Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Notice of 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Alabama Shad as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act, 4022-4061 [2017-00372]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
4022
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[Docket No. 130626570–6999–02]
RIN 0648–XC742
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants: Notice of 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List Alabama Shad as
Threatened or Endangered Under the
Endangered Species Act
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding.
AGENCY:
We, NMFS, announce a 12month finding and listing determination
on a petition to list Alabama shad
(Alosa alabamae) as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). We have completed
a comprehensive review of the status of
Alabama shad in response to the
petition submitted by the Center for
Biological Diversity (CBD), Alabama
Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition,
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration
Network, Tennessee Forests Council,
and the West Virginia Highlands
Conservancy (petitioners). Based on the
best scientific and commercial
information available on the status of
Alabama shad, we have determined that
the species does not warrant listing at
this time. We conclude that the
Alabama shad is not currently in danger
of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range and is not
likely to become so within the
foreseeable future.
DATES: This finding was made on
January 12, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The reference list associated
with this determination is available by
submitting a request to the Species
Conservation Branch Chief, Protected
Resources Division, NMFS Southeast
Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue
South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701–5505,
Attn: Alabama shad 12-month finding.
The reference list is also available
electronically at:https://
sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_
resources/listing_petitions/species_esa_
consideration/
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kelly Shotts, NMFS, Southeast Regional
Office (727) 824–5312; or Marta
Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources (301) 427–8469.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
Background
In 1997, we added Alabama shad to
our Candidate Species List (62 FR
37562; July 14, 1997). At that time, a
candidate species was defined as any
species being considered by the
Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for
listing as an endangered or a threatened
species, but not yet the subject of a
proposed rule (49 FR 38900; October 1,
1984). In 2004, we created the Species
of Concern list (69 FR 19975; April 15,
2004) to encompass species for which
we have some concerns regarding their
status and threats, but for which
insufficient information is available to
indicate a need to list the species under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Twenty-five candidate species,
including the Alabama shad, were
transferred to the Species of Concern list
at that time because they were not being
considered for ESA listing and were
better suited for Species of Concern
status due to some concerns and
uncertainty regarding their biological
status and threats. The Species of
Concern status does not carry any
procedural or substantive protections
under the ESA.
On April 20, 2010, the Center for
Biological Diversity (CBD), Alabama
Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition,
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration
Network, Tennessee Forests Council,
and the West Virginia Highlands
Conservancy (petitioners) submitted a
petition to the Secretaries of Interior and
Commerce, as well as to the Regional
Director of the Southeast Region of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), to list 404 aquatic, riparian,
and wetland species from the
southeastern United States as threatened
or endangered under the ESA. The
petitioners also requested that critical
habitat be designated for all petitioned
species. We notified the USFWS’
Southeast Region by letter dated May 3,
2010, that the Alabama shad, one of the
404 petitioned species, would fall under
NMFS’ jurisdiction based on the August
1974 Memorandum of Understanding
regarding jurisdictional responsibilities
and listing procedures between the two
agencies. We proposed to USFWS that
we would evaluate the petition, for
Alabama shad only, for the purpose of
the 90-day finding and any required
subsequent listing action. On May 14,
2010, we sent the petitioners
confirmation we would be evaluating
the petition for Alabama shad. On
February 17, 2011, we published a
negative 90-day finding in the Federal
Register (76 FR 9320) stating that the
petition did not present substantial
scientific or commercial information
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
indicating that the requested listing of
Alabama shad may be warranted.
On April 28, 2011, in response to the
negative 90-day finding, CBD filed a
notice of intent to sue the Department
of Commerce (DOC) and NMFS for
alleged violations of the ESA in making
its finding. CBD filed the lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia on January 18, 2012. On June
21, 2013, CBD and DOC/NMFS settled
the lawsuit. We agreed to reevaluate the
original listing petition, as well as
information in our files, including some
additional information we acquired after
the original 90-day finding published on
February 17, 2011, and publish a new
90-day finding. On September 19, 2013,
we published a 90-day finding with our
determination that the petition
presented substantial scientific and
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted
(78 FR 57611).
Our 90-day finding requested
scientific and commercial information
from the public to inform a review of
the status of the species. We requested
information on the status of Alabama
shad, including: (1) Historical and
current distribution and abundance of
this species throughout its range,
including data addressing presence or
absence at a riverine scale; (2) historical
and current population sizes and trends;
(3) biological information (life history,
genetics, population connectivity, etc.);
(4) landings and trade data; (5)
management, regulatory, and
enforcement information; (6) any
current or planned activities that may
adversely impact the species; and (7)
ongoing or planned efforts to protect
and restore the species and its habitat.
We received information from the
public in response to the 90-day finding,
and we incorporated all relevant
information into our review of the status
of Alabama shad.
Listing Species Under the ESA
We are responsible for determining
whether Alabama shad warrants listing
as threatened or endangered under the
ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) To be
considered for listing under the ESA, a
group of organisms must constitute a
‘‘species,’’ which is defined in section 3
of the ESA to include taxonomic species
and ‘‘any subspecies of fish, or wildlife,
or plants, and any distinct population
segment of any species of vertebrate fish
or wildlife which interbreeds when
mature.’’ Section 3 of the ESA defines
an endangered species as ‘‘any species
which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range’’ and a threatened species as
one ‘‘which is likely to become an
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.’’ Thus,
we interpret an ‘‘endangered species’’ to
be one that is presently in danger of
extinction. A ‘‘threatened species,’’ on
the other hand, is not presently in
danger of extinction, but is likely to
become so in the foreseeable future (that
is, at a later time). In other words, the
primary statutory difference between a
threatened and endangered species is
the timing of when a species may be in
danger of extinction, either presently
(endangered) or in the foreseeable future
(threatened).
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires
us to make listing determinations based
solely on the best scientific and
commercial data available after
conducting a review of the status of the
species and after taking into account
efforts being made by any state or
foreign nation to protect the species.
Under section 4(a) of the ESA, we must
determine whether any species is
endangered or threatened due to any
one or a combination of the following
five factors: (A) The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence (Sections 4(a)(1)(A) through
(E)).
We followed a stepwise approach in
making this listing determination for
Alabama shad. First we conducted a
biological review of the species’
taxonomy, distribution, abundance, life
history, and biology. Next, using the
best available information, we
completed an extinction risk assessment
using the general procedure of
Wainwright and Kope (1999). Then, we
assessed the threats affecting the status
of each species using the five factors
identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
In the next step, we evaluated the
available information to determine
whether there is a portion of the species’
range that is ‘‘significant’’ in light of the
use of the term in the definitions of
threatened and endangered. We
followed the final policy interpreting
the phrase ‘‘significant portion of its
range’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). A
portion of the range of a species is
‘‘significant’’ if the species is not
currently endangered or threatened
throughout all of its range, but the
portion’s contribution to the viability of
the species is so important that, without
the members in that portion, the species
would be in danger of extinction, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future, throughout all of its range.
We describe each of the steps listed
above in detail in the following sections
of this finding.
Review of the Status of Alabama Shad
We have identified the best available
scientific and commercial information
in order to conduct a comprehensive
review of the status of Alabama shad.
Unlike many of our other 12-month
findings, we have not developed a
separate status review report. Instead we
present all available relevant
information for Alabama shad in this
Federal Register notice.
Taxonomy
Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae) was
first described by David Starr Jordan
and Barton Warren Evermann in 1896 in
the Black Warrior River near
Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Jordan and
Evermann 1896). Alabama shad was
depicted earlier as ‘‘white shad’’ in
documents from the U.S. Commission
on Fish and Fisheries circa 1860 and
was often confused with other shad
even after it had been described (Daniels
1860, Barkuloo et al. 1993). Alabama
shad belong to the family Clupeidae and
are closely related to, as well as similar
in appearance and life history to, the
American shad (A. sapidissima). They
also resemble the skipjack herring (A.
chrysochloris), which occurs in the
same areas as Alabama shad. Defining
characteristics of the Alabama shad are
an upper jaw with a distinct median
notch, and the number of gill rakers (41
to 48) on the lower limb of the anterior
gill arch. Alabama shad differ
morphologically from other Alosa
species that occur in the same area by
a lower jaw that does not protrude
beyond the upper jaw, black spots along
the length of the lower jaw, and a dorsal
fin that lacks an elongated filament.
Alabama shad are considered a
separate species from the closely related
American shad based on mitochondrial
DNA molecular data (Bowen 2005,
2008, Kreiser and Schaefer 2009), in
addition to the physical differences.
There is limited genetic difference and
it is theorized that the two species have
only recently diverged from a common
ancestor. Alabama shad is its own
monophyletic group (a group of
organisms descended from a single
ancestor) due to limited genetic
differences among the Clupeidae family
and allopatric speciation (speciation by
geographic isolation, Bowen 2008).
There has been no significant genetic
differentiation among different stocks of
Alabama shad geographically and there
is no evidence of hybridization between
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
4023
any of the other Alosa species and
Alabama shad (Kreiser and Schaefer
2009).
Diet
Alabama shad are likely generalist
insect feeders. Mickle et al. (2013)
conducted stomach content analyses on
individuals collected from the
Pascagoula and Apalachicola Rivers.
The stomach contents of the smallest
juvenile Alabama shad (those less than
50 millimeters), collected exclusively
from the Pascagoula River, were made
up primarily of semi-decomposed algae
and other unidentifiable organics,
suggesting filter feeding or particulate
feeding of smaller prey. As the size of
Alabama shad taken from the
Pascagoula River increased, the
percentage of terrestrial and aquatic
insects in the stomach contents
increased. Mickle et al. (2013) found
that terrestrial insects dominated the
stomach contents of all size classes of
Alabama shad taken from the
Apalachicola River. Diet of Alabama
shad from both the Apalachicola and
Pascagoula Rivers changed as the size of
the fish increased, with insects
replacing unidentifiable organic matter.
Ephemeroptera nymphs, an order of
aquatic insects, dominated the diets of
larger Alabama shad from both rivers.
These nymphs produce aquatic juvenile
larvae that emerge in open water in the
same habitats where Mickle et al. (2013)
collected the Alabama shad for their
study. Mickle et al. (2013) noted that
these observed ontogenetic dietary shifts
seemed to coincide with habitat shifts
and are consistent with a generalist
strategy.
Age and Growth
Like many clupeids (the family of fish
that include shad, herring, sardines, and
menhaden), egg hatching period and
growth of subsequent larvae varies by
location and environmental factors.
Mickle et al. (2010) found those
Alabama shad that hatched in the
Apalachicola River had a longer
successful hatch window (mean of 58
days) compared to those in the
Pascagoula River (mean of 33.8 days).
Juvenile Alabama shad exhibit rapid
growth, although the size of juveniles
varies across the range of the species.
Typical juvenile Alabama shad increase
in size from about 4.7 centimeters total
length (cm TL, the length of the fish
measured from the tip of the snout to tip
of the tail fin) to about 10.1 cm TL over
the summer but variation can occur
depending on the river drainage. For
example, juvenile Alabama shad from
the Apalachicola River grew faster than
those in the Pascagoula River despite
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
4024
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
similar environmental conditions
(Laurence and Yerger 1967, Mickle
2010). In the Chipola River, Florida,
juveniles move downstream at an
average size of 6.5 cm TL, while those
moving down the nearby Apalachicola
River averaged 11.5 cm TL (Laurence
and Yerger 1967).
In both the Apalachicola and
Choctawhatchee Rivers, Florida, adult
female shad were typically longer and
heavier than the adult males (Laurence
and Yerger 1967, Mills 1972, Mettee and
O’Neil 2003). Age 1–3 males on average
weigh 250 grams and age 1–4 females
weigh around 650 grams before
spawning (Mettee and O’Neil 2003,
Ingram 2007).
Two studies have aged otoliths of
Alabama shad but only one study has fit
growth models to observed age data. In
the Pascagoula River, maximum
observed age was 6 years based on
otoliths (Mettee and O’Neil 2003), while
Ingram (2007) aged shad from the
Apalachicola River to 4 years.
Reproductive Biology
Alabama shad is a euryhaline
(adapted to a wide range of salinities),
anadromous fish species that migrates
between the ocean and medium to large
flowing rivers to spawn (reproduce)
from the Mississippi River basin to the
Suwannee River, Florida. Alabama shad
spawn in February to April at lower
latitudes in the south and May to June
in more northern latitudes, usually over
sandy bottoms, gravel shoals, or
limestone outcrops (Laurence and
Yerger 1967, Mills 1972, Barkuloo 1993,
Kreiser and Schaefer 2009, Mickle et al.
2010). Water temperatures between 18
and 22 °C and moderate current
velocities (0.5–1.0 meters (m) per
second) promote successful spawning
(Laurence and Yerger 1967, Mills 1972).
If environmental circumstances are
unfavorable, mature Alabama shad will
sometimes abandon their upstream
spawning movement (Young 2010).
Spawning males range in age from 1
to 5 years and females from 2 to 6 years
(Mickle et al. 2010). Some age-1 male
Alabama shad move into fresh water for
their first spawning, but the primary
spawning age classes tend to be 2–3
years for males and 2–4 years for
females; any age-4 Alabama shad
present in rivers are almost always
female (Laurence and Yerger 1967,
Mettee and O’Neil 2003, Ingram 2007).
Males arrive at spawning sites first and
increase in abundance as the spawning
season continues, while females appear
in large groups slightly later in the
spawning season (Mills 1972, Mettee
and O’Neil 2003). It is unknown
whether females arrive with ripened
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
eggs, as suggested by Mills (1972), or if
their gonads ripen as river temperatures
increase (Laurence and Yerger 1967).
Females tend to release their eggs in late
April and early May when the water
temperatures are 20–21 °C (Mettee and
O’Neil 2003, Ingram 2007). Fecundity
(reproductive capacity) is related to size,
with larger females producing more eggs
(Ingram 2007, Young 2010). Alabama
shad produced 26,000–250,000 eggs per
female in the Apalachicola River and
between 36,000–357,000 eggs per female
in the Choctawhatchee River (Mettee
and O’Neil 2003, Ingram 2007). After
spawning, the younger (age 2 and 3)
Alabama shad migrate back to marine
waters. The older spawners (age-4 and
older) either die or are preyed upon by
other piscivorous fish (Laurence and
Yerger 1967).
Because of the age range among the
spawning fish, it is believed that
individuals may spawn more than once
in a lifetime (Laurence and Yerger 1967,
Mettee and O’Neil 2003, Ingram 2007,
Mickle et al. 2010). Laurence and Yerger
(1967) indicated that 35 percent of
Alabama shad were likely repeat
spawners and noted that 2–4 year old
males from the Apalachicola River had
spawning marks on their scales. Mills
(1972) also observed 35–38 percent
repeat spawners (mostly age-3) as well
as discernable spawning marks on
scales from the Apalachicola River
population. In addition, Mettee and
O’Neil (2003) noted that many Alabama
shad collected from the Choctawhatchee
River were repeat spawners, with age-3
and age-4 females comprising the
majority of repeat spawners in 1994–
1995, and age-2 and age-3 females the
majority in 1999–2000. In contrast,
Ingram (2007) has not observed
spawning marks on the scales of
Apalachicola River shad and most fish
in the Apalachicola may die after
spawning (Smith et al. 2011). Alabama
shad appear to be philopatric and return
to the same rivers to spawn, resulting in
slight genetic differences among river
drainages (Meadows 2008, Mickle
2010). These genetic differences may
result in characteristics (e.g., faster
growth rates, higher temperature
tolerance, etc.) that lead to variable
spawning strategies among river
drainages. Kreiser and Schaefer (2009)
found slight genetic distinctions
between populations from the
Mississippi River basin and coastal Gulf
of Mexico drainages due to Alabama
shad straying from their natal rivers, at
an estimated rate of about 10 migrants
per generation.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Life History Strategy
On the spectrum of life history
strategies, Alabama shad tend to be ‘‘r
strategists’’, species that are typically
short-lived, have small body size, reach
sexual maturity at an early age, and
have high natural mortality that is
balanced by a high growth rate (Adams
1980). Species that are r strategists adapt
to unstable, unpredictable environments
by producing higher numbers of
offspring as compared to k strategist
species living in stable, predictable
environments. Elliott and Quintino
(2007) found that species living in
unpredictable, variable, and even
stressed environments are well-adapted
to cope with these conditions without or
with reduced adverse effects. Adapting
to highly variable environments also
produces high natural variability in r
strategist populations. Adams (1980)
noted that fisheries for r strategists can
have very large catches some years, but
are characterized by erratic, highly
variable production levels overall. Most
clupeoids (an order of soft-finned fishes
that includes Alabama shad, other
clupeids, and anchovies in the family
engraulidae) have a short life span and
show striking inter-annual or decadal
variation in productivity and abundance
(Mace et al. 2002). Fisheries for
clupeoids can vanish for 50–100 years
then undergo a remarkable recovery
with the population growing as fast as
40 percent per year (Mace et al. 2002).
Sammons and Young (2012) noted
that the population sizes of species in
the Alosa genus commonly fluctuate
widely. An Alabama shad researcher
with the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) noted that as an r
strategist, Alabama shad are prone to
‘‘boom and bust’’ years, but they are also
highly fecund (capable of producing an
abundance of offspring) and can recover
quickly from even a small number of
fish (based on the results of stocking
efforts; T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers.
comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6,
2016). In fact, the speciation
(evolutionary process by which
reproductively isolated biological
populations evolve to become distinct
species) of Alabama shad likely
occurred from a very small number of
fish that dispersed around the Florida
peninsula and became separated from
other Alosa species during the
Pleistocene (Bowen et al. 2008).
Modeling conducted by Moyer (2012)
indicated that the Pleistocene bottleneck
for Alabama shad was intense. The
effective population size for Alabama
shad during the bottleneck was
estimated to be between 76 and 398,
meaning 76–398 individuals is the
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
population size during the Pleistocene
estimated to have been necessary to
result in the relatively low genetic
diversity observed in members of the
species today. Moyer (2012) also noted
that the bottleneck event was prolonged
(145–987 shad generations), indicating
that the species persisted at very low
numbers for an extended period of time.
Habitat Use and Migration
Alabama shad are found in the Gulf
of Mexico, although there is very little
information about their marine habitat
use. Only six records of Alabama shad
collected in marine waters exist. The
Florida Museum of Natural History
reports one specimen was captured in
July 1957 approximately 80 miles (mi)
or 129 kilometers (km) south of
Choctawhatchee Bay, Florida, in about
100 meters of water (Fishnet2 2015,
Catalogue #28671). The National
Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian Institution, reports another
Alabama shad was captured just off
Dauphin Island, Alabama, in December
1960 in 15 meters of water (Fishnet2
2015, Catalogue #293755.5174309). Two
Alabama shad were collected
approximately 115 km southwest of
Cape San Blas, Florida in November
2007 (Fishnet2 2015, Catalogue #20627).
An Alabama shad was collected by the
Texas A&M University Biodiversity
Research and Teaching Collections in a
trawl about 25 mi (40 km) offshore of
Florida, between Tampa Bay and the
Charlotte Harbor Estuary (Fishnet2
2016, Catalogue #14540.07). In March
2013, an adult female Alabama shad
was collected during a fishery
independent monitoring survey
approximately 15 km south of the
Pascagoula River just north of Petit Bois
Island in Mississippi Sound and
approximately 5 km east of Horn Island
Pass, which leads to the open Gulf of
Mexico (Mickle et al. 2015).
Microsatellite DNA analysis indicated
that the fish was most genetically
similar to Alabama shad originating
from the Pascagoula River. She was
observed to have well-developed
ovaries, and Mickle et al. (2015)
suggested she may have been preparing
to make a spawning run. Stomach
content analyses showed that the fish
was full of small invertebrates. Previous
studies (e.g., Mills 1972) report few or
no stomach contents in Alabama shad
collected in riverine environments. The
marine specimen with a full stomach
collected by Mickle et al. (2015)
supports that Alabama shad likely feed
primarily in marine habitats, similar to
other anadromous species.
As part of their anadromous life cycle,
adult Alabama shad leave the Gulf of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
Mexico and move into rivers in the
spring to spawn. First year (age-0)
juveniles stay upriver in freshwater
environments until late summer or fall
and eventually migrate downstream to
the Gulf of Mexico. Juveniles coming
from natal rivers located at more
northern latitudes (e.g., Ouachita River
in Arkansas) begin downstream
movement throughout the summer,
reaching the Gulf of Mexico by autumn.
Juveniles located at more southern
latitudes (e.g., Pascagoula River in
Florida) will remain in natal rivers as
late as December before beginning their
downstream movement to the Gulf of
Mexico. Alabama shad do not
overwinter in freshwater river systems
(Mickle et al. 2010).
Alabama shad prefer cooler river
waters with high dissolved oxygen (DO)
and pH levels (Mickle et al. 2010).
Although there have been no studies on
the thermal tolerances of Alabama shad,
other Alosa species cannot tolerate
water temperatures greater than 32°C; it
is likely that Alabama shad also cannot
tolerate high water temperatures
(Beitinger et al. 1999). Mickle et al.
(2010) found spawning adults in waters
as cold as 10 °C, but juveniles have been
collected in waters as warm as 32 °C
(Mickle et al. 2010, Young 2010).
Water velocity is also believed to be
an important habitat feature, as this
species is rarely found in the still or
backwater portions of rivers. It is
hypothesized that spring floods
(increased river flows) are a vital
environmental cue for spawning adults
as well as an important aspect for
successful hatching. Juveniles tend to
occupy moderate to fast moving water
(approximately 0.5–1.2 m per second)
that is less than 1 m deep (Mickle 2010).
Clear water with minimal benthic algal
growth also appears to be preferred by
this species (Buchanan et al. 1999).
Smaller, younger shad tend to prefer
the slightly shallower, more protected
areas over sandbars, while the older,
larger shad can be found in channel and
bank habitats. Sandbars within the
bends of rivers that are less than 2 m
deep often support juveniles in the early
summer (Mickle 2010). As the fish grow,
they move to bank (greater than 2.5 m
deep) and channel (1.5–2.5 m deep)
habitats, although the shift is not always
consistent (Mickle 2010). Presumably,
this allows the juveniles to avoid
predators, fulfill foraging needs, or
access cooler temperatures that might be
present in deeper waters (Bystrom 2003,
Mickle et al. 2010, Mickle 2010).
Distribution and Abundance
NMFS documented the current
known distribution and abundance of
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
4025
Alabama shad in a technical
memorandum published in August 2011
(Smith et al. 2011). In addition to
conducting an extensive search of all
publications, technical reports, and
theses available, NMFS staff surveyed
scientists at universities, state and
Federal facilities, and non-profit
organizations throughout the historical
range of Alabama shad for any recent
recorded captures. Surveys were sent by
email, and information was requested
on capture dates, location, and number
of Alabama shad captured, if available.
Additionally, capture information and
observations were provided by state and
Federal agencies during the public
comment period on our 90-day finding.
Information on the historical and
current distribution and abundance of
Alabama shad is largely lacking.
Alabama shad was never an
economically important species,
therefore information from fisheries
statistics, such as landings data, is rare.
Hildebrand (1963) noted that Alabama
shad were considered unfit for human
consumption, and the lack of demand
produced no incentive to capture the
species or record its presence and
abundance. Very few directed research
studies on Alabama shad have occurred,
with the exception of recent studies in
the Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint
(ACF) and Pascagoula River systems.
The recent studies in the ACF River
system have produced the only
abundance estimates, either historical or
current, for Alabama shad in any river
system. The historical and current
distribution of Alabama shad in other
systems is based on capture data from
general multi-species surveys, project
monitoring, captures incidental to other
research studies, and anecdotal
information. Information received from
state resource agencies (e.g., during the
public comment period on the 90-day
finding and during development of this
determination, presented in the sections
below) corroborates that long-term,
strategic studies of the species in their
states are lacking. For instance, the
Arkansas Fish and Game Commission
stated in their comments on the
Alabama shad positive 90-day finding
they could not assess the status of
Alabama shad in their state because of
the scarcity of information on the
species, the lack of targeted surveys, and
the unknown detectability of the species
(M. Oliver, Chief of Fisheries, Arkansas
Fish and Game Commission, pers.
comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, November 5,
2013).
Mettee and O’Neil (2003) note that
low numbers of recorded Alabama shad
individuals may be due, at least in part,
to insufficient sampling effort during
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
4026
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
appropriate times (i.e., spawning
migrations) and with the appropriate
gear to target the species. Hildebrand
(1963) noted the importance of proper
gear, citing greatly increased catches of
Alabama shad that occurred in
Kentucky when surface-fishing seines
were substituted for bottom-fishing
seines. Short-term studies may also fail
to accurately demonstrate the status of
a given river population of Alabama
shad since this r strategist species is
prone to high natural variability and
long-term studies would be necessary to
reveal any population trajectory.
In reviewing data provided by the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FFWCC) during the public
comment period on the positive 90-day
finding (J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm.
to K. Shotts, NMFS, November 12,
2013), less than 50 Alabama shad were
reported since 1999. The shad were
collected during multispecies surveys
not specifically targeting Alabama shad.
The research with positive reports of
Alabama shad was conducted using
otter trawls, seines, and electrofishing
during winter (December, January,
February), spring (May), summer (June,
July, August), and fall (September,
October, November) months between
2002 and 2011. It is notable that none
of the FFWCC surveys were conducted
in March or April, when the largest
catches of Alabama shad have occurred
during targeted research in the ACF
River system (Kern 2016, Sammons
2013, 2014). Further, although FFWCC
caught less than 50 Alabama shad from
2002–2011, researchers targeting
Alabama shad in the ACF River system
captured 128–1,497 Alabama shad per
year during an overlapping time period
(2005–2011; Young 2010, 2011). This
demonstrates the importance of the
sampling gear and time of year in
interpreting available data and why
short-term and/or non-targeted research
is not always a good indicator of
distribution and abundance.
Even studies designed to target
Alabama shad have yielded difficulties
in detecting the species. Researchers
studying Alabama shad in the ACF
River system noted they had great
difficulty finding Alabama shad in
portions of the Flint River and
expressed their surprise at the difficulty,
given the small size of the river (Kern
2016; S. Herrington, The Nature
Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam
(JWLD) Fish Passage Year-End Summary
Meeting, January 2014; S. Sammons,
Auburn University, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage YearEnd Summary Meeting, January 2015).
Large gaps in detections of Alabama
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
shad were observed in the Flint River
(Kern 2016; S. Herrington, The Nature
Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End
Summary Meeting, January 2014; S.
Sammons, Auburn University, pers.
comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish
Passage Year-End Summary Meeting,
January 2015). Alabama shad were
detected at upstream and downstream
locations on acoustic receivers, but were
not detected by receivers in between.
Multiple methods were used with
limited success to improve the
detectability of Alabama shad, including
passive (anchored receivers), boat, and
airplane tracking of acoustically and
radio-tagged shad (S. Sammons, Auburn
University, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End
Summary Meeting, January 2015). Kern
(2016) believed a combination of
behavioral and environmental factors
reduced the detectability of Alabama
shad. Kern (2016) notes there are many
‘‘blue hole’’ springs along the river’s
length that are substantially deeper than
the surrounding river and it is possible
that Alabama Shad may use these
features as refugia during the spawning
migration. High water conditions were
also experienced during portions of the
sampling period. Kern (2016) stated that
increased water depth during periods of
high river discharge, swimming depth of
Alabama Shad, and the presence of
significantly deeper habitats than what
is available in the rest of the river could
lead to decreased detection probability
by exceeding the detection range of
passive and manual receivers. Kern
(2016) also noted that Alabama shad are
capable of long, rapid migration runs
and if those migration runs occur at
night, Alabama shad will not be
detected by manual tracking (from boats
and airplanes) that occurs exclusively
during the day. The same detection
problems (gaps in Alabama shad
detection at receivers between two
positive detection points) were
experienced during Alabama shad
conservation locking studies in the
Alabama River system (Kern 2016; S.
Sammons, Auburn University, pers.
comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish
Passage Year-End Summary Meeting,
January 2015).
It is unknown to what degree the lack
or low numbers of Alabama shad
reported for many river systems
accurately reflects the abundance in
those systems or whether it is indicative
of the lack of targeted studies or the
detectability of this species.
Distribution and abundance
information is summarized below by
rivers, starting with the Apalachicola
River where we have the most
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
information regarding Alabama shad,
then information is presented by rivers
from west to east.
Apalachicola River Drainage
The Apalachicola River drainage is
made up of the Apalachicola,
Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers and
drains water from parts of Florida,
Alabama, and Georgia. Alabama shad
were known to have migrated from the
Apalachicola River up the
Chattahoochee River to Walter F. George
Reservoir in the early 1970s (Smith et al.
2011), even with the construction
downstream of the Jim Woodruff Lock
and Dam (JWLD) in the early 1950s and
George W. Andrews Lock and Dam in
the early 1960s. Alabama shad were able
to pass upstream and downstream when
the navigation locks were open. Located
at the confluence of the Chattahoochee
and Flint Rivers, JWLD is the first major
obstacle on the Apalachicola River to
the upstream migration of Alabama shad
to their historical spawning grounds.
River traffic on the Apalachicola River
resulted in the lock being operated
frequently, allowing passage and
sustaining reproduction of the resident
Alabama shad population. Historically,
JWLD was operated continuously 24
hours per day for commercial barge
traffic (Sammons 2013). With the
elimination of commercial traffic in the
late 1960s, lock operation was reduced
to 8 hours per day for on-demand
passage of recreational boats, reducing
the number of lockages to less than 100
per year from a high of 1200. Barge
traffic decreased and lock operation
became less frequent when navigational
dredging ceased in 2001 (J. Wilcox,
FFWCC, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, November 12, 2013).
Researchers believe Alabama shad
spawn in shoal habitat downstream of
JWLD based on observations of the
species congregating over the shoals
during spawning season, as well as
usage by other spawning anadromous
species, such as Gulf sturgeon
(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi; T.
Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016).
During the public comment period,
the FFWCC reported collecting fewer
than 50 Alabama shad in the lower
Apalachicola River since 1999 (J.
Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, November 12, 2013). In
reviewing the data provided by FFWCC
during the public comment period on
the positive 90-day finding, the fewer
than 50 Alabama shad reported since
1999 were collected during multispecies
surveys (i.e., Alabama shad were not
specifically targeted). The research with
positive reports of Alabama shad was
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
conducted using otter trawls, seines,
and electrofishing during winter
(December, January, February), spring
(May), summer (June, July, August), and
fall (September, October, November)
months between 2002 and 2011. It is
notable that none of the surveys were
conducted in March or April, when the
largest catches of Alabama shad have
occurred during research targeting
Alabama shad in the ACF River system,
which occurs annually between March
and May to coincide with the spring
spawning migration (Kern 2016,
Sammons 2013, 2014). Further,
although FFWCC caught less than 50
Alabama shad from 2002–2011,
researchers targeting Alabama shad in
the ACF River system captured 128–
1,497 Alabama shad per year during an
overlapping time period (2005–2011;
Young 2010, 2011). This demonstrates
the importance of the sampling gear and
time of year in interpreting available
data and why short-term and/or nontargeted research is not always a good
indicator of distribution and abundance.
The ACF River system likely contains
the largest spawning population of
Alabama shad within its range, although
the population may be several orders of
magnitude smaller than historical levels
(Schaffler et al. 2015). Because this
population has remained self-sustaining
even with apparent declines, a project to
restore passage to upstream spawning
habitats was initiated (Schaffler et al.
2015). Beginning in 2005, a cooperative
study supported by multiple local,
academic, state, and Federal
conservation partners started tracking
movements of Alabama shad and other
fish species in the Apalachicola River
(USFWS 2008, Ely et al. 2008, TNC
2010). The study also evaluated the
feasibility of moving fish upriver of
JWLD during the spawning season. The
results of this collaborative study
showed that the existing lock at JWLD
could be operated to allow fish to move
upriver through the lock where they
could access additional spawning
habitat. Based on these results, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
began ‘‘conservation locking’’ (operating
the lock at JWLD to provide Alabama
shad access to upstream habitat) in
2005.
In 2012, the ‘‘cooperator’’
organizations (USACE, USFWS, NMFS,
Georgia DNR, FFWCC, and TNC) signed
a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) clarifying their commitments
and responsibilities in the continued
implementation of fish passage at JWLD.
The contents of the MOU are described
in more detail in the ‘‘Regulations on
Dams’’ section in ‘‘D. Inadequacy of
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms.’’ In
fulfillment of the cooperation outlined
in the MOU, an annual meeting to
discuss the issues and outcomes from
the previous spring conservation
locking cycle is held, usually in the
early part of the following year (i.e.,
January or February). At the annual
4027
meetings, the cooperators and other
interested parties (e.g., universities that
are not signatories to the MOU, but are
heavily involved in research activities
associated with the conservation locking
in the ACF River system) discuss
lessons learned from the previous year
and participate in planning the next
cycle of spring conservation locking,
including whether the locking operation
and schedule can be improved. For
example, during the planned lock
maintenance that occurred during the
2013–2014 season, the cooperators were
able to upgrade the method of delivering
the attractant flow (a stream of high
velocity water used to attract spawning
fish) from a manual system to an electric
pump as a more efficient way to direct
shad through the lock when
conservation locking resumed (S.
Herrington, The Nature Conservancy,
pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD
Fish Passage Year-End Summary
Meeting, January 2014).
Population abundance estimates for
Alabama shad in the ACF River system
were determined through markrecapture methods from 2005–2016. The
estimated abundances for 2005–2016 are
listed in the following table (the
asterisks indicate years in which no
conservation locking occurred due to
maintenance and upgrades to the lock at
JWLD). The table also shows the catch
per unit effort (CPUE) of adult and
juvenile Alabama shad during spring
and fall sampling, respectively.
TABLE 1—ADULT AND JUVENILE ALABAMA SHAD RESEARCH RESULTS IN THE ACF RIVER SYSTEM
Adult
population
estimate
(spring)
Year
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
2005 ..................
2006 ..................
2007 ..................
2008 ..................
2009 ..................
2010 ..................
2011 ..................
2012 ..................
2013 * ................
2014 * ................
2015 ..................
2016 ..................
Confidence interval
(spring)
25,935
2,767
8,511
5,253
10,753
98,469
26,193
122,578
2,039
n/a
324
n/a
17,715–39,535 ..........................................
838–5,031 .................................................
5,211–14,674 ............................................
1,592–9,551 ..............................................
3,258–19,551 ............................................
51,417–127,251 ........................................
22,371–43,713 ..........................................
57,911–282,872 ........................................
618–3,706 .................................................
n/a [86 fish captured; no re-captures] .......
58–3,240 ...................................................
[0 fish captured] ........................................
In the period of conservation locking,
Alabama shad have been successfully
passed through the navigational lock at
the most downstream dam on the ACF,
JWLD, providing upstream migration to
higher quality spawning and juvenile
rearing habitat, which has potentially
improved recruitment and lead to
population increases (Ely et al. 2008,
Young et al. 2012, Schaffler et al. 2015).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Adult CPUE
(spring)
Jkt 241001
20.47
6.10
13.17
13.00
9.20
7.17
72.93
100.6
17.2
6.5
6.8
0
Juvenile CPUE
(fall)
n/a.
0.1.
5.75.
16.17.
0.
22.4.
25.
1.9.
1.33.
3.33.
0.
CPUE not yet calculated [20 juveniles captured].
Since conservation locking began,
Alabama shad have been reported above
JWLD in both the Chattahoochee River
and the Flint River (2008–2010) by the
Georgia DNR (Smith et al. 2011). The
USACE reported Alabama shad in Lake
George W. Andrews in the
Chattahoochee River during recent
sampling of the area (Smith et al. 2011).
Only a few Alabama shad have been
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
found in the Chattahoochee River, with
the vast majority being found in the
Flint River (Young 2010). In years when
conservation locking occurred, the locks
were operated twice a day to correspond
with the natural movement patterns of
migrating fish during spawning seasons
(February through May) each year.
During conservation locking,
acoustically tagged Alabama shad
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
4028
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
released below the dam have been
found to pass upstream of the lock with
45 percent efficiency (Young 2010).
Alabama shad can more easily access
over 150 mi (241.4 km) of historical
habitat and spawning areas in the ACF
River system for the first time in more
than 50 years now that the lock is
operated to correspond with their
natural spawning cues (TNC 2010).
Schaffler et al. (2015) completed a
study on shad collected in 2010 and
2011 to determine whether fish passage
efforts at JWLD were contributing
recruits to the adult Alabama shad
population. They evaluated otolith
(inner ear bone) chemistry from
spawning adult Alabama shad to
determine the river reach within the
ACF basin the fish originated from.
They first examined the otolith
chemistry of known-origin juveniles
captured in freshwater reaches both
upstream and downstream of JWLD.
Then, they compared the distinct
chemical signatures of the juvenile
otoliths to those from returning
spawning adults of unknown origin
captured below the dam to assign riverreach natal origins. The results showed
that the Flint River, inaccessible to
Alabama shad prior to conservation
locking, is the dominant source of
recruits returning to spawn in the ACF
River system making up 86 percent of
the individuals captured. Schaffler et al.
(2015) found no evidence that collection
year, sex, or age impacted the origin of
returning Alabama shad in the ACF
River system, meaning the Flint River
produced the majority of recruits in the
ACF River system for the 2008–2010
cohorts of both males and females. The
results from this study indicate that
conservation locking is making a
tremendous contribution to Alabama
shad in the ACF River system, the bulk
of the Alabama shad population in the
ACF River system is spawning in the
Flint River, and juvenile Alabama shad
are able to successfully move
downstream to contribute to the adult
stock.
In 2005, the population estimate in
the ACF River system was about 26,000
individuals, but decreased to less than
10,000 in both 2006 and 2007 (Ely and
Young 2008). In 2008 and 2009, markrecapture methods yielded an Alabama
shad population estimate of
approximately 5,200–10,700. However,
one of the researchers noted that the
Alabama shad population estimates for
2008 and 2009 (5,253 and 10,753 shad,
respectively) are likely underestimates
of the actual population numbers based
on the results of a companion
electrofishing study by Clemson
University (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS,
February 8, 2016). Based on a predictive
model developed by Clemson, the 2008
and 2009 Alabama shad population
estimates would be closer to 8,500 and
26,000 shad, respectively.
Young (2010) estimated the number of
Alabama shad in the ACF River system
at 98,469 in 2010, almost 4 times larger
than the previous high estimate of
25,935 in 2005 (Ely et al. 2008).
Alabama shad were the most abundant
species observed in the Apalachicola
during spring sampling in 2010 (T.
Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016).
Within the ACF River system, the
number of Alabama shad in 2011 was
estimated at 26,193; this is lower than
the 2010 value but slightly higher than
the maximum abundance in the 2005–
2009 period (Young 2011). The major
difference between the 2010 and 2011
Alabama shad spawning runs was a lack
of age-1 males in 2011. Ingram (2007)
noted that fewer age classes and lower
numbers of older, more mature, fish are
indicative of a declining population.
The 2011 run was dominated by older,
larger adult females in excellent
condition, a potential indicator of strong
year classes in the future (Young 2011).
Sammons and Young (2012) provided a
report from the Apalachicola River,
estimating the number of Alabama shad
at 122,578 in 2012 (the largest since
2005). This spawning run was
composed of many males presumed to
be from the 2010 year class, as well as
numerous older, larger adults of both
sexes (presumably recruits from 2008
and 2009). In 2012, the abundance of 3and 4-year-old fish made up the largest
percentage of spawning Alabama shad,
rather than 1- and 2-year-olds as in
previous years (Ingram 2007), indicating
a healthier population (T. Ingram,
Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, June 6, 2016). Sammons and
Young (2012) noted that a year of higher
than average flows in 2009 may have
contributed to spawning and
recruitment successes in 2010 and 2012.
While conservation locking of
Alabama shad at JWLD and monitoring
of Alabama shad populations in the
ACF River system continue to receive
support and funding Alabama shad
were not passed through the lock in
2013 and 2014 due to maintenance on
the structure. However, 74 Alabama
shad out of a total of 251 captured by
researchers during 2013 were tagged
and transported above JWLD and
released (Kern 2016, Sammons 2013) in
order to access habitat above the dam.
Of the 74 tagged fish, 11 were verified
as post-release mortalities, with another
3 suspected mortalities (Sammons
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
2013). It is unknown whether Alabama
shad not captured by researchers
successfully spawned at the shoal
habitat below JWLD where they
spawned prior to conservation locking
(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi; T.
Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016). Also,
during the maintenance period on the
lock, the method of delivering the
attractant flow (a stream of high velocity
water used to attract spawning fish) was
upgraded from a manual system to an
electric pump as a more efficient way to
direct shad through the lock when
conservation locking resumed (S.
Herrington, The Nature Conservancy,
pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD
Fish Passage Year-End Summary
Meeting, January 2014).
Conservation locking appears to have
enhanced spawning and recruitment of
Alabama shad in the ACF River system
(Young 2010, 2011, Sammons and
Young 2012, Schaffler et al. 2015).
Although the ACF population of
Alabama shad has been the largest
known population for decades
(Laurence and Yerger 1967), the lack of
conservation locking in 2013 and 2014,
combined with environmental
conditions (cold and flooding) and the
poor condition of spawning fish
(discussed below), likely produced the
weakest year class since research began
on Alabama shad in the ACF River
System in 2005. However,
environmental conditions (cold,
flooding, and the presence of large
debris) and funding levels also
hampered researchers’ ability to survey
the Alabama shad population in the
ACF River system in 2013–2015 to
develop reliable population estimates.
The Alabama shad population
sampled below JWLD during the 2013
spawning season was low compared to
previous seasons (Sammons 2013). A
total of 309 Alabama shad were
captured below JWLD and of those fish,
87 fish were tagged and 1 was
recaptured, resulting in a population
estimate of 2,039 Alabama shad
(Sammons 2013). Sammons (2013)
noted that most Alabama shad collected
below JWLD in 2013 were in poor
physical condition, with visible wounds
(this will be discussed further in ‘‘C.
Disease and Predation’’). The wounds
were observed only on adult fish and
not on younger fish, indicating the
source may have occurred in the Gulf of
Mexico (Sammons 2013). The wounds
were also not observed on other
anadromous species, indicating
Alabama shad are either more
susceptible to the source of the wounds
or they are distributed in areas that the
other species are not (Sammons 2013).
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
The wounds remain unexplained, but
Sammons (2013) cited a news article
reporting gash wounds on fish
potentially associated with the
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill resembling
the wounds found on Alabama shad.
Sammons (2014) also cited Murawski et
al. (2014) noting the anecdotal reports of
skin lesions in offshore fish species in
2010 and 2011, but the symptoms
declined by 2012. The sores have not
been observed in any Alabama shad
captured since 2013 (T. Ingram, Georgia
DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS,
June 6, 2016).
The Alabama shad captured below
JWLD were tagged and/or released
approximately 5 km above the dam
(Sammons 2013). Most of the Alabama
shad were relocated (detected again
after release) in Lake Seminole just
above the dam, but some fish were
detected moving into the preferred
spawning habitat in the Flint River
(Sammons 2013). Although fewer fish
were detected making a spawning run
than in previous years, Alabama shad
traveled greater distances from the area
they were released in 2013 than in
previous years (Sammons 2013).
Reasons for the lack of fish found
below JWLD are unknown, but
unusually cold water temperatures due
to cooler weather patterns present
throughout the Apalachicola River
Basin in 2013 may have been a
contributing factor (Sammons 2013).
Water temperature serves as one of the
main cues for Alabama shad to enter the
ACF River system to spawn (Kern 2016,
Sammons 2013). The researchers
suspect that many Alabama shad had
not yet entered the Apalachicola River
to spawn during their sampling effort in
the river, and this factored into the low
numbers captured during 2013.
In 2014, 102 Alabama shad were
captured below JWLD; 86 were tagged
and released above JWLD (Sammons
2014). No fish were recaptured and a
population estimate could not be
calculated (Sammons 2014). Since
conservation locking did not occur in
2013 or 2014 due to maintenance of the
lock, Alabama shad likely did not pass
upstream except for those transported
by researchers. Sammons (2014) noted
that the Alabama shad captured in 2014
were smaller than shad captured in the
previous two years, but that the fish
were in better condition and did not
exhibit the wounds as the majority of
the population did in 2013. Although
few adult Alabama shad were captured
in the spring 2014, juvenile Alabama
shad were collected in the fall sampling
above JWLD in 2014 (CPUE of 3.3 in the
table above), indicating that adult
Alabama shad had successfully passed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
upstream and spawned (P. Freeman,
The Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to
K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage
Year-End Summary Meeting, February
2016). Despite no abundance estimate
being produced, juvenile CPUE in 2014
was higher than CPUEs in the 2
previous years.
Given the low numbers, Sammons
(2014) believes that weak year classes
were produced in 2013 and 2014.
However, Sammons (2014) stated that
water levels and temperature may have
factored in to the low catches in 2014.
Water levels and discharge were much
higher during Alabama shad sampling
in 2014 than in the previous 2 years and
the mean catch rate of Alabama shad
below JWLD was inversely correlated
with mean daily discharge over the past
5 years (Sammons 2014). High water
and discharge may have hindered catch
rates, but spawning population size was
also likely low (Sammons 2014).
Reasons for the lack of fish found below
JWLD are unknown, but may have also
involved unusually cold water
temperatures. As in 2013, water
temperature was generally more than 2–
4 °C cooler throughout the spawning
season than in 2011 or 2012 (Sammons
2014). Abnormally low water
temperatures in the Apalachicola River
throughout the spring in 2013 and 2014
may have inhibited the usual spawning
migration cues of this species, resulting
in fewer fish migrating upstream
(Sammons 2014). Sammons (2014)
stated it is possible that a significant
spawning population of this species
persists in the Gulf of Mexico waiting
for more normal spring conditions to
return to the river before initiating their
spawning run.
In 2015, conservation locking
resumed, but the Alabama shad
population estimate remained low (324
fish). Due to the lack of conservation
locking in 2013 and 2014, and
potentially the lack of successful
spawning due to the poor condition of
the Alabama shad observed in 2013
(Sammons 2013, 2014), it is probable
that the actual number of returning
adult Alabama shad in 2015 was low.
Similar to the previous year, researchers
noted factors that may have reduced
their capture rates, such as high water
levels and large amounts of debris in the
river that hampered sampling,
potentially leading to the low number of
recaptures and the low population
estimate (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers.
comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, February 3,
2016).
In 2016, high water levels occurred
early in the sampling season, but later
returned to normal levels (T. Ingram,
Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
4029
NMFS, June 6, 2016). No Alabama shad
were captured in the Apalachicola River
in 2016, and therefore an abundance
estimate could not be produced for that
year (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers.
comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6,
2016). However, Alabama shad were
observed lower in the Apalachicola
River by another researcher conducting
striped bass surveys (T. Ingram, Georgia
DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS,
June 6, 2016). The Alabama shad survey
occurred about 2 km downstream of
JWLD (Sammons 2014) and therefore
would not have encountered Alabama
shad occurring downstream of that
location. The gill-netting survey
conducted in Lake Seminole above
JWLD to detect juvenile Alabama shad
occurred in mid-December 2016 and
produced 20 juvenile Alabama shad.
Even though no adults were captured in
the spring survey, the collection of
juvenile shad above JWLD indicates that
some adult Alabama shad did
successfully pass through the lock and
spawn in the ACF system in 2016 (T.
Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, December 15, 2016). At
the time this 12-month determination
was prepared, the researchers had not
yet calculated the CPUE for the juvenile
survey.
Funding levels and research effort
may also have contributed to the
differences in abundance estimates
between 2013–2016 (low number of fish
captured) and 2009–2012 (large number
of fish captured). Funding levels were
much higher in 2009–2012 and
researchers were pursuing additional
research questions beyond population
estimates that required them to capture
more fish (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers.
comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6,
2016). From 2009–2012, researchers
logged more research time on the
Apalachicola River and targeted higher
numbers of Alabama shad, which
produced robust population estimates.
As noted, environmental conditions
greatly hampered research efforts in
2013–2015. It is unknown whether
catch rates were influenced by
environmental factors in 2016 or were
strictly a reflection of very low
population numbers, but reduced
funding further exacerbated researchers’
ability to increase survey efforts to offset
research difficulties or to
opportunistically take advantage of
improved environmental conditions
when they occurred (T. Ingram, Georgia
DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS,
June 6, 2016). The differences in the
trends in Alabama shad adult
population estimates and the CPUE of
adult Alabama shad between 2005–2016
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
4030
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
can partially be explained by the
differences in sampling effort levels due
to both environmental conditions and
funding levels (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR,
pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6,
2016), although researchers believe the
Alabama shad spawning populations in
the ACF River system in 2013–2016
were smaller, especially compared to
the 2009–2012 spawning populations.
As described above, low numbers of
Alabama shad were captured in 2013–
2015 and no adult Alabama shad were
captured in 2016, producing low or no
population estimates. From 2013–2016,
the primary cause of low Alabama shad
captures is likely that low numbers of
Alabama shad returned to spawn in the
ACF River system during those years
(Sammons 2013, 2014, T. Ingram,
Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, June 6, 2016). Conservation
locking did not occur in 2013 and 2014
due to maintenance and improvements
on the lock. Some Alabama shad
captured by researchers were
transported and released above JWLD,
but the remaining fish in the population
likely only had access to any
downstream spawning habitat
(Sammons 2013, 2014). However, while
conservation locking appears to have
significantly increased spawning and
recruitment success of Alabama shad
and expanded the species’ access to
additional habitat in the ACF River
system, the ACF population has been
the largest known population of
Alabama shad for decades (Laurence
and Yerger 1967) even before
conservation locking occurred. The poor
condition of Alabama shad in 2013,
when most fish collected had
unexplained external wounds
(Sammons 2013, 2014), potentially led
to poor spawning success and fewer
returning spawners in the following
years. The CPUE of juvenile Alabama
shad in the Flint River in the fall of 2013
was low, although not the lowest
observed and similar to the CPUE for
2012, which had the highest adult
population estimate recorded since
research commenced in 2005.
Environmental conditions may have
affected both shad spawning activities
and the ability of researchers to detect
shad. Cold temperatures in 2013 and
2014 may have postponed the spring
spawning runs until temperatures
increased later in the season (and after
Alabama shad research had already
ceased), or the majority of Alabama shad
may have forgone their annual
spawning run and remained in their
marine habitat (Sammons 2014). Water
levels and discharge were much higher
during Alabama shad sampling in 2014
than in the previous 2 years and may
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
have hindered catch rates. The mean
catch rate of Alabama shad below JWLD
was inversely correlated with mean
daily discharge over the past 5 years
(Sammons 2014). This is similar to
observations in other systems, and can
mean high river discharge delayed or
hindered spawning runs or affected the
ability of researchers to capture shad.
Kern (2016) found that the number of
detections of tagged Alabama shad in
2013 and 2014, as well as the extent of
upstream migration by shad, appeared
to be influenced by river discharge, with
the lowest number of detections and
least amount of upstream movement
occurring during years with relatively
high river discharges. Sammons (2014;
citing Holman and Barwick 2011, and
Pierce et al. 1985) noted that the inverse
relationship between capture of fish by
electrofishing results and high water
level is well known. Alabama shad
detection in general proved surprisingly
difficult to researchers, in both the ACF
River and the Alabama River systems,
with large gaps in detections between
areas where Alabama shad were known
to have occurred (Kern 2016; S.
Herrington, The Nature Conservancy,
pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD
Fish Passage Year-End Summary
Meeting, January 2014; S. Sammons,
Auburn University, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage YearEnd Summary Meeting, January 2015).
Funding levels and research effort may
also have contributed to the differences
in abundance estimates between 2013–
2016 (low number of fish captured) and
2009–2012 (large number of fish
captured), with higher funding levels
and increased effort in 2009–2012
compared to the later years (T. Ingram,
Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, June 6, 2016).
To further evaluate potential causes
and effects of the low capture rates in
the ACF River system in 2013–2016, we
compared the adult population
estimates and CPUEs from spring
sampling with the CPUE of juveniles
sampled above JWLD in the fall. The
CPUE for juvenile shad is a metric
derived from surveys designed to assess
the recruitment success of Alabama
shad upstream of JWLD. Given the
growth rate of Alabama shad, surveys
for juveniles upstream of JWLD in the
fall would indicate success of the spring
spawning that occurred earlier in the
year. Trends in juvenile CPUE did not
appear to follow trends in the adult
population estimates or the adult
CPUEs. Further, the trends in juvenile
CPUE did not appear to reflect the
trends in adult population estimates
either 1 or 2 years later, when juveniles
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
would be of spawning age. Recapture
rates of tagged adult Alabama shad
ranged from 0 to 2.2 percent per year for
tagged shad. There was not a strong
relationship (r = 0.33) between
population size and CPUE, nor between
population size and the number of
recaptured fish (r = 0.21). However,
there was a strong positive relationship
between population size and the
number of fish tagged (r = 0.82).
Interestingly, there is a very poor fitting
relationship between the number of fish
tagged and the number of fish
recaptured (r = 0.15), which indicates
the results are potentially heavily
influenced by variability in the number
of recaptures in a given year. The
researchers’ ability to capture, but not as
easily recapture fish, may provide some
indication that difficulties in detecting
Alabama shad during research efforts
factored into the low population
estimates in addition to the actual
population size being low.
The low catch rates of Alabama shad
in 2013–2016, although potentially
influenced by environmental
conditions, detection ability, and
research effort, primarily indicate that
Alabama shad populations were much
lower during those years than in the
previous years of research since 2005.
However, for an r strategist species such
as Alabama shad that is inherently
prone to high levels of natural
variability, it is very difficult to
interpret a population trend from 11
years of population estimates, with no
historical abundances available for
comparison. The abundance estimates
for Alabama shad in the ACF River
System demonstrate that the abundance
in the system for the 11-year period is
highly variable, and no population trend
is apparent. The confidence intervals
around each of the abundance estimates
in the table show the wide range of
uncertainty inherent in the abundance
data.
Based on the life history strategy of
the species and the short period over
which abundance estimates have been
available, we cannot discern a pattern or
trend in the Alabama shad population
in the ACF River system. As an r
strategist, Alabama shad have high
natural mortality that is balanced by a
high growth rate (Adams 1980). R
strategist populations are well-adapted
to cope with unstable, unpredictable
environments, and this also produces
high natural variability in their
populations (Elliott and Quintino 2007).
Adams (1980) noted that fisheries for r
strategists are ‘‘boom or bust,’’ and
although catches can be very large some
years, they will be characterized by
erratic production levels overall.
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
Alabama shad belong to the clupeoids,
an order of fish that show striking
interannual or decadal variation in
productivity and abundance, with the
ability to persist at extremely low
population numbers for 50–100 years
then undergo a remarkable recovery
with the population growing as fast as
40 percent per year (Mace et al. 2002).
Sammons (2013) also noted that
increases of Alabama shad populations
can happen very quickly, as
demonstrated by the rapid rise in
population size between 2006–2009 and
2010–2012 (Sammons 2013). While the
Alabama shad population appears to be
much smaller based on the last 4 years
of tag-recapture data as compared to the
previous 7 years, we did not detect a
discernable trend, the high interannual
variability is not unexpected for this
species, and the species is adapted to
recover from very low numbers of fish,
even if the population persists at
depressed levels for long periods of
time.
