad has been the largest known population for 
decades (Laurence and Yerger 1967), the lack of conservation locking in 
2013 and 2014, combined with environmental conditions (cold and 
flooding) and the poor condition of spawning fish (discussed below), 
likely produced the weakest year class since research began on Alabama 
shad in the ACF River System in 2005. However, environmental conditions 
(cold, flooding, and the presence of large debris) and funding levels 
also hampered researchers' ability to survey the Alabama shad 
population in the ACF River system in 2013-2015 to develop reliable 
population estimates.
    The Alabama shad population sampled below JWLD during the 2013 
spawning season was low compared to previous seasons (Sammons 2013). A 
total of 309 Alabama shad were captured below JWLD and of those fish, 
87 fish were tagged and 1 was recaptured, resulting in a population 
estimate of 2,039 Alabama shad (Sammons 2013). Sammons (2013) noted 
that most Alabama shad collected below JWLD in 2013 were in poor 
physical condition, with visible wounds (this will be discussed further 
in ``C. Disease and Predation''). The wounds were observed only on 
adult fish and not on younger fish, indicating the source may have 
occurred in the Gulf of Mexico (Sammons 2013). The wounds were also not 
observed on other anadromous species, indicating Alabama shad are 
either more susceptible to the source of the wounds or they are 
distributed in areas that the other species are not (Sammons 2013).

[[Page 4029]]

The wounds remain unexplained, but Sammons (2013) cited a news article 
reporting gash wounds on fish potentially associated with the Deepwater 
Horizon Oil Spill resembling the wounds found on Alabama shad. Sammons 
(2014) also cited Murawski et al. (2014) noting the anecdotal reports 
of skin lesions in offshore fish species in 2010 and 2011, but the 
symptoms declined by 2012. The sores have not been observed in any 
Alabama shad captured since 2013 (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. 
to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016).
    The Alabama shad captured below JWLD were tagged and/or released 
approximately 5 km above the dam (Sammons 2013). Most of the Alabama 
shad were relocated (detected again after release) in Lake Seminole 
just above the dam, but some fish were detected moving into the 
preferred spawning habitat in the Flint River (Sammons 2013). Although 
fewer fish were detected making a spawning run than in previous years, 
Alabama shad traveled greater distances from the area they were 
released in 2013 than in previous years (Sammons 2013).
    Reasons for the lack of fish found below JWLD are unknown, but 
unusually cold water temperatures due to cooler weather patterns 
present throughout the Apalachicola River Basin in 2013 may have been a 
contributing factor (Sammons 2013). Water temperature serves as one of 
the main cues for Alabama shad to enter the ACF River system to spawn 
(Kern 2016, Sammons 2013). The researchers suspect that many Alabama 
shad had not yet entered the Apalachicola River to spawn during their 
sampling effort in the river, and this factored into the low numbers 
captured during 2013.
    In 2014, 102 Alabama shad were captured below JWLD; 86 were tagged 
and released above JWLD (Sammons 2014). No fish were recaptured and a 
population estimate could not be calculated (Sammons 2014). Since 
conservation locking did not occur in 2013 or 2014 due to maintenance 
of the lock, Alabama shad likely did not pass upstream except for those 
transported by researchers. Sammons (2014) noted that the Alabama shad 
captured in 2014 were smaller than shad captured in the previous two 
years, but that the fish were in better condition and did not exhibit 
the wounds as the majority of the population did in 2013. Although few 
adult Alabama shad were captured in the spring 2014, juvenile Alabama 
shad were collected in the fall sampling above JWLD in 2014 (CPUE of 
3.3 in the table above), indicating that adult Alabama shad had 
successfully passed upstream and spawned (P. Freeman, The Nature 
Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End 
Summary Meeting, February 2016). Despite no abundance estimate being 
produced, juvenile CPUE in 2014 was higher than CPUEs in the 2 previous 
years.
    Given the low numbers, Sammons (2014) believes that weak year 
classes were produced in 2013 and 2014. However, Sammons (2014) stated 
that water levels and temperature may have factored in to the low 
catches in 2014. Water levels and discharge were much higher during 
Alabama shad sampling in 2014 than in the previous 2 years and the mean 
catch rate of Alabama shad below JWLD was inversely correlated with 
mean daily discharge over the past 5 years (Sammons 2014). High water 
and discharge may have hindered catch rates, but spawning population 
size was also likely low (Sammons 2014). Reasons for the lack of fish 
found below JWLD are unknown, but may have also involved unusually cold 
water temperatures. As in 2013, water temperature was generally more 
than 2-4 [deg]C cooler throughout the spawning season than in 2011 or 
2012 (Sammons 2014). Abnormally low water temperatures in the 
Apalachicola River throughout the spring in 2013 and 2014 may have 
inhibited the usual spawning migration cues of this species, resulting 
in fewer fish migrating upstream (Sammons 2014). Sammons (2014) stated 
it is possible that a significant spawning population of this species 
persists in the Gulf of Mexico waiting for more normal spring 
conditions to return to the river before initiating their spawning run.
    In 2015, conservation locking resumed, but the Alabama shad 
population estimate remained low (324 fish). Due to the lack of 
conservation locking in 2013 and 2014, and potentially the lack of 
successful spawning due to the poor condition of the Alabama shad 
observed in 2013 (Sammons 2013, 2014), it is probable that the actual 
number of returning adult Alabama shad in 2015 was low. Similar to the 
previous year, researchers noted factors that may have reduced their 
capture rates, such as high water levels and large amounts of debris in 
the river that hampered sampling, potentially leading to the low number 
of recaptures and the low population estimate (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, 
pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, February 3, 2016).
    In 2016, high water levels occurred early in the sampling season, 
but later returned to normal levels (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. 
comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016). No Alabama shad were captured 
in the Apalachicola River in 2016, and therefore an abundance estimate 
could not be produced for that year (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. 
comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016). However, Alabama shad were 
observed lower in the Apalachicola River by another researcher 
conducting striped bass surveys (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to 
K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016). The Alabama shad survey occurred about 
2 km downstream of JWLD (Sammons 2014) and therefore would not have 
encountered Alabama shad occurring downstream of that location. The 
gill-netting survey conducted in Lake Seminole above JWLD to detect 
juvenile Alabama shad occurred in mid-December 2016 and produced 20 
juvenile Alabama shad. Even though no adults were captured in the 
spring survey, the collection of juvenile shad above JWLD indicates 
that some adult Alabama shad did successfully pass through the lock and 
spawn in the ACF system in 2016 (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to 
K. Shotts, NMFS, December 15, 2016). At the time this 12-month 
determination was prepared, the researchers had not yet calculated the 
CPUE for the juvenile survey.
    Funding levels and research effort may also have contributed to the 
differences in abundance estimates between 2013-2016 (low number of 
fish captured) and 2009-2012 (large number of fish captured). Funding 
levels were much higher in 2009-2012 and researchers were pursuing 
additional research questions beyond population estimates that required 
them to capture more fish (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. 
Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016). From 2009-2012, researchers logged more 
research time on the Apalachicola River and targeted higher numbers of 
Alabama shad, which produced robust population estimates. As noted, 
environmental conditions greatly hampered research efforts in 2013-
2015. It is unknown whether catch rates were influenced by 
environmental factors in 2016 or were strictly a reflection of very low 
population numbers, but reduced funding further exacerbated 
researchers' ability to increase survey efforts to offset research 
difficulties or to opportunistically take advantage of improved 
environmental conditions when they occurred (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, 
pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016). The differences in the 
trends in Alabama shad adult population estimates and the CPUE of adult 
Alabama shad between 2005-2016

[[Page 4030]]

can partially be explained by the differences in sampling effort levels 
due to both environmental conditions and funding levels (T. Ingram, 
Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016), although 
researchers believe the Alabama shad spawning populations in the ACF 
River system in 2013-2016 were smaller, especially compared to the 
2009-2012 spawning populations.
    As described above, low numbers of Alabama shad were captured in 
2013-2015 and no adult Alabama shad were captured in 2016, producing 
low or no population estimates. From 2013-2016, the primary cause of 
low Alabama shad captures is likely that low numbers of Alabama shad 
returned to spawn in the ACF River system during those years (Sammons 
2013, 2014, T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, 
June 6, 2016). Conservation locking did not occur in 2013 and 2014 due 
to maintenance and improvements on the lock. Some Alabama shad captured 
by researchers were transported and released above JWLD, but the 
remaining fish in the population likely only had access to any 
downstream spawning habitat (Sammons 2013, 2014). However, while 
conservation locking appears to have significantly increased spawning 
and recruitment success of Alabama shad and expanded the species' 
access to additional habitat in the ACF River system, the ACF 
population has been the largest known population of Alabama shad for 
decades (Laurence and Yerger 1967) even before conservation locking 
occurred. The poor condition of Alabama shad in 2013, when most fish 
collected had unexplained external wounds (Sammons 2013, 2014), 
potentially led to poor spawning success and fewer returning spawners 
in the following years. The CPUE of juvenile Alabama shad in the Flint 
River in the fall of 2013 was low, although not the lowest observed and 
similar to the CPUE for 2012, which had the highest adult population 
estimate recorded since research commenced in 2005.
    Environmental conditions may have affected both shad spawning 
activities and the ability of researchers to detect shad. Cold 
temperatures in 2013 and 2014 may have postponed the spring spawning 
runs until temperatures increased later in the season (and after 
Alabama shad research had already ceased), or the majority of Alabama 
shad may have forgone their annual spawning run and remained in their 
marine habitat (Sammons 2014). Water levels and discharge were much 
higher during Alabama shad sampling in 2014 than in the previous 2 
years and may have hindered catch rates. The mean catch rate of Alabama 
shad below JWLD was inversely correlated with mean daily discharge over 
the past 5 years (Sammons 2014). This is similar to observations in 
other systems, and can mean high river discharge delayed or hindered 
spawning runs or affected the ability of researchers to capture shad. 
Kern (2016) found that the number of detections of tagged Alabama shad 
in 2013 and 2014, as well as the extent of upstream migration by shad, 
appeared to be influenced by river discharge, with the lowest number of 
detections and least amount of upstream movement occurring during years 
with relatively high river discharges. Sammons (2014; citing Holman and 
Barwick 2011, and Pierce et al. 1985) noted that the inverse 
relationship between capture of fish by electrofishing results and high 
water level is well known. Alabama shad detection in general proved 
surprisingly difficult to researchers, in both the ACF River and the 
Alabama River systems, with large gaps in detections between areas 
where Alabama shad were known to have occurred (Kern 2016; S. 
Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, 
JWLD Fish Passage Year-End Summary Meeting, January 2014; S. Sammons, 
Auburn University, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage 
Year-End Summary Meeting, January 2015). Funding levels and research 
effort may also have contributed to the differences in abundance 
estimates between 2013-2016 (low number of fish captured) and 2009-2012 
(large number of fish captured), with higher funding levels and 
increased effort in 2009-2012 compared to the later years (T. Ingram, 
Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016).
    To further evaluate potential causes and effects of the low capture 
rates in the ACF River system in 2013-2016, we compared the adult 
population estimates and CPUEs from spring sampling with the CPUE of 
juveniles sampled above JWLD in the fall. The CPUE for juvenile shad is 
a metric derived from surveys designed to assess the recruitment 
success of Alabama shad upstream of JWLD. Given the growth rate of 
Alabama shad, surveys for juveniles upstream of JWLD in the fall would 
indicate success of the spring spawning that occurred earlier in the 
year. Trends in juvenile CPUE did not appear to follow trends in the 
adult population estimates or the adult CPUEs. Further, the trends in 
juvenile CPUE did not appear to reflect the trends in adult population 
estimates either 1 or 2 years later, when juveniles would be of 
spawning age. Recapture rates of tagged adult Alabama shad ranged from 
0 to 2.2 percent per year for tagged shad. There was not a strong 
relationship (r = 0.33) between population size and CPUE, nor between 
population size and the number of recaptured fish (r = 0.21). However, 
there was a strong positive relationship between population size and 
the number of fish tagged (r = 0.82). Interestingly, there is a very 
poor fitting relationship between the number of fish tagged and the 
number of fish recaptured (r = 0.15), which indicates the results are 
potentially heavily influenced by variability in the number of 
recaptures in a given year. The researchers' ability to capture, but 
not as easily recapture fish, may provide some indication that 
difficulties in detecting Alabama shad during research efforts factored 
into the low population estimates in addition to the actual population 
size being low.
    The low catch rates of Alabama shad in 2013-2016, although 
potentially influenced by environmental conditions, detection ability, 
and research effort, primarily indicate that Alabama shad populations 
were much lower during those years than in the previous years of 
research since 2005. However, for an r strategist species such as 
Alabama shad that is inherently prone to high levels of natural 
variability, it is very difficult to interpret a population trend from 
11 years of population estimates, with no historical abundances 
available for comparison. The abundance estimates for Alabama shad in 
the ACF River System demonstrate that the abundance in the system for 
the 11-year period is highly variable, and no population trend is 
apparent. The confidence intervals around each of the abundance 
estimates in the table show the wide range of uncertainty inherent in 
the abundance data.
    Based on the life history strategy of the species and the short 
period over which abundance estimates have been available, we cannot 
discern a pattern or trend in the Alabama shad population in the ACF 
River system. As an r strategist, Alabama shad have high natural 
mortality that is balanced by a high growth rate (Adams 1980). R 
strategist populations are well-adapted to cope with unstable, 
unpredictable environments, and this also produces high natural 
variability in their populations (Elliott and Quintino 2007). Adams 
(1980) noted that fisheries for r strategists are ``boom or bust,'' and 
although catches can be very large some years, they will be 
characterized by erratic production levels overall.

[[Page 4031]]

Alabama shad belong to the clupeoids, an order of fish that show 
striking interannual or decadal variation in productivity and 
abundance, with the ability to persist at extremely low population 
numbers for 50-100 years then undergo a remarkable recovery with the 
population growing as fast as 40 percent per year (Mace et al. 2002). 
Sammons (2013) also noted that increases of Alabama shad populations 
can happen very quickly, as demonstrated by the rapid rise in 
population size between 2006-2009 and 2010-2012 (Sammons 2013). While 
the Alabama shad population appears to be much smaller based on the 
last 4 years of tag-recapture data as compared to the previous 7 years, 
we did not detect a discernable trend, the high interannual variability 
is not unexpected for this species, and the species is adapted to 
recover from very low numbers of fish, even if the population persists 
at depressed levels for long periods of time.
    The studies in the ACF River system have produced the only 
abundance estimates, either historical or current, for Alabama shad in 
any river system. The following sections of the determination present 
the historical and current distribution of Alabama shad in other 
systems, which is primarily based on capture data from general multi-
species surveys, project monitoring, captures incidental to other 
research studies, and anecdotal information.
Mississippi River
    The Mississippi River is the largest river basin in North America 
and drains portions of Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, 
Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, 
Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Alabama shad were historically 
found in parts of the Mississippi River and its tributaries and several 
small spawning populations remain.
Upper Mississippi River Mainstem
    The Upper Mississippi River is the portion of the river upstream of 
Cairo, Illinois. In the Upper Mississippi River, Alabama shad were 
recorded in the 1994 Annual Status Report: ``A Summary of Fish Data in 
Six Reaches of the Upper Mississippi River'' (Gutreuter et al. 1997) as 
being captured in a long-term fish resource monitoring program. The 
report was compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Minnesota 
DNR, Wisconsin DNR, Iowa DNR, the Illinois Natural History Survey, and 
the Missouri Department of Conservation. However, the Gutreuter et al. 
(1997) report did not include specific data on Alabama shad and other 
species, such as the number of fish caught, gear used, the location of 
capture, etc. Presently, there are 10 locks and dams on the Upper 
Mississippi River (north of the confluence with the Ohio River) that 
border the state of Iowa and an additional seven locks and dams south 
of the state that could prevent Alabama shad from reaching historical 
spawning grounds within Iowa (Steuck et al. 2010). In 1915, 48 Alabama 
shad were collected from the Upper Mississippi River near Keokuk, Iowa, 
and it was reported that some of these fish were able to make it past 
the Keokuk Dam (Lock and Dam #19) farther upstream (Coker 1928). Iowa 
DNR has collected no Alabama shad in the Upper Mississippi River in the 
areas between Lock and Dams #16 and #19 in the last 25 years (Smith et 
al. 2011). Barko's study (2004b) in the Upper Mississippi River, near 
the confluence of the Ohio and Missouri Rivers, found no Alabama shad 
between 1994 and 2000. A species richness study conducted by Koel 
(2004) indicates that the Upper Mississippi River in the state of 
Illinois does not support Alabama shad. The Upper Mississippi River 
Conservation Committee also indicated that there are only historical 
records of Alabama shad in the Upper Mississippi River, and none have 
been caught in over 10 years (Steuck et al. 2010). However, Wilcox 
(1999) and Ickes (2014) both list Alabama shad as being present in the 
Upper Mississippi River.
Missouri River
    The Missouri River is a major tributary of the Mississippi River 
and flows through Montana, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, 
Kansas, and Missouri. The lower Missouri River and its tributaries, 
located in the center of Missouri, probably supported the greatest 
number of Alabama shad in the state, although the records are limited 
(Smith et al. 2011). The Missouri Fish and Wildlife Information System, 
maintained by the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), states 
that Alabama shad spawn in the Missouri River and two of its 
tributaries, the Gasconade and Osage Rivers (MDC 2015, Pflieger 1997). 
The MDC's earliest record of an Alabama shad in the Gasconade River was 
23 fish collected in 1947 (C. Gemming, MDC biologist, pers. comm. to J. 
Rueter, NMFS, September 21, 2016). A study determining the habitat use 
of juvenile fish in the lower Missouri River did not identify Alabama 
shad as being present between 1987 and 1988 (Brown and Coon 1994). 
However, Galat (2005) recorded the presence of the species in the Lower 
Missouri River in 2005, and stated that Alabama shad are rare in the 
Ozark Plateaus region in southern Missouri. The MDC reported the 
collections, by trawl and electrofishing, of Alabama shad from the 
Gasconade River (41 fish in 1989, 4 fish in 1997, 17 fish in 2000, and 
26 fish in 2012); the purposes and locations of those studies were 
varied (e.g., project monitoring and fish surveys) and they were not 
directed at collecting Alabama shad (C. Gemming, MDC biologist, pers. 
comm. to J. Rueter, NMFS, September 21, 2016).
Meramec River
    The Meramec River is a tributary of the Mississippi River whose 
confluence is just south of the confluence of the Missouri River. The 
entire length of the river is contained within Missouri. Alabama shad 
were known to spawn in the Meramec River prior to 1978 (Mills et al. 
1978) and a second spawning location in the river was discovered in the 
Big River tributary (Mills et al. 1978). Between 1980 and 1997, 88 
juvenile and 8 adult Alabama shad were captured in Missouri rivers, 
including the Meramec River (Pflieger 1997). The University of 
Tennessee reported the collection of 33 Alabama shad from the Big River 
shoals in 1990 (Fishnet2 2016, Catalogue #29.12) Burr et al. (2004) and 
Buchanan et al. (2012) list the Meramec as one of the remaining 
spawning rivers of Alabama shad. The Missouri Fish and Wildlife 
Information System, maintained by the Missouri Department of 
Conservation, also states that Alabama shad spawn in the Meramec River 
(MDC 2015).
Lower Mississippi River Mainstem
    The Lower Mississippi River is the portion of the river downstream 
of Cairo, Illinois. Alabama shad historically used the Mississippi 
River as a means to reach many of its tributaries, but none have been 
found in the lower portion of the waterway in recent years. Surveys 
conducted by USACE on the Lower Mississippi River (north of Baton 
Rouge, Louisiana) in the early 1980s show a slow decline in the number 
of adult and juvenile Alabama shad (Pennington 1980, Conner 1983, Smith 
et al. 2011). From the Thibodaux Weir on Bayou Lafourche, between 
Donaldsonville and Raceland, Louisiana, a single Alabama shad was 
caught using a gillnet in March of 2006 (Dyer 2007). Three Alabama shad 
were caught in Louisiana just west of Atchafalaya Bay between 1992 and 
1996 by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife

[[Page 4032]]

and Fisheries (Smith et al. 2011). However, no records of shad have 
been reported in recent years in annual fish surveys conducted by USGS 
in other Louisiana streams and rivers (Smith et al. 2011).
Ohio River
    The Ohio River is the largest tributary by volume of the 
Mississippi River and flows through Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, 
Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois. Although the species was present and 
abundant enough to support a small and brief commercial fishery during 
the late 19th century and early 20th century in Ohio, by 1989 the 
majority of Alabama shad had been extirpated from the Ohio River 
(Pearson and Pearson 1989). The USGS has not collected any Alabama shad 
from the Ohio River since 1993 and the USFWS has no records of Alabama 
shad in its database (Smith et al. 2011). Hammerson (2010) cites that 
Etnier and Starnes (1993) recorded the collection of a large adult from 
the Tennessee River (which flows into the Ohio River) just below 
Kentucky Dam in Marshall County, Kentucky, in July 1986. However, there 
have been no recent observations or collections of the species in the 
Tennessee River (Smith et al. 2011). Although the species was once 
present in the Clinch and Stones Rivers (tributaries of the Tennessee 
River), no collections of Alabama shad were made in these systems after 
1993 (Hammerson 2010, Etnier and Starnes 1993). Historically, the 
Wabash River, another tributary of the Ohio River, was said to have a 
``very limited number'' of Alabama shad in its waters in the mid-1800s 
(Daniels 1860).
Arkansas River
    The Arkansas River is a major tributary of the Mississippi River 
that drains Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. Alabama shad have 
not been collected in the Arkansas River since an 1892 collection of 
one specimen in the Mulberry River tributary (M. Oliver, Chief of 
Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game Commission, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, 
NMFS, November 5, 2013). A few specimens were captured from the Poteau 
River, a tributary of the Arkansas River, prior to the 1950s (Cross and 
Moore 1952), but Lindsey et al. (1983) stated the species' status was 
unclear. A compilation of 20 years of fish collection data from 
Arkansas riverine systems by Matthews and Robison (1988) indicated no 
records of Alabama shad. The species may have been extirpated from the 
watershed by the construction of dams in the McClelland-Kerr Arkansas 
River Navigation System in the early 1970s (M. Oliver, Chief of 
Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game Commission, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, 
NMFS, November 5, 2013).
Red River
    The Red River, a major tributary of the Mississippi River, flows 
through Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. The Washita, North 
Fork, Kiamichi, and Little Rivers, as well as Lake Texoma, are part of 
the Red River system. A compilation of 20 years of fish collection data 
from Arkansas riverine systems by Matthews and Robison (1988) indicated 
no records of Alabama shad in the Arkansas portion of the river. During 
a 6-year sampling period from 1996-2001, no Alabama shad were caught in 
the Red River (Buchanan et al. 2003). In a study on the effects of land 
alterations on fish assemblages, Rutherford et al. (1992) found no shad 
in the Little River. Presumably, Alabama shad are no longer able to 
reach their former spawning grounds in the Little River due to 
degradation of river habitat as a result of land modification (Buchanan 
et al. 2003). No Alabama shad were collected from Lake Texoma or any of 
its adjoining rivers (Red and Washita Rivers) between 1948 and 1958 
(Riggs and Bonn 1959). The Denison Dam likely excluded the species from 
these areas. The Altus Dam also likely excluded the species from Red 
River tributaries, including the North Fork, Brier Creek, and Kiamichi 
River, since there are no longer reports of Alabama shad (Winston and 
Taylor et al. 1991, Matthews et al. 1988). In recent years, during 
general river surveys conducted by the University of Oklahoma, Alabama 
shad have not been collected in southeast and central Oklahoma (Smith 
et al. 2011).
Illinois and Marys Rivers
    The Illinois and Marys Rivers are both minor tributaries of the 
Mississippi River contained solely within the state of Illinois. While 
there are historical records of shad within Illinois rivers (Smith et 
al. 2011), the historical abundance of Alabama shad in Illinois is not 
known. The first collection of Alabama shad from the Illinois River was 
47 fish taken in 1950 (Moore 1973). In a thorough report of the 
biodiversity of the state's rivers and streams, Page (1991) found no 
evidence of Alabama shad. However, Burr et al. (1996) reported two 
juvenile Alabama shad, one near the mouth of the Marys River in 1994 
and one in the Grand Tower in Devils Backbone Park in 1995. These two 
captures support the hypothesis that some adult shad were able to spawn 
in these areas during that time. Before these two captures, the last 
Alabama shad to be captured in Illinois was a juvenile in 1962 (Burr et 
al. 1996). Alabama shad appear to have been extirpated from many 
Illinois rivers and are considered rare in the state. Annual field 
studies conducted in the Illinois River by Illinois State University 
have resulted in no additional records of Alabama shad (Smith et al. 
2011).
White River
    The White River is a minor tributary of the Mississippi River that 
flows through Missouri and Arkansas and was recently discovered to 
contain a spawning population of Alabama shad (Buchanan et al. 2012). 
Matthews (1986) reported that no Alabama shad were found in White River 
tributaries from 1972-1973 or 1981-1983. However, the Arkansas Fish and 
Game Commission provided information during the public comment period 
on our 90-day finding that three Alabama shad were collected from the 
White River in 2006 (M. Oliver, Chief of Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and 
Game Commission, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, November 5, 2013). 
Buchanan et al. (2012) were the first to report the species in the 
White River drainage when they collected 3 juvenile Alabama shad over a 
sand-gravel bar in August 2006. The researchers believe the shad were 
spawned in the mainstem White River or one of its tributaries and they 
noted that the morphology and size of the White River specimens 
compared well with Alabama shad previously reported from other 
drainages in the state.
Ouachita River
    The Ouachita River is a minor tributary of the Mississippi River 
and flows through Arkansas and Louisiana. The Ouachita River system 
includes the Little Missouri and Saline Rivers. The Ouachita and Little 
Missouri Rivers contain spawning populations of Alabama shad (Buchanan 
et al. 1999). Four pre-1900 records of Alabama shad from the Ouachita 
River are known: One specimen near Hot Springs and three at Arkadelphia 
(Buchanan et al. 1999). Buchanan et al. (1999) reported that 16 
juvenile specimens were collected from the Saline River in 1972 and 3 
juvenile specimens at the juncture of the Little Missouri and Ouachita 
rivers in 1982. Buchanan et al. (1999) collected over 300 juvenile 
Alabama shad from the Ouachita River and the Little Missouri River 
between 1997 and 1998, and noted that Alabama shad were abundant at the 
four sites where they were collected. Buchanan et al. (1999) also 
documented a 1.3-kilogram (kg) adult taken on an artificial lure in 
April 1997

