Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Threatened Status for Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American Green Sturgeon, 17386-17401 [05-6611]
Download as PDF
17386
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
that an electronic manifest is being
used. Because § 172.204(d)(2) allows for
a shipping paper to be ‘‘signed
manually, by typewriter, or by other
mechanical means,’’ no change to the
HMR is needed when a paper copy of
the electronic manifest is used as the
shipping paper accompanying
hazardous waste during transportation.
The signature of the generator on the
electronic manifest, as printed out on a
physical copy, would satisfy the
requirement in § 172.204 (d).
More than 18 commenters submitted
written comments in response to the
NPRM, including representatives of
waste treatment and disposal facilities,
emergency responders, suppliers of
industrial gases and related equipment
and selected chemicals, shippers,
carriers, federal and state governmental
agencies and private citizens. Many
commenters agreed that an electronic
manifest would not provide emergency
responders with the information as to
the nature and hazards of materials in
a transport vehicle or freight container
if an electronic translator would not be
available during an incident in
transport.
hazardous waste shipments.
Accordingly, we are withdrawing the
NPRM and terminating Docket No.
PHMSA–01–10292 (HM–206E).
II. Proposal To Be Withdrawn
In a final rulemaking published on
March 4, 2005 (70 FR 10776), EPA
indicates that the comments addressing
the electronic manifest (‘‘e-manifest’’)
proposal raise significant substantive
issues that merit further analysis and
stakeholder outreach prior to adopting a
final approach.
EPA stated the key electronic manifest
issues that must be resolved include: (1)
Whether the e-manifest should be
decentralized as proposed and hosted
by multiple private systems, centrally
by EPA or by another party; (2) if a
decentralized approach were to be
adopted, how EPA’s standards should
address interoperability of private
systems; (3) whether the final e-manifest
approach should be integrated with
biennial reporting or other functions
supported by EPA, the states or other
agencies; (4) what electronic signature
methods should be included in the final
rule; and, (5) the technical rigor and
detail necessary in EPA’s final standards
to ensure a workable approach to the
electronic manifest.
Therefore, EPA has decided to
separate the electronic manifest from
the form revisions portion of the final
rulemaking. EPA is deferring final
action on the electronic manifest
pending further analysis, outreach, and
possible supplemental proposals. In a
future rulemaking PHMSA and EPA
may reconsider proposals to allow the
use of an electronic manifest for
AGENCY:
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Apr 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
Issued in Washington, DC on March 31,
2005, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
part 106.
Robert A. McGuire,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous
Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 05–6805 Filed 4–5–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 223
[Docket No. 050323081–5081–01; I.D.
031505C]
RIN 0648–AT02
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants: Proposed Threatened
Status for Southern Distinct
Population Segment of North American
Green Sturgeon
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
SUMMARY: We, the NMFS, have
completed an update of an Endangered
Species Act (ESA) status review for the
North American green sturgeon
(Acipenser medirostris; hereafter ‘‘green
sturgeon’’). After reviewing new and
updated information on the status of
green sturgeon and considering whether
green sturgeon is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, or is likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, we confirm our
earlier determination that the species is
comprised of two distinct population
segments (DPSs) that qualify as species
under the ESA, the Northern and
Southern DPSs. We reaffirm our earlier
determination that the Northern DPS
does not warrant listing as threatened or
endangered at this time, and we will
maintain the DPS on the Species of
Concern List due to remaining
uncertainties about its status and
threats. We revise our previous ‘‘not
warranted’’ finding for the Southern
DPS and propose to list it as threatened.
This revision is based on: new
information showing that the majority of
spawning adults are concentrated into
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
one spawning river (i.e., Sacramento
River), thus increasing the risk of
extirpation due to catastrophic events;
threats that have remained severe since
the last status review and have not been
adequately addressed by conservation
measures currently in place; fisheryindependent data exhibiting a negative
trend in juvenile green sturgeon
abundance; and new information
showing evidence of lost spawning
habitat in the upper Sacramento and
Feather Rivers. We will reevaluate the
status of the Northern DPS in 5 years.
If the proposed listing is finalized, a
recovery plan will be prepared and
implemented for the Southern DPS.
Protective regulations under ESA
section 4(d) and critical habitat will be
proposed in a subsequent Federal
Register notice.
DATES: Comments on this proposal must
be received by July 5, 2005. A public
hearing will be held promptly if any
person so requests by May 23, 2005.
Notice of the location and time of any
such hearing will be published in the
Federal Register not less than 15 days
before the hearing is held.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• E-Mail:
GreenSturgeon.Comments@noaa.gov
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:/
/www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Chief, Protected Resources Division,
Southwest Region, National Marine
Fisheries Service, 501 West Ocean
Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA,
90802–4213.
The updated green sturgeon status
review and other reference materials
regarding this determination can be
obtained via the Internet at: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov or by submitting a
request to the Assistant Regional
Administrator, Protected Resources
Division, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501
West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long
Beach, CA 90802–4213, or the Assistant
Regional Administrator, Protected
Resources Division, Northwest Region,
NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Avenue, Suite
1100, Portland, OR 97232.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melissa Neuman, NMFS, Southwest
Region (562) 980–4115; Scott Rumsey,
NMFS, Northwest Region (503) 872–
2791; or Lisa Manning, NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources (301) 713–1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 12, 2001, we received a
petition from the Environmental
Protection Information Center, Center
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
for Biological Diversity, and
WaterKeepers Northern California
requesting that we list the green
sturgeon as threatened or endangered
under the ESA and that critical habitat
be designated for the species
concurrently with any listing
determination. On December 14, 2001,
we provided notice of our determination
that the petition presented substantial
scientific information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted and
requested information to assist with a
status review to determine if green
sturgeon warranted listing under the
ESA (66 FR 64793). To assist in the
status review, we formed a Biological
Review Team (BRT) comprised of
scientists from our Northwest and
Southwest Fisheries Science Centers
and from the United States Geological
Survey (USGS). We also requested
technical information and comments
from State and Tribal co-managers in
California, Oregon, and Washington, as
well as from scientists and individuals
having research or management
expertise pertaining to green sturgeon
from California and the Pacific
Northwest. The BRT considered the best
available scientific and commercial
information, including information
presented in the petition and in
response to our request for information
concerning the status of and efforts
being made to protect the species (66 FR
64793; December 14, 2001). The BRT
presented its findings in a final status
review report for North American green
sturgeon (Adams et al., 2002). Under the
ESA, a listing determination may
address a species, subspecies, or a DPS
of any vertebrate species which
interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). On February 7, 1996, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and
NMFS adopted a policy describing what
constitutes a DPS of a taxonomic species
(61 FR 4722). The joint DPS policy
identified two elements that must be
considered when making DPS
determinations: (1) The discreteness of
the population segment in relation to
the remainder of the species (or
subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2)
the significance of the population
segment to the remainder of the species
(or subspecies) to which it belongs.
After conducting the status review, we
determined that green sturgeon is
comprised of two DPSs that qualify as
species under the ESA: (1) a northern
DPS consisting of populations in coastal
watersheds northward of and including
the Eel River (‘‘Northern DPS’’); and (2)
a southern DPS consisting of coastal and
Central Valley populations south of the
Eel River, with the only known
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Apr 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
population in the Sacramento River
(‘‘Southern DPS’’).
The BRT considered the following
information in order to assess risk
factors for each green sturgeon DPS: (1)
abundance trends from fisheries data;
(2) the effects of fishing bycatch; (3) the
possible loss of spawning habitat in
rivers where spawning is reported to
have occurred historically, but
apparently no longer does; (4)
concentration of spawning in the
Klamath and Sacramento River systems;
(5) lack of adequate population
abundance data; (6) potentially lethal
water temperatures and adverse effects
of contaminants; (7) entrainment
(defined here as loss of green sturgeon
due to water diversion) by water
projects; and (8) adverse effects of nonnative species. Based on the 2002 risk
assessment, we determined on January
23, 2003, that neither DPS warranted
listing as threatened or endangered (68
FR 4433). Uncertainties in the structure
and status of both DPSs led us to add
them to the Species of Concern List
(formerly the candidate species list; 69
FR 19975; April 15, 2004). Along with
the finding, we announced that we
would reevaluate the status of green
sturgeon in 5 years.
On April 7, 2003, the Environmental
Protection Information Center (and
other Plaintiffs) challenged our ‘‘not
warranted’’ finding for green sturgeon.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order on
March 2, 2004, which set aside our ‘‘not
warranted’’ finding and remanded the
matter to us for redetermination of
whether green sturgeon is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, or is likely to
become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The U.S.
District Court’s March 2004 remand was
issued because the Court was not
satisfied with our examination of
whether purported lost spawning
habitat constituted a significant portion
of either DPS’ range. We reestablished
the BRT in the early summer of 2004
and added a new member from USGS
who possessed considerable knowledge
of green sturgeon. The BRT was asked
to consider recent scientific and
commercial information available
regarding the biological status of green
sturgeon and to assist us in assessing the
viability of the species throughout all or
a significant portion of its range. We
published a notice on June 18, 2004,
soliciting information from the public to
assist us in updating our status review
and making a new listing determination
(69 FR 34135).
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17387
In addition to the information
solicited during the first status review,
we solicited any new information
beyond that considered in the 2002
green sturgeon status review or the
January 2003 1–year ‘‘not warranted’’
finding on the following topics for the
Northern and Southern DPSs of green
sturgeon: (1) new genetic,
morphological, physiological, or
ecological information relevant to DPS
identification; (2) current or historic
information documenting the
geographic extent (e.g., area, river mile
distance) and magnitude (e.g.,
abundance of spawning females,
reproductive output) of spawning in
particular river systems (e.g., Fraser
River, Umpqua River, South Fork
Trinity River, Eel River, Feather River,
and San Joaquin River); (3) information
documenting the current geographic
extent and magnitude of spawning in
areas other than where it is known to
presently occur (i.e., areas other than
the Sacramento River, Klamath River
and Rogue River); (4) the legitimacy of
references used to support information
regarding current or historic spawning
in the systems mentioned above in (2)
and (3), particularly citations by
Houston (1988) for the Fraser River;
Lauman et al. (1972) and the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW) (2002) for the Umpqua River;
Moyle et al. (1992) and references
therein for the South Fork Trinity River;
Puckett (1976), Moyle et al. (1992) and
references therein for the Eel River;
Wang (1986) and FWS (1995) for the
Feather River; and Moyle et al. (1992)
and references therein for the San
Joaquin River; (5) historic, current or
future factors that may be responsible
for the reported loss of spawning habitat
and associated spawning populations;
and (6) fishery-dependent and
-independent abundance data for
analysis of population trends.
The public comment period closed on
August 17, 2004. The BRT convened to
draft an updated status review in
November 2004.
On January 27, 2005, we distributed
the updated status review to comanagers (i.e., States of Washington,
Oregon and California, Yurok and
Hoopa Tribes, FWS, and the California
Bay-Delta Program) for review. The final
updated status review for green sturgeon
was completed by the BRT on February
22, 2005, and submitted to NMFS
Regional Offices for further
consideration prior to the publication of
this notice.
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
17388
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Biology and Life History of Green
Sturgeon
A thorough account of green sturgeon
biology and life history may be found in
the previous 1–year finding (68 FR
4433; January 23, 2003) and the updated
status review (Adams et al., 2005),
which are incorporated here by
reference. The following is a summary
of that information.
Adult Distribution and Feeding
The green sturgeon is the most widely
distributed member of the sturgeon
family Acipenseridae. Like all sturgeon
species it is anadromous, but it is also
the most marine-oriented of the
sturgeon species. Green sturgeon are
known to range in nearshore marine
waters from Mexico to the Bering Sea
and are commonly observed in bays and
estuaries along the western coast of
North America, with particularly large
concentrations entering the Columbia
River estuary, Willapa Bay, and Grays
Harbor during the late summer (Moyle
et al., 1992). The reasons for these
concentrations are unclear, but do not
appear to be related to spawning or
feeding (Beamesderfer, 2000).
Little is known about adult green
sturgeon feeding. Adults in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are
reported to feed on benthic invertebrates
including shrimp, mollusks,
amphipods, and even small fish (Moyle
et al., 1992). One hundred and twentyone green sturgeon stomach samples
from the Columbia River gillnet fishery
were empty with the exception of one
fish, while all white sturgeon stomachs
contained digested material (ODFW
2002).
Spawning
Adult green sturgeon are thought to
spawn every 3 to 5 years (Tracy, 1990),
but new information suggests that
spawning could occur as frequently as
every 2 years (Lindley and Moser, pers.
comm., 2004). Adults typically migrate
into fresh water beginning in late
February (Moyle et al., 1995); spawning
occurs from March July, with peak
activity from April June (Moyle et al.,
1995). Confirmed spawning populations
in North America are in the Rogue
(Erickson et al., 2001, Rien et al., 2001),
Klamath, and Sacramento Rivers (Moyle
et al., 1992; CDFG, 2002). Green
sturgeon females produce 60,000 140,000 eggs (Moyle et al., 1992), and
they are the largest eggs (diameter
4.34mm) of any sturgeon species (Cech
et al., 2000). Spawning occurs in deep
turbulent river mainstems. Klamath and
Rogue River populations appear to
spawn within 100 miles (161 km) of the
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Apr 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
ocean, while the Sacramento spawning
run may travel over 200 miles (322 km).
Specific spawning habitat preferences
are unclear, but eggs likely are broadcast
over large cobble where they settle into
the cracks (Moyle et al., 1995).
Optimum flow and temperature
requirements for spawning and
incubation are unclear, but spawning
success in most sturgeons is related to
these factors (Dettlaff et al.,1993).
Temperatures above 68 F (20°C) were
lethal to embryos in laboratory
experiments (Cech et al., 2000).
Early Life History and Maturation
Green sturgeon larvae first feed at 10
days post hatch and grow quickly
reaching a length of 66mm and a weight
of 1.8 g in 3 weeks of exogenous
feeding. Metamorphosis to the juvenile
stage is complete at 45 days. Juveniles
continue to grow rapidly, reaching
300mm in 1 year and over 600mm
within 2 3 years for the Klamath River
(Nakamoto et al., 1995). Juveniles spend
from 1 4 years in fresh and estuarine
waters and disperse into salt water at
lengths of 300–750mm. The little that is
known regarding juvenile green
sturgeon feeding habits comes from a
study conducted in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta, where juveniles fed on
opossum shrimp and amphipods
(Radtke, 1966).
Green sturgeon disperse widely in the
ocean after their out-migration from
freshwater (Moyle et al., 1992). Tagged
green sturgeon from the Sacramento and
Columbia Rivers are primarily captured
to the north in coastal and estuarine
waters, with some fish tagged in the
Columbia River being recaptured as far
north as British Columbia (WDFW,
2002a). While there is some bias
associated with recovery of tagged fish
through commercial fishing, the pattern
of a northern migration is supported by
the large concentration of green
sturgeon in the Columbia River estuary,
Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor, which
peaks in August. These fish tend to be
immature; however, mature fish and at
least one ripe fish have been found in
the lower Columbia River (WDFW,
2002a). Genetic evidence suggests that
Columbia River green sturgeon are a
mixture of fish from at least the
Sacramento, Klamath, and Rogue Rivers
(Israel et al., 2002). Mature males range
from 139 199cm in fork length (FL) and
15 to 30 years of age (VanEenennaam,
2002). Mature females range from 157
223cm FL and 17 to 40 years of age.
Maximum ages of adult green sturgeon
are likely to range from 60–70 years
(Moyle, 2002).
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Summary of New Information
Consideration as a ‘‘Species’’ Under the
ESA
The ESA defines species as ‘‘any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants,
and any distinct population segment of
any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife
that interbreeds when mature’’ 16 U.S.C.
1532(16). This definition allows for the
recognition of DPSs at levels below
taxonomically recognized species or
subspecies. On February 7, 1996, the
FWS and NMFS published a joint policy
to clarify the phrase ‘‘distinct
population segment’’ for the purposes of
listing, delisting and reclassifying
species under the ESA (61 FR 4722).