The studies in the ACF River system
have produced the only abundance
estimates, either historical or current,
for Alabama shad in any river system.
The following sections of the
determination present the historical and
current distribution of Alabama shad in
other systems, which is primarily based
on capture data from general multispecies surveys, project monitoring,
captures incidental to other research
studies, and anecdotal information.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
Mississippi River
The Mississippi River is the largest
river basin in North America and drains
portions of Montana, the Dakotas,
Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa,
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia,
Pennsylvania, Colorado, Kansas,
Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas,
Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, and
Louisiana. Alabama shad were
historically found in parts of the
Mississippi River and its tributaries and
several small spawning populations
remain.
Upper Mississippi River Mainstem
The Upper Mississippi River is the
portion of the river upstream of Cairo,
Illinois. In the Upper Mississippi River,
Alabama shad were recorded in the
1994 Annual Status Report: ‘‘A
Summary of Fish Data in Six Reaches of
the Upper Mississippi River’’ (Gutreuter
et al. 1997) as being captured in a longterm fish resource monitoring program.
The report was compiled by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), Minnesota
DNR, Wisconsin DNR, Iowa DNR, the
Illinois Natural History Survey, and the
Missouri Department of Conservation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
However, the Gutreuter et al. (1997)
report did not include specific data on
Alabama shad and other species, such
as the number of fish caught, gear used,
the location of capture, etc. Presently,
there are 10 locks and dams on the
Upper Mississippi River (north of the
confluence with the Ohio River) that
border the state of Iowa and an
additional seven locks and dams south
of the state that could prevent Alabama
shad from reaching historical spawning
grounds within Iowa (Steuck et al.
2010). In 1915, 48 Alabama shad were
collected from the Upper Mississippi
River near Keokuk, Iowa, and it was
reported that some of these fish were
able to make it past the Keokuk Dam
(Lock and Dam #19) farther upstream
(Coker 1928). Iowa DNR has collected
no Alabama shad in the Upper
Mississippi River in the areas between
Lock and Dams #16 and #19 in the last
25 years (Smith et al. 2011). Barko’s
study (2004b) in the Upper Mississippi
River, near the confluence of the Ohio
and Missouri Rivers, found no Alabama
shad between 1994 and 2000. A species
richness study conducted by Koel
(2004) indicates that the Upper
Mississippi River in the state of Illinois
does not support Alabama shad. The
Upper Mississippi River Conservation
Committee also indicated that there are
only historical records of Alabama shad
in the Upper Mississippi River, and
none have been caught in over 10 years
(Steuck et al. 2010). However, Wilcox
(1999) and Ickes (2014) both list
Alabama shad as being present in the
Upper Mississippi River.
Missouri River
The Missouri River is a major
tributary of the Mississippi River and
flows through Montana, North and
South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas,
and Missouri. The lower Missouri River
and its tributaries, located in the center
of Missouri, probably supported the
greatest number of Alabama shad in the
state, although the records are limited
(Smith et al. 2011). The Missouri Fish
and Wildlife Information System,
maintained by the Missouri Department
of Conservation (MDC), states that
Alabama shad spawn in the Missouri
River and two of its tributaries, the
Gasconade and Osage Rivers (MDC
2015, Pflieger 1997). The MDC’s earliest
record of an Alabama shad in the
Gasconade River was 23 fish collected
in 1947 (C. Gemming, MDC biologist,
pers. comm. to J. Rueter, NMFS,
September 21, 2016). A study
determining the habitat use of juvenile
fish in the lower Missouri River did not
identify Alabama shad as being present
between 1987 and 1988 (Brown and
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
4031
Coon 1994). However, Galat (2005)
recorded the presence of the species in
the Lower Missouri River in 2005, and
stated that Alabama shad are rare in the
Ozark Plateaus region in southern
Missouri. The MDC reported the
collections, by trawl and electrofishing,
of Alabama shad from the Gasconade
River (41 fish in 1989, 4 fish in 1997,
17 fish in 2000, and 26 fish in 2012); the
purposes and locations of those studies
were varied (e.g., project monitoring and
fish surveys) and they were not directed
at collecting Alabama shad (C.
Gemming, MDC biologist, pers. comm.
to J. Rueter, NMFS, September 21,
2016).
Meramec River
The Meramec River is a tributary of
the Mississippi River whose confluence
is just south of the confluence of the
Missouri River. The entire length of the
river is contained within Missouri.
Alabama shad were known to spawn in
the Meramec River prior to 1978 (Mills
et al. 1978) and a second spawning
location in the river was discovered in
the Big River tributary (Mills et al.
1978). Between 1980 and 1997, 88
juvenile and 8 adult Alabama shad were
captured in Missouri rivers, including
the Meramec River (Pflieger 1997). The
University of Tennessee reported the
collection of 33 Alabama shad from the
Big River shoals in 1990 (Fishnet2 2016,
Catalogue #29.12) Burr et al. (2004) and
Buchanan et al. (2012) list the Meramec
as one of the remaining spawning rivers
of Alabama shad. The Missouri Fish and
Wildlife Information System,
maintained by the Missouri Department
of Conservation, also states that
Alabama shad spawn in the Meramec
River (MDC 2015).
Lower Mississippi River Mainstem
The Lower Mississippi River is the
portion of the river downstream of
Cairo, Illinois. Alabama shad
historically used the Mississippi River
as a means to reach many of its
tributaries, but none have been found in
the lower portion of the waterway in
recent years. Surveys conducted by
USACE on the Lower Mississippi River
(north of Baton Rouge, Louisiana) in the
early 1980s show a slow decline in the
number of adult and juvenile Alabama
shad (Pennington 1980, Conner 1983,
Smith et al. 2011). From the Thibodaux
Weir on Bayou Lafourche, between
Donaldsonville and Raceland,
Louisiana, a single Alabama shad was
caught using a gillnet in March of 2006
(Dyer 2007). Three Alabama shad were
caught in Louisiana just west of
Atchafalaya Bay between 1992 and 1996
by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
4032
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
and Fisheries (Smith et al. 2011).
However, no records of shad have been
reported in recent years in annual fish
surveys conducted by USGS in other
Louisiana streams and rivers (Smith et
al. 2011).
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
Ohio River
The Ohio River is the largest tributary
by volume of the Mississippi River and
flows through Pennsylvania, Ohio, West
Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, and
Illinois. Although the species was
present and abundant enough to support
a small and brief commercial fishery
during the late 19th century and early
20th century in Ohio, by 1989 the
majority of Alabama shad had been
extirpated from the Ohio River (Pearson
and Pearson 1989). The USGS has not
collected any Alabama shad from the
Ohio River since 1993 and the USFWS
has no records of Alabama shad in its
database (Smith et al. 2011).
Hammerson (2010) cites that Etnier and
Starnes (1993) recorded the collection of
a large adult from the Tennessee River
(which flows into the Ohio River) just
below Kentucky Dam in Marshall
County, Kentucky, in July 1986.
However, there have been no recent
observations or collections of the
species in the Tennessee River (Smith et
al. 2011). Although the species was
once present in the Clinch and Stones
Rivers (tributaries of the Tennessee
River), no collections of Alabama shad
were made in these systems after 1993
(Hammerson 2010, Etnier and Starnes
1993). Historically, the Wabash River,
another tributary of the Ohio River, was
said to have a ‘‘very limited number’’ of
Alabama shad in its waters in the mid1800s (Daniels 1860).
Arkansas River
The Arkansas River is a major
tributary of the Mississippi River that
drains Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and
Arkansas. Alabama shad have not been
collected in the Arkansas River since an
1892 collection of one specimen in the
Mulberry River tributary (M. Oliver,
Chief of Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and
Game Commission, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, November 5, 2013). A
few specimens were captured from the
Poteau River, a tributary of the Arkansas
River, prior to the 1950s (Cross and
Moore 1952), but Lindsey et al. (1983)
stated the species’ status was unclear. A
compilation of 20 years of fish
collection data from Arkansas riverine
systems by Matthews and Robison
(1988) indicated no records of Alabama
shad. The species may have been
extirpated from the watershed by the
construction of dams in the McClellandKerr Arkansas River Navigation System
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
in the early 1970s (M. Oliver, Chief of
Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game
Commission, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, November 5, 2013).
Red River
The Red River, a major tributary of the
Mississippi River, flows through Texas,
Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
The Washita, North Fork, Kiamichi, and
Little Rivers, as well as Lake Texoma,
are part of the Red River system. A
compilation of 20 years of fish
collection data from Arkansas riverine
systems by Matthews and Robison
(1988) indicated no records of Alabama
shad in the Arkansas portion of the
river. During a 6-year sampling period
from 1996–2001, no Alabama shad were
caught in the Red River (Buchanan et al.
2003). In a study on the effects of land
alterations on fish assemblages,
Rutherford et al. (1992) found no shad
in the Little River. Presumably, Alabama
shad are no longer able to reach their
former spawning grounds in the Little
River due to degradation of river habitat
as a result of land modification
(Buchanan et al. 2003). No Alabama
shad were collected from Lake Texoma
or any of its adjoining rivers (Red and
Washita Rivers) between 1948 and 1958
(Riggs and Bonn 1959). The Denison
Dam likely excluded the species from
these areas. The Altus Dam also likely
excluded the species from Red River
tributaries, including the North Fork,
Brier Creek, and Kiamichi River, since
there are no longer reports of Alabama
shad (Winston and Taylor et al. 1991,
Matthews et al. 1988). In recent years,
during general river surveys conducted
by the University of Oklahoma,
Alabama shad have not been collected
in southeast and central Oklahoma
(Smith et al. 2011).
Illinois and Marys Rivers
The Illinois and Marys Rivers are both
minor tributaries of the Mississippi
River contained solely within the state
of Illinois. While there are historical
records of shad within Illinois rivers
(Smith et al. 2011), the historical
abundance of Alabama shad in Illinois
is not known. The first collection of
Alabama shad from the Illinois River
was 47 fish taken in 1950 (Moore 1973).
In a thorough report of the biodiversity
of the state’s rivers and streams, Page
(1991) found no evidence of Alabama
shad. However, Burr et al. (1996)
reported two juvenile Alabama shad,
one near the mouth of the Marys River
in 1994 and one in the Grand Tower in
Devils Backbone Park in 1995. These
two captures support the hypothesis
that some adult shad were able to spawn
in these areas during that time. Before
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
these two captures, the last Alabama
shad to be captured in Illinois was a
juvenile in 1962 (Burr et al. 1996).
Alabama shad appear to have been
extirpated from many Illinois rivers and
are considered rare in the state. Annual
field studies conducted in the Illinois
River by Illinois State University have
resulted in no additional records of
Alabama shad (Smith et al. 2011).
White River
The White River is a minor tributary
of the Mississippi River that flows
through Missouri and Arkansas and was
recently discovered to contain a
spawning population of Alabama shad
(Buchanan et al. 2012). Matthews (1986)
reported that no Alabama shad were
found in White River tributaries from
1972–1973 or 1981–1983. However, the
Arkansas Fish and Game Commission
provided information during the public
comment period on our 90-day finding
that three Alabama shad were collected
from the White River in 2006 (M. Oliver,
Chief of Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and
Game Commission, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, November 5, 2013).
Buchanan et al. (2012) were the first to
report the species in the White River
drainage when they collected 3 juvenile
Alabama shad over a sand-gravel bar in
August 2006. The researchers believe
the shad were spawned in the mainstem
White River or one of its tributaries and
they noted that the morphology and size
of the White River specimens compared
well with Alabama shad previously
reported from other drainages in the
state.
Ouachita River
The Ouachita River is a minor
tributary of the Mississippi River and
flows through Arkansas and Louisiana.
The Ouachita River system includes the
Little Missouri and Saline Rivers. The
Ouachita and Little Missouri Rivers
contain spawning populations of
Alabama shad (Buchanan et al. 1999).
Four pre-1900 records of Alabama shad
from the Ouachita River are known: One
specimen near Hot Springs and three at
Arkadelphia (Buchanan et al. 1999).
Buchanan et al. (1999) reported that 16
juvenile specimens were collected from
the Saline River in 1972 and 3 juvenile
specimens at the juncture of the Little
Missouri and Ouachita rivers in 1982.
Buchanan et al. (1999) collected over
300 juvenile Alabama shad from the
Ouachita River and the Little Missouri
River between 1997 and 1998, and
noted that Alabama shad were abundant
at the four sites where they were
collected. Buchanan et al. (1999) also
documented a 1.3-kilogram (kg) adult
taken on an artificial lure in April 1997
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
in the Ouachita River below Remmel
Dam. The Arkansas Fish and Game
Commission provided information
during the public comment period on
our 90-day finding that 10 Alabama
shad were collected from the Ouachita
River in 2005 during a survey to
evaluate the influence of increased
minimum flows after the relicensing of
the Remmel Dam (M. Oliver, Chief of
Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game
Commission, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, November 5, 2013). Several
Alabama shad from the Ouachita River
were also collected and photographed
on October 12, 2012, for the purpose of
illustrating a new edition of the ‘‘Fishes
of Arkansas’’ (M. Oliver, Chief of
Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game
Commission, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, November 5, 2013).
Although the Saline River in Arkansas
is the only free flowing river left in the
state, there have been no recent reports
of Alabama shad (Buchanan 1999). The
Monroe Museum of Natural History at
the University of Louisiana has 16
Alabama shad that were collected from
the Saline River in 1972 (Buchanan et
al. 2012). During the public comment
period on the 90-day finding, the
Arkansas Fish and Game Commission
provided information from Layher et al.
(1999) that their targeted assessment of
Alabama shad at 80 sites in the Saline
River did not encounter the species in
the 4,863 fish collected and that severe
drought conditions may have influenced
the results (M. Oliver, Chief of Fisheries,
Arkansas Fish and Game Commission,
pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS,
November 5, 2013). Throughout the
year, Arkansas State University
conducts general fish sampling in the
state’s rivers and no captures of
Alabama shad have been reported in
recent years (Smith et al. 2011).
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
Lake Pontchartrain, Lake Maurepas, and
the Tangipahoa River
Alabama shad are only caught
sporadically in the state of Louisiana,
and there are limited data for the
species in its rivers (Smith et al. 2011).
The Tangipahoa River begins in
southwest Mississippi and drains into
Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana. Due
west of Lake Pontchartrain, and
connected by Pass Manchac and North
Pass, is Lake Maurepas. No Alabama
shad were caught in the Tangipahoa
River in 1994 (Knight 1994) and none
were collected in Lake Pontchartrain
between 1996 and 2000. However,
individuals were collected in Lake
Maurepas from 1983 to 1984 and in
2009 using trawl and gillnets, indicating
that some fish still pass through Lake
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
Pontchartrain (Hastings 1987, O’Connell
et al. 2004, O’Connell et al. 2009).
Pearl River
Multispecies studies of the Pearl River
were conducted by Tulane University
from 1963–1988 (Gunning and Suttkus
1990). Gunning and Suttkus (1990)
looked at the relative abundance of 84
species over the course of the 25-year
study, with sampling occurring at
multiple stations in Louisiana and
Mississippi either on a quarterly or
annual basis. At stations where
quarterly sampling was conducted, the
spring survey occurred in February in
the Mississippi portion of the river and
April in the Louisiana portion of the
river. Approximately 30 minutes were
spent at each station unless the river
was flooded and water depth limited
sampling ability. Records from the
Gunning and Suttkus (1990) sampling
surveys show a steady decline in
catches of Alabama shad. Sampling
occurred in 16.1 km of the river above
and below Bogalusa, Louisiana, for 25
years; a 64.4 km section of the West
Pearl River was sampled for 16 years;
and, a 64.4 km portion of the East Pearl
River was sampled for 16 years.
Between 1963 and 1965, 384 Alabama
shad were caught from all river
segments combined. Between 1965 and
1979, only 33 Alabama shad were
captured. One Alabama shad was
captured in the Pearl River between
1979 and 1988 (Gunning and Suttkus
1990). Gunning and Suttkus (1990)
attributed the declining catch of
Alabama shad to declining abundance
of the species.
In the Gunning and Suttkus (1990)
study, only one 30-minute multispecies
survey was conducted during the spring
once per year at some of their Pearl
River stations. The studies targeting
Alabama shad in the ACF River system
are conducted over a 3-month period
each year to ensure their collections
encompass the peak spawning migration
of Alabama shad, which can vary from
year to year based on factors such as
temperatures and river discharge
(Sammons 2013, 2014, Kern 2016).
Gunning and Suttkus (1990) state that
the consistency of their methodology
and the length of their study are
sufficient to accurately indicate relative
abundance. Gunning and Suttkus (1990)
does provide one of the few long-term
studies available for this species.
However, as noted previously, low
numbers of recorded Alabama shad
individuals may be due, at least in part,
to insufficient sampling effort during
appropriate times (i.e., spawning
migrations) and with the appropriate
gear to target the species (Mettee and
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
4033
O’Neil 2003). This was observed in the
ACF in large differences in Alabama
shad captured in multispecies surveys
conducted by FFWCC (J. Wilcox,
FFWCC, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, November 12, 2013) versus
studies targeting Alabama shad in ACF
(Young 2010, 2011) during the same
time period.
Smith et al. (2011) state no Alabama
shad have been captured in the Pearl
River since then, although FishNet
contains records of Alabama shad
captured from the Pearl River in 1996 by
the Illinois Natural History Survey and
2004 by Tulane University (Fishnet2
2016, Catalogue #38236 and #198208).
Pascagoula River
The Pascagoula River system, made
up of the Pascagoula, Leaf, and
Chickasawhay Rivers, is the only system
within the state of Mississippi inhabited
by Alabama shad (Mickle et al. 2010,
Mickle 2010). A total of 531 Alabama
shad (all age classes) were captured in
the Pascagoula River system between
2004 and 2007 (307 from the Pascagoula
River, 200 from the Leaf River, and 24
from the Chickasawhay River; Smith et
al. 2011). The Pascagoula River system
has one of the remaining spawning
populations of Alabama shad as
evidenced by Mickle’s (2006) collection
of 193 age-0 Alabama shad from 10 sites
between 2004 and 2005. The Leaf and
Pascagoula Rivers contain the highest
populations of Alabama shad within
this system due to their unimpounded
waters and variety of habitats, with a
smaller Alabama shad population in the
Chickasawhay River (Mickle et al. 2010,
Mickle 2010). Between 2004 and 2006,
Mickle et al. (2010) captured 133
juvenile Alabama shad (66 from the Leaf
River, 55 from the Pascagoula River, and
12 from the Chickasawhay River). Small
numbers of Alabama shad were also
caught in Black Creek, a tributary of the
Pascagoula River, in 1986 and the late
1990s (Adams et al. 2000).
Mobile Bay and the Mobile River Basin
The Mobile River basin spans
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and
Tennessee. The Mobile River, which
empties into Mobile Bay, branches
upstream into the Alabama, Cahaba,
Tallapoosa, Coosa, Tombigbee, and
Black Warrior Rivers. The Alabama shad
was first described as a species in 1896
in the Black Warrior River near
Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Jordan and
Evermann 1896). Alabama shad were
once prevalent in the Mobile River basin
(Evermann and Kendall 1897).
Numerous juvenile Alabama shad
were recorded in the Alabama River in
1951, the late 1960s, and the early 1970s
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
4034
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
(Boschung 1992, Mettee and O’Neil
2003). A single Alabama shad (15.3 cm)
was also captured in Dog River (a small
tributary draining into Mobile Bay) in
1964 (Williams and Gaines 1974,
Boschung 1992, Hammerson 2010). On
the Alabama River, Claiborne Lock and
Dam was opened for navigation in 1969
(Freeman et al. 2005). Upstream from
Claiborne Lock and Dam, Millers Ferry
Lock and Dam was constructed for the
purpose of both power generation and
navigation, with the lock opening in
1969 and power coming on line in 1970.
Sampling in Mobile Bay in 1972 yielded
no Alabama shad. Two individuals were
caught in the Alabama River in the
1990s: One in 1993 below Claiborne
Lock and Dam, and one in 1995 below
Miller’s Ferry Lock and Dam (Smith et
al. 2011). More recently, in February
2004, a single specimen (32.8 cm) was
captured by the Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources,
Marine Resources Division, in Heron
Bay (adjacent to Mobile Bay),
presumably making its upstream
spawning migration (Smith et al. 2011).
The Alabama Division of Wildlife and
Freshwater Fisheries conducted a yearlong study in 2009 in the Alabama River
that did not collect any Alabama shad.
Despite the existence of a thorough
historical fisheries record of the Cahaba
River system, no recent captures of
Alabama shad from the upper reaches of
the Cahaba River are documented. Both
the Pierson et al. (1989) general fish
faunal survey of the river from 1983–
1988 and the Onorato et al. (1998 and
2000) sampling between 1995–1997
found no Alabama shad present in the
upper region of the Cahaba River. The
last Alabama shad collected was in 1968
and the only previously recorded fish
reported in the Cahaba River at
Centreville, Alabama, was in 1965
(Onorato et al. 2000, Boschung 1992).
The last specimen to be captured from
the Coosa River was in 1966 (Boschung
1992). No Alabama shad were captured
during fish sampling in the Tallapoosa
River by Freeman et al. (2001).
Mettee and O’Neil (2003) state that
Alabama shad have not been found in
the Tombigbee River since the 1901
construction of the Tombigbee lock
system in the waterway. However,
records provided by the Mississippi
Museum of Natural Science during the
public comment period on our 90-day
finding showed that 5 Alabama shad
were captured in the Tombigbee River
in 1969 and one in 1971 (M. Roberts,
Curator of Fishes, Mississippi Museum
of Natural Science, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, October 21, 2013). In the
Black Warrior River of Alabama, where
the species was first described in 1896,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
one Alabama shad was subsequently
collected, over one hundred years later
in 1998 (Mettee and O’Neil 2003).
Conservation locking, similar to
efforts conducted in the ACF River
system, was undertaken on the Alabama
River at Claiborne Lock and Dam and
Miller’s Ferry Lock and Dam in 2009 by
the Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources,
USACE, and Auburn University after
USGS suggested the locks could be used
as a means of fish passage (Simcox
2012). At that time, no efforts were
made to quantify passage efficiency or
even monitor which species may be
passing upstream and downstream
through the locks. Freeman et al. (2005)
stated that substantial potential for
restoring populations of migratory,
large-river fishes such as Alabama
sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi),
Gulf sturgeon, Alabama shad, and
southeastern blue sucker (Cycleptus
meridionalis) entailed modifying
Claiborne and Miller’s Ferry, the two
downstream-most dams on the Alabama
River. Enhancing fish passage at
Claiborne and Millers Ferry Locks and
Dams could restore connectivity
between the lower Alabama River and
the Cahaba River, encompassing over
400 km of riverine habitat from the Gulf
to the fall line.
In 2014, a study was initiated to
determine if conservation locking could
be used to pass Alabama Shad upriver
or downriver during spawning season
through the navigation locks at
Claiborne Lock and Dam and Miller’s
Ferry Lock and Dam. With support from
the FFWCC and Georgia DNR, Alabama
shad from the ACF River system were
collected and tagged before being
stocked in the Alabama River. Fifteen
Alabama shad were tagged and released
below Claiborne Lock and Dam, and an
additional 38 Alabama shad were tagged
and released above the dam. These fish
were tracked both upstream and
downstream of the dam. Of the Alabama
shad released above the dam, 18 were
later detected at 18 different locations,
and 7 definite mortalities (no movement
between successive locations) were
eventually confirmed. The 7 confirmed
mortalities occurred in the section of the
Alabama River below Claiborne Lock
and Dam to its confluence with the
Tombigbee River. Kern and Sammons
(2015) note that further research is
necessary to determine whether
Alabama shad found suitable spawning
habitat in this location and halted
downstream movements, or whether
they died as a result of cumulative stress
from handling and transport. One fish
was detected approximately 53 mi (85
km) below Claiborne Lock and Dam,
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
indicating successful downriver passage
through the lock. Twenty fish were
never detected. There were large areas
where no tagged fish were detected, and
some fish moved over 50 mi (80 km) in
2 days. ‘‘Leap-frogging’’ was also
observed, with shad being detected at
downstream and upstream locations,
but escaping detection in between.
Of the 15 tagged fish released below
Claiborne Lock and Dam, 3 were
detected 93 times. One fish was
detected 12 days after release below
Gravine Island (just north of Mobile
Bay) and was detected again upriver 6
days later, just below Claiborne Lock
and Dam. This movement pattern
indicated ‘‘fallback’’ (fish that move a
great distance downriver shortly after
stocking), but in this case, the fish
eventually moved upriver. Another fish
remained in the vicinity of Claiborne
Lock and Dam for 9 days and was not
detected thereafter. A third fish was
detected several times moving
downstream after release but not later.
No tagged Alabama shad were detected
above Claiborne Lock and Dam and
researchers hypothesized this low
number could have been due to high
water events or mortalities.
In 2015, 27 Alabama shad from the
ACF River system were tagged and
stocked below Miller’s Ferry Lock and
Dam (and above Claiborne Lock and
Dam). Detections of tagged fish were
much higher in 2015 than 2014, likely
due to higher river flows in 2014 (Kern
and Sammons 2015), with 17 of the 27
fish detected for a total of 371
detections. Similar to 2014, large
movements over short time periods
were observed, with most of the
movements being in a downstream
direction. No fish were found to have
successfully navigated upstream of
Miller’s Ferry Lock and Dam, although
many of the fish passed downstream of
Claiborne Lock and Dam.
Escambia River and Conecuh River
The Conecuh River begins in Alabama
and becomes the Escambia River at the
Florida border. Alabama shad were
documented in the Escambia/Conecuh
River system as early as 1900 (Evermann
and Kendall 1900). This system contains
one of the known remaining Alabama
shad spawning populations (Smith et al.
2011). Bailey (1954) reported the
capture of two individuals in the
Escambia River in 1954. In 2009, two
Alabama shad were caught in the
Escambia River by FFWCC, one in
spring and one in the fall (Smith et al.
2011; E. Nagid, FFWCC, pers. comm. to
K. Shotts, NMFS, November 26, 2014).
Studies indicate there are small
populations of Alabama shad in
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
southern Alabama, including within the
Conecuh River (Barkuloo 1993, Adams
et al. 2000, Mettee and O’Neil 2003).
Smith et al. (2011) reported that 11
Alabama shad were captured in the
Conecuh River in 2000 and one in 2010
by the Alabama Department of Wildlife
and Fisheries.
Choctawhatchee River
The Choctawhatchee River begins in
Alabama. As it flows south, it is joined
by one of its tributaries, the Pea River,
then continues through the Florida
panhandle and into the Gulf of Mexico.
Some studies indicate there are small
spawning populations of Alabama shad
in southern Alabama, including in the
Choctawhatchee and Pea Rivers
(Barkuloo 1993, Adams et al. 2000,
Mettee and O’Neil 2003, Young 2010).
Smith et al. (2011) reported the capture
of 400 Alabama shad from the
Choctawhatchee River system in 2000.
Ochlockonee River
Alabama shad were historically
present in the Ochlockonee River, a fast
running river that flows from Georgia
into Florida. Smith et al. (2011) reported
that the last specimens to be collected
in the Ochlockonee River were captured
in 1977 below Jackson Bluff Dam (Swift
1977). During the public comment
period announced in the 90-day finding,
FFWCC reported that 4 Alabama shad
were collected near the Talquin (Jackson
Bluff) Dam in 2011 (J. Wilcox, FFWCC,
pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS,
November 12, 2013).
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
Econfina River
The Econfina River is a minor river
draining part of the Big Bend region of
Florida. It empties into Apalachee Bay.
Historical data for Alabama shad are not
available for this river, but, FFWCC
reported during the public comment
period that 1 Alabama shad was
collected in the Econfina River in 2006
(J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, November 12, 2013).
Suwannee River
The Suwannee River originates from
the Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia and
runs south through Florida. Historically,
the Suwannee River has been the
easternmost boundary of the Alabama
shad’s range (Herald and Strickland
1946). There is still a spawning
population of Alabama shad in the
Suwannee River (Smith et al. 2011).
Sporadic sampling in the Suwannee
River has included Alabama shad
(Mettee and O’Neil 2003). Records from
the Florida Museum of Natural History
and the FFWCC show that 3–27
Alabama shad were collected annually
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
between 1990–1995 (FishNet2 2016;
search terms ‘‘Alosa alabamae,’’ ‘‘1990–
2016,’’ and ‘‘Suwannee’’). Mickle (2010)
collected 6 fish. Smith et al. (2011)
reported that FFWCC caught 15
Alabama shad on the Withlacoochee
River, a tributary of the Suwannee
River, in late November 2010 (Smith et
al. 2011). The Florida Museum of
Natural History also shows that 2
Alabama shad were collected in 2015
(FishNet2 2016; Catalogue #238044 and
#238066).
Extinction Risk Assessment
We estimated both the current
extinction risk for Alabama shad and
the anticipated risk in the foreseeable
future. We defined the ‘‘foreseeable
future’’ as the timeframe over which
threats or the species’ response to those
threats can be reliably predicted to
impact the biological status of the
species. First, we evaluated
demographic factors associated with
population viability (abundance,
productivity, spatial distribution, and
diversity) and how they are contributing
to the extinction risk of Alabama shad.
We then performed a threats assessment
using the factors listed in Section 4(a)(1)
of the ESA by identifying the severity of
threats that exist now and estimating
their severity in the foreseeable future.
We used the methods developed by
Wainwright and Kope (1999) to organize
and summarize our findings on the
contributions of the demographic factors
and threats listed in ESA Section 4(a)(1)
to the extinction risk of Alabama shad.
This approach has been used in the
review of many other species (Pacific
salmonids, Pacific hake, walleye
pollock, Pacific cod, Puget Sound
rockfishes, Pacific herring, and black
abalone, and foreign sawfishes) to
summarize the status of the species
according to demographic risk criteria.
McElhany et al. (2000) examined short
and long-term trends in abundance,
productivity, spatial structure, and
genetic variability as the primary
indicators of risk. Populations that are
more fragmented have less genetic
exchange and therefore less
connectivity, increasing the risk of
extinction. Loss of fitness and loss of
diversity can occur from random genetic
effects and increase the risk of
extinction for a species. We used the
five-level qualitative scale from
Wainwright and Kope (1999) to describe
our assessment of the risk of extinction
for Alabama shad for each demographic
category, both currently and in the
foreseeable future. We also used this
scale to describe our assessment of each
of the threats from ESA Section 4(a)(1).
At the lowest level, a factor, either alone
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
4035
or in combination with other factors, is
considered ‘‘unlikely’’ to significantly
contribute to risk of extinction for a
species. The next lowest level describes
a factor that, on its own, is considered
to be at ‘‘low’’ likelihood of contributing
to the extinction risk, but could
contribute in combination with other
factors. The next level is considered a
‘‘moderate’’ risk of extinction for the
species, but in combination with other
factors contributes significantly to the
risk of extinction. A ranking of ‘‘likely’’
means that factor by itself is likely to
contribute significantly to the risk of
extinction. Finally, the most threatening
factors are considered ‘‘highly likely’’ to
contribute significantly to the risk of
extinction.
Both ‘‘low’’ and ‘‘moderate’’ rankings
require that the demographic factor or
threat be considered alone, as well as in
combination with other factors. In this
determination, we first consider each of
the demographic factors and threats
independently, then evaluate how they
may interact in combination to
contribute to the extinction risk of
Alabama shad. Our rankings of
demographic factors and threats do not
translate directly to extinction risk
conclusions. Ranking simply describes
how we considered the information. For
instance, one or more demographic
factors could be ranked as ‘‘highly
likely’’ to be contributing to the
extinction risk of a species without
concluding that the species is
threatened or endangered. For example,
low abundance may be considered to
present a moderate threat to the
extinction risk of Alabama shad, but is
offset by the species’ high productivity
and wide spatial distribution.
In some cases, there was not enough
information or too much uncertainty in
pending outcomes to rank a threat’s
contribution to the risk of extinction for
Alabama shad using the categories
established by Wainwright and Kope
(1999). In those cases, we classify the
contribution of the threat to the
extinction risk of Alabama shad as being
‘‘unknown.’’ Even for threats we
ultimately classify as unknown, we
provide and evaluate whatever
information is available, in some cases
providing information on how related
surrogate species (e.g., other Alosas)
may be responding to the identified
potential threat. NMFS recently issued
updated ESA listing guidance (May 26,
2016) that states in order to list a
species, the agency must affirmatively
determine on the basis of a set of
scientific facts that a species is at risk.
The ESA does not allow for listings to
be based on giving the species the
benefit of the doubt. The guidance
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
4036
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
clarifies that in the absence of any
information about threats to a species,
the null hypothesis is that the risk is
low (generally low, not as defined by
Wainwright and Kope (1999). Specific
supporting information must be cited in
order to elevate the potential threat to a
moderate or high risk category (again
generally, not as defined by Wainwright
and Kope (1999). In cases where we
classified a threat as having an
‘‘unknown’’ risk to the species, we
considered whether the ‘‘unlikely’’ or
‘‘low’’ category established in
Wainwright and Kope (1999) was most
appropriate. Because the ‘‘low’’ category
by definition states that a threat could
contribute to the extinction risk of a
species in combination with other
factors, per the listing guidance, we
ultimately evaluated ‘‘unknown’’ threats
as being ‘‘unlikely’’ to significantly
contribute to the risk of extinction for
Alabama shad.
We determined the extinction risk for
the species as a whole by integrating the
demographic risks and the threats
assessment, including considerations of
any uncertainty in the risks and threats.
We made a determination as to whether
the species warrants listing as
threatened or endangered, or whether
we believe listing is not warranted.
Finally, we determined whether there
was a significant portion of the species’
range that may warrant listing as
threatened or endangered.
Foreseeable Future
Per NMFS’ May 2016 revised listing
guidance, the ‘‘foreseeable future’’
describes the extent to which the
Secretary can, in making determinations
about the future conservation status of
the species, reasonably rely on
predictions about the future
(Department of the Interior Solicitor’s
Memorandum M–37021, ‘‘The Meaning
of ‘Foreseeable Future’ in Section 3(20)
of the Endangered Species Act’’ (Jan. 16,
2009)). Those predictions can be in the
form of extrapolation of population or
threat trends, analysis of how threats
will affect the status of the species, or
assessment of future events that will
have a significant new impact on the
species. We believe that the appropriate
period of time corresponding to the
foreseeable future should account for
the Alabama shad’s life-history
characteristics and the most significant
threats facing the species.
The Alabama shad is an earlymaturing species (Mickle et al. 2010)
with high productivity (Mettee and
O’Neil 2003, Ingram 2007). Like other
members of the Alosa family, Alabama
shad populations may fluctuate
significantly from year to year
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
(Sammons and Young 2012). The time
period associated with the foreseeable
future for Alabama shad should be long
enough to assess population response
while taking into consideration the high
variability inherent in the species.
Below, we discuss generation time in
relation to our ability to reliably predict
the species’ conservation status.
In defining the foreseeable future, we
considered generation time, specifically
defined here as the time it takes for a
sexually mature Alabama shad to be
replaced by offspring with the same
spawning capacity. Age-2 to age-4 fish
make up the majority of spawning
Alabama shad; therefore, using our
definition, the generation time for
Alabama shad is 4–8 years. Generation
time is inversely related to productivity
and/or resilience. Highly productive
species with short generation times are
more resilient than less productive,
long-lived species, as they are quickly
able to take advantage of suitable
conditions for reproduction (Mace et al.
2002). Species with shorter generation
times, such as Alabama shad (4–8
years), experience greater population
variability than species with long
generation times, because they maintain
the capacity to replenish themselves
more quickly following a period of low
survival (Mace et al. 2002). We believe
that the impacts from the threats on the
biological status of the species can be
confidently predicted within the 12- to
24-year (three-generation) timeframe.
Given their high population variability,
projecting out further than three
generations could lead to considerable
uncertainty in estimating the population
trajectory for Alabama shad. The
timeframe of three generations is widely
used to assess trends in populations and
has been applied to decision-making
models by many other conservation
management organizations, including
the American Fisheries Society (AFS),
the Convention on the International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Flora and Fauna (CITES), and the
International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN).
The foreseeable future timeframe is
also a function of the reliability of
available data regarding the identified
threats and extends only as far as the
data allow for making reasonable
predictions about the species’ response
to those threats. In our extinction risk
assessment, we determined the
abundance of Alabama shad and the
presence of dams are the highest ranked
threats, both contributing a moderate
level of risk to Alabama shad. The
remaining threats are ranked as either
contributing a low or unknown level of
risk to Alabama shad, or being unlikely
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
to contribute to the species extinction
risk.
Small populations may have less of a
buffer against threats than large
populations (McElhany et al. 2000). We
ranked low abundance as posing a
moderate threat to Alabama shad’s
extinction risk. Our consideration of
generation time above discusses how
the abundance of Alabama shad is
variable, and the species can fluctuate
widely from year to year. We
determined projecting out further than
three generations could lead to
considerable uncertainty in estimating
the population trajectory for Alabama
shad.
We also consider the timeframe over
which the effect of dams on Alabama
shad populations can be predicted.
Dams are believed to be the main cause
of the initial decline of Alabama shad.
Existing dams continue to block habitat
and cause downstream effects today, but
few new dams have been built since the
mid-1980s (Graf 1999). The threat of
dams to Alabama shad has not increased
for the past 30 years, and is not
expected to increase in the future due to
the advent of environmental laws and
public awareness that occurred after the
era of big dam building (Doyle et al.
2003, Graf 1999). The threat of dams to
Alabama shad is more likely to decrease
in the future, as dams are either
removed or additional fish passages are
added. Environmental concerns are
coinciding with a policy window in
which many private dams are coming
up for regulatory re-licensing with the
Federal Energy and Regulatory
Commission (FERC) and operational
guidelines for publicly-operated dams
are being reviewed (Doyle et al. 2003).
Upstream effects from dams may be
reduced through fish passage
technology, which is becoming
increasingly efficient (Roscoe and Hinch
2010). Fish passage may be voluntarily
implemented at dams, or even required
by Federal regulations in some
instances. Downstream effects from
dams are also becoming better
understood and dam operators are
becoming more willing and able (and
may be required in some instances) to
alter operations to minimize the
ecological effects downstream (Poff and
Hart 2002). Further, an estimated 85
percent of the dams in the United States
will be near the end of their operational
lives by 2020 (Doyle et al. 2003).
Economic considerations and
environmental concerns may result in
dam removals, as maintenance,
operation, repairs are often much
costlier than dam removal (Doyle et al.
2003, Stanley and Doyle 2003).
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
It is unknown to what extent the
implementation of fish passage,
modifications to dam operations, or dam
removal will occur in rivers inhabited
by Alabama shad. The lack of new dam
building in the past 30 years coupled
with increased environmental
regulation and public awareness makes
it unlikely that the threat of dams to
Alabama shad will increase and more
likely that there could be a decrease of
this threat to the species. However, we
cannot predict where dam modifications
or removal may occur, and how
Alabama shad may be affected. Our
ability to predict the response of
Alabama shad populations to the threat
is limited by the life history
characteristics of the species (i.e., its
variability in response to all of the
factors affecting the population) rather
than any variability in the threat of
dams itself.
In defining foreseeable future, we
further considered the interaction of
demographic characteristics (parameters
describing the viability of a population,
such as abundance and productivity)
and the species’ response to various
threats, primarily dams. Smith et al.
(2011) conducted a population viability
analysis (PVA) on Alabama shad in the
ACF River system. Researchers selected
20 years as the timeframe over which
the PVA could reliably model
population responses of Alabama shad
based on the species’ demographic
characteristics and various
combinations of natural and
anthropogenic threat scenarios affecting
their survival and growth. The 20-year
timeframe used in the PVA falls within
the three-generation timeframe
discussed above. This timeframe takes
into account aspects of the species’ life
history and also allows the time
necessary to provide for the recovery of
populations. Thus, we determined for
the purpose of the extinction risk
assessment, a 20-year timeframe,
corresponding approximately to the
three-generation time period, to be
appropriate for use as the foreseeable
future for Alabama shad.
Demographic Risks
Threats to a species’ long-term
persistence are manifested
demographically as risks to its
abundance, population growth rate,
spatial structure and connectivity, and
genetic and ecological diversity. These
demographic risks provide the most
direct indices or proxies of extinction
risk. A species at very low levels of
abundance and with few populations
will be less tolerant to environmental
variation, catastrophic events, genetic
processes, demographic stochasticity,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
ecological interactions, and other
processes compared to large numbers in
many populations (e.g., Meffe and
Carroll 1994, Caughley and Gunn 1996).
A population growth rate that is
unstable or declining over a long period
of time has less resiliency to future
environmental change (e.g., Lande 1993,
Middleton and Nisbet 1997, Foley
1997). A species that is not widely
distributed across a variety of wellconnected habitats is at increased risk of
extinction due to environmental
perturbations, including catastrophic
events, compared to a species that is
widely distributed (Schlosser and
Angermeier 1995, Hanski and Gilpin
1997, Tilman and Lehman 1997, Cooper
and Mangel 1999). A species that has
lost locally adapted genetic and
ecological diversity may lack the ability
to exploit a wide array of environments
and endure short- and long-term
environmental changes (e.g., Groot and
Margolis 1991, Wood 1995). Assessing
extinction risk of a species involves
evaluating whether risks to its
abundance, population growth rate,
spatial structure, and/or diversity are
such that it is at or near an extinction
threshold, or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future.
Abundance
A small population faces a host of
risks intrinsic to its low abundance
while large populations exhibit a greater
degree of resilience (McElhany et al.
2000). The only population estimates
available for Alabama shad are from the
ACF River system in Florida, Alabama,
and Georgia. This system is believed to
have the largest population of Alabama
shad. Population estimates fluctuated
widely from 2005 to 2015. For instance,
26,193 Alabama shad were estimated to
be in the system in 2011. The following
year, the estimate of Alabama shad
peaked at 122,578. Sammons and Young
(2012) noted that the population sizes of
species in the Alosa genus commonly
fluctuate widely. Researchers in the
ACF River system believe that Alabama
shad abundance may be a response to
conservation efforts in the system
(Schaffler et al. 2015). They also note
that variability in population number
may be linked to environmental
conditions. Specifically, Sammons and
Young (2012) believe that heavy rainfall
in 2009 may have led to strong year
classes in 2010 and 2012.
No population estimates are available
for other rivers, although several
hundred Alabama shad have been
captured in studies conducted in the
past 15–20 years in the Pascagoula
(Mississippi), Choctawhatchee (Florida/
Alabama), and Ouachita (Arkansas/
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
4037
Louisiana) River systems. The annual
Alabama shad population estimates in
the ACF River system were developed
through mark-recapture studies. The
initial capture of less than a hundred to
over 1,000 Alabama shad resulted in
population estimates of thousands to
over 100,000 Alabama shad. Markrecapture can be used to produce
abundance estimates without capturing
every individual in the population
because in addition to counting the
number of individuals captured during
the study, they estimate the detection
probability of individuals (i.e., the
probability that an individual will be
captured during the study; Yoccoz et al.
2001). Detection probability can be
influenced by population size, but can
also be influenced by the sampling
season and methodologies used, as well
as a species’ habitat affinities (Gu and
Swihart 2004). Population estimates
cannot be reliably developed from
studies that collect a species, but do not
consider its associated detection
probability. Pellet and Schmidt (2005)
note that it is often very difficult, if not
impossible, to detect all individuals,
populations, or species, and found
during their surveys that the detection
probability for a common species of tree
frog was very high, while the detection
probability of a common toad species
was very low. Yoccoz et al. (2001) note
that detection probability is generally
less than 100 percent and usually
variable. Although we cannot estimate
the population abundance of Alabama
shad in the Pascagoula,
Choctawhatchee, and Ouachita Rivers,
based on the likelihood that the species’
detection probability is less than 100
percent, we can infer that the sizes of
those Alabama shad populations are
greater than the hundreds of fish
collected in those systems. For instance,
during the 2013 targeted study in the
ACF, 251 Alabama shad were captured
and 1 recaptured to yield the population
estimate of 2,039 (S. Herrington, The
Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage YearEnd Summary Meeting, January 2014).
Generally, the number of Alabama
shad in rivers other than the ACF,
Pascagoula, Choctawhatchee, and
Ouachita is likely to be small. A multistate, multi-agency report from 1994
(Gutreuter et al. 1997) indicates that
Alabama shad were found in the Upper
Mississippi River, but does not note the
number or locations of fish caught.
Smaller numbers (one to several dozens)
of Alabama shad have been captured in
the last 25 years in portions of the
Lower Mississippi River, Mississippi
River tributaries (Missouri, Marys, and
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
4038
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
White Rivers), Mobile, Escambia,
Conecuh, Ochlockonee, Econfina, and
Suwannee Rivers.
Alabama shad was never an
economically important species, and,
therefore, information from fisheries
statistics, such as landings data, is rare.
Hildebrand (1963) noted that Alabama
shad were considered unfit for human
consumption, and the lack of demand
produced no incentive to capture the
species or record its presence and
abundance. Most of the recent directed
research studies on Alabama shad have
occurred in the ACF and Pascagoula
River systems. Capture data for other
systems comes from general multispecies surveys, captures incidental to
other research studies, and anecdotal
information. Mettee and O’Neil (2003)
note that low numbers of recorded
Alabama shad individuals may be due,
at least in part, to insufficient sampling
effort during appropriate times (i.e.,
spawning migrations) and with the
appropriate gear to target the species.
Hildebrand (1963) noted the importance
of proper gear, citing greatly increased
catches of Alabama shad that occurred
in Kentucky when surface-fishing seines
were substituted for bottom-fishing
seines. The lack of data is echoed in the
responses received from fish and
wildlife agencies during the public
comment period on our 90-day finding.
The Arkansas Fish and Game
Commission stated they could not
assess the status of Alabama shad in
their state because of the scarcity of
information on the species, the lack of
targeted surveys, and the unknown
detectability of the species (M. Oliver,
Chief of Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and
Game Commission, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, November 5, 2013). It is
unknown whether the lack or low
numbers of Alabama shad reported for
many river systems accurately reflects
the abundance in those systems or
whether it is indicative of the lack of
targeted studies, but ultimately, the
population abundance in these areas is
still unknown.
The threshold abundance below
which Alabama shad populations
cannot rebound (quasi-extinction) is
unknown. In conducting the PVA on
Alabama shad from the ACF River
system, Smith et al. (2011)
conservatively assumed 420 females as
the threshold for quasi-extinction based
on the lowest recorded population
abundance for the ACF River system at
the time (from Ely et al. 2008). That
assumption was not based on a
minimum number of females needed to
recover the population, but instead the
lowest number of females observed in
the viable population during previous
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
studies. In fact, Smith et al. (2011)
report that a viable spawning
population persists in the Suwannee
River at the eastern edge of the species’
range, even though sporadic sampling
since 2003 has only reported a total of
6–15 individual Alabama shad. We do
not have historical abundances of
Alabama shad, which can be indicative
of abundance levels associated with low
extinction risk. However, populations
may also be at low risk of extinction at
abundance levels below historical
levels, and accurate estimates of
historical abundance are not essential
for evaluating extinction risk.
Information from other species in the
Alosa genus indicates that the species
can rebound from extremely low
abundance. The 12-month
determination for 2 species of river
herring (78 FR 48944; August 12, 2013),
which determined that listing alewives
(A. pseudoharengus) and blueback
herring (A. aestivalis) under the ESA
was not warranted, states that highly
fecund, short generation time species
like river herring may be able to
withstand a 95 to 99 percent decline in
biomass (Mace et al. 2002). The 12month determination (78 FR 48944;
August 12, 2013) states that both
alewives and blueback herring may have
declined by more than 98 percent from
their historical baseline (Limburg and
Waldman 2009), but that the abundance
of each species is stable or increasing,
indicating the species are selfsustainable and are at a low to
moderate-low risk of extinction.
Directed studies and current data on
Alabama shad abundance are mostly
lacking. The available population
estimates for the ACF River system
since 2005 are relatively large and
highly variable. Ely et al. (2008)
compared Alabama shad and American
shad. They noted that, given the
similarities in life history characteristics
of Alabama shad and American shad
and the similarities in discharge,
drainage area, and latitude between the
Apalachicola River and other
southeastern rivers, the populations of
adult Alabama shad and American shad
might be expected to be similar. Ely et
al. (2008) cited the number of American
shad reaching the first barrier to
migration in the Savannah River,
estimated as nearly 190,000 (Bailey et
al. 2004), and the number in the
Altamaha River system estimated as
133,000 (Georgia DNR 2005), and
concluded that the population size of
the Alabama shad in the Apalachicola
River from 2005–2007 (approximately
2,700–26,000 shad) was relatively small.
Subsequent to the Ely et al. (2008)
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
study, the numbers of Alabama shad in
the Apalachicola River generally
increased, ranging from 2,000–122,500
from 2008–2012. It is not known what
the historical abundance of Alabama
shad was in the ACF River system, but
the Alabama Shad Restoration Plan for
the ACF River System (NMFS et al.
2012) projected that the carrying
capacity (the maximum population of a
species that can survive indefinitely in
a given environment) for Alabama shad
in the ACF is approximately 1.3 million
adults. Capture data from other systems
are limited or lacking but suggest low to
moderate sized populations in some
rivers and absence in others.
The only current population estimates
available for Alabama shad are in the
ACF River system. Because Alabama
shad were never commercially or
recreationally important, few historical
records exist. There are no recorded
historical population sizes in any river
systems for comparison, although
anecdotal information on observations
and small, short-lived fisheries provide
some historical context (e.g., Coker
1929, 1930). However, many researchers
recognize that Alabama shad
populations have experienced decline
from historical population sizes (e.g.,
Gunning and Suttkus 1990, Buchanan et
al. 1999, Mettee and O’Neil 2003,
Mickle et al. 2010).
Declines have been estimated in other
Alosa species with longer historical
records. Hall et al. (2012) attempted to
estimate historical alewife populations
in Maine for the years 1600–1900 using
analyses of nineteenth and twentieth
century harvest records and waterway
obstruction records dating to the 1600s
and estimated that obstructed spawning
access reduced the annual alewife
productivity per watershed to 0–16
percent of pre-dam estimates. The 12month listing determination for river
herring (78 FR 48944; August 12, 2013)
reported that of the riverine stocks of
alewife and blueback herring for which
data were available and were considered
in a stock assessment, 22 were depleted,
1 was increasing, and the status of 28
stocks could not be determined because
the time-series of available data was too
short. In most recent years, 2 riverine
stocks were increasing, 4 were
decreasing, and 9 were stable, with 38
rivers not having enough data to assess
recent trends. Both alewives and
blueback herring may already be at or
less than 2 percent of the historical
baseline. Because historical landings
data are available for alewife and
blueback herring, population modeling
was feasible and used to determine the
stability of the stocks in light of the
declines. The conclusion of the 12-
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
month determination (78 FR 48944;
August 12, 2013) was that listing alewife
and blueback herring under the ESA
was not warranted because the
abundance of each species is stable or
increasing, indicating the species are
self-sustainable and are at a low to
moderate-low risk of extinction.
Population sizes of Alabama shad and
other Alosa species are known to be
variable and the species can quickly
rebound from low population numbers.
Alabama shad are spawning and
persisting in river systems along the
Gulf Coast and in tributaries of the
Mississippi River. Even smaller
populations are considered to be selfsustaining (e.g., eastern Alabama rivers,
Mettee and O’Neil 2003, Suwannee
River, Smith et al., 2011). The range of
Alabama shad appears to be stable
(Smith et al. 2011). However, low
abundance in combination with other
factors could contribute significantly to
the risk of extinction since smaller
populations have less of a buffer against
threats than larger populations. This
aligns with the definition of a
‘‘moderate risk’’ under the risk
classification system by Wainwright and
Kope (1999).
For comparison, the next highest
ranking under Wainwright and Kope’s
(1999) classification system is for a
threat that is presently low or moderate,
but is likely to increase to high risk in
the foreseeable future if present
conditions continue. Although based
largely on anecdotal information rather
than population estimates and trends,
we believe there is sufficient evidence
to indicate that there have been declines
in the abundance of Alabama shad and
their low abundance could contribute
significantly to their long-term risk of
extinction. However, we do not have
information suggesting that threats to
Alabama shad populations are likely to
lead to further decline to the point that
their abundance would present a high
risk to the species. The primary threat
that led to the initial decline of the
species was the installation of dams that
block access to upriver spawning habitat
(evaluated under Factor A of this listing
determination). Although most dams are
still in place and represent an obstacle
to spawning Alabama shad, very few
dams have been built in the last 30 years
(Graf 1999). Few environmental laws
were in existence when the dams were
originally built, but the development
and implementation of conservation
measures in the last 20 years (Doyle et
al. 2003) are likely to lessen the effect
of dams on Alabama shad rather than to
pose an increasing threat to the species.
Other threats evaluated in this listing
determination are ranked as either
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
contributing a low or unknown level of
risk to Alabama shad, or being unlikely
to contribute to the species extinction
risk. As discussed in each of these
sections evaluating these threats, we do
not have information that they will
increase in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we ranked abundance
throughout its range as contributing a
moderate level of risk to the overall
current and foreseeable extinction risk
of Alabama shad.
Productivity
Population growth rate (productivity)
and factors that affect productivity
provide information on how well a
population is responding in the habitats
and environmental conditions it is
exposed to during its life cycle
(McElhany et al. 2000). Whether a
species’ productivity has declined, or is
declining, toward the point where
populations may not be sustainable and
whether habitat quality restricts
productivity to non-sustainable levels
are key pieces of information in
assessing a species’ extinction risk
(Wainwright and Kope 1999). In
assessing the productivity of Alabama
shad, we considered life history traits,
the number of spawning populations,
and trends in abundance over time.
Several life history traits make
Alabama shad a relatively productive
species (Smith et al. 2011). They reach
sexual maturity quickly. Males start
spawning as early as 1 year old, and
females start spawning at 2 years old
(Mickle et al. 2010). Female Alabama
shad are known to release large numbers
of eggs. Individual females in the
Apalachicola River produce from
26,000–250,000 eggs and from 36,000–
357,000 in the Choctawhatchee River
(Mettee and O’Neil 2003, Ingram 2007).
Females may have multiple spawning
periods within the same spawning
season (Mettee and O’Neil 2003).
Because of the age range among
spawning Alabama shad (1–5 years for
males, 2–6 years for females),
individuals may spawn multiple times
in a lifetime (Laurence and Yerger 1967,
Mettee and O’Neil 2003, Ingram 2007,
Mickle et al. 2010). Recent information
from the ACF River system suggests that
female Alabama shad may spawn only
once during their lifetime, but may
release several batches of eggs during
the weeks that they are spawning (S.
Herrington, The Nature Conservancy,
pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS,
November 2015).
We also considered the number of
Alabama shad spawning populations to
assess the productivity of Alabama
shad. The largest spawning population
of Alabama shad is in the ACF River
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
4039
system, with smaller spawning
populations believed to exist in the
Missouri/Gasconade/Osage, Meramec,
White, Ouachita/Little Missouri,
Pascagoula/Leaf/Chickasawhay,
Escambia/Conecuh, Choctawhatchee/
Pea, and the Suwanee River systems.
The life history traits of Alabama shad
combined with the presence of multiple
spawning populations contributes to the
productivity potential of Alabama shad.