[[Page 4033]]

in the Ouachita River below Remmel Dam. The Arkansas Fish and Game 
Commission provided information during the public comment period on our 
90-day finding that 10 Alabama shad were collected from the Ouachita 
River in 2005 during a survey to evaluate the influence of increased 
minimum flows after the relicensing of the Remmel Dam (M. Oliver, Chief 
of Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game Commission, pers. comm. to K. 
Shotts, NMFS, November 5, 2013). Several Alabama shad from the Ouachita 
River were also collected and photographed on October 12, 2012, for the 
purpose of illustrating a new edition of the ``Fishes of Arkansas'' (M. 
Oliver, Chief of Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game Commission, pers. 
comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, November 5, 2013).
    Although the Saline River in Arkansas is the only free flowing 
river left in the state, there have been no recent reports of Alabama 
shad (Buchanan 1999). The Monroe Museum of Natural History at the 
University of Louisiana has 16 Alabama shad that were collected from 
the Saline River in 1972 (Buchanan et al. 2012). During the public 
comment period on the 90-day finding, the Arkansas Fish and Game 
Commission provided information from Layher et al. (1999) that their 
targeted assessment of Alabama shad at 80 sites in the Saline River did 
not encounter the species in the 4,863 fish collected and that severe 
drought conditions may have influenced the results (M. Oliver, Chief of 
Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game Commission, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, 
NMFS, November 5, 2013). Throughout the year, Arkansas State University 
conducts general fish sampling in the state's rivers and no captures of 
Alabama shad have been reported in recent years (Smith et al. 2011).
Lake Pontchartrain, Lake Maurepas, and the Tangipahoa River
    Alabama shad are only caught sporadically in the state of 
Louisiana, and there are limited data for the species in its rivers 
(Smith et al. 2011). The Tangipahoa River begins in southwest 
Mississippi and drains into Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana. Due west 
of Lake Pontchartrain, and connected by Pass Manchac and North Pass, is 
Lake Maurepas. No Alabama shad were caught in the Tangipahoa River in 
1994 (Knight 1994) and none were collected in Lake Pontchartrain 
between 1996 and 2000. However, individuals were collected in Lake 
Maurepas from 1983 to 1984 and in 2009 using trawl and gillnets, 
indicating that some fish still pass through Lake Pontchartrain 
(Hastings 1987, O'Connell et al. 2004, O'Connell et al. 2009).
Pearl River
    Multispecies studies of the Pearl River were conducted by Tulane 
University from 1963-1988 (Gunning and Suttkus 1990). Gunning and 
Suttkus (1990) looked at the relative abundance of 84 species over the 
course of the 25-year study, with sampling occurring at multiple 
stations in Louisiana and Mississippi either on a quarterly or annual 
basis. At stations where quarterly sampling was conducted, the spring 
survey occurred in February in the Mississippi portion of the river and 
April in the Louisiana portion of the river. Approximately 30 minutes 
were spent at each station unless the river was flooded and water depth 
limited sampling ability. Records from the Gunning and Suttkus (1990) 
sampling surveys show a steady decline in catches of Alabama shad. 
Sampling occurred in 16.1 km of the river above and below Bogalusa, 
Louisiana, for 25 years; a 64.4 km section of the West Pearl River was 
sampled for 16 years; and, a 64.4 km portion of the East Pearl River 
was sampled for 16 years. Between 1963 and 1965, 384 Alabama shad were 
caught from all river segments combined. Between 1965 and 1979, only 33 
Alabama shad were captured. One Alabama shad was captured in the Pearl 
River between 1979 and 1988 (Gunning and Suttkus 1990). Gunning and 
Suttkus (1990) attributed the declining catch of Alabama shad to 
declining abundance of the species.
    In the Gunning and Suttkus (1990) study, only one 30-minute 
multispecies survey was conducted during the spring once per year at 
some of their Pearl River stations. The studies targeting Alabama shad 
in the ACF River system are conducted over a 3-month period each year 
to ensure their collections encompass the peak spawning migration of 
Alabama shad, which can vary from year to year based on factors such as 
temperatures and river discharge (Sammons 2013, 2014, Kern 2016). 
Gunning and Suttkus (1990) state that the consistency of their 
methodology and the length of their study are sufficient to accurately 
indicate relative abundance. Gunning and Suttkus (1990) does provide 
one of the few long-term studies available for this species. However, 
as noted previously, low numbers of recorded Alabama shad individuals 
may be due, at least in part, to insufficient sampling effort during 
appropriate times (i.e., spawning migrations) and with the appropriate 
gear to target the species (Mettee and O'Neil 2003). This was observed 
in the ACF in large differences in Alabama shad captured in 
multispecies surveys conducted by FFWCC (J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. 
to K. Shotts, NMFS, November 12, 2013) versus studies targeting Alabama 
shad in ACF (Young 2010, 2011) during the same time period.
    Smith et al. (2011) state no Alabama shad have been captured in the 
Pearl River since then, although FishNet contains records of Alabama 
shad captured from the Pearl River in 1996 by the Illinois Natural 
History Survey and 2004 by Tulane University (Fishnet2 2016, Catalogue 
#38236 and #198208).
Pascagoula River
    The Pascagoula River system, made up of the Pascagoula, Leaf, and 
Chickasawhay Rivers, is the only system within the state of Mississippi 
inhabited by Alabama shad (Mickle et al. 2010, Mickle 2010). A total of 
531 Alabama shad (all age classes) were captured in the Pascagoula 
River system between 2004 and 2007 (307 from the Pascagoula River, 200 
from the Leaf River, and 24 from the Chickasawhay River; Smith et al. 
2011). The Pascagoula River system has one of the remaining spawning 
populations of Alabama shad as evidenced by Mickle's (2006) collection 
of 193 age-0 Alabama shad from 10 sites between 2004 and 2005. The Leaf 
and Pascagoula Rivers contain the highest populations of Alabama shad 
within this system due to their unimpounded waters and variety of 
habitats, with a smaller Alabama shad population in the Chickasawhay 
River (Mickle et al. 2010, Mickle 2010). Between 2004 and 2006, Mickle 
et al. (2010) captured 133 juvenile Alabama shad (66 from the Leaf 
River, 55 from the Pascagoula River, and 12 from the Chickasawhay 
River). Small numbers of Alabama shad were also caught in Black Creek, 
a tributary of the Pascagoula River, in 1986 and the late 1990s (Adams 
et al. 2000).
Mobile Bay and the Mobile River Basin
    The Mobile River basin spans Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and 
Tennessee. The Mobile River, which empties into Mobile Bay, branches 
upstream into the Alabama, Cahaba, Tallapoosa, Coosa, Tombigbee, and 
Black Warrior Rivers. The Alabama shad was first described as a species 
in 1896 in the Black Warrior River near Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Jordan and 
Evermann 1896). Alabama shad were once prevalent in the Mobile River 
basin (Evermann and Kendall 1897).
    Numerous juvenile Alabama shad were recorded in the Alabama River 
in 1951, the late 1960s, and the early 1970s

[[Page 4034]]

(Boschung 1992, Mettee and O'Neil 2003). A single Alabama shad (15.3 
cm) was also captured in Dog River (a small tributary draining into 
Mobile Bay) in 1964 (Williams and Gaines 1974, Boschung 1992, Hammerson 
2010). On the Alabama River, Claiborne Lock and Dam was opened for 
navigation in 1969 (Freeman et al. 2005). Upstream from Claiborne Lock 
and Dam, Millers Ferry Lock and Dam was constructed for the purpose of 
both power generation and navigation, with the lock opening in 1969 and 
power coming on line in 1970. Sampling in Mobile Bay in 1972 yielded no 
Alabama shad. Two individuals were caught in the Alabama River in the 
1990s: One in 1993 below Claiborne Lock and Dam, and one in 1995 below 
Miller's Ferry Lock and Dam (Smith et al. 2011). More recently, in 
February 2004, a single specimen (32.8 cm) was captured by the Alabama 
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Marine Resources 
Division, in Heron Bay (adjacent to Mobile Bay), presumably making its 
upstream spawning migration (Smith et al. 2011). The Alabama Division 
of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries conducted a year-long study in 
2009 in the Alabama River that did not collect any Alabama shad.
    Despite the existence of a thorough historical fisheries record of 
the Cahaba River system, no recent captures of Alabama shad from the 
upper reaches of the Cahaba River are documented. Both the Pierson et 
al. (1989) general fish faunal survey of the river from 1983-1988 and 
the Onorato et al. (1998 and 2000) sampling between 1995-1997 found no 
Alabama shad present in the upper region of the Cahaba River. The last 
Alabama shad collected was in 1968 and the only previously recorded 
fish reported in the Cahaba River at Centreville, Alabama, was in 1965 
(Onorato et al. 2000, Boschung 1992). The last specimen to be captured 
from the Coosa River was in 1966 (Boschung 1992). No Alabama shad were 
captured during fish sampling in the Tallapoosa River by Freeman et al. 
(2001).
    Mettee and O'Neil (2003) state that Alabama shad have not been 
found in the Tombigbee River since the 1901 construction of the 
Tombigbee lock system in the waterway. However, records provided by the 
Mississippi Museum of Natural Science during the public comment period 
on our 90-day finding showed that 5 Alabama shad were captured in the 
Tombigbee River in 1969 and one in 1971 (M. Roberts, Curator of Fishes, 
Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, 
October 21, 2013). In the Black Warrior River of Alabama, where the 
species was first described in 1896, one Alabama shad was subsequently 
collected, over one hundred years later in 1998 (Mettee and O'Neil 
2003).
    Conservation locking, similar to efforts conducted in the ACF River 
system, was undertaken on the Alabama River at Claiborne Lock and Dam 
and Miller's Ferry Lock and Dam in 2009 by the Alabama Department of 
Conservation and Natural Resources, USACE, and Auburn University after 
USGS suggested the locks could be used as a means of fish passage 
(Simcox 2012). At that time, no efforts were made to quantify passage 
efficiency or even monitor which species may be passing upstream and 
downstream through the locks. Freeman et al. (2005) stated that 
substantial potential for restoring populations of migratory, large-
river fishes such as Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi), Gulf 
sturgeon, Alabama shad, and southeastern blue sucker (Cycleptus 
meridionalis) entailed modifying Claiborne and Miller's Ferry, the two 
downstream-most dams on the Alabama River. Enhancing fish passage at 
Claiborne and Millers Ferry Locks and Dams could restore connectivity 
between the lower Alabama River and the Cahaba River, encompassing over 
400 km of riverine habitat from the Gulf to the fall line.
    In 2014, a study was initiated to determine if conservation locking 
could be used to pass Alabama Shad upriver or downriver during spawning 
season through the navigation locks at Claiborne Lock and Dam and 
Miller's Ferry Lock and Dam. With support from the FFWCC and Georgia 
DNR, Alabama shad from the ACF River system were collected and tagged 
before being stocked in the Alabama River. Fifteen Alabama shad were 
tagged and released below Claiborne Lock and Dam, and an additional 38 
Alabama shad were tagged and released above the dam. These fish were 
tracked both upstream and downstream of the dam. Of the Alabama shad 
released above the dam, 18 were later detected at 18 different 
locations, and 7 definite mortalities (no movement between successive 
locations) were eventually confirmed. The 7 confirmed mortalities 
occurred in the section of the Alabama River below Claiborne Lock and 
Dam to its confluence with the Tombigbee River. Kern and Sammons (2015) 
note that further research is necessary to determine whether Alabama 
shad found suitable spawning habitat in this location and halted 
downstream movements, or whether they died as a result of cumulative 
stress from handling and transport. One fish was detected approximately 
53 mi (85 km) below Claiborne Lock and Dam, indicating successful 
downriver passage through the lock. Twenty fish were never detected. 
There were large areas where no tagged fish were detected, and some 
fish moved over 50 mi (80 km) in 2 days. ``Leap-frogging'' was also 
observed, with shad being detected at downstream and upstream 
locations, but escaping detection in between.
    Of the 15 tagged fish released below Claiborne Lock and Dam, 3 were 
detected 93 times. One fish was detected 12 days after release below 
Gravine Island (just north of Mobile Bay) and was detected again 
upriver 6 days later, just below Claiborne Lock and Dam. This movement 
pattern indicated ``fallback'' (fish that move a great distance 
downriver shortly after stocking), but in this case, the fish 
eventually moved upriver. Another fish remained in the vicinity of 
Claiborne Lock and Dam for 9 days and was not detected thereafter. A 
third fish was detected several times moving downstream after release 
but not later. No tagged Alabama shad were detected above Claiborne 
Lock and Dam and researchers hypothesized this low number could have 
been due to high water events or mortalities.
    In 2015, 27 Alabama shad from the ACF River system were tagged and 
stocked below Miller's Ferry Lock and Dam (and above Claiborne Lock and 
Dam). Detections of tagged fish were much higher in 2015 than 2014, 
likely due to higher river flows in 2014 (Kern and Sammons 2015), with 
17 of the 27 fish detected for a total of 371 detections. Similar to 
2014, large movements over short time periods were observed, with most 
of the movements being in a downstream direction. No fish were found to 
have successfully navigated upstream of Miller's Ferry Lock and Dam, 
although many of the fish passed downstream of Claiborne Lock and Dam.
Escambia River and Conecuh River
    The Conecuh River begins in Alabama and becomes the Escambia River 
at the Florida border. Alabama shad were documented in the Escambia/
Conecuh River system as early as 1900 (Evermann and Kendall 1900). This 
system contains one of the known remaining Alabama shad spawning 
populations (Smith et al. 2011). Bailey (1954) reported the capture of 
two individuals in the Escambia River in 1954. In 2009, two Alabama 
shad were caught in the Escambia River by FFWCC, one in spring and one 
in the fall (Smith et al. 2011; E. Nagid, FFWCC, pers. comm. to K. 
Shotts, NMFS, November 26, 2014). Studies indicate there are small 
populations of Alabama shad in

[[Page 4035]]

southern Alabama, including within the Conecuh River (Barkuloo 1993, 
Adams et al. 2000, Mettee and O'Neil 2003). Smith et al. (2011) 
reported that 11 Alabama shad were captured in the Conecuh River in 
2000 and one in 2010 by the Alabama Department of Wildlife and 
Fisheries.
Choctawhatchee River
    The Choctawhatchee River begins in Alabama. As it flows south, it 
is joined by one of its tributaries, the Pea River, then continues 
through the Florida panhandle and into the Gulf of Mexico. Some studies 
indicate there are small spawning populations of Alabama shad in 
southern Alabama, including in the Choctawhatchee and Pea Rivers 
(Barkuloo 1993, Adams et al. 2000, Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Young 2010). 
Smith et al. (2011) reported the capture of 400 Alabama shad from the 
Choctawhatchee River system in 2000.
Ochlockonee River
    Alabama shad were historically present in the Ochlockonee River, a 
fast running river that flows from Georgia into Florida. Smith et al. 
(2011) reported that the last specimens to be collected in the 
Ochlockonee River were captured in 1977 below Jackson Bluff Dam (Swift 
1977). During the public comment period announced in the 90-day 
finding, FFWCC reported that 4 Alabama shad were collected near the 
Talquin (Jackson Bluff) Dam in 2011 (J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. to 
K. Shotts, NMFS, November 12, 2013).
Econfina River
    The Econfina River is a minor river draining part of the Big Bend 
region of Florida. It empties into Apalachee Bay. Historical data for 
Alabama shad are not available for this river, but, FFWCC reported 
during the public comment period that 1 Alabama shad was collected in 
the Econfina River in 2006 (J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, 
NMFS, November 12, 2013).
Suwannee River
    The Suwannee River originates from the Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia 
and runs south through Florida. Historically, the Suwannee River has 
been the easternmost boundary of the Alabama shad's range (Herald and 
Strickland 1946). There is still a spawning population of Alabama shad 
in the Suwannee River (Smith et al. 2011). Sporadic sampling in the 
Suwannee River has included Alabama shad (Mettee and O'Neil 2003). 
Records from the Florida Museum of Natural History and the FFWCC show 
that 3-27 Alabama shad were collected annually between 1990-1995 
(FishNet2 2016; search terms ``Alosa alabamae,'' ``1990-2016,'' and 
``Suwannee''). Mickle (2010) collected 6 fish. Smith et al. (2011) 
reported that FFWCC caught 15 Alabama shad on the Withlacoochee River, 
a tributary of the Suwannee River, in late November 2010 (Smith et al. 
2011). The Florida Museum of Natural History also shows that 2 Alabama 
shad were collected in 2015 (FishNet2 2016; Catalogue #238044 and 
#238066).
Extinction Risk Assessment
    We estimated both the current extinction risk for Alabama shad and 
the anticipated risk in the foreseeable future. We defined the 
``foreseeable future'' as the timeframe over which threats or the 
species' response to those threats can be reliably predicted to impact 
the biological status of the species. First, we evaluated demographic 
factors associated with population viability (abundance, productivity, 
spatial distribution, and diversity) and how they are contributing to 
the extinction risk of Alabama shad. We then performed a threats 
assessment using the factors listed in Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA by 
identifying the severity of threats that exist now and estimating their 
severity in the foreseeable future.
    We used the methods developed by Wainwright and Kope (1999) to 
organize and summarize our findings on the contributions of the 
demographic factors and threats listed in ESA Section 4(a)(1) to the 
extinction risk of Alabama shad. This approach has been used in the 
review of many other species (Pacific salmonids, Pacific hake, walleye 
pollock, Pacific cod, Puget Sound rockfishes, Pacific herring, and 
black abalone, and foreign sawfishes) to summarize the status of the 
species according to demographic risk criteria. McElhany et al. (2000) 
examined short and long-term trends in abundance, productivity, spatial 
structure, and genetic variability as the primary indicators of risk. 
Populations that are more fragmented have less genetic exchange and 
therefore less connectivity, increasing the risk of extinction. Loss of 
fitness and loss of diversity can occur from random genetic effects and 
increase the risk of extinction for a species. We used the five-level 
qualitative scale from Wainwright and Kope (1999) to describe our 
assessment of the risk of extinction for Alabama shad for each 
demographic category, both currently and in the foreseeable future. We 
also used this scale to describe our assessment of each of the threats 
from ESA Section 4(a)(1). At the lowest level, a factor, either alone 
or in combination with other factors, is considered ``unlikely'' to 
significantly contribute to risk of extinction for a species. The next 
lowest level describes a factor that, on its own, is considered to be 
at ``low'' likelihood of contributing to the extinction risk, but could 
contribute in combination with other factors. The next level is 
considered a ``moderate'' risk of extinction for the species, but in 
combination with other factors contributes significantly to the risk of 
extinction. A ranking of ``likely'' means that factor by itself is 
likely to contribute significantly to the risk of extinction. Finally, 
the most threatening factors are considered ``highly likely'' to 
contribute significantly to the risk of extinction.
    Both ``low'' and ``moderate'' rankings require that the demographic 
factor or threat be considered alone, as well as in combination with 
other factors. In this determination, we first consider each of the 
demographic factors and threats independently, then evaluate how they 
may interact in combination to contribute to the extinction risk of 
Alabama shad. Our rankings of demographic factors and threats do not 
translate directly to extinction risk conclusions. Ranking simply 
describes how we considered the information. For instance, one or more 
demographic factors could be ranked as ``highly likely'' to be 
contributing to the extinction risk of a species without concluding 
that the species is threatened or endangered. For example, low 
abundance may be considered to present a moderate threat to the 
extinction risk of Alabama shad, but is offset by the species' high 
productivity and wide spatial distribution.
    In some cases, there was not enough information or too much 
uncertainty in pending outcomes to rank a threat's contribution to the 
risk of extinction for Alabama shad using the categories established by 
Wainwright and Kope (1999). In those cases, we classify the 
contribution of the threat to the extinction risk of Alabama shad as 
being ``unknown.'' Even for threats we ultimately classify as unknown, 
we provide and evaluate whatever information is available, in some 
cases providing information on how related surrogate species (e.g., 
other Alosas) may be responding to the identified potential threat. 
NMFS recently issued updated ESA listing guidance (May 26, 2016) that 
states in order to list a species, the agency must affirmatively 
determine on the basis of a set of scientific facts that a species is 
at risk. The ESA does not allow for listings to be based on giving the 
species the benefit of the doubt. The guidance

[[Page 4036]]

clarifies that in the absence of any information about threats to a 
species, the null hypothesis is that the risk is low (generally low, 
not as defined by Wainwright and Kope (1999). Specific supporting 
information must be cited in order to elevate the potential threat to a 
moderate or high risk category (again generally, not as defined by 
Wainwright and Kope (1999). In cases where we classified a threat as 
having an ``unknown'' risk to the species, we considered whether the 
``unlikely'' or ``low'' category established in Wainwright and Kope 
(1999) was most appropriate. Because the ``low'' category by definition 
states that a threat could contribute to the extinction risk of a 
species in combination with other factors, per the listing guidance, we 
ultimately evaluated ``unknown'' threats as being ``unlikely'' to 
significantly contribute to the risk of extinction for Alabama shad.
    We determined the extinction risk for the species as a whole by 
integrating the demographic risks and the threats assessment, including 
considerations of any uncertainty in the risks and threats. We made a 
determination as to whether the species warrants listing as threatened 
or endangered, or whether we believe listing is not warranted. Finally, 
we determined whether there was a significant portion of the species' 
range that may warrant listing as threatened or endangered.

Foreseeable Future

    Per NMFS' May 2016 revised listing guidance, the ``foreseeable 
future'' describes the extent to which the Secretary can, in making 
determinations about the future conservation status of the species, 
reasonably rely on predictions about the future (Department of the 
Interior Solicitor's Memorandum M-37021, ``The Meaning of `Foreseeable 
Future' in Section 3(20) of the Endangered Species Act'' (Jan. 16, 
2009)). Those predictions can be in the form of extrapolation of 
population or threat trends, analysis of how threats will affect the 
status of the species, or assessment of future events that will have a 
significant new impact on the species. We believe that the appropriate 
period of time corresponding to the foreseeable future should account 
for the Alabama shad's life-history characteristics and the most 
significant threats facing the species.
    The Alabama shad is an early-maturing species (Mickle et al. 2010) 
with high productivity (Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Ingram 2007). Like 
other members of the Alosa family, Alabama shad populations may 
fluctuate significantly from year to year (Sammons and Young 2012). The 
time period associated with the foreseeable future for Alabama shad 
should be long enough to assess population response while taking into 
consideration the high variability inherent in the species. Below, we 
discuss generation time in relation to our ability to reliably predict 
the species' conservation status.
    In defining the foreseeable future, we considered generation time, 
specifically defined here as the time it takes for a sexually mature 
Alabama shad to be replaced by offspring with the same spawning 
capacity. Age-2 to age-4 fish make up the majority of spawning Alabama 
shad; therefore, using our definition, the generation time for Alabama 
shad is 4-8 years. Generation time is inversely related to productivity 
and/or resilience. Highly productive species with short generation 
times are more resilient than less productive, long-lived species, as 
they are quickly able to take advantage of suitable conditions for 
reproduction (Mace et al. 2002). Species with shorter generation times, 
such as Alabama shad (4-8 years), experience greater population 
variability than species with long generation times, because they 
maintain the capacity to replenish themselves more quickly following a 
period of low survival (Mace et al. 2002). We believe that the impacts 
from the threats on the biological status of the species can be 
confidently predicted within the 12- to 24-year (three-generation) 
timeframe. Given their high population variability, projecting out 
further than three generations could lead to considerable uncertainty 
in estimating the population trajectory for Alabama shad. The timeframe 
of three generations is widely used to assess trends in populations and 
has been applied to decision-making models by many other conservation 
management organizations, including the American Fisheries Society 
(AFS), the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species 
of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), and the International Union for 
Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
    The foreseeable future timeframe is also a function of the 
reliability of available data regarding the identified threats and 
extends only as far as the data allow for making reasonable predictions 
about the species' response to those threats. In our extinction risk 
assessment, we determined the abundance of Alabama shad and the 
presence of dams are the highest ranked threats, both contributing a 
moderate level of risk to Alabama shad. The remaining threats are 
ranked as either contributing a low or unknown level of risk to Alabama 
shad, or being unlikely to contribute to the species extinction risk.
    Small populations may have less of a buffer against threats than 
large populations (McElhany et al. 2000). We ranked low abundance as 
posing a moderate threat to Alabama shad's extinction risk. Our 
consideration of generation time above discusses how the abundance of 
Alabama shad is variable, and the species can fluctuate widely from 
year to year. We determined projecting out further than three 
generations could lead to considerable uncertainty in estimating the 
population trajectory for Alabama shad.
    We also consider the timeframe over which the effect of dams on 
Alabama shad populations can be predicted. Dams are believed to be the 
main cause of the initial decline of Alabama shad. Existing dams 
continue to block habitat and cause downstream effects today, but few 
new dams have been built since the mid-1980s (Graf 1999). The threat of 
dams to Alabama shad has not increased for the past 30 years, and is 
not expected to increase in the future due to the advent of 
environmental laws and public awareness that occurred after the era of 
big dam building (Doyle et al. 2003, Graf 1999). The threat of dams to 
Alabama shad is more likely to decrease in the future, as dams are 
either removed or additional fish passages are added. Environmental 
concerns are coinciding with a policy window in which many private dams 
are coming up for regulatory re-licensing with the Federal Energy and 
Regulatory Commission (FERC) and operational guidelines for publicly-
operated dams are being reviewed (Doyle et al. 2003). Upstream effects 
from dams may be reduced through fish passage technology, which is 
becoming increasingly efficient (Roscoe and Hinch 2010). Fish passage 
may be voluntarily implemented at dams, or even required by Federal 
regulations in some instances. Downstream effects from dams are also 
becoming better understood and dam operators are becoming more willing 
and able (and may be required in some instances) to alter operations to 
minimize the ecological effects downstream (Poff and Hart 2002). 
Further, an estimated 85 percent of the dams in the United States will 
be near the end of their operational lives by 2020 (Doyle et al. 2003). 
Economic considerations and environmental concerns may result in dam 
removals, as maintenance, operation, repairs are often much costlier 
than dam removal (Doyle et al. 2003, Stanley and Doyle 2003).