This policy identifies two criteria that
must be met for a population segment to
be considered a DPS under the ESA: (1)
The discreteness of the population
segment in relation to the remainder of
the species or subspecies to which it
belongs; and (2) the significance of the
population segment to the species or
subspecies to which it belongs.
New genetic information in
combination with the tendency of
sturgeon to exhibit high spawning site
fidelity confirms the conclusions drawn
during the previous 1–year ‘‘not
warranted’’ finding (68 FR 4433; January
29, 2003) that the northern and southern
populations of green sturgeon are
‘‘discrete’’ and ‘‘significant’’ as defined
in the DPS policy. (For a complete
discussion of the discreteness and
significance of the U.S. population of
green sturgeon see 68 FR at 4437).
Genetic Information
Updated analyses of green sturgeon
genetic structure were made available
from University of California - Davis (J.
Israel and B. May, pers. comm., 2004).
These results incorporated a greater
number of samples including new adult
samples from the Umpqua River, new
juvenile samples from the Sacramento
River, and an increase in microsatellite
DNA loci to nine over the six reported
in the previous status review and
discussed in Israel et. al. (2004). Green
sturgeon samples demonstrate a strong
division between a grouping of the
Rogue, Klamath, and Umpqua Rivers
versus a grouping of the Sacramento and
Columbia Rivers and San Pablo Bay
samples. The northern group included
mixed stock green sturgeon samples
from the Umpqua River as well as single
stock samples from the Rogue and
Klamath Rivers and the southern group
included mixed stock samples from the
Columbia River, samples from San
Pablo Bay that may be either mixed or
single stock, and single stock samples
from the Sacramento River.
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Oceanic Distribution and Behavior
New oceanic distribution and
behavior information came from pop-off
archival tags (7 fish), Oregon trawl
logbook analysis, and acoustic tags (168
fish). These data indicated that green
sturgeon generally make northward
migrations, to points as far north as
northwest Vancouver Island, Canada,
upon returning to the ocean. During
oceanic migrations, archival tagged fish
occupied depths of 40–70 m and
remained exclusively inside the 110 m
contour. These results are confirmed by
Oregon trawl logbook records (Erickson
and Hightower, 2004). Fish marked in
spawning areas (Rogue and Klamath
Rivers and San Pablo Bay) and in mixed
stock areas (Columbia River and Willapa
Bay) with acoustic tags in 2002, 2003,
and 2004 sustained migrations of 100
km per day. Several fish tagged in 2002
returned to the Rogue River in 2004,
suggesting a minimal spawning
periodicity of 2 years if it is assumed
that these fish were ripe and returning
to the River to spawn (S. Lindley and M.
Moser, pers. comm., 2004).
Freshwater Distribution Information
We requested new historic and/or
current information for particular river
systems where historic and current
spawning status is uncertain (e.g., Fraser
River, Umpqua River, South Fork
Trinity River, Eel River, Feather River,
and San Joaquin River; 69 FR 34135).
New information was received for the
Chehalis, Umpqua, Rogue, and Eel
Rivers within the Northern DPS and the
Sacramento, Feather, and San Joaquin
Rivers within the Southern DPS.
Northern DPS
Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) investigated the
Chehalis River as potential green
sturgeon habitat, and while it appears to
possess suitable habitat features for
green and white sturgeon spawning,
there has not been evidence of spawning
occurring in this basin (WDFW, 2004).
Data summarized from catch record
cards suggest that a few green sturgeon
were caught in sport fisheries as far
upriver as 60 kilometers during July
2002, March 2003, and December 2003,
but these may be misidentifications of
white sturgeon, which are much more
common within the basin. Sport anglers
have reported small green sturgeon in
Grays Harbor; however, these fish were
most likely of a post-migratory size and
therefore were not fish rearing in the
estuary. Green and white sturgeon eggs
and larvae have not been observed in
the Chehalis River or Grays Harbor.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Apr 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
There are two confirmed records of
green sturgeon captured above tidal
influence in the Umpqua River (T. Rien,
pers. comm., 2004). In July 2000, two
juvenile green sturgeon (each
approximately 10–cm long) were
regurgitated from two smallmouth bass
caught at river kilometer (rkm) 134 on
the Umpqua River. The ODFW
interviewed the local angling guide, and
the one available regurgitated fish was
positively identified as a green sturgeon.
The other regurgitated sturgeon was not
available to examine. In April 1979, a
1.8 m green sturgeon was caught at rkm
164 on the Umpqua River. A picture of
the fish was published in the Roseburg
News Review (May 3, 1979) and it was
visually identified as a green sturgeon
by ODFW. ODFW has sampled the
Umpqua River in 2002, 2003, and 2004
using gill nets, beach seines, snorkeling,
and underwater video, and their
sampling efforts did not capture any
green sturgeon above tidal influence in
the Umpqua River.
A putative green juvenile sturgeon
was captured at Big Butte Creek (rkm
254) near Lost Creek Dam on the Rogue
River (R. Reisenbichler, pers. comm.,
2004). This is unusual because it is very
high in the system and above two major
dams with fish ladders (Savage Rapids
and Gold Ray) and several smaller
dams.
Adult green sturgeon were sighted on
the mainstem Eel River near Fort
Seward, California (rkm 101) during
snorkel surveys in 1995 and 1996 (S.
Downie, pers. comm., 2004). Three
sturgeon were sighted each year at a
place locally known as ‘‘The Sturgeon
Hole.’’ Two juvenile green sturgeon
were captured in the Eel River estuary
in 1994 by trawl (S. Cannata, pers.
comm., 2004). The first one was 282mm
FL and the second was 510mm. This is
in addition to the previously reported
capture of 26 juvenile green sturgeon
near Fort Seward in 1967 and 1968
(Pluckett, 1976).
Southern DPS
Recent habitat evaluations conducted
in the upper Sacramento and Feather
Rivers for salmonid recovery planning
suggest that significant potential green
sturgeon spawning habitat was made
inaccessible or altered by dams
(historical habitat characteristics,
temperature, and geology summarized
in Lindley et al., 2004). This spawning
habitat may have extended up into the
three major branches of the Sacramento
River, the Little Sacramento River, the
Pit River system, and the McCloud
River.
Green and white sturgeon adults have
been observed periodically in small
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17389
numbers in the Feather River
(Beamesderfer et al., 2004). There are at
least two confirmed records of adult
green sturgeon in 2004. There are no
records of larval or juvenile sturgeon of
either species, even prior to the 1960’s
when Oroville Dam was built. There are
reports that green sturgeon may
reproduce in the Feather River during
high flow years (CDFG, 2002), but these
are not specific and are unconfirmed.
Small fisheries for sturgeon occur in
spring on the San Joaquin River between
Mossdale and the Merced River
(Kohlhorst, 1976). Though sturgeon are
known to migrate into the San Joaquin
River, no efforts have been made to
document sturgeon reproduction (FWS,
1995). In addition, data are not regularly
collected at diversions on the San
Joaquin River, and when sturgeon have
been collected, species differentiation
rarely occurred. Information exists
through interviews with biologists,
wardens, and anglers regarding the
presence and potential spawning of
white sturgeon on the San Joaquin River
(FWS, 1995). Two juvenile white
sturgeon caught at Woodbridge on the
Mokelumne River (rkm 63) in 2003 are
the first confirmation of white sturgeon
reproduction in the San Joaquin River
system (Beamesderfer et al., 2004).
Though no green sturgeon have ever
been documented in the San Joaquin
River upstream of the Delta or in the
Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced
Rivers (CDFG, 2002; Beamesderfer et al.,
2004), the San Joaquin River and its
tributaries have been heavily modified
in ways that reduce suitability for
sturgeon since the 1940s, so the lack of
contemporary information cannot be
considered evidence of historical green
sturgeon absence. Moreover, species
with a similar dependence on historic
deep cool waters of the San Joaquin for
spawning (i.e., spring-run Chinook
salmon; Yoshiyama et al., 2001; and
white sturgeon, FWS, 1995) are either
extirpated or nearly so on the San
Joaquin River, indicating that a once
self-sustaining green sturgeon
population on the San Joaquin River
may have been possible.
Catch Information
The coastwide bycatch of green
sturgeon continues to be reduced over
time as noted in the previous status
review (Adams et al., 2002). Based on
updated and corrected bycatch
numbers, green sturgeon take has been
reduced from a high of 9,065 in 1986 to
862 in 2001, the last year in the
previous status review, to 512 in 2003.
The greatest reductions in bycatch
(direct and indirect) were for the
commercial fisheries in the Northern
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
17390
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
DPS, specifically the Columbia River,
Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor. This
reduction has occurred due to
regulatory changes summarized in
Adams et al. (2002), Appendix 1 Table
2. Yurok and Hoopa tribal green
sturgeon fisheries have remained
constant, with relatively constant effort,
and together account for 59 percent of
the coastwide green sturgeon catch in
2003.
Historic Spawning Status
Information presented in the first
status review (Adams et al., 2002) and
new information presented here
regarding the historic and current
spawning status of green sturgeon were
analyzed.
Conclusions from New Information
In earlier technical memos and
Federal Register publications (66 FR
64793, December 14, 2001; 68 FR 4433,
January 23, 2003), we reported the loss
of green sturgeon spawning habitat in
the Umpqua, Fraser, South Fork Trinity,
Eel (Northern DPS), Upper Sacramento,
Feather, and possibly San Joaquin
Rivers (Southern DPS) based on
information presented in the petition.
These claims prompted us to report that
green sturgeon experienced a significant
reduction in spawning area. New
analysis of existing information and the
submission of new information to us in
August 2004 (69 FR 34135) leads us to
revise these earlier judgments in the
following ways.
Northern DPS
There is no evidence of historic or
current spawning in the Fraser or
Chehalis Rivers (D. Lane, pers. comm.,
2004; WDFW, 2004). Based on the lack
of data, we cannot conclude that there
has been a loss of spawning habitat over
time in these systems.
Known historic and current
spawning, based primarily on the
presence of juvenile green sturgeon,
occurs in the Umpqua, Rogue, Klamath
and Trinity Rivers, and, therefore, we
conclude that populations have not
been extirpated from these systems (T.
Rein, pers. comm., 2004; Erickson et al.,
2002; Moyle, 2002; Sheiff et al., 2001).
We are uncertain as to whether
spawning habitat has been lost in the
Umpqua River. A significant reduction
in spawning habitat is not likely to have
occurred in the Rogue River because
there are no impassable barriers along
green sturgeon migration routes.
Although the Klamath River has
undergone human alteration, data
suggest that the geographic extent of
spawning in the system has not been
reduced over time. A paucity of data for
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Apr 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
the Trinity River limits our ability to
comment on the magnitude of loss of
spawning habitat in this system.
There is evidence to suggest that
green sturgeon spawned in the South
Fork Trinity River and continue to
spawn there to some degree, based on
the presence of adults in freshwater
areas above tidal influence (CDFG, 1978;
Moyle et al., 1992). We suspect that
spawning habitat still exists in this
system, but have no evidence to
comment on whether spawning habitat
has been reduced over time.
The Eel River is the only system in
the Northern DPS where the status of
spawning since historic times is
believed to have changed. Spawning is
known to have occurred in the past
based on the presence of juveniles
(Plunkett, 1976), but recently, only
adults have been present in the River (S.
Downie, pers. comm., 2004) and one
juvenile, whose natal stream origin is
uncertain, was collected in the estuary.
Despite Moyle et al.’s (2002) claim that
green sturgeon have been extirpated
from the Eel River, we determined that
our ability to make a conclusion
regarding extirpation is limited by: (1)
low sampling effort in recent times (see
Status of Green Sturgeon DPSs:
Northern DPS); and (2) our inability to
determine how much spawning habitat
or reproductive potential may have been
lost.
Southern DPS
Known historic and current
spawning, based on the presence of
juvenile green sturgeon, occurs in the
Sacramento River (Adams et al., 2002).
We have indirect evidence, based on
habitat assessments of Chinook salmon,
that the geographic extent of spawning
has been reduced due to impassable
barriers (the Keswick and Shasta dams)
in the upper Sacramento River. We have
not been able to quantify the reduction
of habitat to date, and are uncertain how
reduction in spawning habitat has
affected the population’s viability.
Spawning is suspected to have
occurred in the Feather River due to the
presence of adults in the system (CDFG,
2002). Although there is no evidence of
spawning in the past or now, the
continued presence of adults in the
system suggests that green sturgeon are
trying to migrate into presumed
spawning areas now blocked by the
Oroville Dam. Therefore, we conclude
that spawning habitat may have been
lost in the Feather River, but we were
not able to determine how much habitat
or reproductive potential was lost.
There is no evidence of historic or
current spawning in the San Joaquin
River (Beamesderfer, 2004; Adams et al.,
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2002; CDFG, 2002). While we cannot
make any conclusions regarding loss of
spawning habitat over time in the San
Joaquin River, indirect evidence from a
variety of sources (Moyle, 2002; Lindley
et al., 2004; L. Hess, pers. comm., 2004)
suggests that both adult and juvenile
green sturgeon may have been present
in this system in the past. If spawning
did occur in the San Joaquin River in
the past, there may have been a
reduction in spawning habitat again due
to reasons mentioned above for the
Sacramento and Feather Rivers.
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species
Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and regulations promulgated to
implement the listing provisions of the
ESA (50 CFR part 424) set forth the
procedures for adding species to the
Federal list of threatened and
endangered species. Section 4 requires
that listing determinations be based
solely on the best scientific and
commercial data available, without
consideration of possible economic or
other impacts of such determinations. A
species may be determined to be
endangered or threatened due to one or
more of the five factors described in
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. We must
determine if either DPS of green
sturgeon is endangered or threatened
because of any one or a combination of
the following factors: (1) the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4)
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (5) other natural or
human-made factors affecting its
continued existence.
Species-wide Factors
Ocean and estuarine bycatch of green
sturgeon in the white sturgeon and
salmonid fisheries was considered a
species-wide factor for decline since its
impact could not be apportioned to one
DPS or the other. Current total catch of
green sturgeon has been reduced to 6
percent of its 1986 high value of 9,065
fish; this does not, however, necessarily
represent a reduction in green sturgeon
abundance. The recent reduction is due
to newly imposed fishing regulations in
Oregon and Washington. Commercial
fisheries targeting sturgeon have not
been allowed in the Columbia River or
Willapa Bay since 2001, and
recreational fishing remains negligible
(WDFW, 2004). Yurok and Hoopa tribal
catch has remained relatively constant
during the entire time series. The
reduction in catch through protective
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
management measures represents a
reduction in risk to the Northern DPS.
CDFG (2002) estimated an average
fishing mortality of 2.2 percent for green
sturgeon based on tag return data in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. The
impact of this fishing mortality rate is
unknown.
A summary of DPS-specific factors for
decline is presented below (Tables 1
and 2). These factors were only
considered for those river systems with
known or suspected historical or current
spawning activity.
Northern DPS Factors
The potential factors for decline in the
Northern DPS are reduced flows,
changed flow regimes, increased
temperatures, and reduced oxygen
concentrations, principally in the
Klamath-Trinity and Eel River systems
(Table 1). The impact of these factors is
uncertain. This DPS also has the only
major in-river fishery for green sturgeon
(Yurok and Hoopa tribal fisheries in the
Klamath-Trinity River system), the
effects of which are uncertain, but catch
data show no obvious signs of decline.
As mentioned in the previous section,
species-wide reduction in bycatch
fishing mortality through protective
management measures reduces the
threat of overfishing in the Northern
DPS. No risks due to disease, predation,
or inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms were identified. The
Northern DPS has two known major
spawning populations (e.g., the
Klamath-Trinity River system and the
Rogue River) that are not close to one
another geographically, thus spreading
risks of extinction over more than one
spawning area. Spawning also appears
to occur infrequently in the Umpqua
River. This gives the Northern DPS
some additional protection.