Highly productive species with short
generation times, like Alabama shad, are
more resilient than less productive, long
lived species, as they are quickly able to
take advantage of suitable conditions for
reproduction (Hutchings and Reynolds
2004, Mace et al. 2002, Musick 1999).
Species with shorter generation times,
such as Alabama shad (4 to 8 years),
experience greater population
variability than species with long
generation times, because they maintain
the capacity to replenish themselves
more quickly following a period of
lower survival (Mace et al. 2002). This
resilience was observed in the ACF
River system when Alabama shad
populations quickly increased when
access to upstream spawning habitat
was re-established by conservation
locking through an existing dam.
Alabama shad populations are
generally believed to have declined in
many areas where they were historically
found. However, it is difficult to
quantify any declines because of a lack
of historical abundance data for most
river systems and the lack of current
population estimates for populations
other than the ACF River system.
Records of Alabama shad in the Pearl
River are fairly complete and show a
steady decline of the species. This
decline was based on the total number
of fish captured over time; it did not
include estimating population numbers
through the use of mark-recapture
methods, like those used in the
Apalachicola River. In the Pearl River,
consistent sampling occurred in several
sections of the river over 16–25 years:
384 fish captured 1963–1965; 33
captured 1965–1979; and 1 individual
captured 1979–1988 (Gunning and
Suttkus 1990). Since then no records of
shad have been reported during annual
fish surveys conducted by several of the
state’s universities in the Pearl River
(Smith et al. 2011). Surveys conducted
by USACE on the Lower Mississippi
River (north of Baton Rouge, Louisiana)
in the early 1980s also recorded the
number of individuals encountered and
showed a slow decline in the number of
both adult and juvenile Alabama shad
(Pennington 1980, Conner 1983, Smith
et al. 2011). We can use the low
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
4040
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
numbers or lack of Alabama shad
captures/observations throughout the
rest of their range to indicate declines
from historical abundances. But it is
hard to relate those numbers with the
estimates for the Apalachicola that were
calculated using mark-recapture
techniques. However, it is clear that
while once abundant enough to support
small commercial fisheries in Alabama,
Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and
Iowa, Alabama shad are rarely collected
throughout much of their former range
(Adams et al. 2000, Daniels 1860).
Alabama shad are believed to possibly
be extirpated from the Ohio River since
1989 (Pearson and Pearson 1989).
Alabama shad are considered rare in the
state of Illinois and appear to have been
extirpated from many rivers in the state
(Smith et al. 2011).
Declines have been estimated in other
Alosa species with longer historical
records. Hall et al. (2012) attempted to
estimate historical alewife populations
in Maine for the years 1600–1900 using
analyses of nineteenth and twentieth
century harvest records and waterway
obstruction records dating to the 1600s.
They estimated that obstructed
spawning access in 9 watersheds
reduced the annual alewife productivity
per watershed to 0–16 percent of predam estimates, equaling a cumulative
lost fisheries production of 11 billion
fish from 1750 to 1900 (Hall et al. 2012).
Attempts have been made to estimate
past abundances of Alabama shad and
habitat carrying capacity for
conservation planning by using
examples from other Alosa species.
Comparisons have been made between
Alabama shad and American shad. Ely
et al. (2008) noted that, given the
similarities in life history characteristics
of Alabama shad and American shad
and the similarities in discharge,
drainage area, and latitude between the
Apalachicola River and other
southeastern rivers, the populations of
adult Alabama shad and American shad
might be expected to be similar. Ely et
al. (2008) cited the number of American
shad reaching the first barrier to
migration in the Savannah River,
estimated as nearly 190,000 (Bailey et
al. 2004), and the number in the
Altamaha River system estimated as
133,000 (Georgia DNR 2005), and
concluded that the population size of
the Alabama shad in the Apalachicola
River from 2005–2007 (approximately
2,700–26,000 shad) was relatively small.
Subsequent to the Ely et al. (2008)
study, the numbers of Alabama shad in
the Apalachicola River generally
increased, ranging from 2,000–122,500
from 2008–2012 (as noted earlier, the
2013–2015 data was considered to be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
skewed by sampling difficulties).
Additionally, Ely et al. (2008) noted that
fluctuations in abundance of American
shad are well documented (citing
Hattala et al. 1996, Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission 1998,
Moring 2005) and variations in yearclass strength typically observed in this
genus suggest that populations of
Alabama shad are capable of recovering
quickly to historical levels under
favorable conditions. A multi-agency
Alabama Shad Restoration Plan for the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River
System (NMFS et al. 2012) calculated
that the carrying capacity for the system
is 1.3 million adult Alabama shad
(700,000 in the Chattachoochee and
600,000 in the Flint), derived from the
amount of free-flowing habitat in the
mainstem and major tributaries of the
Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers and
using American shad population indices
as a surrogate.
In summary, we find the productivity
potential for Alabama shad is relatively
high, given its life history characteristics
and the presence of multiple spawning
populations within the species’ range.
This relatively high productivity
potential of Alabama shad was
confirmed in the ACF River system
when population numbers greatly
increased when access to historical
spawning habitat was provided.
Available data suggest a decline in
abundance in many systems. Other
Alosa species with longer and more
complete historical records, such as
alewife, have also shown declines in
abundance. A comparison with
American shad populations at similar
latitudes and a habitat study indicate
that the Alabama shad population in the
ACF River system may be smaller than
expected and below carrying capacity in
the system. Managers and researchers
note that low numbers of recorded
Alabama shad individuals may be due,
at least in part, to insufficient sampling
effort during appropriate times (i.e.,
spawning migrations) and with the
appropriate gear to target the species.
We ranked productivity, on its own, to
be at low risk of contributing
significantly to the current and
foreseeable risk of extinction for
Alabama shad.
Spatial Distribution
McElhany et al. (2000) stated that
spatial structure is an important
consideration in evaluating population
viability because it affects evolutionary
processes and can affect a population’s
ability to respond to environmental
change. Wainwright and Kope (1999)
stated that it is important to determine
whether existing populations
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
adequately represent historical patterns
of geographic distribution and
biodiversity and whether population
fragmentation poses a risk. The
historical distribution of Alabama shad
spanned the Gulf Coast from the
Suwannee River, Florida, to the
Mississippi River, Louisiana. Within the
Mississippi River and its tributaries, the
species spanned north to Illinois and
Iowa, westward to Oklahoma, and
eastward to Kentucky and Ohio. The
species is believed to be extirpated in
some of the farthest reaches of its
historical range, such as the Upper
Mississippi River and Mississippi River
tributaries in Oklahoma, Illinois, and
Kentucky/Ohio. However, Alabama
shad can still be found in river systems
in Arkansas, Missouri, and along the
Gulf Coast. The current range of
Alabama shad encompasses a diverse
array of habitats, which potentially
contributes to population stability.
Smith et al. (2011) state that the current
range of Alabama shad is believed to be
stable.
Maps displaying the best available
information on the historical and
current range (presence) of Alabama
shad by river, including where the
species continues to spawn, can be
found at: https://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/
protected_resources/listing_petitions/
species_esa_consideration/
(see Figures 1 and 2 for the eastern and
western portions of the range,
respectively). Historical and current
range, as well as spawning rivers, are
based on reports of the species presence
from the literature (see the ‘‘Distribution
and Abundance’’ section), but the maps
do not represent the number of fish
reported from a river system. In most
cases, we do not have information on
the exact portion(s) of river systems
historically or currently inhabited by
Alabama shad, or where spawning
habitat is located. In the ACF River
system (where the majority of recent
directed research on Alabama shad is
occurring), the map shows that Alabama
shad likely do not pass above dams at
Albany and George Andrews Lake. In
other systems, it is unknown to what
degree locks and dams and/or low head
dams block upstream passage or allow
some shad to move upstream and
downstream. This is discussed in
greater detail in the ‘‘Dams’’ section
under ‘‘A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range.’’ In
cases where no information is available
on the specific extent of Alabama shad
or its spawning habitat within a river
system, we included the entire river
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
system as part of the range of Alabama
shad.
In developing the maps reflecting the
historical and current range of Alabama
shad, we determined we would include
positive reports of Alabama shad over
the last 24 years. The 24-year time frame
was selected because dams within the
geographic range of Alabama shad were
completed 30 or more years ago (mid1980s; Graf 1999). Since dams have the
ability to alter the range of shad within
rivers, older/pre-dam studies reporting
shad would not reflect any alterations of
the species’ distribution due to the dam.
Further, any alterations in the
distribution of Alabama shad may not
happen immediately after construction
of a dam. Therefore we considered the
maximum age observed in Alabama
shad (6 years; Mettee and O’Neil 2003).
We only included reports of Alabama
shad that occurred at least 6 years after
the era of dam-building ended (i.e., 24
years ago or less). Positive reports of
Alabama shad in a river system in the
last 24 years would indicate that new
generations of shad persisted in the
river system after the end of the dambuilding era, even if a dam was
constructed in the system. Therefore,
positive reports collected during the 24year time frame accounted for the
presence of dams with the range of
Alabama shad. We also used
information from the literature on where
the species is potentially extirpated to
indicate the historical versus current
range. In many instances, the
information demonstrating persistence
during the last 24 years is limited to just
one or several verified identifications of
Alabama shad. However, in view of the
high productivity of shad, the
challenges associated with detecting the
species in non-targeted studies, and the
episodic, anecdotal nature of available
information, we believe it is reasonable
to extrapolate from information
confirming presence during the last 24
years that Alabama shad continue to
occur in these systems.
In some cases, such as the Mississippi
River, Alabama shad are shown to
inhabit a tributary but not the river
mainstem. Although the mainstem is
not included as part of the historical
range, this does not necessarily indicate
Alabama shad are not present in the
mainstem, only that we did not find a
positive report of their presence in the
last 25 years. In the example of the
Mississippi River, the river mainstems
are often not the subject of research
surveys as high river flows and high
vessel traffic raise concerns for human
safety. Also, as noted earlier in this
determination, Alabama shad can be
difficult to detect, in both non-targeted
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
or targeted surveys. Positive reports in
the tributaries without reports from the
mainstem could indicate the presence of
landlocked populations or it could
simply indicate that shad were present
in the mainstem, but not surveyed or
detected. Given the pelagic nature of
Alabama shad, and their migratory life
style, we believe that Alabama shad
likely inhabit the mainstem of the rivers
adjacent to the tributaries where they
were reported.
Spatial structure contributes to the
resiliency of populations to various
disturbances, which can occur across a
range of spatial scales, from localized
disturbances affecting a few miles of
stream and therefore only a portion of
a population, to regional impacts from
events such as droughts that affect
multiple populations (Williams et al.
2008). Hilborn et al. (2003) state there is
growing recognition that many fish
stocks consist of multiple combined
geographic components. Spatial
diversity in populations can lead to
greater stability in fish species
(Jorgensen et al. 2016). Schindler et al.
(2010) referred to this as a ‘‘portfolio
effect’’ that is analogous to the effects of
asset diversity on the stability of
financial portfolios. Hilborn et al. (2003)
reported a ‘‘portfolio effect’’ in the
resilience of sockeye salmon in Bristol
Bay, Alaska, which the researchers
attributed to the maintenance of diverse
geographic locations and life history
strategies that comprise the sockeye
salmon stock. At different times during
the 1900s, different geographic regions
and different life history strategies
contributed to the productivity of the
stock, and Hilborn et al. (2003)
concluded this likely buffered the stock
against large-scale environmental
conditions, providing long-term
stability. Jorgensen et al. (2016) studied
Chinook salmon populations from the
Columbia River and also observed
differential contributions of populations
to species productivity, noting
differences in migratory corridors,
climate, and geology as potential factors.
The current range of Alabama shad
(the species’ portfolio) encompasses a
diverse array of habitats, which
potentially contributes to population
stability. Many Federal agencies and
non-governmental organizations classify
terrestrial and aquatic systems based on
ecoregions, large areas of similar climate
where ecosystems recur in predictable
patterns (USFS 2016). Ecoregions are a
widely recognized and applied
geospatial unit for conservation
planning, developed to represent the
patterns of environmental and
ecological variables known to influence
the distribution of biodiversity features
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
4041
at broad scales (Abell et al. 2008). The
boundaries of an ecoregion encompass
an area within which important
ecological and evolutionary processes
most strongly interact (Abell et al.
2008). Conservation of blocks of natural
habitat large enough to be resilient to
large-scale disturbances and long-term
changes are essential for large river
systems in particular (Abell et al. 2008).
Under several widely used ecoregion
classification systems, Alabama shad
populations inhabit heterogeneous
habitats across multiple diverse
ecoregions. Alabama shad occupy six
ecoregion ‘‘divisions’’ that the U.S.
Forest Service classifies based on
precipitation, temperature, and
vegetation or other natural land cover.
The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) identified four levels of
ecoregions by analyzing patterns of
biotic and abiotic phenomena, both
terrestrial and aquatic. These
phenomena include geology, landforms,
soils, vegetation, climate, land use,
wildlife, and hydrology (EPA 2016).
Even at the coarsest level, the EPA’s
Level I ecoregion, which highlights
major ecological areas, Alabama shad
populations occupy 2 of the 12
ecoregions in the continental United
States: The Eastern Temperate Forests
and the Great Plains. The species
occupies 4 of the 25 Level II ecoregions,
and 14 of the 105 Level III ecoregions.
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) uses a
terrestrial ecoregion classification
system similar to the EPA Level III
ecoregions. Alabama shad populations
occupy nine TNC terrestrial ecoregions.
TNC also uses freshwater ecoregions
with boundaries describing broad
patterns of species composition and
associated ecological and evolutionary
processes (Abell et al. 2008). Along the
Gulf Coast, Alabama shad occupy four
freshwater ecoregions: The Apalachicola
(containing the ACF River system and
the Econfina River), the West Florida
Gulf (includes the Escambia and
Choctawhatchee River systems), Mobile
Bay (containing the Mobile River
system), and the Lower Mississippi
(includes portions of the White River).
In the northern part of their range,
Alabama shad occupy three freshwater
ecoregions: The Central Prairie
(containing the Missouri River and its
tributary, the Osage River), the Ozark
Highlands (including a portion of the
White River), and the Ouachita
Highlands (including the Ouachita River
and its Little Missouri River tributary).
The ecoregions along the Gulf Coast are
similarly defined by humid subtropical
climates, but diverge in other
characteristics. The Apalachicola
ecoregion lies entirely within the coastal
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
4042
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
plain, but the variety of habitats found
in its rivers provide the foundation for
a diverse freshwater fauna. Rivers in the
Apalachicola ecoregion flow through
shaded ravines with cool spring inputs,
resembling habitats of more northerly
regions. This ecoregion supports more
species than adjacent lowland
ecoregions. The West Florida Gulf
ecoregion is defined by the lowland
drainages that flow through extensive
floodplain oak-hickory-pine forests.
This ecoregion does not boast the same
fish richness as the neighboring Mobile
Bay. The Mobile Bay ecoregion has the
highest level of aquatic diversity in the
eastern Gulf. This is largely due to the
variety of physiographic provinces
occurring in this ecoregion, its size, and
its escape from Pleistocene glaciation.
This ecoregion is centered in central
Alabama and includes eastern
Mississippi, western Georgia, and a
small area in southern Tennessee. The
northern part of the ecoregion is
characterized by Appalachian Blue
Ridge and Appalachian mixed
mesophytic forests, considered some of
the most biologically diverse temperate
forests in the world. These grade into
Southeastern mixed forests, which are
demarcated from conifer forests in the
south by the fall line of the Atlantic
Piedmont. Historically, rivers and
streams in this ecoregion stretched over
1000 mi. Today, flow in the Mobile
River is regulated by a series of
upstream reservoirs on the Etowah,
Coosa, and Tallapoosa rivers, and to a
lesser extent by the locks and dams of
the Tombigbee River. The Lower
Mississippi ecoregion is also
distinguished by its species richness,
particularly in fish. The entire
Mississippi basin has served as a center
for fish distribution as well as a glacial
refugium, and as such it is home to
many of the species found in
surrounding drainages. As a result, it is
the second richest ecoregion in North
America.
Compared to other ecoregions,
Alabama shad experience different
climatic conditions in the Central
Prairie, which has hot continental
summers and cold winters, with
periodic arctic blasts. Most of the
streams and rivers in the ecoregion are
meandering with low to moderate flow.
The diversity of species in this
ecoregion is high relative to adjacent
ecoregions due to the presence of
diverse habitats that were not
interrupted during glacial periods. The
Ozark Highlands ecoregion is part of the
western Mississippi River drainage but
is distinctive because of its relative
biogeographical isolation. It is a region
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
of high gradient headwater streams
surrounded by coastal plains and
prairie. The Ozark Highlands contain a
diversity of freshwater habitats,
including fens, sinkholes and springs,
which feed the clear headwaters of
larger, free-flowing streams. Many of
these habitats served as refugia during
periods of glacial maximas. The Ozarks
are home to a unique assemblage of
species. Like the Ozark Highlands, the
Ouachita Highlands ecoregion is
distinguished by its relative
biogeographic isolation. The ecoregion
is a source area for several larger
streams and is an area of high-gradient
and spring-fed springs, and can almost
be considered an island surrounded by
the Great Plains, coastal plains, and
prairie. The ecoregion is characterized
by oak-hickory-pine forests, which are
some of the best developed in the
United States.
Habitat heterogeneity is considered to
be important for the stability of
populations, and Oliver et al. (2010)
found that heterogeneous landscapes
containing a variety of suitable habitat
types were associated with more stable
population dynamics in a butterfly
species. Oliver et al. (2010) noted that
many studies have suggested that the
beneficial effects of heterogeneity may
buffer a broad range of taxa against
environmental change. Based on
common ecoregion classifications, the
watersheds inhabited by Alabama shad
populations contain a diverse array of
landscapes, vegetation, geology,
hydrology, and climate.
We also considered the spatial
structure of the spawning populations of
Alabama shad. In assessing the viability
of salmonid populations, which are
anadromous and exhibit homing
tendencies like Alabama shad,
McElhany et al. (2000) stated that it is
practical to focus on spawning group
distribution and connectivity because
many of the processes that affect small
population extinction risk depend on
the breeding structure. The spatial
arrangement of suitable spawning and
rearing habitat within a watershed can
be dynamic through time as a result of
periodic disturbances that create a
mosaic of varying habitat conditions
(Reeves et al. 1995). Efforts to
understand population diversity have
focused on population connectedness,
through the analysis of DNA collected
from individuals across the landscape or
tagging data to quantify dispersal
between populations (Jorgensen et al.
2016). Alabama shad continue to spawn
in river systems in Florida, Alabama,
Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana,
Arkansas, and Missouri. While most
Alabama shad spawn in their natal
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
rivers, Waters et al. (2000) proposed that
shad species may stray more than other
anadromous fishes and estimated that
American shad are expected to have
over 10 effective migrants per
generation. In fact, Mickle et al. (2006)
and Kreiser and Schaefer (2009) found
slight genetic distinctions between
populations from the Mississippi River
basin and coastal Gulf of Mexico
drainages. Kreiser and Schaefer (2009)
attributed this to Alabama shad straying
from their natal rivers at a rate of about
10 migrants per generation, consistent
with the estimate by Waters et al. (2000)
for American shad. This indicates the
possibility that Alabama shad could
enhance and repopulate nearby river
systems within their range. This was
also observed in anadromous Pacific
salmon. Similar to Alabama shad, these
species exhibit high spawning site
fidelity, but are well-adapted to
dynamic environments through straying
by adults (to connect populations) and
high fecundity (also similar to Alabama
shad; Reeves et al. 1995, Jorgensen et al.
2016).
The historical range of Alabama shad
has contracted and this species is
believed to be extirpated from some
river systems. Few targeted research
studies were conducted since the time
a majority of dams may have altered
Alabama shad’s distribution, therefore
we can rely only on anecdotal reports
from monitoring activities and
multispecies surveys from the last 24
years to determine their current range.
However, the remaining spawning
populations of the species appear to be
geographically widespread. Their range
appears to have become stable once dam
building ended, and lost access to
spawning habitat is likely to be restored
through dam removal and fish passage,
and protections under environmental
laws have increased. Although
spawning populations in some places
are small, the species exists in multiple
ecoregions, representing a diverse array
of ecosystems that has the potential to
buffer the species against environmental
changes and promote population
stability. Genetic studies (Kreiser and
Schaefer 2009, Waters et al. 2000) show
that exchange between river populations
is occurring at higher rates than is
expected for other anadromous species.
Therefore, we ranked spatial
distribution throughout its range, on its
own, to be at low risk of contributing
significantly to the current and
foreseeable risk of extinction for
Alabama shad.
Diversity
In a spatially and temporally varying
environment, genetic diversity is
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
important for species and population
viability because it (1) allows a species
to use a wider array of environments
than they could without it, (2) protects
a species against short-term spatial and
temporal changes in the environment,
and (3) provides the raw material for
surviving long-term environmental
changes (McElhany et al. 2000). Small
populations may be at risk from random
genetic effects, Allee effects, and
directional effects (Wainwright and
Kope 1999).
Alabama shad are believed to be
philopatric and generally return to the
same rivers to spawn, which has
resulted in slight genetic differences
among river drainages (Meadows et al.
2008, Mickle 2010). These genetic
differences could result in
characteristics (e.g., faster growth rates,
higher temperature tolerance, etc.) that
lead to variable spawning strategies
among river drainages. Kreiser and
Schaefer (2009) also noted slight genetic
differences between Alabama shad from
the Mississippi River basin and coastal
Gulf of Mexico drainages; however, they
determined there has been no
significant genetic differentiation among
different river populations of Alabama
shad.
Moyer (2012) evaluated the genome of
Alabama shad collected from the ACF
River system to assess the influence of
genetic factors on their extinction risk,
including whether the construction of
JWLD blocking access to upstream
spawning habitat affected their genetic
diversity. Genetic diversity of
Apalachicola River shad was calculated
based on the average number of alleles
(the possible forms in which a gene for
a specific trait can occur), observed
heterozygosity (having different alleles
in regard to a specific trait), and
expected heterozygosity. Moyer (2012)
found no evidence of fine-scale
population structure in the ACF River
system. The observed genetic variation
found in Alabama shad was lower than
expected based on other shad studies.
These findings suggest that the genetic
variation of Alabama shad in the ACF
River system has been severely reduced
by a bottleneck event. Moyer (2012)
concluded that the bottleneck likely did
not result from the construction of
JWLD or from any other anthropogenic
activity. Moyer (2012) stated the
reduced genetic diversity appears to be
the result of past events that occurred
during the Pleistocene. Bowen et al.
(2008) made a similar determination for
Alabama shad while studying the
phylogenetic relationships across North
American Alosa species. Their study
also indicated that the genetic
bottleneck occurred when the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
originating ancestor(s) of Alabama shad
traveled around the Florida peninsula
into the Gulf of Mexico during or after
the Pleistocene and became
geographically separated from Atlantic
populations.
Loss of genetic diversity can reduce
an organism’s adaptive capacity to
respond to differing environmental
conditions and increase a species’
extinction risk. However, population
bottlenecks can also have positive
outcomes on a species’ genetic diversity,
fitness, and extinction risk (Bouzat
2010). Moyer (2012) noted that
populations or species that have
undergone population bottlenecks
throughout their evolutionary history
may have reduced genetic load. Genetic
load is the combination of harmful
genes that are hidden in the genetic
make-up of a population and may be
transmitted to descendants. The genetic
load of a population reduces the fitness
of that population relative to a
population composed entirely of
individuals having optimal genotypes.
Hedrick (2001) stated that a population
with reduced genetic load resulting
from a bottleneck may have increased
viability and be more likely to recover
from near-extinction than a population
that has not experienced such an
evolutionary bottleneck.
Modeling conducted by Moyer (2012)
indicated that the Pleistocene bottleneck
for Alabama shad was intense. The
maintenance of genetic variability in a
finite population can be understood
through the concept of effective
population size, which is not an actual
abundance estimate but an estimate of
the number of individuals in an ideal
population that would give the same
rate of random genetic drift (change in
the frequency of a gene variant) as in the
actual population (Lande 1988). The
effective population size for Alabama
shad during the bottleneck was
estimated to be between 76 and 398,
meaning 76–398 individuals is the
population size during the Pleistocene
estimated to have been necessary to
result in the relatively low genetic
diversity observed in members of the
species today. Moyer (2012) also noted
that the bottleneck event was prolonged
(145–987 shad generations) and he
concluded that it may have purged
much of the species’ genetic load,
making the population less prone to
fitness decreases in the event of another
bottleneck. Moyer (2012) concluded the
risk of population decline and
extinction in Alabama shad from the
ACF River basin due to reduced genetic
diversity appears to be low and is not
of immediate importance to the short- or
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
4043
long-term persistence of Alabama shad
in the ACF River system.
In summary, we found no significant
genetic differences between Alabama
shad from different river populations,
based primarily on information
provided in Kreiser and Schaefer (2009)
and Moyer (2012). A genetic evaluation
of Alabama shad from the ACF River
system (Moyer 2012) showed genetic
diversity is low, likely resulting from a
bottleneck that occurred during the
Pleistocene rather than any recent
anthropogenic factors. Moyer (2012)
stated that the reduced genetic diversity
resulting from the Pleistocene
bottleneck potentially reduced the
genetic load of Alabama shad, which
decreases their extinction risk and
increases their viability and chances of
recovery. We ranked diversity, on its
own, to be at low risk of contributing
significantly to the current and
foreseeable risk of extinction for
Alabama shad.
Threats Assessment
Next we consider whether any of the
five factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of
the ESA are contributing to the
extinction risk of Alabama shad.
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Effects to Alabama shad’s riverine
habitat are contributing to the species’
extinction risk now, and are likely to
continue into the foreseeable future. The
primary cause for declines in Alabama
shad populations is believed to be the
presence of dams, which can block
access to upstream spawning habitats
(NMFS et al. 2012, Mettee and O’Neil
2003). Existing literature cites other
threats to Alabama shad, including
dredging (Mettee and O’Neil 2003),
sedimentation (Mettee and O’Neil 2003),
and water quality degradation (Mettee et
al. 1996), although there is little specific
information on how Alabama shad
populations may be responding to those
threats. Recently identified and ongoing
potential threats to Alabama shad
include water allocation issues, climate
change, and the Deepwater Horizon
(DWH) oil spill.
Dams
The construction of dams that block
access to upstream habitat has long been
considered the primary reason for
declines of Alabama shad and other
anadromous fish species (NMFS et al.
2012). Dynesius and Nilsson (1994) list
three of the river systems inhabited by
Alabama shad (the Mississippi,
Apalachicola, and Mobile Rivers) as
being strongly affected by the presence
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
4044
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
of dams. Despite a lack of speciesspecific data, the proliferation of
impassable structures constructed on
rivers within its range is believed to
have restricted adult Alabama shad from
reaching their historical spawning
grounds, which severely reduced or
eliminated their ability to reproduce
(Pflieger 1997, Mettee and O’Neil 2003).
Most surveys and studies of Alabama
shad focused on fish below dams
(Laurence and Yerger 1967, Mills 1972),
while collection records from state and
Federal agencies, as well as
ichthyological collections, indicate a
rarity of specimens collected upstream
of dams (Coker 1930, Etnier and Starnes
1993). In addition, similar declines in
American shad populations have
resulted from dam construction
(Limburg and Waldman 2009). Pringle
et al. (2000) note that Alosa species,
such as river herring and American
shad, have established themselves
outside their native ranges and in
landlocked populations when dams
blocked their natural habitat. In the
Mississippi River system, Alabama shad
are shown to inhabit several tributaries
but have not been recently reported
within the river mainstem. Positive
reports in the tributaries without reports
from the mainstem could indicate the
presence of landlocked populations of
Alabama shad or it could indicate that
shad were present in the mainstem, but
not surveyed or detected.
Within the state of Iowa there are 10
locks and dams on the Upper
Mississippi River (north of the
confluence with the Ohio River) and an
additional 7 locks and dams to the south
that could prevent Alabama shad from
reaching historical spawning grounds
(Steuck et al. 2010). Noting that large
numbers of Alabama shad congregated
below Keokuk Dam, Iowa, but few were
ever captured above it, Coker (1930)
reasoned that the dam likely limited the
upstream passage of the species in the
Upper Mississippi River. Dams in
Mississippi River tributaries also block
Alabama shad from reaching spawning
habitat. Construction of dams in the
McClelland-Kerr Arkansas River
Navigation System in the early 1970s
may have led to the extirpation of
Alabama shad in that system (M. Oliver,
Chief of Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and
Game Commission, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, November 5, 2013). The
Denison and Altus Dams block access to
habitat in the Red and Washita Rivers
(Smith et al. 2011).
Dams have been constructed at or
below the fall line in many river
systems along the Gulf Coast and
prevent spawning migrations into the
Piedmont (NMFS et al. 2012). In Georgia
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
and Alabama, there is evidence that
Alabama shad historically occurred
above the fall line in the Flint and
Chattahoochee Rivers (Mettee and
O’Neil 2003, Couch et al. 1996) and in
the upper Coosa and Tallapoosa River
systems (Freeman et al. 2005). An
Alabama shad record exists above the
fall line into the Piedmont from the
Cahaba River, Alabama (Mettee et al.
1996). There are many locks, dams, and
other impoundments in the Mobile
River basin that cumulatively impound
approximately 44 percent of the river
mainstem length in the basin as well as
portions of many tributary streams
(Pringle et al. 2000). Only a few
Alabama shad have been found in the
Tombigbee River, a tributary of the
Mobile River, since the construction of
the Tombigbee lock system in the
waterway in 1901 (M. Roberts, Curator
of Fishes, Mississippi Museum of
Natural Science, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, October 21, 2013). On
the Alabama River, Claiborne Lock and
Dam was opened for navigation in 1969
(Freeman et al. 2005). Upstream from
Claiborne Lock and Dam, Millers Ferry
Lock and Dam was constructed for the
purpose of both power generation and
navigation, with the lock opening in
1969 and power coming on line in 1970.
Numerous juvenile Alabama shad were
recorded in the Alabama River in 1951,
the late 1960s, and the early 1970s
(Boschung 1992, Mettee and O’Neil
2003). However, only two individuals
have been caught in the Alabama River
in more recent years, one in 1993 below
Claiborne Lock and Dam and one in
1995 below Miller’s Ferry Lock and
Dam (Smith et al. 2011). In 2009,
conservation locking during spawning
season was instituted at Claiborne Lock
and Dam and Miller’s Ferry Lock and
Dam (Simcox 2009). In 2014 and 2015,
conservation locking coupled with
stocking of Alabama shad was
undertaken to provide access above
Claiborne and Miller’s Ferry Locks and
Dams and to enhance Alabama shad
populations in the river system.
Legislation focused on flood control,
navigation, and hydropower passed in
the late 1920s through the mid-1940s
resulted in the development and
construction of over a dozen major
impoundments on the mainstem
Missouri River, but there are
approximately 17,200 minor dams and
reservoirs on the river and its
tributaries, most of which are small,
local irrigation structures (USACE
2006). Alabama shad spawn in the
Missouri River, as well as two of its
tributaries, the Gasconade and Osage
Rivers (Smith et al. 2011). The
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Powersite Dam, a hydroelectric dam,
was constructed far upstream in the
Missouri portion of the White River in
1913. In 2006, researchers collected the
first Alabama shad in the White River
(Buchanan et al. 2012); the collected
specimens were juveniles believed to
have been spawned in the river. The
Remmel Dam was constructed on the
Ouachita River in 1924 to provide
electrical power for southern Arkansas
and surrounding states. While the dam
blocks access to upstream habitat for
most of the year, Alabama shad are
successfully spawning in the Ouachita
and Little Missouri Rivers (Buchanan
1999). Buchanan et al. (1999) note that
during March and April of most years,
the peak months of the spring spawning
run, high water frequently flows over
and around the structure, allowing
Alabama shad to move into habitats
upstream of Remmel Dam.
The Elba-Pea River Dam was
constructed for power generation on the
Pea River tributary of the
Choctawhatchee River in the early
1900s. Studies indicate there are small
spawning populations of Alabama shad
in the Choctawhatchee and Pea Rivers
(Barkuloo 1993, Adams et al. 2000,
Mettee and O’Neil 2003, Young 2010).
Dams were constructed on the Conecuh/
Escambia (Point A Dam) and
Apalachicola Rivers (JWLD) beginning
in 1929 and 1947, respectively. River
traffic on the Apalachicola River
resulted in the lock being operated
frequently, allowing passage and
sustaining reproduction of the resident
Alabama shad population. Historically,
JWLD was operated continuously 24
hours per day for commercial barge
traffic (Sammons 2013). With the
elimination of commercial traffic in the
late 1960s, lock operation was reduced
to 8 hours per day for on-demand
passage of recreational boats, reducing
the number of lockages to less than 100
per year from a high of 1200. Barge
traffic decreased and lock operation
became infrequent when navigational
dredging ceased in 2001 (J. Wilcox,
FFWCC, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, November 12, 2013). Recently,
conservation locking on the
Apalachicola River has given Alabama
shad access to previously blocked
habitat upstream of JWLD, although 15
other impoundments/reservoirs
currently exist upstream on the
Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers (NMFS
et al. 2012). Populations of Alabama
shad continue to use the Conecuh/
Escambia and ACF River systems for
spawning.
Dams are believed to be the primary
reason for declines in all three of the
anadromous species native to the Gulf
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
of Mexico (USFWS 2009a). In addition
to Alabama shad, anadromous Gulf
sturgeon and striped bass (Morone
saxatilis) have also been blocked by
dams from accessing upstream habitat
in river systems draining into the Gulf.
Gulf sturgeon were listed as threatened
in 1991 (56 FR 49653) and occur in river
systems from Louisiana to Florida, in
nearshore bays and estuaries, and in the
Gulf of Mexico. While overfishing
caused initial declines in Gulf sturgeon
populations, the listing determination
cited dams as a current threat to the
species. Striped bass were native to Gulf
of Mexico rivers from the Suwannee
River in Florida to the rivers draining
into Lake Pontchartrain in eastern
Louisiana and southwestern
Mississippi. Striped bass populations
began declining in the early 1900s, and
by the mid-1960s had disappeared from
all Gulf rivers except for the ACF River
system of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia
(USFWS 2009a). In addition to blocking
upstream habitat, it is believed that
downstream effects from the dam, such
as impaired water quality and
channelization may have prevented
successful spawning (USFWS 2009a).
The USFWS and Gulf states began
cooperative efforts to restore and
maintain Gulf striped bass populations
in the late 1960s, mainly through
stocking of hatchery-raised fingerlings,
and this effort continues today (USFWS
2009b). Related anadromous Alosa
species on the East Coast, such as the
American shad, have also experienced
declines due to dams blocking access to
upstream habitat (Limburg and
Waldman 2009).
Spawning populations of Alabama
shad inhabit the Meramec, Gasconade,
Suwannee, and Pascagoula River
systems, all of which are free-flowing
systems unmodified by dams (Heise et
al. 2005, MDC 2001, 2015, Mickle et al.
2010; J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. to
K. Shotts, NMFS, November 12, 2013).
However, other spawning populations
of Alabama shad, including the largest
known spawning population in the ACF
River system, use river systems that
have been dammed since the early to
mid-1900s. Recent conservation locking
is currently having a positive effect on
Alabama shad in the ACF River system,
and this population has been considered
to be the largest population since at
least 1967 (McBride 2000).
While dams are known to impede
upstream access to habitat, access may
still be possible under certain
conditions. Fish may be able to pass
upstream and downstream during high
water conditions at ‘‘low head’’ dams,
which are low vertical structures that
have been constructed across rivers or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
streams to raise the water level,
normally producing vertical water
surface drops of one to several feet. Fish
may also pass through navigation locks
when they are open for vessel traffic.
Coker (1929) noted lack of observation
in locks. However, Zigler et al. (2004)
note that there is considerable
opportunity for fish to use some locks
for upstream and downstream
movement. Ickes (2014) states that all of
the dams on the Upper Mississippi
River are ‘‘semi-permeable’’ to fish
passage in that they all have locks that
fish could use to move upstream and
downstream. With the exception of two
of the locks, all are open and run-of-theriver for part of the year, up to as much
as 35 percent of the time annually (Ickes
2014).
Zigler et al. (2004) found that the
dams on the Upper Mississippi River
are typically low head dams that allow
fish passage under certain conditions.
Downriver fish passage can occur
through the locks and gated sections of
the dam, as well as over the top of the
dam (Wilcox 1999). Fish can sometimes
swim over low head dams when water
levels in the river are high enough,
although Wilcox (1999) notes that most
upriver passage on the Upper
Mississippi River occurs through the
gated sections of the dams. Zigler et al.
(2004) observed that navigation dams
are operated with partially closed dam
gates during most of the year to increase
dam head and maintain water levels in
navigation pools. Fish can likely pass
downstream through partially closed
dam gates unharmed (Zigler et al. 2004,
Moen et al. 1992). Upstream passage is
possible, but likely impeded to some
degree, when gates are partially closed
due to increased current velocity, which
increases with increasing dam head
(Zigler et al. 2004). In a tagging study of
paddlefish, a species selected as
representative of migratory fish species
whose movements have likely been
adversely affected by dams, Zigler et al.
(2004) showed 12–33 percent of the
tagged fish moved upstream,
downstream, or both during years with
high river discharge through the low
head dams, but no movement was
observed during time periods with a
weak flood pulse. Studies by Brooks et
al. (2009) and Tripp and Garvey (2011)
in the Upper Mississippi River found
that the degree to which upriver
movement was impeded by lock and
dam structures varied among species,
but that each of their 5 study species
had the capability to negotiate dams
whether the lock gates were closed or
open. Wilcox (1999) found similar
results in that strong swimming species
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
4045
(e.g., sturgeon, bass, and herrings) had
the most success moving upriver
through structures, but Alabama shad
and other migratory fish species
included in the study were also able to
move upstream through Upper
Mississippi River locks and dams when
hydraulic conditions were favorable.
Wilcox (1999) described the difference
in hydraulic conditions when gates are
in the open and closed positions.
Velocities through the gated sections of
the dams are highest when dam gates
are in the water (closed). When the dam
gates are raised from the water (open)
during higher levels of river discharge,
uncontrolled conditions exist, and open
channel flow occurs in the gate bay
openings. Opportunity for upriver fish
passage through dams is greatest during
uncontrolled conditions due to the
lower velocities through the dam gate
openings. Dams with lower controlled
discharge capacity may therefore
present more frequent and longer
windows of opportunity for upriver fish
passage than dams with higher
discharge capacity (Wilcox 1999).
USFWS (2012) conducted a 2-year
study starting in 2010 to determine
whether Lock and Dam #1 (a low head
dam) creates a barrier to fish passage on
the Osage River, which supports a
spawning population of Alabama shad.
USFWS (2012) determined through
captures of pallid and hybrid sturgeon
marked in other studies that Lock and
Dam #1 was passable at certain flows,
but presented a barrier at others. Fish
passage upstream of Lock and Dam #1
was detected by USFWS (2012). Passage
was determined through collection of
fish above and below the dam, rather
than by acoustically or radio tracking
fish. Therefore it is unknown whether
upstream passage was achieved by fish
swimming over the dam or passing
through the lock. However, since
upstream passage is typically more
difficult for fish due to swimming
against the river current, it is likely that
downstream passage is also possible
since upstream passage was
documented to occur. USFWS (2012)
also noted that the 115-year-old dam
was unstable and would need to be
removed or repaired in the very near
future.
While dams are believed to be the
main cause of the initial decline of
Alabama shad, and continue to block
habitat and cause downstream effects
today, few new dams are being built
(Graf 1999). Some dams in the United
States date back centuries. The greatest
rate of increase in reservoir storage
occurred from the late 1950s to the late
1970s, with more dams (and some of the
largest) built in the 1960s than in any
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
4046
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
other decade (Graf 1999). In the ‘‘golden
age’’ of U.S. dam building, thousands of
large and small dams were built to
supply power, reduce flood hazard,
improve navigation, and impound water
for irrigation and urban water supply
with little thought to the environmental
impacts, long-term fate, inevitable aging,
and need for continued maintenance,
renovation, or even removal of dams
(Doyle et al. 2003, Pejchar and Warner
2001). There have been few new dams
built since the mid-1980s and the
nation’s era of dam building is over
(Graf 1999). Further, the aging of
America’s dams, coupled with
increasing awareness of their
environmental costs, has brought dam
decommissioning and removal to the
attention of the scientific community,
management agencies, and the general
public (Doyle et al. 2003). It is only
since the late 1990s that the topic of
dam removal has become common due
to the convergence of economic,
environmental, and regulatory concerns
(Doyle et al. 2003). An understanding
about how dams severely impair freeflowing rivers has become firmly
established both in the United States
and abroad and this knowledge has
entered into the public debate on river
conservation, both in terms of greater
willingness of reservoir managers to
minimize downstream ecological effects
and of increased calls for outright dam
removal (Poff and Hart 2002).
By 2020, an estimated 85 percent of
the dams in the United States will be
near the end of their operational lives
(Doyle et al. 2003). The current
intensification of economic and
environmental concerns is coinciding
with a policy window in which many
private dams are coming up for
regulatory re-licensing with FERC and
operational guidelines for publiclyoperated dams are being reviewed
(Doyle et al. 2003). Stanley and Doyle
(2003) predict that the aging of the U.S.
dam infrastructure will make dam
removal even more common in the
future. American Rivers (2015) reports
that 1,300 dams were removed between
1912 and 2015. Lovett (2014) notes that
1,150 of those dams were removed in
the last 20 years, most of which were
dams lower than 5 meters (16.4 feet) but
also taller dams in recent years. In 2004,
2012, and 2013, 5 dams within the
current range of Alabama shad in the
ACF and Alabama River systems were
removed (American Rivers 2015).
Another 10 dams were removed since
1999 in the historical range of Alabama
shad in the Mississippi, Tennessee, and
Ohio Rivers (American Rivers 2015).
The rapid aging of dams (especially
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
small ones) and the costs of maintaining
old dams suggests that dam removal
will continue for the foreseeable future
(Poff and Hart 2002). The benefits of
dams have been routinely exaggerated
and the costs have been frequently
underestimated, prompting policymakers to increasingly consider dam
removal as a policy option (Pejchar and
Warner 2001). The cost of repairing a
small dam can be as much as three
times greater than the cost of removing
it (Born et al. 1998). In contrast, many
cost-effective methods for water
conservation in cities already exist, and
new technologies are constantly
evolving that will enable even greater
efficiencies, reducing the amount of
water that needs to be extracted from
rivers through the use of dams and
reservoirs (Richter and Thomas 2007).
As dams in the U.S. age beyond their
intended design lives (Doyle et al.
2008), some states are providing
incentives to remove dams as means of
river restoration (Ardon and Bernhardt
2009).
Besides dam removal, various designs
of fishways or fish ladders have been
developed to enable fish to pass
upstream of barrier dams. The
recognized need to pass fish upstream of
dams and other obstacles inspired many
seminal studies on fish swimming
performance, energetics, and
biomechanics (Castro-Santos et al.
2009). Within the last 50 years fishways
and other passage operations have
become increasingly sophisticated and
efficient, their design a product of
collaboration between hydraulic
engineers and biologists (Roscoe and
Hinch 2010). The presence of a fishway
alone does not guarantee that the fish
are able to pass upstream of the barrier
to their movement and fishways do not
always perform as intended (Roscoe and
Hinch 2010). However, upstream
passage technologies are considered to
be well developed and well understood
for the main anadromous species,
including Alosa species (Larinier and
Marmulla 2004). In the ACF and
Alabama River systems, Federal, state,
and non-governmental organizations are
collaborating and utilizing existing
facilities (i.e., opening navigation locks)
during spawning season to pass
Alabama shad and other species
upstream, with demonstrated success in
the ACF River system, but with
unknown results in the Alabama River.
River restoration will play an
increasing role in environmental
management and policy decisions, and
has even become a highly profitable
business (Bernhardt et al. 2005, Ardon
and Bernhardt 2009). Bernhardt et al.
(2005) synthesized information on
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
37,099 river restoration projects in the
National River Restoration Science
Synthesis (NRRSS) database. Fish
passage is one of the four most
commonly stated goals of river
restoration, along with water quality
management, instream habitat
improvement, and riparian
management. The NRRSS database
shows that of the 58 percent of projects
where cost information was available,
$9.1 billion has been spent on river
restoration projects since 1970.
Bernhardt et al. (2005) notes that the
majority of the money ($7.5 billion)
spent on restoration was spent between
1990–2003, indicating that river
restoration is a relatively recent and
growing phenomenon. Specific river
flow patterns cue anadromous species
like Alabama shad to migrate and
reproduce. To mitigate negative effects
of flow patterns created by dams, dam
operations are increasingly being
adapted toward releasing
‘‘environmental flows,’’ the appropriate
quantity, quality, and timing of water
flows required to sustain freshwater and
estuarine ecosystems (Lehner et al.
2011).
In summary, dams have impacted
anadromous species populations and
are believed to be the primary cause for
the observed decline of Alabama shad.
Existing dams continue to block access
to upstream spawning habitat, although
few new dams are being built today. The
current diminished abundance of
Alabama shad is a reflection of
historical effects of the dams over
decades, although the threat to Alabama
shad from existing dams may be
reduced with effective fish passage,
conservation locking, dam removal, and
other forms of river restoration. We
believe that the presence of dams is
contributing a moderate level of risk to
the overall current extinction risk of
Alabama shad, but could decrease in the
foreseeable future with the increasing
focus on restoring access to fish habitat
blocked by dams.
Water Quality
Changes in water quality parameters
(turbidity, flow, oxygen content, and
pollutants) are a potential threat to
Alabama shad. The presence of dams,
dredging, and watershed activities can
alter water quality in riverine and
coastal habitat used by Alabama shad.
In addition to blocking access to habitat,
dams can degrade spawning, nursery,
and foraging habitat downstream by
altering flow, water temperature, and
oxygen levels. Mettee et al. (2005) state
that seasonal flow patterns in dammed
rivers have been replaced by pulsed
releases that alter water temperature and
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
DO levels, as well as nutrient and
sediment transport.
Dredging can also affect water quality.
Several decades ago, when vessel traffic
on the Apalachicola River was much
greater, the USACE frequently dredged
the river to maintain depth of the
navigation channel. The dredged
material was placed along the river
banks and eventually became resuspended in the river. The dredged
material (finer sands and clays) settled
on the river bottom and filled in spaces
between grains of the coarser sands and
gravel that served as spawning habitat
for Alabama shad (Mills 1972). McBride
(2000) reports that dredging affected
Alosa species, including Alabama shad,
in Florida rivers through re-suspension
of particulate matter in the water
column, alteration of natural flow
patterns, and removal of river-bottom
habitat.
Alabama shad and their habitat are
also exposed to sediment and pollutants
introduced from land-based activities.
Agriculture, silviculture, and industrial,
commercial, and residential
development in the watershed
contribute to degraded water quality in
rivers and coastal waters inhabited by
Alabama shad. Wastewater treatment,
municipal stormwater, industrial
discharges, land clearing, and
construction of impervious surfaces are
examples of activities that increase
runoff into the watershed, introduce
sediment and pollutants, and lead to
low DO. There are no specific data
linking exposure to altered water quality
parameters with responses in Alabama
shad populations. However, McBride
(2000) noted that the effects of declining
water quality from low DO and
industrial discharges were seen in other
Alosa species on the Atlantic Coast
throughout the nineteenth century.
States are required to report water
quality conditions to the EPA under
Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act. We reviewed the water
quality assessment reports (available at
https://www.epa.gov/waters/ir/
index.html) for rivers occupied by
Alabama shad spawning populations, as
well as the Mobile/Alabama River
system where Alabama shad
conservation activities are occurring.
Rivers were assessed by the states
between 2008 and 2014, with most
rivers assessed more recently (2012–
2014). The water quality assessment
reports provide information on river
segments that have good water quality,
as well as segments that are impaired.
While the reports list what the
impairment is based on (e.g., the
presence of heavy metals, sediment, or
low DO), the reports rarely specify the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
source of the impairment (e.g., dam
releases, dredging, industrial discharge,
or stormwater runoff). However, the
water quality assessment reports
provide some information on the water
quality conditions Alabama shad are
exposed to in the riverine areas they
use.
We reviewed the water quality
assessment reports for the following
river systems: (1) ACF; (2) the Missouri/
Gasconade/Osage; (3) Meramec; (4)
White; (5) Ouachita/Little Missouri; (6)
Pascagoula/Leaf/Chickasawhay; (7)
Mobile/Alabama; (8) Escambia/
Conecuh; (9) Choctawhatchee/Pea; and
(10) the Suwanee. Of the approximately
4,500 combined river mi in these
systems, water quality was deemed good
for 2,150 or 48 percent of the assessed
mi. Approximately 2,100 mi (47
percent) were designated as impaired
based on one or more factors, and 275
mi were not assessed. Within each river
system, between 6 percent and 100
percent of the river mi assessed were
deemed to be impaired (too polluted or
otherwise degraded to meet water
quality standards) for one or more
factors.
With the exception of the Meramec
and White Rivers, all or portions of
every other river system we looked at
were impaired due to mercury levels.
The EPA states that coal-burning power
plants are the largest human-caused
source of mercury emissions into the air
within the United States, accounting for
over 50 percent of all domestic humancaused mercury emissions (EPA 2014a).
Mercury in the air may settle into rivers,
lakes, or estuaries, where it can be
transferred to methylmercury through
microbial activity. Methylmercury can
accumulate in fish at levels that may
harm the fish and the other animals that
eat them (EPA 2014b). Other heavy
metals (copper, zinc, and lead) were
found in impaired waters in the
Meramec and Ouachita/Little Missouri
River systems. There are no known
studies on the effects to Alabama shad
from exposure to, or accumulation of,
mercury and other heavy metals.
All river systems we evaluated, with
the exception of the Meramec and the
Pascagoula/Leaf/Chicksawhay River
systems, had some impaired river
segments due to low DO. Low DO can
cause lethal and sublethal (metabolic,
growth, feeding) effects in fish. Different
species have different oxygen
requirements. For instance, sturgeon
species, considered to be benthic
species, are known to be more highly
sensitive to low DO (less than 5
milligrams per liter (mg/L)) than other
fish species (Niklitschek and Secor
2009a, 2009b). DO is often lowest at the
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
4047
benthos compared to the water column.
Tagatz (1961) found that juvenile
American shad (an Alosa species more
closely related to Alabama shad than
sturgeon) are able to acclimate to low
oxygen concentrations (2–4 mg/L) when
other environmental conditions are
satisfactory. Howell and Simpson (1994)
looked at the abundance of a variety of
finfish captured across DO levels in
Long Island Sound, New York, and
found that American shad were
captured in 79 percent of the tows in
waters with DO greater than or equal to
3 mg/L. American shad were captured
in 40 percent of the tows with DO levels
of 2–2.9 mg/L, but no captures were
made in waters where DO was less than
2 mg/L. The classification of Alabama
shad as a pelagic species, meaning they
inhabit the water column, indicates they
are present above the benthos in areas
where DO levels are usually higher.
This suggests that Alabama shad could
be less susceptible to the effects of low
DO than other species, such as sturgeon.
Segments of several river systems
inhabited by Alabama shad were
designated as impaired due to biota. The
water quality assessment reports define
this category as ‘‘the community of
aquatic animals (fish, reptiles,
amphibians, aquatic insects or others)
normally expected in a healthy
waterway is unhealthy, reduced, or
absent, and the exact cause of the
problem is unknown.’’ The
Chattahoochee River was designated
impaired based on fish biota. Georgia
DNR (2008) reported to the EPA that
studies completed during 1998–2003
showed modification of the fish
community in the Chattahoochee River.
The general cause was determined to be
the lack of fish habitat due to stream
sedimentation. Even with access to the
Chattahoochee River restored as a result
of conservation locking at JWLD,
Alabama shad preferentially spawn in
the Flint River over the Chattahoochee
River. Sammons (2014) conducted a
study to determine habitat usage by
Alabama shad in the Flint and
Chattahoochee Rivers and did not find
a single shad in the Chattahoochee
during 4 years of tracking. The Flint and
Osage Rivers are designated impaired
due to benthic and aquatic
macroinvertebrates, respectively. The
Leaf River is also designated impaired
due to biological impairment. It is
unknown whether these conditions
affect Alabama shad.
Sedimentation was listed as a
potential threat to Alabama shad
(Mettee and O’Neil 2003). Segments of
the White, Leaf, and Conecuh Rivers
were designated as impaired due to
sedimentation. Other causes of
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
4048
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
impairments listed in the water quality
assessment reports include the presence
of PCBs (Chattahoochee River), organic
material (Conecuh River), algal growth/
chlorophyll-a (Suwannee River), and
salinity/solids/chlorides/sulfites
(Suwannee River). It is unknown how
these conditions affect Alabama shad.
We also reviewed the National Coastal
Condition Report (NCCR) published by
the EPA to gauge the recent water
quality conditions experienced by
Alabama shad in coastal waters. The
NCCR IV (EPA 2012) graded the overall
conditions of the Gulf Coast region as
‘‘fair,’’ with an overall condition score
of 2.4 out of a possible 5.0.
Comparatively, the overall condition of
the nation’s coastal waters was also
rated ‘‘fair,’’ with an overall condition
score of 3.0. Using 2003–2006 data, the
water quality index (based on
parameters such as dissolved nitrogen,
phosphorus, and oxygen, chlorophyll a
concentrations, and water clarity) for
the coastal waters of the Gulf Coast
region overall was rated as ‘‘fair.’’ Only
10 percent of the region was rated as
‘‘poor,’’ although estuaries with ‘‘poor’’
water quality conditions were found in
all five Gulf states. The Gulf Coast
region is rated ‘‘good’’ for DO
concentrations, with less than 5 percent
of the coastal area rated ‘‘poor’’ for this
factor. Although hypoxia is a relatively
local occurrence in Gulf Coast estuaries,
the occurrence of hypoxia in the Gulf
Coast shelf waters is much more
widespread. The Gulf of Mexico
hypoxic zone is the second-largest area
of oxygen-depleted waters in the world
(Rabalais et al. 2002b). This zone, which
occurs in waters on the Louisiana shelf
to the west of the Mississippi River
Delta, was not assessed for NCCR IV
(EPA 2012) and the ‘‘good’’ rating for
DO concentrations in the Gulf Coast
region provided in the report is not
indicative of offshore conditions.
Because the life history of the Alabama
shad in offshore Gulf of Mexico waters
is unknown, it is not possible to
determine if these conditions affect
Alabama shad.
In summary, water quality has been
cited by multiple studies as a threat to
Alabama shad (e.g., Mills 1972, Mettee
et al. 1996, 2005, McBride 2000). Water
quality assessments required by the
Clean Water Act, as well as assessments
of water quality along the Gulf Coast
reported in NCCR IV (EPA 2012),
indicate that water quality in some
portions of the Alabama shad’s range are
good, while other areas are impaired by
heavy metals, low DO, and other issues.
Although it is likely that Alabama shad
are exposed to water quality issues in
their coastal and riverine environments,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
there are no clear data directly linking
water quality problems with declines in
Alabama shad, and the species may be
less susceptible to some impairment
factors (e.g., low DO) than other species.