[[Page 4037]]

    It is unknown to what extent the implementation of fish passage, 
modifications to dam operations, or dam removal will occur in rivers 
inhabited by Alabama shad. The lack of new dam building in the past 30 
years coupled with increased environmental regulation and public 
awareness makes it unlikely that the threat of dams to Alabama shad 
will increase and more likely that there could be a decrease of this 
threat to the species. However, we cannot predict where dam 
modifications or removal may occur, and how Alabama shad may be 
affected. Our ability to predict the response of Alabama shad 
populations to the threat is limited by the life history 
characteristics of the species (i.e., its variability in response to 
all of the factors affecting the population) rather than any 
variability in the threat of dams itself.
    In defining foreseeable future, we further considered the 
interaction of demographic characteristics (parameters describing the 
viability of a population, such as abundance and productivity) and the 
species' response to various threats, primarily dams. Smith et al. 
(2011) conducted a population viability analysis (PVA) on Alabama shad 
in the ACF River system. Researchers selected 20 years as the timeframe 
over which the PVA could reliably model population responses of Alabama 
shad based on the species' demographic characteristics and various 
combinations of natural and anthropogenic threat scenarios affecting 
their survival and growth. The 20-year timeframe used in the PVA falls 
within the three-generation timeframe discussed above. This timeframe 
takes into account aspects of the species' life history and also allows 
the time necessary to provide for the recovery of populations. Thus, we 
determined for the purpose of the extinction risk assessment, a 20-year 
timeframe, corresponding approximately to the three-generation time 
period, to be appropriate for use as the foreseeable future for Alabama 
shad.

Demographic Risks

    Threats to a species' long-term persistence are manifested 
demographically as risks to its abundance, population growth rate, 
spatial structure and connectivity, and genetic and ecological 
diversity. These demographic risks provide the most direct indices or 
proxies of extinction risk. A species at very low levels of abundance 
and with few populations will be less tolerant to environmental 
variation, catastrophic events, genetic processes, demographic 
stochasticity, ecological interactions, and other processes compared to 
large numbers in many populations (e.g., Meffe and Carroll 1994, 
Caughley and Gunn 1996). A population growth rate that is unstable or 
declining over a long period of time has less resiliency to future 
environmental change (e.g., Lande 1993, Middleton and Nisbet 1997, 
Foley 1997). A species that is not widely distributed across a variety 
of well-connected habitats is at increased risk of extinction due to 
environmental perturbations, including catastrophic events, compared to 
a species that is widely distributed (Schlosser and Angermeier 1995, 
Hanski and Gilpin 1997, Tilman and Lehman 1997, Cooper and Mangel 
1999). A species that has lost locally adapted genetic and ecological 
diversity may lack the ability to exploit a wide array of environments 
and endure short- and long-term environmental changes (e.g., Groot and 
Margolis 1991, Wood 1995). Assessing extinction risk of a species 
involves evaluating whether risks to its abundance, population growth 
rate, spatial structure, and/or diversity are such that it is at or 
near an extinction threshold, or likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future.
Abundance
    A small population faces a host of risks intrinsic to its low 
abundance while large populations exhibit a greater degree of 
resilience (McElhany et al. 2000). The only population estimates 
available for Alabama shad are from the ACF River system in Florida, 
Alabama, and Georgia. This system is believed to have the largest 
population of Alabama shad. Population estimates fluctuated widely from 
2005 to 2015. For instance, 26,193 Alabama shad were estimated to be in 
the system in 2011. The following year, the estimate of Alabama shad 
peaked at 122,578. Sammons and Young (2012) noted that the population 
sizes of species in the Alosa genus commonly fluctuate widely. 
Researchers in the ACF River system believe that Alabama shad abundance 
may be a response to conservation efforts in the system (Schaffler et 
al. 2015). They also note that variability in population number may be 
linked to environmental conditions. Specifically, Sammons and Young 
(2012) believe that heavy rainfall in 2009 may have led to strong year 
classes in 2010 and 2012.
    No population estimates are available for other rivers, although 
several hundred Alabama shad have been captured in studies conducted in 
the past 15-20 years in the Pascagoula (Mississippi), Choctawhatchee 
(Florida/Alabama), and Ouachita (Arkansas/Louisiana) River systems. The 
annual Alabama shad population estimates in the ACF River system were 
developed through mark-recapture studies. The initial capture of less 
than a hundred to over 1,000 Alabama shad resulted in population 
estimates of thousands to over 100,000 Alabama shad. Mark-recapture can 
be used to produce abundance estimates without capturing every 
individual in the population because in addition to counting the number 
of individuals captured during the study, they estimate the detection 
probability of individuals (i.e., the probability that an individual 
will be captured during the study; Yoccoz et al. 2001). Detection 
probability can be influenced by population size, but can also be 
influenced by the sampling season and methodologies used, as well as a 
species' habitat affinities (Gu and Swihart 2004). Population estimates 
cannot be reliably developed from studies that collect a species, but 
do not consider its associated detection probability. Pellet and 
Schmidt (2005) note that it is often very difficult, if not impossible, 
to detect all individuals, populations, or species, and found during 
their surveys that the detection probability for a common species of 
tree frog was very high, while the detection probability of a common 
toad species was very low. Yoccoz et al. (2001) note that detection 
probability is generally less than 100 percent and usually variable. 
Although we cannot estimate the population abundance of Alabama shad in 
the Pascagoula, Choctawhatchee, and Ouachita Rivers, based on the 
likelihood that the species' detection probability is less than 100 
percent, we can infer that the sizes of those Alabama shad populations 
are greater than the hundreds of fish collected in those systems. For 
instance, during the 2013 targeted study in the ACF, 251 Alabama shad 
were captured and 1 recaptured to yield the population estimate of 
2,039 (S. Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, 
NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End Summary Meeting, January 2014).
    Generally, the number of Alabama shad in rivers other than the ACF, 
Pascagoula, Choctawhatchee, and Ouachita is likely to be small. A 
multi-state, multi-agency report from 1994 (Gutreuter et al. 1997) 
indicates that Alabama shad were found in the Upper Mississippi River, 
but does not note the number or locations of fish caught. Smaller 
numbers (one to several dozens) of Alabama shad have been captured in 
the last 25 years in portions of the Lower Mississippi River, 
Mississippi River tributaries (Missouri, Marys, and

[[Page 4038]]

White Rivers), Mobile, Escambia, Conecuh, Ochlockonee, Econfina, and 
Suwannee Rivers.
    Alabama shad was never an economically important species, and, 
therefore, information from fisheries statistics, such as landings 
data, is rare. Hildebrand (1963) noted that Alabama shad were 
considered unfit for human consumption, and the lack of demand produced 
no incentive to capture the species or record its presence and 
abundance. Most of the recent directed research studies on Alabama shad 
have occurred in the ACF and Pascagoula River systems. Capture data for 
other systems comes from general multi-species surveys, captures 
incidental to other research studies, and anecdotal information. Mettee 
and O'Neil (2003) note that low numbers of recorded Alabama shad 
individuals may be due, at least in part, to insufficient sampling 
effort during appropriate times (i.e., spawning migrations) and with 
the appropriate gear to target the species. Hildebrand (1963) noted the 
importance of proper gear, citing greatly increased catches of Alabama 
shad that occurred in Kentucky when surface-fishing seines were 
substituted for bottom-fishing seines. The lack of data is echoed in 
the responses received from fish and wildlife agencies during the 
public comment period on our 90-day finding. The Arkansas Fish and Game 
Commission stated they could not assess the status of Alabama shad in 
their state because of the scarcity of information on the species, the 
lack of targeted surveys, and the unknown detectability of the species 
(M. Oliver, Chief of Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game Commission, 
pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, November 5, 2013). It is unknown 
whether the lack or low numbers of Alabama shad reported for many river 
systems accurately reflects the abundance in those systems or whether 
it is indicative of the lack of targeted studies, but ultimately, the 
population abundance in these areas is still unknown.
    The threshold abundance below which Alabama shad populations cannot 
rebound (quasi-extinction) is unknown. In conducting the PVA on Alabama 
shad from the ACF River system, Smith et al. (2011) conservatively 
assumed 420 females as the threshold for quasi-extinction based on the 
lowest recorded population abundance for the ACF River system at the 
time (from Ely et al. 2008). That assumption was not based on a minimum 
number of females needed to recover the population, but instead the 
lowest number of females observed in the viable population during 
previous studies. In fact, Smith et al. (2011) report that a viable 
spawning population persists in the Suwannee River at the eastern edge 
of the species' range, even though sporadic sampling since 2003 has 
only reported a total of 6-15 individual Alabama shad. We do not have 
historical abundances of Alabama shad, which can be indicative of 
abundance levels associated with low extinction risk. However, 
populations may also be at low risk of extinction at abundance levels 
below historical levels, and accurate estimates of historical abundance 
are not essential for evaluating extinction risk. Information from 
other species in the Alosa genus indicates that the species can rebound 
from extremely low abundance. The 12-month determination for 2 species 
of river herring (78 FR 48944; August 12, 2013), which determined that 
listing alewives (A. pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (A. 
aestivalis) under the ESA was not warranted, states that highly fecund, 
short generation time species like river herring may be able to 
withstand a 95 to 99 percent decline in biomass (Mace et al. 2002). The 
12-month determination (78 FR 48944; August 12, 2013) states that both 
alewives and blueback herring may have declined by more than 98 percent 
from their historical baseline (Limburg and Waldman 2009), but that the 
abundance of each species is stable or increasing, indicating the 
species are self-sustainable and are at a low to moderate-low risk of 
extinction.
    Directed studies and current data on Alabama shad abundance are 
mostly lacking. The available population estimates for the ACF River 
system since 2005 are relatively large and highly variable. Ely et al. 
(2008) compared Alabama shad and American shad. They noted that, given 
the similarities in life history characteristics of Alabama shad and 
American shad and the similarities in discharge, drainage area, and 
latitude between the Apalachicola River and other southeastern rivers, 
the populations of adult Alabama shad and American shad might be 
expected to be similar. Ely et al. (2008) cited the number of American 
shad reaching the first barrier to migration in the Savannah River, 
estimated as nearly 190,000 (Bailey et al. 2004), and the number in the 
Altamaha River system estimated as 133,000 (Georgia DNR 2005), and 
concluded that the population size of the Alabama shad in the 
Apalachicola River from 2005-2007 (approximately 2,700-26,000 shad) was 
relatively small. Subsequent to the Ely et al. (2008) study, the 
numbers of Alabama shad in the Apalachicola River generally increased, 
ranging from 2,000-122,500 from 2008-2012. It is not known what the 
historical abundance of Alabama shad was in the ACF River system, but 
the Alabama Shad Restoration Plan for the ACF River System (NMFS et al. 
2012) projected that the carrying capacity (the maximum population of a 
species that can survive indefinitely in a given environment) for 
Alabama shad in the ACF is approximately 1.3 million adults. Capture 
data from other systems are limited or lacking but suggest low to 
moderate sized populations in some rivers and absence in others.
    The only current population estimates available for Alabama shad 
are in the ACF River system. Because Alabama shad were never 
commercially or recreationally important, few historical records exist. 
There are no recorded historical population sizes in any river systems 
for comparison, although anecdotal information on observations and 
small, short-lived fisheries provide some historical context (e.g., 
Coker 1929, 1930). However, many researchers recognize that Alabama 
shad populations have experienced decline from historical population 
sizes (e.g., Gunning and Suttkus 1990, Buchanan et al. 1999, Mettee and 
O'Neil 2003, Mickle et al. 2010).
    Declines have been estimated in other Alosa species with longer 
historical records. Hall et al. (2012) attempted to estimate historical 
alewife populations in Maine for the years 1600-1900 using analyses of 
nineteenth and twentieth century harvest records and waterway 
obstruction records dating to the 1600s and estimated that obstructed 
spawning access reduced the annual alewife productivity per watershed 
to 0-16 percent of pre-dam estimates. The 12-month listing 
determination for river herring (78 FR 48944; August 12, 2013) reported 
that of the riverine stocks of alewife and blueback herring for which 
data were available and were considered in a stock assessment, 22 were 
depleted, 1 was increasing, and the status of 28 stocks could not be 
determined because the time-series of available data was too short. In 
most recent years, 2 riverine stocks were increasing, 4 were 
decreasing, and 9 were stable, with 38 rivers not having enough data to 
assess recent trends. Both alewives and blueback herring may already be 
at or less than 2 percent of the historical baseline. Because 
historical landings data are available for alewife and blueback 
herring, population modeling was feasible and used to determine the 
stability of the stocks in light of the declines. The conclusion of the 
12-

[[Page 4039]]

month determination (78 FR 48944; August 12, 2013) was that listing 
alewife and blueback herring under the ESA was not warranted because 
the abundance of each species is stable or increasing, indicating the 
species are self-sustainable and are at a low to moderate-low risk of 
extinction.
    Population sizes of Alabama shad and other Alosa species are known 
to be variable and the species can quickly rebound from low population 
numbers. Alabama shad are spawning and persisting in river systems 
along the Gulf Coast and in tributaries of the Mississippi River. Even 
smaller populations are considered to be self-sustaining (e.g., eastern 
Alabama rivers, Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Suwannee River, Smith et al., 
2011). The range of Alabama shad appears to be stable (Smith et al. 
2011). However, low abundance in combination with other factors could 
contribute significantly to the risk of extinction since smaller 
populations have less of a buffer against threats than larger 
populations. This aligns with the definition of a ``moderate risk'' 
under the risk classification system by Wainwright and Kope (1999).
    For comparison, the next highest ranking under Wainwright and 
Kope's (1999) classification system is for a threat that is presently 
low or moderate, but is likely to increase to high risk in the 
foreseeable future if present conditions continue. Although based 
largely on anecdotal information rather than population estimates and 
trends, we believe there is sufficient evidence to indicate that there 
have been declines in the abundance of Alabama shad and their low 
abundance could contribute significantly to their long-term risk of 
extinction. However, we do not have information suggesting that threats 
to Alabama shad populations are likely to lead to further decline to 
the point that their abundance would present a high risk to the 
species. The primary threat that led to the initial decline of the 
species was the installation of dams that block access to upriver 
spawning habitat (evaluated under Factor A of this listing 
determination). Although most dams are still in place and represent an 
obstacle to spawning Alabama shad, very few dams have been built in the 
last 30 years (Graf 1999). Few environmental laws were in existence 
when the dams were originally built, but the development and 
implementation of conservation measures in the last 20 years (Doyle et 
al. 2003) are likely to lessen the effect of dams on Alabama shad 
rather than to pose an increasing threat to the species. Other threats 
evaluated in this listing determination are ranked as either 
contributing a low or unknown level of risk to Alabama shad, or being 
unlikely to contribute to the species extinction risk. As discussed in 
each of these sections evaluating these threats, we do not have 
information that they will increase in the foreseeable future. 
Therefore, we ranked abundance throughout its range as contributing a 
moderate level of risk to the overall current and foreseeable 
extinction risk of Alabama shad.

Productivity

    Population growth rate (productivity) and factors that affect 
productivity provide information on how well a population is responding 
in the habitats and environmental conditions it is exposed to during 
its life cycle (McElhany et al. 2000). Whether a species' productivity 
has declined, or is declining, toward the point where populations may 
not be sustainable and whether habitat quality restricts productivity 
to non-sustainable levels are key pieces of information in assessing a 
species' extinction risk (Wainwright and Kope 1999). In assessing the 
productivity of Alabama shad, we considered life history traits, the 
number of spawning populations, and trends in abundance over time.
    Several life history traits make Alabama shad a relatively 
productive species (Smith et al. 2011). They reach sexual maturity 
quickly. Males start spawning as early as 1 year old, and females start 
spawning at 2 years old (Mickle et al. 2010). Female Alabama shad are 
known to release large numbers of eggs. Individual females in the 
Apalachicola River produce from 26,000-250,000 eggs and from 36,000-
357,000 in the Choctawhatchee River (Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Ingram 
2007). Females may have multiple spawning periods within the same 
spawning season (Mettee and O'Neil 2003). Because of the age range 
among spawning Alabama shad (1-5 years for males, 2-6 years for 
females), individuals may spawn multiple times in a lifetime (Laurence 
and Yerger 1967, Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Ingram 2007, Mickle et al. 
2010). Recent information from the ACF River system suggests that 
female Alabama shad may spawn only once during their lifetime, but may 
release several batches of eggs during the weeks that they are spawning 
(S. Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, 
November 2015).
    We also considered the number of Alabama shad spawning populations 
to assess the productivity of Alabama shad. The largest spawning 
population of Alabama shad is in the ACF River system, with smaller 
spawning populations believed to exist in the Missouri/Gasconade/Osage, 
Meramec, White, Ouachita/Little Missouri, Pascagoula/Leaf/Chickasawhay, 
Escambia/Conecuh, Choctawhatchee/Pea, and the Suwanee River systems. 
The life history traits of Alabama shad combined with the presence of 
multiple spawning populations contributes to the productivity potential 
of Alabama shad. Highly productive species with short generation times, 
like Alabama shad, are more resilient than less productive, long lived 
species, as they are quickly able to take advantage of suitable 
conditions for reproduction (Hutchings and Reynolds 2004, Mace et al. 
2002, Musick 1999). Species with shorter generation times, such as 
Alabama shad (4 to 8 years), experience greater population variability 
than species with long generation times, because they maintain the 
capacity to replenish themselves more quickly following a period of 
lower survival (Mace et al. 2002). This resilience was observed in the 
ACF River system when Alabama shad populations quickly increased when 
access to upstream spawning habitat was re-established by conservation 
locking through an existing dam.
    Alabama shad populations are generally believed to have declined in 
many areas where they were historically found. However, it is difficult 
to quantify any declines because of a lack of historical abundance data 
for most river systems and the lack of current population estimates for 
populations other than the ACF River system. Records of Alabama shad in 
the Pearl River are fairly complete and show a steady decline of the 
species. This decline was based on the total number of fish captured 
over time; it did not include estimating population numbers through the 
use of mark-recapture methods, like those used in the Apalachicola 
River. In the Pearl River, consistent sampling occurred in several 
sections of the river over 16-25 years: 384 fish captured 1963-1965; 33 
captured 1965-1979; and 1 individual captured 1979-1988 (Gunning and 
Suttkus 1990). Since then no records of shad have been reported during 
annual fish surveys conducted by several of the state's universities in 
the Pearl River (Smith et al. 2011). Surveys conducted by USACE on the 
Lower Mississippi River (north of Baton Rouge, Louisiana) in the early 
1980s also recorded the number of individuals encountered and showed a 
slow decline in the number of both adult and juvenile Alabama shad 
(Pennington 1980, Conner 1983, Smith et al. 2011). We can use the low

[[Page 4040]]

numbers or lack of Alabama shad captures/observations throughout the 
rest of their range to indicate declines from historical abundances. 
But it is hard to relate those numbers with the estimates for the 
Apalachicola that were calculated using mark-recapture techniques. 
However, it is clear that while once abundant enough to support small 
commercial fisheries in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and 
Iowa, Alabama shad are rarely collected throughout much of their former 
range (Adams et al. 2000, Daniels 1860). Alabama shad are believed to 
possibly be extirpated from the Ohio River since 1989 (Pearson and 
Pearson 1989). Alabama shad are considered rare in the state of 
Illinois and appear to have been extirpated from many rivers in the 
state (Smith et al. 2011).
    Declines have been estimated in other Alosa species with longer 
historical records. Hall et al. (2012) attempted to estimate historical 
alewife populations in Maine for the years 1600-1900 using analyses of 
nineteenth and twentieth century harvest records and waterway 
obstruction records dating to the 1600s. They estimated that obstructed 
spawning access in 9 watersheds reduced the annual alewife productivity 
per watershed to 0-16 percent of pre-dam estimates, equaling a 
cumulative lost fisheries production of 11 billion fish from 1750 to 
1900 (Hall et al. 2012).
    Attempts have been made to estimate past abundances of Alabama shad 
and habitat carrying capacity for conservation planning by using 
examples from other Alosa species. Comparisons have been made between 
Alabama shad and American shad. Ely et al. (2008) noted that, given the 
similarities in life history characteristics of Alabama shad and 
American shad and the similarities in discharge, drainage area, and 
latitude between the Apalachicola River and other southeastern rivers, 
the populations of adult Alabama shad and American shad might be 
expected to be similar. Ely et al. (2008) cited the number of American 
shad reaching the first barrier to migration in the Savannah River, 
estimated as nearly 190,000 (Bailey et al. 2004), and the number in the 
Altamaha River system estimated as 133,000 (Georgia DNR 2005), and 
concluded that the population size of the Alabama shad in the 
Apalachicola River from 2005-2007 (approximately 2,700-26,000 shad) was 
relatively small. Subsequent to the Ely et al. (2008) study, the 
numbers of Alabama shad in the Apalachicola River generally increased, 
ranging from 2,000-122,500 from 2008-2012 (as noted earlier, the 2013-
2015 data was considered to be skewed by sampling difficulties). 
Additionally, Ely et al. (2008) noted that fluctuations in abundance of 
American shad are well documented (citing Hattala et al. 1996, Atlantic 
States Marine Fisheries Commission 1998, Moring 2005) and variations in 
year-class strength typically observed in this genus suggest that 
populations of Alabama shad are capable of recovering quickly to 
historical levels under favorable conditions. A multi-agency Alabama 
Shad Restoration Plan for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River 
System (NMFS et al. 2012) calculated that the carrying capacity for the 
system is 1.3 million adult Alabama shad (700,000 in the Chattachoochee 
and 600,000 in the Flint), derived from the amount of free-flowing 
habitat in the mainstem and major tributaries of the Flint and 
Chattahoochee Rivers and using American shad population indices as a 
surrogate.
    In summary, we find the productivity potential for Alabama shad is 
relatively high, given its life history characteristics and the 
presence of multiple spawning populations within the species' range. 
This relatively high productivity potential of Alabama shad was 
confirmed in the ACF River system when population numbers greatly 
increased when access to historical spawning habitat was provided. 
Available data suggest a decline in abundance in many systems. Other 
Alosa species with longer and more complete historical records, such as 
alewife, have also shown declines in abundance. A comparison with 
American shad populations at similar latitudes and a habitat study 
indicate that the Alabama shad population in the ACF River system may 
be smaller than expected and below carrying capacity in the system. 
Managers and researchers note that low numbers of recorded Alabama shad 
individuals may be due, at least in part, to insufficient sampling 
effort during appropriate times (i.e., spawning migrations) and with 
the appropriate gear to target the species. We ranked productivity, on 
its own, to be at low risk of contributing significantly to the current 
and foreseeable risk of extinction for Alabama shad.