Southern DPS Factors
The principal factor for decline for
this DPS comes from the reduction of
green sturgeon spawning area to a
limited area of the Sacramento River
(Table 2). Keswick Dam provides an
impassible barrier blocking green
sturgeon access to what were likely
historic spawning grounds upstream
(FWS, 1995). A substantial amount of
habitat in the Feather River above
Oroville Dam also was lost, and threats
to green sturgeon on the Feather River
are similar to those faced in the
Sacramento River (NMFS, 2004). The
BRT concluded that a viable spawning
population of green sturgeon no longer
exists in the Feather River and was
likely lost due to the habitat blockage as
a result of Oroville Dam and from
thermal barriers associated with the
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Apr 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
Thermalito Afterbay Facility (Table 2).
Any observations of adult green
sturgeon likely represent individuals
that were stranded as a result of these
barriers.
Potential adult migration barriers to
green sturgeon include the Red Bluff
Diversion Dam (RBDD), Sacramento
Deep Water Ship Channel locks,
Fremont Weir, Sutter Bypass, and the
Delta Cross Channel Gates on the
Sacramento River, and Shanghai Bench
and Sunset Pumps on the Feather River.
The threat of screened and unscreened
agricultural, municipal, and industrial
water diversions in the Sacramento
River and Delta to green sturgeon are
largely unknown as juvenile sturgeon
are often not identified, and current
California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) and NMFS screen criteria do not
address sturgeon. Based on the temporal
occurrence of juvenile green sturgeon
and the high density of water diversion
structures along rearing and migration
routes, we find the potential threat of
these diversions to be serious and in
need of study (Table 2 NMFS, 2005).
CDFG (1992) and FWS (1995) found a
strong correlation between mean daily
freshwater outflow (April to July) and
white sturgeon year class strength in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary (these
studies primarily involve the more
abundant white sturgeon; however, the
threats to green sturgeon are thought to
be similar), indicating that insufficient
flow rates are likely to pose a significant
threat to green sturgeon (Table 2). This
association of year class strength with
outflow is also found in other
anadromous fishes inhabiting the
Estuary, such as striped bass, Chinook
salmon, American shad, and longfin
smelt (Stevens and Miller, 1983). Mean
April-May flow rates of 566 cubic
meters per second appear to be the
minimum required for the production of
good year class strength based on
approximately 20 years of sturgeon
salvage data at the Skinner Fish Facility
(CDFG, 2002). According to this
criterion, low flow rates occurred
slightly more than 50 percent of the
time during the years spanning 1968–
1987 (CDFG, 2002). The FWS (1995)
used water year types, based on an
index developed for the Sacramento
Basin (California Department of Water
Resources, 2004), to suggest that low
flow conditions occurred 53 percent of
the time during the years spanning
1944–2004. It is postulated that low
flow rates could dampen survival by
hampering the dispersal of larvae to
areas of greater food availability,
hampering the dispersal of larvae to all
available habitat, delaying the
transportation of larvae downstream of
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17391
water diversions in the Delta, or
decreasing nutrient supply to the
nursery, thus stifling productivity
(CDFG, 1992). There are no current
indications that flow rates will increase
over time.
High temperatures no longer seem to
be the problem that they once were with
the installation of the Shasta Dam
temperature control device in 1997,
although Shasta Dam has a limited
storage capacity and cold water reserves
could be depleted in long droughts
(Table 2). Temperatures at RBDD have
not been higher than 16° C since 1995
(California Data Exchange Center) and
are within the green sturgeon egg and
larvae optimum for growth and survival
of 15° to 19° C (Mayfield and Cech,
2004). However, green sturgeon
reproduction before 1995 may well have
been adversely affected by temperature
and these earlier high temperatures may
have caused population reductions that
would still affect the overall population
size and age-structure (Table 2). Water
temperatures on Feather River
downstream of the Thermalito Afterbay
outlet are considerably higher than
temperatures in the low-flow channel
(FWS, 1995). It is likely that high water
temperatures (greater than 17.2° C) may
deleteriously affect sturgeon egg and
larval development, especially for latespawning fish in drier water years
(FWS, 1995). CDFG (2002) also
indicated water temperatures may be
inadequate for spawning and egg
incubation in the Feather River during
many years as the result of releases of
warmed water from Thermalito
Afterbay. CDFG believed this may be
one reason neither green nor white
sturgeon are found in the river in lowflow years. It is not expected that water
temperatures will become more
favorable in the near future (CDFG,
2002) and thus elevated water
temperature continues to be a threat.
Sturgeon have high vulnerability to
fisheries, and the trophy status of large
white sturgeon makes these fishes a
high priority for enforcement to protect
against poaching (Table 2; CDFG, 2002).
Green sturgeon are caught incidentally
in these white sturgeon fisheries.
Non-native species are an ongoing
problem in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
River and Delta systems (Table 2; CDFG,
2002). One risk for green sturgeon
associated with the introduction of nonnative species involves the replacement
of relatively uncontaminated food items
with those that may be contaminated.
For example, the non-native overbite
clam, Potamocorbula amurensis,
introduced in 1988, has become the
most common food of white sturgeon
and was found in the only green
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
17392
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
sturgeon examined thus far (CDFG,
2002). The overbite clam is known to
bioaccumulate selenium, a toxic metal
(CDFG, 2002; Linville et al., 2004).
Green sturgeon may also experience
predation by introduced species
including striped bass.
Contamination of the Sacramento
River increased substantially in the
mid–1970s when application of rice
pesticides increased (FWS, 1995).
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Apr 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
Estimated toxic concentrations for the
Sacramento River during 1970–1988
may have deleteriously affected striped
bass larvae (Bailey, 1994). White
sturgeon may also accumulate PCBs and
selenium (White et al., 1989). While
green sturgeon spend more time in the
marine environment than white
sturgeon and, therefore, may have less
exposure, the BRT concluded that some
degree of risk from contaminants
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
probably also occurs for green sturgeon
(Table 2).
The previous status review (Adams et
al., 2002) summarized juvenile
entrainment and change in annual mean
number over time. Juvenile entrainment
is considered a type of threat imposed
by water diversion (Table 2).
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Apr 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
17393
EP06AP05.014
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
VerDate jul<14>2003
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
15:58 Apr 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
EP06AP05.015
17394
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Status of Green Sturgeon DPS
Northern DPS
The Fraser River in Canada currently
has a catch and release fishery for
sturgeon, but the number of green
sturgeon captured is extremely small. A
tagging study in 1992–1993 tagged 2300
sturgeon and only one was a green
sturgeon (D. Lane, pers. comm., 2004).
Green sturgeon occur off the West Coast
of Vancouver Island where they are
taken in the trawl fishery. These fish are
thought to be from spawning areas in
the United States, and this idea is
supported by the recent acoustic and
pop-off archival tagging. WDFW has
investigated the possibility of green
sturgeon spawning in the Chehalis River
as it appears to provide suitable habitat
features to support spawning. However,
no evidence of spawning in this system
has occurred to date. Currently, there is
limited fishing in Grays Harbor, but no
evidence of spawning has been found
(WDFW, 2004).
Spawning does appear to take place in
the Umpqua River, but is probably rare.
Juvenile green sturgeon were identified
in the system in 2000. Spawning in the
Umpqua River apparently is not
common since substantial sampling
efforts in 2002, 2003, and 2004 failed to
find any evidence of green sturgeon
spawning.
The presence of green sturgeon
spawning in the Rogue River has been
only recently discovered. The river is
less manipulated and habitat seems to
be of better quality than in other green
sturgeon spawning rivers. Blockages to
migration of anadromous fish are likely
to be upriver of the historical extent of
green sturgeon spawning habitat and,
therefore, do not seem to be limiting;
habitat seems to be roughly what it was
historically. Other anadromous
salmonid fishes are generally doing well
in the Rogue River (Weitkamp et al.,
1995; Busby et al., 1996; and Myers et
al., 1998).
The Klamath River has the largest
green sturgeon spawning population.
Spawning still occurs upstream to the
historical limit of its habitat range (Ishi
Pishi Falls). Out-migrant juvenile green
sturgeon are captured each year in
screw traps at Big Bar (Schieff et al.,
2001). The BRT expressed concerns over
recent fish kills in the Klamath River,
but reached no conclusions regarding
whether or not the temperature regime
in the system played a part in this
mortality event. The Yurok tribal fishery
comprises the majority of green sturgeon
catch coastwide. There is no new
information regarding abundance trends
since the last status review (Adams et
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Apr 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
al., 2002). As discussed in the previous
status review, the trends in numbers
and size are difficult to interpret, but do
not appear to indicate population
decline.
There are few available data regarding
the status of green sturgeon in the
Trinity River system. The Hoopa Tribe
has a small in-river fishery which takes
fewer than 30 adult green sturgeon each
year. Juvenile out-migrant green
sturgeon are captured in most years in
small numbers at Willow Creek (Schieff
et al., 2001). Due to the continued
presence of juveniles within the system,
the BRT was not convinced that green
sturgeon were extirpated from the South
Fork Trinity River by the 1964 flood as
suggested by Moyle (2002).
The Eel River is the southern-most
known spawning area in the Northern
DPS. Moyle et al. (1992) suggested that
green sturgeon were extirpated from the
Eel River following the 1964 flood. The
1955 and 1964 floods delivered large
amounts of sediment into the Eel River.
These historical flood events, combined
with land use practices, have resulted in
persisting high sediment levels. Some
portion of the deep holes that green
sturgeon use during spawning were
filled in by the 1955 and 1964 flood
events, but the extent of sturgeon habitat
loss is unknown. The BRT was not
convinced that green sturgeon have
been extirpated from the Eel River.
Sightings of adults in both 1995 and
1996 and of juveniles in the estuary in
1994 suggest that a green sturgeon
population persists in the Eel River,
although severely reduced from
historical levels. Sampling was limited
with adult surveys conducted only in
1995 and 1996 and estuarine surveys
conducted only in 1993 and 1994.
The evaluation of extinction risk over
a ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ is
difficult for this DPS because of the lack
of historical data about green sturgeon
spawning areas. As explained above, in
earlier technical memos and Federal
Register publications (66 FR 64793,
December 14, 2001; 68 FR 4433, January
23, 2003) we had discussed the
possibility that spawning habitat in the
Fraser, Umqua, South Fork Trinity, and
Eel Rivers had beenseverely reduced.
However, after reviewing both existing
and new information, we have revised
those earlier judgments and now
conclude that the Eel River is the only
system in the Northern DPS where the
status of spawning since historic times
is believed to have changed. All BRT
members felt that the historic spawning
area of the DPS had been larger than the
current spawning area, but with no
historical data describing spawning
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17395
areas, there was a range of thought about
how much larger.
The BRT was unable to come to firm
consensus on what should be
considered ‘‘a significant portion’’ for
this DPS, however, they generally
agreed that ‘‘a significant portion’’ of the
DPS’s range would include either the
Klamath or Rogue Rivers, and that the
South Fork Trinity and Eel Rivers do
not represent a significant portion of the
DPS’s range. The BRT’s opinion
regarding ‘‘significant portion of its
range’’ is supported by drawing
analogies from salmonid habitat use and
estimated abundance in the Klamath,
Rogue, South Fork Trinity and Eel
Rivers (Lindley et al., 2004). Salmonid
spawning habitat is more extensive and
estimated population abundance is
higher in the Klamath and Rogue Rivers
than in the South Fork Trinity and Eel
Rivers, and we expect that green
sturgeon habitat requirements and
population size are correlated with
those of salmonids, both historically
and today. Also, the geology of the Eel
River, in particular, is more erosive and
prone to sedimentation events,
suggesting that spawning habitat in the
Eel River is of poorer quality than that
in the Klamath and Rogue Rivers.
Finally, evidence suggests that the
Klamath and Rogue Rivers played a
more important role in historic Yurok
and Hoopa tribal sturgeon fisheries than
the Eel and South Fork Trinity Rivers
(FWS, 1981), again supporting the BRT’s
conclusion that neither the Eel nor
South Fork Trinity Rivers constitute a
significant portion of the Northern DPS’
range.
Conclusion-Northern DPS
Based on the input provided by the
BRT, we conclude that the Northern
DPS of green sturgeon is not in danger
of extinction, nor likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future, in
all or a significant portion of its range.
While a significant portion of the DPS’
range would include either the Klamath
or the Rogue Rivers, neither of these
populations is regarded as being at risk
of extirpation now or in the foreseeable
future. The BRT was not convinced that
green sturgeon were extirpated from the
South Fork Trinity or Eel Rivers, even
though it is likely that the Eel River
population, in particular, has suffered a
severe reduction since historic times.
Reference data from salmonid habitat
assessments and tribal fisheries data
suggest that even though green sturgeon
populations in the Eel and South Fork
Trinity Rivers are likely low, these
rivers do not represent a significant
portion of the DPS’ range. The majority
of the BRT felt that the presence of two
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
17396
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
well-separated and significant spawning
populations in the Klamath and Rogue
Rivers, and the effective reduction in
green sturgeon catch due to
implemented regulatory mechanisms,
confer a low level of risk to the DPS. A
minority felt that overall paucity of data
generates such uncertainty in green
sturgeon status that the DPS’ level of
extinction risk may be higher than
available data appear to indicate. The
BRT expressed concern regarding the
lack of data and monitoring efforts to
adequately monitor the status of, and
manage potential threats to, green
sturgeon populations in this DPS. The
BRT recommended that the Northern
DPS be placed on the Species of
Concern List, that their status be
reviewed in at least 5 years, and that
population status monitoring be
implemented immediately.
Southern DPS
The BRT concluded that the
Sacramento River contains the only
known green sturgeon spawning
population in this DPS. There are no
updated population trends data since
the last status review. The BRT
concluded that there was almost
certainly a substantial loss of spawning
habitat behind Keswick and Shasta
dams (FWS, 1995b, historical habitat
data summarized in Lindley et al., 2004
for salmonids). Green sturgeon currently
occur up to the impassible barrier at
Keswick Dam (FWS, 1995b). It is
unlikely that green sturgeon reproduced
in their current spawning area under the
historical temperature regime that
occurred before the construction of
Shasta and Keswick dams. At present,
water temperatures in the current
spawning area are lower than they were
historically due to releases from Shasta
Dam. Prior to dam construction, green
sturgeon would have had to migrate
farther up the mainstem than they do
now in order to encounter water
temperatures cool enough to trigger
spawning. The BRT considered it
possible that the additional habitat
behind Shasta Dam in the Pit, McCloud,
and Little Sacramento systems would
have supported separate populations or
at least a single, larger Sacramento River
population less vulnerable to
catastrophes than one confined to a
single mainstem, but the BRT was
unable to be specific due to the paucity
of historical information. The BRT
expressed concern about the habitat
limitation and potential threats that
green sturgeon faced in the Sacramento
River and again expressed particular
concern about the high numbers of
juveniles entrained prior to 1986.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Apr 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
Juvenile entrainment data provide an
indication of how abundance has
changed over time (1968–present). For
the State facility (John Skinner Fish
Facility; 1968–2001), the estimated
average number of green sturgeon taken
per year prior to 1986 was 732; from
1986 on, the average number was 47.
For the Federal facility (Tracy Fish
Collection Facility; 1980–2001), the
average number prior to 1986 was 889;
from 1986 on, the average was 32. The
significant reduction in numbers is
consistent across the State and Federal
facilities and is also consistent with
significant reductions in estimated
white sturgeon take within the same
time periods (NMFS, 2005). In addition,
evidence indicates export levels at both
facilities have increased substantially,
particularly at the State facility since the
1970s and 1980s (as exhibited by yearly
acre-feet exported from Federal and
State facilities, NMFS, 2005). Though
there are many assumptions associated
with fish salvage estimates at these
facilities (i.e., estimates are expanded
catches from brief sampling periods;
CDFG, 2002), this information may be
the best available data in determining
the population trends of the Southern
DPS.
The BRT concluded that an effective
population of spawning green sturgeon
does not exist in the Feather River.