The NCCR I–IV reports (EPA 2001,
2005, 2008, 2012) show that coastal
water quality in the Gulf of Mexico has
improved since 2001. As coastal
populations grow and industrial,
commercial, and residential
development increases, water quality
issues could also grow. At this time it
is unknown what risk water quality
presents to Alabama shad now or in the
foreseeable future.
Water Allocation
Water allocation issues are a growing
concern in the southeastern United
States. Transferring water from one river
basin to another can fundamentally and
irreversibly alter natural water flows in
both the originating and receiving
basins, and exacerbate any existing
water quality issues. Reallocation of
water between river basins can affect
DO levels, temperature, and the ability
of the basin of origin to assimilate
pollutants (Georgia Water Coalition
2006).
Water allocation issues have
traditionally occurred primarily in the
Western United States, but they are also
occurring in the Southeast, with one of
the biggest interstate allocation disputes
occurring between Alabama, Florida,
and Georgia (SELC 2015a, Ruhl 2003).
These three states have fought over the
future allocation of water in the ACF
and Alabama/Coosa/Tallapoosa (ACT)
River basins for decades (SELC 2015a)
as population growth is driving
competing water demands for urban,
agricultural, and ecological uses. A 2006
study by the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO 2006) reported that Georgia
had the sixth highest population growth
(26.4 percent) in the nation, followed by
Florida (23.5 percent). The per capita
water use in Georgia has been estimated
to be 8 to 10 percent greater than the
national average, and 17 percent higher
than per capita use in neighboring states
(UGA 2002). Georgia needs water to
supply the large metro Atlanta area;
Alabama needs its water supply for
power generation, municipal uses, and
fisheries; and Florida seeks to maintain
its shellfish industry in Apalachicola
Bay (SELC 2015a). Water shortages have
already occurred and are expected to
continue due to the rapid population
growth anticipated over the next 50
years (Cummings et al. 2003). In an
ongoing U.S. Supreme Court case, in
2014 Florida sued Georgia seeking to
establish that it is entitled to equitable
apportionment of the waters of the ACF
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
River Basin and appropriate injunctive
relief against Georgia to sustain an
adequate flow of fresh water into the
Apalachicola Region (State of Florida v.
State of Georgia, No. 142, Original).
It is not known how much water is
already being removed from rivers used
by Alabama shad because there is little
information concerning actual
withdrawals and virtually no
information concerning water
discharges. This is particularly the case
for municipal and industrial uses
because water use permits are not
required in Georgia for withdrawals less
than 100,000 gallons per day
(Cummings et al. 2003) and discharge
permits are not required unless
discharge contains selected toxic
materials. Agricultural water use
permits are not quantified in any
meaningful way, thus neither water
withdrawals nor return flows are
measured (Fisher et al. 2003). The
Metropolitan North Georgia Water
Planning District, which was created
through legislation in 2001 and includes
15 counties and 93 cities (Cole and
Carver 2011), is the only major
metropolitan area in the country with
more than 100 jurisdictions
implementing a long-term
comprehensive water management
program that is required and enforced.
Since plan implementation, total water
consumption in the region has dropped
by 10 percent despite a one million
person increase in population. The
District’s Water Supply and Water
Conservation Management Plan (2009)
recommends that the Georgia General
Assembly consider requiring permits for
withdrawals less than 100,000 gallons
per day within the Metro Water District.
Large withdrawals of water (such as
those for municipal and agricultural
use) from rivers result in reduced water
quantity and quality (altered flows,
higher temperatures, and lowered DO).
Florida and Georgia have developed
water management plans in attempts to
provide comprehensive basin-wide
strategies for management of the water
resources; Alabama is also developing a
plan. Many cost-effective methods for
water conservation in cities already
exist, and new technologies are
constantly evolving that will enable
even greater efficiencies, reducing the
amount of water that needs to be
extracted from rivers (Richter and
Thomas 2007).
It is unclear whether Alabama shad in
the ACF system have been affected by
these ongoing water allocation issues.
The Georgia Ecological Services Office
of the USFWS (2015) states that several
species of snails and mussels have gone
extinct in the ACT and ACF systems
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
due to alterations in water quantity and
quality. Currently, there are 65 ESAlisted species in the ACT and ACF
systems. USFWS (2015) has provided
instream flow guidelines to Georgia,
Alabama, and Florida that describe flow
regime features that would protect these
listed species. It is unknown whether
water allocation issues contribute to
Alabama shad’s extinction risk, either
now or in the foreseeable future.
Climate Change
Changes in temperature, precipitation,
drought, flooding, and sea level due to
climate change could further exacerbate
existing water quality and quantity
issues in rivers and coastal areas used
by Alabama shad. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) in its fifth and most
recent assessment report (IPCC AR5
2014) presented four Representative
Concentration Pathways (RCPs) to
assess future climate changes, risks, and
impacts. The RCPs describe four
possible 21st century pathways of
greenhouse gas emissions and
atmospheric concentrations, air
pollutant emissions, and land use. The
IPCC did not identify any scenario as
being more likely to occur than any
other. Because we cannot predict
whether and how climate conditions
may change, it is our policy to assume
climate conditions will be similar to the
status quo in making ESA listing
determinations (memorandum from D.
Wieting, Director of the Office of
Protected Resources, to E. Sobeck,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
regarding guidance for treatment of
climate change in NMFS ESA decisions,
January 4, 2016). In this listing
determination, we use a baseline
scenario, which is one without
additional efforts to constrain emissions
of greenhouse gases, leading to the
RCP8.5 pathway, a scenario with very
high greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC
AR5 2014), in evaluating potential
climate effects to Alabama shad.
The southern distributional limit for
all Alosa species is believed to be
determined by water temperature
(McBride 2000). Although there have
been no studies on the thermal
tolerances of Alabama shad, other Alosa
species cannot tolerate water
temperatures greater than 32 °C;
therefore, it is likely that Alabama shad
cannot tolerate high water temperatures
(Beitinger 1999). Under RCP8.5, the
predicted increase in temperature from
the 1850–1900 period to the end of the
21st century (2081–2100) is likely to
exceed 2 °C (IPCC AR5 2014). However,
current temperature trends indicate that
warming has been less pronounced and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
less robust in the Southeast United
States. Within North America, the
Southeast is predicted to have the
smallest changes in mean annual
temperature, between 1.5–2.5 °C by the
mid-21st century (IPCC AR5 2014). It is
unknown what level of temperature
increases could affect the current
distribution and range of Alabama shad.
Precipitation can affect riverine
habitat used by Alabama shad through
increased runoff and introduction of
sediment and pollutants. While
precipitation is generally expected to
increase for the northern portion of
North America, little to no change in the
annual average precipitation over the
average recorded for 1986–2005 is
predicted to occur in the Southeast by
the mid-21st century (2046–2065) under
RCP8.5 (IPCC AR5 2014). This is also
the prediction for the late 21st century
(2081–2100) for most of the Alabama
shad’s range. A small portion of the
species’ western range is in an area
where greater than or equal to 66
percent of the prediction models for the
late 21st century indicated changes in
annual precipitation would occur,
although the models could not predict
whether precipitation would increase or
decrease.
Similar to increased precipitation,
increased flooding can also affect
riverine habitat used by Alabama shad
through increased runoff and
introduction of sediment and pollutants.
Conversely, increased periods of
drought that result in lower than normal
river flows can restrict access to habitat
areas, expose previously submerged
habitats, interrupt spawning cues,
reduce thermal refugia, and exacerbate
water quality issues, such as water
temperature, reduced DO, nutrient
levels, and contaminants. IPCC AR5
(2014) states that changes in the
magnitude or frequency of flood events
have not been attributed to climate
change, as floods are generated by
multiple mechanisms (e.g., land use,
seasonal changes, and urbanization).
IPCC AR5 (2014) also states that it is not
possible to attribute changes in drought
frequency in North America to climate
change.
Sea level rise resulting from climate
change is projected to continue during
the 21st century, at a rate faster than
observed from 1971 to 2010. The
projected increase in sea level for the
period 2081–2100, relative to 1986–
2005, is 0.45 to 0.82 meters with
medium confidence under the scenario
RCP8.5 (IPCC AR5 2014). Sea level rise
is expected to occur in more than 95
percent of the ocean area by the end of
the 21st century, although it will not be
uniform across regions (IPCC AR5
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
4049
2014). About 70 percent of the
coastlines worldwide are projected to
experience a sea level change within
±20 percent of the global mean (IPCC
AR5 2014). A rise in sea level will likely
create more estuarine areas and push
the salt wedge farther upstream; this
will likely impact any water intake
structures located in the newly
estuarine areas and may also increase
the potential for salt water to enter
aquifers (U.S. Global Research Group
2004). Saltwater intrusion will stress the
availability of water in the southeast.
The IPCC AR5 (2014) states that in the
Southeast, ecosystems and irrigation are
projected to be particularly stressed by
decreases in water availability due to
the combination of climate change,
growing water demand, and water
transfers to urban and industrial users.
Existing water allocation issues could be
exacerbated, potentially stressing water
quality. However, it is unknown how
Alabama shad may be affected by sea
level rise in the future.
Most observations of climate change
responses in species involve alterations
in phenology (Parmesan 2006).
Phenology is the study of how seasonal
and interannual variations in the
environment affect the timing of critical
stages and events in a species’ life cycle
(Anderson et al. 2013). Phenological
shifts attributed to climate change have
been identified in both terrestrial and
aquatic biota (Ellis and Vokoun 2009).
In the marine ecosystem, the most
important physical factors affecting
phenology are water temperature and
light, with the response to and
importance of each factor being species
dependent (Anderson et al. 2013).
Importantly, climate change affects
temperature but not photoperiod or
light, which is key when considering
the environmental cues that trigger
species’ migrations.
For marine species, climate-driven
changes in temperature can modify the
phenology of annual migrations to
¨
spawning grounds (Portner and Peck
2010). Seasonal temperature increases
have been shown to correlate with
changes in the timing of fish movement,
with shifts towards earlier migrations of
anadromous fish (Quinn and Adams
1996, Juanes et al. 2004) and earlier
annual spawning events (Ahas and Aasa
2006). The importance of temperature in
regulating the behavior and dynamics of
Alosa species during spawning has been
documented in several reviews
(Aprahamian et al. 2010, Mettee and
O’Neil 2003, Quinn and Adams 1996).
Ellis and Vokoun (2009) compared
temperature records with fish surveys
for anadromous alewives in several
southern New England streams back to
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
4050
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
the 1970s. They determined that 13 °C
was a consistent predictor of spawning
run timing for alewives in one historical
and three recent stream studies over
several years. They found that stream
temperatures in the spring warmed to
13 °C about 12 days earlier in recent
years than they did in the 1970s. Ellis
and Vokoun (2009) concluded alewife
runs occur about 12 days earlier on
average than they did in the 1970s.
Aprahamian et al. (2010) used a stockrecruitment model with a temperature
component to estimate the effects on
twaite shad (A. fallax) in the Severn
Estuary in Great Britain from an
increase in temperature resulting from
climate change. They determined a 1 °C
increase in water temperature would
shift the spawning run into the River
Severn 6–10 days earlier, and a 2 °C
would shift the spawning run 16–17
days earlier. Aprahamian et al. (2010)
also predicted that a 1–2 °C temperature
increase would result in an increase in
twaite shad abundance, likely through
increased hatching success and growth
rate.
Quinn and Adams (1996) identified
shifts in spawning migrations in another
Alosa species, American shad, in
response to changes in temperature.
Records show that annual spring
warming has occurred progressively
earlier in the Columbia River since
1950. Fish counts from Bonneville Dam
indicate that the peak migration of
American shad, introduced into the
river in the late 1800s, occurs
approximately 38 days earlier than it
did in 1938 and correlates with the
warming trend. Quinn and Adams
(1996) also looked at the timing of
sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka),
and noted that while the species’
upriver migration is 6 days earlier than
it was in 1949, that period lags behind
the rate of environmental change. Quinn
and Adams (1996) state that salmon
migration is primarily controlled by
population-specific responses to cues
such as photoperiod (a factor not
affected by climate change) rather than
species-specific responses to
temperature (a factor that is affected by
climate change), as may be the case in
shad.
The differences in the environmental
cues triggering spawning migration, as
well as the life history differences,
between shad and salmon highlight how
species may be affected differently by
climate change. A species with close
links between the environments
experienced by spawning adults and
their offspring (e.g., spawning within
the migratory corridor and a brief larval
period) should behaviorally adjust the
timing of migration and spawning to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
optimize conditions for both the adult
and the offspring in response to
environmental variation. Shad spawn in
the river mainstem and have a brief
incubation period (Quinn and Adams
1996). Spawning adult shad experience
conditions that will be closely
correlated to those affecting survival of
their offspring during incubation and
hatching. In contrast, when greater
spatial and temporal separation occur
between the environmental conditions
experienced by migrating adults and
their offspring, as is the case with
salmon, genetic control over the timing
of their spawn is greater than the
response to environmental cues. This
can result in a decoupling of cues that
initiate migration (e.g., photoperiod,
which is not affected by climate change)
and the state of the target habitat that
can be affected by climate-sensitive
factors, such as temperature, flow, DO,
etc. In some Pacific salmon species,
such as sockeye, migration into
freshwater may precede spawning by
several months, fry emergence by many
months, and the time of seawater entry
by juveniles by a year or more (Groot
and Margolis 1991). These salmon move
through a mainstem migratory corridor
that is separate from the spawning and
incubation areas in tributaries that may
be subjected to different thermal and
hydrological regimes. The ability of
Alosa species to shift the timing of their
spawning migrations in response to
temperature, and the close spatial and
temporal proximity of habitats occupied
by spawning adults and newly spawned
offspring, likely buffer Alabama shad
from some aspects of climate change.
Climate change may also disrupt the
timing between the life cycles of
predators and prey (Parmesan 2006).
The presence of both the predators of
Alabama shad and their prey sources
may be shifted temporally or spatially
due to climate change. Also, changes in
water temperature could impact prey
production, with greater production in
warmer years (Aprahamian et al. 2010).
Year-class strength in American shad
has been shown to be positively
correlated with zooplankton density, as
shown by an increase in the percentage
of larval fish with food in their guts
(Aprahamian et al. 2010). However,
ocean currents, fronts, and upwelling
and downwelling zones play significant
roles in the distribution and production
of marine ecosystems, and it is not yet
predictable how these features are likely
to change in response to alterations in
temperature, precipitation, runoff,
salinity, and wind (Scavia et al. 2002).
Little is known about predators of
Alabama shad, in either the marine or
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
riverine environment. It is unknown
how phenological shifts brought on by
climate change may affect interactions
between Alabama shad, their predators,
and their prey.
In summary, under the RCP8.5
scenario, there could be a 2.6–4.8 °C
temperature increase by the end of the
21st century (2081–2100) relative to
1986–2005. However, current
temperature trends indicate that
warming has been less pronounced and
less robust in the Southeast United
States. Within North America, the
Southeast United States is predicted to
have the smallest changes in mean
annual temperature (IPCC AR5 2014).
Little to no changes in precipitation that
could increase runoff are predicted
within the range of Alabama shad. Sea
level rise resulting from climate change
is projected to continue during the 21st
century, at a rate faster than observed
from 1971 to 2010. However, it is
unknown how Alabama shad may be
affected by sea level rise in the future.
The IPCC AR5 (2014) states that in the
Southeast, ecosystems and irrigation are
projected to be particularly stressed by
decreases in water availability due to
the combination of climate change,
growing water demand, and water
transfers to urban and industrial users.
Existing water allocation issues could be
further exacerbated, potentially
stressing water quality. Most
observations of climate change
responses in species involve alterations
in phenology, the study of how seasonal
and interannual variations in the
environment affect the timing of critical
stages and events in a species’ life cycle
(Parmesan 2006, Anderson et al. 2013).
For marine species, climate-driven
changes in temperature can modify the
timing of annual migrations to spawning
grounds, which has been observed in
other Alosa species. Studies on
American shad (Quinn and Adams
1996), alewives (Ellis and Vokoun
2009), and twaite shad (Aprahamian et
al. 2010) demonstrated that those
species were able to shift their spawning
migrations earlier to adapt to warmer
temperatures occurring earlier in the
year. A comparison of responses to
climate change in American shad and
salmon showed that the behavioral
responses of adult shad to warming
temperatures (i.e., earlier spawning
migrations) should optimize conditions
for both the adults and the offspring, as
there is less spatial and temporal
separation between the environmental
conditions experienced by migrating
adults and their offspring in shad
compared to salmon (Quinn and Adams
1996, Groot and Margolis 1991).
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
However, it is unknown how spatial and
temporal changes in migration in
Alabama shad may affect both their
predator and prey relationships.
Ultimately, it is unknown how climate
change may contribute to the current
and foreseeable risk of extinction of
Alabama shad.
Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill
On April 20, 2010, while working on
an exploratory well in the Gulf of
Mexico (approximately 50 mi southeast
of the Mississippi River Delta,
Louisiana, and 87 mi south of Dauphin
Island, Alabama), the semi-submersible
DWH drilling rig experienced an
explosion and fire. The rig subsequently
sank, and oil and natural gas began
leaking into the Gulf of Mexico. The
well was temporarily capped on July 15,
2010, which significantly reduced the
amount of leaking oil, but the well was
not ultimately sealed and declared
‘‘effectively dead’’ until September 19,
2010. Estimates on the amount of
released oil varied widely and over
time, but final official estimates
indicated 53,000–62,000 barrels were
released per day as a result of the event;
the total amount of oil released into the
Gulf of Mexico was estimated at 4.9
million barrels (780,000 m3) (McNutt et
al. 2011). In addition, approximately 2.1
million gallons of chemical dispersant
were applied to surface waters (1.4
million gallons) and directly at the
wellhead (0.77 million gallons) between
May 15 and July 12, 2010 (Kujawinski
et al. 2011).
There have been no studies of the
effects of the DWH spill on Alabama
shad and no reports or collections of
shad affected by the spill. Chakrabarty
et al. (2012) estimated that the DWH
spill zone overlapped with 1.26 percent
of Alabama shad’s nearshore habitat.
This estimate is based on the percentage
of the species’ historical collection
records that occur within the spill zone.
Because few historical records for
Alabama shad exist in some Gulf Coast
systems, and almost no data exist for
Alabama shad in the marine
environment, the estimate by
Chakrabarty et al. (2012) is likely an
underestimate of the overlap of the
DWH spill zone with habitat used by
Alabama shad. However, it does confirm
that Alabama shad may have been
exposed to oil or chemical dispersants
associated with the DWH spill.
Fish exposed to oil can be impacted
directly through uptake by the gills,
ingestion of oil or oiled prey, effects on
egg and larval survival, or changes in
the ecosystem that support the fish
(USFWS 2010). Adult fish may
experience reduced growth, enlarged
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
livers, changes in heart and respiration
rates, fin erosion, and reproductive
impairment when exposed to oil
(USFWS 2010, Snyder et al. 2015). Oil
has the potential to impact spawning
success as the eggs and larvae of many
fish species are highly sensitive to oil
toxins (USFWS 2010).
There have been no studies on the
effects of the DWH spill on Alabama
shad. Based on their life history, it is
likely that the earliest and most
vulnerable life stages (eggs and larvae)
were not exposed to oil and dispersants.
The oil spill occurred in April when
females are upriver, releasing their eggs
at spawning sites. Over the summer, as
oil recovery and cleanup was occurring,
the newly spawned Alabama shad
larvae were in their riverine habitats
maturing. Alabama shad from northern
rivers start the downstream migration
toward marine waters in late summer. In
comparison, shad from Gulf Coast river
systems have been observed to stay
upriver as late as December. Therefore,
it is likely some juvenile and nonspawning adult Alabama shad were
exposed to oil and dispersants
associated with the DWH spill, but not
the actively spawning adults and early
life stages.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH) are considered the most toxic
component of crude oil to marine life
and are ubiquitous pollutants in the
marine environment (Snyder et al.
2015). Exposure to PAHs has been
linked with a variety of sublethal effects
in fish, including DNA damage, internal
and external lesions, gill and organ
abnormalities, reduced adult fitness,
altered and reduced growth, decreased
fecundity, and reduced survival to
maturity (Snyder et al. 2015). Red
snapper (Lutjanus campechanus)
sampled since 2013 show spatial
variation in tissue concentrations of
PAH metabolites (Snyder et al. 2015).
Red snapper caught closer to the
Mississippi River and the DWH spill
area had higher PAH metabolite
concentrations than snapper caught on
the west Florida shelf. Additionally, the
red snapper caught near the Mississippi
River showed a decrease in PAH
metabolite concentrations over time,
indicating an exposure event to elevated
PAHs that dissipated over time.
Meanwhile, the snapper from the west
Florida shelf showed no decrease in
PAH metabolites over time, suggesting
they were not exposed to elevated PAHs
from the DWH spill. This indicates that
the largest spawning population of
Alabama shad, the population from the
ACF River basin, and other populations
in rivers that drain into the west Florida
shelf may not have been exposed to oil
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
4051
and dispersants from the DWH spill,
although this is uncertain.
Despite widespread contamination of
offshore waters by the DWH spill and to
a lesser extent, coastal waters, the
results of a study by Moody et al. (2013)
provided little evidence for large-scale
acute or persistent oil-induced impacts
on organisms that complete all or a
portion of their life cycle within an
estuary in Point-aux-Pins, Alabama. The
abundance of resident estuarine species
declined significantly following the
DWH spill, but returned to pre-spill
abundances by 2011. There was no
significant decline in the abundance of
transient species (those that only spent
a portion of their life cycle in the
estuary), even though transient species
were more likely exposed to oiling in
the marine environment. Moody et al.
(2013) concluded that despite the
presence of localized oiling in coastal
habitats outside Louisiana, the most
severe oil impacts were largely relegated
to the deep sea. Fodrie and Heck (2011)
reviewed pre- and post-DWH fish data
collected by trawl surveys in nearshore
seagrass habitats from Louisiana to
Florida. They concluded that
immediate, catastrophic losses of 2010
year classes of marine organisms were
largely avoided, and that no shifts in
species composition occurred following
the DWH spill. Fodrie and Heck (2011)
also noted that there is increasing
evidence that the acute impacts of the
DWH spill may be concentrated in the
deep ocean rather than shallow-water,
coastal ecosystems where Alabama shad
are known to occur.
Little is known about Alabama shad
in the marine environment, even though
the species spends the majority of its
life there. We considered the potential
for effects to the species from the DWH
spill by looking at studies of other
offshore species. Rooker et al. (2013)
looked at abundance and occurrence of
the larvae of four deep-ocean species in
relation to the DWH spill: Blackfin tuna
(Thunnus atlanticus), blue marlin
(Makaira nigricans), dolphinfish
(Coryphaena hippurus), and sailfish
(Istiophorus platypterus). They
determined that both the abundance and
percent occurrence declined in 2010 for
all four species relative to the 3 years
prior to the DWH oil spill, suggesting
that changes in environmental
conditions, possibly linked to the
presence of oil and dispersants, may
have contributed to observed interannual variability. The most
conspicuous 2010 declines were seen in
billfish (blue marlin and sailfish) larvae.
Given these larvae are typically
restricted to surface waters compared to
the other taxa surveyed (blackfin tuna
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
4052
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
and dolphinfish), it is possible their
exposure to DWH toxic compounds
affected early life survival. However,
Rooker et al. (2013) also note that interannual variability of larval abundance
and distribution is relatively common
for pelagic larvae in the Gulf of Mexico.
Part of the apparent decline in billfish,
dolphinfish, and tuna larvae therefore
may be due to shifts in biological or
oceanographic conditions and not
entirely attributable to the DWH oil
spill.
In summary, there are no data
indicating Alabama shad were directly
affected by the DWH spill. The spill
occurred in April when the most
vulnerable early life stages of Alabama
shad were in riverine areas and it is
unlikely they were directly exposed.
The older juveniles and adults that
entered coastal and nearshore waters in
late summer through winter may have
been exposed to toxins from the DWH
spill, but studies of other coastal species
indicate recovery occurred the following
year. It is likely that the worst acute
effects of DWH were experienced
further offshore in the marine
environment. Although we have almost
no information on the marine portion of
Alabama shad’s life cycle, it is doubtful
this smaller anadromous species spends
a significant portion of its life cycle far
offshore like the large oceanic species
(e.g., tuna and billfish). We ranked
exposure to oil and other toxins from
the DWH spill, on its own, as having a
low risk of contributing to the extinction
risk of Alabama shad. It is unknown
whether the DWH spill will contribute
to the extinction risk of Alabama shad
in the foreseeable future.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
Small commercial fisheries for
Alabama shad once existed in Alabama,
Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and
Iowa (Adams et al. 2000, Daniels 1860).
Based on existing records, Alabama
shad populations have never supported
an important or sizeable commercial or
recreational fishery, at least since the
19th century (NMFS et al. 2012).
Buchanan et al. (1999) reported that a
‘‘limited’’ commercial fishery existed in
the Mississippi River system in the late
1800s. Only small catches of the species
have been recorded for a few years in
the statistical reports of the U.S. Fish
Commission (Hildebrand 1963). The
total reported commercial landings of
Alabama shad were 3,165 kg (6,978
pounds) in 1889 (Hildebrand 1963). The
U.S. Fish Commission Report for 1901
reported that a total of 3,154 kg (6,955
pounds) of the ‘‘newly described
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
species’’ of ‘‘Ohio’’ shad (a species later
determined to be the same species as
Alabama shad) were caught in the Ohio
River in West Virginia, Indiana, and
Kentucky, valued at $355 (Townsend
1902). The report stated that the species
had likely been caught in that river for
a ‘‘number of years.’’ The 1901 report
stated there was no catch of ‘‘Ohio’’
(Alabama) shad in Alabama, Arkansas,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota,
Tennessee, and Wisconsin. The
following year (1902), Hildebrand
(1963) reported Alabama shad landings
of 68 kg (150 pounds) from Alabama,
with no commercial landings reported
since. Hildebrand (1963) noted that
Alabama shad were still numerous
enough in Kentucky and Ohio to be
taken in considerable quantities, but
were undesirable for human
consumption, and no attempts were
made to catch and sell them. Coker
(1930) stated that there were enough
‘‘Ohio’’ (Alabama) shad at the Keokuk
Dam in Iowa in 1915 to support a
substantial fishery, but that none
developed, and ‘‘a few’’ have been taken
commercially from the Ohio River.
Coker (1930) observed that ‘‘Ohio’’
(Alabama) shad in the Mississippi River
had no economic value at that time. The
FFWCC (McBride 2000) notes that even
though there have been significant
fisheries for other Alosa species like
American shad, hickory shad (A.
mediocris), and blueback herring, a
fishery for Alabama shad never
developed in Florida. McBride (2000)
also states that recreational fishing for
Alabama shad began around 1950 but
has not developed significantly. There
are currently no directed fisheries for
Alabama shad in any U.S. waters (Smith
et al. 2011). Mills (1972) noted that
striped bass fishermen used Alabama
shad as bait. NMFS et al. (2012)
reported that fishermen occasionally
catch Alabama shad in the Apalachicola
River below JWLD for bait to use while
fishing for striped bass or flathead
catfish (Pylodictis olivaris). Some
Alabama shad are also collected for
scientific research and for educational
purposes. However it is unlikely that
past or present collection or harvest
(utilization) of Alabama shad for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
education purposes, alone or in
combination with other factors, has
contributed significantly to the species’
extinction risk. Further, given the lack
of the sizeable harvest in the past, we do
not anticipate the development of new
fisheries or that directed harvest levels
will otherwise increase in the future.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Therefore, collection or harvest of
Alabama shad is unlikely to
significantly contribute to the species’
extinction risk in the foreseeable future.
C. Disease and Predation
Most of the Alabama shad collected
during research and monitoring
associated with JWLD conservation
locking activities in 2013 had large,
open sores or gash-like wounds, in some
cases exposing organs and bone
(Sammons 2013; S. Herrington, The
Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage YearEnd Summary Meeting, January 2014).
These sores or wounds were not
observed on other fish species collected
(e.g., gizzard shad [Dorosoma
cepedianum] and mullet [Mugil spp.]),
indicating Alabama shad are either more
susceptible to the source of the wounds
or they are distributed in areas that the
other species are not (Sammons 2013).
The wounds were only observed on
adult Alabama shad and not on younger
fish, indicating the source may have
occurred in the Gulf of Mexico
(Sammons 2013). A researcher attending
the 2014 JWLD Fish Passage Year-End
Summary Meeting suggested that the
pictures of the Alabama shad sores or
wounds looked similar to symptoms of
a disease that occurred in blueback
herring on the Atlantic Coast. The 12month listing determination for alewife
and blueback herring (78 FR 48944;
August 12, 2013) states that
mycobacteria, which can cause ulcers,
emaciation, and sometimes death, have
been found in many Chesapeake Bay
fish, including blueback herring.
Alabama shad with the wounds
generally appeared to be in poor
condition and suffered higher than
normal mortality due to handling and
tag insertion (Sammons 2013).
Sammons (2013) also cited a news
article reporting gash wounds on fish
potentially associated with the
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill resembling
the wounds found on Alabama shad. It
is unknown what caused the sores or
wounds in Alabama shad in the ACF
River system and what percentage of the
population may have been impacted.
The sores have not been observed in any
of the ∼200 Alabama shad captured
since 2013 (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR,
pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6,
2016). It is unknown whether disease is
contributing to the species’ extinction
risk.
Little information is available
regarding predation on Alabama shad in
freshwater systems and no information
regarding predation in marine
environments (NMFS et al. 2012). Like
other clupeids, Alabama shad are likely
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
prey for piscivorous fishes, such as
striped bass (Pattillo et al. 1997). NMFS
et al. (2012) noted that birds of prey
(bald eagles and osprey) have been
observed eating Alabama shad from the
Apalachicola River. There is no
available information suggesting
Alabama shad populations are
significantly affected by predation. It is
unlikely that predation, alone or in
combination with other factors, is
significantly contributing to Alabama
shad’s extinction risk.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms
Regulations on Harvest of Alabama
Shad
The harvest or collection of Alabama
shad is not regulated in Federal waters,
although the legal authority exists, and
regulations could be implemented as
necessary through the MagnusonStevens Fishery conservation and
Management Act. A variety of protective
regulations exist in the states within the
species’ historical range (NMFS et al.
2012), although there are currently no
directed fisheries for Alabama shad in
any U.S. waters (Smith et al. 2011).
Since January 1, 1997, hook-and-line
has been the only allowable fishing gear
for Alosa species in the State of Florida,
with a limit of 10 shad (as an aggregate
of Alabama, American, and hickory
shad) for both recreational and
commercial fishermen (Chapter 68B–
52.001 of the Florida Administrative
Code). In Louisiana, recreational
regulations limit the taking of shad
species (unspecified) to 50 pounds (22.7
kilograms) per day, with no size limit
(NMFS et al. 2012). Alabama shad are
not listed as a game fish in the
Mississippi Department of Wildlife
fishing regulations and may be taken as
bait with dip/landing net, cast net, boat
mounted scoop, or wire basket by
resident anglers with the appropriate
fresh or salt water recreational fishing
license for personal use during sport
fishing (NMFS et al. 2012). Alabama
shad is a protected species in both
Alabama and Georgia, and may only be
collected with a state-issued scientific
collector’s permit that specifies
Alabama shad. No recreational or
commercial harvest is permitted in
either state (NMFS et al. 2012). Alabama
shad are classified as non-game fish in
Missouri and Arkansas, and there are no
catch or possession limits.
Although there are no restrictions on
the harvest of Alabama shad in marine
waters, virtually nothing is known about
the life history of the species in the
marine environment and only 5
specimens have ever been recorded
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
from marine waters. It is highly unlikely
that fishermen or researchers would be
able to successfully target the species in
the marine environment. Harvest and
collection of Alabama shad is restricted
to varying degrees in Louisiana,
Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, while no
restrictions are in place in Mississippi,
Arkansas, or Missouri. Under
‘‘Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes’’ (Factor B), we determined
that it is unlikely that past or present
collection or harvest (utilization) of
Alabama shad has contributed
significantly to the species’ extinction
risk. We also determined under Factor
B that, given the lack of the sizeable
harvest in the past, we do not anticipate
the development of new fisheries or that
directed harvest levels will otherwise
increase in the future. Therefore,
although harvest and collection of
Alabama shad is regulated in some areas
where the species occurs, but not in
others, we believe that the existing laws
are adequate to regulate the low levels
of harvest and collection and are
unlikely contributing to the extinction
risk of Alabama shad.
Regulations on Dams
The Federal Power Act (FPA) (16
U.S.C. 791–828), as amended, provides
for protecting, mitigating damages to,
and enhancing fish and wildlife
resources (including anadromous fish)
impacted by hydroelectric facilities
regulated by FERC. FERC must consult
with state and Federal resource agencies
on proposed hydroelectric projects and
implement recommendations
concerning fish and wildlife and their
habitat, e.g., including spawning
habitat, wetlands, instream flows
(timing, quality, quantity), reservoir
establishment and regulation, project
construction and operation, fish
entrainment and mortality, and
recreational access. FERC must also
consult with Federal and state resource
agencies to renew the operating licenses
for existing dams and must address
impacts to natural resources. Both
NMFS and USFWS, and in certain
cases, U.S. Federal land management
agencies, prescribe mandatory fish
passage conditions for inclusion in
hydropower licenses. These agencies
and state resource agencies also may
make nonbinding recommendations for
additional mitigation to promote fish
protection (OTA 1995). Specific
regulations in section 10(j) of the FPA
provide that licenses issued by FERC
contain conditions to protect, mitigate
damages to, and enhance fish and
wildlife based on recommendations
received from state and Federal agencies
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
4053
during the licensing or license renewal
process. With regard to fish passage,
Section 18 of the FPA requires a FERC
licensee to construct, maintain, and
operate fishways prescribed by the
Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary
of Commerce. Section 18 also allows
that a fishway prescription can be
reserved to address impacts that become
apparent in the future.
The presence of dams that block
Alabama shad from accessing upstream
spawning habitat is believed to be the
primary cause of their decline in some
river systems (NMFS et al. 2012,
USFWS 2009a). The era of big dam
building began in the 1930s, but slowed
over time with the advent of
environmental laws and alternative
power sources (USBR 2015). The
greatest rate of increase in reservoir
storage occurred from the late 1950s to
the late 1970s, with more dams (and
some of the largest) built in the 1960s
than in any other decade (Graf 1999). In
the ‘‘golden age’’ of U.S. dam building,
thousands of large and small dams were
built with little thought to the
environmental impacts (Doyle et al.
2003). While very few new dams have
been constructed since 1980 (Graf 1999),
FERC continues to renew licenses under
the FPA for existing dams due to
expiring licenses, modifications to
power generating capabilities, or no
prior license because the dam was
constructed pre-FPA. FERC’s initial
mandate under the FPA of 1920 was the
regulation of energy production,
distribution, and availability; and the
promotion of hydropower (OTA 1995).
Environmental concerns were largely
addressed through a number of laws
that were enacted (some much later than
the original FPA) to protect natural
resources and the environment,
including: the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (1934), Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act (1968), National
Environmental Policy Act (1970),
Federal Water Pollution Control Act/
Clean Water Act (1972/1977), and the
Endangered Species Act (1973; OTA
1995). In 1986, Congress passed the
Electric Consumers Protection Act
(ECPA), a series of amendments to the
FPA, which was designed, in part, to
place greater emphasis on
environmental considerations in
licensing decisions. The FPA, as
amended by ECPA, directs FERC to give
equal consideration to the full range of
purposes related to the potential value
of a stream or river, including energy
conservation, fish and wildlife resources
(including spawning grounds and
habitat), and other aspects of
environmental quality in addition to
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
4054
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
hydropower development. Although
mandatory fish passage authority rested
with the Federal resource agencies since
the early part of this century, the ECPA
was instrumental in elevating the
importance of non-developmental
values in and increasing FERC’s
accountability for licensing decisions
(OTA 1995). Through the addition of
section 10(j), Federal and state resource
agencies may recommend conditions to
protect, enhance, or mitigate for
damages to fish and wildlife resources
under the FPA.
FERC licenses have a term of 30 to 50
years, so NMFS’ involvement in the
licensing process to ensure the
protection and accessibility of upstream
habitat, and to improve habitat degraded
by changes in water flow and quality
from dam operations, may only occur 2–
3 times a century for a particular
project. However, an estimated 85
percent of the dams in the United States
will be near the end of their operational
lives by 2020 (Doyle et al. 2003). The
current intensification of economic and
environmental concerns is coinciding
with a policy window in which many
private dams are coming up for
regulatory re-licensing with FERC
(Doyle et al. 2003). Alabama shad may
benefit from fishway requirements
under section 18 of the FPA when
prescriptions are made to address
anadromous fish passage and during the
re-licensing of existing hydroelectric
dams when anadromous species are
considered. Mitigation technologies to
reduce the adverse effect of hydropower
on the nation’s fish resources have been
employed, although not consistently,
since the early 1900s; while their
effectiveness is often poorly understood,
in a review of 16 case studies, the
majority demonstrated positive results
for migratory fish stemming from
technology implementation (OTA 1995).
Decommissioning and/or removal of
existing dam facilities as an alternative
to relicensing has been raised more
frequently since 1993 and as part of the
movement toward greater scrutiny of the
adverse impacts of hydropower plants
on certain fish populations (OTA 1995).
Lovett (2014) notes that 1,150 dams
have been removed in the last 20 years.
However, dam removal options are
faced by a number of very real
environmental, economic, and political
constraints and, thus, are infrequently
considered as alternatives to fish
passage development.
The FPA does not apply to nonhydropower dams, such as those
operated by USACE for navigation
purposes. However, under Section
7(a)(2) of the ESA, Federal agencies are
required to consult with NMFS or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
USFWS on activities that may affect
listed species. Dam maintenance,
repairs, and operational changes may
require ESA Section 7 consultation and
allow conservation measures benefitting
listed species to be recommended or
required. Alabama shad may also
benefit from the conservation measures
implemented for other species with
similar needs or in similar habitats.
USFWS (2007) completed a biological
opinion under Section 7 of the ESA on
USACE’s drought operations for the
Interim Operating Plan for JWLD in the
ACF system. While that biological
opinion did not evaluate Alabama shad
it did analyze effects to Gulf sturgeon
and three species of mussels (fat
threeridge, purple bankclimber, and
Chipola slabshell). USFWS (2007)
determined that while there were likely
to be some adverse effects to the
mussels, the drought operations are not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any of the species or
destroy their critical habitat. Because
Alabama shad have similar water
quality and quantity requirements to
Gulf sturgeon, the conservation efforts
for the sturgeon likely benefit shad.
Federal agencies may also choose to use
their authorities and resources for the
conservation of species.
In two river systems inhabited by
Alabama shad, the ACF and Alabama
River systems, USACE has voluntarily
cooperated with state and Federal
agencies to implement conservation
locking for Alabama shad and other
anadromous species. In 2012, the
‘‘cooperator’’ organizations (USACE,
USFWS, NMFS, Georgia DNR, FFWCC,
and TNC) signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) clarifying their
commitments and responsibilities in the
continued implementation of fish
passage at JWLD. In Part B. of the MOU,
‘‘Statement of Mutual Benefit and
Interests’’, the cooperator organizations
agree to: (1) Provide mutual assistance,
share information and technology, and
coordinate efforts for fish passage, (2)
discuss a strategy for providing passage
at JWLD for the conservation and
restoration of migratory fishes in the
ACF River Basin, consistent with
authorized project purposes, (3) initiate
and participate in a JWLD Fish Passage
Partnership and discuss yearly fish
passage operation for migratory fishes at
JWLD. Collaborate, assist, and support
research, monitoring, outreach, and
related activities for determining the
effects of fish passage on migratory fish
populations and habitats at JWLD and
the ACF River Basin, (4) foster
partnerships that support the passage of
migratory fishes in Georgia and Florida
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
among state agencies, federal agencies,
and the public within the ACF River
Basin, and (5) designate a Partnership
Coordinator from one of the cooperators
in order to facilitate the partnership and
fulfill the purpose of the MOU. The
Partnership Coordinator shall provide a
report of the annual fish passage
operations, results, and related activities
to all cooperators.
In fulfillment of the cooperation
outlined in the MOU, an annual meeting
to discuss the issues and outcomes from
the previous spring conservation
locking cycle is held, usually in the
early part of the following year (i.e.,
January or February). Powerpoints
presented at the meeting, data
summaries, reports to funding agencies,
and journal articles or other
publications resulting from research in
the ACF are provided to cooperators and
interested parties, satisfying the annual
reporting noted in #5 of Part B. of the
MOU. At the annual meeting, the
cooperators and other interested parties
(e.g., universities that are not signatories
to the MOU, but are heavily involved in
research activities associated with the
conservation locking in the ACF)
discuss lessons learned from the
previous year and participate in
planning the next cycle of spring
conservation locking, including whether
the locking operation and schedule can
be improved. For example, during the
planned maintenance on the lock that
occurred during the 2013–2014 season,
the cooperators were able to upgrade the
method of delivering the attractant flow
(a stream of high velocity water used to
attract spawning fish) from a manual
system to an electric pump as a more
efficient way to direct shad through the
lock when conservation locking
resumed (S. Herrington, The Nature
Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End
Summary Meeting, January 2014).
Although the MOU does not require
implementation of conservation locking
at JWLD, USACE had demonstrated a
commitment to continuing conservation
locking. The current operations
considered in developing alternatives
for the updated USACE Master Water
Control Manual (FEIS; December 2016)
includes standard operating procedures
for conservation locking at the JWLD to
benefit Alabama shad. All alternatives
considered in the FEIS included
conservation locking. The FEIS
indicates that in most years since the
spring of 2005, USACE has operated the
lock at JWLD between March and May
to facilitate downstream-to-upstream
passage of Alabama shad in cooperation
with pertinent state and federal
agencies. In general two fish locking
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
cycles are performed each day. While
studies are ongoing to determine the
most appropriate technique and timing
for the locks, the number of lock cycles
per day will not change (FEIS 2016).
The presence of dams that block
Alabama shad from accessing upstream
spawning habitat is believed to be the
primary cause of their decline in some
river systems. The purpose of the
original FPA of 1920 was the regulation
of energy production, distribution, and
availability, and the promotion of
hydropower, and dams were built with
little or no regard for the environmental
consequences. The adverse
environmental effects, including effects
to anadromous fish species, were largely
unaddressed until the 1970s with the
enactment of several major
environmental laws. However, the FPA
itself was amended by the ECPA in
1986, which directed FERC to give equal
consideration to environmental issues.
The FPA, through Section 18 and 10(j),
provides opportunities to implement
conservation measures at existing dams.
Although some dams are not subject to
the FPA, other mechanisms exist to
achieve conservation measures in
addition to fish passage at non-FPA
dams (Section 7 consultation and
voluntary efforts such as conservation
locking). Therefore, we ranked the
inadequacy of existing dam regulations
as having a low risk of contributing
significantly to the current and
foreseeable risk of extinction for
Alabama shad.
Regulations Associated With Water
Quality
The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, and amendments (FWPCA) (33
U.S.C. 1251–1376), also called the
‘‘Clean Water Act,’’ mandates Federal
protection of water quality. The law also
provides for assessment of injury,
destruction, or loss of natural resources
caused by discharge of pollutants.
Section 404 of the FWPCA prohibits the
discharge of dredged or fill material into
navigable waters without a permit. The
main responsibility for water quality
management resides with the states in
the implementation of water quality
standards, the administration of the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program
(where the state has received EPA
approval to do so), and the management
of non-point sources of pollution.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act
requires states to identify waters that do
not meet or are not expected to meet
water quality standards. Each state
develops Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) for its water quality-limited
waters. A TMDL is a calculation of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
maximum amount of a pollutant that a
waterbody can receive and still meet
water quality standards, and an
allocation of that load among the
various point and non-point sources of
that pollutant. Section 402 of the Clean
Water Act created a system for
permitting wastewater discharges.
Collectively the NPDES sets specific
limits on discharge of various types of
pollutants from point-source outfalls. A
non-point source control program
focuses primarily on the reduction of
agricultural siltation and chemical
pollution resulting from rain runoff into
streams. Efforts to reduce non-point
pollution currently rely on the use of
land management practices to reduce
surface runoff through programs
administered primarily by the
Department of Agriculture.
Water quality has been cited as a
threat to Alabama shad (Mettee and
O’Neil 2003, Mettee et al. 1996). We
reviewed the water quality assessment
reports for rivers occupied by Alabama
shad submitted by individual states to
the EPA under Sections 305(b) and
303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The
assessment reports prepared by the
states show that water quality in
approximately half of the river mi
within the species’ current range is
deemed to be good. The remaining areas
are impaired for one or more reasons,
including the presence of heavy metals,
low DO, impaired biota, sedimentation,
and the presence of other organic and
inorganic contaminants. Further a
comparison of NCCR I–IV, published by
the EPA in 2001, 2005, 2008, and 2012,
shows a pattern of overall improving
water quality in the Gulf of Mexico,
with the overall condition improving
from NCCR I to IV. Contaminant loads
in sediments and in fish tissue also
improved from ‘‘poor’’ to ‘‘fair.’’ The DO
content of coastal waters in the Gulf
Coast has remained ‘‘good’’ in all four
reports. Based on this recent record of
performance, regulatory mechanisms
governing water quality are at a low risk
of contributing significantly to the
current and foreseeable risk of
extinction for Alabama shad.
Regulatory Mechanisms for Climate
Change
Greenhouse gas emissions are
regulated through multi-state and
international agreements, and through
statutes and regulations, at the national,
state, or provincial level. One of the key
international agreements relevant to
attempts to control greenhouse gas
emissions, the Copenhagen Accord, was
developed in 2009 by the Conference of
Parties to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
4055
Change. The Copenhagen Accord
identifies specific information provided
by Parties on quantified economy-wide
emissions targets for 2020 and on
nationally appropriate mitigation
actions to help achieve the goal of
capping increasing average global
temperature at 2 °C above pre-industrial
levels. The last conference of the Parties
to the United National Framework
Convention on Climate Change was held
in Lima, Peru, in December 2014. The
resulting decisions from the meeting
were primarily to continue ongoing
efforts to reach a new agreement for
emissions reductions to be adopted at
the 2015 meeting in Paris, France, and
to have those implemented by 2020. The
new agreement would maintain the
same overall goal as the Copenhagen
Accord, to cap additional warming at
2 °C.
Within the United States, President
Barack Obama released the President’s
Climate Action Plan in June 2013. The
plan is three-pronged, including
proposed actions for mitigation,
adaptation, and international
leadership. The actions listed for
mitigation include completing carbon
pollution standards for new and existing
power plants, accelerating clean energy
permitting, increasing funding for clean
energy innovation and technology,
increasing fuel economy standards,
increasing energy efficiency in homes,
businesses, and factories, and reducing
other greenhouse gas emissions
including hydrofluorocarbons and
methane. The plan states that the United
States is still committed to reducing
greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020 if all other
major economies agree to similar
reductions. Additional efforts made
domestically related to climate change
are more focused on facilitating
adaptation to the impending changes to
the environment due to climate change
in order to maintain the country’s
natural and economic resources, but do
not directly address the emission of
greenhouse gas.
National and international efforts to
limit climate change are ambitious, but
their success is uncertain since major
agreements are still being formulated,
and the outcomes of ongoing activities
are not yet known. Likewise, the effects
of climate change on Alabama shad and
their habitat are also not yet known.
However, climate change predictions by
the IPCC (IPCC AR5 2014) suggest that
temperature increases throughout the
range of Alabama shad of 1.5–2.5 °C by
the mid-21st century may be less than
other areas in North America (2.5–4 °C
by the mid-21st century), even with no
additional efforts to constrain
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
4056
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
greenhouse gas emissions. Flooding and
drought are not attributable to climate
change, and the IPCC predicts little to
no change in average annual
precipitation within the range of
Alabama shad through 2065, although
the predictions are less certain for the
remainder of the 21st century (IPCC
AR5). Sea level rise associated with
climate change may salinize
groundwater and decrease freshwater
availability, exacerbating existing water
allocation issues. Regulatory
mechanisms addressing water allocation
issues (discussed in the following
section) are likely to have as much
immediate impact on this issue as
regulatory mechanisms addressing the
causes of sea level rise. It is unknown
how regulations addressing climate
change may contribute to Alabama
shad’s extinction risk, either now or in
the foreseeable future.
Regulatory Mechanisms Associated
With Water Allocation
It is unknown whether water
allocation issues contribute to Alabama
shad’s extinction risk. Regulations
associated with water allocation are
both an intra- and inter-state issue.
Within a state’s borders, state laws
determine rights to use water (CBO
2006). In the East, water rights are
formed under riparian doctrine,
meaning ownership of land adjacent to
a body of water (riparian land) conveys
the right to use the water in a way that
is reasonable (Ruhl 2003, CBO 2006).
Determining what is reasonable involves
consideration of the purpose of the use,
the suitability of the use to the body of
water, economic and social values of the
use, the extent of harm caused, the
practicality of avoiding any harm by
adjusting the methods or quantities of
use, and the fairness of making the user
who causes harm bear losses (CBO
2006). In practice today, owners of
riparian land must obtain permits from
a state agency to use water. Permits may
also be available to others who do not
own riparian land. The charters
incorporating most cities give them
power to procure water for public
purposes and to supply the domestic
needs of their residents, and states have
modified the riparian doctrine by
introducing exceptions that allow
municipal uses (CBO 2006).
In Georgia, the 15-county
Metropolitan North Georgia Water
Planning District was created through
legislation to manage the water supply
and its consumption for economic,
environmental, and social well-being.
The Metropolitan North Georgia Water
Planning District prohibits the interbasin transfers of water from outside the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
district to meet water supply demands
within the district (Cole and Carver
2011). The Metropolitan North Georgia
Water Planning District encompasses
the Atlanta metropolitan area, the most
populous area in Georgia and the ninth
largest metro area in the U.S. Therefore,
regulations that limit inter-basin
transfers would benefit Alabama shad
by limiting the amount of water
removed from rivers within their range.
Georgia’s Board of Natural Resources
adopted an instream flow policy in 2001
that ensures the minimum flows
required to protect aquatic habitat, such
as that for Alabama shad, are
maintained downstream of new water
withdrawals (Cole and Carver 2011). In
Florida, when determining whether the
public interest is served by a transfer of
groundwater from one water district to
another, or surface water from one
county to another, the governing board
or department must consider an array of
factors, including the potential
environmental impacts (Cole and Carver
2011). The State of Florida statutes
require local governments to consult
with water suppliers to ensure that
adequate water supplies will be in place
and available to serve a new
development by the time the local
government issues the development’s
certificate of occupancy (Cole and
Carver 2011). In addition to state laws
governing water allocation, many states
within the range of Alabama shad also
have state water plans that are intended
to be comprehensive strategies for the
long-term management of water
resources on a watershed basis. Georgia,
Florida, Missouri, and Arkansas have
state water plans in place, and Alabama
and Louisiana have draft plans. The
state plans vary in detail and goals, but
generally attempt to balance economic,
public health, and environmental needs.
Water planning that considers
environmental needs, such as
downstream habitat for fish, are likely to
benefit Alabama shad because it
increases the likelihood that adequate
water flows will be available.
When water allocation issues arise
between states, there are generally three
ways to resolve the issue. States can
enter into a compact agreeing to a
division of resources, which would then
require congressional approval (Ruhl
2003). Second, the commerce clause of
the Constitution gives Congress the
authority to allocate interstate waters to
serve the national interest, even if doing
so means overriding state law (Ruhl
2003, CBO 2006). The third option is for
states to take their dispute to the U.S.
Supreme Court, which can exercise its
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
jurisdiction to arrive at an equitable
apportionment of the water (Ruhl 2003).
The major water allocation issues
affecting Alabama shad are between
Alabama, Georgia, and Florida over use
of water in the ACT and ACF River
basins. SELC (2015b) documented the
following history of the dispute, which
ensued in 1989 after USACE
recommended reallocation of water
from reservoirs in the ACT and ACF
basins to supply the Atlanta, Georgia,
metro area. Alabama sued USACE,
stating they had ignored environmental
impacts on the downstream states and
breached their duty to benefit all
downstream users. Florida intervened
on the side of Alabama, and Georgia and
metro Atlanta municipalities intervened
or initiated their own lawsuits against
USACE for not allowing the reservoirs
to serve current and future water supply
needs. The lawsuit was put on hold to
allow the three states and USACE to
negotiate a resolution, conduct
comprehensive studies, and create a
structure that would allow the states to
work together. Each state passed a
compact, and they were ratified by
Congress in 1997. However, agreement
could not be reached, the compacts
expired without resolution in 2003 and
2004, and the states went back to court.
The litigation continued for over a
decade. In 2009, a judge ruled that Lake
Lanier (part of the ACF basin) was not
authorized to supply water to metro
Atlanta. The ruling was reversed by the
11th Circuit Court of Appeals and after
the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently
declined to hear the case, the litigation
was temporarily suspended. Currently
at the U.S. Supreme Court is a case
brought by Florida against Georgia
alleging harm to Apalachicola Bay
resulting from Georgia’s
disproportionate use of water from the
ACF River system.
We evaluated water allocation issues
under the ‘‘Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range’’
(Factor A). Transferring water from one
river basin to another can alter natural
water flows in both the originating and
receiving basins, and exacerbate any
existing water quality issues. It is not
known how much water is already being
removed and transferred from rivers
used by Alabama shad. The biggest
interstate allocation dispute is occurring
in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia over
the future allocation of water in the ACF
and ACT River basins. While the
outcomes of water allocation and the
regulatory mechanisms governing it are
unknown, the Alabama shad population
in the ACF continues to be the largest
known spawning population, and
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
conservation locking is occurring in
both the ACF and ACT basins to reduce
the effects of dams, the primary threat
to the species in both systems. Under
Factor A, we determined that it is
unknown whether water allocation
issues contribute to Alabama shad’s
extinction risk, either now or in the
foreseeable future. It is also unknown
whether the regulatory mechanisms for
managing water allocation in Alabama
shad’s riverine habitat are adequate or
whether they are contributing to the
species’ extinction risk, either now or in
the foreseeable future due to the
complexity of the issue, the length of
time (more than 25 years) the issue has
persisted, and the inability of the major
stakeholders to come to agreement or
final decision. However, state and
Federal agencies and an environmental
organization (USACE, USFWS, NMFS,
Georgia DNR, FFWCC, and TNC) did
achieve agreement in the signed 2012
MOU for a cooperative fish passage
strategy at JWLD that it was to their
mutual interest and benefit to
coordinate efforts for fish passage for the
conservation and restoration of
migratory fish, such as Alabama shad, in
the ACF River Basin.
Other Regulatory Mechanisms Affecting
Alabama Shad
Other ESA listings and critical habitat
designations for species within the
range of Alabama shad may also
promote the conservation of Alabama
shad. For instance, Gulf sturgeon, listed
under the ESA as threatened in 1991 (56
FR 49653), inhabit many of the same
rivers along the Gulf of Mexico as
Alabama shad. Critical habitat for Gulf
sturgeon was designated in 2003 (68 FR
13370). The primary constituent
elements of Gulf sturgeon critical
habitat include habitat elements that are
also important for shad (i.e., abundant
food items, riverine spawning sites,
riverine aggregation areas, flow regime,
water quality, sediment quality, and safe
and unobstructed migratory pathways).