Spatial Distribution

    McElhany et al. (2000) stated that spatial structure is an 
important consideration in evaluating population viability because it 
affects evolutionary processes and can affect a population's ability to 
respond to environmental change. Wainwright and Kope (1999) stated that 
it is important to determine whether existing populations adequately 
represent historical patterns of geographic distribution and 
biodiversity and whether population fragmentation poses a risk. The 
historical distribution of Alabama shad spanned the Gulf Coast from the 
Suwannee River, Florida, to the Mississippi River, Louisiana. Within 
the Mississippi River and its tributaries, the species spanned north to 
Illinois and Iowa, westward to Oklahoma, and eastward to Kentucky and 
Ohio. The species is believed to be extirpated in some of the farthest 
reaches of its historical range, such as the Upper Mississippi River 
and Mississippi River tributaries in Oklahoma, Illinois, and Kentucky/
Ohio. However, Alabama shad can still be found in river systems in 
Arkansas, Missouri, and along the Gulf Coast. The current range of 
Alabama shad encompasses a diverse array of habitats, which potentially 
contributes to population stability. Smith et al. (2011) state that the 
current range of Alabama shad is believed to be stable.
    Maps displaying the best available information on the historical 
and current range (presence) of Alabama shad by river, including where 
the species continues to spawn, can be found at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/listing_petitions/species_esa_consideration/index.html (see Figures 1 and 2 for the 
eastern and western portions of the range, respectively). Historical 
and current range, as well as spawning rivers, are based on reports of 
the species presence from the literature (see the ``Distribution and 
Abundance'' section), but the maps do not represent the number of fish 
reported from a river system. In most cases, we do not have information 
on the exact portion(s) of river systems historically or currently 
inhabited by Alabama shad, or where spawning habitat is located. In the 
ACF River system (where the majority of recent directed research on 
Alabama shad is occurring), the map shows that Alabama shad likely do 
not pass above dams at Albany and George Andrews Lake. In other 
systems, it is unknown to what degree locks and dams and/or low head 
dams block upstream passage or allow some shad to move upstream and 
downstream. This is discussed in greater detail in the ``Dams'' section 
under ``A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range.'' In cases where no information is 
available on the specific extent of Alabama shad or its spawning 
habitat within a river system, we included the entire river

[[Page 4041]]

system as part of the range of Alabama shad.
    In developing the maps reflecting the historical and current range 
of Alabama shad, we determined we would include positive reports of 
Alabama shad over the last 24 years. The 24-year time frame was 
selected because dams within the geographic range of Alabama shad were 
completed 30 or more years ago (mid-1980s; Graf 1999). Since dams have 
the ability to alter the range of shad within rivers, older/pre-dam 
studies reporting shad would not reflect any alterations of the 
species' distribution due to the dam. Further, any alterations in the 
distribution of Alabama shad may not happen immediately after 
construction of a dam. Therefore we considered the maximum age observed 
in Alabama shad (6 years; Mettee and O'Neil 2003). We only included 
reports of Alabama shad that occurred at least 6 years after the era of 
dam-building ended (i.e., 24 years ago or less). Positive reports of 
Alabama shad in a river system in the last 24 years would indicate that 
new generations of shad persisted in the river system after the end of 
the dam-building era, even if a dam was constructed in the system. 
Therefore, positive reports collected during the 24-year time frame 
accounted for the presence of dams with the range of Alabama shad. We 
also used information from the literature on where the species is 
potentially extirpated to indicate the historical versus current range. 
In many instances, the information demonstrating persistence during the 
last 24 years is limited to just one or several verified 
identifications of Alabama shad. However, in view of the high 
productivity of shad, the challenges associated with detecting the 
species in non-targeted studies, and the episodic, anecdotal nature of 
available information, we believe it is reasonable to extrapolate from 
information confirming presence during the last 24 years that Alabama 
shad continue to occur in these systems.
    In some cases, such as the Mississippi River, Alabama shad are 
shown to inhabit a tributary but not the river mainstem. Although the 
mainstem is not included as part of the historical range, this does not 
necessarily indicate Alabama shad are not present in the mainstem, only 
that we did not find a positive report of their presence in the last 25 
years. In the example of the Mississippi River, the river mainstems are 
often not the subject of research surveys as high river flows and high 
vessel traffic raise concerns for human safety. Also, as noted earlier 
in this determination, Alabama shad can be difficult to detect, in both 
non-targeted or targeted surveys. Positive reports in the tributaries 
without reports from the mainstem could indicate the presence of 
landlocked populations or it could simply indicate that shad were 
present in the mainstem, but not surveyed or detected. Given the 
pelagic nature of Alabama shad, and their migratory life style, we 
believe that Alabama shad likely inhabit the mainstem of the rivers 
adjacent to the tributaries where they were reported.
    Spatial structure contributes to the resiliency of populations to 
various disturbances, which can occur across a range of spatial scales, 
from localized disturbances affecting a few miles of stream and 
therefore only a portion of a population, to regional impacts from 
events such as droughts that affect multiple populations (Williams et 
al. 2008). Hilborn et al. (2003) state there is growing recognition 
that many fish stocks consist of multiple combined geographic 
components. Spatial diversity in populations can lead to greater 
stability in fish species (Jorgensen et al. 2016). Schindler et al. 
(2010) referred to this as a ``portfolio effect'' that is analogous to 
the effects of asset diversity on the stability of financial 
portfolios. Hilborn et al. (2003) reported a ``portfolio effect'' in 
the resilience of sockeye salmon in Bristol Bay, Alaska, which the 
researchers attributed to the maintenance of diverse geographic 
locations and life history strategies that comprise the sockeye salmon 
stock. At different times during the 1900s, different geographic 
regions and different life history strategies contributed to the 
productivity of the stock, and Hilborn et al. (2003) concluded this 
likely buffered the stock against large-scale environmental conditions, 
providing long-term stability. Jorgensen et al. (2016) studied Chinook 
salmon populations from the Columbia River and also observed 
differential contributions of populations to species productivity, 
noting differences in migratory corridors, climate, and geology as 
potential factors.
    The current range of Alabama shad (the species' portfolio) 
encompasses a diverse array of habitats, which potentially contributes 
to population stability. Many Federal agencies and non-governmental 
organizations classify terrestrial and aquatic systems based on 
ecoregions, large areas of similar climate where ecosystems recur in 
predictable patterns (USFS 2016). Ecoregions are a widely recognized 
and applied geospatial unit for conservation planning, developed to 
represent the patterns of environmental and ecological variables known 
to influence the distribution of biodiversity features at broad scales 
(Abell et al. 2008). The boundaries of an ecoregion encompass an area 
within which important ecological and evolutionary processes most 
strongly interact (Abell et al. 2008). Conservation of blocks of 
natural habitat large enough to be resilient to large-scale 
disturbances and long-term changes are essential for large river 
systems in particular (Abell et al. 2008).
    Under several widely used ecoregion classification systems, Alabama 
shad populations inhabit heterogeneous habitats across multiple diverse 
ecoregions. Alabama shad occupy six ecoregion ``divisions'' that the 
U.S. Forest Service classifies based on precipitation, temperature, and 
vegetation or other natural land cover. The Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) identified four levels of ecoregions by analyzing patterns 
of biotic and abiotic phenomena, both terrestrial and aquatic. These 
phenomena include geology, landforms, soils, vegetation, climate, land 
use, wildlife, and hydrology (EPA 2016). Even at the coarsest level, 
the EPA's Level I ecoregion, which highlights major ecological areas, 
Alabama shad populations occupy 2 of the 12 ecoregions in the 
continental United States: The Eastern Temperate Forests and the Great 
Plains. The species occupies 4 of the 25 Level II ecoregions, and 14 of 
the 105 Level III ecoregions. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) uses a 
terrestrial ecoregion classification system similar to the EPA Level 
III ecoregions. Alabama shad populations occupy nine TNC terrestrial 
ecoregions.
    TNC also uses freshwater ecoregions with boundaries describing 
broad patterns of species composition and associated ecological and 
evolutionary processes (Abell et al. 2008). Along the Gulf Coast, 
Alabama shad occupy four freshwater ecoregions: The Apalachicola 
(containing the ACF River system and the Econfina River), the West 
Florida Gulf (includes the Escambia and Choctawhatchee River systems), 
Mobile Bay (containing the Mobile River system), and the Lower 
Mississippi (includes portions of the White River). In the northern 
part of their range, Alabama shad occupy three freshwater ecoregions: 
The Central Prairie (containing the Missouri River and its tributary, 
the Osage River), the Ozark Highlands (including a portion of the White 
River), and the Ouachita Highlands (including the Ouachita River and 
its Little Missouri River tributary). The ecoregions along the Gulf 
Coast are similarly defined by humid subtropical climates, but diverge 
in other characteristics. The Apalachicola ecoregion lies entirely 
within the coastal

[[Page 4042]]

plain, but the variety of habitats found in its rivers provide the 
foundation for a diverse freshwater fauna. Rivers in the Apalachicola 
ecoregion flow through shaded ravines with cool spring inputs, 
resembling habitats of more northerly regions. This ecoregion supports 
more species than adjacent lowland ecoregions. The West Florida Gulf 
ecoregion is defined by the lowland drainages that flow through 
extensive floodplain oak-hickory-pine forests. This ecoregion does not 
boast the same fish richness as the neighboring Mobile Bay. The Mobile 
Bay ecoregion has the highest level of aquatic diversity in the eastern 
Gulf. This is largely due to the variety of physiographic provinces 
occurring in this ecoregion, its size, and its escape from Pleistocene 
glaciation. This ecoregion is centered in central Alabama and includes 
eastern Mississippi, western Georgia, and a small area in southern 
Tennessee. The northern part of the ecoregion is characterized by 
Appalachian Blue Ridge and Appalachian mixed mesophytic forests, 
considered some of the most biologically diverse temperate forests in 
the world. These grade into Southeastern mixed forests, which are 
demarcated from conifer forests in the south by the fall line of the 
Atlantic Piedmont. Historically, rivers and streams in this ecoregion 
stretched over 1000 mi. Today, flow in the Mobile River is regulated by 
a series of upstream reservoirs on the Etowah, Coosa, and Tallapoosa 
rivers, and to a lesser extent by the locks and dams of the Tombigbee 
River. The Lower Mississippi ecoregion is also distinguished by its 
species richness, particularly in fish. The entire Mississippi basin 
has served as a center for fish distribution as well as a glacial 
refugium, and as such it is home to many of the species found in 
surrounding drainages. As a result, it is the second richest ecoregion 
in North America.
    Compared to other ecoregions, Alabama shad experience different 
climatic conditions in the Central Prairie, which has hot continental 
summers and cold winters, with periodic arctic blasts. Most of the 
streams and rivers in the ecoregion are meandering with low to moderate 
flow. The diversity of species in this ecoregion is high relative to 
adjacent ecoregions due to the presence of diverse habitats that were 
not interrupted during glacial periods. The Ozark Highlands ecoregion 
is part of the western Mississippi River drainage but is distinctive 
because of its relative biogeographical isolation. It is a region of 
high gradient headwater streams surrounded by coastal plains and 
prairie. The Ozark Highlands contain a diversity of freshwater 
habitats, including fens, sinkholes and springs, which feed the clear 
headwaters of larger, free-flowing streams. Many of these habitats 
served as refugia during periods of glacial maximas. The Ozarks are 
home to a unique assemblage of species. Like the Ozark Highlands, the 
Ouachita Highlands ecoregion is distinguished by its relative 
biogeographic isolation. The ecoregion is a source area for several 
larger streams and is an area of high-gradient and spring-fed springs, 
and can almost be considered an island surrounded by the Great Plains, 
coastal plains, and prairie. The ecoregion is characterized by oak-
hickory-pine forests, which are some of the best developed in the 
United States.
    Habitat heterogeneity is considered to be important for the 
stability of populations, and Oliver et al. (2010) found that 
heterogeneous landscapes containing a variety of suitable habitat types 
were associated with more stable population dynamics in a butterfly 
species. Oliver et al. (2010) noted that many studies have suggested 
that the beneficial effects of heterogeneity may buffer a broad range 
of taxa against environmental change. Based on common ecoregion 
classifications, the watersheds inhabited by Alabama shad populations 
contain a diverse array of landscapes, vegetation, geology, hydrology, 
and climate.
    We also considered the spatial structure of the spawning 
populations of Alabama shad. In assessing the viability of salmonid 
populations, which are anadromous and exhibit homing tendencies like 
Alabama shad, McElhany et al. (2000) stated that it is practical to 
focus on spawning group distribution and connectivity because many of 
the processes that affect small population extinction risk depend on 
the breeding structure. The spatial arrangement of suitable spawning 
and rearing habitat within a watershed can be dynamic through time as a 
result of periodic disturbances that create a mosaic of varying habitat 
conditions (Reeves et al. 1995). Efforts to understand population 
diversity have focused on population connectedness, through the 
analysis of DNA collected from individuals across the landscape or 
tagging data to quantify dispersal between populations (Jorgensen et 
al. 2016). Alabama shad continue to spawn in river systems in Florida, 
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri. While 
most Alabama shad spawn in their natal rivers, Waters et al. (2000) 
proposed that shad species may stray more than other anadromous fishes 
and estimated that American shad are expected to have over 10 effective 
migrants per generation. In fact, Mickle et al. (2006) and Kreiser and 
Schaefer (2009) found slight genetic distinctions between populations 
from the Mississippi River basin and coastal Gulf of Mexico drainages. 
Kreiser and Schaefer (2009) attributed this to Alabama shad straying 
from their natal rivers at a rate of about 10 migrants per generation, 
consistent with the estimate by Waters et al. (2000) for American shad. 
This indicates the possibility that Alabama shad could enhance and 
repopulate nearby river systems within their range. This was also 
observed in anadromous Pacific salmon. Similar to Alabama shad, these 
species exhibit high spawning site fidelity, but are well-adapted to 
dynamic environments through straying by adults (to connect 
populations) and high fecundity (also similar to Alabama shad; Reeves 
et al. 1995, Jorgensen et al. 2016).
    The historical range of Alabama shad has contracted and this 
species is believed to be extirpated from some river systems. Few 
targeted research studies were conducted since the time a majority of 
dams may have altered Alabama shad's distribution, therefore we can 
rely only on anecdotal reports from monitoring activities and 
multispecies surveys from the last 24 years to determine their current 
range. However, the remaining spawning populations of the species 
appear to be geographically widespread. Their range appears to have 
become stable once dam building ended, and lost access to spawning 
habitat is likely to be restored through dam removal and fish passage, 
and protections under environmental laws have increased. Although 
spawning populations in some places are small, the species exists in 
multiple ecoregions, representing a diverse array of ecosystems that 
has the potential to buffer the species against environmental changes 
and promote population stability. Genetic studies (Kreiser and Schaefer 
2009, Waters et al. 2000) show that exchange between river populations 
is occurring at higher rates than is expected for other anadromous 
species. Therefore, we ranked spatial distribution throughout its 
range, on its own, to be at low risk of contributing significantly to 
the current and foreseeable risk of extinction for Alabama shad.

Diversity

    In a spatially and temporally varying environment, genetic 
diversity is

[[Page 4043]]

important for species and population viability because it (1) allows a 
species to use a wider array of environments than they could without 
it, (2) protects a species against short-term spatial and temporal 
changes in the environment, and (3) provides the raw material for 
surviving long-term environmental changes (McElhany et al. 2000). Small 
populations may be at risk from random genetic effects, Allee effects, 
and directional effects (Wainwright and Kope 1999).
    Alabama shad are believed to be philopatric and generally return to 
the same rivers to spawn, which has resulted in slight genetic 
differences among river drainages (Meadows et al. 2008, Mickle 2010). 
These genetic differences could result in characteristics (e.g., faster 
growth rates, higher temperature tolerance, etc.) that lead to variable 
spawning strategies among river drainages. Kreiser and Schaefer (2009) 
also noted slight genetic differences between Alabama shad from the 
Mississippi River basin and coastal Gulf of Mexico drainages; however, 
they determined there has been no significant genetic differentiation 
among different river populations of Alabama shad.
    Moyer (2012) evaluated the genome of Alabama shad collected from 
the ACF River system to assess the influence of genetic factors on 
their extinction risk, including whether the construction of JWLD 
blocking access to upstream spawning habitat affected their genetic 
diversity. Genetic diversity of Apalachicola River shad was calculated 
based on the average number of alleles (the possible forms in which a 
gene for a specific trait can occur), observed heterozygosity (having 
different alleles in regard to a specific trait), and expected 
heterozygosity. Moyer (2012) found no evidence of fine-scale population 
structure in the ACF River system. The observed genetic variation found 
in Alabama shad was lower than expected based on other shad studies. 
These findings suggest that the genetic variation of Alabama shad in 
the ACF River system has been severely reduced by a bottleneck event. 
Moyer (2012) concluded that the bottleneck likely did not result from 
the construction of JWLD or from any other anthropogenic activity. 
Moyer (2012) stated the reduced genetic diversity appears to be the 
result of past events that occurred during the Pleistocene. Bowen et 
al. (2008) made a similar determination for Alabama shad while studying 
the phylogenetic relationships across North American Alosa species. 
Their study also indicated that the genetic bottleneck occurred when 
the originating ancestor(s) of Alabama shad traveled around the Florida 
peninsula into the Gulf of Mexico during or after the Pleistocene and 
became geographically separated from Atlantic populations.
    Loss of genetic diversity can reduce an organism's adaptive 
capacity to respond to differing environmental conditions and increase 
a species' extinction risk. However, population bottlenecks can also 
have positive outcomes on a species' genetic diversity, fitness, and 
extinction risk (Bouzat 2010). Moyer (2012) noted that populations or 
species that have undergone population bottlenecks throughout their 
evolutionary history may have reduced genetic load. Genetic load is the 
combination of harmful genes that are hidden in the genetic make-up of 
a population and may be transmitted to descendants. The genetic load of 
a population reduces the fitness of that population relative to a 
population composed entirely of individuals having optimal genotypes. 
Hedrick (2001) stated that a population with reduced genetic load 
resulting from a bottleneck may have increased viability and be more 
likely to recover from near-extinction than a population that has not 
experienced such an evolutionary bottleneck.
    Modeling conducted by Moyer (2012) indicated that the Pleistocene 
bottleneck for Alabama shad was intense. The maintenance of genetic 
variability in a finite population can be understood through the 
concept of effective population size, which is not an actual abundance 
estimate but an estimate of the number of individuals in an ideal 
population that would give the same rate of random genetic drift 
(change in the frequency of a gene variant) as in the actual population 
(Lande 1988). The effective population size for Alabama shad during the 
bottleneck was estimated to be between 76 and 398, meaning 76-398 
individuals is the population size during the Pleistocene estimated to 
have been necessary to result in the relatively low genetic diversity 
observed in members of the species today. Moyer (2012) also noted that 
the bottleneck event was prolonged (145-987 shad generations) and he 
concluded that it may have purged much of the species' genetic load, 
making the population less prone to fitness decreases in the event of 
another bottleneck. Moyer (2012) concluded the risk of population 
decline and extinction in Alabama shad from the ACF River basin due to 
reduced genetic diversity appears to be low and is not of immediate 
importance to the short- or long-term persistence of Alabama shad in 
the ACF River system.
    In summary, we found no significant genetic differences between 
Alabama shad from different river populations, based primarily on 
information provided in Kreiser and Schaefer (2009) and Moyer (2012). A 
genetic evaluation of Alabama shad from the ACF River system (Moyer 
2012) showed genetic diversity is low, likely resulting from a 
bottleneck that occurred during the Pleistocene rather than any recent 
anthropogenic factors. Moyer (2012) stated that the reduced genetic 
diversity resulting from the Pleistocene bottleneck potentially reduced 
the genetic load of Alabama shad, which decreases their extinction risk 
and increases their viability and chances of recovery. We ranked 
diversity, on its own, to be at low risk of contributing significantly 
to the current and foreseeable risk of extinction for Alabama shad.

Threats Assessment

    Next we consider whether any of the five factors specified in 
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA are contributing to the extinction risk of 
Alabama shad.

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

    Effects to Alabama shad's riverine habitat are contributing to the 
species' extinction risk now, and are likely to continue into the 
foreseeable future. The primary cause for declines in Alabama shad 
populations is believed to be the presence of dams, which can block 
access to upstream spawning habitats (NMFS et al. 2012, Mettee and 
O'Neil 2003). Existing literature cites other threats to Alabama shad, 
including dredging (Mettee and O'Neil 2003), sedimentation (Mettee and 
O'Neil 2003), and water quality degradation (Mettee et al. 1996), 
although there is little specific information on how Alabama shad 
populations may be responding to those threats. Recently identified and 
ongoing potential threats to Alabama shad include water allocation 
issues, climate change, and the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill.
Dams
    The construction of dams that block access to upstream habitat has 
long been considered the primary reason for declines of Alabama shad 
and other anadromous fish species (NMFS et al. 2012). Dynesius and 
Nilsson (1994) list three of the river systems inhabited by Alabama 
shad (the Mississippi, Apalachicola, and Mobile Rivers) as being 
strongly affected by the presence

[[Page 4044]]

of dams. Despite a lack of species-specific data, the proliferation of 
impassable structures constructed on rivers within its range is 
believed to have restricted adult Alabama shad from reaching their 
historical spawning grounds, which severely reduced or eliminated their 
ability to reproduce (Pflieger 1997, Mettee and O'Neil 2003). Most 
surveys and studies of Alabama shad focused on fish below dams 
(Laurence and Yerger 1967, Mills 1972), while collection records from 
state and Federal agencies, as well as ichthyological collections, 
indicate a rarity of specimens collected upstream of dams (Coker 1930, 
Etnier and Starnes 1993). In addition, similar declines in American 
shad populations have resulted from dam construction (Limburg and 
Waldman 2009). Pringle et al. (2000) note that Alosa species, such as 
river herring and American shad, have established themselves outside 
their native ranges and in landlocked populations when dams blocked 
their natural habitat. In the Mississippi River system, Alabama shad 
are shown to inhabit several tributaries but have not been recently 
reported within the river mainstem. Positive reports in the tributaries 
without reports from the mainstem could indicate the presence of 
landlocked populations of Alabama shad or it could indicate that shad 
were present in the mainstem, but not surveyed or detected.
    Within the state of Iowa there are 10 locks and dams on the Upper 
Mississippi River (north of the confluence with the Ohio River) and an 
additional 7 locks and dams to the south that could prevent Alabama 
shad from reaching historical spawning grounds (Steuck et al. 2010). 
Noting that large numbers of Alabama shad congregated below Keokuk Dam, 
Iowa, but few were ever captured above it, Coker (1930) reasoned that 
the dam likely limited the upstream passage of the species in the Upper 
Mississippi River. Dams in Mississippi River tributaries also block 
Alabama shad from reaching spawning habitat. Construction of dams in 
the McClelland-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System in the early 1970s 
may have led to the extirpation of Alabama shad in that system (M. 
Oliver, Chief of Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game Commission, pers. 
comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, November 5, 2013). The Denison and Altus Dams 
block access to habitat in the Red and Washita Rivers (Smith et al. 
2011).
    Dams have been constructed at or below the fall line in many river 
systems along the Gulf Coast and prevent spawning migrations into the 
Piedmont (NMFS et al. 2012). In Georgia and Alabama, there is evidence 
that Alabama shad historically occurred above the fall line in the 
Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers (Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Couch et al. 
1996) and in the upper Coosa and Tallapoosa River systems (Freeman et 
al. 2005). An Alabama shad record exists above the fall line into the 
Piedmont from the Cahaba River, Alabama (Mettee et al. 1996). There are 
many locks, dams, and other impoundments in the Mobile River basin that 
cumulatively impound approximately 44 percent of the river mainstem 
length in the basin as well as portions of many tributary streams 
(Pringle et al. 2000). Only a few Alabama shad have been found in the 
Tombigbee River, a tributary of the Mobile River, since the 
construction of the Tombigbee lock system in the waterway in 1901 (M. 
Roberts, Curator of Fishes, Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, 
pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, October 21, 2013). On the Alabama 
River, Claiborne Lock and Dam was opened for navigation in 1969 
(Freeman et al. 2005). Upstream from Claiborne Lock and Dam, Millers 
Ferry Lock and Dam was constructed for the purpose of both power 
generation and navigation, with the lock opening in 1969 and power 
coming on line in 1970. Numerous juvenile Alabama shad were recorded in 
the Alabama River in 1951, the late 1960s, and the early 1970s 
(Boschung 1992, Mettee and O'Neil 2003). However, only two individuals 
have been caught in the Alabama River in more recent years, one in 1993 
below Claiborne Lock and Dam and one in 1995 below Miller's Ferry Lock 
and Dam (Smith et al. 2011). In 2009, conservation locking during 
spawning season was instituted at Claiborne Lock and Dam and Miller's 
Ferry Lock and Dam (Simcox 2009). In 2014 and 2015, conservation 
locking coupled with stocking of Alabama shad was undertaken to provide 
access above Claiborne and Miller's Ferry Locks and Dams and to enhance 
Alabama shad populations in the river system.
    Legislation focused on flood control, navigation, and hydropower 
passed in the late 1920s through the mid-1940s resulted in the 
development and construction of over a dozen major impoundments on the 
mainstem Missouri River, but there are approximately 17,200 minor dams 
and reservoirs on the river and its tributaries, most of which are 
small, local irrigation structures (USACE 2006). Alabama shad spawn in 
the Missouri River, as well as two of its tributaries, the Gasconade 
and Osage Rivers (Smith et al. 2011). The Powersite Dam, a 
hydroelectric dam, was constructed far upstream in the Missouri portion 
of the White River in 1913. In 2006, researchers collected the first 
Alabama shad in the White River (Buchanan et al. 2012); the collected 
specimens were juveniles believed to have been spawned in the river. 
The Remmel Dam was constructed on the Ouachita River in 1924 to provide 
electrical power for southern Arkansas and surrounding states. While 
the dam blocks access to upstream habitat for most of the year, Alabama 
shad are successfully spawning in the Ouachita and Little Missouri 
Rivers (Buchanan 1999). Buchanan et al. (1999) note that during March 
and April of most years, the peak months of the spring spawning run, 
high water frequently flows over and around the structure, allowing 
Alabama shad to move into habitats upstream of Remmel Dam.
    The Elba-Pea River Dam was constructed for power generation on the 
Pea River tributary of the Choctawhatchee River in the early 1900s. 
Studies indicate there are small spawning populations of Alabama shad 
in the Choctawhatchee and Pea Rivers (Barkuloo 1993, Adams et al. 2000, 
Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Young 2010). Dams were constructed on the 
Conecuh/Escambia (Point A Dam) and Apalachicola Rivers (JWLD) beginning 
in 1929 and 1947, respectively. River traffic on the Apalachicola River 
resulted in the lock being operated frequently, allowing passage and 
sustaining reproduction of the resident Alabama shad population. 
Historically, JWLD was operated continuously 24 hours per day for 
commercial barge traffic (Sammons 2013). With the elimination of 
commercial traffic in the late 1960s, lock operation was reduced to 8 
hours per day for on-demand passage of recreational boats, reducing the 
number of lockages to less than 100 per year from a high of 1200. Barge 
traffic decreased and lock operation became infrequent when 
navigational dredging ceased in 2001 (J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. to 
K. Shotts, NMFS, November 12, 2013). Recently, conservation locking on 
the Apalachicola River has given Alabama shad access to previously 
blocked habitat upstream of JWLD, although 15 other impoundments/
reservoirs currently exist upstream on the Chattahoochee and Flint 
Rivers (NMFS et al. 2012). Populations of Alabama shad continue to use 
the Conecuh/Escambia and ACF River systems for spawning.
    Dams are believed to be the primary reason for declines in all 
three of the anadromous species native to the Gulf