Although there is no evidence of
spawning in the Feather River either in
the past or now, the continued presence
of adults in the system suggests that
green sturgeon are trying to migrate ito
presumed spawning areas now blocked
by Oroville Dam, suggesting in turn that
spawning habitat on the Fraser River
may bave been lost. A substantial
amount of habitat in the Feather River
was lost with the construction of
Oroville Dam (constructed in 1961) and
from thermal barriers at the Thermalito
Afterbay facility (CDFG, 2002). FWS
(1995b) stated that ‘‘Evidence also
suggests that [white] sturgeon
reproduction occurs in both the Feather
and Bear rivers.’’ Again, the BRT
assumed that a similar suggestion could
be made for green sturgeon in the face
of the paucity of data. Sturgeon
(including some documented green
sturgeon) still regularly occur in the
Bear and Yuba Rivers (CDFG, 2002;
Beamesderfer et al., 2004) and,
therefore, must migrate through the
Feather River. Threats to green sturgeon
are similar to those faced in the
Sacramento River.
Though the BRT concluded that there
was not sufficient information to
establish whether the San Joaquin River
system once supported a viable green
sturgeon population, we see no reason
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to exclude the San Joaquin River system
as a possibly occupied watershed in the
past based on similar conclusions
reached for Chinook salmon habitat
assessments in the Sacramento and
Feather Rivers. While some authors
indicate that there is no evidence of
green sturgeon occurrence or spawning
in the San Joaquin River (Beamesderfer
et al., 2004; Adams et al., 2002; CDFG,
2002), sampling effort has been
extremely limited. Thus, no evidence of
presence does not necessarily mean that
green sturgeon do not occur in this
system. Moyle (2002) suggested that
green sturgeon reproduction may have
taken place in the San Joaquin River
because numerous juvenile green
sturgeon have been captured at Santa
Clara Shoal and Brannan Island
Recreational Area in the Delta. Both
adult and juvenile green sturgeon
salvage recoveries at the Federal facility,
located closest to the San Joaquin River,
also provide some evidence that the San
Joaquin River system may at least be
occupied by green sturgeon during parts
of the year. The potential threats faced
by green sturgeon if they do occur or
occurred in the past in the San Joaquin
system would be similar in nature to
those faced in the Sacramento River, but
would likely be more extreme because
there are a greater number of impassable
barriers in this system, many of which
lack fish passage structures, and flow
rates are lower in the San Joaquin than
those in the Sacramento.
Conclusion-Southern DPS
The majority of the BRT concluded
that the Southern DPS is likely to
become endangered in the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range. The
BRT felt that the blockage of green
sturgeon spawning from what were
historic spawning areas above Shasta
Dam (although it is unclear whether
these were separate populations) and
the accompanying decrease in spawning
area with the loss of a potential
spawning area in the Feather River
make green sturgeon in the Southern
DPS likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future. We
believe that the loss of potential
spawning habitat in the San Joaquin
River system also may have contributed
to the overall decline of the Southern
DPS. The majority of the BRT also felt
that the concentration of spawning
adults in the Sacramento River places
this DPS at even greater risk of
extinction. No BRT members felt that
the DPS was at imminent risk of
extinction.
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Efforts Being Made to Protect Green
Sturgeon
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires
the Secretary of Commerce to make
listing determinations solely on the
basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available after taking
into account efforts being made to
protect a species. Therefore, in making
its listing determinations, we first assess
a DPS’s level of extinction risk and
identify factors that have led to its
decline. We then assess existing efforts
being made to protect the species to
determine if those measures ameliorate
the risks faced by the DPS.
In judging the efficacy of existing
protective efforts, we rely on the joint
NMFS-FWS ‘‘Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making
Listing Decisions’’ (‘‘PECE;’’ 68 FR
15100; March 28, 2003). PECE provides
direction for the consideration of
protective efforts identified in
conservation agreements, conservation
plans, management plans, or similar
documents (developed by Federal
agencies, state and local governments,
Tribal governments, businesses,
organizations, and individuals) that
have not yet been implemented, or have
been implemented but have not yet
demonstrated effectiveness. The policy
articulates several criteria for evaluating
the certainty of implementation and
effectiveness of protective efforts to aid
in determining whether a species
should be listed as threatened or
endangered. Evaluations of the certainty
an effort will be implemented include
whether: the necessary resources (e.g.,
funding and staffing) are available; the
requisite agreements have been
formalized such that the necessary
authority and regulatory mechanisms
are in place; there is a schedule for
completion and evaluation of the stated
objectives; and (for voluntary efforts) the
necessary incentives are in place to
ensure adequate participation. The
evaluation of the certainty of an effort’s
effectiveness is made on the basis of
whether the effort or plan: establishes
specific conservation objectives;
identifies the necessary steps to reduce
threats or factors for decline; includes
quantifiable performance measures for
the monitoring of compliance and
effectiveness; incorporates the
principles of adaptive management; and
is likely to improve the species’ viability
at the time of the listing determination.
PECE also notes several important
caveats. Satisfaction of the above
mentioned criteria for implementation
and effectiveness establishes a given
protective effort as a candidate for
consideration, but does not mean that
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Apr 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
an effort will ultimately change the risk
assessment. The policy stresses that just
as listing determinations must be based
on the viability of the species at the time
of review, so they must be based on the
state of protective efforts at the time of
the listing determination. PECE does not
provide explicit guidance on how
protective efforts affecting only a
portion of a species’ range may affect a
listing determination, other than to say
that such efforts will be evaluated in the
context of other efforts being made and
the species’ overall viability. There are
circumstances where threats are so
imminent, widespread, and/or complex
that it may be impossible for any
agreement or plan to include sufficient
efforts to result in a determination that
listing is not warranted.
Conservation measures that may
apply to listed species include
conservation measures implemented by
tribes, states, foreign nations, local
governments, and private organizations.
Also, Federal, tribal, state, and foreign
nations’ recovery actions (16 U.S.C.
1533(f)), Federal consultation
requirements (16 U.S.C. 1536), and
prohibitions on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538)
constitute conservation measures. In
addition, recognition through Federal
government or state listing promotes
public awareness and conservation
actions by Federal, state, tribal
governments, foreign nations, private
organizations, and individuals.
Fishing Regulations
Recent management strategies in
Oregon and Washington have
considerably reduced the catch of green
sturgeon. There are no targeted
commercial fisheries on green sturgeon,
and recreational fishing remains
negligible. Commercial by-catch of
green sturgeon occurs predominantly
during the early fall salmon and white
sturgeon fisheries in the lower Columbia
River, when the green sturgeon have
migrated into the estuary and lower
river mainstem. Fisheries are timed to
avoid coinciding with peak periods of
green sturgeon presence. Since 2002,
Oregon and Washington have adopted
daily landing limits for sturgeon during
fall Columbia River commercial salmon
seasons. This management action has
resulted in a significant decrease in
green sturgeon catch due to the higher
value (price per pound) of white
sturgeon on the commercial market.
Harvesters now typically release all
green sturgeon (alive) to fill their weekly
or daily landing limit with the more
valuable white sturgeon. Additionally,
this management approach has allowed
the commercial fishery to access its
allocation of white sturgeon prior to
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17397
periods of peak green sturgeon presence
and without any fisheries targeting
sturgeon, further minimizing green
sturgeon by-catch.
Protective efforts on the Klamath and
Trinity Rivers began with take limits
and maximum size ranges through the
late 1970s, and between 1978 and 1993
seasonal limits were imposed to
prohibit the take of sturgeon in the
Klamath River upstream of and
including the Trinity River. All sturgeon
fishing has been prohibited in the
Klamath-Trinity system since 1993.
Sturgeon fishing also has been
prohibited since 1993 in all waters of
the Eel River from the mouth to rkm 153
including all waters of the South Fork
Eel River downstream of Benbow Dam
(CDFG, 2002). Sturgeon fishing in rivers
and bays in Del Norte and Humboldt
Counties, including the Smith River,
Humboldt and Arcata Bays, and all tidal
waters, has been prohibited since 1993.
General angling regulations apply to
sturgeon angling from Mendocino
County south (one fish per day between
117 and 183cm TL).
Both white and green sturgeon are
protected by the same fishing
regulations in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin system. No commercial take is
permitted and angling take is restricted
to one fish per day between 117 and
183cm TL. An additional closure in
central San Francisco Bay occurs
between January 1 and March 15,
coinciding with the herring spawning
season to protect sturgeon feeding on
herring eggs (CDFG, 2002). Active
sturgeon enforcement is often employed
in areas where sturgeon are
concentrated and particularly
vulnerable to the fishery.
There is no commercial fishery for
green sturgeon in Canada, although the
species is taken as by-catch in white
sturgeon and salmon fisheries.
Habitat Protection Efforts
In the United States, the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act
(CVPIA) is a Federal act directing the
Secretary of the Interior to amend
previous authorizations of California’s
Central Valley Project to include fish
and wildlife protection, restoration, and
mitigation as project purposes having
equal priority with irrigation and
domestic use, and fish and wildlife
enhancement as a project purpose equal
to power generation. As a result of the
CVPIA enacted in 1992, the FWS and
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation have led an
effort to implement a significant number
of activities across the Central Valley
including projects such as: river
restoration; land purchases; fish screen
projects; water acquisitions for the
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
17398
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
environment; and special studies and
investigations. The Anadromous Fish
Restoration Program (AFRP), a
component of the CVPIA, implements a
doubling program in an attempt to
‘‘implement a program which makes all
reasonable efforts to ensure that, by the
year 2002, natural production of
anadromous fish in Central Valley rivers
and streams will be sustainable, on a
long-term basis, at levels not less than
twice the average levels attained during
the period of 1967–1991.’’ The AFRP
specifically applies the doubling effort
toward Chinook salmon, Central Valley
steelhead, striped bass, and white and
green sturgeon. Though most efforts of
the AFRP have primarily focused on
Chinook salmon as a result of their
listing history and status, green sturgeon
may receive some unknown amount of
benefit from these restoration efforts.
For example, the acquisition of water for
flow enhancement on tributaries to the
Sacramento River, fish screening for the
protection of Chinook salmon and
Central Valley steelhead, or riparian
revegetation and instream restoration
projects would likely have some
ancillary benefits to sturgeon. The AFRP
has also invested in one green sturgeon
research project that has helped
improve our understanding of the life
history requirements and temporal
patterns of green sturgeon within the
Southern DPS.
The California Bay-Delta Program
(CALFED) is a cooperative effort of more
than 20 State and Federal agencies
designed to improve water quality and
reliability of California’s water supply
while recovering the Central Valley
ecosystem. The CALFED program
contains four key objectives which
include water quality, ecosystem
quality, water supply and levee system
integrity. Many notable beneficial
actions have originated and been funded
by the CALFED program including such
projects as floodplain and instream
restoration, riparian habitat protection,
fish screening and passage projects,
research regarding non-native invasive
species and contaminants, restoration
methods, and watershed stewardship
and education and outreach programs.
Prior Federal Register notices have
reviewed the details of CVPIA and
CALFED programs and potential
benefits towards anadromous fish,
particularly Chinook salmon and
Central Valley steelhead (50 FR 33102).
Information received from CALFED
regarding potential projects that could
be regarded as conservation measures
for green sturgeon indicated a total of
118 projects of various types and levels
of progress funded between 1995 and
2004. Projects primarily consisted of
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Apr 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
fish screen evaluation and construction
projects, restoration evaluation and
enhancement activities, contaminations
studies, and dissolved oxygen
investigations related to the San Joaquin
River Deep Water Ship Channel. Two
evaluation projects specifically
addressed green sturgeon while the
remaining projects primarily address
anadromous fish in general, particularly
listed salmonids. The new green
sturgeon information from research will
be used to enhance our understanding
of the risk factors affecting the species,
thereby improving our ability to develop
effective management measures.
However, at present they do not directly
help to alleviate threats that this species
faces in the wild. All ongoing fish
screen and passage studies are designed
primarily to meet the minimum
qualifications outlined by the NMFS
and CDFG fish screen criteria. Though
these improvements will likely benefit
salmonids, there is no evidence showing
that these measures will decrease the
likelihood of green sturgeon mortality.
While one of CALFED’s goals is to
recover a number of at-risk species
(including green sturgeon) and the
program has and continues to provide
funding for a variety of laboratory-based
research projects, there are no specific
actions aimed at alleviating the primary
risks that threaten the continued
existence of green sturgeon in the wild.
Other potential conservation
measures such as the opening of the
RBDD gates have helped green sturgeon
passage in the Sacramento River during
the early part of their spawning season,
but it is not known how effective this
measure has been. In addition, fish
ladders in place are probably too small
for green sturgeon to negotiate during
the latter part of the spawning season
when the RBDD gates are closed (FWS,
1995b). The Glenn-Colusa Irrigation
District plans to help reduce fish loss
and enhance long-term fish passage, but
these measures are not yet underway.
Fish salvaging efforts at the Tracy Fish
Collection Facility and the Skinner
Delta Fish Protective Facility in the
South Delta have been operating for
decades, but it is unknown whether
efforts to relocate adults have resulted
in restoration of spawning potential and
whether the salvage of juveniles is
effective.
As evaluated pursuant to PECE, the
above described protective efforts do not
as yet, individually or collectively,
provide sufficient certainty of
implementation and effectiveness to
counter the extinction risk assessment
conclusion that the Southern DPS is
likely to become an endangered species
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in the foreseeable future throughout its
range.
Green sturgeon are listed as Species of
Special Concern under Canada’s Species
at Risk Act (SARA). Under SARA a
Species of Special Concern is a wildlife
species that may become a threatened or
an endangered species because of a
combination of biological characteristics
and identified threats. There are no
specific conservation measures directed
at green sturgeon in Canada to alleviate
the recognized threats of habitat
degradation and alteration.
Proposed Determinations
Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires
that the listing determination be 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 to protect and
conserve the species. We have reviewed
the petition, the reports of the BRT
(NMFS, 2002, 2004), co-manager
comments, and other available
published and unpublished
information, and we have consulted
with species experts and other
individuals familiar with green
sturgeon. On the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, the southern and northern
populations of green sturgeon meet the
discreteness and significance criteria for
distinct DPSs.
Northern DPS
Informed by the BRT’s risk
assessment, we conclude that the
Northern DPS is not presently in danger
of extinction or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.
Accordingly, the DPS does not warrant
listing under the ESA at this time. Our
review indicates that: (1) there is no
evidence for reductions in spawning
habitat in the South Fork Trinity River;
and (2) the Eel River population may
have experienced declines and loss of
spawning habitat. Nevertheless, the BRT
concluded that neither the South Fork
Trinity nor the Eel River constitute a
significant portion of the DPS’ range
because: (1) analogies drawn from
salmonid research suggest that the
South Fork Trinity and Eel Rivers do
not support large salmonid populations;
(2) habitat in the Eel River is of poorer
quality compared to that of the Klamath
and Rogue Rivers; and (3) tribal fisheries
data do not suggest that the South Fork
Trinity or Eel River supported
significant numbers of green sturgeon in
the past. Due to the poor availability of
data and attendant uncertainties
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
regarding the status of and threats facing
the species, we will maintain the
Northern DPS on the Species of Concern
List. We will re-evaluate the status of
the Northern DPS in 5 years provided
sufficient new information becomes
available indicating that a status review
update is warranted.
Southern DPS
We propose to find that the Southern
DPS is not presently in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
Fishing regulations in place in
California, the implementation of
studies aimed at increasing our
understanding of the ecological
requirements of green sturgeon in the
wild, and efforts to ameliorate threats to
salmonids in the wild, thus conferring
some possible benefits to green
sturgeon, indicate that the Southern
DPS is not presently in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
We also propose to find that the
Southern DPS is not in danger of
extinction throughout a significant
portion of its range. We feel that
spawning habitat may have been lost in
the Sacramento and Feather Rivers, but
due to a paucity of data, we are unable
to determine the geographic extent and
demographic consequences of this loss.
We have no evidence of historic or
current spawning in the San Joaquin
River and therefore we have no
evidence of lost spawning habitat.
Based on our evaluation of the best
available scientific information and the
ongoing state and Federal conservation
efforts, we propose to find that the
Southern DPS is likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range and should
therefore be listed as threatened. This
proposal is based on the reduction of
potential spawning habitat, the threats
to the single remaining spawning
population remaining severe and
unlikely to be sufficiently alleviated by
conservation measures currently in
place, and the downward trend of
sturgeon salvage estimates from State
(1968–2003) and Federal (1980–2003)
facilities.