Measures to improve habitats and
reduce impacts to Gulf sturgeon may
directly or indirectly benefit Alabama
shad. Both species are anadromous;
adults spawn in freshwater in the spring
and early summer then migrate back
into estuarine and marine waters. Many
of the habitats that Gulf sturgeon occupy
are also habitats that Alabama shad use
for spawning, migration, and juvenile
rearing. Therefore, protection measures
for Gulf sturgeon, such as improved fish
passage and water quality, or reduction
of water withdrawals, may also provide
a benefit to Alabama shad. Passage for
sturgeon species, although less studied,
has become more of a priority in recent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
years (Kynard et al. 2008), while
passage technologies are considered to
be well developed and well understood
for the main anadromous species,
including Alosa species (Kynard et al.
2008, Larinier and Marmulla 2004).
Sturgeon species are known to be more
highly sensitive than most other species
to water quality problems, such as low
DO and contaminants (Niklitschek and
Secor 2009a, 2009b, Dwyer et al. 2005).
Because Alabama shad are likely easier
to pass through fish passages and are
less susceptible to water quality
problems, it is reasonable that measures
to improve fish passage and water
quality for Gulf sturgeon will apply to
Alabama shad, as well.
Alabama shad in the ACF River
system have been found to be the host
for the larvae of an ESA-listed
freshwater mussel (S. Herrington, The
Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage YearEnd Summary Meeting, January 2014).
The purple bankclimber, a freshwater
mussel listed as threatened under the
ESA (63 FR 12664), is potentially one of
the species using Alabama shad to
transport larvae upstream. Critical
habitat for the purple bankclimber and
other listed freshwater mussels has been
designated in the ACF River system (72
FR 64286), and the primary constituent
elements include a geomorphically
stable stream channel, stream substrate
with low to moderate amounts of silt
and clay, permanently flowing water,
water quality, and fish hosts that
support the larval life stages of the
seven mussels. Conservation actions to
benefit the purple bankclimber mussel
could potentially protect both the
Alabama shad and its habitat. For
example when the USFWS consulted on
the drought operations for the Interim
Operating Plan for JWLD in 2007, they
considered effects to the purple
bankclimber. Reasonable and prudent
measures required by USFWS (2007)
during drought operations that may
benefit Alabama shad include (1)
adaptively managing operation of the
system using information collected on
species and their habitats, upstream
water use, and climatic conditions, (2)
increasing the lower threshold for
reservoir storage from 8,000 to 10,000
cubic feet per second (i.e., increasing
flows in downstream areas by limiting
reservoir storage during low flow times),
(3) modifying the operation plan to
provide higher minimum flow to the
Apalachicola River when conditions
permit, and (4) evaluating the sediment
dynamics and channel morphology in
the Apalachicola River to allow better
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
4057
prediction of the effects of operations on
species in the riverine environment.
Thus, other ESA listings and critical
habitat designations, are unlikely
contributing to the extinction risk of
Alabama shad. Overall, harvest and
collection of Alabama shad are
adequately controlled through the state
regulations. Regulatory mechanisms
governing water quality appear to be
having success, although water quality
is still impaired in some areas
throughout the Alabama shad’s range.
The outcomes of state, Federal, and
international laws governing dams,
water allocation, and climate change,
and their adequacy in protecting
Alabama shad and their habitat, are
unknown. Therefore, we ranked the
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms
overall as having a low risk of
contributing significantly to the current
and foreseeable risk of extinction for
Alabama shad.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
Bycatch, the incidental catch of a
species in fisheries targeting another
species, is a potential threat to Alabama
shad in the marine environment.
Although there are no reports of
Alabama shad being taken as bycatch in
fisheries, many fisheries lack
comprehensive bycatch monitoring
(Harrington et al. 2005, Crowder and
Murawski 1998). While bycatch in
shrimp trawls is a significant source of
mortality for many finfish in the
Southeast, no Alosa species were
recorded during mandatory observer
reporting from the Gulf of Mexico
shrimp trawl fishery in 2007–2010
(Scott-Denton et al. 2012). Guillory and
Hutton (1982) surveyed incidental catch
in the Louisiana Gulf menhaden
(Brevoortia patronus) purse seine
fishery in 1980 and 1981 by taking
samples at processing plants. Total
bycatch comprised 2.68 percent by
number and 2.35 percent by weight of
the menhaden catch. While no Alabama
shad were found in the bycatch, another
Alosa species, the skipjack herring,
made up 0.1 percent both by number
and weight of the overall bycatch.
Hutchings and Reynolds (2004) stated
that clupeids are more resilient than
other fish in the marine environment,
attributed in part to their reduced
vulnerability to bycatch. There are no
reports of Alabama shad being taken as
bycatch in fisheries, although we have
no information on life history or
location of Alabama shad within the
marine environment and much bycatch
goes unreported. It is unknown whether
incidental capture in other fisheries
contributes to Alabama shad’s
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
4058
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
extinction risk, either now or in the
foreseeable future.
Conclusions on Extinction Risk of
Alabama Shad Throughout Its Range
The presence of dams throughout the
Alabama shad’s range blocks access to
upstream spawning sites in many rivers
and is believed to be the primary cause
of population decline in the species.
While there are little historical or
current data quantifying declines in
Alabama shad, we believe that the
species’ abundance is reduced from
historical levels. We believe both low
abundance and the presence of dams are
the greatest threats to Alabama shad and
ranked both as posing moderate risks to
the species. We noted these factors
could, in combination with other
factors, contribute significantly to their
risk of extinction. In this section, we
consider these factors in combination
with other relevant demographic factors
and threats to determine whether
synergistic effects would result in a
significantly greater extinction risk for
Alabama shad to the extent that the
species’ persistence is at risk.
The abundance of Alabama shad in
many river systems is considered to be
low. However, we have estimates of
current abundance from only one river
system and we do not have any
historical abundance estimates of
Alabama shad, which can be indicative
of abundance levels associated with low
extinction risk. However, populations
may also be at low risk of extinction at
abundance levels below historical
levels, and accurate estimates of
historical abundance are not essential
for evaluating extinction risk. Whether a
species qualifies for listing under the
ESA depends on whether the species is
in danger of extinction or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future
as a result of one or more of the factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
If a species is viable at its current
population levels into the foreseeable
future, it is irrelevant whether that
population level is or is not close to its
historical levels. We believe the low
abundance of Alabama shad is offset by
the high productivity and spatial
distribution of the species, which is
believed to be stable. We ranked
productivity and spatial distribution as
having a low probability of posing an
extinction risk to the species. Alabama
shad are highly productive, reaching
spawning age at 1–2 years, and
spawning multiple times during a single
spawning season, as well as potentially
throughout their lifetime. The nine
known Alabama shad spawning
populations are widely distributed,
ranging from Gulf Coast rivers and their
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
tributaries, from the Suwannee River,
Florida, to the Mississippi River,
including Lower Mississippi tributaries
in the Midwest.
Although some of these spawning
populations are small, this wide
geographic distribution of spawning
populations increases the resiliency of
the species, reducing its vulnerability to
catastrophic events such as storms,
disease, or manmade threats, which
usually occur at smaller scales. The
short generation time for the species
also adds to its resiliency, allowing it to
take advantage of suitable habitat
conditions for reproduction. The
spawning success of Alabama shad in
the ACF River system illustrates this
ability to take advantage of newly
available spawning habitat made
accessible through conservation locking
at JWLD.
Alabama shad are anadromous and
generally return to their natal rivers to
spawn. While the genetic diversity of
Alabama shad is low, likely due to
natural bottleneck events that occurred
during the Pleistocene, we ranked
diversity as having a low probability of
posing an extinction risk to the species.
The bottleneck is believed to have
reduced their genetic load (presence of
harmful genes) and genetic analyses
indicate the species strays into other
river systems to spawn at a greater rate
than most anadromous species. This
higher rate of straying into other river
systems, combined with the species’
high productivity and ability to take
advantage of suitable environmental
conditions, along with the wide spatial
distribution of the spawning
populations increases the species
resilience and could allow individuals
to enhance smaller river populations
and repopulate river systems that have
experienced declines or extirpations.
Existing dams continue to block
access by Alabama shad to upstream
habitat, although few new dams are
being built today. Under ‘‘Inadequacy of
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms’’
(Factor D), we ranked the inadequacy of
regulatory mechanisms regulating dams,
primarily the FPA and ESA, as posing
a low risk of extinction to the species.
The FPA provides for protecting,
mitigating damages to, and enhancing
fish and wildlife resources, including
anadromous fish, impacted by
hydroelectric facilities regulated by the
FERC. The FPA does not apply to nonhydropower dams, such as those
operated by USACE for navigation
purposes, but maintenance, repairs, and
operational changes may require ESA
section 7 consultation and allow
conservation measures benefitting
Alabama shad and other species to be
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
recommended or required. In two river
systems inhabited by Alabama shad (the
ACF and Alabama River systems),
USACE has voluntarily cooperated with
state and Federal agencies to implement
conservation locking for Alabama shad
and other anadromous species.
Conservation locking in the Alabama
River, occurring since 2009, has only
been coupled with stocking and
monitoring since 2014, and any benefits
to the species are not expected to be
evident for a few years. Conservation
locking in the ACF River system has had
success. The abundance of Alabama
Shad in the ACF has been variable, but
higher in many of the years, since
locking began. Also, a study by Schaffler
et al. (2015) reported that 86 percent of
Alabama shad were spawned above
JWLD after conservation locking began.
Even more compelling is a genetic study
(Schaffler et al. 2015) that shows 86
percent of the spawning adult Alabama
shad in the ACF were spawned in the
Flint River, which has only become
accessible with the recent conservation
locking. In light of the inter-agency
cooperation with other entities noted
above in the discussion of the ACF
system, we expect conservation locking
to continue at JWLD. Although dams
exist in other river systems, spawning
populations of Alabama shad have
persisted in a number of those systems
notwithstanding the presence of
obstacles to passage, as shown in range
maps and discussed above.
We also evaluated water quality and
the adequacy of regulations governing
water quality in combination with the
moderate threats of low abundance and
the presence of dams, because water
quality is often cited as a concern for
Alabama shad and dams may affect
water quality. Dredging and land-based
activities (agriculture, silviculture, and
industrial, commercial, and residential
development) can also result in
degraded water quality in rivers and
coastal waters inhabited by Alabama
shad. We looked at state water quality
reports, required by Sections 305(b) and
303(d) of the Clean Water Act, for river
systems inhabited by Alabama shad
spawning populations. Of the assessed
river mi, about half were deemed to
have good water quality and half were
impaired. Low DO, mercury, impaired
biota, and sedimentation were listed as
the primary impairments, although
there are no known studies linking these
impairments to effects in Alabama shad
or indicating that the species is
susceptible to effects from these
impairments. We reviewed the EPA’s
NCCR I–IV reports, which show that the
overall condition of the Gulf Coast
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
region is fair and coastal water quality
in the Gulf of Mexico has improved
since 2001. We ranked water quality as
having an unknown probability of
posing an extinction risk to the species.
We ranked the inadequacy of
regulations governing water quality as
having a low probability of posing an
extinction risk to the species, as
landmark laws such as the Clean Water
Act have successfully worked to
improve and maintain water quality in
aquatic habitats supporting Alabama
shad. We do not believe water quality or
the inadequacy of regulations governing
water quality, alone or in combination
with other factors, are contributing
significantly to the extinction risk of
Alabama shad.
Other known threats ranked as posing
an unknown, unlikely, or low risk of
extinction to Alabama shad include
climate change, direct harvest, bycatch,
and the regulatory mechanisms
governing these and other threats.
National and international efforts to
stem climate change are ambitious, but
their success is uncertain since major
agreements are still being formulated,
and the outcomes of ongoing activities
are not yet known. The effects of climate
change on Alabama shad and their
habitat are also uncertain, although
based on the species’ life history and
evidence from responses by other Alosa
species to temperature shifts, we believe
there is a low probability of this factor
contributing significantly to the
extinction risk of Alabama shad. Data
and literature suggest that harvest of
Alabama shad, either directly for
commercial, recreational, or scientific
purposes or as incidental bycatch, is
unlikely to contribute to the extinction
risk of Alabama shad and existing
regulatory mechanisms are adequate to
control harvest. Additionally,
environmental regulations, such as the
FWCA and the ESA listing and critical
habitat designations for other species
are likely benefitting the species. We do
not believe climate change, direct
harvest, bycatch, and the regulatory
mechanisms governing these and other
threats, alone and in combination with
other factors, are contributing
significantly to the extinction risk of
Alabama shad.
We were unable to rank the
contribution of water allocation and the
adequacy of regulatory mechanisms
governing it, DWH, and disease and
predation to the extinction risk of
Alabama shad. Water allocation issues
are a growing concern in the Southeast
United States. One of the biggest
interstate allocation disputes is ongoing
between Alabama, Florida, and Georgia
over the future allocation of water in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
ACF and ACT River basins. The
complexity of the issue, the length of
time (more than 25 years) that the water
allocation issue remains unresolved,
and the inability of the major
stakeholders to come to agreement or
final decision, as well as the fact that we
do not know whether or how Alabama
shad may be affected by water allocation
issues, leads to great uncertainty about
the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms
for managing water allocation in
Alabama shad’s riverine habitat. While
the outcomes of water allocation and the
adequacy of the regulatory mechanisms
governing it are unknown, the Alabama
shad population in the ACF continues
to be the largest known spawning
population, and conservation locking is
occurring in both the ACF and ACT
basins to alleviate the effects of dams,
the primary threat to the species in both
systems. There is no evidence that
Alabama shad were affected
immediately after the DWH oil spill.
Given that the spill occurred in April
when the most vulnerable early life
stages were in riverine areas, it is
unlikely they were directly exposed.
The more mature Alabama shad that
entered coastal and nearshore waters
following the DWH spill in late summer
through winter may have been exposed
to toxins from the DWH spill, but
studies of other coastal species affected
by the spill show that most recovered by
the following year. It is likely that the
worst acute effects were experienced
further offshore in the marine
environment and more studies will be
necessary to determine any long-term,
chronic impacts from the DWH spill.
There are few data on disease and
predation in relation to Alabama shad
and it is unknown whether either factor
is contributing to the species’ extinction
risk.
In summary, we did not identify any
demographic factors or threats that are
likely or highly likely to contribute
significantly to the Alabama shad’s risk
of extinction. We conclude that the
greatest threats to Alabama shad, low
abundance and the presence of dams,
pose a moderate threat to the species.
However, these threats, alone and in
combination with other factors, do not
pose a significant risk of extinction.
Other demographic factors that pose a
low likelihood of contributing to
extinction risk, and potentially offset
the threats of low abundance and dams,
include the species’ high productivity,
wide spatial distribution, and genetic
evidence that the presence of harmful
genes has been reduced and genetic
transfer between spawning populations
is likely occurring at a greater rate than
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
4059
for most anadromous species. While
dams originally led to declines in
Alabama shad, the lack of new dam
construction, the adequacy of
regulations governing new and existing
dams, and ongoing conservation efforts
also reduce the effects of dams on
Alabama shad. We believe water
quality, climate change, direct harvest,
bycatch, and the inadequacy of the
regulatory mechanisms governing these
and other threats are not contributing,
alone or in combination, to the
extinction risk of Alabama shad. We
evaluated other threats (water allocation
issues, DWH, disease, and predation),
but found there was not enough
information or too much uncertainty in
pending outcomes, to determine their
contribution to the extinction risk of
Alabama shad. Based on these
conclusions, we find that the Alabama
shad is at low risk of extinction
throughout all of its range, now and in
the foreseeable future.
Significant Portion of the Range
Evaluation
The ESA definitions of ‘‘endangered’’
and ‘‘threatened’’ species refer to two
spatial scales: A species’ entire range or
a significant portion of its range. We
initially evaluated the extinction risk of
Alabama shad throughout its entire
range and found it to be low. So we
must consider if a ‘‘significant portion
of its range’’ is at higher risk, such that
it elevates the entire species’ status to
endangered or threatened. However, this
evaluation can only be conducted if a
‘‘significant portion of its range’’ where
the species’ status is more imperiled can
be identified.
The USFWS and NMFS have jointly
finalized a policy interpreting the
phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’
(SPOIR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). The
SPOIR policy provides that: (1) If a
species is found to be endangered or
threatened in only a significant portion
of its range, the entire species is listed
as endangered or threatened,
respectively, and the ESA’s protections
apply across the species’ entire range;
(2) a portion of the range of a species is
‘‘significant’’ if the species is not
currently endangered or threatened
throughout its range, and the portion’s
contribution to the viability of the
species is so important that, without the
members in that portion, the species
would be in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future, throughout all of its range; and
(3) the range of a species is considered
to be the general geographical area
within which that species can be found
at the time we make any particular
status determination. We evaluated
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
4060
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
whether substantial information
indicated that (i) the portions may be
significant and (ii) the species
occupying those portions may be in
danger of extinction or likely to become
so within the foreseeable future (79 FR
37578; July 1, 2014). Under the SPOIR
policy, both considerations must apply
to warrant listing a species as threatened
or endangered throughout its range
based upon its status within a portion
of the range.
We reviewed the best available
information on Alabama shad and
considered several relevant factors in
identifying whether portions of the
species’ range may be significant: (1)
Population abundance, (2) contributions
to other populations, and (3)
concentration and acuteness of threats.
Based on these criteria, we initially
identified only one population, the
Alabama shad that spawn in the ACF
River system, as potentially constituting
a SPOIR. First, we considered
population abundance. The Alabama
shad population spawning in the ACF is
believed to be one to several orders of
magnitude larger than other spawning
populations. Next we considered the
potential contribution of the ACF
spawning population to other
populations. Genetic analyses indicate
that Alabama shad spawn in systems
other than their natal system at a rate of
about 10 migrants per year. Because the
spawning population in the ACF River
system is large relative to other systems,
migrants from the ACF may make
greater contributions as compared to
shad from smaller populations. The loss
of the largest spawning population of
Alabama shad would leave only smaller
populations of Alabama shad and could
make the species as a whole less
resilient to environmental perturbations,
including catastrophic events. Finally,
we looked at concentration and
acuteness of threats. While the majority
of threats to Alabama shad are neither
concentrated nor acute in specific
portions of the species’ range, the ACF
River system is one of two river systems
within the range of Alabama shad that
we identified as being threatened by
water allocation issues.
We initially identified the spawning
population of Alabama shad in the ACF
River system as being potentially
significant under the SPOIR policy
because (1) it is believed to be the
largest spawning population by one to
several orders of magnitude, (2) it could
contribute to the viability of the species
as a whole because of its large relative
size and potential role in enhancing
other river populations through
outmigration, and (3) the threat of water
allocation issues is concentrated in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
ACF River system. We did not identify
any other SPOIRs since (1) we do not
have abundance estimates for any other
Alabama shad populations, although
they are believed to be at least one order
of magnitude smaller than the ACF
population, (2) we do not have
information that another population is
making significant contributions to
other populations, and (3) we did not
identify any other populations that were
differentially experiencing concentrated
nor acute threats compared to other
populations.
Following the SPOIR policy, we next
evaluated whether the species
occupying this portion of the range may
be in danger of extinction or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future.
In our evaluation of the status of the
species range-wide, we determined that
none of the demographic risks or threats
contribute, alone or in combination, to
extinction risk for Alabama shad to the
extent that the species’ persistence is at
risk. We believe this conclusion also
applies to the Alabama shad in the ACF
River system. We did identify the threat
of water allocation as being
concentrated in the ACF River system.
As with the range-wide evaluation, we
were unable to rank the contribution of
water allocation, as we do not have
information that water allocation is
affecting Alabama shad, or the adequacy
of regulatory mechanisms governing it
to the extinction risk of Alabama shad
in ACF, due to the complexity of the
issue, the length of time (more than 25
years) that the water allocation issue
remains unresolved, and the inability of
the major stakeholders to come to
agreement or final decision. While the
outcomes of water allocation and the
regulatory mechanisms governing it are
unknown, upstream water withdrawals
for public use have been occurring for
over 25 years during which time the
Alabama shad population in the ACF
has persisted. The ACF population of
Alabama shad continues to be the
largest known spawning population.
The abundance of Alabama shad in the
ACF has been variable, but generally
higher since conservation locking was
undertaken, alleviating the effects of
dams, the primary threat to the species
in the system. The genetic study by
Schaffler et al. (2015) shows that 86
percent of the spawning adult shad were
spawned upstream of JWLD in newly
available habitat in the Flint River,
which was inaccessible prior to
conservation locking.
We were able to model and quantify
the resilience of Alabama shad from the
ACF River system since it is the most
studied population with the most
available data, including the only
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
population abundance estimate. Smith
et al. (2011) conducted a population
viability analysis (PVA) of Alabama
shad in the ACF River system that
estimated the future size and risk of
extinction of Alabama shad. The results
of any PVA are not an absolute predictor
of what will happen to a population or
a species; rather, a PVA is a tool to
explore potential consequences of
management actions in light of an
uncertain future.
Using a sex-specific (females only),
age-structured model, Smith et al.
(2011) used data from the literature (e.g.,
age at maturity, annual spawning
period, natural mortality, carrying
capacity, available habitat, frequency of
drought, and anthropogenic mortality)
and projected changes in population
size over time under different scenarios
(e.g., varying mortality, survivorship,
carrying capacity, and density
dependence). Each modeled scenario
was run 10,000 times to provide
estimates of the range of possible values
under the stochastic conditions
specified. Smith et al. (2011) reported
the estimated number of females
returning to the ACF as the proportional
increase or decrease in the population
after 20 years from the initial population
size (12,400 females). Quasi-extinction
rates were measured as the probability
of fewer than 420 females returning at
least 1 year over 20 years. The number
of females (420) used to initiate the
model was taken from Ely et al. (2008;
lower 95 percent confidence limit) as
the approximate lowest population size,
since historical population sizes of
Alabama shad in the ACF River system
are not available.
In most scenarios (15 out of 20), the
PVA revealed positive proportional
change in mean abundance from initial
abundance and averaged about 250
percent for these positive scenarios
(Smith et al. 2011). In 2 scenarios, the
population abundance was relatively
stable over the 20-year time period. In
3 scenarios, there was an overall
decrease in population abundance after
20 years. The baseline model (i.e., no
anthropogenic mortality, density
dependence affecting all vital rates,
current carrying capacity of 75,687
females) predicted the population
would increase to 23 percent of carrying
capacity after 5 years and 37 percent
after 10 years (Smith et al. 2011). When
introducing potential mortality from
downstream passage through dams
under different scenarios, the number of
females was still 16–37 percent of
carrying capacity in 10 years. Only one
scenario resulted in a 50-percent or
higher probability of reaching quasiextinction in 14 years (median time)
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices
available scientific and commercial
information on Alabama shad, including
the petition, public comments
submitted on our 90-day finding, and
other published and unpublished
information. We considered each of the
section 4(a)(1) factors to determine
whether it presented an extinction risk
to the species. We found that the risk of
extinction to Alabama shad throughout
its entire range was low. We could not
identify a SPOIR that was both
significant and where the species’ status
is threatened or endangered. Therefore,
our determination is based on a
synthesis and integration of the
foregoing information, factors, and
considerations, and their effects on the
status of the species throughout its
entire range. We conclude that the
Alabama shad is not presently in danger
of extinction, nor is it likely to become
so in the foreseeable future, throughout
all or a significant portion of its range,
and that listing as threatened or
endangered is not warranted.
Listing Determination
Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires
that NMFS make listing determinations
based solely on the best scientific and
commercial data available after
conducting a review of the status of the
species and after taking into account
those efforts, if any, being made by any
state or foreign nation, or political
subdivision thereof, to protect and
conserve the species. We have
independently reviewed the best
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2
during the 20-year projection (Smith et
al. 2011). The remaining scenarios with
population declines (scenarios m and s)
did not drop below the quasi-extinction
level more than 50 percent of the time.
While Smith et al.’s (2011) PVA
cannot predict precisely the population
size of the Alabama shad population in
the ACF River system in the future, it
demonstrates that Alabama shad
populations are highly resilient and will
likely increase, even when faced with
anthropogenic induced mortality and
drought, under all but the most dire
conditions. While available information
suggests the spawning population of
Alabama shad in the ACF may be
significant, we do not find that the
species within this portion of its range
is in danger of extinction nor do we
believe it is likely to become so in the
foreseeable future. Consequently, we are
unable to identify a SPOIR for Alabama
shad that would change the listing
determination relative to the status of
the species range-wide.
Peer Review
In December 2004, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) issued
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for
Peer Review establishing minimum peer
review standards, a transparent process
for public disclosure of peer review
planning, and opportunities for public
participation. The OMB Bulletin,
implemented under the Information
Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554) is
intended to enhance the quality and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 Jan 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
4061
credibility of the Federal government’s
scientific information, and applies to
influential or highly influential
scientific information disseminated on
or after June 16, 2005. To satisfy our
requirements under the OMB Bulletin,
we obtained independent peer review of
our review of the status of Alabama
shad, including our extinction risk
analysis. Three independent specialists
were selected from the academic and
scientific community, Federal and state
agencies, and the private sector for this
review. All peer reviewer comments
were addressed prior to dissemination
of the publication of this 12-month
determination. The peer review
comments can be found at: https://
www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/
prplans/ID322.html.
References
A complete list of all references cited
herein is available at: https://
sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_
resources/listing_petitions/species_esa_
consideration/.
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: January 5, 2017.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Assistant Administrator for Regulatory
Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–00372 Filed 1–11–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM
12JAN2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4022-4061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00372]
[[Page 4021]]
Vol. 82
Thursday,
No. 8
January 12, 2017
Part III
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Notice of 12-Month
Finding on a Petition To List Alabama Shad as Threatened or Endangered
Under the Endangered Species Act; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 82 , No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 /
Notices
[[Page 4022]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 130626570-6999-02]
RIN 0648-XC742
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Notice of 12-Month
Finding on a Petition To List Alabama Shad as Threatened or Endangered
Under the Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12-month finding and listing
determination on a petition to list Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae) as
threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We
have completed a comprehensive review of the status of Alabama shad in
response to the petition submitted by the Center for Biological
Diversity (CBD), Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood
Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and the
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy (petitioners). Based on the best
scientific and commercial information available on the status of
Alabama shad, we have determined that the species does not warrant
listing at this time. We conclude that the Alabama shad is not
currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range and is not likely to become so within the
foreseeable future.
DATES: This finding was made on January 12, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The reference list associated with this determination is
available by submitting a request to the Species Conservation Branch
Chief, Protected Resources Division, NMFS Southeast Regional Office,
263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5505, Attn: Alabama
shad 12-month finding. The reference list is also available
electronically at:https://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/listing_petitions/species_esa_consideration/
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Shotts, NMFS, Southeast Regional
Office (727) 824-5312; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources (301) 427-8469.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In 1997, we added Alabama shad to our Candidate Species List (62 FR
37562; July 14, 1997). At that time, a candidate species was defined as
any species being considered by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)
for listing as an endangered or a threatened species, but not yet the
subject of a proposed rule (49 FR 38900; October 1, 1984). In 2004, we
created the Species of Concern list (69 FR 19975; April 15, 2004) to
encompass species for which we have some concerns regarding their
status and threats, but for which insufficient information is available
to indicate a need to list the species under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Twenty-five candidate species, including the Alabama shad, were
transferred to the Species of Concern list at that time because they
were not being considered for ESA listing and were better suited for
Species of Concern status due to some concerns and uncertainty
regarding their biological status and threats. The Species of Concern
status does not carry any procedural or substantive protections under
the ESA.
On April 20, 2010, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD),
Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf
Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and the West Virginia
Highlands Conservancy (petitioners) submitted a petition to the
Secretaries of Interior and Commerce, as well as to the Regional
Director of the Southeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species from the
southeastern United States as threatened or endangered under the ESA.
The petitioners also requested that critical habitat be designated for
all petitioned species. We notified the USFWS' Southeast Region by
letter dated May 3, 2010, that the Alabama shad, one of the 404
petitioned species, would fall under NMFS' jurisdiction based on the
August 1974 Memorandum of Understanding regarding jurisdictional
responsibilities and listing procedures between the two agencies. We
proposed to USFWS that we would evaluate the petition, for Alabama shad
only, for the purpose of the 90-day finding and any required subsequent
listing action. On May 14, 2010, we sent the petitioners confirmation
we would be evaluating the petition for Alabama shad. On February 17,
2011, we published a negative 90-day finding in the Federal Register
(76 FR 9320) stating that the petition did not present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested
listing of Alabama shad may be warranted.
On April 28, 2011, in response to the negative 90-day finding, CBD
filed a notice of intent to sue the Department of Commerce (DOC) and
NMFS for alleged violations of the ESA in making its finding. CBD filed
the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on
January 18, 2012. On June 21, 2013, CBD and DOC/NMFS settled the
lawsuit. We agreed to reevaluate the original listing petition, as well
as information in our files, including some additional information we
acquired after the original 90-day finding published on February 17,
2011, and publish a new 90-day finding. On September 19, 2013, we
published a 90-day finding with our determination that the petition
presented substantial scientific and commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted (78 FR 57611).
Our 90-day finding requested scientific and commercial information
from the public to inform a review of the status of the species. We
requested information on the status of Alabama shad, including: (1)
Historical and current distribution and abundance of this species
throughout its range, including data addressing presence or absence at
a riverine scale; (2) historical and current population sizes and
trends; (3) biological information (life history, genetics, population
connectivity, etc.); (4) landings and trade data; (5) management,
regulatory, and enforcement information; (6) any current or planned
activities that may adversely impact the species; and (7) ongoing or
planned efforts to protect and restore the species and its habitat. We
received information from the public in response to the 90-day finding,
and we incorporated all relevant information into our review of the
status of Alabama shad.
Listing Species Under the ESA
We are responsible for determining whether Alabama shad warrants
listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) To be considered for listing under the ESA, a group of organisms
must constitute a ``species,'' which is defined in section 3 of the ESA
to include taxonomic species and ``any subspecies of fish, or wildlife,
or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of
vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' Section 3
of the ESA defines an endangered species as ``any species which is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as one ``which is likely to become an
[[Page 4023]]
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.'' Thus, we interpret an ``endangered
species'' to be one that is presently in danger of extinction. A
``threatened species,'' on the other hand, is not presently in danger
of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future
(that is, at a later time). In other words, the primary statutory
difference between a threatened and endangered species is the timing of
when a species may be in danger of extinction, either presently
(endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened).
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us to make listing
determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data
available after conducting a review of the status of the species and
after taking into account efforts being made by any state or foreign
nation to protect the species. Under section 4(a) of the ESA, we must
determine whether any species is endangered or threatened due to any
one or a combination of the following five factors: (A) The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence (Sections 4(a)(1)(A) through (E)).
We followed a stepwise approach in making this listing
determination for Alabama shad. First we conducted a biological review
of the species' taxonomy, distribution, abundance, life history, and
biology. Next, using the best available information, we completed an
extinction risk assessment using the general procedure of Wainwright
and Kope (1999). Then, we assessed the threats affecting the status of
each species using the five factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of
the ESA.
In the next step, we evaluated the available information to
determine whether there is a portion of the species' range that is
``significant'' in light of the use of the term in the definitions of
threatened and endangered. We followed the final policy interpreting
the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (79 FR 37578; July 1,
2014). A portion of the range of a species is ``significant'' if the
species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of its
range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the species
is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species
would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future, throughout all of its range.
We describe each of the steps listed above in detail in the
following sections of this finding.
Review of the Status of Alabama Shad
We have identified the best available scientific and commercial
information in order to conduct a comprehensive review of the status of
Alabama shad. Unlike many of our other 12-month findings, we have not
developed a separate status review report. Instead we present all
available relevant information for Alabama shad in this Federal
Register notice.
Taxonomy
Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae) was first described by David Starr
Jordan and Barton Warren Evermann in 1896 in the Black Warrior River
near Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Jordan and Evermann 1896). Alabama shad was
depicted earlier as ``white shad'' in documents from the U.S.
Commission on Fish and Fisheries circa 1860 and was often confused with
other shad even after it had been described (Daniels 1860, Barkuloo et
al. 1993). Alabama shad belong to the family Clupeidae and are closely
related to, as well as similar in appearance and life history to, the
American shad (A. sapidissima). They also resemble the skipjack herring
(A. chrysochloris), which occurs in the same areas as Alabama shad.
Defining characteristics of the Alabama shad are an upper jaw with a
distinct median notch, and the number of gill rakers (41 to 48) on the
lower limb of the anterior gill arch. Alabama shad differ
morphologically from other Alosa species that occur in the same area by
a lower jaw that does not protrude beyond the upper jaw, black spots
along the length of the lower jaw, and a dorsal fin that lacks an
elongated filament.
Alabama shad are considered a separate species from the closely
related American shad based on mitochondrial DNA molecular data (Bowen
2005, 2008, Kreiser and Schaefer 2009), in addition to the physical
differences. There is limited genetic difference and it is theorized
that the two species have only recently diverged from a common
ancestor. Alabama shad is its own monophyletic group (a group of
organisms descended from a single ancestor) due to limited genetic
differences among the Clupeidae family and allopatric speciation
(speciation by geographic isolation, Bowen 2008). There has been no
significant genetic differentiation among different stocks of Alabama
shad geographically and there is no evidence of hybridization between
any of the other Alosa species and Alabama shad (Kreiser and Schaefer
2009).
Diet
Alabama shad are likely generalist insect feeders. Mickle et al.
(2013) conducted stomach content analyses on individuals collected from
the Pascagoula and Apalachicola Rivers. The stomach contents of the
smallest juvenile Alabama shad (those less than 50 millimeters),
collected exclusively from the Pascagoula River, were made up primarily
of semi-decomposed algae and other unidentifiable organics, suggesting
filter feeding or particulate feeding of smaller prey. As the size of
Alabama shad taken from the Pascagoula River increased, the percentage
of terrestrial and aquatic insects in the stomach contents increased.
Mickle et al. (2013) found that terrestrial insects dominated the
stomach contents of all size classes of Alabama shad taken from the
Apalachicola River. Diet of Alabama shad from both the Apalachicola and
Pascagoula Rivers changed as the size of the fish increased, with
insects replacing unidentifiable organic matter. Ephemeroptera nymphs,
an order of aquatic insects, dominated the diets of larger Alabama shad
from both rivers. These nymphs produce aquatic juvenile larvae that
emerge in open water in the same habitats where Mickle et al. (2013)
collected the Alabama shad for their study. Mickle et al. (2013) noted
that these observed ontogenetic dietary shifts seemed to coincide with
habitat shifts and are consistent with a generalist strategy.
Age and Growth
Like many clupeids (the family of fish that include shad, herring,
sardines, and menhaden), egg hatching period and growth of subsequent
larvae varies by location and environmental factors. Mickle et al.
(2010) found those Alabama shad that hatched in the Apalachicola River
had a longer successful hatch window (mean of 58 days) compared to
those in the Pascagoula River (mean of 33.8 days).
Juvenile Alabama shad exhibit rapid growth, although the size of
juveniles varies across the range of the species. Typical juvenile
Alabama shad increase in size from about 4.7 centimeters total length
(cm TL, the length of the fish measured from the tip of the snout to
tip of the tail fin) to about 10.1 cm TL over the summer but variation
can occur depending on the river drainage. For example, juvenile
Alabama shad from the Apalachicola River grew faster than those in the
Pascagoula River despite
[[Page 4024]]
similar environmental conditions (Laurence and Yerger 1967, Mickle
2010). In the Chipola River, Florida, juveniles move downstream at an
average size of 6.5 cm TL, while those moving down the nearby
Apalachicola River averaged 11.5 cm TL (Laurence and Yerger 1967).
In both the Apalachicola and Choctawhatchee Rivers, Florida, adult
female shad were typically longer and heavier than the adult males
(Laurence and Yerger 1967, Mills 1972, Mettee and O'Neil 2003). Age 1-3
males on average weigh 250 grams and age 1-4 females weigh around 650
grams before spawning (Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Ingram 2007).
Two studies have aged otoliths of Alabama shad but only one study
has fit growth models to observed age data. In the Pascagoula River,
maximum observed age was 6 years based on otoliths (Mettee and O'Neil
2003), while Ingram (2007) aged shad from the Apalachicola River to 4
years.
Reproductive Biology
Alabama shad is a euryhaline (adapted to a wide range of
salinities), anadromous fish species that migrates between the ocean
and medium to large flowing rivers to spawn (reproduce) from the
Mississippi River basin to the Suwannee River, Florida. Alabama shad
spawn in February to April at lower latitudes in the south and May to
June in more northern latitudes, usually over sandy bottoms, gravel
shoals, or limestone outcrops (Laurence and Yerger 1967, Mills 1972,
Barkuloo 1993, Kreiser and Schaefer 2009, Mickle et al. 2010). Water
temperatures between 18 and 22 [deg]C and moderate current velocities
(0.5-1.0 meters (m) per second) promote successful spawning (Laurence
and Yerger 1967, Mills 1972). If environmental circumstances are
unfavorable, mature Alabama shad will sometimes abandon their upstream
spawning movement (Young 2010).
Spawning males range in age from 1 to 5 years and females from 2 to
6 years (Mickle et al. 2010). Some age-1 male Alabama shad move into
fresh water for their first spawning, but the primary spawning age
classes tend to be 2-3 years for males and 2-4 years for females; any
age-4 Alabama shad present in rivers are almost always female (Laurence
and Yerger 1967, Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Ingram 2007). Males arrive at
spawning sites first and increase in abundance as the spawning season
continues, while females appear in large groups slightly later in the
spawning season (Mills 1972, Mettee and O'Neil 2003). It is unknown
whether females arrive with ripened eggs, as suggested by Mills (1972),
or if their gonads ripen as river temperatures increase (Laurence and
Yerger 1967). Females tend to release their eggs in late April and
early May when the water temperatures are 20-21 [deg]C (Mettee and
O'Neil 2003, Ingram 2007). Fecundity (reproductive capacity) is related
to size, with larger females producing more eggs (Ingram 2007, Young
2010). Alabama shad produced 26,000-250,000 eggs per female in the
Apalachicola River and between 36,000-357,000 eggs per female in the
Choctawhatchee River (Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Ingram 2007). After
spawning, the younger (age 2 and 3) Alabama shad migrate back to marine
waters. The older spawners (age-4 and older) either die or are preyed
upon by other piscivorous fish (Laurence and Yerger 1967).
Because of the age range among the spawning fish, it is believed
that individuals may spawn more than once in a lifetime (Laurence and
Yerger 1967, Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Ingram 2007, Mickle et al. 2010).
Laurence and Yerger (1967) indicated that 35 percent of Alabama shad
were likely repeat spawners and noted that 2-4 year old males from the
Apalachicola River had spawning marks on their scales. Mills (1972)
also observed 35-38 percent repeat spawners (mostly age-3) as well as
discernable spawning marks on scales from the Apalachicola River
population. In addition, Mettee and O'Neil (2003) noted that many
Alabama shad collected from the Choctawhatchee River were repeat
spawners, with age-3 and age-4 females comprising the majority of
repeat spawners in 1994-1995, and age-2 and age-3 females the majority
in 1999-2000. In contrast, Ingram (2007) has not observed spawning
marks on the scales of Apalachicola River shad and most fish in the
Apalachicola may die after spawning (Smith et al. 2011). Alabama shad
appear to be philopatric and return to the same rivers to spawn,
resulting in slight genetic differences among river drainages (Meadows
2008, Mickle 2010). These genetic differences may result in
characteristics (e.g., faster growth rates, higher temperature
tolerance, etc.) that lead to variable spawning strategies among river
drainages. Kreiser and Schaefer (2009) found slight genetic
distinctions between populations from the Mississippi River basin and
coastal Gulf of Mexico drainages due to Alabama shad straying from
their natal rivers, at an estimated rate of about 10 migrants per
generation.
Life History Strategy
On the spectrum of life history strategies, Alabama shad tend to be
``r strategists'', species that are typically short-lived, have small
body size, reach sexual maturity at an early age, and have high natural
mortality that is balanced by a high growth rate (Adams 1980). Species
that are r strategists adapt to unstable, unpredictable environments by
producing higher numbers of offspring as compared to k strategist
species living in stable, predictable environments. Elliott and
Quintino (2007) found that species living in unpredictable, variable,
and even stressed environments are well-adapted to cope with these
conditions without or with reduced adverse effects. Adapting to highly
variable environments also produces high natural variability in r
strategist populations. Adams (1980) noted that fisheries for r
strategists can have very large catches some years, but are
characterized by erratic, highly variable production levels overall.
Most clupeoids (an order of soft-finned fishes that includes Alabama
shad, other clupeids, and anchovies in the family engraulidae) have a
short life span and show striking inter-annual or decadal variation in
productivity and abundance (Mace et al. 2002). Fisheries for clupeoids
can vanish for 50-100 years then undergo a remarkable recovery with the
population growing as fast as 40 percent per year (Mace et al. 2002).
Sammons and Young (2012) noted that the population sizes of species
in the Alosa genus commonly fluctuate widely. An Alabama shad
researcher with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) noted
that as an r strategist, Alabama shad are prone to ``boom and bust''
years, but they are also highly fecund (capable of producing an
abundance of offspring) and can recover quickly from even a small
number of fish (based on the results of stocking efforts; T. Ingram,
Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016). In fact,
the speciation (evolutionary process by which reproductively isolated
biological populations evolve to become distinct species) of Alabama
shad likely occurred from a very small number of fish that dispersed
around the Florida peninsula and became separated from other Alosa
species during the Pleistocene (Bowen et al. 2008). Modeling conducted
by Moyer (2012) indicated that the Pleistocene bottleneck for Alabama
shad was intense. The effective population size for Alabama shad during
the bottleneck was estimated to be between 76 and 398, meaning 76-398
individuals is the
[[Page 4025]]
population size during the Pleistocene estimated to have been necessary
to result in the relatively low genetic diversity observed in members
of the species today. Moyer (2012) also noted that the bottleneck event
was prolonged (145-987 shad generations), indicating that the species
persisted at very low numbers for an extended period of time.
Habitat Use and Migration
Alabama shad are found in the Gulf of Mexico, although there is
very little information about their marine habitat use. Only six
records of Alabama shad collected in marine waters exist. The Florida
Museum of Natural History reports one specimen was captured in July
1957 approximately 80 miles (mi) or 129 kilometers (km) south of
Choctawhatchee Bay, Florida, in about 100 meters of water (Fishnet2
2015, Catalogue #28671). The National Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian Institution, reports another Alabama shad was captured just
off Dauphin Island, Alabama, in December 1960 in 15 meters of water
(Fishnet2 2015, Catalogue #293755.5174309). Two Alabama shad were
collected approximately 115 km southwest of Cape San Blas, Florida in
November 2007 (Fishnet2 2015, Catalogue #20627). An Alabama shad was
collected by the Texas A&M University Biodiversity Research and
Teaching Collections in a trawl about 25 mi (40 km) offshore of
Florida, between Tampa Bay and the Charlotte Harbor Estuary (Fishnet2
2016, Catalogue #14540.07). In March 2013, an adult female Alabama shad
was collected during a fishery independent monitoring survey
approximately 15 km south of the Pascagoula River just north of Petit
Bois Island in Mississippi Sound and approximately 5 km east of Horn
Island Pass, which leads to the open Gulf of Mexico (Mickle et al.
2015). Microsatellite DNA analysis indicated that the fish was most
genetically similar to Alabama shad originating from the Pascagoula
River. She was observed to have well-developed ovaries, and Mickle et
al. (2015) suggested she may have been preparing to make a spawning
run. Stomach content analyses showed that the fish was full of small
invertebrates. Previous studies (e.g., Mills 1972) report few or no
stomach contents in Alabama shad collected in riverine environments.
The marine specimen with a full stomach collected by Mickle et al.
(2015) supports that Alabama shad likely feed primarily in marine
habitats, similar to other anadromous species.
As part of their anadromous life cycle, adult Alabama shad leave
the Gulf of Mexico and move into rivers in the spring to spawn. First
year (age-0) juveniles stay upriver in freshwater environments until
late summer or fall and eventually migrate downstream to the Gulf of
Mexico. Juveniles coming from natal rivers located at more northern
latitudes (e.g., Ouachita River in Arkansas) begin downstream movement
throughout the summer, reaching the Gulf of Mexico by autumn. Juveniles
located at more southern latitudes (e.g., Pascagoula River in Florida)
will remain in natal rivers as late as December before beginning their
downstream movement to the Gulf of Mexico. Alabama shad do not
overwinter in freshwater river systems (Mickle et al. 2010).
Alabama shad prefer cooler river waters with high dissolved oxygen
(DO) and pH levels (Mickle et al. 2010). Although there have been no
studies on the thermal tolerances of Alabama shad, other Alosa species
cannot tolerate water temperatures greater than 32[deg]C; it is likely
that Alabama shad also cannot tolerate high water temperatures
(Beitinger et al. 1999). Mickle et al. (2010) found spawning adults in
waters as cold as 10 [deg]C, but juveniles have been collected in
waters as warm as 32 [deg]C (Mickle et al. 2010, Young 2010).
Water velocity is also believed to be an important habitat feature,
as this species is rarely found in the still or backwater portions of
rivers. It is hypothesized that spring floods (increased river flows)
are a vital environmental cue for spawning adults as well as an
important aspect for successful hatching. Juveniles tend to occupy
moderate to fast moving water (approximately 0.5-1.2 m per second) that
is less than 1 m deep (Mickle 2010). Clear water with minimal benthic
algal growth also appears to be preferred by this species (Buchanan et
al. 1999).
Smaller, younger shad tend to prefer the slightly shallower, more
protected areas over sandbars, while the older, larger shad can be
found in channel and bank habitats. Sandbars within the bends of rivers
that are less than 2 m deep often support juveniles in the early summer
(Mickle 2010). As the fish grow, they move to bank (greater than 2.5 m
deep) and channel (1.5-2.5 m deep) habitats, although the shift is not
always consistent (Mickle 2010). Presumably, this allows the juveniles
to avoid predators, fulfill foraging needs, or access cooler
temperatures that might be present in deeper waters (Bystrom 2003,
Mickle et al. 2010, Mickle 2010).
Distribution and Abundance
NMFS documented the current known distribution and abundance of
Alabama shad in a technical memorandum published in August 2011 (Smith
et al. 2011). In addition to conducting an extensive search of all
publications, technical reports, and theses available, NMFS staff
surveyed scientists at universities, state and Federal facilities, and
non-profit organizations throughout the historical range of Alabama
shad for any recent recorded captures. Surveys were sent by email, and
information was requested on capture dates, location, and number of
Alabama shad captured, if available. Additionally, capture information
and observations were provided by state and Federal agencies during the
public comment period on our 90-day finding.
Information on the historical and current distribution and
abundance of Alabama shad is largely lacking. Alabama shad was never an
economically important species, therefore information from fisheries
statistics, such as landings data, is rare. Hildebrand (1963) noted
that Alabama shad were considered unfit for human consumption, and the
lack of demand produced no incentive to capture the species or record
its presence and abundance. Very few directed research studies on
Alabama shad have occurred, with the exception of recent studies in the
Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint (ACF) and Pascagoula River systems.
The recent studies in the ACF River system have produced the only
abundance estimates, either historical or current, for Alabama shad in
any river system. The historical and current distribution of Alabama
shad in other systems is based on capture data from general multi-
species surveys, project monitoring, captures incidental to other
research studies, and anecdotal information. Information received from
state resource agencies (e.g., during the public comment period on the
90-day finding and during development of this determination, presented
in the sections below) corroborates that long-term, strategic studies
of the species in their states are lacking. For instance, the Arkansas
Fish and Game Commission stated in their comments on the Alabama shad
positive 90-day finding they could not assess the status of Alabama
shad in their state because of the scarcity of information on the
species, the lack of targeted surveys, and the unknown detectability of
the species (M. Oliver, Chief of Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game
Commission, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, November 5, 2013).
Mettee and O'Neil (2003) note that low numbers of recorded Alabama
shad individuals may be due, at least in part, to insufficient sampling
effort during
[[Page 4026]]
appropriate times (i.e., spawning migrations) and with the appropriate
gear to target the species. Hildebrand (1963) noted the importance of
proper gear, citing greatly increased catches of Alabama shad that
occurred in Kentucky when surface-fishing seines were substituted for
bottom-fishing seines. Short-term studies may also fail to accurately
demonstrate the status of a given river population of Alabama shad
since this r strategist species is prone to high natural variability
and long-term studies would be necessary to reveal any population
trajectory.
In reviewing data provided by the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FFWCC) during the public comment period on the
positive 90-day finding (J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, November 12, 2013), less than 50 Alabama shad were reported since
1999. The shad were collected during multispecies surveys not
specifically targeting Alabama shad. The research with positive reports
of Alabama shad was conducted using otter trawls, seines, and
electrofishing during winter (December, January, February), spring
(May), summer (June, July, August), and fall (September, October,
November) months between 2002 and 2011. It is notable that none of the
FFWCC surveys were conducted in March or April, when the largest
catches of Alabama shad have occurred during targeted research in the
ACF River system (Kern 2016, Sammons 2013, 2014). Further, although
FFWCC caught less than 50 Alabama shad from 2002-2011, researchers
targeting Alabama shad in the ACF River system captured 128-1,497
Alabama shad per year during an overlapping time period (2005-2011;
Young 2010, 2011). This demonstrates the importance of the sampling
gear and time of year in interpreting available data and why short-term
and/or non-targeted research is not always a good indicator of
distribution and abundance.
Even studies designed to target Alabama shad have yielded
difficulties in detecting the species. Researchers studying Alabama
shad in the ACF River system noted they had great difficulty finding
Alabama shad in portions of the Flint River and expressed their
surprise at the difficulty, given the small size of the river (Kern
2016; S. Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam (JWLD) Fish Passage Year-End Summary
Meeting, January 2014; S. Sammons, Auburn University, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End Summary Meeting, January
2015). Large gaps in detections of Alabama shad were observed in the
Flint River (Kern 2016; S. Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, pers.
comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End Summary Meeting,
January 2014; S. Sammons, Auburn University, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End Summary Meeting, January 2015).
Alabama shad were detected at upstream and downstream locations on
acoustic receivers, but were not detected by receivers in between.
Multiple methods were used with limited success to improve the
detectability of Alabama shad, including passive (anchored receivers),
boat, and airplane tracking of acoustically and radio-tagged shad (S.
Sammons, Auburn University, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish
Passage Year-End Summary Meeting, January 2015). Kern (2016) believed a
combination of behavioral and environmental factors reduced the
detectability of Alabama shad. Kern (2016) notes there are many ``blue
hole'' springs along the river's length that are substantially deeper
than the surrounding river and it is possible that Alabama Shad may use
these features as refugia during the spawning migration. High water
conditions were also experienced during portions of the sampling
period. Kern (2016) stated that increased water depth during periods of
high river discharge, swimming depth of Alabama Shad, and the presence
of significantly deeper habitats than what is available in the rest of
the river could lead to decreased detection probability by exceeding
the detection range of passive and manual receivers. Kern (2016) also
noted that Alabama shad are capable of long, rapid migration runs and
if those migration runs occur at night, Alabama shad will not be
detected by manual tracking (from boats and airplanes) that occurs
exclusively during the day. The same detection problems (gaps in
Alabama shad detection at receivers between two positive detection
points) were experienced during Alabama shad conservation locking
studies in the Alabama River system (Kern 2016; S. Sammons, Auburn
University, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End
Summary Meeting, January 2015).
It is unknown to what degree the lack or low numbers of Alabama
shad reported for many river systems accurately reflects the abundance
in those systems or whether it is indicative of the lack of targeted
studies or the detectability of this species.
Distribution and abundance information is summarized below by
rivers, starting with the Apalachicola River where we have the most
information regarding Alabama shad, then information is presented by
rivers from west to east.
Apalachicola River Drainage
The Apalachicola River drainage is made up of the Apalachicola,
Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers and drains water from parts of Florida,
Alabama, and Georgia. Alabama shad were known to have migrated from the
Apalachicola River up the Chattahoochee River to Walter F. George
Reservoir in the early 1970s (Smith et al. 2011), even with the
construction downstream of the Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam (JWLD) in the
early 1950s and George W. Andrews Lock and Dam in the early 1960s.
Alabama shad were able to pass upstream and downstream when the
navigation locks were open. Located at the confluence of the
Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, JWLD is the first major obstacle on the
Apalachicola River to the upstream migration of Alabama shad to their
historical spawning grounds. River traffic on the Apalachicola River
resulted in the lock being operated frequently, allowing passage and
sustaining reproduction of the resident Alabama shad population.
Historically, JWLD was operated continuously 24 hours per day for
commercial barge traffic (Sammons 2013). With the elimination of
commercial traffic in the late 1960s, lock operation was reduced to 8
hours per day for on-demand passage of recreational boats, reducing the
number of lockages to less than 100 per year from a high of 1200. Barge
traffic decreased and lock operation became less frequent when
navigational dredging ceased in 2001 (J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. to
K. Shotts, NMFS, November 12, 2013). Researchers believe Alabama shad
spawn in shoal habitat downstream of JWLD based on observations of the
species congregating over the shoals during spawning season, as well as
usage by other spawning anadromous species, such as Gulf sturgeon
(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi; T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to
K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016).
During the public comment period, the FFWCC reported collecting
fewer than 50 Alabama shad in the lower Apalachicola River since 1999
(J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, November 12, 2013).
In reviewing the data provided by FFWCC during the public comment
period on the positive 90-day finding, the fewer than 50 Alabama shad
reported since 1999 were collected during multispecies surveys (i.e.,
Alabama shad were not specifically targeted). The research with
positive reports of Alabama shad was
[[Page 4027]]
conducted using otter trawls, seines, and electrofishing during winter
(December, January, February), spring (May), summer (June, July,
August), and fall (September, October, November) months between 2002
and 2011. It is notable that none of the surveys were conducted in
March or April, when the largest catches of Alabama shad have occurred
during research targeting Alabama shad in the ACF River system, which
occurs annually between March and May to coincide with the spring
spawning migration (Kern 2016, Sammons 2013, 2014). Further, although
FFWCC caught less than 50 Alabama shad from 2002-2011, researchers
targeting Alabama shad in the ACF River system captured 128-1,497
Alabama shad per year during an overlapping time period (2005-2011;
Young 2010, 2011). This demonstrates the importance of the sampling
gear and time of year in interpreting available data and why short-term
and/or non-targeted research is not always a good indicator of
distribution and abundance.
The ACF River system likely contains the largest spawning
population of Alabama shad within its range, although the population
may be several orders of magnitude smaller than historical levels
(Schaffler et al. 2015). Because this population has remained self-
sustaining even with apparent declines, a project to restore passage to
upstream spawning habitats was initiated (Schaffler et al. 2015).
Beginning in 2005, a cooperative study supported by multiple local,
academic, state, and Federal conservation partners started tracking
movements of Alabama shad and other fish species in the Apalachicola
River (USFWS 2008, Ely et al. 2008, TNC 2010). The study also evaluated
the feasibility of moving fish upriver of JWLD during the spawning
season. The results of this collaborative study showed that the
existing lock at JWLD could be operated to allow fish to move upriver
through the lock where they could access additional spawning habitat.