[[Page 4045]]

of Mexico (USFWS 2009a). In addition to Alabama shad, anadromous Gulf 
sturgeon and striped bass (Morone saxatilis) have also been blocked by 
dams from accessing upstream habitat in river systems draining into the 
Gulf. Gulf sturgeon were listed as threatened in 1991 (56 FR 49653) and 
occur in river systems from Louisiana to Florida, in nearshore bays and 
estuaries, and in the Gulf of Mexico. While overfishing caused initial 
declines in Gulf sturgeon populations, the listing determination cited 
dams as a current threat to the species. Striped bass were native to 
Gulf of Mexico rivers from the Suwannee River in Florida to the rivers 
draining into Lake Pontchartrain in eastern Louisiana and southwestern 
Mississippi. Striped bass populations began declining in the early 
1900s, and by the mid-1960s had disappeared from all Gulf rivers except 
for the ACF River system of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia (USFWS 
2009a). In addition to blocking upstream habitat, it is believed that 
downstream effects from the dam, such as impaired water quality and 
channelization may have prevented successful spawning (USFWS 2009a). 
The USFWS and Gulf states began cooperative efforts to restore and 
maintain Gulf striped bass populations in the late 1960s, mainly 
through stocking of hatchery-raised fingerlings, and this effort 
continues today (USFWS 2009b). Related anadromous Alosa species on the 
East Coast, such as the American shad, have also experienced declines 
due to dams blocking access to upstream habitat (Limburg and Waldman 
2009).
    Spawning populations of Alabama shad inhabit the Meramec, 
Gasconade, Suwannee, and Pascagoula River systems, all of which are 
free-flowing systems unmodified by dams (Heise et al. 2005, MDC 2001, 
2015, Mickle et al. 2010; J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, 
NMFS, November 12, 2013). However, other spawning populations of 
Alabama shad, including the largest known spawning population in the 
ACF River system, use river systems that have been dammed since the 
early to mid-1900s. Recent conservation locking is currently having a 
positive effect on Alabama shad in the ACF River system, and this 
population has been considered to be the largest population since at 
least 1967 (McBride 2000).
    While dams are known to impede upstream access to habitat, access 
may still be possible under certain conditions. Fish may be able to 
pass upstream and downstream during high water conditions at ``low 
head'' dams, which are low vertical structures that have been 
constructed across rivers or streams to raise the water level, normally 
producing vertical water surface drops of one to several feet. Fish may 
also pass through navigation locks when they are open for vessel 
traffic. Coker (1929) noted lack of observation in locks. However, 
Zigler et al. (2004) note that there is considerable opportunity for 
fish to use some locks for upstream and downstream movement. Ickes 
(2014) states that all of the dams on the Upper Mississippi River are 
``semi-permeable'' to fish passage in that they all have locks that 
fish could use to move upstream and downstream. With the exception of 
two of the locks, all are open and run-of-the-river for part of the 
year, up to as much as 35 percent of the time annually (Ickes 2014).
    Zigler et al. (2004) found that the dams on the Upper Mississippi 
River are typically low head dams that allow fish passage under certain 
conditions. Downriver fish passage can occur through the locks and 
gated sections of the dam, as well as over the top of the dam (Wilcox 
1999). Fish can sometimes swim over low head dams when water levels in 
the river are high enough, although Wilcox (1999) notes that most 
upriver passage on the Upper Mississippi River occurs through the gated 
sections of the dams. Zigler et al. (2004) observed that navigation 
dams are operated with partially closed dam gates during most of the 
year to increase dam head and maintain water levels in navigation 
pools. Fish can likely pass downstream through partially closed dam 
gates unharmed (Zigler et al. 2004, Moen et al. 1992). Upstream passage 
is possible, but likely impeded to some degree, when gates are 
partially closed due to increased current velocity, which increases 
with increasing dam head (Zigler et al. 2004). In a tagging study of 
paddlefish, a species selected as representative of migratory fish 
species whose movements have likely been adversely affected by dams, 
Zigler et al. (2004) showed 12-33 percent of the tagged fish moved 
upstream, downstream, or both during years with high river discharge 
through the low head dams, but no movement was observed during time 
periods with a weak flood pulse. Studies by Brooks et al. (2009) and 
Tripp and Garvey (2011) in the Upper Mississippi River found that the 
degree to which upriver movement was impeded by lock and dam structures 
varied among species, but that each of their 5 study species had the 
capability to negotiate dams whether the lock gates were closed or 
open. Wilcox (1999) found similar results in that strong swimming 
species (e.g., sturgeon, bass, and herrings) had the most success 
moving upriver through structures, but Alabama shad and other migratory 
fish species included in the study were also able to move upstream 
through Upper Mississippi River locks and dams when hydraulic 
conditions were favorable. Wilcox (1999) described the difference in 
hydraulic conditions when gates are in the open and closed positions. 
Velocities through the gated sections of the dams are highest when dam 
gates are in the water (closed). When the dam gates are raised from the 
water (open) during higher levels of river discharge, uncontrolled 
conditions exist, and open channel flow occurs in the gate bay 
openings. Opportunity for upriver fish passage through dams is greatest 
during uncontrolled conditions due to the lower velocities through the 
dam gate openings. Dams with lower controlled discharge capacity may 
therefore present more frequent and longer windows of opportunity for 
upriver fish passage than dams with higher discharge capacity (Wilcox 
1999).
    USFWS (2012) conducted a 2-year study starting in 2010 to determine 
whether Lock and Dam #1 (a low head dam) creates a barrier to fish 
passage on the Osage River, which supports a spawning population of 
Alabama shad. USFWS (2012) determined through captures of pallid and 
hybrid sturgeon marked in other studies that Lock and Dam #1 was 
passable at certain flows, but presented a barrier at others. Fish 
passage upstream of Lock and Dam #1 was detected by USFWS (2012). 
Passage was determined through collection of fish above and below the 
dam, rather than by acoustically or radio tracking fish. Therefore it 
is unknown whether upstream passage was achieved by fish swimming over 
the dam or passing through the lock. However, since upstream passage is 
typically more difficult for fish due to swimming against the river 
current, it is likely that downstream passage is also possible since 
upstream passage was documented to occur. USFWS (2012) also noted that 
the 115-year-old dam was unstable and would need to be removed or 
repaired in the very near future.
    While dams are believed to be the main cause of the initial decline 
of Alabama shad, and continue to block habitat and cause downstream 
effects today, few new dams are being built (Graf 1999). Some dams in 
the United States date back centuries. The greatest rate of increase in 
reservoir storage occurred from the late 1950s to the late 1970s, with 
more dams (and some of the largest) built in the 1960s than in any

[[Page 4046]]

other decade (Graf 1999). In the ``golden age'' of U.S. dam building, 
thousands of large and small dams were built to supply power, reduce 
flood hazard, improve navigation, and impound water for irrigation and 
urban water supply with little thought to the environmental impacts, 
long-term fate, inevitable aging, and need for continued maintenance, 
renovation, or even removal of dams (Doyle et al. 2003, Pejchar and 
Warner 2001). There have been few new dams built since the mid-1980s 
and the nation's era of dam building is over (Graf 1999). Further, the 
aging of America's dams, coupled with increasing awareness of their 
environmental costs, has brought dam decommissioning and removal to the 
attention of the scientific community, management agencies, and the 
general public (Doyle et al. 2003). It is only since the late 1990s 
that the topic of dam removal has become common due to the convergence 
of economic, environmental, and regulatory concerns (Doyle et al. 
2003). An understanding about how dams severely impair free-flowing 
rivers has become firmly established both in the United States and 
abroad and this knowledge has entered into the public debate on river 
conservation, both in terms of greater willingness of reservoir 
managers to minimize downstream ecological effects and of increased 
calls for outright dam removal (Poff and Hart 2002).
    By 2020, an estimated 85 percent of the dams in the United States 
will be near the end of their operational lives (Doyle et al. 2003). 
The current intensification of economic and environmental concerns is 
coinciding with a policy window in which many private dams are coming 
up for regulatory re-licensing with FERC and operational guidelines for 
publicly-operated dams are being reviewed (Doyle et al. 2003). Stanley 
and Doyle (2003) predict that the aging of the U.S. dam infrastructure 
will make dam removal even more common in the future. American Rivers 
(2015) reports that 1,300 dams were removed between 1912 and 2015. 
Lovett (2014) notes that 1,150 of those dams were removed in the last 
20 years, most of which were dams lower than 5 meters (16.4 feet) but 
also taller dams in recent years. In 2004, 2012, and 2013, 5 dams 
within the current range of Alabama shad in the ACF and Alabama River 
systems were removed (American Rivers 2015). Another 10 dams were 
removed since 1999 in the historical range of Alabama shad in the 
Mississippi, Tennessee, and Ohio Rivers (American Rivers 2015). The 
rapid aging of dams (especially small ones) and the costs of 
maintaining old dams suggests that dam removal will continue for the 
foreseeable future (Poff and Hart 2002). The benefits of dams have been 
routinely exaggerated and the costs have been frequently 
underestimated, prompting policy-makers to increasingly consider dam 
removal as a policy option (Pejchar and Warner 2001). The cost of 
repairing a small dam can be as much as three times greater than the 
cost of removing it (Born et al. 1998). In contrast, many cost-
effective methods for water conservation in cities already exist, and 
new technologies are constantly evolving that will enable even greater 
efficiencies, reducing the amount of water that needs to be extracted 
from rivers through the use of dams and reservoirs (Richter and Thomas 
2007). As dams in the U.S. age beyond their intended design lives 
(Doyle et al. 2008), some states are providing incentives to remove 
dams as means of river restoration (Ardon and Bernhardt 2009).
    Besides dam removal, various designs of fishways or fish ladders 
have been developed to enable fish to pass upstream of barrier dams. 
The recognized need to pass fish upstream of dams and other obstacles 
inspired many seminal studies on fish swimming performance, energetics, 
and biomechanics (Castro-Santos et al. 2009). Within the last 50 years 
fishways and other passage operations have become increasingly 
sophisticated and efficient, their design a product of collaboration 
between hydraulic engineers and biologists (Roscoe and Hinch 2010). The 
presence of a fishway alone does not guarantee that the fish are able 
to pass upstream of the barrier to their movement and fishways do not 
always perform as intended (Roscoe and Hinch 2010). However, upstream 
passage technologies are considered to be well developed and well 
understood for the main anadromous species, including Alosa species 
(Larinier and Marmulla 2004). In the ACF and Alabama River systems, 
Federal, state, and non-governmental organizations are collaborating 
and utilizing existing facilities (i.e., opening navigation locks) 
during spawning season to pass Alabama shad and other species upstream, 
with demonstrated success in the ACF River system, but with unknown 
results in the Alabama River.
    River restoration will play an increasing role in environmental 
management and policy decisions, and has even become a highly 
profitable business (Bernhardt et al. 2005, Ardon and Bernhardt 2009). 
Bernhardt et al. (2005) synthesized information on 37,099 river 
restoration projects in the National River Restoration Science 
Synthesis (NRRSS) database. Fish passage is one of the four most 
commonly stated goals of river restoration, along with water quality 
management, instream habitat improvement, and riparian management. The 
NRRSS database shows that of the 58 percent of projects where cost 
information was available, $9.1 billion has been spent on river 
restoration projects since 1970. Bernhardt et al. (2005) notes that the 
majority of the money ($7.5 billion) spent on restoration was spent 
between 1990-2003, indicating that river restoration is a relatively 
recent and growing phenomenon. Specific river flow patterns cue 
anadromous species like Alabama shad to migrate and reproduce. To 
mitigate negative effects of flow patterns created by dams, dam 
operations are increasingly being adapted toward releasing 
``environmental flows,'' the appropriate quantity, quality, and timing 
of water flows required to sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems 
(Lehner et al. 2011).
    In summary, dams have impacted anadromous species populations and 
are believed to be the primary cause for the observed decline of 
Alabama shad. Existing dams continue to block access to upstream 
spawning habitat, although few new dams are being built today. The 
current diminished abundance of Alabama shad is a reflection of 
historical effects of the dams over decades, although the threat to 
Alabama shad from existing dams may be reduced with effective fish 
passage, conservation locking, dam removal, and other forms of river 
restoration. We believe that the presence of dams is contributing a 
moderate level of risk to the overall current extinction risk of 
Alabama shad, but could decrease in the foreseeable future with the 
increasing focus on restoring access to fish habitat blocked by dams.
Water Quality
    Changes in water quality parameters (turbidity, flow, oxygen 
content, and pollutants) are a potential threat to Alabama shad. The 
presence of dams, dredging, and watershed activities can alter water 
quality in riverine and coastal habitat used by Alabama shad. In 
addition to blocking access to habitat, dams can degrade spawning, 
nursery, and foraging habitat downstream by altering flow, water 
temperature, and oxygen levels. Mettee et al. (2005) state that 
seasonal flow patterns in dammed rivers have been replaced by pulsed 
releases that alter water temperature and

[[Page 4047]]

DO levels, as well as nutrient and sediment transport.
    Dredging can also affect water quality. Several decades ago, when 
vessel traffic on the Apalachicola River was much greater, the USACE 
frequently dredged the river to maintain depth of the navigation 
channel. The dredged material was placed along the river banks and 
eventually became re-suspended in the river. The dredged material 
(finer sands and clays) settled on the river bottom and filled in 
spaces between grains of the coarser sands and gravel that served as 
spawning habitat for Alabama shad (Mills 1972). McBride (2000) reports 
that dredging affected Alosa species, including Alabama shad, in 
Florida rivers through re-suspension of particulate matter in the water 
column, alteration of natural flow patterns, and removal of river-
bottom habitat.
    Alabama shad and their habitat are also exposed to sediment and 
pollutants introduced from land-based activities. Agriculture, 
silviculture, and industrial, commercial, and residential development 
in the watershed contribute to degraded water quality in rivers and 
coastal waters inhabited by Alabama shad. Wastewater treatment, 
municipal stormwater, industrial discharges, land clearing, and 
construction of impervious surfaces are examples of activities that 
increase runoff into the watershed, introduce sediment and pollutants, 
and lead to low DO. There are no specific data linking exposure to 
altered water quality parameters with responses in Alabama shad 
populations. However, McBride (2000) noted that the effects of 
declining water quality from low DO and industrial discharges were seen 
in other Alosa species on the Atlantic Coast throughout the nineteenth 
century.
    States are required to report water quality conditions to the EPA 
under Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. We reviewed 
the water quality assessment reports (available at http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir/index.html) for rivers occupied by Alabama shad spawning 
populations, as well as the Mobile/Alabama River system where Alabama 
shad conservation activities are occurring. Rivers were assessed by the 
states between 2008 and 2014, with most rivers assessed more recently 
(2012-2014). The water quality assessment reports provide information 
on river segments that have good water quality, as well as segments 
that are impaired. While the reports list what the impairment is based 
on (e.g., the presence of heavy metals, sediment, or low DO), the 
reports rarely specify the source of the impairment (e.g., dam 
releases, dredging, industrial discharge, or stormwater runoff). 
However, the water quality assessment reports provide some information 
on the water quality conditions Alabama shad are exposed to in the 
riverine areas they use.
    We reviewed the water quality assessment reports for the following 
river systems: (1) ACF; (2) the Missouri/Gasconade/Osage; (3) Meramec; 
(4) White; (5) Ouachita/Little Missouri; (6) Pascagoula/Leaf/
Chickasawhay; (7) Mobile/Alabama; (8) Escambia/Conecuh; (9) 
Choctawhatchee/Pea; and (10) the Suwanee. Of the approximately 4,500 
combined river mi in these systems, water quality was deemed good for 
2,150 or 48 percent of the assessed mi. Approximately 2,100 mi (47 
percent) were designated as impaired based on one or more factors, and 
275 mi were not assessed. Within each river system, between 6 percent 
and 100 percent of the river mi assessed were deemed to be impaired 
(too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet water quality standards) 
for one or more factors.
    With the exception of the Meramec and White Rivers, all or portions 
of every other river system we looked at were impaired due to mercury 
levels. The EPA states that coal-burning power plants are the largest 
human-caused source of mercury emissions into the air within the United 
States, accounting for over 50 percent of all domestic human-caused 
mercury emissions (EPA 2014a). Mercury in the air may settle into 
rivers, lakes, or estuaries, where it can be transferred to 
methylmercury through microbial activity. Methylmercury can accumulate 
in fish at levels that may harm the fish and the other animals that eat 
them (EPA 2014b). Other heavy metals (copper, zinc, and lead) were 
found in impaired waters in the Meramec and Ouachita/Little Missouri 
River systems. There are no known studies on the effects to Alabama 
shad from exposure to, or accumulation of, mercury and other heavy 
metals.
    All river systems we evaluated, with the exception of the Meramec 
and the Pascagoula/Leaf/Chicksawhay River systems, had some impaired 
river segments due to low DO. Low DO can cause lethal and sublethal 
(metabolic, growth, feeding) effects in fish. Different species have 
different oxygen requirements. For instance, sturgeon species, 
considered to be benthic species, are known to be more highly sensitive 
to low DO (less than 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L)) than other fish 
species (Niklitschek and Secor 2009a, 2009b). DO is often lowest at the 
benthos compared to the water column. Tagatz (1961) found that juvenile 
American shad (an Alosa species more closely related to Alabama shad 
than sturgeon) are able to acclimate to low oxygen concentrations (2-4 
mg/L) when other environmental conditions are satisfactory. Howell and 
Simpson (1994) looked at the abundance of a variety of finfish captured 
across DO levels in Long Island Sound, New York, and found that 
American shad were captured in 79 percent of the tows in waters with DO 
greater than or equal to 3 mg/L. American shad were captured in 40 
percent of the tows with DO levels of 2-2.9 mg/L, but no captures were 
made in waters where DO was less than 2 mg/L. The classification of 
Alabama shad as a pelagic species, meaning they inhabit the water 
column, indicates they are present above the benthos in areas where DO 
levels are usually higher. This suggests that Alabama shad could be 
less susceptible to the effects of low DO than other species, such as 
sturgeon.
    Segments of several river systems inhabited by Alabama shad were 
designated as impaired due to biota. The water quality assessment 
reports define this category as ``the community of aquatic animals 
(fish, reptiles, amphibians, aquatic insects or others) normally 
expected in a healthy waterway is unhealthy, reduced, or absent, and 
the exact cause of the problem is unknown.'' The Chattahoochee River 
was designated impaired based on fish biota. Georgia DNR (2008) 
reported to the EPA that studies completed during 1998-2003 showed 
modification of the fish community in the Chattahoochee River. The 
general cause was determined to be the lack of fish habitat due to 
stream sedimentation. Even with access to the Chattahoochee River 
restored as a result of conservation locking at JWLD, Alabama shad 
preferentially spawn in the Flint River over the Chattahoochee River. 
Sammons (2014) conducted a study to determine habitat usage by Alabama 
shad in the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers and did not find a single 
shad in the Chattahoochee during 4 years of tracking. The Flint and 
Osage Rivers are designated impaired due to benthic and aquatic 
macroinvertebrates, respectively. The Leaf River is also designated 
impaired due to biological impairment. It is unknown whether these 
conditions affect Alabama shad.
    Sedimentation was listed as a potential threat to Alabama shad 
(Mettee and O'Neil 2003). Segments of the White, Leaf, and Conecuh 
Rivers were designated as impaired due to sedimentation. Other causes 
of

[[Page 4048]]

impairments listed in the water quality assessment reports include the 
presence of PCBs (Chattahoochee River), organic material (Conecuh 
River), algal growth/chlorophyll-a (Suwannee River), and salinity/
solids/chlorides/sulfites (Suwannee River). It is unknown how these 
conditions affect Alabama shad.
    We also reviewed the National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) 
published by the EPA to gauge the recent water quality conditions 
experienced by Alabama shad in coastal waters. The NCCR IV (EPA 2012) 
graded the overall conditions of the Gulf Coast region as ``fair,'' 
with an overall condition score of 2.4 out of a possible 5.0. 
Comparatively, the overall condition of the nation's coastal waters was 
also rated ``fair,'' with an overall condition score of 3.0. Using 
2003-2006 data, the water quality index (based on parameters such as 
dissolved nitrogen, phosphorus, and oxygen, chlorophyll a 
concentrations, and water clarity) for the coastal waters of the Gulf 
Coast region overall was rated as ``fair.'' Only 10 percent of the 
region was rated as ``poor,'' although estuaries with ``poor'' water 
quality conditions were found in all five Gulf states. The Gulf Coast 
region is rated ``good'' for DO concentrations, with less than 5 
percent of the coastal area rated ``poor'' for this factor. Although 
hypoxia is a relatively local occurrence in Gulf Coast estuaries, the 
occurrence of hypoxia in the Gulf Coast shelf waters is much more 
widespread. The Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone is the second-largest area 
of oxygen-depleted waters in the world (Rabalais et al. 2002b). This 
zone, which occurs in waters on the Louisiana shelf to the west of the 
Mississippi River Delta, was not assessed for NCCR IV (EPA 2012) and 
the ``good'' rating for DO concentrations in the Gulf Coast region 
provided in the report is not indicative of offshore conditions. 
Because the life history of the Alabama shad in offshore Gulf of Mexico 
waters is unknown, it is not possible to determine if these conditions 
affect Alabama shad.
    In summary, water quality has been cited by multiple studies as a 
threat to Alabama shad (e.g., Mills 1972, Mettee et al. 1996, 2005, 
McBride 2000). Water quality assessments required by the Clean Water 
Act, as well as assessments of water quality along the Gulf Coast 
reported in NCCR IV (EPA 2012), indicate that water quality in some 
portions of the Alabama shad's range are good, while other areas are 
impaired by heavy metals, low DO, and other issues. Although it is 
likely that Alabama shad are exposed to water quality issues in their 
coastal and riverine environments, there are no clear data directly 
linking water quality problems with declines in Alabama shad, and the 
species may be less susceptible to some impairment factors (e.g., low 
DO) than other species. The NCCR I-IV reports (EPA 2001, 2005, 2008, 
2012) show that coastal water quality in the Gulf of Mexico has 
improved since 2001. As coastal populations grow and industrial, 
commercial, and residential development increases, water quality issues 
could also grow. At this time it is unknown what risk water quality 
presents to Alabama shad now or in the foreseeable future.
Water Allocation
    Water allocation issues are a growing concern in the southeastern 
United States. Transferring water from one river basin to another can 
fundamentally and irreversibly alter natural water flows in both the 
originating and receiving basins, and exacerbate any existing water 
quality issues. Reallocation of water between river basins can affect 
DO levels, temperature, and the ability of the basin of origin to 
assimilate pollutants (Georgia Water Coalition 2006).
    Water allocation issues have traditionally occurred primarily in 
the Western United States, but they are also occurring in the 
Southeast, with one of the biggest interstate allocation disputes 
occurring between Alabama, Florida, and Georgia (SELC 2015a, Ruhl 
2003). These three states have fought over the future allocation of 
water in the ACF and Alabama/Coosa/Tallapoosa (ACT) River basins for 
decades (SELC 2015a) as population growth is driving competing water 
demands for urban, agricultural, and ecological uses. A 2006 study by 
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO 2006) reported that Georgia had 
the sixth highest population growth (26.4 percent) in the nation, 
followed by Florida (23.5 percent). The per capita water use in Georgia 
has been estimated to be 8 to 10 percent greater than the national 
average, and 17 percent higher than per capita use in neighboring 
states (UGA 2002). Georgia needs water to supply the large metro 
Atlanta area; Alabama needs its water supply for power generation, 
municipal uses, and fisheries; and Florida seeks to maintain its 
shellfish industry in Apalachicola Bay (SELC 2015a). Water shortages 
have already occurred and are expected to continue due to the rapid 
population growth anticipated over the next 50 years (Cummings et al. 
2003). In an ongoing U.S. Supreme Court case, in 2014 Florida sued 
Georgia seeking to establish that it is entitled to equitable 
apportionment of the waters of the ACF River Basin and appropriate 
injunctive relief against Georgia to sustain an adequate flow of fresh 
water into the Apalachicola Region (State of Florida v. State of 
Georgia, No. 142, Original).
    It is not known how much water is already being removed from rivers 
used by Alabama shad because there is little information concerning 
actual withdrawals and virtually no information concerning water 
discharges. This is particularly the case for municipal and industrial 
uses because water use permits are not required in Georgia for 
withdrawals less than 100,000 gallons per day (Cummings et al. 2003) 
and discharge permits are not required unless discharge contains 
selected toxic materials. Agricultural water use permits are not 
quantified in any meaningful way, thus neither water withdrawals nor 
return flows are measured (Fisher et al. 2003). The Metropolitan North 
Georgia Water Planning District, which was created through legislation 
in 2001 and includes 15 counties and 93 cities (Cole and Carver 2011), 
is the only major metropolitan area in the country with more than 100 
jurisdictions implementing a long-term comprehensive water management 
program that is required and enforced. Since plan implementation, total 
water consumption in the region has dropped by 10 percent despite a one 
million person increase in population. The District's Water Supply and 
Water Conservation Management Plan (2009) recommends that the Georgia 
General Assembly consider requiring permits for withdrawals less than 
100,000 gallons per day within the Metro Water District.
    Large withdrawals of water (such as those for municipal and 
agricultural use) from rivers result in reduced water quantity and 
quality (altered flows, higher temperatures, and lowered DO). Florida 
and Georgia have developed water management plans in attempts to 
provide comprehensive basin-wide strategies for management of the water 
resources; Alabama is also developing a plan. Many cost-effective 
methods for water conservation in cities already exist, and new 
technologies are constantly evolving that will enable even greater 
efficiencies, reducing the amount of water that needs to be extracted 
from rivers (Richter and Thomas 2007).
    It is unclear whether Alabama shad in the ACF system have been 
affected by these ongoing water allocation issues. The Georgia 
Ecological Services Office of the USFWS (2015) states that several 
species of snails and mussels have gone extinct in the ACT and ACF 
systems