Take Prohibitions and Protective
Regulations
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain
activities that directly or indirectly
affect endangered species. In the case of
threatened species, ESA section 4(d)
authorizes the Secretary to issue
regulations he considers necessary and
appropriate for the conservation of the
species. We have flexibility under
section 4(d) to tailor protective
regulations based on the contents of
available conservation measures. The
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Apr 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
4(d) protective regulations may prohibit,
with respect to threatened species, some
or all of the acts which section 9(a) of
the ESA prohibits with respect to
endangered species. These 9(a)
prohibitions and 4(d) regulations apply
to all individuals, organizations, and
agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. We
will evaluate protective regulations
pursuant to section 4(d) for the
Southern green sturgeon DPS and
propose any thought to be necessary and
appropriate for conservation of the
species in a forthcoming notice of
proposed rulemaking that will be
published in the Federal Register.
Other Protective Regulations
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and NMFS/
FWS regulations require Federal
agencies to confer with us on actions
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of species proposed for listing
or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of proposed critical
habitat. If a proposed species is
ultimately listed, Federal agencies must
consult on any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out if those actions may
affect the listed species or its critical
habitat. Examples of Federal actions that
may affect the Southern green sturgeon
DPS include: water diversion for human
use; point and non-point source
discharge of persistent contaminants;
contaminated waste disposal; water
quality standards; and fishery
management practices.
Service Policy on the Role of Peer
Review
On July 1, 1994, we and FWS
published a series of policies regarding
listings under the ESA, including a
policy for peer review of scientific data
(59 FR 34270). The intent of the peer
review policy is to ensure that listings
are based on the best scientific and
commercial data available. Prior to a
final listing, we will solicit the expert
opinions of three qualified specialists,
concurrent with the public comment
period. Independent specialists will be
selected from the academic and
scientific community, Federal and state
agencies, and the private sector.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the ESA as: ‘‘(i) the specific areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species, at the time it is listed in
accordance with the provisions of
section 4 of this Act, on which are
found those physical or biological
features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) which may
require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii)
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17399
specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
it is listed in accordance with the
provisions of section 4 of this Act, upon
a determination by the Secretary that
such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species’’ (16 U.S.C.
1532(5)(A)). ‘‘Conservation’’ means the
use of all methods and procedures
needed to bring the species to the point
at which listing under the ESA is no
longer necessary (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)).
Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires
that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, critical habitat be
designated concurrently with the listing
of a species (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)(i)).
Designations of critical habitat must be
based on the best scientific data
available and must take into
consideration the economic, national
security, and other relevant impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. Once critical habitat is
designated, section 7 of the ESA
requires Federal agencies to ensure that
they do not fund, authorize or carry out
any actions that are likely to destroy or
adversely modify that habitat. This
requirement is in addition to the section
7 requirement that Federal agencies
ensure that their actions do not
jeopardize the continued existence of
listed species. We are currently
compiling information to prepare a
critical habitat proposal for the
Southern DPS. In a previous Federal
Register notice (66 FR 64793; December
14, 2001) we requested specific
information on critical habitat and are
again seeking public input and
information to assist in gathering and
analyzing the best available scientific
data to support a critical habitat
designation. We will continue to meet
with co-managers and other
stakeholders to review this information
and the overall designation process. We
will then initiate rulemaking with the
publication of a proposed designation of
critical habitat, opening a period for
public comment and the opportunity for
public hearings. Joint NMFS/FWS
regulations for listing endangered and
threatened species and designating
critical habitat at 50 CFR 424.12(b) state
that the agency ‘‘shall consider those
physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of a given
species and that may require special
management considerations or
protection’’ (hereafter also referred to as
‘‘essential features.’’ Pursuant to the
regulations, such requirements include,
but are not limited to the following: (1)
space for individual and population
growth, and for normal behavior; (2)
food, water, air, light, minerals, or other
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
17400
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
nutritional or physiological
requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4)
sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing
of offspring, germination, or seed
dispersal; and generally; (5) habitats that
are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historic
geographical and ecological
distributions of a species. These
regulations go on to emphasize that the
agency shall focus on essential features
within the specific areas considered for
designation. These features ’’may
include, but are not limited to, the
following: spawning sites, feeding sites,
seasonal wetland or dryland, water
quality or quantity, geological
formation, vegetation type, tide, and
specific soil types.’’
Public Comments Solicited
We recognize that there are serious
limits to the quality of information
available, and, therefore, we exercised
our best professional judgment in
developing this proposal to list the
Southern DPS. To ensure that the final
action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and effective as possible,
we are soliciting comments and
suggestions from the public, other
governmental agencies, the Government
of Canada, the scientific community,
industry, environmental groups, and
any other interested parties. Comments
are encouraged on this proposal (See
DATES and ADDRESSES). Specifically, we
are interested in information regarding:
(1) green sturgeon spawning habitat
within the range of the Southern DPS
that was present in the past, but may
have been lost over time (2) biological
or other relevant data concerning any
threats to the Southern green sturgeon
DPS; (3) the range, distribution, and
abundance of the Southern DPS; (4)
current or planned activities within the
range of the Southern DPS and their
possible impact on the Southern DPS;
and (5) efforts being made to protect the
Southern DPS.
We are also requesting quantitative
evaluations describing the quality and
extent of freshwater and marine habitats
for juvenile and adult green sturgeon as
well as information on areas that may
qualify as critical habitat in California
for the proposed Southern DPS. Specific
areas that include the physical and
biological features essential to the
recovery of the DPS should be
identified. We recognize that there are
areas within the proposed boundaries of
the Southern DPS that historically
constituted green sturgeon habitat, but
may not be currently occupied by green
sturgeon. We are requesting information
about these currently unoccupied areas
to help us determine whether these
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Apr 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
areas are essential to the recovery of the
species or excluded from designation.
For areas potentially qualifying as
critical habitat, we are requesting
information describing: (1) the activities
that affect the area or could be affected
by the designation, and (2) the economic
costs and benefits of additional
requirements of management measures
likely to result from the designation.
The economic cost to be considered in
the critical habitat designation under
the ESA is the probable economic
impact ‘‘of the [critical habitat]
designation upon proposed or ongoing
activities’’ (50 CFR 424.19). Economic
effects attributable to listing include
actions resulting from section 7
consultations under the ESA to avoid
jeopardy to the species. Comments
concerning economic impacts should
attempt to distinguish the costs of
listing from the incremental costs that
can be directly attributed to the
designation of specific areas as critical
habitat.
We will review all public comments
and any additional information
regarding the status of, and critical
habitat for, the Southern green sturgeon
DPS in developing a final listing
determination as well as proposed
critical habitat and, potentially, section
4(d) regulations.
Public Hearings
Public hearings will be held in several
locations within the range of the
proposed Southern DPS; details
regarding locations, dates, and times
will be published in a forthcoming
Federal Register notice.
References
A complete list of all references cited
herein is available upon request (see
ADDRESSES section).
Classification
economic impacts cannot be considered
when assessing the status of a species.
Therefore, the economic analysis
requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act are not applicable to the
listing process. In addition, this rule is
exempt from review under Executive
Order 12866. This proposed rule does
not contain a collection-of-information
requirement for the purposes of the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
Federalism
In keeping with the intent of the
Administration and Congress to provide
continuing and meaningful dialogue on
issues of mutual State and Federal
interest, this proposed rule will be given
to the relevant state agencies in each
state in which the species is believed to
occur, who will be invited to comment.
We have conferred with the States of
Washington, Oregon and California in
the course of assessing the status of the
Southern DPS, and considered, among
other things, Federal, state and local
conservation measures. As we proceed,
we intend to continue engaging in
informal and formal contacts with the
States, and other affected local or
regional entities, giving careful
consideration to all written and oral
comments received. We also intend to
consult with appropriate elected
officials in the establishment of a final
rule.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Transportation.
Dated: March 28, 2005.
William T. Hogarth,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
National Environmental Policy Act
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in
section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the
information that may be considered
when assessing species for listing. Based
on this limitation of criteria for a listing
decision and the opinion in Pacific
Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d
825 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded
that ESA listing actions are not subject
to the environmental assessment
requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act. (See NOAA
Administrative Order 216 6.)
PART 223—THREATENED MARINE
AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Flexibility Act and Paperwork
Reduction Act
As noted in the Conference Report on
the 1982 amendments to the ESA,
(a) * * *
(25) North American green sturgeon–
southern DPS (Acipenser medirostris).
California. The southern DPS includes
all spawning populations of green
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1. The authority citation for part 223
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 1543; subpart B,
§ 223.12 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et
seq.
2. In § 223.102, amend paragraph (a)
by adding and reserving paragraph
(a)(23) and paragraph (a)(24) and adding
a new paragraph (a)(25) to read as
follows:
§ 223.102 Enumeration of threatened
marine and anadromous species.
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
sturgeon south of the Eel River
(exclusive), principally including the
Sacramento River green sturgeon
spawning population.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–6611 Filed 4–5–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[I.D. 033105A]
RIN 0648–AS69
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish
Resources of the Gulf of Mexico;
Amendment 24
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS announces the
availability of Amendment 24 to the
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the
Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of
Mexico (Amendment 24) prepared by
the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council (Council). Amendment 24
would establish a limited access system
for the Gulf of Mexico commercial reef
fish fishery. The intended effect of
Amendment 24 is to support the
Council’s efforts to achieve optimum
yield in the fishery, and provide social
and economic benefits associated with
maintaining stability in the fishery.
DATES: Written comments must be
received no later than 5 p.m., eastern
time, on June 6, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• E-mail: 0648–AS69.NOA@noaa.gov.
Include in the subject line the following
document identifier: 0648–AS69–NOA.
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Peter Hood, Southeast
Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th
Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:58 Apr 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
• Fax: 727–824–5308, Attention: Peter
Hood.
Copies of Amendment 24, which
includes an Environmental Assessment,
a Regulatory Impact Review, and an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
are available from the Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council, 3018
North U.S. Highway 301, Suite 1000,
Tampa, FL 33619–2272; email:
gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter Hood, 727–824–5305; fax 727–
824–5308; e-mail: peter.hood@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A
moratorium on the issuance of new
commercial reef fish permits was
established in 1992 under Amendment
4 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management
Plan (April 8, 1992; 57 FR 11914). The
moratorium was designed to provide a
stable environment in the fishery for the
evaluation and development of a more
comprehensive, controlled access
system for the entire commercial reef
fish fishery. The moratorium was
subsequently extended through 1995
(Amendment 9) (August 2, 1994; 59 FR
39301) and to December 31, 2000
(Amendment 11) (December 15, 1995;
60 FR 674350), to provide additional
time for consideration of implementing
a limited access system in the reef fish
fishery. During this period, the Council
developed an individual transferable
quota (ITQ) system for red snapper
(Amendment 8); however, before it
could be implemented, Congress
prohibited the implementation of ITQ
systems until October 1, 2000.
Subsequently, the Council developed
and NMFS implemented a license
limitation system for red snapper
(Amendment 15) (62 FR 67714).
Amendment 17 was implemented by
NMFS on August 10, 2000 (65 FR
41016), and extended the commercial
reef fish permit moratorium for another
5 years, from its previous expiration
date of December 31, 2000 to December
31, 2005, or until replaced with a
license limitation, limited access, and/
or individual fishing quota or individual
transferable quota system.
Amendment 24, if implemented,
would establish a limited access system
for the commercial fishery for reef fish.
The intended effect would be to prevent
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17401
increases in effort, to possibly reduce
the number of permittees in the reef fish
fishery, and to stabilize the economic
performance of current participants,
while protecting reef fish species from
overfishing. The existing restricted
number of fishery participants in the
Gulf of Mexico has demonstrated the
capability of harvesting their total
allowable catch well in advance of the
end of the various fishing seasons.
Allowing the fishery to revert to open
access would probably hasten these
closures. The proposed limited access
system would maintain the existing
restricted access to the fishery for an
indefinite period, with the intent to
provide continued social and economic
stability to the reef fish fishery.
A proposed rule that would
implement the measure outlined in
Amendment 24 has been received from
the Council. In accordance with the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), NMFS is
evaluating the Council’s proposed rule
to determine whether it is consistent
with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, and other applicable law. If that
determination is affirmative, NMFS will
publish the proposed rule in the Federal
Register for public review and
comment.
Comments received by June 6, 2005,
whether specifically directed to the
Amendment 24 or the proposed rule,
will be considered by NMFS in its
decision to approve, disapprove, or
partially approve Amendment 24.
Comments received after that date will
not be considered by NMFS in this
decision. All comments received by
NMFS on the amendment or the
proposed rule during their respective
comment periods will be addressed in a
final rule.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: April 1, 2005.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05–6842 Filed 4–5–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 6, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17386-17401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-6611]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 223
[Docket No. 050323081-5081-01; I.D. 031505C]
RIN 0648-AT02
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed
Threatened Status for Southern Distinct Population Segment of North
American Green Sturgeon
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the NMFS, have completed an update of an Endangered
Species Act (ESA) status review for the North American green sturgeon
(Acipenser medirostris; hereafter ``green sturgeon''). After reviewing
new and updated information on the status of green sturgeon and
considering whether green sturgeon is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, we confirm our earlier determination
that the species is comprised of two distinct population segments
(DPSs) that qualify as species under the ESA, the Northern and Southern
DPSs. We reaffirm our earlier determination that the Northern DPS does
not warrant listing as threatened or endangered at this time, and we
will maintain the DPS on the Species of Concern List due to remaining
uncertainties about its status and threats. We revise our previous
``not warranted'' finding for the Southern DPS and propose to list it
as threatened. This revision is based on: new information showing that
the majority of spawning adults are concentrated into one spawning
river (i.e., Sacramento River), thus increasing the risk of extirpation
due to catastrophic events; threats that have remained severe since the
last status review and have not been adequately addressed by
conservation measures currently in place; fishery-independent data
exhibiting a negative trend in juvenile green sturgeon abundance; and
new information showing evidence of lost spawning habitat in the upper
Sacramento and Feather Rivers. We will reevaluate the status of the
Northern DPS in 5 years. If the proposed listing is finalized, a
recovery plan will be prepared and implemented for the Southern DPS.
Protective regulations under ESA section 4(d) and critical habitat will
be proposed in a subsequent Federal Register notice.
DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by July 5, 2005. A
public hearing will be held promptly if any person so requests by May
23, 2005. Notice of the location and time of any such hearing will be
published in the Federal Register not less than 15 days before the
hearing is held.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
E-Mail: GreenSturgeon.Comments@noaa.gov
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Chief, Protected
Resources Division, Southwest Region, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA, 90802-4213.
The updated green sturgeon status review and other reference
materials regarding this determination can be obtained via the Internet
at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov or by submitting a request to the
Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division,
Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach,
CA 90802-4213, or the Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected
Resources Division, Northwest Region, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Avenue, Suite
1100, Portland, OR 97232.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Neuman, NMFS, Southwest Region
(562) 980-4115; Scott Rumsey, NMFS, Northwest Region (503) 872-2791; or
Lisa Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources (301) 713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 12, 2001, we received a petition from the Environmental
Protection Information Center, Center
[[Page 17387]]
for Biological Diversity, and WaterKeepers Northern California
requesting that we list the green sturgeon as threatened or endangered
under the ESA and that critical habitat be designated for the species
concurrently with any listing determination. On December 14, 2001, we
provided notice of our determination that the petition presented
substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted and requested information to assist with a
status review to determine if green sturgeon warranted listing under
the ESA (66 FR 64793). To assist in the status review, we formed a
Biological Review Team (BRT) comprised of scientists from our Northwest
and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers and from the United States
Geological Survey (USGS). We also requested technical information and
comments from State and Tribal co-managers in California, Oregon, and
Washington, as well as from scientists and individuals having research
or management expertise pertaining to green sturgeon from California
and the Pacific Northwest. The BRT considered the best available
scientific and commercial information, including information presented
in the petition and in response to our request for information
concerning the status of and efforts being made to protect the species
(66 FR 64793; December 14, 2001). The BRT presented its findings in a
final status review report for North American green sturgeon (Adams et
al., 2002). Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a
species, subspecies, or a DPS of any vertebrate species which
interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). On February 7, 1996, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NMFS adopted a policy
describing what constitutes a DPS of a taxonomic species (61 FR 4722).