Based on these results, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began
``conservation locking'' (operating the lock at JWLD to provide Alabama
shad access to upstream habitat) in 2005.
In 2012, the ``cooperator'' organizations (USACE, USFWS, NMFS,
Georgia DNR, FFWCC, and TNC) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
clarifying their commitments and responsibilities in the continued
implementation of fish passage at JWLD. The contents of the MOU are
described in more detail in the ``Regulations on Dams'' section in ``D.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms.'' In fulfillment of the
cooperation outlined in the MOU, an annual meeting to discuss the
issues and outcomes from the previous spring conservation locking cycle
is held, usually in the early part of the following year (i.e., January
or February). At the annual meetings, the cooperators and other
interested parties (e.g., universities that are not signatories to the
MOU, but are heavily involved in research activities associated with
the conservation locking in the ACF River system) discuss lessons
learned from the previous year and participate in planning the next
cycle of spring conservation locking, including whether the locking
operation and schedule can be improved. For example, during the planned
lock maintenance that occurred during the 2013-2014 season, the
cooperators were able to upgrade the method of delivering the
attractant flow (a stream of high velocity water used to attract
spawning fish) from a manual system to an electric pump as a more
efficient way to direct shad through the lock when conservation locking
resumed (S. Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End Summary Meeting, January
2014).
Population abundance estimates for Alabama shad in the ACF River
system were determined through mark-recapture methods from 2005-2016.
The estimated abundances for 2005-2016 are listed in the following
table (the asterisks indicate years in which no conservation locking
occurred due to maintenance and upgrades to the lock at JWLD). The
table also shows the catch per unit effort (CPUE) of adult and juvenile
Alabama shad during spring and fall sampling, respectively.
Table 1--Adult and Juvenile Alabama Shad Research Results in the ACF River System
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adult
population Confidence interval Adult CPUE
Year estimate (spring) (spring) Juvenile CPUE (fall)
(spring)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005................................ 25,935 17,715-39,535.......... 20.47 n/a.
2006................................ 2,767 838-5,031.............. 6.10 0.1.
2007................................ 8,511 5,211-14,674........... 13.17 5.75.
2008................................ 5,253 1,592-9,551............ 13.00 16.17.
2009................................ 10,753 3,258-19,551........... 9.20 0.
2010................................ 98,469 51,417-127,251......... 7.17 22.4.
2011................................ 26,193 22,371-43,713.......... 72.93 25.
2012................................ 122,578 57,911-282,872......... 100.6 1.9.
2013 *.............................. 2,039 618-3,706.............. 17.2 1.33.
2014 *.............................. n/a n/a [86 fish captured; 6.5 3.33.
no re-captures].
2015................................ 324 58-3,240............... 6.8 0.
2016................................ n/a [0 fish captured]...... 0 CPUE not yet
calculated [20
juveniles captured].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the period of conservation locking, Alabama shad have been
successfully passed through the navigational lock at the most
downstream dam on the ACF, JWLD, providing upstream migration to higher
quality spawning and juvenile rearing habitat, which has potentially
improved recruitment and lead to population increases (Ely et al. 2008,
Young et al. 2012, Schaffler et al. 2015). Since conservation locking
began, Alabama shad have been reported above JWLD in both the
Chattahoochee River and the Flint River (2008-2010) by the Georgia DNR
(Smith et al. 2011). The USACE reported Alabama shad in Lake George W.
Andrews in the Chattahoochee River during recent sampling of the area
(Smith et al. 2011). Only a few Alabama shad have been found in the
Chattahoochee River, with the vast majority being found in the Flint
River (Young 2010). In years when conservation locking occurred, the
locks were operated twice a day to correspond with the natural movement
patterns of migrating fish during spawning seasons (February through
May) each year. During conservation locking, acoustically tagged
Alabama shad
[[Page 4028]]
released below the dam have been found to pass upstream of the lock
with 45 percent efficiency (Young 2010). Alabama shad can more easily
access over 150 mi (241.4 km) of historical habitat and spawning areas
in the ACF River system for the first time in more than 50 years now
that the lock is operated to correspond with their natural spawning
cues (TNC 2010).
Schaffler et al. (2015) completed a study on shad collected in 2010
and 2011 to determine whether fish passage efforts at JWLD were
contributing recruits to the adult Alabama shad population. They
evaluated otolith (inner ear bone) chemistry from spawning adult
Alabama shad to determine the river reach within the ACF basin the fish
originated from. They first examined the otolith chemistry of known-
origin juveniles captured in freshwater reaches both upstream and
downstream of JWLD. Then, they compared the distinct chemical
signatures of the juvenile otoliths to those from returning spawning
adults of unknown origin captured below the dam to assign river-reach
natal origins. The results showed that the Flint River, inaccessible to
Alabama shad prior to conservation locking, is the dominant source of
recruits returning to spawn in the ACF River system making up 86
percent of the individuals captured. Schaffler et al. (2015) found no
evidence that collection year, sex, or age impacted the origin of
returning Alabama shad in the ACF River system, meaning the Flint River
produced the majority of recruits in the ACF River system for the 2008-
2010 cohorts of both males and females. The results from this study
indicate that conservation locking is making a tremendous contribution
to Alabama shad in the ACF River system, the bulk of the Alabama shad
population in the ACF River system is spawning in the Flint River, and
juvenile Alabama shad are able to successfully move downstream to
contribute to the adult stock.
In 2005, the population estimate in the ACF River system was about
26,000 individuals, but decreased to less than 10,000 in both 2006 and
2007 (Ely and Young 2008). In 2008 and 2009, mark-recapture methods
yielded an Alabama shad population estimate of approximately 5,200-
10,700. However, one of the researchers noted that the Alabama shad
population estimates for 2008 and 2009 (5,253 and 10,753 shad,
respectively) are likely underestimates of the actual population
numbers based on the results of a companion electrofishing study by
Clemson University (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, February 8, 2016). Based on a predictive model developed by
Clemson, the 2008 and 2009 Alabama shad population estimates would be
closer to 8,500 and 26,000 shad, respectively.
Young (2010) estimated the number of Alabama shad in the ACF River
system at 98,469 in 2010, almost 4 times larger than the previous high
estimate of 25,935 in 2005 (Ely et al. 2008). Alabama shad were the
most abundant species observed in the Apalachicola during spring
sampling in 2010 (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, June 6, 2016).
Within the ACF River system, the number of Alabama shad in 2011 was
estimated at 26,193; this is lower than the 2010 value but slightly
higher than the maximum abundance in the 2005-2009 period (Young 2011).
The major difference between the 2010 and 2011 Alabama shad spawning
runs was a lack of age-1 males in 2011. Ingram (2007) noted that fewer
age classes and lower numbers of older, more mature, fish are
indicative of a declining population. The 2011 run was dominated by
older, larger adult females in excellent condition, a potential
indicator of strong year classes in the future (Young 2011). Sammons
and Young (2012) provided a report from the Apalachicola River,
estimating the number of Alabama shad at 122,578 in 2012 (the largest
since 2005). This spawning run was composed of many males presumed to
be from the 2010 year class, as well as numerous older, larger adults
of both sexes (presumably recruits from 2008 and 2009). In 2012, the
abundance of 3- and 4-year-old fish made up the largest percentage of
spawning Alabama shad, rather than 1- and 2-year-olds as in previous
years (Ingram 2007), indicating a healthier population (T. Ingram,
Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016). Sammons and
Young (2012) noted that a year of higher than average flows in 2009 may
have contributed to spawning and recruitment successes in 2010 and
2012.
While conservation locking of Alabama shad at JWLD and monitoring
of Alabama shad populations in the ACF River system continue to receive
support and funding Alabama shad were not passed through the lock in
2013 and 2014 due to maintenance on the structure. However, 74 Alabama
shad out of a total of 251 captured by researchers during 2013 were
tagged and transported above JWLD and released (Kern 2016, Sammons
2013) in order to access habitat above the dam. Of the 74 tagged fish,
11 were verified as post-release mortalities, with another 3 suspected
mortalities (Sammons 2013). It is unknown whether Alabama shad not
captured by researchers successfully spawned at the shoal habitat below
JWLD where they spawned prior to conservation locking (Acipenser
oxyrinchus desotoi; T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, June 6, 2016). Also, during the maintenance period on the lock,
the method of delivering the attractant flow (a stream of high velocity
water used to attract spawning fish) was upgraded from a manual system
to an electric pump as a more efficient way to direct shad through the
lock when conservation locking resumed (S. Herrington, The Nature
Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End
Summary Meeting, January 2014).
Conservation locking appears to have enhanced spawning and
recruitment of Alabama shad in the ACF River system (Young 2010, 2011,
Sammons and Young 2012, Schaffler et al. 2015). Although the ACF
population of Alabama shad has been the largest known population for
decades (Laurence and Yerger 1967), the lack of conservation locking in
2013 and 2014, combined with environmental conditions (cold and
flooding) and the poor condition of spawning fish (discussed below),
likely produced the weakest year class since research began on Alabama
shad in the ACF River System in 2005. However, environmental conditions
(cold, flooding, and the presence of large debris) and funding levels
also hampered researchers' ability to survey the Alabama shad
population in the ACF River system in 2013-2015 to develop reliable
population estimates.
The Alabama shad population sampled below JWLD during the 2013
spawning season was low compared to previous seasons (Sammons 2013). A
total of 309 Alabama shad were captured below JWLD and of those fish,
87 fish were tagged and 1 was recaptured, resulting in a population
estimate of 2,039 Alabama shad (Sammons 2013). Sammons (2013) noted
that most Alabama shad collected below JWLD in 2013 were in poor
physical condition, with visible wounds (this will be discussed further
in ``C. Disease and Predation''). The wounds were observed only on
adult fish and not on younger fish, indicating the source may have
occurred in the Gulf of Mexico (Sammons 2013). The wounds were also not
observed on other anadromous species, indicating Alabama shad are
either more susceptible to the source of the wounds or they are
distributed in areas that the other species are not (Sammons 2013).
[[Page 4029]]
The wounds remain unexplained, but Sammons (2013) cited a news article
reporting gash wounds on fish potentially associated with the Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill resembling the wounds found on Alabama shad. Sammons
(2014) also cited Murawski et al. (2014) noting the anecdotal reports
of skin lesions in offshore fish species in 2010 and 2011, but the
symptoms declined by 2012. The sores have not been observed in any
Alabama shad captured since 2013 (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm.
to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016).
The Alabama shad captured below JWLD were tagged and/or released
approximately 5 km above the dam (Sammons 2013). Most of the Alabama
shad were relocated (detected again after release) in Lake Seminole
just above the dam, but some fish were detected moving into the
preferred spawning habitat in the Flint River (Sammons 2013). Although
fewer fish were detected making a spawning run than in previous years,
Alabama shad traveled greater distances from the area they were
released in 2013 than in previous years (Sammons 2013).
Reasons for the lack of fish found below JWLD are unknown, but
unusually cold water temperatures due to cooler weather patterns
present throughout the Apalachicola River Basin in 2013 may have been a
contributing factor (Sammons 2013). Water temperature serves as one of
the main cues for Alabama shad to enter the ACF River system to spawn
(Kern 2016, Sammons 2013). The researchers suspect that many Alabama
shad had not yet entered the Apalachicola River to spawn during their
sampling effort in the river, and this factored into the low numbers
captured during 2013.
In 2014, 102 Alabama shad were captured below JWLD; 86 were tagged
and released above JWLD (Sammons 2014). No fish were recaptured and a
population estimate could not be calculated (Sammons 2014). Since
conservation locking did not occur in 2013 or 2014 due to maintenance
of the lock, Alabama shad likely did not pass upstream except for those
transported by researchers. Sammons (2014) noted that the Alabama shad
captured in 2014 were smaller than shad captured in the previous two
years, but that the fish were in better condition and did not exhibit
the wounds as the majority of the population did in 2013. Although few
adult Alabama shad were captured in the spring 2014, juvenile Alabama
shad were collected in the fall sampling above JWLD in 2014 (CPUE of
3.3 in the table above), indicating that adult Alabama shad had
successfully passed upstream and spawned (P. Freeman, The Nature
Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End
Summary Meeting, February 2016). Despite no abundance estimate being
produced, juvenile CPUE in 2014 was higher than CPUEs in the 2 previous
years.
Given the low numbers, Sammons (2014) believes that weak year
classes were produced in 2013 and 2014. However, Sammons (2014) stated
that water levels and temperature may have factored in to the low
catches in 2014. Water levels and discharge were much higher during
Alabama shad sampling in 2014 than in the previous 2 years and the mean
catch rate of Alabama shad below JWLD was inversely correlated with
mean daily discharge over the past 5 years (Sammons 2014). High water
and discharge may have hindered catch rates, but spawning population
size was also likely low (Sammons 2014). Reasons for the lack of fish
found below JWLD are unknown, but may have also involved unusually cold
water temperatures. As in 2013, water temperature was generally more
than 2-4 [deg]C cooler throughout the spawning season than in 2011 or
2012 (Sammons 2014). Abnormally low water temperatures in the
Apalachicola River throughout the spring in 2013 and 2014 may have
inhibited the usual spawning migration cues of this species, resulting
in fewer fish migrating upstream (Sammons 2014). Sammons (2014) stated
it is possible that a significant spawning population of this species
persists in the Gulf of Mexico waiting for more normal spring
conditions to return to the river before initiating their spawning run.
In 2015, conservation locking resumed, but the Alabama shad
population estimate remained low (324 fish). Due to the lack of
conservation locking in 2013 and 2014, and potentially the lack of
successful spawning due to the poor condition of the Alabama shad
observed in 2013 (Sammons 2013, 2014), it is probable that the actual
number of returning adult Alabama shad in 2015 was low. Similar to the
previous year, researchers noted factors that may have reduced their
capture rates, such as high water levels and large amounts of debris in
the river that hampered sampling, potentially leading to the low number
of recaptures and the low population estimate (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR,
pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, February 3, 2016).
In 2016, high water levels occurred early in the sampling season,
but later returned to normal levels (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers.
comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016). No Alabama shad were captured
in the Apalachicola River in 2016, and therefore an abundance estimate
could not be produced for that year (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers.
comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016). However, Alabama shad were
observed lower in the Apalachicola River by another researcher
conducting striped bass surveys (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to
K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016). The Alabama shad survey occurred about
2 km downstream of JWLD (Sammons 2014) and therefore would not have
encountered Alabama shad occurring downstream of that location. The
gill-netting survey conducted in Lake Seminole above JWLD to detect
juvenile Alabama shad occurred in mid-December 2016 and produced 20
juvenile Alabama shad. Even though no adults were captured in the
spring survey, the collection of juvenile shad above JWLD indicates
that some adult Alabama shad did successfully pass through the lock and
spawn in the ACF system in 2016 (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to
K. Shotts, NMFS, December 15, 2016). At the time this 12-month
determination was prepared, the researchers had not yet calculated the
CPUE for the juvenile survey.
Funding levels and research effort may also have contributed to the
differences in abundance estimates between 2013-2016 (low number of
fish captured) and 2009-2012 (large number of fish captured). Funding
levels were much higher in 2009-2012 and researchers were pursuing
additional research questions beyond population estimates that required
them to capture more fish (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016). From 2009-2012, researchers logged more
research time on the Apalachicola River and targeted higher numbers of
Alabama shad, which produced robust population estimates. As noted,
environmental conditions greatly hampered research efforts in 2013-
2015. It is unknown whether catch rates were influenced by
environmental factors in 2016 or were strictly a reflection of very low
population numbers, but reduced funding further exacerbated
researchers' ability to increase survey efforts to offset research
difficulties or to opportunistically take advantage of improved
environmental conditions when they occurred (T. Ingram, Georgia DNR,
pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016). The differences in the
trends in Alabama shad adult population estimates and the CPUE of adult
Alabama shad between 2005-2016
[[Page 4030]]
can partially be explained by the differences in sampling effort levels
due to both environmental conditions and funding levels (T. Ingram,
Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016), although
researchers believe the Alabama shad spawning populations in the ACF
River system in 2013-2016 were smaller, especially compared to the
2009-2012 spawning populations.
As described above, low numbers of Alabama shad were captured in
2013-2015 and no adult Alabama shad were captured in 2016, producing
low or no population estimates. From 2013-2016, the primary cause of
low Alabama shad captures is likely that low numbers of Alabama shad
returned to spawn in the ACF River system during those years (Sammons
2013, 2014, T. Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS,
June 6, 2016). Conservation locking did not occur in 2013 and 2014 due
to maintenance and improvements on the lock. Some Alabama shad captured
by researchers were transported and released above JWLD, but the
remaining fish in the population likely only had access to any
downstream spawning habitat (Sammons 2013, 2014). However, while
conservation locking appears to have significantly increased spawning
and recruitment success of Alabama shad and expanded the species'
access to additional habitat in the ACF River system, the ACF
population has been the largest known population of Alabama shad for
decades (Laurence and Yerger 1967) even before conservation locking
occurred. The poor condition of Alabama shad in 2013, when most fish
collected had unexplained external wounds (Sammons 2013, 2014),
potentially led to poor spawning success and fewer returning spawners
in the following years. The CPUE of juvenile Alabama shad in the Flint
River in the fall of 2013 was low, although not the lowest observed and
similar to the CPUE for 2012, which had the highest adult population
estimate recorded since research commenced in 2005.
Environmental conditions may have affected both shad spawning
activities and the ability of researchers to detect shad. Cold
temperatures in 2013 and 2014 may have postponed the spring spawning
runs until temperatures increased later in the season (and after
Alabama shad research had already ceased), or the majority of Alabama
shad may have forgone their annual spawning run and remained in their
marine habitat (Sammons 2014). Water levels and discharge were much
higher during Alabama shad sampling in 2014 than in the previous 2
years and may have hindered catch rates. The mean catch rate of Alabama
shad below JWLD was inversely correlated with mean daily discharge over
the past 5 years (Sammons 2014). This is similar to observations in
other systems, and can mean high river discharge delayed or hindered
spawning runs or affected the ability of researchers to capture shad.
Kern (2016) found that the number of detections of tagged Alabama shad
in 2013 and 2014, as well as the extent of upstream migration by shad,
appeared to be influenced by river discharge, with the lowest number of
detections and least amount of upstream movement occurring during years
with relatively high river discharges. Sammons (2014; citing Holman and
Barwick 2011, and Pierce et al. 1985) noted that the inverse
relationship between capture of fish by electrofishing results and high
water level is well known. Alabama shad detection in general proved
surprisingly difficult to researchers, in both the ACF River and the
Alabama River systems, with large gaps in detections between areas
where Alabama shad were known to have occurred (Kern 2016; S.
Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS,
JWLD Fish Passage Year-End Summary Meeting, January 2014; S. Sammons,
Auburn University, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage
Year-End Summary Meeting, January 2015). Funding levels and research
effort may also have contributed to the differences in abundance
estimates between 2013-2016 (low number of fish captured) and 2009-2012
(large number of fish captured), with higher funding levels and
increased effort in 2009-2012 compared to the later years (T. Ingram,
Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016).
To further evaluate potential causes and effects of the low capture
rates in the ACF River system in 2013-2016, we compared the adult
population estimates and CPUEs from spring sampling with the CPUE of
juveniles sampled above JWLD in the fall. The CPUE for juvenile shad is
a metric derived from surveys designed to assess the recruitment
success of Alabama shad upstream of JWLD. Given the growth rate of
Alabama shad, surveys for juveniles upstream of JWLD in the fall would
indicate success of the spring spawning that occurred earlier in the
year. Trends in juvenile CPUE did not appear to follow trends in the
adult population estimates or the adult CPUEs. Further, the trends in
juvenile CPUE did not appear to reflect the trends in adult population
estimates either 1 or 2 years later, when juveniles would be of
spawning age. Recapture rates of tagged adult Alabama shad ranged from
0 to 2.2 percent per year for tagged shad. There was not a strong
relationship (r = 0.33) between population size and CPUE, nor between
population size and the number of recaptured fish (r = 0.21). However,
there was a strong positive relationship between population size and
the number of fish tagged (r = 0.82). Interestingly, there is a very
poor fitting relationship between the number of fish tagged and the
number of fish recaptured (r = 0.15), which indicates the results are
potentially heavily influenced by variability in the number of
recaptures in a given year. The researchers' ability to capture, but
not as easily recapture fish, may provide some indication that
difficulties in detecting Alabama shad during research efforts factored
into the low population estimates in addition to the actual population
size being low.
The low catch rates of Alabama shad in 2013-2016, although
potentially influenced by environmental conditions, detection ability,
and research effort, primarily indicate that Alabama shad populations
were much lower during those years than in the previous years of
research since 2005. However, for an r strategist species such as
Alabama shad that is inherently prone to high levels of natural
variability, it is very difficult to interpret a population trend from
11 years of population estimates, with no historical abundances
available for comparison. The abundance estimates for Alabama shad in
the ACF River System demonstrate that the abundance in the system for
the 11-year period is highly variable, and no population trend is
apparent. The confidence intervals around each of the abundance
estimates in the table show the wide range of uncertainty inherent in
the abundance data.
Based on the life history strategy of the species and the short
period over which abundance estimates have been available, we cannot
discern a pattern or trend in the Alabama shad population in the ACF
River system. As an r strategist, Alabama shad have high natural
mortality that is balanced by a high growth rate (Adams 1980). R
strategist populations are well-adapted to cope with unstable,
unpredictable environments, and this also produces high natural
variability in their populations (Elliott and Quintino 2007). Adams
(1980) noted that fisheries for r strategists are ``boom or bust,'' and
although catches can be very large some years, they will be
characterized by erratic production levels overall.
[[Page 4031]]
Alabama shad belong to the clupeoids, an order of fish that show
striking interannual or decadal variation in productivity and
abundance, with the ability to persist at extremely low population
numbers for 50-100 years then undergo a remarkable recovery with the
population growing as fast as 40 percent per year (Mace et al. 2002).
Sammons (2013) also noted that increases of Alabama shad populations
can happen very quickly, as demonstrated by the rapid rise in
population size between 2006-2009 and 2010-2012 (Sammons 2013). While
the Alabama shad population appears to be much smaller based on the
last 4 years of tag-recapture data as compared to the previous 7 years,
we did not detect a discernable trend, the high interannual variability
is not unexpected for this species, and the species is adapted to
recover from very low numbers of fish, even if the population persists
at depressed levels for long periods of time.
The studies in the ACF River system have produced the only
abundance estimates, either historical or current, for Alabama shad in
any river system. The following sections of the determination present
the historical and current distribution of Alabama shad in other
systems, which is primarily based on capture data from general multi-
species surveys, project monitoring, captures incidental to other
research studies, and anecdotal information.
Mississippi River
The Mississippi River is the largest river basin in North America
and drains portions of Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania,
Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma,
Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Alabama shad were historically
found in parts of the Mississippi River and its tributaries and several
small spawning populations remain.
Upper Mississippi River Mainstem
The Upper Mississippi River is the portion of the river upstream of
Cairo, Illinois. In the Upper Mississippi River, Alabama shad were
recorded in the 1994 Annual Status Report: ``A Summary of Fish Data in
Six Reaches of the Upper Mississippi River'' (Gutreuter et al. 1997) as
being captured in a long-term fish resource monitoring program. The
report was compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Minnesota
DNR, Wisconsin DNR, Iowa DNR, the Illinois Natural History Survey, and
the Missouri Department of Conservation. However, the Gutreuter et al.
(1997) report did not include specific data on Alabama shad and other
species, such as the number of fish caught, gear used, the location of
capture, etc. Presently, there are 10 locks and dams on the Upper
Mississippi River (north of the confluence with the Ohio River) that
border the state of Iowa and an additional seven locks and dams south
of the state that could prevent Alabama shad from reaching historical
spawning grounds within Iowa (Steuck et al. 2010). In 1915, 48 Alabama
shad were collected from the Upper Mississippi River near Keokuk, Iowa,
and it was reported that some of these fish were able to make it past
the Keokuk Dam (Lock and Dam #19) farther upstream (Coker 1928). Iowa
DNR has collected no Alabama shad in the Upper Mississippi River in the
areas between Lock and Dams #16 and #19 in the last 25 years (Smith et
al. 2011). Barko's study (2004b) in the Upper Mississippi River, near
the confluence of the Ohio and Missouri Rivers, found no Alabama shad
between 1994 and 2000. A species richness study conducted by Koel
(2004) indicates that the Upper Mississippi River in the state of
Illinois does not support Alabama shad. The Upper Mississippi River
Conservation Committee also indicated that there are only historical
records of Alabama shad in the Upper Mississippi River, and none have
been caught in over 10 years (Steuck et al. 2010). However, Wilcox
(1999) and Ickes (2014) both list Alabama shad as being present in the
Upper Mississippi River.
Missouri River
The Missouri River is a major tributary of the Mississippi River
and flows through Montana, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa,
Kansas, and Missouri. The lower Missouri River and its tributaries,
located in the center of Missouri, probably supported the greatest
number of Alabama shad in the state, although the records are limited
(Smith et al. 2011). The Missouri Fish and Wildlife Information System,
maintained by the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), states
that Alabama shad spawn in the Missouri River and two of its
tributaries, the Gasconade and Osage Rivers (MDC 2015, Pflieger 1997).
The MDC's earliest record of an Alabama shad in the Gasconade River was
23 fish collected in 1947 (C. Gemming, MDC biologist, pers. comm. to J.
Rueter, NMFS, September 21, 2016). A study determining the habitat use
of juvenile fish in the lower Missouri River did not identify Alabama
shad as being present between 1987 and 1988 (Brown and Coon 1994).
However, Galat (2005) recorded the presence of the species in the Lower
Missouri River in 2005, and stated that Alabama shad are rare in the
Ozark Plateaus region in southern Missouri. The MDC reported the
collections, by trawl and electrofishing, of Alabama shad from the
Gasconade River (41 fish in 1989, 4 fish in 1997, 17 fish in 2000, and
26 fish in 2012); the purposes and locations of those studies were
varied (e.g., project monitoring and fish surveys) and they were not
directed at collecting Alabama shad (C. Gemming, MDC biologist, pers.
comm. to J. Rueter, NMFS, September 21, 2016).
Meramec River
The Meramec River is a tributary of the Mississippi River whose
confluence is just south of the confluence of the Missouri River. The
entire length of the river is contained within Missouri. Alabama shad
were known to spawn in the Meramec River prior to 1978 (Mills et al.
1978) and a second spawning location in the river was discovered in the
Big River tributary (Mills et al. 1978). Between 1980 and 1997, 88
juvenile and 8 adult Alabama shad were captured in Missouri rivers,
including the Meramec River (Pflieger 1997). The University of
Tennessee reported the collection of 33 Alabama shad from the Big River
shoals in 1990 (Fishnet2 2016, Catalogue #29.12) Burr et al. (2004) and
Buchanan et al. (2012) list the Meramec as one of the remaining
spawning rivers of Alabama shad. The Missouri Fish and Wildlife
Information System, maintained by the Missouri Department of
Conservation, also states that Alabama shad spawn in the Meramec River
(MDC 2015).
Lower Mississippi River Mainstem
The Lower Mississippi River is the portion of the river downstream
of Cairo, Illinois. Alabama shad historically used the Mississippi
River as a means to reach many of its tributaries, but none have been
found in the lower portion of the waterway in recent years. Surveys
conducted by USACE on the Lower Mississippi River (north of Baton
Rouge, Louisiana) in the early 1980s show a slow decline in the number
of adult and juvenile Alabama shad (Pennington 1980, Conner 1983, Smith
et al. 2011). From the Thibodaux Weir on Bayou Lafourche, between
Donaldsonville and Raceland, Louisiana, a single Alabama shad was
caught using a gillnet in March of 2006 (Dyer 2007). Three Alabama shad
were caught in Louisiana just west of Atchafalaya Bay between 1992 and
1996 by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife
[[Page 4032]]
and Fisheries (Smith et al. 2011). However, no records of shad have
been reported in recent years in annual fish surveys conducted by USGS
in other Louisiana streams and rivers (Smith et al. 2011).
Ohio River
The Ohio River is the largest tributary by volume of the
Mississippi River and flows through Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia,
Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois. Although the species was present and
abundant enough to support a small and brief commercial fishery during
the late 19th century and early 20th century in Ohio, by 1989 the
majority of Alabama shad had been extirpated from the Ohio River
(Pearson and Pearson 1989). The USGS has not collected any Alabama shad
from the Ohio River since 1993 and the USFWS has no records of Alabama
shad in its database (Smith et al. 2011). Hammerson (2010) cites that
Etnier and Starnes (1993) recorded the collection of a large adult from
the Tennessee River (which flows into the Ohio River) just below
Kentucky Dam in Marshall County, Kentucky, in July 1986. However, there
have been no recent observations or collections of the species in the
Tennessee River (Smith et al. 2011). Although the species was once
present in the Clinch and Stones Rivers (tributaries of the Tennessee
River), no collections of Alabama shad were made in these systems after
1993 (Hammerson 2010, Etnier and Starnes 1993). Historically, the
Wabash River, another tributary of the Ohio River, was said to have a
``very limited number'' of Alabama shad in its waters in the mid-1800s
(Daniels 1860).
Arkansas River
The Arkansas River is a major tributary of the Mississippi River
that drains Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. Alabama shad have
not been collected in the Arkansas River since an 1892 collection of
one specimen in the Mulberry River tributary (M. Oliver, Chief of
Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game Commission, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, November 5, 2013). A few specimens were captured from the Poteau
River, a tributary of the Arkansas River, prior to the 1950s (Cross and
Moore 1952), but Lindsey et al. (1983) stated the species' status was
unclear. A compilation of 20 years of fish collection data from
Arkansas riverine systems by Matthews and Robison (1988) indicated no
records of Alabama shad. The species may have been extirpated from the
watershed by the construction of dams in the McClelland-Kerr Arkansas
River Navigation System in the early 1970s (M. Oliver, Chief of
Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game Commission, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, November 5, 2013).
Red River
The Red River, a major tributary of the Mississippi River, flows
through Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. The Washita, North
Fork, Kiamichi, and Little Rivers, as well as Lake Texoma, are part of
the Red River system. A compilation of 20 years of fish collection data
from Arkansas riverine systems by Matthews and Robison (1988) indicated
no records of Alabama shad in the Arkansas portion of the river. During
a 6-year sampling period from 1996-2001, no Alabama shad were caught in
the Red River (Buchanan et al. 2003). In a study on the effects of land
alterations on fish assemblages, Rutherford et al. (1992) found no shad
in the Little River. Presumably, Alabama shad are no longer able to
reach their former spawning grounds in the Little River due to
degradation of river habitat as a result of land modification (Buchanan
et al. 2003). No Alabama shad were collected from Lake Texoma or any of
its adjoining rivers (Red and Washita Rivers) between 1948 and 1958
(Riggs and Bonn 1959). The Denison Dam likely excluded the species from
these areas. The Altus Dam also likely excluded the species from Red
River tributaries, including the North Fork, Brier Creek, and Kiamichi
River, since there are no longer reports of Alabama shad (Winston and
Taylor et al. 1991, Matthews et al. 1988). In recent years, during
general river surveys conducted by the University of Oklahoma, Alabama
shad have not been collected in southeast and central Oklahoma (Smith
et al. 2011).
Illinois and Marys Rivers
The Illinois and Marys Rivers are both minor tributaries of the
Mississippi River contained solely within the state of Illinois. While
there are historical records of shad within Illinois rivers (Smith et
al. 2011), the historical abundance of Alabama shad in Illinois is not
known. The first collection of Alabama shad from the Illinois River was
47 fish taken in 1950 (Moore 1973). In a thorough report of the
biodiversity of the state's rivers and streams, Page (1991) found no
evidence of Alabama shad. However, Burr et al. (1996) reported two
juvenile Alabama shad, one near the mouth of the Marys River in 1994
and one in the Grand Tower in Devils Backbone Park in 1995. These two
captures support the hypothesis that some adult shad were able to spawn
in these areas during that time. Before these two captures, the last
Alabama shad to be captured in Illinois was a juvenile in 1962 (Burr et
al. 1996). Alabama shad appear to have been extirpated from many
Illinois rivers and are considered rare in the state. Annual field
studies conducted in the Illinois River by Illinois State University
have resulted in no additional records of Alabama shad (Smith et al.
2011).
White River
The White River is a minor tributary of the Mississippi River that
flows through Missouri and Arkansas and was recently discovered to
contain a spawning population of Alabama shad (Buchanan et al. 2012).
Matthews (1986) reported that no Alabama shad were found in White River
tributaries from 1972-1973 or 1981-1983. However, the Arkansas Fish and
Game Commission provided information during the public comment period
on our 90-day finding that three Alabama shad were collected from the
White River in 2006 (M. Oliver, Chief of Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and
Game Commission, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, November 5, 2013).
Buchanan et al. (2012) were the first to report the species in the
White River drainage when they collected 3 juvenile Alabama shad over a
sand-gravel bar in August 2006. The researchers believe the shad were
spawned in the mainstem White River or one of its tributaries and they
noted that the morphology and size of the White River specimens
compared well with Alabama shad previously reported from other
drainages in the state.
Ouachita River
The Ouachita River is a minor tributary of the Mississippi River
and flows through Arkansas and Louisiana. The Ouachita River system
includes the Little Missouri and Saline Rivers. The Ouachita and Little
Missouri Rivers contain spawning populations of Alabama shad (Buchanan
et al. 1999). Four pre-1900 records of Alabama shad from the Ouachita
River are known: One specimen near Hot Springs and three at Arkadelphia
(Buchanan et al. 1999). Buchanan et al. (1999) reported that 16
juvenile specimens were collected from the Saline River in 1972 and 3
juvenile specimens at the juncture of the Little Missouri and Ouachita
rivers in 1982. Buchanan et al. (1999) collected over 300 juvenile
Alabama shad from the Ouachita River and the Little Missouri River
between 1997 and 1998, and noted that Alabama shad were abundant at the
four sites where they were collected. Buchanan et al. (1999) also
documented a 1.3-kilogram (kg) adult taken on an artificial lure in
April 1997
[[Page 4033]]
in the Ouachita River below Remmel Dam. The Arkansas Fish and Game
Commission provided information during the public comment period on our
90-day finding that 10 Alabama shad were collected from the Ouachita
River in 2005 during a survey to evaluate the influence of increased
minimum flows after the relicensing of the Remmel Dam (M. Oliver, Chief
of Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game Commission, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, November 5, 2013). Several Alabama shad from the Ouachita
River were also collected and photographed on October 12, 2012, for the
purpose of illustrating a new edition of the ``Fishes of Arkansas'' (M.
Oliver, Chief of Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game Commission, pers.
comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, November 5, 2013).
Although the Saline River in Arkansas is the only free flowing
river left in the state, there have been no recent reports of Alabama
shad (Buchanan 1999). The Monroe Museum of Natural History at the
University of Louisiana has 16 Alabama shad that were collected from
the Saline River in 1972 (Buchanan et al. 2012). During the public
comment period on the 90-day finding, the Arkansas Fish and Game
Commission provided information from Layher et al. (1999) that their
targeted assessment of Alabama shad at 80 sites in the Saline River did
not encounter the species in the 4,863 fish collected and that severe
drought conditions may have influenced the results (M. Oliver, Chief of
Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game Commission, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, November 5, 2013). Throughout the year, Arkansas State University
conducts general fish sampling in the state's rivers and no captures of
Alabama shad have been reported in recent years (Smith et al. 2011).
Lake Pontchartrain, Lake Maurepas, and the Tangipahoa River
Alabama shad are only caught sporadically in the state of
Louisiana, and there are limited data for the species in its rivers
(Smith et al. 2011). The Tangipahoa River begins in southwest
Mississippi and drains into Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana. Due west
of Lake Pontchartrain, and connected by Pass Manchac and North Pass, is
Lake Maurepas. No Alabama shad were caught in the Tangipahoa River in
1994 (Knight 1994) and none were collected in Lake Pontchartrain
between 1996 and 2000. However, individuals were collected in Lake
Maurepas from 1983 to 1984 and in 2009 using trawl and gillnets,
indicating that some fish still pass through Lake Pontchartrain
(Hastings 1987, O'Connell et al. 2004, O'Connell et al. 2009).
Pearl River
Multispecies studies of the Pearl River were conducted by Tulane
University from 1963-1988 (Gunning and Suttkus 1990). Gunning and
Suttkus (1990) looked at the relative abundance of 84 species over the
course of the 25-year study, with sampling occurring at multiple
stations in Louisiana and Mississippi either on a quarterly or annual
basis. At stations where quarterly sampling was conducted, the spring
survey occurred in February in the Mississippi portion of the river and
April in the Louisiana portion of the river. Approximately 30 minutes
were spent at each station unless the river was flooded and water depth
limited sampling ability. Records from the Gunning and Suttkus (1990)
sampling surveys show a steady decline in catches of Alabama shad.
Sampling occurred in 16.1 km of the river above and below Bogalusa,
Louisiana, for 25 years; a 64.4 km section of the West Pearl River was
sampled for 16 years; and, a 64.4 km portion of the East Pearl River
was sampled for 16 years. Between 1963 and 1965, 384 Alabama shad were
caught from all river segments combined. Between 1965 and 1979, only 33
Alabama shad were captured. One Alabama shad was captured in the Pearl
River between 1979 and 1988 (Gunning and Suttkus 1990). Gunning and
Suttkus (1990) attributed the declining catch of Alabama shad to
declining abundance of the species.
In the Gunning and Suttkus (1990) study, only one 30-minute
multispecies survey was conducted during the spring once per year at
some of their Pearl River stations. The studies targeting Alabama shad
in the ACF River system are conducted over a 3-month period each year
to ensure their collections encompass the peak spawning migration of
Alabama shad, which can vary from year to year based on factors such as
temperatures and river discharge (Sammons 2013, 2014, Kern 2016).
Gunning and Suttkus (1990) state that the consistency of their
methodology and the length of their study are sufficient to accurately
indicate relative abundance. Gunning and Suttkus (1990) does provide
one of the few long-term studies available for this species. However,
as noted previously, low numbers of recorded Alabama shad individuals
may be due, at least in part, to insufficient sampling effort during
appropriate times (i.e., spawning migrations) and with the appropriate
gear to target the species (Mettee and O'Neil 2003). This was observed
in the ACF in large differences in Alabama shad captured in
multispecies surveys conducted by FFWCC (J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm.
to K. Shotts, NMFS, November 12, 2013) versus studies targeting Alabama
shad in ACF (Young 2010, 2011) during the same time period.
Smith et al. (2011) state no Alabama shad have been captured in the
Pearl River since then, although FishNet contains records of Alabama
shad captured from the Pearl River in 1996 by the Illinois Natural
History Survey and 2004 by Tulane University (Fishnet2 2016, Catalogue
#38236 and #198208).
Pascagoula River
The Pascagoula River system, made up of the Pascagoula, Leaf, and
Chickasawhay Rivers, is the only system within the state of Mississippi
inhabited by Alabama shad (Mickle et al. 2010, Mickle 2010). A total of
531 Alabama shad (all age classes) were captured in the Pascagoula
River system between 2004 and 2007 (307 from the Pascagoula River, 200
from the Leaf River, and 24 from the Chickasawhay River; Smith et al.
2011). The Pascagoula River system has one of the remaining spawning
populations of Alabama shad as evidenced by Mickle's (2006) collection
of 193 age-0 Alabama shad from 10 sites between 2004 and 2005. The Leaf
and Pascagoula Rivers contain the highest populations of Alabama shad
within this system due to their unimpounded waters and variety of
habitats, with a smaller Alabama shad population in the Chickasawhay
River (Mickle et al. 2010, Mickle 2010). Between 2004 and 2006, Mickle
et al. (2010) captured 133 juvenile Alabama shad (66 from the Leaf
River, 55 from the Pascagoula River, and 12 from the Chickasawhay
River). Small numbers of Alabama shad were also caught in Black Creek,
a tributary of the Pascagoula River, in 1986 and the late 1990s (Adams
et al. 2000).
Mobile Bay and the Mobile River Basin
The Mobile River basin spans Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and
Tennessee. The Mobile River, which empties into Mobile Bay, branches
upstream into the Alabama, Cahaba, Tallapoosa, Coosa, Tombigbee, and
Black Warrior Rivers. The Alabama shad was first described as a species
in 1896 in the Black Warrior River near Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Jordan and
Evermann 1896). Alabama shad were once prevalent in the Mobile River
basin (Evermann and Kendall 1897).
Numerous juvenile Alabama shad were recorded in the Alabama River
in 1951, the late 1960s, and the early 1970s
[[Page 4034]]
(Boschung 1992, Mettee and O'Neil 2003). A single Alabama shad (15.3
cm) was also captured in Dog River (a small tributary draining into
Mobile Bay) in 1964 (Williams and Gaines 1974, Boschung 1992, Hammerson
2010). On the Alabama River, Claiborne Lock and Dam was opened for
navigation in 1969 (Freeman et al. 2005). Upstream from Claiborne Lock
and Dam, Millers Ferry Lock and Dam was constructed for the purpose of
both power generation and navigation, with the lock opening in 1969 and
power coming on line in 1970. Sampling in Mobile Bay in 1972 yielded no
Alabama shad. Two individuals were caught in the Alabama River in the
1990s: One in 1993 below Claiborne Lock and Dam, and one in 1995 below
Miller's Ferry Lock and Dam (Smith et al. 2011). More recently, in
February 2004, a single specimen (32.8 cm) was captured by the Alabama
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Marine Resources
Division, in Heron Bay (adjacent to Mobile Bay), presumably making its
upstream spawning migration (Smith et al. 2011). The Alabama Division
of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries conducted a year-long study in
2009 in the Alabama River that did not collect any Alabama shad.
Despite the existence of a thorough historical fisheries record of
the Cahaba River system, no recent captures of Alabama shad from the
upper reaches of the Cahaba River are documented. Both the Pierson et
al. (1989) general fish faunal survey of the river from 1983-1988 and
the Onorato et al. (1998 and 2000) sampling between 1995-1997 found no
Alabama shad present in the upper region of the Cahaba River. The last
Alabama shad collected was in 1968 and the only previously recorded
fish reported in the Cahaba River at Centreville, Alabama, was in 1965
(Onorato et al. 2000, Boschung 1992). The last specimen to be captured
from the Coosa River was in 1966 (Boschung 1992). No Alabama shad were
captured during fish sampling in the Tallapoosa River by Freeman et al.
(2001).
Mettee and O'Neil (2003) state that Alabama shad have not been
found in the Tombigbee River since the 1901 construction of the
Tombigbee lock system in the waterway. However, records provided by the
Mississippi Museum of Natural Science during the public comment period
on our 90-day finding showed that 5 Alabama shad were captured in the
Tombigbee River in 1969 and one in 1971 (M. Roberts, Curator of Fishes,
Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS,
October 21, 2013). In the Black Warrior River of Alabama, where the
species was first described in 1896, one Alabama shad was subsequently
collected, over one hundred years later in 1998 (Mettee and O'Neil
2003).
Conservation locking, similar to efforts conducted in the ACF River
system, was undertaken on the Alabama River at Claiborne Lock and Dam
and Miller's Ferry Lock and Dam in 2009 by the Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources, USACE, and Auburn University after
USGS suggested the locks could be used as a means of fish passage
(Simcox 2012). At that time, no efforts were made to quantify passage
efficiency or even monitor which species may be passing upstream and
downstream through the locks. Freeman et al. (2005) stated that
substantial potential for restoring populations of migratory, large-
river fishes such as Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi), Gulf
sturgeon, Alabama shad, and southeastern blue sucker (Cycleptus
meridionalis) entailed modifying Claiborne and Miller's Ferry, the two
downstream-most dams on the Alabama River. Enhancing fish passage at
Claiborne and Millers Ferry Locks and Dams could restore connectivity
between the lower Alabama River and the Cahaba River, encompassing over
400 km of riverine habitat from the Gulf to the fall line.
In 2014, a study was initiated to determine if conservation locking
could be used to pass Alabama Shad upriver or downriver during spawning
season through the navigation locks at Claiborne Lock and Dam and
Miller's Ferry Lock and Dam. With support from the FFWCC and Georgia
DNR, Alabama shad from the ACF River system were collected and tagged
before being stocked in the Alabama River. Fifteen Alabama shad were
tagged and released below Claiborne Lock and Dam, and an additional 38
Alabama shad were tagged and released above the dam. These fish were
tracked both upstream and downstream of the dam. Of the Alabama shad
released above the dam, 18 were later detected at 18 different
locations, and 7 definite mortalities (no movement between successive
locations) were eventually confirmed. The 7 confirmed mortalities
occurred in the section of the Alabama River below Claiborne Lock and
Dam to its confluence with the Tombigbee River. Kern and Sammons (2015)
note that further research is necessary to determine whether Alabama
shad found suitable spawning habitat in this location and halted
downstream movements, or whether they died as a result of cumulative
stress from handling and transport. One fish was detected approximately
53 mi (85 km) below Claiborne Lock and Dam, indicating successful
downriver passage through the lock. Twenty fish were never detected.
There were large areas where no tagged fish were detected, and some
fish moved over 50 mi (80 km) in 2 days. ``Leap-frogging'' was also
observed, with shad being detected at downstream and upstream
locations, but escaping detection in between.
Of the 15 tagged fish released below Claiborne Lock and Dam, 3 were
detected 93 times. One fish was detected 12 days after release below
Gravine Island (just north of Mobile Bay) and was detected again
upriver 6 days later, just below Claiborne Lock and Dam. This movement
pattern indicated ``fallback'' (fish that move a great distance
downriver shortly after stocking), but in this case, the fish
eventually moved upriver. Another fish remained in the vicinity of
Claiborne Lock and Dam for 9 days and was not detected thereafter. A
third fish was detected several times moving downstream after release
but not later. No tagged Alabama shad were detected above Claiborne
Lock and Dam and researchers hypothesized this low number could have
been due to high water events or mortalities.
In 2015, 27 Alabama shad from the ACF River system were tagged and
stocked below Miller's Ferry Lock and Dam (and above Claiborne Lock and
Dam). Detections of tagged fish were much higher in 2015 than 2014,
likely due to higher river flows in 2014 (Kern and Sammons 2015), with
17 of the 27 fish detected for a total of 371 detections. Similar to
2014, large movements over short time periods were observed, with most
of the movements being in a downstream direction. No fish were found to
have successfully navigated upstream of Miller's Ferry Lock and Dam,
although many of the fish passed downstream of Claiborne Lock and Dam.
Escambia River and Conecuh River
The Conecuh River begins in Alabama and becomes the Escambia River
at the Florida border. Alabama shad were documented in the Escambia/
Conecuh River system as early as 1900 (Evermann and Kendall 1900). This
system contains one of the known remaining Alabama shad spawning
populations (Smith et al. 2011). Bailey (1954) reported the capture of
two individuals in the Escambia River in 1954. In 2009, two Alabama
shad were caught in the Escambia River by FFWCC, one in spring and one
in the fall (Smith et al. 2011; E. Nagid, FFWCC, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, November 26, 2014). Studies indicate there are small
populations of Alabama shad in
[[Page 4035]]
southern Alabama, including within the Conecuh River (Barkuloo 1993,
Adams et al. 2000, Mettee and O'Neil 2003). Smith et al. (2011)
reported that 11 Alabama shad were captured in the Conecuh River in
2000 and one in 2010 by the Alabama Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries.
Choctawhatchee River
The Choctawhatchee River begins in Alabama. As it flows south, it
is joined by one of its tributaries, the Pea River, then continues
through the Florida panhandle and into the Gulf of Mexico. Some studies
indicate there are small spawning populations of Alabama shad in
southern Alabama, including in the Choctawhatchee and Pea Rivers
(Barkuloo 1993, Adams et al. 2000, Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Young 2010).
Smith et al. (2011) reported the capture of 400 Alabama shad from the
Choctawhatchee River system in 2000.
Ochlockonee River
Alabama shad were historically present in the Ochlockonee River, a
fast running river that flows from Georgia into Florida. Smith et al.
(2011) reported that the last specimens to be collected in the
Ochlockonee River were captured in 1977 below Jackson Bluff Dam (Swift
1977). During the public comment period announced in the 90-day
finding, FFWCC reported that 4 Alabama shad were collected near the
Talquin (Jackson Bluff) Dam in 2011 (J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. to
K. Shotts, NMFS, November 12, 2013).
Econfina River
The Econfina River is a minor river draining part of the Big Bend
region of Florida. It empties into Apalachee Bay. Historical data for
Alabama shad are not available for this river, but, FFWCC reported
during the public comment period that 1 Alabama shad was collected in
the Econfina River in 2006 (J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, November 12, 2013).
Suwannee River
The Suwannee River originates from the Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia
and runs south through Florida. Historically, the Suwannee River has
been the easternmost boundary of the Alabama shad's range (Herald and
Strickland 1946). There is still a spawning population of Alabama shad
in the Suwannee River (Smith et al. 2011). Sporadic sampling in the
Suwannee River has included Alabama shad (Mettee and O'Neil 2003).
Records from the Florida Museum of Natural History and the FFWCC show
that 3-27 Alabama shad were collected annually between 1990-1995
(FishNet2 2016; search terms ``Alosa alabamae,'' ``1990-2016,'' and
``Suwannee''). Mickle (2010) collected 6 fish. Smith et al. (2011)
reported that FFWCC caught 15 Alabama shad on the Withlacoochee River,
a tributary of the Suwannee River, in late November 2010 (Smith et al.
2011). The Florida Museum of Natural History also shows that 2 Alabama
shad were collected in 2015 (FishNet2 2016; Catalogue #238044 and
#238066).
Extinction Risk Assessment
We estimated both the current extinction risk for Alabama shad and
the anticipated risk in the foreseeable future. We defined the
``foreseeable future'' as the timeframe over which threats or the
species' response to those threats can be reliably predicted to impact
the biological status of the species. First, we evaluated demographic
factors associated with population viability (abundance, productivity,
spatial distribution, and diversity) and how they are contributing to
the extinction risk of Alabama shad. We then performed a threats
assessment using the factors listed in Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA by
identifying the severity of threats that exist now and estimating their
severity in the foreseeable future.
We used the methods developed by Wainwright and Kope (1999) to
organize and summarize our findings on the contributions of the
demographic factors and threats listed in ESA Section 4(a)(1) to the
extinction risk of Alabama shad. This approach has been used in the
review of many other species (Pacific salmonids, Pacific hake, walleye
pollock, Pacific cod, Puget Sound rockfishes, Pacific herring, and
black abalone, and foreign sawfishes) to summarize the status of the
species according to demographic risk criteria. McElhany et al. (2000)
examined short and long-term trends in abundance, productivity, spatial
structure, and genetic variability as the primary indicators of risk.
Populations that are more fragmented have less genetic exchange and
therefore less connectivity, increasing the risk of extinction. Loss of
fitness and loss of diversity can occur from random genetic effects and
increase the risk of extinction for a species. We used the five-level
qualitative scale from Wainwright and Kope (1999) to describe our
assessment of the risk of extinction for Alabama shad for each
demographic category, both currently and in the foreseeable future. We
also used this scale to describe our assessment of each of the threats
from ESA Section 4(a)(1). At the lowest level, a factor, either alone
or in combination with other factors, is considered ``unlikely'' to
significantly contribute to risk of extinction for a species. The next
lowest level describes a factor that, on its own, is considered to be
at ``low'' likelihood of contributing to the extinction risk, but could
contribute in combination with other factors. The next level is
considered a ``moderate'' risk of extinction for the species, but in
combination with other factors contributes significantly to the risk of
extinction. A ranking of ``likely'' means that factor by itself is
likely to contribute significantly to the risk of extinction. Finally,
the most threatening factors are considered ``highly likely'' to
contribute significantly to the risk of extinction.
Both ``low'' and ``moderate'' rankings require that the demographic
factor or threat be considered alone, as well as in combination with
other factors. In this determination, we first consider each of the
demographic factors and threats independently, then evaluate how they
may interact in combination to contribute to the extinction risk of
Alabama shad. Our rankings of demographic factors and threats do not
translate directly to extinction risk conclusions. Ranking simply
describes how we considered the information. For instance, one or more
demographic factors could be ranked as ``highly likely'' to be
contributing to the extinction risk of a species without concluding
that the species is threatened or endangered. For example, low
abundance may be considered to present a moderate threat to the
extinction risk of Alabama shad, but is offset by the species' high
productivity and wide spatial distribution.
In some cases, there was not enough information or too much
uncertainty in pending outcomes to rank a threat's contribution to the
risk of extinction for Alabama shad using the categories established by
Wainwright and Kope (1999). In those cases, we classify the
contribution of the threat to the extinction risk of Alabama shad as
being ``unknown.'' Even for threats we ultimately classify as unknown,
we provide and evaluate whatever information is available, in some
cases providing information on how related surrogate species (e.g.,
other Alosas) may be responding to the identified potential threat.
NMFS recently issued updated ESA listing guidance (May 26, 2016) that
states in order to list a species, the agency must affirmatively
determine on the basis of a set of scientific facts that a species is
at risk. The ESA does not allow for listings to be based on giving the
species the benefit of the doubt. The guidance
[[Page 4036]]
clarifies that in the absence of any information about threats to a
species, the null hypothesis is that the risk is low (generally low,
not as defined by Wainwright and Kope (1999). Specific supporting
information must be cited in order to elevate the potential threat to a
moderate or high risk category (again generally, not as defined by
Wainwright and Kope (1999). In cases where we classified a threat as
having an ``unknown'' risk to the species, we considered whether the
``unlikely'' or ``low'' category established in Wainwright and Kope
(1999) was most appropriate. Because the ``low'' category by definition
states that a threat could contribute to the extinction risk of a
species in combination with other factors, per the listing guidance, we
ultimately evaluated ``unknown'' threats as being ``unlikely'' to
significantly contribute to the risk of extinction for Alabama shad.
We determined the extinction risk for the species as a whole by
integrating the demographic risks and the threats assessment, including
considerations of any uncertainty in the risks and threats. We made a
determination as to whether the species warrants listing as threatened
or endangered, or whether we believe listing is not warranted. Finally,
we determined whether there was a significant portion of the species'
range that may warrant listing as threatened or endangered.
Foreseeable Future
Per NMFS' May 2016 revised listing guidance, the ``foreseeable
future'' describes the extent to which the Secretary can, in making
determinations about the future conservation status of the species,
reasonably rely on predictions about the future (Department of the
Interior Solicitor's Memorandum M-37021, ``The Meaning of `Foreseeable
Future' in Section 3(20) of the Endangered Species Act'' (Jan. 16,
2009)). Those predictions can be in the form of extrapolation of
population or threat trends, analysis of how threats will affect the
status of the species, or assessment of future events that will have a
significant new impact on the species. We believe that the appropriate
period of time corresponding to the foreseeable future should account
for the Alabama shad's life-history characteristics and the most
significant threats facing the species.
The Alabama shad is an early-maturing species (Mickle et al. 2010)
with high productivity (Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Ingram 2007). Like
other members of the Alosa family, Alabama shad populations may
fluctuate significantly from year to year (Sammons and Young 2012). The
time period associated with the foreseeable future for Alabama shad
should be long enough to assess population response while taking into
consideration the high variability inherent in the species. Below, we
discuss generation time in relation to our ability to reliably predict
the species' conservation status.