[[Page 4049]]

due to alterations in water quantity and quality. Currently, there are 
65 ESA-listed species in the ACT and ACF systems. USFWS (2015) has 
provided instream flow guidelines to Georgia, Alabama, and Florida that 
describe flow regime features that would protect these listed species. 
It is unknown whether water allocation issues contribute to Alabama 
shad's extinction risk, either now or in the foreseeable future.
Climate Change
    Changes in temperature, precipitation, drought, flooding, and sea 
level due to climate change could further exacerbate existing water 
quality and quantity issues in rivers and coastal areas used by Alabama 
shad. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its fifth 
and most recent assessment report (IPCC AR5 2014) presented four 
Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) to assess future climate 
changes, risks, and impacts. The RCPs describe four possible 21st 
century pathways of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric 
concentrations, air pollutant emissions, and land use. The IPCC did not 
identify any scenario as being more likely to occur than any other. 
Because we cannot predict whether and how climate conditions may 
change, it is our policy to assume climate conditions will be similar 
to the status quo in making ESA listing determinations (memorandum from 
D. Wieting, Director of the Office of Protected Resources, to E. 
Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, regarding guidance for 
treatment of climate change in NMFS ESA decisions, January 4, 2016). In 
this listing determination, we use a baseline scenario, which is one 
without additional efforts to constrain emissions of greenhouse gases, 
leading to the RCP8.5 pathway, a scenario with very high greenhouse gas 
emissions (IPCC AR5 2014), in evaluating potential climate effects to 
Alabama shad.
    The southern distributional limit for all Alosa species is believed 
to be determined by water temperature (McBride 2000). Although there 
have been no studies on the thermal tolerances of Alabama shad, other 
Alosa species cannot tolerate water temperatures greater than 32 
[deg]C; therefore, it is likely that Alabama shad cannot tolerate high 
water temperatures (Beitinger 1999). Under RCP8.5, the predicted 
increase in temperature from the 1850-1900 period to the end of the 
21st century (2081-2100) is likely to exceed 2 [deg]C (IPCC AR5 2014). 
However, current temperature trends indicate that warming has been less 
pronounced and less robust in the Southeast United States. Within North 
America, the Southeast is predicted to have the smallest changes in 
mean annual temperature, between 1.5-2.5 [deg]C by the mid-21st century 
(IPCC AR5 2014). It is unknown what level of temperature increases 
could affect the current distribution and range of Alabama shad.
    Precipitation can affect riverine habitat used by Alabama shad 
through increased runoff and introduction of sediment and pollutants. 
While precipitation is generally expected to increase for the northern 
portion of North America, little to no change in the annual average 
precipitation over the average recorded for 1986-2005 is predicted to 
occur in the Southeast by the mid-21st century (2046-2065) under RCP8.5 
(IPCC AR5 2014). This is also the prediction for the late 21st century 
(2081-2100) for most of the Alabama shad's range. A small portion of 
the species' western range is in an area where greater than or equal to 
66 percent of the prediction models for the late 21st century indicated 
changes in annual precipitation would occur, although the models could 
not predict whether precipitation would increase or decrease.
    Similar to increased precipitation, increased flooding can also 
affect riverine habitat used by Alabama shad through increased runoff 
and introduction of sediment and pollutants. Conversely, increased 
periods of drought that result in lower than normal river flows can 
restrict access to habitat areas, expose previously submerged habitats, 
interrupt spawning cues, reduce thermal refugia, and exacerbate water 
quality issues, such as water temperature, reduced DO, nutrient levels, 
and contaminants. IPCC AR5 (2014) states that changes in the magnitude 
or frequency of flood events have not been attributed to climate 
change, as floods are generated by multiple mechanisms (e.g., land use, 
seasonal changes, and urbanization). IPCC AR5 (2014) also states that 
it is not possible to attribute changes in drought frequency in North 
America to climate change.
    Sea level rise resulting from climate change is projected to 
continue during the 21st century, at a rate faster than observed from 
1971 to 2010. The projected increase in sea level for the period 2081-
2100, relative to 1986-2005, is 0.45 to 0.82 meters with medium 
confidence under the scenario RCP8.5 (IPCC AR5 2014). Sea level rise is 
expected to occur in more than 95 percent of the ocean area by the end 
of the 21st century, although it will not be uniform across regions 
(IPCC AR5 2014). About 70 percent of the coastlines worldwide are 
projected to experience a sea level change within 20 
percent of the global mean (IPCC AR5 2014). A rise in sea level will 
likely create more estuarine areas and push the salt wedge farther 
upstream; this will likely impact any water intake structures located 
in the newly estuarine areas and may also increase the potential for 
salt water to enter aquifers (U.S. Global Research Group 2004). 
Saltwater intrusion will stress the availability of water in the 
southeast. The IPCC AR5 (2014) states that in the Southeast, ecosystems 
and irrigation are projected to be particularly stressed by decreases 
in water availability due to the combination of climate change, growing 
water demand, and water transfers to urban and industrial users. 
Existing water allocation issues could be exacerbated, potentially 
stressing water quality. However, it is unknown how Alabama shad may be 
affected by sea level rise in the future.
    Most observations of climate change responses in species involve 
alterations in phenology (Parmesan 2006). Phenology is the study of how 
seasonal and interannual variations in the environment affect the 
timing of critical stages and events in a species' life cycle (Anderson 
et al. 2013). Phenological shifts attributed to climate change have 
been identified in both terrestrial and aquatic biota (Ellis and Vokoun 
2009). In the marine ecosystem, the most important physical factors 
affecting phenology are water temperature and light, with the response 
to and importance of each factor being species dependent (Anderson et 
al. 2013). Importantly, climate change affects temperature but not 
photoperiod or light, which is key when considering the environmental 
cues that trigger species' migrations.
    For marine species, climate-driven changes in temperature can 
modify the phenology of annual migrations to spawning grounds 
(P[ouml]rtner and Peck 2010). Seasonal temperature increases have been 
shown to correlate with changes in the timing of fish movement, with 
shifts towards earlier migrations of anadromous fish (Quinn and Adams 
1996, Juanes et al. 2004) and earlier annual spawning events (Ahas and 
Aasa 2006). The importance of temperature in regulating the behavior 
and dynamics of Alosa species during spawning has been documented in 
several reviews (Aprahamian et al. 2010, Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Quinn 
and Adams 1996).
    Ellis and Vokoun (2009) compared temperature records with fish 
surveys for anadromous alewives in several southern New England streams 
back to

[[Page 4050]]

the 1970s. They determined that 13 [deg]C was a consistent predictor of 
spawning run timing for alewives in one historical and three recent 
stream studies over several years. They found that stream temperatures 
in the spring warmed to 13 [deg]C about 12 days earlier in recent years 
than they did in the 1970s. Ellis and Vokoun (2009) concluded alewife 
runs occur about 12 days earlier on average than they did in the 1970s.
    Aprahamian et al. (2010) used a stock-recruitment model with a 
temperature component to estimate the effects on twaite shad (A. 
fallax) in the Severn Estuary in Great Britain from an increase in 
temperature resulting from climate change. They determined a 1 [deg]C 
increase in water temperature would shift the spawning run into the 
River Severn 6-10 days earlier, and a 2 [deg]C would shift the spawning 
run 16-17 days earlier. Aprahamian et al. (2010) also predicted that a 
1-2 [deg]C temperature increase would result in an increase in twaite 
shad abundance, likely through increased hatching success and growth 
rate.
    Quinn and Adams (1996) identified shifts in spawning migrations in 
another Alosa species, American shad, in response to changes in 
temperature. Records show that annual spring warming has occurred 
progressively earlier in the Columbia River since 1950. Fish counts 
from Bonneville Dam indicate that the peak migration of American shad, 
introduced into the river in the late 1800s, occurs approximately 38 
days earlier than it did in 1938 and correlates with the warming trend. 
Quinn and Adams (1996) also looked at the timing of sockeye salmon 
(Oncorhynchus nerka), and noted that while the species' upriver 
migration is 6 days earlier than it was in 1949, that period lags 
behind the rate of environmental change. Quinn and Adams (1996) state 
that salmon migration is primarily controlled by population-specific 
responses to cues such as photoperiod (a factor not affected by climate 
change) rather than species-specific responses to temperature (a factor 
that is affected by climate change), as may be the case in shad.
    The differences in the environmental cues triggering spawning 
migration, as well as the life history differences, between shad and 
salmon highlight how species may be affected differently by climate 
change. A species with close links between the environments experienced 
by spawning adults and their offspring (e.g., spawning within the 
migratory corridor and a brief larval period) should behaviorally 
adjust the timing of migration and spawning to optimize conditions for 
both the adult and the offspring in response to environmental 
variation. Shad spawn in the river mainstem and have a brief incubation 
period (Quinn and Adams 1996). Spawning adult shad experience 
conditions that will be closely correlated to those affecting survival 
of their offspring during incubation and hatching. In contrast, when 
greater spatial and temporal separation occur between the environmental 
conditions experienced by migrating adults and their offspring, as is 
the case with salmon, genetic control over the timing of their spawn is 
greater than the response to environmental cues. This can result in a 
decoupling of cues that initiate migration (e.g., photoperiod, which is 
not affected by climate change) and the state of the target habitat 
that can be affected by climate-sensitive factors, such as temperature, 
flow, DO, etc. In some Pacific salmon species, such as sockeye, 
migration into freshwater may precede spawning by several months, fry 
emergence by many months, and the time of seawater entry by juveniles 
by a year or more (Groot and Margolis 1991). These salmon move through 
a mainstem migratory corridor that is separate from the spawning and 
incubation areas in tributaries that may be subjected to different 
thermal and hydrological regimes. The ability of Alosa species to shift 
the timing of their spawning migrations in response to temperature, and 
the close spatial and temporal proximity of habitats occupied by 
spawning adults and newly spawned offspring, likely buffer Alabama shad 
from some aspects of climate change.
    Climate change may also disrupt the timing between the life cycles 
of predators and prey (Parmesan 2006). The presence of both the 
predators of Alabama shad and their prey sources may be shifted 
temporally or spatially due to climate change. Also, changes in water 
temperature could impact prey production, with greater production in 
warmer years (Aprahamian et al. 2010). Year-class strength in American 
shad has been shown to be positively correlated with zooplankton 
density, as shown by an increase in the percentage of larval fish with 
food in their guts (Aprahamian et al. 2010). However, ocean currents, 
fronts, and upwelling and downwelling zones play significant roles in 
the distribution and production of marine ecosystems, and it is not yet 
predictable how these features are likely to change in response to 
alterations in temperature, precipitation, runoff, salinity, and wind 
(Scavia et al. 2002). Little is known about predators of Alabama shad, 
in either the marine or riverine environment. It is unknown how 
phenological shifts brought on by climate change may affect 
interactions between Alabama shad, their predators, and their prey.
    In summary, under the RCP8.5 scenario, there could be a 2.6-4.8 
[deg]C temperature increase by the end of the 21st century (2081-2100) 
relative to 1986-2005. However, current temperature trends indicate 
that warming has been less pronounced and less robust in the Southeast 
United States. Within North America, the Southeast United States is 
predicted to have the smallest changes in mean annual temperature (IPCC 
AR5 2014). Little to no changes in precipitation that could increase 
runoff are predicted within the range of Alabama shad. Sea level rise 
resulting from climate change is projected to continue during the 21st 
century, at a rate faster than observed from 1971 to 2010. However, it 
is unknown how Alabama shad may be affected by sea level rise in the 
future. The IPCC AR5 (2014) states that in the Southeast, ecosystems 
and irrigation are projected to be particularly stressed by decreases 
in water availability due to the combination of climate change, growing 
water demand, and water transfers to urban and industrial users. 
Existing water allocation issues could be further exacerbated, 
potentially stressing water quality. Most observations of climate 
change responses in species involve alterations in phenology, the study 
of how seasonal and interannual variations in the environment affect 
the timing of critical stages and events in a species' life cycle 
(Parmesan 2006, Anderson et al. 2013). For marine species, climate-
driven changes in temperature can modify the timing of annual 
migrations to spawning grounds, which has been observed in other Alosa 
species. Studies on American shad (Quinn and Adams 1996), alewives 
(Ellis and Vokoun 2009), and twaite shad (Aprahamian et al. 2010) 
demonstrated that those species were able to shift their spawning 
migrations earlier to adapt to warmer temperatures occurring earlier in 
the year. A comparison of responses to climate change in American shad 
and salmon showed that the behavioral responses of adult shad to 
warming temperatures (i.e., earlier spawning migrations) should 
optimize conditions for both the adults and the offspring, as there is 
less spatial and temporal separation between the environmental 
conditions experienced by migrating adults and their offspring in shad 
compared to salmon (Quinn and Adams 1996, Groot and Margolis 1991).

[[Page 4051]]

However, it is unknown how spatial and temporal changes in migration in 
Alabama shad may affect both their predator and prey relationships. 
Ultimately, it is unknown how climate change may contribute to the 
current and foreseeable risk of extinction of Alabama shad.
Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill
    On April 20, 2010, while working on an exploratory well in the Gulf 
of Mexico (approximately 50 mi southeast of the Mississippi River 
Delta, Louisiana, and 87 mi south of Dauphin Island, Alabama), the 
semi-submersible DWH drilling rig experienced an explosion and fire. 
The rig subsequently sank, and oil and natural gas began leaking into 
the Gulf of Mexico. The well was temporarily capped on July 15, 2010, 
which significantly reduced the amount of leaking oil, but the well was 
not ultimately sealed and declared ``effectively dead'' until September 
19, 2010. Estimates on the amount of released oil varied widely and 
over time, but final official estimates indicated 53,000-62,000 barrels 
were released per day as a result of the event; the total amount of oil 
released into the Gulf of Mexico was estimated at 4.9 million barrels 
(780,000 m\3\) (McNutt et al. 2011). In addition, approximately 2.1 
million gallons of chemical dispersant were applied to surface waters 
(1.4 million gallons) and directly at the wellhead (0.77 million 
gallons) between May 15 and July 12, 2010 (Kujawinski et al. 2011).
    There have been no studies of the effects of the DWH spill on 
Alabama shad and no reports or collections of shad affected by the 
spill. Chakrabarty et al. (2012) estimated that the DWH spill zone 
overlapped with 1.26 percent of Alabama shad's nearshore habitat. This 
estimate is based on the percentage of the species' historical 
collection records that occur within the spill zone. Because few 
historical records for Alabama shad exist in some Gulf Coast systems, 
and almost no data exist for Alabama shad in the marine environment, 
the estimate by Chakrabarty et al. (2012) is likely an underestimate of 
the overlap of the DWH spill zone with habitat used by Alabama shad. 
However, it does confirm that Alabama shad may have been exposed to oil 
or chemical dispersants associated with the DWH spill.
    Fish exposed to oil can be impacted directly through uptake by the 
gills, ingestion of oil or oiled prey, effects on egg and larval 
survival, or changes in the ecosystem that support the fish (USFWS 
2010). Adult fish may experience reduced growth, enlarged livers, 
changes in heart and respiration rates, fin erosion, and reproductive 
impairment when exposed to oil (USFWS 2010, Snyder et al. 2015). Oil 
has the potential to impact spawning success as the eggs and larvae of 
many fish species are highly sensitive to oil toxins (USFWS 2010).
    There have been no studies on the effects of the DWH spill on 
Alabama shad. Based on their life history, it is likely that the 
earliest and most vulnerable life stages (eggs and larvae) were not 
exposed to oil and dispersants. The oil spill occurred in April when 
females are upriver, releasing their eggs at spawning sites. Over the 
summer, as oil recovery and cleanup was occurring, the newly spawned 
Alabama shad larvae were in their riverine habitats maturing. Alabama 
shad from northern rivers start the downstream migration toward marine 
waters in late summer. In comparison, shad from Gulf Coast river 
systems have been observed to stay upriver as late as December. 
Therefore, it is likely some juvenile and non-spawning adult Alabama 
shad were exposed to oil and dispersants associated with the DWH spill, 
but not the actively spawning adults and early life stages.
    Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are considered the most 
toxic component of crude oil to marine life and are ubiquitous 
pollutants in the marine environment (Snyder et al. 2015). Exposure to 
PAHs has been linked with a variety of sublethal effects in fish, 
including DNA damage, internal and external lesions, gill and organ 
abnormalities, reduced adult fitness, altered and reduced growth, 
decreased fecundity, and reduced survival to maturity (Snyder et al. 
2015). Red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) sampled since 2013 show 
spatial variation in tissue concentrations of PAH metabolites (Snyder 
et al. 2015). Red snapper caught closer to the Mississippi River and 
the DWH spill area had higher PAH metabolite concentrations than 
snapper caught on the west Florida shelf. Additionally, the red snapper 
caught near the Mississippi River showed a decrease in PAH metabolite 
concentrations over time, indicating an exposure event to elevated PAHs 
that dissipated over time. Meanwhile, the snapper from the west Florida 
shelf showed no decrease in PAH metabolites over time, suggesting they 
were not exposed to elevated PAHs from the DWH spill. This indicates 
that the largest spawning population of Alabama shad, the population 
from the ACF River basin, and other populations in rivers that drain 
into the west Florida shelf may not have been exposed to oil and 
dispersants from the DWH spill, although this is uncertain.
    Despite widespread contamination of offshore waters by the DWH 
spill and to a lesser extent, coastal waters, the results of a study by 
Moody et al. (2013) provided little evidence for large-scale acute or 
persistent oil-induced impacts on organisms that complete all or a 
portion of their life cycle within an estuary in Point-aux-Pins, 
Alabama. The abundance of resident estuarine species declined 
significantly following the DWH spill, but returned to pre-spill 
abundances by 2011. There was no significant decline in the abundance 
of transient species (those that only spent a portion of their life 
cycle in the estuary), even though transient species were more likely 
exposed to oiling in the marine environment. Moody et al. (2013) 
concluded that despite the presence of localized oiling in coastal 
habitats outside Louisiana, the most severe oil impacts were largely 
relegated to the deep sea. Fodrie and Heck (2011) reviewed pre- and 
post-DWH fish data collected by trawl surveys in nearshore seagrass 
habitats from Louisiana to Florida. They concluded that immediate, 
catastrophic losses of 2010 year classes of marine organisms were 
largely avoided, and that no shifts in species composition occurred 
following the DWH spill. Fodrie and Heck (2011) also noted that there 
is increasing evidence that the acute impacts of the DWH spill may be 
concentrated in the deep ocean rather than shallow-water, coastal 
ecosystems where Alabama shad are known to occur.
    Little is known about Alabama shad in the marine environment, even 
though the species spends the majority of its life there. We considered 
the potential for effects to the species from the DWH spill by looking 
at studies of other offshore species. Rooker et al. (2013) looked at 
abundance and occurrence of the larvae of four deep-ocean species in 
relation to the DWH spill: Blackfin tuna (Thunnus atlanticus), blue 
marlin (Makaira nigricans), dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), and 
sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus). They determined that both the 
abundance and percent occurrence declined in 2010 for all four species 
relative to the 3 years prior to the DWH oil spill, suggesting that 
changes in environmental conditions, possibly linked to the presence of 
oil and dispersants, may have contributed to observed inter-annual 
variability. The most conspicuous 2010 declines were seen in billfish 
(blue marlin and sailfish) larvae. Given these larvae are typically 
restricted to surface waters compared to the other taxa surveyed 
(blackfin tuna

[[Page 4052]]

and dolphinfish), it is possible their exposure to DWH toxic compounds 
affected early life survival. However, Rooker et al. (2013) also note 
that inter-annual variability of larval abundance and distribution is 
relatively common for pelagic larvae in the Gulf of Mexico. Part of the 
apparent decline in billfish, dolphinfish, and tuna larvae therefore 
may be due to shifts in biological or oceanographic conditions and not 
entirely attributable to the DWH oil spill.
    In summary, there are no data indicating Alabama shad were directly 
affected by the DWH spill. The spill occurred in April when the most 
vulnerable early life stages of Alabama shad were in riverine areas and 
it is unlikely they were directly exposed. The older juveniles and 
adults that entered coastal and nearshore waters in late summer through 
winter may have been exposed to toxins from the DWH spill, but studies 
of other coastal species indicate recovery occurred the following year. 
It is likely that the worst acute effects of DWH were experienced 
further offshore in the marine environment. Although we have almost no 
information on the marine portion of Alabama shad's life cycle, it is 
doubtful this smaller anadromous species spends a significant portion 
of its life cycle far offshore like the large oceanic species (e.g., 
tuna and billfish). We ranked exposure to oil and other toxins from the 
DWH spill, on its own, as having a low risk of contributing to the 
extinction risk of Alabama shad. It is unknown whether the DWH spill 
will contribute to the extinction risk of Alabama shad in the 
foreseeable future.

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

    Small commercial fisheries for Alabama shad once existed in 
Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and Iowa (Adams et al. 
2000, Daniels 1860). Based on existing records, Alabama shad 
populations have never supported an important or sizeable commercial or 
recreational fishery, at least since the 19th century (NMFS et al. 
2012). Buchanan et al. (1999) reported that a ``limited'' commercial 
fishery existed in the Mississippi River system in the late 1800s. Only 
small catches of the species have been recorded for a few years in the 
statistical reports of the U.S. Fish Commission (Hildebrand 1963). The 
total reported commercial landings of Alabama shad were 3,165 kg (6,978 
pounds) in 1889 (Hildebrand 1963). The U.S. Fish Commission Report for 
1901 reported that a total of 3,154 kg (6,955 pounds) of the ``newly 
described species'' of ``Ohio'' shad (a species later determined to be 
the same species as Alabama shad) were caught in the Ohio River in West 
Virginia, Indiana, and Kentucky, valued at $355 (Townsend 1902). The 
report stated that the species had likely been caught in that river for 
a ``number of years.'' The 1901 report stated there was no catch of 
``Ohio'' (Alabama) shad in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, 
Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South 
Dakota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. The following year (1902), Hildebrand 
(1963) reported Alabama shad landings of 68 kg (150 pounds) from 
Alabama, with no commercial landings reported since. Hildebrand (1963) 
noted that Alabama shad were still numerous enough in Kentucky and Ohio 
to be taken in considerable quantities, but were undesirable for human 
consumption, and no attempts were made to catch and sell them. Coker 
(1930) stated that there were enough ``Ohio'' (Alabama) shad at the 
Keokuk Dam in Iowa in 1915 to support a substantial fishery, but that 
none developed, and ``a few'' have been taken commercially from the 
Ohio River. Coker (1930) observed that ``Ohio'' (Alabama) shad in the 
Mississippi River had no economic value at that time. The FFWCC 
(McBride 2000) notes that even though there have been significant 
fisheries for other Alosa species like American shad, hickory shad (A. 
mediocris), and blueback herring, a fishery for Alabama shad never 
developed in Florida. McBride (2000) also states that recreational 
fishing for Alabama shad began around 1950 but has not developed 
significantly. There are currently no directed fisheries for Alabama 
shad in any U.S. waters (Smith et al. 2011). Mills (1972) noted that 
striped bass fishermen used Alabama shad as bait. NMFS et al. (2012) 
reported that fishermen occasionally catch Alabama shad in the 
Apalachicola River below JWLD for bait to use while fishing for striped 
bass or flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris). Some Alabama shad are 
also collected for scientific research and for educational purposes. 
However it is unlikely that past or present collection or harvest 
(utilization) of Alabama shad for commercial, recreational, scientific, 
or education purposes, alone or in combination with other factors, has 
contributed significantly to the species' extinction risk. Further, 
given the lack of the sizeable harvest in the past, we do not 
anticipate the development of new fisheries or that directed harvest 
levels will otherwise increase in the future. Therefore, collection or 
harvest of Alabama shad is unlikely to significantly contribute to the 
species' extinction risk in the foreseeable future.

C. Disease and Predation

    Most of the Alabama shad collected during research and monitoring 
associated with JWLD conservation locking activities in 2013 had large, 
open sores or gash-like wounds, in some cases exposing organs and bone 
(Sammons 2013; S. Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. 
Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End Summary Meeting, January 
2014). These sores or wounds were not observed on other fish species 
collected (e.g., gizzard shad [Dorosoma cepedianum] and mullet [Mugil 
spp.]), indicating Alabama shad are either more susceptible to the 
source of the wounds or they are distributed in areas that the other 
species are not (Sammons 2013). The wounds were only observed on adult 
Alabama shad and not on younger fish, indicating the source may have 
occurred in the Gulf of Mexico (Sammons 2013). A researcher attending 
the 2014 JWLD Fish Passage Year-End Summary Meeting suggested that the 
pictures of the Alabama shad sores or wounds looked similar to symptoms 
of a disease that occurred in blueback herring on the Atlantic Coast. 
The 12-month listing determination for alewife and blueback herring (78 
FR 48944; August 12, 2013) states that mycobacteria, which can cause 
ulcers, emaciation, and sometimes death, have been found in many 
Chesapeake Bay fish, including blueback herring. Alabama shad with the 
wounds generally appeared to be in poor condition and suffered higher 
than normal mortality due to handling and tag insertion (Sammons 2013). 
Sammons (2013) also cited a news article reporting gash wounds on fish 
potentially associated with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill resembling 
the wounds found on Alabama shad. It is unknown what caused the sores 
or wounds in Alabama shad in the ACF River system and what percentage 
of the population may have been impacted. The sores have not been 
observed in any of the ~200 Alabama shad captured since 2013 (T. 
Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016). It 
is unknown whether disease is contributing to the species' extinction 
risk.
    Little information is available regarding predation on Alabama shad 
in freshwater systems and no information regarding predation in marine 
environments (NMFS et al. 2012). Like other clupeids, Alabama shad are 
likely

[[Page 4053]]

prey for piscivorous fishes, such as striped bass (Pattillo et al. 
1997). NMFS et al. (2012) noted that birds of prey (bald eagles and 
osprey) have been observed eating Alabama shad from the Apalachicola 
River. There is no available information suggesting Alabama shad 
populations are significantly affected by predation. It is unlikely 
that predation, alone or in combination with other factors, is 
significantly contributing to Alabama shad's extinction risk.