The joint DPS policy identified two elements that must be considered
when making DPS determinations: (1) The discreteness of the population
segment in relation to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to
which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to
the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs. After
conducting the status review, we determined that green sturgeon is
comprised of two DPSs that qualify as species under the ESA: (1) a
northern DPS consisting of populations in coastal watersheds northward
of and including the Eel River (``Northern DPS''); and (2) a southern
DPS consisting of coastal and Central Valley populations south of the
Eel River, with the only known population in the Sacramento River
(``Southern DPS'').
The BRT considered the following information in order to assess
risk factors for each green sturgeon DPS: (1) abundance trends from
fisheries data; (2) the effects of fishing bycatch; (3) the possible
loss of spawning habitat in rivers where spawning is reported to have
occurred historically, but apparently no longer does; (4) concentration
of spawning in the Klamath and Sacramento River systems; (5) lack of
adequate population abundance data; (6) potentially lethal water
temperatures and adverse effects of contaminants; (7) entrainment
(defined here as loss of green sturgeon due to water diversion) by
water projects; and (8) adverse effects of non-native species. Based on
the 2002 risk assessment, we determined on January 23, 2003, that
neither DPS warranted listing as threatened or endangered (68 FR 4433).
Uncertainties in the structure and status of both DPSs led us to add
them to the Species of Concern List (formerly the candidate species
list; 69 FR 19975; April 15, 2004). Along with the finding, we
announced that we would reevaluate the status of green sturgeon in 5
years.
On April 7, 2003, the Environmental Protection Information Center
(and other Plaintiffs) challenged our ``not warranted'' finding for
green sturgeon. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an order on March 2, 2004, which set aside our ``not
warranted'' finding and remanded the matter to us for redetermination
of whether green sturgeon is in danger of extinction throughout all or
a significant portion of its range, or is likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. The U.S. District Court's March 2004 remand was issued
because the Court was not satisfied with our examination of whether
purported lost spawning habitat constituted a significant portion of
either DPS' range. We reestablished the BRT in the early summer of 2004
and added a new member from USGS who possessed considerable knowledge
of green sturgeon. The BRT was asked to consider recent scientific and
commercial information available regarding the biological status of
green sturgeon and to assist us in assessing the viability of the
species throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We
published a notice on June 18, 2004, soliciting information from the
public to assist us in updating our status review and making a new
listing determination (69 FR 34135).
In addition to the information solicited during the first status
review, we solicited any new information beyond that considered in the
2002 green sturgeon status review or the January 2003 1-year ``not
warranted'' finding on the following topics for the Northern and
Southern DPSs of green sturgeon: (1) new genetic, morphological,
physiological, or ecological information relevant to DPS
identification; (2) current or historic information documenting the
geographic extent (e.g., area, river mile distance) and magnitude
(e.g., abundance of spawning females, reproductive output) of spawning
in particular river systems (e.g., Fraser River, Umpqua River, South
Fork Trinity River, Eel River, Feather River, and San Joaquin River);
(3) information documenting the current geographic extent and magnitude
of spawning in areas other than where it is known to presently occur
(i.e., areas other than the Sacramento River, Klamath River and Rogue
River); (4) the legitimacy of references used to support information
regarding current or historic spawning in the systems mentioned above
in (2) and (3), particularly citations by Houston (1988) for the Fraser
River; Lauman et al. (1972) and the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife (ODFW) (2002) for the Umpqua River; Moyle et al. (1992) and
references therein for the South Fork Trinity River; Puckett (1976),
Moyle et al. (1992) and references therein for the Eel River; Wang
(1986) and FWS (1995) for the Feather River; and Moyle et al. (1992)
and references therein for the San Joaquin River; (5) historic, current
or future factors that may be responsible for the reported loss of
spawning habitat and associated spawning populations; and (6) fishery-
dependent and -independent abundance data for analysis of population
trends.
The public comment period closed on August 17, 2004. The BRT
convened to draft an updated status review in November 2004.
On January 27, 2005, we distributed the updated status review to
co-managers (i.e., States of Washington, Oregon and California, Yurok
and Hoopa Tribes, FWS, and the California Bay-Delta Program) for
review. The final updated status review for green sturgeon was
completed by the BRT on February 22, 2005, and submitted to NMFS
Regional Offices for further consideration prior to the publication of
this notice.
[[Page 17388]]
Biology and Life History of Green Sturgeon
A thorough account of green sturgeon biology and life history may
be found in the previous 1-year finding (68 FR 4433; January 23, 2003)
and the updated status review (Adams et al., 2005), which are
incorporated here by reference. The following is a summary of that
information.
Adult Distribution and Feeding
The green sturgeon is the most widely distributed member of the
sturgeon family Acipenseridae. Like all sturgeon species it is
anadromous, but it is also the most marine-oriented of the sturgeon
species. Green sturgeon are known to range in nearshore marine waters
from Mexico to the Bering Sea and are commonly observed in bays and
estuaries along the western coast of North America, with particularly
large concentrations entering the Columbia River estuary, Willapa Bay,
and Grays Harbor during the late summer (Moyle et al., 1992). The
reasons for these concentrations are unclear, but do not appear to be
related to spawning or feeding (Beamesderfer, 2000).
Little is known about adult green sturgeon feeding. Adults in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are reported to feed on benthic
invertebrates including shrimp, mollusks, amphipods, and even small
fish (Moyle et al., 1992). One hundred and twenty-one green sturgeon
stomach samples from the Columbia River gillnet fishery were empty with
the exception of one fish, while all white sturgeon stomachs contained
digested material (ODFW 2002).
Spawning
Adult green sturgeon are thought to spawn every 3 to 5 years
(Tracy, 1990), but new information suggests that spawning could occur
as frequently as every 2 years (Lindley and Moser, pers. comm., 2004).
Adults typically migrate into fresh water beginning in late February
(Moyle et al., 1995); spawning occurs from March July, with peak
activity from April June (Moyle et al., 1995). Confirmed spawning
populations in North America are in the Rogue (Erickson et al., 2001,
Rien et al., 2001), Klamath, and Sacramento Rivers (Moyle et al., 1992;
CDFG, 2002). Green sturgeon females produce 60,000 - 140,000 eggs
(Moyle et al., 1992), and they are the largest eggs (diameter 4.34mm)
of any sturgeon species (Cech et al., 2000). Spawning occurs in deep
turbulent river mainstems. Klamath and Rogue River populations appear
to spawn within 100 miles (161 km) of the ocean, while the Sacramento
spawning run may travel over 200 miles (322 km). Specific spawning
habitat preferences are unclear, but eggs likely are broadcast over
large cobble where they settle into the cracks (Moyle et al., 1995).
Optimum flow and temperature requirements for spawning and incubation
are unclear, but spawning success in most sturgeons is related to these
factors (Dettlaff et al.,1993). Temperatures above 68 F (20[deg]C) were
lethal to embryos in laboratory experiments (Cech et al., 2000).
Early Life History and Maturation
Green sturgeon larvae first feed at 10 days post hatch and grow
quickly reaching a length of 66mm and a weight of 1.8 g in 3 weeks of
exogenous feeding. Metamorphosis to the juvenile stage is complete at
45 days. Juveniles continue to grow rapidly, reaching 300mm in 1 year
and over 600mm within 2 3 years for the Klamath River (Nakamoto et al.,
1995). Juveniles spend from 1 4 years in fresh and estuarine waters and
disperse into salt water at lengths of 300-750mm. The little that is
known regarding juvenile green sturgeon feeding habits comes from a
study conducted in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where juveniles
fed on opossum shrimp and amphipods (Radtke, 1966).
Green sturgeon disperse widely in the ocean after their out-
migration from freshwater (Moyle et al., 1992). Tagged green sturgeon
from the Sacramento and Columbia Rivers are primarily captured to the
north in coastal and estuarine waters, with some fish tagged in the
Columbia River being recaptured as far north as British Columbia (WDFW,
2002a). While there is some bias associated with recovery of tagged
fish through commercial fishing, the pattern of a northern migration is
supported by the large concentration of green sturgeon in the Columbia
River estuary, Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor, which peaks in August.
These fish tend to be immature; however, mature fish and at least one
ripe fish have been found in the lower Columbia River (WDFW, 2002a).
Genetic evidence suggests that Columbia River green sturgeon are a
mixture of fish from at least the Sacramento, Klamath, and Rogue Rivers
(Israel et al., 2002). Mature males range from 139 199cm in fork length
(FL) and 15 to 30 years of age (VanEenennaam, 2002). Mature females
range from 157 223cm FL and 17 to 40 years of age. Maximum ages of
adult green sturgeon are likely to range from 60-70 years (Moyle,
2002).
Summary of New Information
Consideration as a ``Species'' Under the ESA
The ESA defines species as ``any subspecies of fish or wildlife or
plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of
vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature'' 16 U.S.C.
1532(16). This definition allows for the recognition of DPSs at levels
below taxonomically recognized species or subspecies. On February 7,
1996, the FWS and NMFS published a joint policy to clarify the phrase
``distinct population segment'' for the purposes of listing, delisting
and reclassifying species under the ESA (61 FR 4722). This policy
identifies two criteria that must be met for a population segment to be
considered a DPS under the ESA: (1) The discreteness of the population
segment in relation to the remainder of the species or subspecies to
which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to
the species or subspecies to which it belongs.
New genetic information in combination with the tendency of
sturgeon to exhibit high spawning site fidelity confirms the
conclusions drawn during the previous 1-year ``not warranted'' finding
(68 FR 4433; January 29, 2003) that the northern and southern
populations of green sturgeon are ``discrete'' and ``significant'' as
defined in the DPS policy. (For a complete discussion of the
discreteness and significance of the U.S. population of green sturgeon
see 68 FR at 4437).
Genetic Information
Updated analyses of green sturgeon genetic structure were made
available from University of California - Davis (J. Israel and B. May,
pers. comm., 2004). These results incorporated a greater number of
samples including new adult samples from the Umpqua River, new juvenile
samples from the Sacramento River, and an increase in microsatellite
DNA loci to nine over the six reported in the previous status review
and discussed in Israel et. al. (2004). Green sturgeon samples
demonstrate a strong division between a grouping of the Rogue, Klamath,
and Umpqua Rivers versus a grouping of the Sacramento and Columbia
Rivers and San Pablo Bay samples. The northern group included mixed
stock green sturgeon samples from the Umpqua River as well as single
stock samples from the Rogue and Klamath Rivers and the southern group
included mixed stock samples from the Columbia River, samples from San
Pablo Bay that may be either mixed or single stock, and single stock
samples from the Sacramento River.
[[Page 17389]]
Oceanic Distribution and Behavior
New oceanic distribution and behavior information came from pop-off
archival tags (7 fish), Oregon trawl logbook analysis, and acoustic
tags (168 fish). These data indicated that green sturgeon generally
make northward migrations, to points as far north as northwest
Vancouver Island, Canada, upon returning to the ocean. During oceanic
migrations, archival tagged fish occupied depths of 40-70 m and
remained exclusively inside the 110 m contour. These results are
confirmed by Oregon trawl logbook records (Erickson and Hightower,
2004). Fish marked in spawning areas (Rogue and Klamath Rivers and San
Pablo Bay) and in mixed stock areas (Columbia River and Willapa Bay)
with acoustic tags in 2002, 2003, and 2004 sustained migrations of 100
km per day. Several fish tagged in 2002 returned to the Rogue River in
2004, suggesting a minimal spawning periodicity of 2 years if it is
assumed that these fish were ripe and returning to the River to spawn
(S. Lindley and M. Moser, pers. comm., 2004).
Freshwater Distribution Information
We requested new historic and/or current information for particular
river systems where historic and current spawning status is uncertain
(e.g., Fraser River, Umpqua River, South Fork Trinity River, Eel River,
Feather River, and San Joaquin River; 69 FR 34135). New information was
received for the Chehalis, Umpqua, Rogue, and Eel Rivers within the
Northern DPS and the Sacramento, Feather, and San Joaquin Rivers within
the Southern DPS.
Northern DPS
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) investigated the
Chehalis River as potential green sturgeon habitat, and while it
appears to possess suitable habitat features for green and white
sturgeon spawning, there has not been evidence of spawning occurring in
this basin (WDFW, 2004). Data summarized from catch record cards
suggest that a few green sturgeon were caught in sport fisheries as far
upriver as 60 kilometers during July 2002, March 2003, and December
2003, but these may be misidentifications of white sturgeon, which are
much more common within the basin. Sport anglers have reported small
green sturgeon in Grays Harbor; however, these fish were most likely of
a post-migratory size and therefore were not fish rearing in the
estuary. Green and white sturgeon eggs and larvae have not been
observed in the Chehalis River or Grays Harbor.
There are two confirmed records of green sturgeon captured above
tidal influence in the Umpqua River (T. Rien, pers. comm., 2004). In
July 2000, two juvenile green sturgeon (each approximately 10-cm long)
were regurgitated from two smallmouth bass caught at river kilometer
(rkm) 134 on the Umpqua River. The ODFW interviewed the local angling
guide, and the one available regurgitated fish was positively
identified as a green sturgeon. The other regurgitated sturgeon was not
available to examine. In April 1979, a 1.8 m green sturgeon was caught
at rkm 164 on the Umpqua River. A picture of the fish was published in
the Roseburg News Review (May 3, 1979) and it was visually identified
as a green sturgeon by ODFW. ODFW has sampled the Umpqua River in 2002,
2003, and 2004 using gill nets, beach seines, snorkeling, and
underwater video, and their sampling efforts did not capture any green
sturgeon above tidal influence in the Umpqua River.
A putative green juvenile sturgeon was captured at Big Butte Creek
(rkm 254) near Lost Creek Dam on the Rogue River (R. Reisenbichler,
pers. comm., 2004). This is unusual because it is very high in the
system and above two major dams with fish ladders (Savage Rapids and
Gold Ray) and several smaller dams.
Adult green sturgeon were sighted on the mainstem Eel River near
Fort Seward, California (rkm 101) during snorkel surveys in 1995 and
1996 (S. Downie, pers. comm., 2004). Three sturgeon were sighted each
year at a place locally known as ``The Sturgeon Hole.'' Two juvenile
green sturgeon were captured in the Eel River estuary in 1994 by trawl
(S. Cannata, pers. comm., 2004). The first one was 282mm FL and the
second was 510mm. This is in addition to the previously reported
capture of 26 juvenile green sturgeon near Fort Seward in 1967 and 1968
(Pluckett, 1976).
Southern DPS
Recent habitat evaluations conducted in the upper Sacramento and
Feather Rivers for salmonid recovery planning suggest that significant
potential green sturgeon spawning habitat was made inaccessible or
altered by dams (historical habitat characteristics, temperature, and
geology summarized in Lindley et al., 2004). This spawning habitat may
have extended up into the three major branches of the Sacramento River,
the Little Sacramento River, the Pit River system, and the McCloud
River.
Green and white sturgeon adults have been observed periodically in
small numbers in the Feather River (Beamesderfer et al., 2004). There
are at least two confirmed records of adult green sturgeon in 2004.
There are no records of larval or juvenile sturgeon of either species,
even prior to the 1960's when Oroville Dam was built. There are reports
that green sturgeon may reproduce in the Feather River during high flow
years (CDFG, 2002), but these are not specific and are unconfirmed.