In defining the foreseeable future, we considered generation time,
specifically defined here as the time it takes for a sexually mature
Alabama shad to be replaced by offspring with the same spawning
capacity. Age-2 to age-4 fish make up the majority of spawning Alabama
shad; therefore, using our definition, the generation time for Alabama
shad is 4-8 years. Generation time is inversely related to productivity
and/or resilience. Highly productive species with short generation
times are more resilient than less productive, long-lived species, as
they are quickly able to take advantage of suitable conditions for
reproduction (Mace et al. 2002). Species with shorter generation times,
such as Alabama shad (4-8 years), experience greater population
variability than species with long generation times, because they
maintain the capacity to replenish themselves more quickly following a
period of low survival (Mace et al. 2002). We believe that the impacts
from the threats on the biological status of the species can be
confidently predicted within the 12- to 24-year (three-generation)
timeframe. Given their high population variability, projecting out
further than three generations could lead to considerable uncertainty
in estimating the population trajectory for Alabama shad. The timeframe
of three generations is widely used to assess trends in populations and
has been applied to decision-making models by many other conservation
management organizations, including the American Fisheries Society
(AFS), the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), and the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
The foreseeable future timeframe is also a function of the
reliability of available data regarding the identified threats and
extends only as far as the data allow for making reasonable predictions
about the species' response to those threats. In our extinction risk
assessment, we determined the abundance of Alabama shad and the
presence of dams are the highest ranked threats, both contributing a
moderate level of risk to Alabama shad. The remaining threats are
ranked as either contributing a low or unknown level of risk to Alabama
shad, or being unlikely to contribute to the species extinction risk.
Small populations may have less of a buffer against threats than
large populations (McElhany et al. 2000). We ranked low abundance as
posing a moderate threat to Alabama shad's extinction risk. Our
consideration of generation time above discusses how the abundance of
Alabama shad is variable, and the species can fluctuate widely from
year to year. We determined projecting out further than three
generations could lead to considerable uncertainty in estimating the
population trajectory for Alabama shad.
We also consider the timeframe over which the effect of dams on
Alabama shad populations can be predicted. Dams are believed to be the
main cause of the initial decline of Alabama shad. Existing dams
continue to block habitat and cause downstream effects today, but few
new dams have been built since the mid-1980s (Graf 1999). The threat of
dams to Alabama shad has not increased for the past 30 years, and is
not expected to increase in the future due to the advent of
environmental laws and public awareness that occurred after the era of
big dam building (Doyle et al. 2003, Graf 1999). The threat of dams to
Alabama shad is more likely to decrease in the future, as dams are
either removed or additional fish passages are added. Environmental
concerns are coinciding with a policy window in which many private dams
are coming up for regulatory re-licensing with the Federal Energy and
Regulatory Commission (FERC) and operational guidelines for publicly-
operated dams are being reviewed (Doyle et al. 2003). Upstream effects
from dams may be reduced through fish passage technology, which is
becoming increasingly efficient (Roscoe and Hinch 2010). Fish passage
may be voluntarily implemented at dams, or even required by Federal
regulations in some instances. Downstream effects from dams are also
becoming better understood and dam operators are becoming more willing
and able (and may be required in some instances) to alter operations to
minimize the ecological effects downstream (Poff and Hart 2002).
Further, an estimated 85 percent of the dams in the United States will
be near the end of their operational lives by 2020 (Doyle et al. 2003).
Economic considerations and environmental concerns may result in dam
removals, as maintenance, operation, repairs are often much costlier
than dam removal (Doyle et al. 2003, Stanley and Doyle 2003).
[[Page 4037]]
It is unknown to what extent the implementation of fish passage,
modifications to dam operations, or dam removal will occur in rivers
inhabited by Alabama shad. The lack of new dam building in the past 30
years coupled with increased environmental regulation and public
awareness makes it unlikely that the threat of dams to Alabama shad
will increase and more likely that there could be a decrease of this
threat to the species. However, we cannot predict where dam
modifications or removal may occur, and how Alabama shad may be
affected. Our ability to predict the response of Alabama shad
populations to the threat is limited by the life history
characteristics of the species (i.e., its variability in response to
all of the factors affecting the population) rather than any
variability in the threat of dams itself.
In defining foreseeable future, we further considered the
interaction of demographic characteristics (parameters describing the
viability of a population, such as abundance and productivity) and the
species' response to various threats, primarily dams. Smith et al.
(2011) conducted a population viability analysis (PVA) on Alabama shad
in the ACF River system. Researchers selected 20 years as the timeframe
over which the PVA could reliably model population responses of Alabama
shad based on the species' demographic characteristics and various
combinations of natural and anthropogenic threat scenarios affecting
their survival and growth. The 20-year timeframe used in the PVA falls
within the three-generation timeframe discussed above. This timeframe
takes into account aspects of the species' life history and also allows
the time necessary to provide for the recovery of populations. Thus, we
determined for the purpose of the extinction risk assessment, a 20-year
timeframe, corresponding approximately to the three-generation time
period, to be appropriate for use as the foreseeable future for Alabama
shad.
Demographic Risks
Threats to a species' long-term persistence are manifested
demographically as risks to its abundance, population growth rate,
spatial structure and connectivity, and genetic and ecological
diversity. These demographic risks provide the most direct indices or
proxies of extinction risk. A species at very low levels of abundance
and with few populations will be less tolerant to environmental
variation, catastrophic events, genetic processes, demographic
stochasticity, ecological interactions, and other processes compared to
large numbers in many populations (e.g., Meffe and Carroll 1994,
Caughley and Gunn 1996). A population growth rate that is unstable or
declining over a long period of time has less resiliency to future
environmental change (e.g., Lande 1993, Middleton and Nisbet 1997,
Foley 1997). A species that is not widely distributed across a variety
of well-connected habitats is at increased risk of extinction due to
environmental perturbations, including catastrophic events, compared to
a species that is widely distributed (Schlosser and Angermeier 1995,
Hanski and Gilpin 1997, Tilman and Lehman 1997, Cooper and Mangel
1999). A species that has lost locally adapted genetic and ecological
diversity may lack the ability to exploit a wide array of environments
and endure short- and long-term environmental changes (e.g., Groot and
Margolis 1991, Wood 1995). Assessing extinction risk of a species
involves evaluating whether risks to its abundance, population growth
rate, spatial structure, and/or diversity are such that it is at or
near an extinction threshold, or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future.
Abundance
A small population faces a host of risks intrinsic to its low
abundance while large populations exhibit a greater degree of
resilience (McElhany et al. 2000). The only population estimates
available for Alabama shad are from the ACF River system in Florida,
Alabama, and Georgia. This system is believed to have the largest
population of Alabama shad. Population estimates fluctuated widely from
2005 to 2015. For instance, 26,193 Alabama shad were estimated to be in
the system in 2011. The following year, the estimate of Alabama shad
peaked at 122,578. Sammons and Young (2012) noted that the population
sizes of species in the Alosa genus commonly fluctuate widely.
Researchers in the ACF River system believe that Alabama shad abundance
may be a response to conservation efforts in the system (Schaffler et
al. 2015). They also note that variability in population number may be
linked to environmental conditions. Specifically, Sammons and Young
(2012) believe that heavy rainfall in 2009 may have led to strong year
classes in 2010 and 2012.
No population estimates are available for other rivers, although
several hundred Alabama shad have been captured in studies conducted in
the past 15-20 years in the Pascagoula (Mississippi), Choctawhatchee
(Florida/Alabama), and Ouachita (Arkansas/Louisiana) River systems. The
annual Alabama shad population estimates in the ACF River system were
developed through mark-recapture studies. The initial capture of less
than a hundred to over 1,000 Alabama shad resulted in population
estimates of thousands to over 100,000 Alabama shad. Mark-recapture can
be used to produce abundance estimates without capturing every
individual in the population because in addition to counting the number
of individuals captured during the study, they estimate the detection
probability of individuals (i.e., the probability that an individual
will be captured during the study; Yoccoz et al. 2001). Detection
probability can be influenced by population size, but can also be
influenced by the sampling season and methodologies used, as well as a
species' habitat affinities (Gu and Swihart 2004). Population estimates
cannot be reliably developed from studies that collect a species, but
do not consider its associated detection probability. Pellet and
Schmidt (2005) note that it is often very difficult, if not impossible,
to detect all individuals, populations, or species, and found during
their surveys that the detection probability for a common species of
tree frog was very high, while the detection probability of a common
toad species was very low. Yoccoz et al. (2001) note that detection
probability is generally less than 100 percent and usually variable.
Although we cannot estimate the population abundance of Alabama shad in
the Pascagoula, Choctawhatchee, and Ouachita Rivers, based on the
likelihood that the species' detection probability is less than 100
percent, we can infer that the sizes of those Alabama shad populations
are greater than the hundreds of fish collected in those systems. For
instance, during the 2013 targeted study in the ACF, 251 Alabama shad
were captured and 1 recaptured to yield the population estimate of
2,039 (S. Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End Summary Meeting, January 2014).
Generally, the number of Alabama shad in rivers other than the ACF,
Pascagoula, Choctawhatchee, and Ouachita is likely to be small. A
multi-state, multi-agency report from 1994 (Gutreuter et al. 1997)
indicates that Alabama shad were found in the Upper Mississippi River,
but does not note the number or locations of fish caught. Smaller
numbers (one to several dozens) of Alabama shad have been captured in
the last 25 years in portions of the Lower Mississippi River,
Mississippi River tributaries (Missouri, Marys, and
[[Page 4038]]
White Rivers), Mobile, Escambia, Conecuh, Ochlockonee, Econfina, and
Suwannee Rivers.
Alabama shad was never an economically important species, and,
therefore, information from fisheries statistics, such as landings
data, is rare. Hildebrand (1963) noted that Alabama shad were
considered unfit for human consumption, and the lack of demand produced
no incentive to capture the species or record its presence and
abundance. Most of the recent directed research studies on Alabama shad
have occurred in the ACF and Pascagoula River systems. Capture data for
other systems comes from general multi-species surveys, captures
incidental to other research studies, and anecdotal information. Mettee
and O'Neil (2003) note that low numbers of recorded Alabama shad
individuals may be due, at least in part, to insufficient sampling
effort during appropriate times (i.e., spawning migrations) and with
the appropriate gear to target the species. Hildebrand (1963) noted the
importance of proper gear, citing greatly increased catches of Alabama
shad that occurred in Kentucky when surface-fishing seines were
substituted for bottom-fishing seines. The lack of data is echoed in
the responses received from fish and wildlife agencies during the
public comment period on our 90-day finding. The Arkansas Fish and Game
Commission stated they could not assess the status of Alabama shad in
their state because of the scarcity of information on the species, the
lack of targeted surveys, and the unknown detectability of the species
(M. Oliver, Chief of Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game Commission,
pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, November 5, 2013). It is unknown
whether the lack or low numbers of Alabama shad reported for many river
systems accurately reflects the abundance in those systems or whether
it is indicative of the lack of targeted studies, but ultimately, the
population abundance in these areas is still unknown.
The threshold abundance below which Alabama shad populations cannot
rebound (quasi-extinction) is unknown. In conducting the PVA on Alabama
shad from the ACF River system, Smith et al. (2011) conservatively
assumed 420 females as the threshold for quasi-extinction based on the
lowest recorded population abundance for the ACF River system at the
time (from Ely et al. 2008). That assumption was not based on a minimum
number of females needed to recover the population, but instead the
lowest number of females observed in the viable population during
previous studies. In fact, Smith et al. (2011) report that a viable
spawning population persists in the Suwannee River at the eastern edge
of the species' range, even though sporadic sampling since 2003 has
only reported a total of 6-15 individual Alabama shad. We do not have
historical abundances of Alabama shad, which can be indicative of
abundance levels associated with low extinction risk. However,
populations may also be at low risk of extinction at abundance levels
below historical levels, and accurate estimates of historical abundance
are not essential for evaluating extinction risk. Information from
other species in the Alosa genus indicates that the species can rebound
from extremely low abundance. The 12-month determination for 2 species
of river herring (78 FR 48944; August 12, 2013), which determined that
listing alewives (A. pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (A.
aestivalis) under the ESA was not warranted, states that highly fecund,
short generation time species like river herring may be able to
withstand a 95 to 99 percent decline in biomass (Mace et al. 2002). The
12-month determination (78 FR 48944; August 12, 2013) states that both
alewives and blueback herring may have declined by more than 98 percent
from their historical baseline (Limburg and Waldman 2009), but that the
abundance of each species is stable or increasing, indicating the
species are self-sustainable and are at a low to moderate-low risk of
extinction.
Directed studies and current data on Alabama shad abundance are
mostly lacking. The available population estimates for the ACF River
system since 2005 are relatively large and highly variable. Ely et al.
(2008) compared Alabama shad and American shad. They noted that, given
the similarities in life history characteristics of Alabama shad and
American shad and the similarities in discharge, drainage area, and
latitude between the Apalachicola River and other southeastern rivers,
the populations of adult Alabama shad and American shad might be
expected to be similar. Ely et al. (2008) cited the number of American
shad reaching the first barrier to migration in the Savannah River,
estimated as nearly 190,000 (Bailey et al. 2004), and the number in the
Altamaha River system estimated as 133,000 (Georgia DNR 2005), and
concluded that the population size of the Alabama shad in the
Apalachicola River from 2005-2007 (approximately 2,700-26,000 shad) was
relatively small. Subsequent to the Ely et al. (2008) study, the
numbers of Alabama shad in the Apalachicola River generally increased,
ranging from 2,000-122,500 from 2008-2012. It is not known what the
historical abundance of Alabama shad was in the ACF River system, but
the Alabama Shad Restoration Plan for the ACF River System (NMFS et al.
2012) projected that the carrying capacity (the maximum population of a
species that can survive indefinitely in a given environment) for
Alabama shad in the ACF is approximately 1.3 million adults. Capture
data from other systems are limited or lacking but suggest low to
moderate sized populations in some rivers and absence in others.
The only current population estimates available for Alabama shad
are in the ACF River system. Because Alabama shad were never
commercially or recreationally important, few historical records exist.
There are no recorded historical population sizes in any river systems
for comparison, although anecdotal information on observations and
small, short-lived fisheries provide some historical context (e.g.,
Coker 1929, 1930). However, many researchers recognize that Alabama
shad populations have experienced decline from historical population
sizes (e.g., Gunning and Suttkus 1990, Buchanan et al. 1999, Mettee and
O'Neil 2003, Mickle et al. 2010).
Declines have been estimated in other Alosa species with longer
historical records. Hall et al. (2012) attempted to estimate historical
alewife populations in Maine for the years 1600-1900 using analyses of
nineteenth and twentieth century harvest records and waterway
obstruction records dating to the 1600s and estimated that obstructed
spawning access reduced the annual alewife productivity per watershed
to 0-16 percent of pre-dam estimates. The 12-month listing
determination for river herring (78 FR 48944; August 12, 2013) reported
that of the riverine stocks of alewife and blueback herring for which
data were available and were considered in a stock assessment, 22 were
depleted, 1 was increasing, and the status of 28 stocks could not be
determined because the time-series of available data was too short. In
most recent years, 2 riverine stocks were increasing, 4 were
decreasing, and 9 were stable, with 38 rivers not having enough data to
assess recent trends. Both alewives and blueback herring may already be
at or less than 2 percent of the historical baseline. Because
historical landings data are available for alewife and blueback
herring, population modeling was feasible and used to determine the
stability of the stocks in light of the declines. The conclusion of the
12-
[[Page 4039]]
month determination (78 FR 48944; August 12, 2013) was that listing
alewife and blueback herring under the ESA was not warranted because
the abundance of each species is stable or increasing, indicating the
species are self-sustainable and are at a low to moderate-low risk of
extinction.
Population sizes of Alabama shad and other Alosa species are known
to be variable and the species can quickly rebound from low population
numbers. Alabama shad are spawning and persisting in river systems
along the Gulf Coast and in tributaries of the Mississippi River. Even
smaller populations are considered to be self-sustaining (e.g., eastern
Alabama rivers, Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Suwannee River, Smith et al.,
2011). The range of Alabama shad appears to be stable (Smith et al.
2011). However, low abundance in combination with other factors could
contribute significantly to the risk of extinction since smaller
populations have less of a buffer against threats than larger
populations. This aligns with the definition of a ``moderate risk''
under the risk classification system by Wainwright and Kope (1999).
For comparison, the next highest ranking under Wainwright and
Kope's (1999) classification system is for a threat that is presently
low or moderate, but is likely to increase to high risk in the
foreseeable future if present conditions continue. Although based
largely on anecdotal information rather than population estimates and
trends, we believe there is sufficient evidence to indicate that there
have been declines in the abundance of Alabama shad and their low
abundance could contribute significantly to their long-term risk of
extinction. However, we do not have information suggesting that threats
to Alabama shad populations are likely to lead to further decline to
the point that their abundance would present a high risk to the
species. The primary threat that led to the initial decline of the
species was the installation of dams that block access to upriver
spawning habitat (evaluated under Factor A of this listing
determination). Although most dams are still in place and represent an
obstacle to spawning Alabama shad, very few dams have been built in the
last 30 years (Graf 1999). Few environmental laws were in existence
when the dams were originally built, but the development and
implementation of conservation measures in the last 20 years (Doyle et
al. 2003) are likely to lessen the effect of dams on Alabama shad
rather than to pose an increasing threat to the species. Other threats
evaluated in this listing determination are ranked as either
contributing a low or unknown level of risk to Alabama shad, or being
unlikely to contribute to the species extinction risk. As discussed in
each of these sections evaluating these threats, we do not have
information that they will increase in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we ranked abundance throughout its range as contributing a
moderate level of risk to the overall current and foreseeable
extinction risk of Alabama shad.
Productivity
Population growth rate (productivity) and factors that affect
productivity provide information on how well a population is responding
in the habitats and environmental conditions it is exposed to during
its life cycle (McElhany et al. 2000). Whether a species' productivity
has declined, or is declining, toward the point where populations may
not be sustainable and whether habitat quality restricts productivity
to non-sustainable levels are key pieces of information in assessing a
species' extinction risk (Wainwright and Kope 1999). In assessing the
productivity of Alabama shad, we considered life history traits, the
number of spawning populations, and trends in abundance over time.
Several life history traits make Alabama shad a relatively
productive species (Smith et al. 2011). They reach sexual maturity
quickly. Males start spawning as early as 1 year old, and females start
spawning at 2 years old (Mickle et al. 2010). Female Alabama shad are
known to release large numbers of eggs. Individual females in the
Apalachicola River produce from 26,000-250,000 eggs and from 36,000-
357,000 in the Choctawhatchee River (Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Ingram
2007). Females may have multiple spawning periods within the same
spawning season (Mettee and O'Neil 2003). Because of the age range
among spawning Alabama shad (1-5 years for males, 2-6 years for
females), individuals may spawn multiple times in a lifetime (Laurence
and Yerger 1967, Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Ingram 2007, Mickle et al.
2010). Recent information from the ACF River system suggests that
female Alabama shad may spawn only once during their lifetime, but may
release several batches of eggs during the weeks that they are spawning
(S. Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS,
November 2015).
We also considered the number of Alabama shad spawning populations
to assess the productivity of Alabama shad. The largest spawning
population of Alabama shad is in the ACF River system, with smaller
spawning populations believed to exist in the Missouri/Gasconade/Osage,
Meramec, White, Ouachita/Little Missouri, Pascagoula/Leaf/Chickasawhay,
Escambia/Conecuh, Choctawhatchee/Pea, and the Suwanee River systems.
The life history traits of Alabama shad combined with the presence of
multiple spawning populations contributes to the productivity potential
of Alabama shad. Highly productive species with short generation times,
like Alabama shad, are more resilient than less productive, long lived
species, as they are quickly able to take advantage of suitable
conditions for reproduction (Hutchings and Reynolds 2004, Mace et al.
2002, Musick 1999). Species with shorter generation times, such as
Alabama shad (4 to 8 years), experience greater population variability
than species with long generation times, because they maintain the
capacity to replenish themselves more quickly following a period of
lower survival (Mace et al. 2002). This resilience was observed in the
ACF River system when Alabama shad populations quickly increased when
access to upstream spawning habitat was re-established by conservation
locking through an existing dam.
Alabama shad populations are generally believed to have declined in
many areas where they were historically found. However, it is difficult
to quantify any declines because of a lack of historical abundance data
for most river systems and the lack of current population estimates for
populations other than the ACF River system. Records of Alabama shad in
the Pearl River are fairly complete and show a steady decline of the
species. This decline was based on the total number of fish captured
over time; it did not include estimating population numbers through the
use of mark-recapture methods, like those used in the Apalachicola
River. In the Pearl River, consistent sampling occurred in several
sections of the river over 16-25 years: 384 fish captured 1963-1965; 33
captured 1965-1979; and 1 individual captured 1979-1988 (Gunning and
Suttkus 1990). Since then no records of shad have been reported during
annual fish surveys conducted by several of the state's universities in
the Pearl River (Smith et al. 2011). Surveys conducted by USACE on the
Lower Mississippi River (north of Baton Rouge, Louisiana) in the early
1980s also recorded the number of individuals encountered and showed a
slow decline in the number of both adult and juvenile Alabama shad
(Pennington 1980, Conner 1983, Smith et al. 2011). We can use the low
[[Page 4040]]
numbers or lack of Alabama shad captures/observations throughout the
rest of their range to indicate declines from historical abundances.
But it is hard to relate those numbers with the estimates for the
Apalachicola that were calculated using mark-recapture techniques.
However, it is clear that while once abundant enough to support small
commercial fisheries in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and
Iowa, Alabama shad are rarely collected throughout much of their former
range (Adams et al. 2000, Daniels 1860). Alabama shad are believed to
possibly be extirpated from the Ohio River since 1989 (Pearson and
Pearson 1989). Alabama shad are considered rare in the state of
Illinois and appear to have been extirpated from many rivers in the
state (Smith et al. 2011).
Declines have been estimated in other Alosa species with longer
historical records. Hall et al. (2012) attempted to estimate historical
alewife populations in Maine for the years 1600-1900 using analyses of
nineteenth and twentieth century harvest records and waterway
obstruction records dating to the 1600s. They estimated that obstructed
spawning access in 9 watersheds reduced the annual alewife productivity
per watershed to 0-16 percent of pre-dam estimates, equaling a
cumulative lost fisheries production of 11 billion fish from 1750 to
1900 (Hall et al. 2012).
Attempts have been made to estimate past abundances of Alabama shad
and habitat carrying capacity for conservation planning by using
examples from other Alosa species. Comparisons have been made between
Alabama shad and American shad. Ely et al. (2008) noted that, given the
similarities in life history characteristics of Alabama shad and
American shad and the similarities in discharge, drainage area, and
latitude between the Apalachicola River and other southeastern rivers,
the populations of adult Alabama shad and American shad might be
expected to be similar. Ely et al. (2008) cited the number of American
shad reaching the first barrier to migration in the Savannah River,
estimated as nearly 190,000 (Bailey et al. 2004), and the number in the
Altamaha River system estimated as 133,000 (Georgia DNR 2005), and
concluded that the population size of the Alabama shad in the
Apalachicola River from 2005-2007 (approximately 2,700-26,000 shad) was
relatively small. Subsequent to the Ely et al. (2008) study, the
numbers of Alabama shad in the Apalachicola River generally increased,
ranging from 2,000-122,500 from 2008-2012 (as noted earlier, the 2013-
2015 data was considered to be skewed by sampling difficulties).
Additionally, Ely et al. (2008) noted that fluctuations in abundance of
American shad are well documented (citing Hattala et al. 1996, Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission 1998, Moring 2005) and variations in
year-class strength typically observed in this genus suggest that
populations of Alabama shad are capable of recovering quickly to
historical levels under favorable conditions. A multi-agency Alabama
Shad Restoration Plan for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River
System (NMFS et al. 2012) calculated that the carrying capacity for the
system is 1.3 million adult Alabama shad (700,000 in the Chattachoochee
and 600,000 in the Flint), derived from the amount of free-flowing
habitat in the mainstem and major tributaries of the Flint and
Chattahoochee Rivers and using American shad population indices as a
surrogate.
In summary, we find the productivity potential for Alabama shad is
relatively high, given its life history characteristics and the
presence of multiple spawning populations within the species' range.
This relatively high productivity potential of Alabama shad was
confirmed in the ACF River system when population numbers greatly
increased when access to historical spawning habitat was provided.
Available data suggest a decline in abundance in many systems. Other
Alosa species with longer and more complete historical records, such as
alewife, have also shown declines in abundance. A comparison with
American shad populations at similar latitudes and a habitat study
indicate that the Alabama shad population in the ACF River system may
be smaller than expected and below carrying capacity in the system.
Managers and researchers note that low numbers of recorded Alabama shad
individuals may be due, at least in part, to insufficient sampling
effort during appropriate times (i.e., spawning migrations) and with
the appropriate gear to target the species. We ranked productivity, on
its own, to be at low risk of contributing significantly to the current
and foreseeable risk of extinction for Alabama shad.
Spatial Distribution
McElhany et al. (2000) stated that spatial structure is an
important consideration in evaluating population viability because it
affects evolutionary processes and can affect a population's ability to
respond to environmental change. Wainwright and Kope (1999) stated that
it is important to determine whether existing populations adequately
represent historical patterns of geographic distribution and
biodiversity and whether population fragmentation poses a risk. The
historical distribution of Alabama shad spanned the Gulf Coast from the
Suwannee River, Florida, to the Mississippi River, Louisiana. Within
the Mississippi River and its tributaries, the species spanned north to
Illinois and Iowa, westward to Oklahoma, and eastward to Kentucky and
Ohio. The species is believed to be extirpated in some of the farthest
reaches of its historical range, such as the Upper Mississippi River
and Mississippi River tributaries in Oklahoma, Illinois, and Kentucky/
Ohio. However, Alabama shad can still be found in river systems in
Arkansas, Missouri, and along the Gulf Coast. The current range of
Alabama shad encompasses a diverse array of habitats, which potentially
contributes to population stability. Smith et al. (2011) state that the
current range of Alabama shad is believed to be stable.
Maps displaying the best available information on the historical
and current range (presence) of Alabama shad by river, including where
the species continues to spawn, can be found at: https://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/listing_petitions/species_esa_consideration/ (see Figures 1 and 2 for the
eastern and western portions of the range, respectively). Historical
and current range, as well as spawning rivers, are based on reports of
the species presence from the literature (see the ``Distribution and
Abundance'' section), but the maps do not represent the number of fish
reported from a river system. In most cases, we do not have information
on the exact portion(s) of river systems historically or currently
inhabited by Alabama shad, or where spawning habitat is located. In the
ACF River system (where the majority of recent directed research on
Alabama shad is occurring), the map shows that Alabama shad likely do
not pass above dams at Albany and George Andrews Lake. In other
systems, it is unknown to what degree locks and dams and/or low head
dams block upstream passage or allow some shad to move upstream and
downstream. This is discussed in greater detail in the ``Dams'' section
under ``A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range.'' In cases where no information is
available on the specific extent of Alabama shad or its spawning
habitat within a river system, we included the entire river
[[Page 4041]]
system as part of the range of Alabama shad.
In developing the maps reflecting the historical and current range
of Alabama shad, we determined we would include positive reports of
Alabama shad over the last 24 years. The 24-year time frame was
selected because dams within the geographic range of Alabama shad were
completed 30 or more years ago (mid-1980s; Graf 1999). Since dams have
the ability to alter the range of shad within rivers, older/pre-dam
studies reporting shad would not reflect any alterations of the
species' distribution due to the dam. Further, any alterations in the
distribution of Alabama shad may not happen immediately after
construction of a dam. Therefore we considered the maximum age observed
in Alabama shad (6 years; Mettee and O'Neil 2003). We only included
reports of Alabama shad that occurred at least 6 years after the era of
dam-building ended (i.e., 24 years ago or less). Positive reports of
Alabama shad in a river system in the last 24 years would indicate that
new generations of shad persisted in the river system after the end of
the dam-building era, even if a dam was constructed in the system.
Therefore, positive reports collected during the 24-year time frame
accounted for the presence of dams with the range of Alabama shad. We
also used information from the literature on where the species is
potentially extirpated to indicate the historical versus current range.
In many instances, the information demonstrating persistence during the
last 24 years is limited to just one or several verified
identifications of Alabama shad. However, in view of the high
productivity of shad, the challenges associated with detecting the
species in non-targeted studies, and the episodic, anecdotal nature of
available information, we believe it is reasonable to extrapolate from
information confirming presence during the last 24 years that Alabama
shad continue to occur in these systems.
In some cases, such as the Mississippi River, Alabama shad are
shown to inhabit a tributary but not the river mainstem. Although the
mainstem is not included as part of the historical range, this does not
necessarily indicate Alabama shad are not present in the mainstem, only
that we did not find a positive report of their presence in the last 25
years. In the example of the Mississippi River, the river mainstems are
often not the subject of research surveys as high river flows and high
vessel traffic raise concerns for human safety. Also, as noted earlier
in this determination, Alabama shad can be difficult to detect, in both
non-targeted or targeted surveys. Positive reports in the tributaries
without reports from the mainstem could indicate the presence of
landlocked populations or it could simply indicate that shad were
present in the mainstem, but not surveyed or detected. Given the
pelagic nature of Alabama shad, and their migratory life style, we
believe that Alabama shad likely inhabit the mainstem of the rivers
adjacent to the tributaries where they were reported.
Spatial structure contributes to the resiliency of populations to
various disturbances, which can occur across a range of spatial scales,
from localized disturbances affecting a few miles of stream and
therefore only a portion of a population, to regional impacts from
events such as droughts that affect multiple populations (Williams et
al. 2008). Hilborn et al. (2003) state there is growing recognition
that many fish stocks consist of multiple combined geographic
components. Spatial diversity in populations can lead to greater
stability in fish species (Jorgensen et al. 2016). Schindler et al.
(2010) referred to this as a ``portfolio effect'' that is analogous to
the effects of asset diversity on the stability of financial
portfolios. Hilborn et al. (2003) reported a ``portfolio effect'' in
the resilience of sockeye salmon in Bristol Bay, Alaska, which the
researchers attributed to the maintenance of diverse geographic
locations and life history strategies that comprise the sockeye salmon
stock. At different times during the 1900s, different geographic
regions and different life history strategies contributed to the
productivity of the stock, and Hilborn et al. (2003) concluded this
likely buffered the stock against large-scale environmental conditions,
providing long-term stability. Jorgensen et al. (2016) studied Chinook
salmon populations from the Columbia River and also observed
differential contributions of populations to species productivity,
noting differences in migratory corridors, climate, and geology as
potential factors.
The current range of Alabama shad (the species' portfolio)
encompasses a diverse array of habitats, which potentially contributes
to population stability. Many Federal agencies and non-governmental
organizations classify terrestrial and aquatic systems based on
ecoregions, large areas of similar climate where ecosystems recur in
predictable patterns (USFS 2016). Ecoregions are a widely recognized
and applied geospatial unit for conservation planning, developed to
represent the patterns of environmental and ecological variables known
to influence the distribution of biodiversity features at broad scales
(Abell et al. 2008). The boundaries of an ecoregion encompass an area
within which important ecological and evolutionary processes most
strongly interact (Abell et al. 2008). Conservation of blocks of
natural habitat large enough to be resilient to large-scale
disturbances and long-term changes are essential for large river
systems in particular (Abell et al. 2008).
Under several widely used ecoregion classification systems, Alabama
shad populations inhabit heterogeneous habitats across multiple diverse
ecoregions. Alabama shad occupy six ecoregion ``divisions'' that the
U.S. Forest Service classifies based on precipitation, temperature, and
vegetation or other natural land cover. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) identified four levels of ecoregions by analyzing patterns
of biotic and abiotic phenomena, both terrestrial and aquatic. These
phenomena include geology, landforms, soils, vegetation, climate, land
use, wildlife, and hydrology (EPA 2016). Even at the coarsest level,
the EPA's Level I ecoregion, which highlights major ecological areas,
Alabama shad populations occupy 2 of the 12 ecoregions in the
continental United States: The Eastern Temperate Forests and the Great
Plains. The species occupies 4 of the 25 Level II ecoregions, and 14 of
the 105 Level III ecoregions. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) uses a
terrestrial ecoregion classification system similar to the EPA Level
III ecoregions. Alabama shad populations occupy nine TNC terrestrial
ecoregions.
TNC also uses freshwater ecoregions with boundaries describing
broad patterns of species composition and associated ecological and
evolutionary processes (Abell et al. 2008). Along the Gulf Coast,
Alabama shad occupy four freshwater ecoregions: The Apalachicola
(containing the ACF River system and the Econfina River), the West
Florida Gulf (includes the Escambia and Choctawhatchee River systems),
Mobile Bay (containing the Mobile River system), and the Lower
Mississippi (includes portions of the White River). In the northern
part of their range, Alabama shad occupy three freshwater ecoregions:
The Central Prairie (containing the Missouri River and its tributary,
the Osage River), the Ozark Highlands (including a portion of the White
River), and the Ouachita Highlands (including the Ouachita River and
its Little Missouri River tributary). The ecoregions along the Gulf
Coast are similarly defined by humid subtropical climates, but diverge
in other characteristics. The Apalachicola ecoregion lies entirely
within the coastal
[[Page 4042]]
plain, but the variety of habitats found in its rivers provide the
foundation for a diverse freshwater fauna. Rivers in the Apalachicola
ecoregion flow through shaded ravines with cool spring inputs,
resembling habitats of more northerly regions. This ecoregion supports
more species than adjacent lowland ecoregions. The West Florida Gulf
ecoregion is defined by the lowland drainages that flow through
extensive floodplain oak-hickory-pine forests. This ecoregion does not
boast the same fish richness as the neighboring Mobile Bay. The Mobile
Bay ecoregion has the highest level of aquatic diversity in the eastern
Gulf. This is largely due to the variety of physiographic provinces
occurring in this ecoregion, its size, and its escape from Pleistocene
glaciation. This ecoregion is centered in central Alabama and includes
eastern Mississippi, western Georgia, and a small area in southern
Tennessee. The northern part of the ecoregion is characterized by
Appalachian Blue Ridge and Appalachian mixed mesophytic forests,
considered some of the most biologically diverse temperate forests in
the world. These grade into Southeastern mixed forests, which are
demarcated from conifer forests in the south by the fall line of the
Atlantic Piedmont. Historically, rivers and streams in this ecoregion
stretched over 1000 mi. Today, flow in the Mobile River is regulated by
a series of upstream reservoirs on the Etowah, Coosa, and Tallapoosa
rivers, and to a lesser extent by the locks and dams of the Tombigbee
River. The Lower Mississippi ecoregion is also distinguished by its
species richness, particularly in fish. The entire Mississippi basin
has served as a center for fish distribution as well as a glacial
refugium, and as such it is home to many of the species found in
surrounding drainages. As a result, it is the second richest ecoregion
in North America.
Compared to other ecoregions, Alabama shad experience different
climatic conditions in the Central Prairie, which has hot continental
summers and cold winters, with periodic arctic blasts. Most of the
streams and rivers in the ecoregion are meandering with low to moderate
flow. The diversity of species in this ecoregion is high relative to
adjacent ecoregions due to the presence of diverse habitats that were
not interrupted during glacial periods. The Ozark Highlands ecoregion
is part of the western Mississippi River drainage but is distinctive
because of its relative biogeographical isolation. It is a region of
high gradient headwater streams surrounded by coastal plains and
prairie. The Ozark Highlands contain a diversity of freshwater
habitats, including fens, sinkholes and springs, which feed the clear
headwaters of larger, free-flowing streams. Many of these habitats
served as refugia during periods of glacial maximas. The Ozarks are
home to a unique assemblage of species. Like the Ozark Highlands, the
Ouachita Highlands ecoregion is distinguished by its relative
biogeographic isolation. The ecoregion is a source area for several
larger streams and is an area of high-gradient and spring-fed springs,
and can almost be considered an island surrounded by the Great Plains,
coastal plains, and prairie. The ecoregion is characterized by oak-
hickory-pine forests, which are some of the best developed in the
United States.
Habitat heterogeneity is considered to be important for the
stability of populations, and Oliver et al. (2010) found that
heterogeneous landscapes containing a variety of suitable habitat types
were associated with more stable population dynamics in a butterfly
species. Oliver et al. (2010) noted that many studies have suggested
that the beneficial effects of heterogeneity may buffer a broad range
of taxa against environmental change. Based on common ecoregion
classifications, the watersheds inhabited by Alabama shad populations
contain a diverse array of landscapes, vegetation, geology, hydrology,
and climate.
We also considered the spatial structure of the spawning
populations of Alabama shad. In assessing the viability of salmonid
populations, which are anadromous and exhibit homing tendencies like
Alabama shad, McElhany et al. (2000) stated that it is practical to
focus on spawning group distribution and connectivity because many of
the processes that affect small population extinction risk depend on
the breeding structure. The spatial arrangement of suitable spawning
and rearing habitat within a watershed can be dynamic through time as a
result of periodic disturbances that create a mosaic of varying habitat
conditions (Reeves et al. 1995). Efforts to understand population
diversity have focused on population connectedness, through the
analysis of DNA collected from individuals across the landscape or
tagging data to quantify dispersal between populations (Jorgensen et
al. 2016). Alabama shad continue to spawn in river systems in Florida,
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri. While
most Alabama shad spawn in their natal rivers, Waters et al. (2000)
proposed that shad species may stray more than other anadromous fishes
and estimated that American shad are expected to have over 10 effective
migrants per generation. In fact, Mickle et al. (2006) and Kreiser and
Schaefer (2009) found slight genetic distinctions between populations
from the Mississippi River basin and coastal Gulf of Mexico drainages.
Kreiser and Schaefer (2009) attributed this to Alabama shad straying
from their natal rivers at a rate of about 10 migrants per generation,
consistent with the estimate by Waters et al. (2000) for American shad.
This indicates the possibility that Alabama shad could enhance and
repopulate nearby river systems within their range. This was also
observed in anadromous Pacific salmon. Similar to Alabama shad, these
species exhibit high spawning site fidelity, but are well-adapted to
dynamic environments through straying by adults (to connect
populations) and high fecundity (also similar to Alabama shad; Reeves
et al. 1995, Jorgensen et al. 2016).
The historical range of Alabama shad has contracted and this
species is believed to be extirpated from some river systems. Few
targeted research studies were conducted since the time a majority of
dams may have altered Alabama shad's distribution, therefore we can
rely only on anecdotal reports from monitoring activities and
multispecies surveys from the last 24 years to determine their current
range. However, the remaining spawning populations of the species
appear to be geographically widespread. Their range appears to have
become stable once dam building ended, and lost access to spawning
habitat is likely to be restored through dam removal and fish passage,
and protections under environmental laws have increased. Although
spawning populations in some places are small, the species exists in
multiple ecoregions, representing a diverse array of ecosystems that
has the potential to buffer the species against environmental changes
and promote population stability. Genetic studies (Kreiser and Schaefer
2009, Waters et al. 2000) show that exchange between river populations
is occurring at higher rates than is expected for other anadromous
species. Therefore, we ranked spatial distribution throughout its
range, on its own, to be at low risk of contributing significantly to
the current and foreseeable risk of extinction for Alabama shad.
Diversity
In a spatially and temporally varying environment, genetic
diversity is
[[Page 4043]]
important for species and population viability because it (1) allows a
species to use a wider array of environments than they could without
it, (2) protects a species against short-term spatial and temporal
changes in the environment, and (3) provides the raw material for
surviving long-term environmental changes (McElhany et al. 2000). Small
populations may be at risk from random genetic effects, Allee effects,
and directional effects (Wainwright and Kope 1999).
Alabama shad are believed to be philopatric and generally return to
the same rivers to spawn, which has resulted in slight genetic
differences among river drainages (Meadows et al. 2008, Mickle 2010).
These genetic differences could result in characteristics (e.g., faster
growth rates, higher temperature tolerance, etc.) that lead to variable
spawning strategies among river drainages. Kreiser and Schaefer (2009)
also noted slight genetic differences between Alabama shad from the
Mississippi River basin and coastal Gulf of Mexico drainages; however,
they determined there has been no significant genetic differentiation
among different river populations of Alabama shad.
Moyer (2012) evaluated the genome of Alabama shad collected from
the ACF River system to assess the influence of genetic factors on
their extinction risk, including whether the construction of JWLD
blocking access to upstream spawning habitat affected their genetic
diversity. Genetic diversity of Apalachicola River shad was calculated
based on the average number of alleles (the possible forms in which a
gene for a specific trait can occur), observed heterozygosity (having
different alleles in regard to a specific trait), and expected
heterozygosity. Moyer (2012) found no evidence of fine-scale population
structure in the ACF River system. The observed genetic variation found
in Alabama shad was lower than expected based on other shad studies.
These findings suggest that the genetic variation of Alabama shad in
the ACF River system has been severely reduced by a bottleneck event.
Moyer (2012) concluded that the bottleneck likely did not result from
the construction of JWLD or from any other anthropogenic activity.
Moyer (2012) stated the reduced genetic diversity appears to be the
result of past events that occurred during the Pleistocene. Bowen et
al. (2008) made a similar determination for Alabama shad while studying
the phylogenetic relationships across North American Alosa species.
Their study also indicated that the genetic bottleneck occurred when
the originating ancestor(s) of Alabama shad traveled around the Florida
peninsula into the Gulf of Mexico during or after the Pleistocene and
became geographically separated from Atlantic populations.
Loss of genetic diversity can reduce an organism's adaptive
capacity to respond to differing environmental conditions and increase
a species' extinction risk. However, population bottlenecks can also
have positive outcomes on a species' genetic diversity, fitness, and
extinction risk (Bouzat 2010). Moyer (2012) noted that populations or
species that have undergone population bottlenecks throughout their
evolutionary history may have reduced genetic load. Genetic load is the
combination of harmful genes that are hidden in the genetic make-up of
a population and may be transmitted to descendants. The genetic load of
a population reduces the fitness of that population relative to a
population composed entirely of individuals having optimal genotypes.
Hedrick (2001) stated that a population with reduced genetic load
resulting from a bottleneck may have increased viability and be more
likely to recover from near-extinction than a population that has not
experienced such an evolutionary bottleneck.
Modeling conducted by Moyer (2012) indicated that the Pleistocene
bottleneck for Alabama shad was intense. The maintenance of genetic
variability in a finite population can be understood through the
concept of effective population size, which is not an actual abundance
estimate but an estimate of the number of individuals in an ideal
population that would give the same rate of random genetic drift
(change in the frequency of a gene variant) as in the actual population
(Lande 1988). The effective population size for Alabama shad during the
bottleneck was estimated to be between 76 and 398, meaning 76-398
individuals is the population size during the Pleistocene estimated to
have been necessary to result in the relatively low genetic diversity
observed in members of the species today. Moyer (2012) also noted that
the bottleneck event was prolonged (145-987 shad generations) and he
concluded that it may have purged much of the species' genetic load,
making the population less prone to fitness decreases in the event of
another bottleneck. Moyer (2012) concluded the risk of population
decline and extinction in Alabama shad from the ACF River basin due to
reduced genetic diversity appears to be low and is not of immediate
importance to the short- or long-term persistence of Alabama shad in
the ACF River system.
In summary, we found no significant genetic differences between
Alabama shad from different river populations, based primarily on
information provided in Kreiser and Schaefer (2009) and Moyer (2012). A
genetic evaluation of Alabama shad from the ACF River system (Moyer
2012) showed genetic diversity is low, likely resulting from a
bottleneck that occurred during the Pleistocene rather than any recent
anthropogenic factors. Moyer (2012) stated that the reduced genetic
diversity resulting from the Pleistocene bottleneck potentially reduced
the genetic load of Alabama shad, which decreases their extinction risk
and increases their viability and chances of recovery. We ranked
diversity, on its own, to be at low risk of contributing significantly
to the current and foreseeable risk of extinction for Alabama shad.
Threats Assessment
Next we consider whether any of the five factors specified in
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA are contributing to the extinction risk of
Alabama shad.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Effects to Alabama shad's riverine habitat are contributing to the
species' extinction risk now, and are likely to continue into the
foreseeable future. The primary cause for declines in Alabama shad
populations is believed to be the presence of dams, which can block
access to upstream spawning habitats (NMFS et al. 2012, Mettee and
O'Neil 2003). Existing literature cites other threats to Alabama shad,
including dredging (Mettee and O'Neil 2003), sedimentation (Mettee and
O'Neil 2003), and water quality degradation (Mettee et al. 1996),
although there is little specific information on how Alabama shad
populations may be responding to those threats. Recently identified and
ongoing potential threats to Alabama shad include water allocation
issues, climate change, and the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill.
Dams
The construction of dams that block access to upstream habitat has
long been considered the primary reason for declines of Alabama shad
and other anadromous fish species (NMFS et al. 2012). Dynesius and
Nilsson (1994) list three of the river systems inhabited by Alabama
shad (the Mississippi, Apalachicola, and Mobile Rivers) as being
strongly affected by the presence
[[Page 4044]]
of dams. Despite a lack of species-specific data, the proliferation of
impassable structures constructed on rivers within its range is
believed to have restricted adult Alabama shad from reaching their
historical spawning grounds, which severely reduced or eliminated their
ability to reproduce (Pflieger 1997, Mettee and O'Neil 2003). Most
surveys and studies of Alabama shad focused on fish below dams
(Laurence and Yerger 1967, Mills 1972), while collection records from
state and Federal agencies, as well as ichthyological collections,
indicate a rarity of specimens collected upstream of dams (Coker 1930,
Etnier and Starnes 1993). In addition, similar declines in American
shad populations have resulted from dam construction (Limburg and
Waldman 2009). Pringle et al. (2000) note that Alosa species, such as
river herring and American shad, have established themselves outside
their native ranges and in landlocked populations when dams blocked
their natural habitat. In the Mississippi River system, Alabama shad
are shown to inhabit several tributaries but have not been recently
reported within the river mainstem. Positive reports in the tributaries
without reports from the mainstem could indicate the presence of
landlocked populations of Alabama shad or it could indicate that shad
were present in the mainstem, but not surveyed or detected.
Within the state of Iowa there are 10 locks and dams on the Upper
Mississippi River (north of the confluence with the Ohio River) and an
additional 7 locks and dams to the south that could prevent Alabama
shad from reaching historical spawning grounds (Steuck et al. 2010).
Noting that large numbers of Alabama shad congregated below Keokuk Dam,
Iowa, but few were ever captured above it, Coker (1930) reasoned that
the dam likely limited the upstream passage of the species in the Upper
Mississippi River. Dams in Mississippi River tributaries also block
Alabama shad from reaching spawning habitat. Construction of dams in
the McClelland-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System in the early 1970s
may have led to the extirpation of Alabama shad in that system (M.
Oliver, Chief of Fisheries, Arkansas Fish and Game Commission, pers.
comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, November 5, 2013). The Denison and Altus Dams
block access to habitat in the Red and Washita Rivers (Smith et al.
2011).
Dams have been constructed at or below the fall line in many river
systems along the Gulf Coast and prevent spawning migrations into the
Piedmont (NMFS et al. 2012). In Georgia and Alabama, there is evidence
that Alabama shad historically occurred above the fall line in the
Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers (Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Couch et al.
1996) and in the upper Coosa and Tallapoosa River systems (Freeman et
al. 2005). An Alabama shad record exists above the fall line into the
Piedmont from the Cahaba River, Alabama (Mettee et al. 1996). There are
many locks, dams, and other impoundments in the Mobile River basin that
cumulatively impound approximately 44 percent of the river mainstem
length in the basin as well as portions of many tributary streams
(Pringle et al. 2000). Only a few Alabama shad have been found in the
Tombigbee River, a tributary of the Mobile River, since the
construction of the Tombigbee lock system in the waterway in 1901 (M.
Roberts, Curator of Fishes, Mississippi Museum of Natural Science,
pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, October 21, 2013). On the Alabama
River, Claiborne Lock and Dam was opened for navigation in 1969
(Freeman et al. 2005). Upstream from Claiborne Lock and Dam, Millers
Ferry Lock and Dam was constructed for the purpose of both power
generation and navigation, with the lock opening in 1969 and power
coming on line in 1970. Numerous juvenile Alabama shad were recorded in
the Alabama River in 1951, the late 1960s, and the early 1970s
(Boschung 1992, Mettee and O'Neil 2003). However, only two individuals
have been caught in the Alabama River in more recent years, one in 1993
below Claiborne Lock and Dam and one in 1995 below Miller's Ferry Lock
and Dam (Smith et al. 2011). In 2009, conservation locking during
spawning season was instituted at Claiborne Lock and Dam and Miller's
Ferry Lock and Dam (Simcox 2009). In 2014 and 2015, conservation
locking coupled with stocking of Alabama shad was undertaken to provide
access above Claiborne and Miller's Ferry Locks and Dams and to enhance
Alabama shad populations in the river system.
Legislation focused on flood control, navigation, and hydropower
passed in the late 1920s through the mid-1940s resulted in the
development and construction of over a dozen major impoundments on the
mainstem Missouri River, but there are approximately 17,200 minor dams
and reservoirs on the river and its tributaries, most of which are
small, local irrigation structures (USACE 2006). Alabama shad spawn in
the Missouri River, as well as two of its tributaries, the Gasconade
and Osage Rivers (Smith et al. 2011). The Powersite Dam, a
hydroelectric dam, was constructed far upstream in the Missouri portion
of the White River in 1913. In 2006, researchers collected the first
Alabama shad in the White River (Buchanan et al. 2012); the collected
specimens were juveniles believed to have been spawned in the river.
The Remmel Dam was constructed on the Ouachita River in 1924 to provide
electrical power for southern Arkansas and surrounding states. While
the dam blocks access to upstream habitat for most of the year, Alabama
shad are successfully spawning in the Ouachita and Little Missouri
Rivers (Buchanan 1999). Buchanan et al. (1999) note that during March
and April of most years, the peak months of the spring spawning run,
high water frequently flows over and around the structure, allowing
Alabama shad to move into habitats upstream of Remmel Dam.
The Elba-Pea River Dam was constructed for power generation on the
Pea River tributary of the Choctawhatchee River in the early 1900s.
Studies indicate there are small spawning populations of Alabama shad
in the Choctawhatchee and Pea Rivers (Barkuloo 1993, Adams et al. 2000,
Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Young 2010). Dams were constructed on the
Conecuh/Escambia (Point A Dam) and Apalachicola Rivers (JWLD) beginning
in 1929 and 1947, respectively. River traffic on the Apalachicola River
resulted in the lock being operated frequently, allowing passage and
sustaining reproduction of the resident Alabama shad population.
Historically, JWLD was operated continuously 24 hours per day for
commercial barge traffic (Sammons 2013). With the elimination of
commercial traffic in the late 1960s, lock operation was reduced to 8
hours per day for on-demand passage of recreational boats, reducing the
number of lockages to less than 100 per year from a high of 1200. Barge
traffic decreased and lock operation became infrequent when
navigational dredging ceased in 2001 (J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. to
K. Shotts, NMFS, November 12, 2013). Recently, conservation locking on
the Apalachicola River has given Alabama shad access to previously
blocked habitat upstream of JWLD, although 15 other impoundments/
reservoirs currently exist upstream on the Chattahoochee and Flint
Rivers (NMFS et al. 2012). Populations of Alabama shad continue to use
the Conecuh/Escambia and ACF River systems for spawning.
Dams are believed to be the primary reason for declines in all
three of the anadromous species native to the Gulf
[[Page 4045]]
of Mexico (USFWS 2009a). In addition to Alabama shad, anadromous Gulf
sturgeon and striped bass (Morone saxatilis) have also been blocked by
dams from accessing upstream habitat in river systems draining into the
Gulf. Gulf sturgeon were listed as threatened in 1991 (56 FR 49653) and
occur in river systems from Louisiana to Florida, in nearshore bays and
estuaries, and in the Gulf of Mexico. While overfishing caused initial
declines in Gulf sturgeon populations, the listing determination cited
dams as a current threat to the species. Striped bass were native to
Gulf of Mexico rivers from the Suwannee River in Florida to the rivers
draining into Lake Pontchartrain in eastern Louisiana and southwestern
Mississippi. Striped bass populations began declining in the early
1900s, and by the mid-1960s had disappeared from all Gulf rivers except
for the ACF River system of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia (USFWS
2009a). In addition to blocking upstream habitat, it is believed that
downstream effects from the dam, such as impaired water quality and
channelization may have prevented successful spawning (USFWS 2009a).
The USFWS and Gulf states began cooperative efforts to restore and
maintain Gulf striped bass populations in the late 1960s, mainly
through stocking of hatchery-raised fingerlings, and this effort
continues today (USFWS 2009b). Related anadromous Alosa species on the
East Coast, such as the American shad, have also experienced declines
due to dams blocking access to upstream habitat (Limburg and Waldman
2009).
Spawning populations of Alabama shad inhabit the Meramec,
Gasconade, Suwannee, and Pascagoula River systems, all of which are
free-flowing systems unmodified by dams (Heise et al. 2005, MDC 2001,
2015, Mickle et al. 2010; J. Wilcox, FFWCC, pers. comm. to K. Shotts,
NMFS, November 12, 2013). However, other spawning populations of
Alabama shad, including the largest known spawning population in the
ACF River system, use river systems that have been dammed since the
early to mid-1900s. Recent conservation locking is currently having a
positive effect on Alabama shad in the ACF River system, and this
population has been considered to be the largest population since at
least 1967 (McBride 2000).
While dams are known to impede upstream access to habitat, access
may still be possible under certain conditions. Fish may be able to
pass upstream and downstream during high water conditions at ``low
head'' dams, which are low vertical structures that have been
constructed across rivers or streams to raise the water level, normally
producing vertical water surface drops of one to several feet. Fish may
also pass through navigation locks when they are open for vessel
traffic. Coker (1929) noted lack of observation in locks. However,
Zigler et al. (2004) note that there is considerable opportunity for
fish to use some locks for upstream and downstream movement. Ickes
(2014) states that all of the dams on the Upper Mississippi River are
``semi-permeable'' to fish passage in that they all have locks that
fish could use to move upstream and downstream. With the exception of
two of the locks, all are open and run-of-the-river for part of the
year, up to as much as 35 percent of the time annually (Ickes 2014).
Zigler et al. (2004) found that the dams on the Upper Mississippi
River are typically low head dams that allow fish passage under certain
conditions. Downriver fish passage can occur through the locks and
gated sections of the dam, as well as over the top of the dam (Wilcox
1999). Fish can sometimes swim over low head dams when water levels in
the river are high enough, although Wilcox (1999) notes that most
upriver passage on the Upper Mississippi River occurs through the gated
sections of the dams. Zigler et al. (2004) observed that navigation
dams are operated with partially closed dam gates during most of the
year to increase dam head and maintain water levels in navigation
pools. Fish can likely pass downstream through partially closed dam
gates unharmed (Zigler et al. 2004, Moen et al. 1992). Upstream passage
is possible, but likely impeded to some degree, when gates are
partially closed due to increased current velocity, which increases
with increasing dam head (Zigler et al. 2004). In a tagging study of
paddlefish, a species selected as representative of migratory fish
species whose movements have likely been adversely affected by dams,
Zigler et al. (2004) showed 12-33 percent of the tagged fish moved
upstream, downstream, or both during years with high river discharge
through the low head dams, but no movement was observed during time
periods with a weak flood pulse. Studies by Brooks et al. (2009) and
Tripp and Garvey (2011) in the Upper Mississippi River found that the
degree to which upriver movement was impeded by lock and dam structures
varied among species, but that each of their 5 study species had the
capability to negotiate dams whether the lock gates were closed or
open. Wilcox (1999) found similar results in that strong swimming
species (e.g., sturgeon, bass, and herrings) had the most success
moving upriver through structures, but Alabama shad and other migratory
fish species included in the study were also able to move upstream
through Upper Mississippi River locks and dams when hydraulic
conditions were favorable. Wilcox (1999) described the difference in
hydraulic conditions when gates are in the open and closed positions.