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Regulations on Harvest of Alabama Shad
    The harvest or collection of Alabama shad is not regulated in 
Federal waters, although the legal authority exists, and regulations 
could be implemented as necessary through the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
conservation and Management Act. A variety of protective regulations 
exist in the states within the species' historical range (NMFS et al. 
2012), although there are currently no directed fisheries for Alabama 
shad in any U.S. waters (Smith et al. 2011). Since January 1, 1997, 
hook-and-line has been the only allowable fishing gear for Alosa 
species in the State of Florida, with a limit of 10 shad (as an 
aggregate of Alabama, American, and hickory shad) for both recreational 
and commercial fishermen (Chapter 68B-52.001 of the Florida 
Administrative Code). In Louisiana, recreational regulations limit the 
taking of shad species (unspecified) to 50 pounds (22.7 kilograms) per 
day, with no size limit (NMFS et al. 2012). Alabama shad are not listed 
as a game fish in the Mississippi Department of Wildlife fishing 
regulations and may be taken as bait with dip/landing net, cast net, 
boat mounted scoop, or wire basket by resident anglers with the 
appropriate fresh or salt water recreational fishing license for 
personal use during sport fishing (NMFS et al. 2012). Alabama shad is a 
protected species in both Alabama and Georgia, and may only be 
collected with a state-issued scientific collector's permit that 
specifies Alabama shad. No recreational or commercial harvest is 
permitted in either state (NMFS et al. 2012). Alabama shad are 
classified as non-game fish in Missouri and Arkansas, and there are no 
catch or possession limits.
    Although there are no restrictions on the harvest of Alabama shad 
in marine waters, virtually nothing is known about the life history of 
the species in the marine environment and only 5 specimens have ever 
been recorded from marine waters. It is highly unlikely that fishermen 
or researchers would be able to successfully target the species in the 
marine environment. Harvest and collection of Alabama shad is 
restricted to varying degrees in Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, and 
Florida, while no restrictions are in place in Mississippi, Arkansas, 
or Missouri. Under ``Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, 
Scientific, or Educational Purposes'' (Factor B), we determined that it 
is unlikely that past or present collection or harvest (utilization) of 
Alabama shad has contributed significantly to the species' extinction 
risk. We also determined under Factor B that, given the lack of the 
sizeable harvest in the past, we do not anticipate the development of 
new fisheries or that directed harvest levels will otherwise increase 
in the future. Therefore, although harvest and collection of Alabama 
shad is regulated in some areas where the species occurs, but not in 
others, we believe that the existing laws are adequate to regulate the 
low levels of harvest and collection and are unlikely contributing to 
the extinction risk of Alabama shad.
Regulations on Dams
    The Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 791-828), as amended, 
provides for protecting, mitigating damages to, and enhancing fish and 
wildlife resources (including anadromous fish) impacted by 
hydroelectric facilities regulated by FERC. FERC must consult with 
state and Federal resource agencies on proposed hydroelectric projects 
and implement recommendations concerning fish and wildlife and their 
habitat, e.g., including spawning habitat, wetlands, instream flows 
(timing, quality, quantity), reservoir establishment and regulation, 
project construction and operation, fish entrainment and mortality, and 
recreational access. FERC must also consult with Federal and state 
resource agencies to renew the operating licenses for existing dams and 
must address impacts to natural resources. Both NMFS and USFWS, and in 
certain cases, U.S. Federal land management agencies, prescribe 
mandatory fish passage conditions for inclusion in hydropower licenses. 
These agencies and state resource agencies also may make nonbinding 
recommendations for additional mitigation to promote fish protection 
(OTA 1995). Specific regulations in section 10(j) of the FPA provide 
that licenses issued by FERC contain conditions to protect, mitigate 
damages to, and enhance fish and wildlife based on recommendations 
received from state and Federal agencies during the licensing or 
license renewal process. With regard to fish passage, Section 18 of the 
FPA requires a FERC licensee to construct, maintain, and operate 
fishways prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary 
of Commerce. Section 18 also allows that a fishway prescription can be 
reserved to address impacts that become apparent in the future.
    The presence of dams that block Alabama shad from accessing 
upstream spawning habitat is believed to be the primary cause of their 
decline in some river systems (NMFS et al. 2012, USFWS 2009a). The era 
of big dam building began in the 1930s, but slowed over time with the 
advent of environmental laws and alternative power sources (USBR 2015). 
The greatest rate of increase in reservoir storage occurred from the 
late 1950s to the late 1970s, with more dams (and some of the largest) 
built in the 1960s than in any other decade (Graf 1999). In the 
``golden age'' of U.S. dam building, thousands of large and small dams 
were built with little thought to the environmental impacts (Doyle et 
al. 2003). While very few new dams have been constructed since 1980 
(Graf 1999), FERC continues to renew licenses under the FPA for 
existing dams due to expiring licenses, modifications to power 
generating capabilities, or no prior license because the dam was 
constructed pre-FPA. FERC's initial mandate under the FPA of 1920 was 
the regulation of energy production, distribution, and availability; 
and the promotion of hydropower (OTA 1995). Environmental concerns were 
largely addressed through a number of laws that were enacted (some much 
later than the original FPA) to protect natural resources and the 
environment, including: the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934), 
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968), National Environmental Policy Act 
(1970), Federal Water Pollution Control Act/Clean Water Act (1972/
1977), and the Endangered Species Act (1973; OTA 1995). In 1986, 
Congress passed the Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA), a series 
of amendments to the FPA, which was designed, in part, to place greater 
emphasis on environmental considerations in licensing decisions. The 
FPA, as amended by ECPA, directs FERC to give equal consideration to 
the full range of purposes related to the potential value of a stream 
or river, including energy conservation, fish and wildlife resources 
(including spawning grounds and habitat), and other aspects of 
environmental quality in addition to

[[Page 4054]]

hydropower development. Although mandatory fish passage authority 
rested with the Federal resource agencies since the early part of this 
century, the ECPA was instrumental in elevating the importance of non-
developmental values in and increasing FERC's accountability for 
licensing decisions (OTA 1995). Through the addition of section 10(j), 
Federal and state resource agencies may recommend conditions to 
protect, enhance, or mitigate for damages to fish and wildlife 
resources under the FPA.
    FERC licenses have a term of 30 to 50 years, so NMFS' involvement 
in the licensing process to ensure the protection and accessibility of 
upstream habitat, and to improve habitat degraded by changes in water 
flow and quality from dam operations, may only occur 2-3 times a 
century for a particular project. However, an estimated 85 percent of 
the dams in the United States will be near the end of their operational 
lives by 2020 (Doyle et al. 2003). The current intensification of 
economic and environmental concerns is coinciding with a policy window 
in which many private dams are coming up for regulatory re-licensing 
with FERC (Doyle et al. 2003). Alabama shad may benefit from fishway 
requirements under section 18 of the FPA when prescriptions are made to 
address anadromous fish passage and during the re-licensing of existing 
hydroelectric dams when anadromous species are considered. Mitigation 
technologies to reduce the adverse effect of hydropower on the nation's 
fish resources have been employed, although not consistently, since the 
early 1900s; while their effectiveness is often poorly understood, in a 
review of 16 case studies, the majority demonstrated positive results 
for migratory fish stemming from technology implementation (OTA 1995). 
Decommissioning and/or removal of existing dam facilities as an 
alternative to relicensing has been raised more frequently since 1993 
and as part of the movement toward greater scrutiny of the adverse 
impacts of hydropower plants on certain fish populations (OTA 1995). 
Lovett (2014) notes that 1,150 dams have been removed in the last 20 
years. However, dam removal options are faced by a number of very real 
environmental, economic, and political constraints and, thus, are 
infrequently considered as alternatives to fish passage development.
    The FPA does not apply to non-hydropower dams, such as those 
operated by USACE for navigation purposes. However, under Section 
7(a)(2) of the ESA, Federal agencies are required to consult with NMFS 
or USFWS on activities that may affect listed species. Dam maintenance, 
repairs, and operational changes may require ESA Section 7 consultation 
and allow conservation measures benefitting listed species to be 
recommended or required. Alabama shad may also benefit from the 
conservation measures implemented for other species with similar needs 
or in similar habitats. USFWS (2007) completed a biological opinion 
under Section 7 of the ESA on USACE's drought operations for the 
Interim Operating Plan for JWLD in the ACF system. While that 
biological opinion did not evaluate Alabama shad it did analyze effects 
to Gulf sturgeon and three species of mussels (fat threeridge, purple 
bankclimber, and Chipola slabshell). USFWS (2007) determined that while 
there were likely to be some adverse effects to the mussels, the 
drought operations are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of any of the species or destroy their critical habitat. Because 
Alabama shad have similar water quality and quantity requirements to 
Gulf sturgeon, the conservation efforts for the sturgeon likely benefit 
shad. Federal agencies may also choose to use their authorities and 
resources for the conservation of species.
    In two river systems inhabited by Alabama shad, the ACF and Alabama 
River systems, USACE has voluntarily cooperated with state and Federal 
agencies to implement conservation locking for Alabama shad and other 
anadromous species. In 2012, the ``cooperator'' organizations (USACE, 
USFWS, NMFS, Georgia DNR, FFWCC, and TNC) signed a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) clarifying their commitments and responsibilities 
in the continued implementation of fish passage at JWLD. In Part B. of 
the MOU, ``Statement of Mutual Benefit and Interests'', the cooperator 
organizations agree to: (1) Provide mutual assistance, share 
information and technology, and coordinate efforts for fish passage, 
(2) discuss a strategy for providing passage at JWLD for the 
conservation and restoration of migratory fishes in the ACF River 
Basin, consistent with authorized project purposes, (3) initiate and 
participate in a JWLD Fish Passage Partnership and discuss yearly fish 
passage operation for migratory fishes at JWLD. Collaborate, assist, 
and support research, monitoring, outreach, and related activities for 
determining the effects of fish passage on migratory fish populations 
and habitats at JWLD and the ACF River Basin, (4) foster partnerships 
that support the passage of migratory fishes in Georgia and Florida 
among state agencies, federal agencies, and the public within the ACF 
River Basin, and (5) designate a Partnership Coordinator from one of 
the cooperators in order to facilitate the partnership and fulfill the 
purpose of the MOU. The Partnership Coordinator shall provide a report 
of the annual fish passage operations, results, and related activities 
to all cooperators.
    In fulfillment of the cooperation outlined in the MOU, an annual 
meeting to discuss the issues and outcomes from the previous spring 
conservation locking cycle is held, usually in the early part of the 
following year (i.e., January or February). Powerpoints presented at 
the meeting, data summaries, reports to funding agencies, and journal 
articles or other publications resulting from research in the ACF are 
provided to cooperators and interested parties, satisfying the annual 
reporting noted in #5 of Part B. of the MOU. At the annual meeting, the 
cooperators and other interested parties (e.g., universities that are 
not signatories to the MOU, but are heavily involved in research 
activities associated with the conservation locking in the ACF) discuss 
lessons learned from the previous year and participate in planning the 
next cycle of spring conservation locking, including whether the 
locking operation and schedule can be improved. For example, during the 
planned maintenance on the lock that occurred during the 2013-2014 
season, the cooperators were able to upgrade the method of delivering 
the attractant flow (a stream of high velocity water used to attract 
spawning fish) from a manual system to an electric pump as a more 
efficient way to direct shad through the lock when conservation locking 
resumed (S. Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. 
Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End Summary Meeting, January 
2014).
    Although the MOU does not require implementation of conservation 
locking at JWLD, USACE had demonstrated a commitment to continuing 
conservation locking. The current operations considered in developing 
alternatives for the updated USACE Master Water Control Manual (FEIS; 
December 2016) includes standard operating procedures for conservation 
locking at the JWLD to benefit Alabama shad. All alternatives 
considered in the FEIS included conservation locking. The FEIS 
indicates that in most years since the spring of 2005, USACE has 
operated the lock at JWLD between March and May to facilitate 
downstream-to-upstream passage of Alabama shad in cooperation with 
pertinent state and federal agencies. In general two fish locking

[[Page 4055]]

cycles are performed each day. While studies are ongoing to determine 
the most appropriate technique and timing for the locks, the number of 
lock cycles per day will not change (FEIS 2016).
    The presence of dams that block Alabama shad from accessing 
upstream spawning habitat is believed to be the primary cause of their 
decline in some river systems. The purpose of the original FPA of 1920 
was the regulation of energy production, distribution, and 
availability, and the promotion of hydropower, and dams were built with 
little or no regard for the environmental consequences. The adverse 
environmental effects, including effects to anadromous fish species, 
were largely unaddressed until the 1970s with the enactment of several 
major environmental laws. However, the FPA itself was amended by the 
ECPA in 1986, which directed FERC to give equal consideration to 
environmental issues. The FPA, through Section 18 and 10(j), provides 
opportunities to implement conservation measures at existing dams. 
Although some dams are not subject to the FPA, other mechanisms exist 
to achieve conservation measures in addition to fish passage at non-FPA 
dams (Section 7 consultation and voluntary efforts such as conservation 
locking). Therefore, we ranked the inadequacy of existing dam 
regulations as having a low risk of contributing significantly to the 
current and foreseeable risk of extinction for Alabama shad.
Regulations Associated With Water Quality
    The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and amendments (FWPCA) (33 
U.S.C. 1251-1376), also called the ``Clean Water Act,'' mandates 
Federal protection of water quality. The law also provides for 
assessment of injury, destruction, or loss of natural resources caused 
by discharge of pollutants. Section 404 of the FWPCA prohibits the 
discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters without a 
permit. The main responsibility for water quality management resides 
with the states in the implementation of water quality standards, the 
administration of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) program (where the state has received EPA approval to do so), 
and the management of non-point sources of pollution. Section 303(d) of 
the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters that do not meet 
or are not expected to meet water quality standards. Each state 
develops Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for its water quality-
limited waters. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a 
pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality 
standards, and an allocation of that load among the various point and 
non-point sources of that pollutant. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act 
created a system for permitting wastewater discharges. Collectively the 
NPDES sets specific limits on discharge of various types of pollutants 
from point-source outfalls. A non-point source control program focuses 
primarily on the reduction of agricultural siltation and chemical 
pollution resulting from rain runoff into streams. Efforts to reduce 
non-point pollution currently rely on the use of land management 
practices to reduce surface runoff through programs administered 
primarily by the Department of Agriculture.
    Water quality has been cited as a threat to Alabama shad (Mettee 
and O'Neil 2003, Mettee et al. 1996). We reviewed the water quality 
assessment reports for rivers occupied by Alabama shad submitted by 
individual states to the EPA under Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the 
Clean Water Act. The assessment reports prepared by the states show 
that water quality in approximately half of the river mi within the 
species' current range is deemed to be good. The remaining areas are 
impaired for one or more reasons, including the presence of heavy 
metals, low DO, impaired biota, sedimentation, and the presence of 
other organic and inorganic contaminants. Further a comparison of NCCR 
I-IV, published by the EPA in 2001, 2005, 2008, and 2012, shows a 
pattern of overall improving water quality in the Gulf of Mexico, with 
the overall condition improving from NCCR I to IV. Contaminant loads in 
sediments and in fish tissue also improved from ``poor'' to ``fair.'' 
The DO content of coastal waters in the Gulf Coast has remained 
``good'' in all four reports. Based on this recent record of 
performance, regulatory mechanisms governing water quality are at a low 
risk of contributing significantly to the current and foreseeable risk 
of extinction for Alabama shad.
Regulatory Mechanisms for Climate Change
    Greenhouse gas emissions are regulated through multi-state and 
international agreements, and through statutes and regulations, at the 
national, state, or provincial level. One of the key international 
agreements relevant to attempts to control greenhouse gas emissions, 
the Copenhagen Accord, was developed in 2009 by the Conference of 
Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 
The Copenhagen Accord identifies specific information provided by 
Parties on quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020 and on 
nationally appropriate mitigation actions to help achieve the goal of 
capping increasing average global temperature at 2 [deg]C above pre-
industrial levels. The last conference of the Parties to the United 
National Framework Convention on Climate Change was held in Lima, Peru, 
in December 2014. The resulting decisions from the meeting were 
primarily to continue ongoing efforts to reach a new agreement for 
emissions reductions to be adopted at the 2015 meeting in Paris, 
France, and to have those implemented by 2020. The new agreement would 
maintain the same overall goal as the Copenhagen Accord, to cap 
additional warming at 2 [deg]C.
    Within the United States, President Barack Obama released the 
President's Climate Action Plan in June 2013. The plan is three-
pronged, including proposed actions for mitigation, adaptation, and 
international leadership. The actions listed for mitigation include 
completing carbon pollution standards for new and existing power 
plants, accelerating clean energy permitting, increasing funding for 
clean energy innovation and technology, increasing fuel economy 
standards, increasing energy efficiency in homes, businesses, and 
factories, and reducing other greenhouse gas emissions including 
hydrofluorocarbons and methane. The plan states that the United States 
is still committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent 
below 2005 levels by 2020 if all other major economies agree to similar 
reductions. Additional efforts made domestically related to climate 
change are more focused on facilitating adaptation to the impending 
changes to the environment due to climate change in order to maintain 
the country's natural and economic resources, but do not directly 
address the emission of greenhouse gas.
    National and international efforts to limit climate change are 
ambitious, but their success is uncertain since major agreements are 
still being formulated, and the outcomes of ongoing activities are not 
yet known. Likewise, the effects of climate change on Alabama shad and 
their habitat are also not yet known. However, climate change 
predictions by the IPCC (IPCC AR5 2014) suggest that temperature 
increases throughout the range of Alabama shad of 1.5-2.5 [deg]C by the 
mid-21st century may be less than other areas in North America (2.5-4 
[deg]C by the mid-21st century), even with no additional efforts to 
constrain

[[Page 4056]]

greenhouse gas emissions. Flooding and drought are not attributable to 
climate change, and the IPCC predicts little to no change in average 
annual precipitation within the range of Alabama shad through 2065, 
although the predictions are less certain for the remainder of the 21st 
century (IPCC AR5). Sea level rise associated with climate change may 
salinize groundwater and decrease freshwater availability, exacerbating 
existing water allocation issues. Regulatory mechanisms addressing 
water allocation issues (discussed in the following section) are likely 
to have as much immediate impact on this issue as regulatory mechanisms 
addressing the causes of sea level rise. It is unknown how regulations 
addressing climate change may contribute to Alabama shad's extinction 
risk, either now or in the foreseeable future.
Regulatory Mechanisms Associated With Water Allocation
    It is unknown whether water allocation issues contribute to Alabama 
shad's extinction risk. Regulations associated with water allocation 
are both an intra- and inter-state issue. Within a state's borders, 
state laws determine rights to use water (CBO 2006). In the East, water 
rights are formed under riparian doctrine, meaning ownership of land 
adjacent to a body of water (riparian land) conveys the right to use 
the water in a way that is reasonable (Ruhl 2003, CBO 2006). 
Determining what is reasonable involves consideration of the purpose of 
the use, the suitability of the use to the body of water, economic and 
social values of the use, the extent of harm caused, the practicality 
of avoiding any harm by adjusting the methods or quantities of use, and 
the fairness of making the user who causes harm bear losses (CBO 2006). 
In practice today, owners of riparian land must obtain permits from a 
state agency to use water. Permits may also be available to others who 
do not own riparian land. The charters incorporating most cities give 
them power to procure water for public purposes and to supply the 
domestic needs of their residents, and states have modified the 
riparian doctrine by introducing exceptions that allow municipal uses 
(CBO 2006).
    In Georgia, the 15-county Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning 
District was created through legislation to manage the water supply and 
its consumption for economic, environmental, and social well-being. The 
Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District prohibits the inter-
basin transfers of water from outside the district to meet water supply 
demands within the district (Cole and Carver 2011). The Metropolitan 
North Georgia Water Planning District encompasses the Atlanta 
metropolitan area, the most populous area in Georgia and the ninth 
largest metro area in the U.S. Therefore, regulations that limit inter-
basin transfers would benefit Alabama shad by limiting the amount of 
water removed from rivers within their range. Georgia's Board of 
Natural Resources adopted an instream flow policy in 2001 that ensures 
the minimum flows required to protect aquatic habitat, such as that for 
Alabama shad, are maintained downstream of new water withdrawals (Cole 
and Carver 2011). In Florida, when determining whether the public 
interest is served by a transfer of groundwater from one water district 
to another, or surface water from one county to another, the governing 
board or department must consider an array of factors, including the 
potential environmental impacts (Cole and Carver 2011). The State of 
Florida statutes require local governments to consult with water 
suppliers to ensure that adequate water supplies will be in place and 
available to serve a new development by the time the local government 
issues the development's certificate of occupancy (Cole and Carver 
2011). In addition to state laws governing water allocation, many 
states within the range of Alabama shad also have state water plans 
that are intended to be comprehensive strategies for the long-term 
management of water resources on a watershed basis. Georgia, Florida, 
Missouri, and Arkansas have state water plans in place, and Alabama and 
Louisiana have draft plans. The state plans vary in detail and goals, 
but generally attempt to balance economic, public health, and 
environmental needs. Water planning that considers environmental needs, 
such as downstream habitat for fish, are likely to benefit Alabama shad 
because it increases the likelihood that adequate water flows will be 
available.
    When water allocation issues arise between states, there are 
generally three ways to resolve the issue. States can enter into a 
compact agreeing to a division of resources, which would then require 
congressional approval (Ruhl 2003). Second, the commerce clause of the 
Constitution gives Congress the authority to allocate interstate waters 
to serve the national interest, even if doing so means overriding state 
law (Ruhl 2003, CBO 2006). The third option is for states to take their 
dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court, which can exercise its jurisdiction 
to arrive at an equitable apportionment of the water (Ruhl 2003).
    The major water allocation issues affecting Alabama shad are 
between Alabama, Georgia, and Florida over use of water in the ACT and 
ACF River basins. SELC (2015b) documented the following history of the 
dispute, which ensued in 1989 after USACE recommended reallocation of 
water from reservoirs in the ACT and ACF basins to supply the Atlanta, 
Georgia, metro area. Alabama sued USACE, stating they had ignored 
environmental impacts on the downstream states and breached their duty 
to benefit all downstream users. Florida intervened on the side of 
Alabama, and Georgia and metro Atlanta municipalities intervened or 
initiated their own lawsuits against USACE for not allowing the 
reservoirs to serve current and future water supply needs. The lawsuit 
was put on hold to allow the three states and USACE to negotiate a 
resolution, conduct comprehensive studies, and create a structure that 
would allow the states to work together. Each state passed a compact, 
and they were ratified by Congress in 1997. However, agreement could 
not be reached, the compacts expired without resolution in 2003 and 
2004, and the states went back to court. The litigation continued for 
over a decade. In 2009, a judge ruled that Lake Lanier (part of the ACF 
basin) was not authorized to supply water to metro Atlanta. The ruling 
was reversed by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and after the U.S. 
Supreme Court subsequently declined to hear the case, the litigation 
was temporarily suspended. Currently at the U.S. Supreme Court is a 
case brought by Florida against Georgia alleging harm to Apalachicola 
Bay resulting from Georgia's disproportionate use of water from the ACF 
River system.
    We evaluated water allocation issues under the ``Present or 
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of its Habitat or 
Range'' (Factor A). Transferring water from one river basin to another 
can alter natural water flows in both the originating and receiving 
basins, and exacerbate any existing water quality issues. It is not 
known how much water is already being removed and transferred from 
rivers used by Alabama shad. The biggest interstate allocation dispute 
is occurring in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia over the future 
allocation of water in the ACF and ACT River basins. While the outcomes 
of water allocation and the regulatory mechanisms governing it are 
unknown, the Alabama shad population in the ACF continues to be the 
largest known spawning population, and