Small fisheries for sturgeon occur in spring on the San Joaquin
River between Mossdale and the Merced River (Kohlhorst, 1976). Though
sturgeon are known to migrate into the San Joaquin River, no efforts
have been made to document sturgeon reproduction (FWS, 1995). In
addition, data are not regularly collected at diversions on the San
Joaquin River, and when sturgeon have been collected, species
differentiation rarely occurred. Information exists through interviews
with biologists, wardens, and anglers regarding the presence and
potential spawning of white sturgeon on the San Joaquin River (FWS,
1995). Two juvenile white sturgeon caught at Woodbridge on the
Mokelumne River (rkm 63) in 2003 are the first confirmation of white
sturgeon reproduction in the San Joaquin River system (Beamesderfer et
al., 2004). Though no green sturgeon have ever been documented in the
San Joaquin River upstream of the Delta or in the Stanislaus, Tuolumne,
and Merced Rivers (CDFG, 2002; Beamesderfer et al., 2004), the San
Joaquin River and its tributaries have been heavily modified in ways
that reduce suitability for sturgeon since the 1940s, so the lack of
contemporary information cannot be considered evidence of historical
green sturgeon absence. Moreover, species with a similar dependence on
historic deep cool waters of the San Joaquin for spawning (i.e.,
spring-run Chinook salmon; Yoshiyama et al., 2001; and white sturgeon,
FWS, 1995) are either extirpated or nearly so on the San Joaquin River,
indicating that a once self-sustaining green sturgeon population on the
San Joaquin River may have been possible.
Catch Information
The coastwide bycatch of green sturgeon continues to be reduced
over time as noted in the previous status review (Adams et al., 2002).
Based on updated and corrected bycatch numbers, green sturgeon take has
been reduced from a high of 9,065 in 1986 to 862 in 2001, the last year
in the previous status review, to 512 in 2003. The greatest reductions
in bycatch (direct and indirect) were for the commercial fisheries in
the Northern
[[Page 17390]]
DPS, specifically the Columbia River, Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor.
This reduction has occurred due to regulatory changes summarized in
Adams et al. (2002), Appendix 1 Table 2. Yurok and Hoopa tribal green
sturgeon fisheries have remained constant, with relatively constant
effort, and together account for 59 percent of the coastwide green
sturgeon catch in 2003.
Historic Spawning Status
Information presented in the first status review (Adams et al.,
2002) and new information presented here regarding the historic and
current spawning status of green sturgeon were analyzed.
Conclusions from New Information
In earlier technical memos and Federal Register publications (66 FR
64793, December 14, 2001; 68 FR 4433, January 23, 2003), we reported
the loss of green sturgeon spawning habitat in the Umpqua, Fraser,
South Fork Trinity, Eel (Northern DPS), Upper Sacramento, Feather, and
possibly San Joaquin Rivers (Southern DPS) based on information
presented in the petition. These claims prompted us to report that
green sturgeon experienced a significant reduction in spawning area.
New analysis of existing information and the submission of new
information to us in August 2004 (69 FR 34135) leads us to revise these
earlier judgments in the following ways.
Northern DPS
There is no evidence of historic or current spawning in the Fraser
or Chehalis Rivers (D. Lane, pers. comm., 2004; WDFW, 2004). Based on
the lack of data, we cannot conclude that there has been a loss of
spawning habitat over time in these systems.
Known historic and current spawning, based primarily on the
presence of juvenile green sturgeon, occurs in the Umpqua, Rogue,
Klamath and Trinity Rivers, and, therefore, we conclude that
populations have not been extirpated from these systems (T. Rein, pers.
comm., 2004; Erickson et al., 2002; Moyle, 2002; Sheiff et al., 2001).
We are uncertain as to whether spawning habitat has been lost in the
Umpqua River. A significant reduction in spawning habitat is not likely
to have occurred in the Rogue River because there are no impassable
barriers along green sturgeon migration routes. Although the Klamath
River has undergone human alteration, data suggest that the geographic
extent of spawning in the system has not been reduced over time. A
paucity of data for the Trinity River limits our ability to comment on
the magnitude of loss of spawning habitat in this system.
There is evidence to suggest that green sturgeon spawned in the
South Fork Trinity River and continue to spawn there to some degree,
based on the presence of adults in freshwater areas above tidal
influence (CDFG, 1978; Moyle et al., 1992). We suspect that spawning
habitat still exists in this system, but have no evidence to comment on
whether spawning habitat has been reduced over time.
The Eel River is the only system in the Northern DPS where the
status of spawning since historic times is believed to have changed.
Spawning is known to have occurred in the past based on the presence of
juveniles (Plunkett, 1976), but recently, only adults have been present
in the River (S. Downie, pers. comm., 2004) and one juvenile, whose
natal stream origin is uncertain, was collected in the estuary. Despite
Moyle et al.'s (2002) claim that green sturgeon have been extirpated
from the Eel River, we determined that our ability to make a conclusion
regarding extirpation is limited by: (1) low sampling effort in recent
times (see Status of Green Sturgeon DPSs: Northern DPS); and (2) our
inability to determine how much spawning habitat or reproductive
potential may have been lost.
Southern DPS
Known historic and current spawning, based on the presence of
juvenile green sturgeon, occurs in the Sacramento River (Adams et al.,
2002). We have indirect evidence, based on habitat assessments of
Chinook salmon, that the geographic extent of spawning has been reduced
due to impassable barriers (the Keswick and Shasta dams) in the upper
Sacramento River. We have not been able to quantify the reduction of
habitat to date, and are uncertain how reduction in spawning habitat
has affected the population's viability.
Spawning is suspected to have occurred in the Feather River due to
the presence of adults in the system (CDFG, 2002). Although there is no
evidence of spawning in the past or now, the continued presence of
adults in the system suggests that green sturgeon are trying to migrate
into presumed spawning areas now blocked by the Oroville Dam.
Therefore, we conclude that spawning habitat may have been lost in the
Feather River, but we were not able to determine how much habitat or
reproductive potential was lost.
There is no evidence of historic or current spawning in the San
Joaquin River (Beamesderfer, 2004; Adams et al., 2002; CDFG, 2002).
While we cannot make any conclusions regarding loss of spawning habitat
over time in the San Joaquin River, indirect evidence from a variety of
sources (Moyle, 2002; Lindley et al., 2004; L. Hess, pers. comm., 2004)
suggests that both adult and juvenile green sturgeon may have been
present in this system in the past. If spawning did occur in the San
Joaquin River in the past, there may have been a reduction in spawning
habitat again due to reasons mentioned above for the Sacramento and
Feather Rivers.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) and regulations promulgated
to implement the listing provisions of the ESA (50 CFR part 424) set
forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal list of
threatened and endangered species. Section 4 requires that listing
determinations be based solely on the best scientific and commercial
data available, without consideration of possible economic or other
impacts of such determinations. A species may be determined to be
endangered or threatened due to one or more of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. We must determine if either
DPS of green sturgeon is endangered or threatened because of any one or
a combination of the following factors: (1) the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made
factors affecting its continued existence.
Species-wide Factors
Ocean and estuarine bycatch of green sturgeon in the white sturgeon
and salmonid fisheries was considered a species-wide factor for decline
since its impact could not be apportioned to one DPS or the other.
Current total catch of green sturgeon has been reduced to 6 percent of
its 1986 high value of 9,065 fish; this does not, however, necessarily
represent a reduction in green sturgeon abundance. The recent reduction
is due to newly imposed fishing regulations in Oregon and Washington.
Commercial fisheries targeting sturgeon have not been allowed in the
Columbia River or Willapa Bay since 2001, and recreational fishing
remains negligible (WDFW, 2004). Yurok and Hoopa tribal catch has
remained relatively constant during the entire time series. The
reduction in catch through protective
[[Page 17391]]
management measures represents a reduction in risk to the Northern
DPS. CDFG (2002) estimated an average fishing mortality of 2.2 percent
for green sturgeon based on tag return data in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Estuary. The impact of this fishing mortality rate is unknown.
A summary of DPS-specific factors for decline is presented below
(Tables 1 and 2). These factors were only considered for those river
systems with known or suspected historical or current spawning
activity.
Northern DPS Factors
The potential factors for decline in the Northern DPS are reduced
flows, changed flow regimes, increased temperatures, and reduced oxygen
concentrations, principally in the Klamath-Trinity and Eel River
systems (Table 1). The impact of these factors is uncertain. This DPS
also has the only major in-river fishery for green sturgeon (Yurok and
Hoopa tribal fisheries in the Klamath-Trinity River system), the
effects of which are uncertain, but catch data show no obvious signs of
decline. As mentioned in the previous section, species-wide reduction
in bycatch fishing mortality through protective management measures
reduces the threat of overfishing in the Northern DPS. No risks due to
disease, predation, or inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
were identified. The Northern DPS has two known major spawning
populations (e.g., the Klamath-Trinity River system and the Rogue
River) that are not close to one another geographically, thus spreading
risks of extinction over more than one spawning area. Spawning also
appears to occur infrequently in the Umpqua River. This gives the
Northern DPS some additional protection.
Southern DPS Factors
The principal factor for decline for this DPS comes from the
reduction of green sturgeon spawning area to a limited area of the
Sacramento River (Table 2). Keswick Dam provides an impassible barrier
blocking green sturgeon access to what were likely historic spawning
grounds upstream (FWS, 1995). A substantial amount of habitat in the
Feather River above Oroville Dam also was lost, and threats to green
sturgeon on the Feather River are similar to those faced in the
Sacramento River (NMFS, 2004). The BRT concluded that a viable spawning
population of green sturgeon no longer exists in the Feather River and
was likely lost due to the habitat blockage as a result of Oroville Dam
and from thermal barriers associated with the Thermalito Afterbay
Facility (Table 2). Any observations of adult green sturgeon likely
represent individuals that were stranded as a result of these barriers.
Potential adult migration barriers to green sturgeon include the
Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD), Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel
locks, Fremont Weir, Sutter Bypass, and the Delta Cross Channel Gates
on the Sacramento River, and Shanghai Bench and Sunset Pumps on the
Feather River. The threat of screened and unscreened agricultural,
municipal, and industrial water diversions in the Sacramento River and
Delta to green sturgeon are largely unknown as juvenile sturgeon are
often not identified, and current California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG) and NMFS screen criteria do not address sturgeon. Based on
the temporal occurrence of juvenile green sturgeon and the high density
of water diversion structures along rearing and migration routes, we
find the potential threat of these diversions to be serious and in need
of study (Table 2 NMFS, 2005).
CDFG (1992) and FWS (1995) found a strong correlation between mean
daily freshwater outflow (April to July) and white sturgeon year class
strength in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary (these studies primarily
involve the more abundant white sturgeon; however, the threats to green
sturgeon are thought to be similar), indicating that insufficient flow
rates are likely to pose a significant threat to green sturgeon (Table
2). This association of year class strength with outflow is also found
in other anadromous fishes inhabiting the Estuary, such as striped
bass, Chinook salmon, American shad, and longfin smelt (Stevens and
Miller, 1983). Mean April-May flow rates of 566 cubic meters per second
appear to be the minimum required for the production of good year class
strength based on approximately 20 years of sturgeon salvage data at
the Skinner Fish Facility (CDFG, 2002). According to this criterion,
low flow rates occurred slightly more than 50 percent of the time
during the years spanning 1968-1987 (CDFG, 2002). The FWS (1995) used
water year types, based on an index developed for the Sacramento Basin
(California Department of Water Resources, 2004), to suggest that low
flow conditions occurred 53 percent of the time during the years
spanning 1944-2004. It is postulated that low flow rates could dampen
survival by hampering the dispersal of larvae to areas of greater food
availability, hampering the dispersal of larvae to all available
habitat, delaying the transportation of larvae downstream of water
diversions in the Delta, or decreasing nutrient supply to the nursery,
thus stifling productivity (CDFG, 1992). There are no current
indications that flow rates will increase over time.
High temperatures no longer seem to be the problem that they once
were with the installation of the Shasta Dam temperature control device
in 1997, although Shasta Dam has a limited storage capacity and cold
water reserves could be depleted in long droughts (Table 2).
Temperatures at RBDD have not been higher than 16[deg] C since 1995
(California Data Exchange Center) and are within the green sturgeon egg
and larvae optimum for growth and survival of 15[deg] to 19[deg] C
(Mayfield and Cech, 2004). However, green sturgeon reproduction before
1995 may well have been adversely affected by temperature and these
earlier high temperatures may have caused population reductions that
would still affect the overall population size and age-structure (Table
2). Water temperatures on Feather River downstream of the Thermalito
Afterbay outlet are considerably higher than temperatures in the low-
flow channel (FWS, 1995). It is likely that high water temperatures
(greater than 17.2[deg] C) may deleteriously affect sturgeon egg and
larval development, especially for late-spawning fish in drier water
years (FWS, 1995). CDFG (2002) also indicated water temperatures may be
inadequate for spawning and egg incubation in the Feather River during
many years as the result of releases of warmed water from Thermalito
Afterbay. CDFG believed this may be one reason neither green nor white
sturgeon are found in the river in low-flow years. It is not expected
that water temperatures will become more favorable in the near future
(CDFG, 2002) and thus elevated water temperature continues to be a
threat.
Sturgeon have high vulnerability to fisheries, and the trophy
status of large white sturgeon makes these fishes a high priority for
enforcement to protect against poaching (Table 2; CDFG, 2002). Green
sturgeon are caught incidentally in these white sturgeon fisheries.
Non-native species are an ongoing problem in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin River and Delta systems (Table 2; CDFG, 2002). One risk for
green sturgeon associated with the introduction of non-native species
involves the replacement of relatively uncontaminated food items with
those that may be contaminated. For example, the non-native overbite
clam, Potamocorbula amurensis, introduced in 1988, has become the most
common food of white sturgeon and was found in the only green
[[Page 17392]]
sturgeon examined thus far (CDFG, 2002). The overbite clam is known to
bioaccumulate selenium, a toxic metal (CDFG, 2002; Linville et al.,
2004). Green sturgeon may also experience predation by introduced
species including striped bass.
Contamination of the Sacramento River increased substantially in
the mid-1970s when application of rice pesticides increased (FWS,
1995). Estimated toxic concentrations for the Sacramento River during
1970-1988 may have deleteriously affected striped bass larvae (Bailey,
1994). White sturgeon may also accumulate PCBs and selenium (White et
al., 1989). While green sturgeon spend more time in the marine
environment than white sturgeon and, therefore, may have less exposure,
the BRT concluded that some degree of risk from contaminants probably
also occurs for green sturgeon (Table 2).
The previous status review (Adams et al., 2002) summarized juvenile
entrainment and change in annual mean number over time. Juvenile
entrainment is considered a type of threat imposed by water diversion
(Table 2).
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
[[Page 17393]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AP05.014
[[Page 17394]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AP05.015
[[Page 17395]]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Status of Green Sturgeon DPS
Northern DPS
The Fraser River in Canada currently has a catch and release
fishery for sturgeon, but the number of green sturgeon captured is
extremely small. A tagging study in 1992-1993 tagged 2300 sturgeon and
only one was a green sturgeon (D. Lane, pers. comm., 2004). Green
sturgeon occur off the West Coast of Vancouver Island where they are
taken in the trawl fishery. These fish are thought to be from spawning
areas in the United States, and this idea is supported by the recent
acoustic and pop-off archival tagging. WDFW has investigated the
possibility of green sturgeon spawning in the Chehalis River as it
appears to provide suitable habitat features to support spawning.
However, no evidence of spawning in this system has occurred to date.
Currently, there is limited fishing in Grays Harbor, but no evidence of
spawning has been found (WDFW, 2004).
Spawning does appear to take place in the Umpqua River, but is
probably rare. Juvenile green sturgeon were identified in the system in
2000. Spawning in the Umpqua River apparently is not common since
substantial sampling efforts in 2002, 2003, and 2004 failed to find any
evidence of green sturgeon spawning.
The presence of green sturgeon spawning in the Rogue River has been
only recently discovered. The river is less manipulated and habitat
seems to be of better quality than in other green sturgeon spawning
rivers. Blockages to migration of anadromous fish are likely to be
upriver of the historical extent of green sturgeon spawning habitat
and, therefore, do not seem to be limiting; habitat seems to be roughly
what it was historically. Other anadromous salmonid fishes are
generally doing well in the Rogue River (Weitkamp et al., 1995; Busby
et al., 1996; and Myers et al., 1998).
The Klamath River has the largest green sturgeon spawning
population. Spawning still occurs upstream to the historical limit of
its habitat range (Ishi Pishi Falls). Out-migrant juvenile green
sturgeon are captured each year in screw traps at Big Bar (Schieff et
al., 2001). The BRT expressed concerns over recent fish kills in the
Klamath River, but reached no conclusions regarding whether or not the
temperature regime in the system played a part in this mortality event.
The Yurok tribal fishery comprises the majority of green sturgeon catch
coastwide. There is no new information regarding abundance trends since
the last status review (Adams et al., 2002). As discussed in the
previous status review, the trends in numbers and size are difficult to
interpret, but do not appear to indicate population decline.
There are few available data regarding the status of green sturgeon
in the Trinity River system. The Hoopa Tribe has a small in-river
fishery which takes fewer than 30 adult green sturgeon each year.
Juvenile out-migrant green sturgeon are captured in most years in small
numbers at Willow Creek (Schieff et al., 2001). Due to the continued
presence of juveniles within the system, the BRT was not convinced that
green sturgeon were extirpated from the South Fork Trinity River by the
1964 flood as suggested by Moyle (2002).
The Eel River is the southern-most known spawning area in the
Northern DPS. Moyle et al. (1992) suggested that green sturgeon were
extirpated from the Eel River following the 1964 flood. The 1955 and
1964 floods delivered large amounts of sediment into the Eel River.
These historical flood events, combined with land use practices, have
resulted in persisting high sediment levels. Some portion of the deep
holes that green sturgeon use during spawning were filled in by the
1955 and 1964 flood events, but the extent of sturgeon habitat loss is
unknown. The BRT was not convinced that green sturgeon have been
extirpated from the Eel River. Sightings of adults in both 1995 and
1996 and of juveniles in the estuary in 1994 suggest that a green
sturgeon population persists in the Eel River, although severely
reduced from historical levels. Sampling was limited with adult surveys
conducted only in 1995 and 1996 and estuarine surveys conducted only in
1993 and 1994.
The evaluation of extinction risk over a ``significant portion of
its range'' is difficult for this DPS because of the lack of historical
data about green sturgeon spawning areas. As explained above, in
earlier technical memos and Federal Register publications (66 FR 64793,
December 14, 2001; 68 FR 4433, January 23, 2003) we had discussed the
possibility that spawning habitat in the Fraser, Umqua, South Fork
Trinity, and Eel Rivers had beenseverely reduced. However, after
reviewing both existing and new information, we have revised those
earlier judgments and now conclude that the Eel River is the only
system in the Northern DPS where the status of spawning since historic
times is believed to have changed. All BRT members felt that the
historic spawning area of the DPS had been larger than the current
spawning area, but with no historical data describing spawning areas,
there was a range of thought about how much larger.
The BRT was unable to come to firm consensus on what should be
considered ``a significant portion'' for this DPS, however, they
generally agreed that ``a significant portion'' of the DPS's range
would include either the Klamath or Rogue Rivers, and that the South
Fork Trinity and Eel Rivers do not represent a significant portion of
the DPS's range. The BRT's opinion regarding ``significant portion of
its range'' is supported by drawing analogies from salmonid habitat use
and estimated abundance in the Klamath, Rogue, South Fork Trinity and
Eel Rivers (Lindley et al., 2004). Salmonid spawning habitat is more
extensive and estimated population abundance is higher in the Klamath
and Rogue Rivers than in the South Fork Trinity and Eel Rivers, and we
expect that green sturgeon habitat requirements and population size are
correlated with those of salmonids, both historically and today. Also,
the geology of the Eel River, in particular, is more erosive and prone
to sedimentation events, suggesting that spawning habitat in the Eel
River is of poorer quality than that in the Klamath and Rogue Rivers.
Finally, evidence suggests that the Klamath and Rogue Rivers played a
more important role in historic Yurok and Hoopa tribal sturgeon
fisheries than the Eel and South Fork Trinity Rivers (FWS, 1981), again
supporting the BRT's conclusion that neither the Eel nor South Fork
Trinity Rivers constitute a significant portion of the Northern DPS'
range.
Conclusion-Northern DPS
Based on the input provided by the BRT, we conclude that the
Northern DPS of green sturgeon is not in danger of extinction, nor
likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, in all or a
significant portion of its range. While a significant portion of the
DPS' range would include either the Klamath or the Rogue Rivers,
neither of these populations is regarded as being at risk of
extirpation now or in the foreseeable future. The BRT was not convinced
that green sturgeon were extirpated from the South Fork Trinity or Eel
Rivers, even though it is likely that the Eel River population, in
particular, has suffered a severe reduction since historic times.
Reference data from salmonid habitat assessments and tribal fisheries
data suggest that even though green sturgeon populations in the Eel and
South Fork Trinity Rivers are likely low, these rivers do not represent
a significant portion of the DPS' range. The majority of the BRT felt
that the presence of two
[[Page 17396]]
well-separated and significant spawning populations in the Klamath and
Rogue Rivers, and the effective reduction in green sturgeon catch due
to implemented regulatory mechanisms, confer a low level of risk to the
DPS. A minority felt that overall paucity of data generates such
uncertainty in green sturgeon status that the DPS' level of extinction
risk may be higher than available data appear to indicate. The BRT
expressed concern regarding the lack of data and monitoring efforts to
adequately monitor the status of, and manage potential threats to,
green sturgeon populations in this DPS. The BRT recommended that the
Northern DPS be placed on the Species of Concern List, that their
status be reviewed in at least 5 years, and that population status
monitoring be implemented immediately.
Southern DPS
The BRT concluded that the Sacramento River contains the only known
green sturgeon spawning population in this DPS. There are no updated
population trends data since the last status review. The BRT concluded
that there was almost certainly a substantial loss of spawning habitat
behind Keswick and Shasta dams (FWS, 1995b, historical habitat data
summarized in Lindley et al., 2004 for salmonids). Green sturgeon
currently occur up to the impassible barrier at Keswick Dam (FWS,
1995b). It is unlikely that green sturgeon reproduced in their current
spawning area under the historical temperature regime that occurred
before the construction of Shasta and Keswick dams. At present, water
temperatures in the current spawning area are lower than they were
historically due to releases from Shasta Dam. Prior to dam
construction, green sturgeon would have had to migrate farther up the
mainstem than they do now in order to encounter water temperatures cool
enough to trigger spawning. The BRT considered it possible that the
additional habitat behind Shasta Dam in the Pit, McCloud, and Little
Sacramento systems would have supported separate populations or at
least a single, larger Sacramento River population less vulnerable to
catastrophes than one confined to a single mainstem, but the BRT was
unable to be specific due to the paucity of historical information. The
BRT expressed concern about the habitat limitation and potential
threats that green sturgeon faced in the Sacramento River and again
expressed particular concern about the high numbers of juveniles
entrained prior to 1986.
Juvenile entrainment data provide an indication of how abundance
has changed over time (1968-present). For the State facility (John
Skinner Fish Facility; 1968-2001), the estimated average number of
green sturgeon taken per year prior to 1986 was 732; from 1986 on, the
average number was 47. For the Federal facility (Tracy Fish Collection
Facility; 1980-2001), the average number prior to 1986 was 889; from
1986 on, the average was 32. The significant reduction in numbers is
consistent across the State and Federal facilities and is also
consistent with significant reductions in estimated white sturgeon take
within the same time periods (NMFS, 2005). In addition, evidence
indicates export levels at both facilities have increased
substantially, particularly at the State facility since the 1970s and
1980s (as exhibited by yearly acre-feet exported from Federal and State
facilities, NMFS, 2005). Though there are many assumptions associated
with fish salvage estimates at these facilities (i.e., estimates are
expanded catches from brief sampling periods; CDFG, 2002), this
information may be the best available data in determining the
population trends of the Southern DPS.
The BRT concluded that an effective population of spawning green
sturgeon does not exist in the Feather River. Although there is no
evidence of spawning in the Feather River either in the past or now,
the continued presence of adults in the system suggests that green
sturgeon are trying to migrate ito presumed spawning areas now blocked
by Oroville Dam, suggesting in turn that spawning habitat on the Fraser
River may bave been lost. A substantial amount of habitat in the
Feather River was lost with the construction of Oroville Dam
(constructed in 1961) and from thermal barriers at the Thermalito
Afterbay facility (CDFG, 2002). FWS (1995b) stated that ``Evidence also
suggests that [white] sturgeon reproduction occurs in both the Feather
and Bear rivers.'' Again, the BRT assumed that a similar suggestion
could be made for green sturgeon in the face of the paucity of data.
Sturgeon (including some documented green sturgeon) still regularly
occur in the Bear and Yuba Rivers (CDFG, 2002; Beamesderfer et al.,
2004) and, therefore, must migrate through the Feather River. Threats
to green sturgeon are similar to those faced in the Sacramento River.
Though the BRT concluded that there was not sufficient information
to establish whether the San Joaquin River system once supported a
viable green sturgeon population, we see no reason to exclude the San
Joaquin River system as a possibly occupied watershed in the past based
on similar conclusions reached for Chinook salmon habitat assessments
in the Sacramento and Feather Rivers. While some authors indicate that
there is no evidence of green sturgeon occurrence or spawning in the
San Joaquin River (Beamesderfer et al., 2004; Adams et al., 2002; CDFG,
2002), sampling effort has been extremely limited. Thus, no evidence of
presence does not necessarily mean that green sturgeon do not occur in
this system. Moyle (2002) suggested that green sturgeon reproduction
may have taken place in the San Joaquin River because numerous juvenile
green sturgeon have been captured at Santa Clara Shoal and Brannan
Island Recreational Area in the Delta. Both adult and juvenile green
sturgeon salvage recoveries at the Federal facility, located closest to
the San Joaquin River, also provide some evidence that the San Joaquin
River system may at least be occupied by green sturgeon during parts of
the year. The potential threats faced by green sturgeon if they do
occur or occurred in the past in the San Joaquin system would be
similar in nature to those faced in the Sacramento River, but would
likely be more extreme because there are a greater number of impassable
barriers in this system, many of which lack fish passage structures,
and flow rates are lower in the San Joaquin than those in the
Sacramento.
Conclusion-Southern DPS
The majority of the BRT concluded that the Southern DPS is likely
to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all of its
range. The BRT felt that the blockage of green sturgeon spawning from
what were historic spawning areas above Shasta Dam (although it is
unclear whether these were separate populations) and the accompanying
decrease in spawning area with the loss of a potential spawning area in
the Feather River make green sturgeon in the Southern DPS likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future. We believe that the
loss of potential spawning habitat in the San Joaquin River system also
may have contributed to the overall decline of the Southern DPS. The
majority of the BRT also felt that the concentration of spawning adults
in the Sacramento River places this DPS at even greater risk of
extinction. No BRT members felt that the DPS was at imminent risk of
extinction.
[[Page 17397]]
Efforts Being Made to Protect Green Sturgeon
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce to
make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available after taking into account efforts being
made to protect a species. Therefore, in making its listing
determinations, we first assess a DPS's level of extinction risk and
identify factors that have led to its decline. We then assess existing
efforts being made to protect the species to determine if those
measures ameliorate the risks faced by the DPS.
In judging the efficacy of existing protective efforts, we rely on
the joint NMFS-FWS ``Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When
Making Listing Decisions'' (``PECE;'' 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003).
PECE provides direction for the consideration of protective efforts
identified in conservation agreements, conservation plans, management
plans, or similar documents (developed by Federal agencies, state and
local governments, Tribal governments, businesses, organizations, and
individuals) that have not yet been implemented, or have been
implemented but have not yet demonstrated effectiveness. The policy
articulates several criteria for evaluating the certainty of
implementation and effectiveness of protective efforts to aid in
determining whether a species should be listed as threatened or
endangered. Evaluations of the certainty an effort will be implemented
include whether: the necessary resources (e.g., funding and staffing)
are available; the requisite agreements have been formalized such that
the necessary authority and regulatory mechanisms are in place; there
is a schedule for completion and evaluation of the stated objectives;
and (for voluntary efforts) the necessary incentives are in place to
ensure adequate participation. The evaluation of the certainty of an
effort's effectiveness is made on the basis of whether the effort or
plan: establishes specific conservation objectives; identifies the
necessary steps to reduce threats or factors for decline; includes
quantifiable performance measures for the monitoring of compliance and
effectiveness; incorporates the principles of adaptive management; and
is likely to improve the species' viability at the time of the listing
determination.
PECE also notes several important caveats. Satisfaction of the
above mentioned criteria for implementation and effectiveness
establishes a given protective effort as a candidate for consideration,
but does not mean that an effort will ultimately change the risk
assessment. The policy stresses that just as listing determinations
must be based on the viability of the species at the time of review, so
they must be based on the state of protective efforts at the time of
the listing determination. PECE does not provide explicit guidance on
how protective efforts affecting only a portion of a species' range may
affect a listing determination, other than to say that such efforts
will be evaluated in the context of other efforts being made and the
species' overall viability. There are circumstances where threats are
so imminent, widespread, and/or complex that it may be impossible for
any agreement or plan to include sufficient efforts to result in a
determination that listing is not warranted.
Conservation measures that may apply to listed species include
conservation measures implemented by tribes, states, foreign nations,
local governments, and private organizations. Also, Federal, tribal,
state, and foreign nations' recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)),
Federal consultation requirements (16 U.S.C. 1536), and prohibitions on
taking (16 U.S.C. 1538) constitute conservation measures. In addition,
recognition through Federal government or state listing promotes public
awareness and conservation actions by Federal, state, tribal
governments, foreign nations, private organizations, and individuals.
Fishing Regulations
Recent management strategies in Oregon and Washington have
considerably reduced the catch of green sturgeon. There are no targeted
commercial fisheries on green sturgeon, and recreational fishing
remains negligible. Commercial by-catch of green sturgeon occurs
predominantly during the early fall salmon and white sturgeon fisheries
in the lower Columbia River, when the green sturgeon have migrated into
the estuary and lower river mainstem. Fisheries are timed to avoid
coinciding with peak periods of green sturgeon presence. Since 2002,
Oregon and Washington have adopted daily landing limits for sturgeon
during fall Columbia River commercial salmon seasons. This management
action has resulted in a significant decrease in green sturgeon catch
due to the higher value (price per pound) of white sturgeon on the
commercial market. Harvesters now typically release all green sturgeon
(alive) to fill their weekly or daily landing limit with the more
valuable white sturgeon. Additionally, this management approach has
allowed the commercial fishery to access its allocation of white
sturgeon prior to periods of peak green sturgeon presence and without
any fisheries targeting sturgeon, further minimizing green sturgeon by-
catch.
Protective efforts on the Klamath and Trinity Rivers began with
take limits and maximum size ranges through the late 1970s, and between
1978 and 1993 seasonal limits were imposed to prohibit the take of
sturgeon in the Klamath River upstream of and including the Trinity
River. All sturgeon fishing has been prohibited in the Klamath-Trinity
system since 1993. Sturgeon fishing also has been prohibited since 1993
in all waters of the Eel River from the mouth to rkm 153 including all
waters of the South Fork Eel River downstream of Benbow Dam (CDFG,
2002). Sturgeon fishing in rivers and bays in Del Norte and Humboldt
Counties, including the Smith River, Humboldt and Arcata Bays, and all
tidal waters, has been prohibited since 1993. General angling
regulations apply to sturgeon angling from Mendocino County south (one
fish per day between 117 and 183cm TL).
Both white and green sturgeon are protected by the same fishing
regulations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin system. No commercial take is
permitted and angling take is restricted to one fish per day between
117 and 183cm TL. An additional closure in central San Francisco Bay
occurs between January 1 and March 15, coinciding with the herring
spawning season to protect sturgeon feeding on herring eggs (CDFG,
2002). Active sturgeon enforcement is often employed in areas where
sturgeon are concentrated and particularly vulnerable to the fishery.
There is no commercial fishery for green sturgeon in Canada,
although the species is taken as by-catch in white sturgeon and salmon
fisheries.
Habitat Protection Efforts
In the United States, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(CVPIA) is a Federal act directing the Secretary of the Interior to
amend previous authorizations of California's Central Valley Project to
include fish and wildlife protection, restoration, and mitigation as
project purposes having equal priority with irrigation and domestic
use, and fish and wildlife enhancement as a project purpose equal to
power generation. As a result o