[[Page 4057]]

conservation locking is occurring in both the ACF and ACT basins to 
reduce the effects of dams, the primary threat to the species in both 
systems. Under Factor A, we determined that it is unknown whether water 
allocation issues contribute to Alabama shad's extinction risk, either 
now or in the foreseeable future. It is also unknown whether the 
regulatory mechanisms for managing water allocation in Alabama shad's 
riverine habitat are adequate or whether they are contributing to the 
species' extinction risk, either now or in the foreseeable future due 
to the complexity of the issue, the length of time (more than 25 years) 
the issue has persisted, and the inability of the major stakeholders to 
come to agreement or final decision. However, state and Federal 
agencies and an environmental organization (USACE, USFWS, NMFS, Georgia 
DNR, FFWCC, and TNC) did achieve agreement in the signed 2012 MOU for a 
cooperative fish passage strategy at JWLD that it was to their mutual 
interest and benefit to coordinate efforts for fish passage for the 
conservation and restoration of migratory fish, such as Alabama shad, 
in the ACF River Basin.
Other Regulatory Mechanisms Affecting Alabama Shad
    Other ESA listings and critical habitat designations for species 
within the range of Alabama shad may also promote the conservation of 
Alabama shad. For instance, Gulf sturgeon, listed under the ESA as 
threatened in 1991 (56 FR 49653), inhabit many of the same rivers along 
the Gulf of Mexico as Alabama shad. Critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon 
was designated in 2003 (68 FR 13370). The primary constituent elements 
of Gulf sturgeon critical habitat include habitat elements that are 
also important for shad (i.e., abundant food items, riverine spawning 
sites, riverine aggregation areas, flow regime, water quality, sediment 
quality, and safe and unobstructed migratory pathways). Measures to 
improve habitats and reduce impacts to Gulf sturgeon may directly or 
indirectly benefit Alabama shad. Both species are anadromous; adults 
spawn in freshwater in the spring and early summer then migrate back 
into estuarine and marine waters. Many of the habitats that Gulf 
sturgeon occupy are also habitats that Alabama shad use for spawning, 
migration, and juvenile rearing. Therefore, protection measures for 
Gulf sturgeon, such as improved fish passage and water quality, or 
reduction of water withdrawals, may also provide a benefit to Alabama 
shad. Passage for sturgeon species, although less studied, has become 
more of a priority in recent years (Kynard et al. 2008), while passage 
technologies are considered to be well developed and well understood 
for the main anadromous species, including Alosa species (Kynard et al. 
2008, Larinier and Marmulla 2004). Sturgeon species are known to be 
more highly sensitive than most other species to water quality 
problems, such as low DO and contaminants (Niklitschek and Secor 2009a, 
2009b, Dwyer et al. 2005). Because Alabama shad are likely easier to 
pass through fish passages and are less susceptible to water quality 
problems, it is reasonable that measures to improve fish passage and 
water quality for Gulf sturgeon will apply to Alabama shad, as well.
    Alabama shad in the ACF River system have been found to be the host 
for the larvae of an ESA-listed freshwater mussel (S. Herrington, The 
Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage 
Year-End Summary Meeting, January 2014). The purple bankclimber, a 
freshwater mussel listed as threatened under the ESA (63 FR 12664), is 
potentially one of the species using Alabama shad to transport larvae 
upstream. Critical habitat for the purple bankclimber and other listed 
freshwater mussels has been designated in the ACF River system (72 FR 
64286), and the primary constituent elements include a geomorphically 
stable stream channel, stream substrate with low to moderate amounts of 
silt and clay, permanently flowing water, water quality, and fish hosts 
that support the larval life stages of the seven mussels. Conservation 
actions to benefit the purple bankclimber mussel could potentially 
protect both the Alabama shad and its habitat. For example when the 
USFWS consulted on the drought operations for the Interim Operating 
Plan for JWLD in 2007, they considered effects to the purple 
bankclimber. Reasonable and prudent measures required by USFWS (2007) 
during drought operations that may benefit Alabama shad include (1) 
adaptively managing operation of the system using information collected 
on species and their habitats, upstream water use, and climatic 
conditions, (2) increasing the lower threshold for reservoir storage 
from 8,000 to 10,000 cubic feet per second (i.e., increasing flows in 
downstream areas by limiting reservoir storage during low flow times), 
(3) modifying the operation plan to provide higher minimum flow to the 
Apalachicola River when conditions permit, and (4) evaluating the 
sediment dynamics and channel morphology in the Apalachicola River to 
allow better prediction of the effects of operations on species in the 
riverine environment.
    Thus, other ESA listings and critical habitat designations, are 
unlikely contributing to the extinction risk of Alabama shad. Overall, 
harvest and collection of Alabama shad are adequately controlled 
through the state regulations. Regulatory mechanisms governing water 
quality appear to be having success, although water quality is still 
impaired in some areas throughout the Alabama shad's range. The 
outcomes of state, Federal, and international laws governing dams, 
water allocation, and climate change, and their adequacy in protecting 
Alabama shad and their habitat, are unknown. Therefore, we ranked the 
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms overall as having a low risk of 
contributing significantly to the current and foreseeable risk of 
extinction for Alabama shad.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Bycatch, the incidental catch of a species in fisheries targeting 
another species, is a potential threat to Alabama shad in the marine 
environment. Although there are no reports of Alabama shad being taken 
as bycatch in fisheries, many fisheries lack comprehensive bycatch 
monitoring (Harrington et al. 2005, Crowder and Murawski 1998). While 
bycatch in shrimp trawls is a significant source of mortality for many 
finfish in the Southeast, no Alosa species were recorded during 
mandatory observer reporting from the Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl 
fishery in 2007-2010 (Scott-Denton et al. 2012). Guillory and Hutton 
(1982) surveyed incidental catch in the Louisiana Gulf menhaden 
(Brevoortia patronus) purse seine fishery in 1980 and 1981 by taking 
samples at processing plants. Total bycatch comprised 2.68 percent by 
number and 2.35 percent by weight of the menhaden catch. While no 
Alabama shad were found in the bycatch, another Alosa species, the 
skipjack herring, made up 0.1 percent both by number and weight of the 
overall bycatch. Hutchings and Reynolds (2004) stated that clupeids are 
more resilient than other fish in the marine environment, attributed in 
part to their reduced vulnerability to bycatch. There are no reports of 
Alabama shad being taken as bycatch in fisheries, although we have no 
information on life history or location of Alabama shad within the 
marine environment and much bycatch goes unreported. It is unknown 
whether incidental capture in other fisheries contributes to Alabama 
shad's

[[Page 4058]]

extinction risk, either now or in the foreseeable future.

Conclusions on Extinction Risk of Alabama Shad Throughout Its Range

    The presence of dams throughout the Alabama shad's range blocks 
access to upstream spawning sites in many rivers and is believed to be 
the primary cause of population decline in the species. While there are 
little historical or current data quantifying declines in Alabama shad, 
we believe that the species' abundance is reduced from historical 
levels. We believe both low abundance and the presence of dams are the 
greatest threats to Alabama shad and ranked both as posing moderate 
risks to the species. We noted these factors could, in combination with 
other factors, contribute significantly to their risk of extinction. In 
this section, we consider these factors in combination with other 
relevant demographic factors and threats to determine whether 
synergistic effects would result in a significantly greater extinction 
risk for Alabama shad to the extent that the species' persistence is at 
risk.
    The abundance of Alabama shad in many river systems is considered 
to be low. However, we have estimates of current abundance from only 
one river system and we do not have any historical abundance estimates 
of Alabama shad, which can be indicative of abundance levels associated 
with low extinction risk. However, populations may also be at low risk 
of extinction at abundance levels below historical levels, and accurate 
estimates of historical abundance are not essential for evaluating 
extinction risk. Whether a species qualifies for listing under the ESA 
depends on whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so within the foreseeable future as a result of one or more of 
the factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. If a species is 
viable at its current population levels into the foreseeable future, it 
is irrelevant whether that population level is or is not close to its 
historical levels. We believe the low abundance of Alabama shad is 
offset by the high productivity and spatial distribution of the 
species, which is believed to be stable. We ranked productivity and 
spatial distribution as having a low probability of posing an 
extinction risk to the species. Alabama shad are highly productive, 
reaching spawning age at 1-2 years, and spawning multiple times during 
a single spawning season, as well as potentially throughout their 
lifetime. The nine known Alabama shad spawning populations are widely 
distributed, ranging from Gulf Coast rivers and their tributaries, from 
the Suwannee River, Florida, to the Mississippi River, including Lower 
Mississippi tributaries in the Midwest.
    Although some of these spawning populations are small, this wide 
geographic distribution of spawning populations increases the 
resiliency of the species, reducing its vulnerability to catastrophic 
events such as storms, disease, or manmade threats, which usually occur 
at smaller scales. The short generation time for the species also adds 
to its resiliency, allowing it to take advantage of suitable habitat 
conditions for reproduction. The spawning success of Alabama shad in 
the ACF River system illustrates this ability to take advantage of 
newly available spawning habitat made accessible through conservation 
locking at JWLD.
    Alabama shad are anadromous and generally return to their natal 
rivers to spawn. While the genetic diversity of Alabama shad is low, 
likely due to natural bottleneck events that occurred during the 
Pleistocene, we ranked diversity as having a low probability of posing 
an extinction risk to the species. The bottleneck is believed to have 
reduced their genetic load (presence of harmful genes) and genetic 
analyses indicate the species strays into other river systems to spawn 
at a greater rate than most anadromous species. This higher rate of 
straying into other river systems, combined with the species' high 
productivity and ability to take advantage of suitable environmental 
conditions, along with the wide spatial distribution of the spawning 
populations increases the species resilience and could allow 
individuals to enhance smaller river populations and repopulate river 
systems that have experienced declines or extirpations.
    Existing dams continue to block access by Alabama shad to upstream 
habitat, although few new dams are being built today. Under 
``Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms'' (Factor D), we ranked 
the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms regulating dams, primarily the 
FPA and ESA, as posing a low risk of extinction to the species. The FPA 
provides for protecting, mitigating damages to, and enhancing fish and 
wildlife resources, including anadromous fish, impacted by 
hydroelectric facilities regulated by the FERC. The FPA does not apply 
to non-hydropower dams, such as those operated by USACE for navigation 
purposes, but maintenance, repairs, and operational changes may require 
ESA section 7 consultation and allow conservation measures benefitting 
Alabama shad and other species to be recommended or required. In two 
river systems inhabited by Alabama shad (the ACF and Alabama River 
systems), USACE has voluntarily cooperated with state and Federal 
agencies to implement conservation locking for Alabama shad and other 
anadromous species. Conservation locking in the Alabama River, 
occurring since 2009, has only been coupled with stocking and 
monitoring since 2014, and any benefits to the species are not expected 
to be evident for a few years. Conservation locking in the ACF River 
system has had success. The abundance of Alabama Shad in the ACF has 
been variable, but higher in many of the years, since locking began. 
Also, a study by Schaffler et al. (2015) reported that 86 percent of 
Alabama shad were spawned above JWLD after conservation locking began. 
Even more compelling is a genetic study (Schaffler et al. 2015) that 
shows 86 percent of the spawning adult Alabama shad in the ACF were 
spawned in the Flint River, which has only become accessible with the 
recent conservation locking. In light of the inter-agency cooperation 
with other entities noted above in the discussion of the ACF system, we 
expect conservation locking to continue at JWLD. Although dams exist in 
other river systems, spawning populations of Alabama shad have 
persisted in a number of those systems notwithstanding the presence of 
obstacles to passage, as shown in range maps and discussed above.
    We also evaluated water quality and the adequacy of regulations 
governing water quality in combination with the moderate threats of low 
abundance and the presence of dams, because water quality is often 
cited as a concern for Alabama shad and dams may affect water quality. 
Dredging and land-based activities (agriculture, silviculture, and 
industrial, commercial, and residential development) can also result in 
degraded water quality in rivers and coastal waters inhabited by 
Alabama shad. We looked at state water quality reports, required by 
Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, for river systems 
inhabited by Alabama shad spawning populations. Of the assessed river 
mi, about half were deemed to have good water quality and half were 
impaired. Low DO, mercury, impaired biota, and sedimentation were 
listed as the primary impairments, although there are no known studies 
linking these impairments to effects in Alabama shad or indicating that 
the species is susceptible to effects from these impairments. We 
reviewed the EPA's NCCR I-IV reports, which show that the overall 
condition of the Gulf Coast

[[Page 4059]]

region is fair and coastal water quality in the Gulf of Mexico has 
improved since 2001. We ranked water quality as having an unknown 
probability of posing an extinction risk to the species. We ranked the 
inadequacy of regulations governing water quality as having a low 
probability of posing an extinction risk to the species, as landmark 
laws such as the Clean Water Act have successfully worked to improve 
and maintain water quality in aquatic habitats supporting Alabama shad. 
We do not believe water quality or the inadequacy of regulations 
governing water quality, alone or in combination with other factors, 
are contributing significantly to the extinction risk of Alabama shad.
    Other known threats ranked as posing an unknown, unlikely, or low 
risk of extinction to Alabama shad include climate change, direct 
harvest, bycatch, and the regulatory mechanisms governing these and 
other threats. National and international efforts to stem climate 
change are ambitious, but their success is uncertain since major 
agreements are still being formulated, and the outcomes of ongoing 
activities are not yet known. The effects of climate change on Alabama 
shad and their habitat are also uncertain, although based on the 
species' life history and evidence from responses by other Alosa 
species to temperature shifts, we believe there is a low probability of 
this factor contributing significantly to the extinction risk of 
Alabama shad. Data and literature suggest that harvest of Alabama shad, 
either directly for commercial, recreational, or scientific purposes or 
as incidental bycatch, is unlikely to contribute to the extinction risk 
of Alabama shad and existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate to 
control harvest. Additionally, environmental regulations, such as the 
FWCA and the ESA listing and critical habitat designations for other 
species are likely benefitting the species. We do not believe climate 
change, direct harvest, bycatch, and the regulatory mechanisms 
governing these and other threats, alone and in combination with other 
factors, are contributing significantly to the extinction risk of 
Alabama shad.
    We were unable to rank the contribution of water allocation and the 
adequacy of regulatory mechanisms governing it, DWH, and disease and 
predation to the extinction risk of Alabama shad. Water allocation 
issues are a growing concern in the Southeast United States. One of the 
biggest interstate allocation disputes is ongoing between Alabama, 
Florida, and Georgia over the future allocation of water in the ACF and 
ACT River basins. The complexity of the issue, the length of time (more 
than 25 years) that the water allocation issue remains unresolved, and 
the inability of the major stakeholders to come to agreement or final 
decision, as well as the fact that we do not know whether or how 
Alabama shad may be affected by water allocation issues, leads to great 
uncertainty about the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms for managing 
water allocation in Alabama shad's riverine habitat. While the outcomes 
of water allocation and the adequacy of the regulatory mechanisms 
governing it are unknown, the Alabama shad population in the ACF 
continues to be the largest known spawning population, and conservation 
locking is occurring in both the ACF and ACT basins to alleviate the 
effects of dams, the primary threat to the species in both systems. 
There is no evidence that Alabama shad were affected immediately after 
the DWH oil spill. Given that the spill occurred in April when the most 
vulnerable early life stages were in riverine areas, it is unlikely 
they were directly exposed. The more mature Alabama shad that entered 
coastal and nearshore waters following the DWH spill in late summer 
through winter may have been exposed to toxins from the DWH spill, but 
studies of other coastal species affected by the spill show that most 
recovered by the following year. It is likely that the worst acute 
effects were experienced further offshore in the marine environment and 
more studies will be necessary to determine any long-term, chronic 
impacts from the DWH spill. There are few data on disease and predation 
in relation to Alabama shad and it is unknown whether either factor is 
contributing to the species' extinction risk.
    In summary, we did not identify any demographic factors or threats 
that are likely or highly likely to contribute significantly to the 
Alabama shad's risk of extinction. We conclude that the greatest 
threats to Alabama shad, low abundance and the presence of dams, pose a 
moderate threat to the species. However, these threats, alone and in 
combination with other factors, do not pose a significant risk of 
extinction. Other demographic factors that pose a low likelihood of 
contributing to extinction risk, and potentially offset the threats of 
low abundance and dams, include the species' high productivity, wide 
spatial distribution, and genetic evidence that the presence of harmful 
genes has been reduced and genetic transfer between spawning 
populations is likely occurring at a greater rate than for most 
anadromous species. While dams originally led to declines in Alabama 
shad, the lack of new dam construction, the adequacy of regulations 
governing new and existing dams, and ongoing conservation efforts also 
reduce the effects of dams on Alabama shad. We believe water quality, 
climate change, direct harvest, bycatch, and the inadequacy of the 
regulatory mechanisms governing these and other threats are not 
contributing, alone or in combination, to the extinction risk of 
Alabama shad. We evaluated other threats (water allocation issues, DWH, 
disease, and predation), but found there was not enough information or 
too much uncertainty in pending outcomes, to determine their 
contribution to the extinction risk of Alabama shad. Based on these 
conclusions, we find that the Alabama shad is at low risk of extinction 
throughout all of its range, now and in the foreseeable future.

Significant Portion of the Range Evaluation

    The ESA definitions of ``endangered'' and ``threatened'' species 
refer to two spatial scales: A species' entire range or a significant 
portion of its range. We initially evaluated the extinction risk of 
Alabama shad throughout its entire range and found it to be low. So we 
must consider if a ``significant portion of its range'' is at higher 
risk, such that it elevates the entire species' status to endangered or 
threatened. However, this evaluation can only be conducted if a 
``significant portion of its range'' where the species' status is more 
imperiled can be identified.
    The USFWS and NMFS have jointly finalized a policy interpreting the 
phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPOIR) (79 FR 37578; July 
1, 2014). The SPOIR policy provides that: (1) If a species is found to 
be endangered or threatened in only a significant portion of its range, 
the entire species is listed as endangered or threatened, respectively, 
and the ESA's protections apply across the species' entire range; (2) a 
portion of the range of a species is ``significant'' if the species is 
not currently endangered or threatened throughout its range, and the 
portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so important 
that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, 
throughout all of its range; and (3) the range of a species is 
considered to be the general geographical area within which that 
species can be found at the time we make any particular status 
determination. We evaluated

[[Page 4060]]

whether substantial information indicated that (i) the portions may be 
significant and (ii) the species occupying those portions may be in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable 
future (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). Under the SPOIR policy, both 
considerations must apply to warrant listing a species as threatened or 
endangered throughout its range based upon its status within a portion 
of the range.
    We reviewed the best available information on Alabama shad and 
considered several relevant factors in identifying whether portions of 
the species' range may be significant: (1) Population abundance, (2) 
contributions to other populations, and (3) concentration and acuteness 
of threats. Based on these criteria, we initially identified only one 
population, the Alabama shad that spawn in the ACF River system, as 
potentially constituting a SPOIR. First, we considered population 
abundance. The Alabama shad population spawning in the ACF is believed 
to be one to several orders of magnitude larger than other spawning 
populations. Next we considered the potential contribution of the ACF 
spawning population to other populations. Genetic analyses indicate 
that Alabama shad spawn in systems other than their natal system at a 
rate of about 10 migrants per year. Because the spawning population in 
the ACF River system is large relative to other systems, migrants from 
the ACF may make greater contributions as compared to shad from smaller 
populations. The loss of the largest spawning population of Alabama 
shad would leave only smaller populations of Alabama shad and could 
make the species as a whole less resilient to environmental 
perturbations, including catastrophic events. Finally, we looked at 
concentration and acuteness of threats. While the majority of threats 
to Alabama shad are neither concentrated nor acute in specific portions 
of the species' range, the ACF River system is one of two river systems 
within the range of Alabama shad that we identified as being threatened 
by water allocation issues.
    We initially identified the spawning population of Alabama shad in 
the ACF River system as being potentially significant under the SPOIR 
policy because (1) it is believed to be the largest spawning population 
by one to several orders of magnitude, (2) it could contribute to the 
viability of the species as a whole because of its large relative size 
and potential role in enhancing other river populations through 
outmigration, and (3) the threat of water allocation issues is 
concentrated in the ACF River system. We did not identify any other 
SPOIRs since (1) we do not have abundance estimates for any other 
Alabama shad populations, although they are believed to be at least one 
order of magnitude smaller than the ACF population, (2) we do not have 
information that another population is making significant contributions 
to other populations, and (3) we did not identify any other populations 
that were differentially experiencing concentrated nor acute threats 
compared to other populations.
    Following the SPOIR policy, we next evaluated whether the species 
occupying this portion of the range may be in danger of extinction or 
likely to become so within the foreseeable future. In our evaluation of 
the status of the species range-wide, we determined that none of the 
demographic risks or threats contribute, alone or in combination, to 
extinction risk for Alabama shad to the extent that the species' 
persistence is at risk. We believe this conclusion also applies to the 
Alabama shad in the ACF River system. We did identify the threat of 
water allocation as being concentrated in the ACF River system. As with 
the range-wide evaluation, we were unable to rank the contribution of 
water allocation, as we do not have information that water allocation 
is affecting Alabama shad, or the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms 
governing it to the extinction risk of Alabama shad in ACF, due to the 
complexity of the issue, the length of time (more than 25 years) that 
the water allocation issue remains unresolved, and the inability of the 
major stakeholders to come to agreement or final decision. While the 
outcomes of water allocation and the regulatory mechanisms governing it 
are unknown, upstream water withdrawals for public use have been 
occurring for over 25 years during which time the Alabama shad 
population in the ACF has persisted. The ACF population of Alabama shad 
continues to be the largest known spawning population. The abundance of 
Alabama shad in the ACF has been variable, but generally higher since 
conservation locking was undertaken, alleviating the effects of dams, 
the primary threat to the species in the system. The genetic study by 
Schaffler et al. (2015) shows that 86 percent of the spawning adult 
shad were spawned upstream of JWLD in newly available habitat in the 
Flint River, which was inaccessible prior to conservation locking.
    We were able to model and quantify the resilience of Alabama shad 
from the ACF River system since it is the most studied population with 
the most available data, including the only population abundance 
estimate. Smith et al. (2011) conducted a population viability analysis 
(PVA) of Alabama shad in the ACF River system that estimated the future 
size and risk of extinction of Alabama shad. The results of any PVA are 
not an absolute predictor of what will happen to a population or a 
species; rather, a PVA is a tool to explore potential consequences of 
management actions in light of an uncertain future.
    Using a sex-specific (females only), age-structured model, Smith et 
al. (2011) used data from the literature (e.g., age at maturity, annual 
spawning period, natural mortality, carrying capacity, available 
habitat, frequency of drought, and anthropogenic mortality) and 
projected changes in population size over time under different 
scenarios (e.g., varying mortality, survivorship, carrying capacity, 
and density dependence). Each modeled scenario was run 10,000 times to 
provide estimates of the range of possible values under the stochastic 
conditions specified. Smith et al. (2011) reported the estimated number 
of females returning to the ACF as the proportional increase or 
decrease in the population after 20 years from the initial population 
size (12,400 females). Quasi-extinction rates were measured as the 
probability of fewer than 420 females returning at least 1 year over 20 
years. The number of females (420) used to initiate the model was taken 
from Ely et al. (2008; lower 95 percent confidence limit) as the 
approximate lowest population size, since historical population sizes 
of Alabama shad in the ACF River system are not available.
    In most scenarios (15 out of 20), the PVA revealed positive 
proportional change in mean abundance from initial abundance and 
averaged about 250 percent for these positive scenarios (Smith et al. 
2011). In 2 scenarios, the population abundance was relatively stable 
over the 20-year time period. In 3 scenarios, there was an overall 
decrease in population abundance after 20 years. The baseline model 
(i.e., no anthropogenic mortality, density dependence affecting all 
vital rates, current carrying capacity of 75,687 females) predicted the 
population would increase to 23 percent of carrying capacity after 5 
years and 37 percent after 10 years (Smith et al. 2011). When 
introducing potential mortality from downstream passage through dams 
under different scenarios, the number of females was still 16-37 
percent of carrying capacity in 10 years. Only one scenario resulted in 
a 50-percent or higher probability of reaching quasi-extinction in 14 
years (median time)

[[Page 4061]]

during the 20-year projection (Smith et al. 2011). The remaining 
scenarios with population declines (scenarios m and s) did not drop 
below the quasi-extinction level more than 50 percent of the time.
    While Smith et al.'s (2011) PVA cannot predict precisely the 
population size of the Alabama shad population in the ACF River system 
in the future, it demonstrates that Alabama shad populations are highly 
resilient and will likely increase, even when faced with anthropogenic 
induced mortality and drought, under all but the most dire conditions. 
While available information suggests the spawning population of Alabama 
shad in the ACF may be significant, we do not find that the species 
within this portion of its range is in danger of extinction nor do we 
believe it is likely to become so in the foreseeable future. 
Consequently, we are unable to identify a SPOIR for Alabama shad that 
would change the listing determination relative to the status of the 
species range-wide.

Listing Determination

    Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that NMFS make listing 
determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data 
available after conducting a review of the status of the species and 
after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any 
state or foreign nation, or political subdivision thereof, to protect 
and conserve the species. We have independently reviewed the best 
available scientific and commercial information on Alabama shad, 
including the petition, public comments submitted on our 90-day 
finding, and other published and unpublished information. We considered 
each of the section 4(a)(1) factors to determine whether it presented 
an extinction risk to the species. We found that the risk of extinction 
to Alabama shad throughout its entire range was low. We could not 
identify a SPOIR that was both significant and where the species' 
status is threatened or endangered. Therefore, our determination is 
based on a synthesis and integration of the foregoing information, 
factors, and considerations, and their effects on the status of the 
species throughout its entire range. We conclude that the Alabama shad 
is not presently in danger of extinction, nor is it likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range, and that listing as threatened or endangered is not 
warranted.

Peer Review

    In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued 
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing 
minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public 
disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public 
participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented under the Information 
Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554) is intended to enhance the quality and 
credibility of the Federal government's scientific information, and 
applies to influential or highly influential scientific information 
disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. To satisfy our requirements 
under the OMB Bulletin, we obtained independent peer review of our 
review of the status of Alabama shad, including our extinction risk 
analysis. Three independent specialists were selected from the academic 
and scientific community, Federal and state agencies, and the private 
sector for this review. All peer reviewer comments were addressed prior 
to dissemination of the publication of this 12-month determination. The 
peer review comments can be found at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prplans/ID322.html.

References

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available at: 
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/listing_petitions/species_esa_consideration/index.html.

Authority

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

    Dated: January 5, 2017.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-00372 Filed 1-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P