Velocities through the gated sections of the dams are highest when dam
gates are in the water (closed). When the dam gates are raised from the
water (open) during higher levels of river discharge, uncontrolled
conditions exist, and open channel flow occurs in the gate bay
openings. Opportunity for upriver fish passage through dams is greatest
during uncontrolled conditions due to the lower velocities through the
dam gate openings. Dams with lower controlled discharge capacity may
therefore present more frequent and longer windows of opportunity for
upriver fish passage than dams with higher discharge capacity (Wilcox
1999).
USFWS (2012) conducted a 2-year study starting in 2010 to determine
whether Lock and Dam #1 (a low head dam) creates a barrier to fish
passage on the Osage River, which supports a spawning population of
Alabama shad. USFWS (2012) determined through captures of pallid and
hybrid sturgeon marked in other studies that Lock and Dam #1 was
passable at certain flows, but presented a barrier at others. Fish
passage upstream of Lock and Dam #1 was detected by USFWS (2012).
Passage was determined through collection of fish above and below the
dam, rather than by acoustically or radio tracking fish. Therefore it
is unknown whether upstream passage was achieved by fish swimming over
the dam or passing through the lock. However, since upstream passage is
typically more difficult for fish due to swimming against the river
current, it is likely that downstream passage is also possible since
upstream passage was documented to occur. USFWS (2012) also noted that
the 115-year-old dam was unstable and would need to be removed or
repaired in the very near future.
While dams are believed to be the main cause of the initial decline
of Alabama shad, and continue to block habitat and cause downstream
effects today, few new dams are being built (Graf 1999). Some dams in
the United States date back centuries. The greatest rate of increase in
reservoir storage occurred from the late 1950s to the late 1970s, with
more dams (and some of the largest) built in the 1960s than in any
[[Page 4046]]
other decade (Graf 1999). In the ``golden age'' of U.S. dam building,
thousands of large and small dams were built to supply power, reduce
flood hazard, improve navigation, and impound water for irrigation and
urban water supply with little thought to the environmental impacts,
long-term fate, inevitable aging, and need for continued maintenance,
renovation, or even removal of dams (Doyle et al. 2003, Pejchar and
Warner 2001). There have been few new dams built since the mid-1980s
and the nation's era of dam building is over (Graf 1999). Further, the
aging of America's dams, coupled with increasing awareness of their
environmental costs, has brought dam decommissioning and removal to the
attention of the scientific community, management agencies, and the
general public (Doyle et al. 2003). It is only since the late 1990s
that the topic of dam removal has become common due to the convergence
of economic, environmental, and regulatory concerns (Doyle et al.
2003). An understanding about how dams severely impair free-flowing
rivers has become firmly established both in the United States and
abroad and this knowledge has entered into the public debate on river
conservation, both in terms of greater willingness of reservoir
managers to minimize downstream ecological effects and of increased
calls for outright dam removal (Poff and Hart 2002).
By 2020, an estimated 85 percent of the dams in the United States
will be near the end of their operational lives (Doyle et al. 2003).
The current intensification of economic and environmental concerns is
coinciding with a policy window in which many private dams are coming
up for regulatory re-licensing with FERC and operational guidelines for
publicly-operated dams are being reviewed (Doyle et al. 2003). Stanley
and Doyle (2003) predict that the aging of the U.S. dam infrastructure
will make dam removal even more common in the future. American Rivers
(2015) reports that 1,300 dams were removed between 1912 and 2015.
Lovett (2014) notes that 1,150 of those dams were removed in the last
20 years, most of which were dams lower than 5 meters (16.4 feet) but
also taller dams in recent years. In 2004, 2012, and 2013, 5 dams
within the current range of Alabama shad in the ACF and Alabama River
systems were removed (American Rivers 2015). Another 10 dams were
removed since 1999 in the historical range of Alabama shad in the
Mississippi, Tennessee, and Ohio Rivers (American Rivers 2015). The
rapid aging of dams (especially small ones) and the costs of
maintaining old dams suggests that dam removal will continue for the
foreseeable future (Poff and Hart 2002). The benefits of dams have been
routinely exaggerated and the costs have been frequently
underestimated, prompting policy-makers to increasingly consider dam
removal as a policy option (Pejchar and Warner 2001). The cost of
repairing a small dam can be as much as three times greater than the
cost of removing it (Born et al. 1998). In contrast, many cost-
effective methods for water conservation in cities already exist, and
new technologies are constantly evolving that will enable even greater
efficiencies, reducing the amount of water that needs to be extracted
from rivers through the use of dams and reservoirs (Richter and Thomas
2007). As dams in the U.S. age beyond their intended design lives
(Doyle et al. 2008), some states are providing incentives to remove
dams as means of river restoration (Ardon and Bernhardt 2009).
Besides dam removal, various designs of fishways or fish ladders
have been developed to enable fish to pass upstream of barrier dams.
The recognized need to pass fish upstream of dams and other obstacles
inspired many seminal studies on fish swimming performance, energetics,
and biomechanics (Castro-Santos et al. 2009). Within the last 50 years
fishways and other passage operations have become increasingly
sophisticated and efficient, their design a product of collaboration
between hydraulic engineers and biologists (Roscoe and Hinch 2010). The
presence of a fishway alone does not guarantee that the fish are able
to pass upstream of the barrier to their movement and fishways do not
always perform as intended (Roscoe and Hinch 2010). However, upstream
passage technologies are considered to be well developed and well
understood for the main anadromous species, including Alosa species
(Larinier and Marmulla 2004). In the ACF and Alabama River systems,
Federal, state, and non-governmental organizations are collaborating
and utilizing existing facilities (i.e., opening navigation locks)
during spawning season to pass Alabama shad and other species upstream,
with demonstrated success in the ACF River system, but with unknown
results in the Alabama River.
River restoration will play an increasing role in environmental
management and policy decisions, and has even become a highly
profitable business (Bernhardt et al. 2005, Ardon and Bernhardt 2009).
Bernhardt et al. (2005) synthesized information on 37,099 river
restoration projects in the National River Restoration Science
Synthesis (NRRSS) database. Fish passage is one of the four most
commonly stated goals of river restoration, along with water quality
management, instream habitat improvement, and riparian management. The
NRRSS database shows that of the 58 percent of projects where cost
information was available, $9.1 billion has been spent on river
restoration projects since 1970. Bernhardt et al. (2005) notes that the
majority of the money ($7.5 billion) spent on restoration was spent
between 1990-2003, indicating that river restoration is a relatively
recent and growing phenomenon. Specific river flow patterns cue
anadromous species like Alabama shad to migrate and reproduce. To
mitigate negative effects of flow patterns created by dams, dam
operations are increasingly being adapted toward releasing
``environmental flows,'' the appropriate quantity, quality, and timing
of water flows required to sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems
(Lehner et al. 2011).
In summary, dams have impacted anadromous species populations and
are believed to be the primary cause for the observed decline of
Alabama shad. Existing dams continue to block access to upstream
spawning habitat, although few new dams are being built today. The
current diminished abundance of Alabama shad is a reflection of
historical effects of the dams over decades, although the threat to
Alabama shad from existing dams may be reduced with effective fish
passage, conservation locking, dam removal, and other forms of river
restoration. We believe that the presence of dams is contributing a
moderate level of risk to the overall current extinction risk of
Alabama shad, but could decrease in the foreseeable future with the
increasing focus on restoring access to fish habitat blocked by dams.
Water Quality
Changes in water quality parameters (turbidity, flow, oxygen
content, and pollutants) are a potential threat to Alabama shad. The
presence of dams, dredging, and watershed activities can alter water
quality in riverine and coastal habitat used by Alabama shad. In
addition to blocking access to habitat, dams can degrade spawning,
nursery, and foraging habitat downstream by altering flow, water
temperature, and oxygen levels. Mettee et al. (2005) state that
seasonal flow patterns in dammed rivers have been replaced by pulsed
releases that alter water temperature and
[[Page 4047]]
DO levels, as well as nutrient and sediment transport.
Dredging can also affect water quality. Several decades ago, when
vessel traffic on the Apalachicola River was much greater, the USACE
frequently dredged the river to maintain depth of the navigation
channel. The dredged material was placed along the river banks and
eventually became re-suspended in the river. The dredged material
(finer sands and clays) settled on the river bottom and filled in
spaces between grains of the coarser sands and gravel that served as
spawning habitat for Alabama shad (Mills 1972). McBride (2000) reports
that dredging affected Alosa species, including Alabama shad, in
Florida rivers through re-suspension of particulate matter in the water
column, alteration of natural flow patterns, and removal of river-
bottom habitat.
Alabama shad and their habitat are also exposed to sediment and
pollutants introduced from land-based activities. Agriculture,
silviculture, and industrial, commercial, and residential development
in the watershed contribute to degraded water quality in rivers and
coastal waters inhabited by Alabama shad. Wastewater treatment,
municipal stormwater, industrial discharges, land clearing, and
construction of impervious surfaces are examples of activities that
increase runoff into the watershed, introduce sediment and pollutants,
and lead to low DO. There are no specific data linking exposure to
altered water quality parameters with responses in Alabama shad
populations. However, McBride (2000) noted that the effects of
declining water quality from low DO and industrial discharges were seen
in other Alosa species on the Atlantic Coast throughout the nineteenth
century.
States are required to report water quality conditions to the EPA
under Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. We reviewed
the water quality assessment reports (available at https://www.epa.gov/waters/ir/) for rivers occupied by Alabama shad spawning
populations, as well as the Mobile/Alabama River system where Alabama
shad conservation activities are occurring. Rivers were assessed by the
states between 2008 and 2014, with most rivers assessed more recently
(2012-2014). The water quality assessment reports provide information
on river segments that have good water quality, as well as segments
that are impaired. While the reports list what the impairment is based
on (e.g., the presence of heavy metals, sediment, or low DO), the
reports rarely specify the source of the impairment (e.g., dam
releases, dredging, industrial discharge, or stormwater runoff).
However, the water quality assessment reports provide some information
on the water quality conditions Alabama shad are exposed to in the
riverine areas they use.
We reviewed the water quality assessment reports for the following
river systems: (1) ACF; (2) the Missouri/Gasconade/Osage; (3) Meramec;
(4) White; (5) Ouachita/Little Missouri; (6) Pascagoula/Leaf/
Chickasawhay; (7) Mobile/Alabama; (8) Escambia/Conecuh; (9)
Choctawhatchee/Pea; and (10) the Suwanee. Of the approximately 4,500
combined river mi in these systems, water quality was deemed good for
2,150 or 48 percent of the assessed mi. Approximately 2,100 mi (47
percent) were designated as impaired based on one or more factors, and
275 mi were not assessed. Within each river system, between 6 percent
and 100 percent of the river mi assessed were deemed to be impaired
(too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet water quality standards)
for one or more factors.
With the exception of the Meramec and White Rivers, all or portions
of every other river system we looked at were impaired due to mercury
levels. The EPA states that coal-burning power plants are the largest
human-caused source of mercury emissions into the air within the United
States, accounting for over 50 percent of all domestic human-caused
mercury emissions (EPA 2014a). Mercury in the air may settle into
rivers, lakes, or estuaries, where it can be transferred to
methylmercury through microbial activity. Methylmercury can accumulate
in fish at levels that may harm the fish and the other animals that eat
them (EPA 2014b). Other heavy metals (copper, zinc, and lead) were
found in impaired waters in the Meramec and Ouachita/Little Missouri
River systems. There are no known studies on the effects to Alabama
shad from exposure to, or accumulation of, mercury and other heavy
metals.
All river systems we evaluated, with the exception of the Meramec
and the Pascagoula/Leaf/Chicksawhay River systems, had some impaired
river segments due to low DO. Low DO can cause lethal and sublethal
(metabolic, growth, feeding) effects in fish. Different species have
different oxygen requirements. For instance, sturgeon species,
considered to be benthic species, are known to be more highly sensitive
to low DO (less than 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L)) than other fish
species (Niklitschek and Secor 2009a, 2009b). DO is often lowest at the
benthos compared to the water column. Tagatz (1961) found that juvenile
American shad (an Alosa species more closely related to Alabama shad
than sturgeon) are able to acclimate to low oxygen concentrations (2-4
mg/L) when other environmental conditions are satisfactory. Howell and
Simpson (1994) looked at the abundance of a variety of finfish captured
across DO levels in Long Island Sound, New York, and found that
American shad were captured in 79 percent of the tows in waters with DO
greater than or equal to 3 mg/L. American shad were captured in 40
percent of the tows with DO levels of 2-2.9 mg/L, but no captures were
made in waters where DO was less than 2 mg/L. The classification of
Alabama shad as a pelagic species, meaning they inhabit the water
column, indicates they are present above the benthos in areas where DO
levels are usually higher. This suggests that Alabama shad could be
less susceptible to the effects of low DO than other species, such as
sturgeon.
Segments of several river systems inhabited by Alabama shad were
designated as impaired due to biota. The water quality assessment
reports define this category as ``the community of aquatic animals
(fish, reptiles, amphibians, aquatic insects or others) normally
expected in a healthy waterway is unhealthy, reduced, or absent, and
the exact cause of the problem is unknown.'' The Chattahoochee River
was designated impaired based on fish biota. Georgia DNR (2008)
reported to the EPA that studies completed during 1998-2003 showed
modification of the fish community in the Chattahoochee River. The
general cause was determined to be the lack of fish habitat due to
stream sedimentation. Even with access to the Chattahoochee River
restored as a result of conservation locking at JWLD, Alabama shad
preferentially spawn in the Flint River over the Chattahoochee River.
Sammons (2014) conducted a study to determine habitat usage by Alabama
shad in the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers and did not find a single
shad in the Chattahoochee during 4 years of tracking. The Flint and
Osage Rivers are designated impaired due to benthic and aquatic
macroinvertebrates, respectively. The Leaf River is also designated
impaired due to biological impairment. It is unknown whether these
conditions affect Alabama shad.
Sedimentation was listed as a potential threat to Alabama shad
(Mettee and O'Neil 2003). Segments of the White, Leaf, and Conecuh
Rivers were designated as impaired due to sedimentation. Other causes
of
[[Page 4048]]
impairments listed in the water quality assessment reports include the
presence of PCBs (Chattahoochee River), organic material (Conecuh
River), algal growth/chlorophyll-a (Suwannee River), and salinity/
solids/chlorides/sulfites (Suwannee River). It is unknown how these
conditions affect Alabama shad.
We also reviewed the National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR)
published by the EPA to gauge the recent water quality conditions
experienced by Alabama shad in coastal waters. The NCCR IV (EPA 2012)
graded the overall conditions of the Gulf Coast region as ``fair,''
with an overall condition score of 2.4 out of a possible 5.0.
Comparatively, the overall condition of the nation's coastal waters was
also rated ``fair,'' with an overall condition score of 3.0. Using
2003-2006 data, the water quality index (based on parameters such as
dissolved nitrogen, phosphorus, and oxygen, chlorophyll a
concentrations, and water clarity) for the coastal waters of the Gulf
Coast region overall was rated as ``fair.'' Only 10 percent of the
region was rated as ``poor,'' although estuaries with ``poor'' water
quality conditions were found in all five Gulf states. The Gulf Coast
region is rated ``good'' for DO concentrations, with less than 5
percent of the coastal area rated ``poor'' for this factor. Although
hypoxia is a relatively local occurrence in Gulf Coast estuaries, the
occurrence of hypoxia in the Gulf Coast shelf waters is much more
widespread. The Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone is the second-largest area
of oxygen-depleted waters in the world (Rabalais et al. 2002b). This
zone, which occurs in waters on the Louisiana shelf to the west of the
Mississippi River Delta, was not assessed for NCCR IV (EPA 2012) and
the ``good'' rating for DO concentrations in the Gulf Coast region
provided in the report is not indicative of offshore conditions.
Because the life history of the Alabama shad in offshore Gulf of Mexico
waters is unknown, it is not possible to determine if these conditions
affect Alabama shad.
In summary, water quality has been cited by multiple studies as a
threat to Alabama shad (e.g., Mills 1972, Mettee et al. 1996, 2005,
McBride 2000). Water quality assessments required by the Clean Water
Act, as well as assessments of water quality along the Gulf Coast
reported in NCCR IV (EPA 2012), indicate that water quality in some
portions of the Alabama shad's range are good, while other areas are
impaired by heavy metals, low DO, and other issues. Although it is
likely that Alabama shad are exposed to water quality issues in their
coastal and riverine environments, there are no clear data directly
linking water quality problems with declines in Alabama shad, and the
species may be less susceptible to some impairment factors (e.g., low
DO) than other species. The NCCR I-IV reports (EPA 2001, 2005, 2008,
2012) show that coastal water quality in the Gulf of Mexico has
improved since 2001. As coastal populations grow and industrial,
commercial, and residential development increases, water quality issues
could also grow. At this time it is unknown what risk water quality
presents to Alabama shad now or in the foreseeable future.
Water Allocation
Water allocation issues are a growing concern in the southeastern
United States. Transferring water from one river basin to another can
fundamentally and irreversibly alter natural water flows in both the
originating and receiving basins, and exacerbate any existing water
quality issues. Reallocation of water between river basins can affect
DO levels, temperature, and the ability of the basin of origin to
assimilate pollutants (Georgia Water Coalition 2006).
Water allocation issues have traditionally occurred primarily in
the Western United States, but they are also occurring in the
Southeast, with one of the biggest interstate allocation disputes
occurring between Alabama, Florida, and Georgia (SELC 2015a, Ruhl
2003). These three states have fought over the future allocation of
water in the ACF and Alabama/Coosa/Tallapoosa (ACT) River basins for
decades (SELC 2015a) as population growth is driving competing water
demands for urban, agricultural, and ecological uses. A 2006 study by
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO 2006) reported that Georgia had
the sixth highest population growth (26.4 percent) in the nation,
followed by Florida (23.5 percent). The per capita water use in Georgia
has been estimated to be 8 to 10 percent greater than the national
average, and 17 percent higher than per capita use in neighboring
states (UGA 2002). Georgia needs water to supply the large metro
Atlanta area; Alabama needs its water supply for power generation,
municipal uses, and fisheries; and Florida seeks to maintain its
shellfish industry in Apalachicola Bay (SELC 2015a). Water shortages
have already occurred and are expected to continue due to the rapid
population growth anticipated over the next 50 years (Cummings et al.
2003). In an ongoing U.S. Supreme Court case, in 2014 Florida sued
Georgia seeking to establish that it is entitled to equitable
apportionment of the waters of the ACF River Basin and appropriate
injunctive relief against Georgia to sustain an adequate flow of fresh
water into the Apalachicola Region (State of Florida v. State of
Georgia, No. 142, Original).
It is not known how much water is already being removed from rivers
used by Alabama shad because there is little information concerning
actual withdrawals and virtually no information concerning water
discharges. This is particularly the case for municipal and industrial
uses because water use permits are not required in Georgia for
withdrawals less than 100,000 gallons per day (Cummings et al. 2003)
and discharge permits are not required unless discharge contains
selected toxic materials. Agricultural water use permits are not
quantified in any meaningful way, thus neither water withdrawals nor
return flows are measured (Fisher et al. 2003). The Metropolitan North
Georgia Water Planning District, which was created through legislation
in 2001 and includes 15 counties and 93 cities (Cole and Carver 2011),
is the only major metropolitan area in the country with more than 100
jurisdictions implementing a long-term comprehensive water management
program that is required and enforced. Since plan implementation, total
water consumption in the region has dropped by 10 percent despite a one
million person increase in population. The District's Water Supply and
Water Conservation Management Plan (2009) recommends that the Georgia
General Assembly consider requiring permits for withdrawals less than
100,000 gallons per day within the Metro Water District.
Large withdrawals of water (such as those for municipal and
agricultural use) from rivers result in reduced water quantity and
quality (altered flows, higher temperatures, and lowered DO). Florida
and Georgia have developed water management plans in attempts to
provide comprehensive basin-wide strategies for management of the water
resources; Alabama is also developing a plan. Many cost-effective
methods for water conservation in cities already exist, and new
technologies are constantly evolving that will enable even greater
efficiencies, reducing the amount of water that needs to be extracted
from rivers (Richter and Thomas 2007).
It is unclear whether Alabama shad in the ACF system have been
affected by these ongoing water allocation issues. The Georgia
Ecological Services Office of the USFWS (2015) states that several
species of snails and mussels have gone extinct in the ACT and ACF
systems
[[Page 4049]]
due to alterations in water quantity and quality. Currently, there are
65 ESA-listed species in the ACT and ACF systems. USFWS (2015) has
provided instream flow guidelines to Georgia, Alabama, and Florida that
describe flow regime features that would protect these listed species.
It is unknown whether water allocation issues contribute to Alabama
shad's extinction risk, either now or in the foreseeable future.
Climate Change
Changes in temperature, precipitation, drought, flooding, and sea
level due to climate change could further exacerbate existing water
quality and quantity issues in rivers and coastal areas used by Alabama
shad. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its fifth
and most recent assessment report (IPCC AR5 2014) presented four
Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) to assess future climate
changes, risks, and impacts. The RCPs describe four possible 21st
century pathways of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric
concentrations, air pollutant emissions, and land use. The IPCC did not
identify any scenario as being more likely to occur than any other.
Because we cannot predict whether and how climate conditions may
change, it is our policy to assume climate conditions will be similar
to the status quo in making ESA listing determinations (memorandum from
D. Wieting, Director of the Office of Protected Resources, to E.
Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, regarding guidance for
treatment of climate change in NMFS ESA decisions, January 4, 2016). In
this listing determination, we use a baseline scenario, which is one
without additional efforts to constrain emissions of greenhouse gases,
leading to the RCP8.5 pathway, a scenario with very high greenhouse gas
emissions (IPCC AR5 2014), in evaluating potential climate effects to
Alabama shad.
The southern distributional limit for all Alosa species is believed
to be determined by water temperature (McBride 2000). Although there
have been no studies on the thermal tolerances of Alabama shad, other
Alosa species cannot tolerate water temperatures greater than 32
[deg]C; therefore, it is likely that Alabama shad cannot tolerate high
water temperatures (Beitinger 1999). Under RCP8.5, the predicted
increase in temperature from the 1850-1900 period to the end of the
21st century (2081-2100) is likely to exceed 2 [deg]C (IPCC AR5 2014).
However, current temperature trends indicate that warming has been less
pronounced and less robust in the Southeast United States. Within North
America, the Southeast is predicted to have the smallest changes in
mean annual temperature, between 1.5-2.5 [deg]C by the mid-21st century
(IPCC AR5 2014). It is unknown what level of temperature increases
could affect the current distribution and range of Alabama shad.
Precipitation can affect riverine habitat used by Alabama shad
through increased runoff and introduction of sediment and pollutants.
While precipitation is generally expected to increase for the northern
portion of North America, little to no change in the annual average
precipitation over the average recorded for 1986-2005 is predicted to
occur in the Southeast by the mid-21st century (2046-2065) under RCP8.5
(IPCC AR5 2014). This is also the prediction for the late 21st century
(2081-2100) for most of the Alabama shad's range. A small portion of
the species' western range is in an area where greater than or equal to
66 percent of the prediction models for the late 21st century indicated
changes in annual precipitation would occur, although the models could
not predict whether precipitation would increase or decrease.
Similar to increased precipitation, increased flooding can also
affect riverine habitat used by Alabama shad through increased runoff
and introduction of sediment and pollutants. Conversely, increased
periods of drought that result in lower than normal river flows can
restrict access to habitat areas, expose previously submerged habitats,
interrupt spawning cues, reduce thermal refugia, and exacerbate water
quality issues, such as water temperature, reduced DO, nutrient levels,
and contaminants. IPCC AR5 (2014) states that changes in the magnitude
or frequency of flood events have not been attributed to climate
change, as floods are generated by multiple mechanisms (e.g., land use,
seasonal changes, and urbanization). IPCC AR5 (2014) also states that
it is not possible to attribute changes in drought frequency in North
America to climate change.
Sea level rise resulting from climate change is projected to
continue during the 21st century, at a rate faster than observed from
1971 to 2010. The projected increase in sea level for the period 2081-
2100, relative to 1986-2005, is 0.45 to 0.82 meters with medium
confidence under the scenario RCP8.5 (IPCC AR5 2014). Sea level rise is
expected to occur in more than 95 percent of the ocean area by the end
of the 21st century, although it will not be uniform across regions
(IPCC AR5 2014). About 70 percent of the coastlines worldwide are
projected to experience a sea level change within 20
percent of the global mean (IPCC AR5 2014). A rise in sea level will
likely create more estuarine areas and push the salt wedge farther
upstream; this will likely impact any water intake structures located
in the newly estuarine areas and may also increase the potential for
salt water to enter aquifers (U.S. Global Research Group 2004).
Saltwater intrusion will stress the availability of water in the
southeast. The IPCC AR5 (2014) states that in the Southeast, ecosystems
and irrigation are projected to be particularly stressed by decreases
in water availability due to the combination of climate change, growing
water demand, and water transfers to urban and industrial users.
Existing water allocation issues could be exacerbated, potentially
stressing water quality. However, it is unknown how Alabama shad may be
affected by sea level rise in the future.
Most observations of climate change responses in species involve
alterations in phenology (Parmesan 2006). Phenology is the study of how
seasonal and interannual variations in the environment affect the
timing of critical stages and events in a species' life cycle (Anderson
et al. 2013). Phenological shifts attributed to climate change have
been identified in both terrestrial and aquatic biota (Ellis and Vokoun
2009). In the marine ecosystem, the most important physical factors
affecting phenology are water temperature and light, with the response
to and importance of each factor being species dependent (Anderson et
al. 2013). Importantly, climate change affects temperature but not
photoperiod or light, which is key when considering the environmental
cues that trigger species' migrations.
For marine species, climate-driven changes in temperature can
modify the phenology of annual migrations to spawning grounds
(P[ouml]rtner and Peck 2010). Seasonal temperature increases have been
shown to correlate with changes in the timing of fish movement, with
shifts towards earlier migrations of anadromous fish (Quinn and Adams
1996, Juanes et al. 2004) and earlier annual spawning events (Ahas and
Aasa 2006). The importance of temperature in regulating the behavior
and dynamics of Alosa species during spawning has been documented in
several reviews (Aprahamian et al. 2010, Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Quinn
and Adams 1996).
Ellis and Vokoun (2009) compared temperature records with fish
surveys for anadromous alewives in several southern New England streams
back to
[[Page 4050]]
the 1970s. They determined that 13 [deg]C was a consistent predictor of
spawning run timing for alewives in one historical and three recent
stream studies over several years. They found that stream temperatures
in the spring warmed to 13 [deg]C about 12 days earlier in recent years
than they did in the 1970s. Ellis and Vokoun (2009) concluded alewife
runs occur about 12 days earlier on average than they did in the 1970s.
Aprahamian et al. (2010) used a stock-recruitment model with a
temperature component to estimate the effects on twaite shad (A.
fallax) in the Severn Estuary in Great Britain from an increase in
temperature resulting from climate change. They determined a 1 [deg]C
increase in water temperature would shift the spawning run into the
River Severn 6-10 days earlier, and a 2 [deg]C would shift the spawning
run 16-17 days earlier. Aprahamian et al. (2010) also predicted that a
1-2 [deg]C temperature increase would result in an increase in twaite
shad abundance, likely through increased hatching success and growth
rate.
Quinn and Adams (1996) identified shifts in spawning migrations in
another Alosa species, American shad, in response to changes in
temperature. Records show that annual spring warming has occurred
progressively earlier in the Columbia River since 1950. Fish counts
from Bonneville Dam indicate that the peak migration of American shad,
introduced into the river in the late 1800s, occurs approximately 38
days earlier than it did in 1938 and correlates with the warming trend.
Quinn and Adams (1996) also looked at the timing of sockeye salmon
(Oncorhynchus nerka), and noted that while the species' upriver
migration is 6 days earlier than it was in 1949, that period lags
behind the rate of environmental change. Quinn and Adams (1996) state
that salmon migration is primarily controlled by population-specific
responses to cues such as photoperiod (a factor not affected by climate
change) rather than species-specific responses to temperature (a factor
that is affected by climate change), as may be the case in shad.
The differences in the environmental cues triggering spawning
migration, as well as the life history differences, between shad and
salmon highlight how species may be affected differently by climate
change. A species with close links between the environments experienced
by spawning adults and their offspring (e.g., spawning within the
migratory corridor and a brief larval period) should behaviorally
adjust the timing of migration and spawning to optimize conditions for
both the adult and the offspring in response to environmental
variation. Shad spawn in the river mainstem and have a brief incubation
period (Quinn and Adams 1996). Spawning adult shad experience
conditions that will be closely correlated to those affecting survival
of their offspring during incubation and hatching. In contrast, when
greater spatial and temporal separation occur between the environmental
conditions experienced by migrating adults and their offspring, as is
the case with salmon, genetic control over the timing of their spawn is
greater than the response to environmental cues. This can result in a
decoupling of cues that initiate migration (e.g., photoperiod, which is
not affected by climate change) and the state of the target habitat
that can be affected by climate-sensitive factors, such as temperature,
flow, DO, etc. In some Pacific salmon species, such as sockeye,
migration into freshwater may precede spawning by several months, fry
emergence by many months, and the time of seawater entry by juveniles
by a year or more (Groot and Margolis 1991). These salmon move through
a mainstem migratory corridor that is separate from the spawning and
incubation areas in tributaries that may be subjected to different
thermal and hydrological regimes. The ability of Alosa species to shift
the timing of their spawning migrations in response to temperature, and
the close spatial and temporal proximity of habitats occupied by
spawning adults and newly spawned offspring, likely buffer Alabama shad
from some aspects of climate change.
Climate change may also disrupt the timing between the life cycles
of predators and prey (Parmesan 2006). The presence of both the
predators of Alabama shad and their prey sources may be shifted
temporally or spatially due to climate change. Also, changes in water
temperature could impact prey production, with greater production in
warmer years (Aprahamian et al. 2010). Year-class strength in American
shad has been shown to be positively correlated with zooplankton
density, as shown by an increase in the percentage of larval fish with
food in their guts (Aprahamian et al. 2010). However, ocean currents,
fronts, and upwelling and downwelling zones play significant roles in
the distribution and production of marine ecosystems, and it is not yet
predictable how these features are likely to change in response to
alterations in temperature, precipitation, runoff, salinity, and wind
(Scavia et al. 2002). Little is known about predators of Alabama shad,
in either the marine or riverine environment. It is unknown how
phenological shifts brought on by climate change may affect
interactions between Alabama shad, their predators, and their prey.
In summary, under the RCP8.5 scenario, there could be a 2.6-4.8
[deg]C temperature increase by the end of the 21st century (2081-2100)
relative to 1986-2005. However, current temperature trends indicate
that warming has been less pronounced and less robust in the Southeast
United States. Within North America, the Southeast United States is
predicted to have the smallest changes in mean annual temperature (IPCC
AR5 2014). Little to no changes in precipitation that could increase
runoff are predicted within the range of Alabama shad. Sea level rise
resulting from climate change is projected to continue during the 21st
century, at a rate faster than observed from 1971 to 2010. However, it
is unknown how Alabama shad may be affected by sea level rise in the
future. The IPCC AR5 (2014) states that in the Southeast, ecosystems
and irrigation are projected to be particularly stressed by decreases
in water availability due to the combination of climate change, growing
water demand, and water transfers to urban and industrial users.
Existing water allocation issues could be further exacerbated,
potentially stressing water quality. Most observations of climate
change responses in species involve alterations in phenology, the study
of how seasonal and interannual variations in the environment affect
the timing of critical stages and events in a species' life cycle
(Parmesan 2006, Anderson et al. 2013). For marine species, climate-
driven changes in temperature can modify the timing of annual
migrations to spawning grounds, which has been observed in other Alosa
species. Studies on American shad (Quinn and Adams 1996), alewives
(Ellis and Vokoun 2009), and twaite shad (Aprahamian et al. 2010)
demonstrated that those species were able to shift their spawning
migrations earlier to adapt to warmer temperatures occurring earlier in
the year. A comparison of responses to climate change in American shad
and salmon showed that the behavioral responses of adult shad to
warming temperatures (i.e., earlier spawning migrations) should
optimize conditions for both the adults and the offspring, as there is
less spatial and temporal separation between the environmental
conditions experienced by migrating adults and their offspring in shad
compared to salmon (Quinn and Adams 1996, Groot and Margolis 1991).
[[Page 4051]]
However, it is unknown how spatial and temporal changes in migration in
Alabama shad may affect both their predator and prey relationships.
Ultimately, it is unknown how climate change may contribute to the
current and foreseeable risk of extinction of Alabama shad.
Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill
On April 20, 2010, while working on an exploratory well in the Gulf
of Mexico (approximately 50 mi southeast of the Mississippi River
Delta, Louisiana, and 87 mi south of Dauphin Island, Alabama), the
semi-submersible DWH drilling rig experienced an explosion and fire.
The rig subsequently sank, and oil and natural gas began leaking into
the Gulf of Mexico. The well was temporarily capped on July 15, 2010,
which significantly reduced the amount of leaking oil, but the well was
not ultimately sealed and declared ``effectively dead'' until September
19, 2010. Estimates on the amount of released oil varied widely and
over time, but final official estimates indicated 53,000-62,000 barrels
were released per day as a result of the event; the total amount of oil
released into the Gulf of Mexico was estimated at 4.9 million barrels
(780,000 m\3\) (McNutt et al. 2011). In addition, approximately 2.1
million gallons of chemical dispersant were applied to surface waters
(1.4 million gallons) and directly at the wellhead (0.77 million
gallons) between May 15 and July 12, 2010 (Kujawinski et al. 2011).
There have been no studies of the effects of the DWH spill on
Alabama shad and no reports or collections of shad affected by the
spill. Chakrabarty et al. (2012) estimated that the DWH spill zone
overlapped with 1.26 percent of Alabama shad's nearshore habitat. This
estimate is based on the percentage of the species' historical
collection records that occur within the spill zone. Because few
historical records for Alabama shad exist in some Gulf Coast systems,
and almost no data exist for Alabama shad in the marine environment,
the estimate by Chakrabarty et al. (2012) is likely an underestimate of
the overlap of the DWH spill zone with habitat used by Alabama shad.
However, it does confirm that Alabama shad may have been exposed to oil
or chemical dispersants associated with the DWH spill.
Fish exposed to oil can be impacted directly through uptake by the
gills, ingestion of oil or oiled prey, effects on egg and larval
survival, or changes in the ecosystem that support the fish (USFWS
2010). Adult fish may experience reduced growth, enlarged livers,
changes in heart and respiration rates, fin erosion, and reproductive
impairment when exposed to oil (USFWS 2010, Snyder et al. 2015). Oil
has the potential to impact spawning success as the eggs and larvae of
many fish species are highly sensitive to oil toxins (USFWS 2010).
There have been no studies on the effects of the DWH spill on
Alabama shad. Based on their life history, it is likely that the
earliest and most vulnerable life stages (eggs and larvae) were not
exposed to oil and dispersants. The oil spill occurred in April when
females are upriver, releasing their eggs at spawning sites. Over the
summer, as oil recovery and cleanup was occurring, the newly spawned
Alabama shad larvae were in their riverine habitats maturing. Alabama
shad from northern rivers start the downstream migration toward marine
waters in late summer. In comparison, shad from Gulf Coast river
systems have been observed to stay upriver as late as December.
Therefore, it is likely some juvenile and non-spawning adult Alabama
shad were exposed to oil and dispersants associated with the DWH spill,
but not the actively spawning adults and early life stages.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are considered the most
toxic component of crude oil to marine life and are ubiquitous
pollutants in the marine environment (Snyder et al. 2015). Exposure to
PAHs has been linked with a variety of sublethal effects in fish,
including DNA damage, internal and external lesions, gill and organ
abnormalities, reduced adult fitness, altered and reduced growth,
decreased fecundity, and reduced survival to maturity (Snyder et al.
2015). Red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) sampled since 2013 show
spatial variation in tissue concentrations of PAH metabolites (Snyder
et al. 2015). Red snapper caught closer to the Mississippi River and
the DWH spill area had higher PAH metabolite concentrations than
snapper caught on the west Florida shelf. Additionally, the red snapper
caught near the Mississippi River showed a decrease in PAH metabolite
concentrations over time, indicating an exposure event to elevated PAHs
that dissipated over time. Meanwhile, the snapper from the west Florida
shelf showed no decrease in PAH metabolites over time, suggesting they
were not exposed to elevated PAHs from the DWH spill. This indicates
that the largest spawning population of Alabama shad, the population
from the ACF River basin, and other populations in rivers that drain
into the west Florida shelf may not have been exposed to oil and
dispersants from the DWH spill, although this is uncertain.
Despite widespread contamination of offshore waters by the DWH
spill and to a lesser extent, coastal waters, the results of a study by
Moody et al. (2013) provided little evidence for large-scale acute or
persistent oil-induced impacts on organisms that complete all or a
portion of their life cycle within an estuary in Point-aux-Pins,
Alabama. The abundance of resident estuarine species declined
significantly following the DWH spill, but returned to pre-spill
abundances by 2011. There was no significant decline in the abundance
of transient species (those that only spent a portion of their life
cycle in the estuary), even though transient species were more likely
exposed to oiling in the marine environment. Moody et al. (2013)
concluded that despite the presence of localized oiling in coastal
habitats outside Louisiana, the most severe oil impacts were largely
relegated to the deep sea. Fodrie and Heck (2011) reviewed pre- and
post-DWH fish data collected by trawl surveys in nearshore seagrass
habitats from Louisiana to Florida. They concluded that immediate,
catastrophic losses of 2010 year classes of marine organisms were
largely avoided, and that no shifts in species composition occurred
following the DWH spill. Fodrie and Heck (2011) also noted that there
is increasing evidence that the acute impacts of the DWH spill may be
concentrated in the deep ocean rather than shallow-water, coastal
ecosystems where Alabama shad are known to occur.
Little is known about Alabama shad in the marine environment, even
though the species spends the majority of its life there. We considered
the potential for effects to the species from the DWH spill by looking
at studies of other offshore species. Rooker et al. (2013) looked at
abundance and occurrence of the larvae of four deep-ocean species in
relation to the DWH spill: Blackfin tuna (Thunnus atlanticus), blue
marlin (Makaira nigricans), dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), and
sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus). They determined that both the
abundance and percent occurrence declined in 2010 for all four species
relative to the 3 years prior to the DWH oil spill, suggesting that
changes in environmental conditions, possibly linked to the presence of
oil and dispersants, may have contributed to observed inter-annual
variability. The most conspicuous 2010 declines were seen in billfish
(blue marlin and sailfish) larvae. Given these larvae are typically
restricted to surface waters compared to the other taxa surveyed
(blackfin tuna
[[Page 4052]]
and dolphinfish), it is possible their exposure to DWH toxic compounds
affected early life survival. However, Rooker et al. (2013) also note
that inter-annual variability of larval abundance and distribution is
relatively common for pelagic larvae in the Gulf of Mexico. Part of the
apparent decline in billfish, dolphinfish, and tuna larvae therefore
may be due to shifts in biological or oceanographic conditions and not
entirely attributable to the DWH oil spill.
In summary, there are no data indicating Alabama shad were directly
affected by the DWH spill. The spill occurred in April when the most
vulnerable early life stages of Alabama shad were in riverine areas and
it is unlikely they were directly exposed. The older juveniles and
adults that entered coastal and nearshore waters in late summer through
winter may have been exposed to toxins from the DWH spill, but studies
of other coastal species indicate recovery occurred the following year.
It is likely that the worst acute effects of DWH were experienced
further offshore in the marine environment. Although we have almost no
information on the marine portion of Alabama shad's life cycle, it is
doubtful this smaller anadromous species spends a significant portion
of its life cycle far offshore like the large oceanic species (e.g.,
tuna and billfish). We ranked exposure to oil and other toxins from the
DWH spill, on its own, as having a low risk of contributing to the
extinction risk of Alabama shad. It is unknown whether the DWH spill
will contribute to the extinction risk of Alabama shad in the
foreseeable future.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Small commercial fisheries for Alabama shad once existed in
Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and Iowa (Adams et al.
2000, Daniels 1860). Based on existing records, Alabama shad
populations have never supported an important or sizeable commercial or
recreational fishery, at least since the 19th century (NMFS et al.
2012). Buchanan et al. (1999) reported that a ``limited'' commercial
fishery existed in the Mississippi River system in the late 1800s. Only
small catches of the species have been recorded for a few years in the
statistical reports of the U.S. Fish Commission (Hildebrand 1963). The
total reported commercial landings of Alabama shad were 3,165 kg (6,978
pounds) in 1889 (Hildebrand 1963). The U.S. Fish Commission Report for
1901 reported that a total of 3,154 kg (6,955 pounds) of the ``newly
described species'' of ``Ohio'' shad (a species later determined to be
the same species as Alabama shad) were caught in the Ohio River in West
Virginia, Indiana, and Kentucky, valued at $355 (Townsend 1902). The
report stated that the species had likely been caught in that river for
a ``number of years.'' The 1901 report stated there was no catch of
``Ohio'' (Alabama) shad in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South
Dakota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. The following year (1902), Hildebrand
(1963) reported Alabama shad landings of 68 kg (150 pounds) from
Alabama, with no commercial landings reported since. Hildebrand (1963)
noted that Alabama shad were still numerous enough in Kentucky and Ohio
to be taken in considerable quantities, but were undesirable for human
consumption, and no attempts were made to catch and sell them. Coker
(1930) stated that there were enough ``Ohio'' (Alabama) shad at the
Keokuk Dam in Iowa in 1915 to support a substantial fishery, but that
none developed, and ``a few'' have been taken commercially from the
Ohio River. Coker (1930) observed that ``Ohio'' (Alabama) shad in the
Mississippi River had no economic value at that time. The FFWCC
(McBride 2000) notes that even though there have been significant
fisheries for other Alosa species like American shad, hickory shad (A.
mediocris), and blueback herring, a fishery for Alabama shad never
developed in Florida. McBride (2000) also states that recreational
fishing for Alabama shad began around 1950 but has not developed
significantly. There are currently no directed fisheries for Alabama
shad in any U.S. waters (Smith et al. 2011). Mills (1972) noted that
striped bass fishermen used Alabama shad as bait. NMFS et al. (2012)
reported that fishermen occasionally catch Alabama shad in the
Apalachicola River below JWLD for bait to use while fishing for striped
bass or flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris). Some Alabama shad are
also collected for scientific research and for educational purposes.
However it is unlikely that past or present collection or harvest
(utilization) of Alabama shad for commercial, recreational, scientific,
or education purposes, alone or in combination with other factors, has
contributed significantly to the species' extinction risk. Further,
given the lack of the sizeable harvest in the past, we do not
anticipate the development of new fisheries or that directed harvest
levels will otherwise increase in the future. Therefore, collection or
harvest of Alabama shad is unlikely to significantly contribute to the
species' extinction risk in the foreseeable future.
C. Disease and Predation
Most of the Alabama shad collected during research and monitoring
associated with JWLD conservation locking activities in 2013 had large,
open sores or gash-like wounds, in some cases exposing organs and bone
(Sammons 2013; S. Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End Summary Meeting, January
2014). These sores or wounds were not observed on other fish species
collected (e.g., gizzard shad [Dorosoma cepedianum] and mullet [Mugil
spp.]), indicating Alabama shad are either more susceptible to the
source of the wounds or they are distributed in areas that the other
species are not (Sammons 2013). The wounds were only observed on adult
Alabama shad and not on younger fish, indicating the source may have
occurred in the Gulf of Mexico (Sammons 2013). A researcher attending
the 2014 JWLD Fish Passage Year-End Summary Meeting suggested that the
pictures of the Alabama shad sores or wounds looked similar to symptoms
of a disease that occurred in blueback herring on the Atlantic Coast.
The 12-month listing determination for alewife and blueback herring (78
FR 48944; August 12, 2013) states that mycobacteria, which can cause
ulcers, emaciation, and sometimes death, have been found in many
Chesapeake Bay fish, including blueback herring. Alabama shad with the
wounds generally appeared to be in poor condition and suffered higher
than normal mortality due to handling and tag insertion (Sammons 2013).
Sammons (2013) also cited a news article reporting gash wounds on fish
potentially associated with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill resembling
the wounds found on Alabama shad. It is unknown what caused the sores
or wounds in Alabama shad in the ACF River system and what percentage
of the population may have been impacted. The sores have not been
observed in any of the ~200 Alabama shad captured since 2013 (T.
Ingram, Georgia DNR, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, June 6, 2016). It
is unknown whether disease is contributing to the species' extinction
risk.
Little information is available regarding predation on Alabama shad
in freshwater systems and no information regarding predation in marine
environments (NMFS et al. 2012). Like other clupeids, Alabama shad are
likely
[[Page 4053]]
prey for piscivorous fishes, such as striped bass (Pattillo et al.
1997). NMFS et al. (2012) noted that birds of prey (bald eagles and
osprey) have been observed eating Alabama shad from the Apalachicola
River. There is no available information suggesting Alabama shad
populations are significantly affected by predation. It is unlikely
that predation, alone or in combination with other factors, is
significantly contributing to Alabama shad's extinction risk.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Regulations on Harvest of Alabama Shad
The harvest or collection of Alabama shad is not regulated in
Federal waters, although the legal authority exists, and regulations
could be implemented as necessary through the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
conservation and Management Act. A variety of protective regulations
exist in the states within the species' historical range (NMFS et al.
2012), although there are currently no directed fisheries for Alabama
shad in any U.S. waters (Smith et al. 2011). Since January 1, 1997,
hook-and-line has been the only allowable fishing gear for Alosa
species in the State of Florida, with a limit of 10 shad (as an
aggregate of Alabama, American, and hickory shad) for both recreational
and commercial fishermen (Chapter 68B-52.001 of the Florida
Administrative Code). In Louisiana, recreational regulations limit the
taking of shad species (unspecified) to 50 pounds (22.7 kilograms) per
day, with no size limit (NMFS et al. 2012). Alabama shad are not listed
as a game fish in the Mississippi Department of Wildlife fishing
regulations and may be taken as bait with dip/landing net, cast net,
boat mounted scoop, or wire basket by resident anglers with the
appropriate fresh or salt water recreational fishing license for
personal use during sport fishing (NMFS et al. 2012). Alabama shad is a
protected species in both Alabama and Georgia, and may only be
collected with a state-issued scientific collector's permit that
specifies Alabama shad. No recreational or commercial harvest is
permitted in either state (NMFS et al. 2012). Alabama shad are
classified as non-game fish in Missouri and Arkansas, and there are no
catch or possession limits.
Although there are no restrictions on the harvest of Alabama shad
in marine waters, virtually nothing is known about the life history of
the species in the marine environment and only 5 specimens have ever
been recorded from marine waters. It is highly unlikely that fishermen
or researchers would be able to successfully target the species in the
marine environment. Harvest and collection of Alabama shad is
restricted to varying degrees in Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, and
Florida, while no restrictions are in place in Mississippi, Arkansas,
or Missouri. Under ``Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes'' (Factor B), we determined that it
is unlikely that past or present collection or harvest (utilization) of
Alabama shad has contributed significantly to the species' extinction
risk. We also determined under Factor B that, given the lack of the
sizeable harvest in the past, we do not anticipate the development of
new fisheries or that directed harvest levels will otherwise increase
in the future. Therefore, although harvest and collection of Alabama
shad is regulated in some areas where the species occurs, but not in
others, we believe that the existing laws are adequate to regulate the
low levels of harvest and collection and are unlikely contributing to
the extinction risk of Alabama shad.
Regulations on Dams
The Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 791-828), as amended,
provides for protecting, mitigating damages to, and enhancing fish and
wildlife resources (including anadromous fish) impacted by
hydroelectric facilities regulated by FERC. FERC must consult with
state and Federal resource agencies on proposed hydroelectric projects
and implement recommendations concerning fish and wildlife and their
habitat, e.g., including spawning habitat, wetlands, instream flows
(timing, quality, quantity), reservoir establishment and regulation,
project construction and operation, fish entrainment and mortality, and
recreational access. FERC must also consult with Federal and state
resource agencies to renew the operating licenses for existing dams and
must address impacts to natural resources. Both NMFS and USFWS, and in
certain cases, U.S. Federal land management agencies, prescribe
mandatory fish passage conditions for inclusion in hydropower licenses.
These agencies and state resource agencies also may make nonbinding
recommendations for additional mitigation to promote fish protection
(OTA 1995). Specific regulations in section 10(j) of the FPA provide
that licenses issued by FERC contain conditions to protect, mitigate
damages to, and enhance fish and wildlife based on recommendations
received from state and Federal agencies during the licensing or
license renewal process. With regard to fish passage, Section 18 of the
FPA requires a FERC licensee to construct, maintain, and operate
fishways prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary
of Commerce. Section 18 also allows that a fishway prescription can be
reserved to address impacts that become apparent in the future.
The presence of dams that block Alabama shad from accessing
upstream spawning habitat is believed to be the primary cause of their
decline in some river systems (NMFS et al. 2012, USFWS 2009a). The era
of big dam building began in the 1930s, but slowed over time with the
advent of environmental laws and alternative power sources (USBR 2015).
The greatest rate of increase in reservoir storage occurred from the
late 1950s to the late 1970s, with more dams (and some of the largest)
built in the 1960s than in any other decade (Graf 1999). In the
``golden age'' of U.S. dam building, thousands of large and small dams
were built with little thought to the environmental impacts (Doyle et
al. 2003). While very few new dams have been constructed since 1980
(Graf 1999), FERC continues to renew licenses under the FPA for
existing dams due to expiring licenses, modifications to power
generating capabilities, or no prior license because the dam was
constructed pre-FPA. FERC's initial mandate under the FPA of 1920 was
the regulation of energy production, distribution, and availability;
and the promotion of hydropower (OTA 1995). Environmental concerns were
largely addressed through a number of laws that were enacted (some much
later than the original FPA) to protect natural resources and the
environment, including: the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934),
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968), National Environmental Policy Act
(1970), Federal Water Pollution Control Act/Clean Water Act (1972/
1977), and the Endangered Species Act (1973; OTA 1995). In 1986,
Congress passed the Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA), a series
of amendments to the FPA, which was designed, in part, to place greater
emphasis on environmental considerations in licensing decisions. The
FPA, as amended by ECPA, directs FERC to give equal consideration to
the full range of purposes related to the potential value of a stream
or river, including energy conservation, fish and wildlife resources
(including spawning grounds and habitat), and other aspects of
environmental quality in addition to
[[Page 4054]]
hydropower development. Although mandatory fish passage authority
rested with the Federal resource agencies since the early part of this
century, the ECPA was instrumental in elevating the importance of non-
developmental values in and increasing FERC's accountability for
licensing decisions (OTA 1995). Through the addition of section 10(j),
Federal and state resource agencies may recommend conditions to
protect, enhance, or mitigate for damages to fish and wildlife
resources under the FPA.
FERC licenses have a term of 30 to 50 years, so NMFS' involvement
in the licensing process to ensure the protection and accessibility of
upstream habitat, and to improve habitat degraded by changes in water
flow and quality from dam operations, may only occur 2-3 times a
century for a particular project. However, an estimated 85 percent of
the dams in the United States will be near the end of their operational
lives by 2020 (Doyle et al. 2003). The current intensification of
economic and environmental concerns is coinciding with a policy window
in which many private dams are coming up for regulatory re-licensing
with FERC (Doyle et al. 2003). Alabama shad may benefit from fishway
requirements under section 18 of the FPA when prescriptions are made to
address anadromous fish passage and during the re-licensing of existing
hydroelectric dams when anadromous species are considered. Mitigation
technologies to reduce the adverse effect of hydropower on the nation's
fish resources have been employed, although not consistently, since the
early 1900s; while their effectiveness is often poorly understood, in a
review of 16 case studies, the majority demonstrated positive results
for migratory fish stemming from technology implementation (OTA 1995).
Decommissioning and/or removal of existing dam facilities as an
alternative to relicensing has been raised more frequently since 1993
and as part of the movement toward greater scrutiny of the adverse
impacts of hydropower plants on certain fish populations (OTA 1995).
Lovett (2014) notes that 1,150 dams have been removed in the last 20
years. However, dam removal options are faced by a number of very real
environmental, economic, and political constraints and, thus, are
infrequently considered as alternatives to fish passage development.
The FPA does not apply to non-hydropower dams, such as those
operated by USACE for navigation purposes. However, under Section
7(a)(2) of the ESA, Federal agencies are required to consult with NMFS
or USFWS on activities that may affect listed species. Dam maintenance,
repairs, and operational changes may require ESA Section 7 consultation
and allow conservation measures benefitting listed species to be
recommended or required. Alabama shad may also benefit from the
conservation measures implemented for other species with similar needs
or in similar habitats. USFWS (2007) completed a biological opinion
under Section 7 of the ESA on USACE's drought operations for the
Interim Operating Plan for JWLD in the ACF system. While that
biological opinion did not evaluate Alabama shad it did analyze effects
to Gulf sturgeon and three species of mussels (fat threeridge, purple
bankclimber, and Chipola slabshell). USFWS (2007) determined that while
there were likely to be some adverse effects to the mussels, the
drought operations are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of any of the species or destroy their critical habitat. Because
Alabama shad have similar water quality and quantity requirements to
Gulf sturgeon, the conservation efforts for the sturgeon likely benefit
shad. Federal agencies may also choose to use their authorities and
resources for the conservation of species.
In two river systems inhabited by Alabama shad, the ACF and Alabama
River systems, USACE has voluntarily cooperated with state and Federal
agencies to implement conservation locking for Alabama shad and other
anadromous species. In 2012, the ``cooperator'' organizations (USACE,
USFWS, NMFS, Georgia DNR, FFWCC, and TNC) signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) clarifying their commitments and responsibilities
in the continued implementation of fish passage at JWLD. In Part B. of
the MOU, ``Statement of Mutual Benefit and Interests'', the cooperator
organizations agree to: (1) Provide mutual assistance, share
information and technology, and coordinate efforts for fish passage,
(2) discuss a strategy for providing passage at JWLD for the
conservation and restoration of migratory fishes in the ACF River
Basin, consistent with authorized project purposes, (3) initiate and
participate in a JWLD Fish Passage Partnership and discuss yearly fish
passage operation for migratory fishes at JWLD. Collaborate, assist,
and support research, monitoring, outreach, and related activities for
determining the effects of fish passage on migratory fish populations
and habitats at JWLD and the ACF River Basin, (4) foster partnerships
that support the passage of migratory fishes in Georgia and Florida
among state agencies, federal agencies, and the public within the ACF
River Basin, and (5) designate a Partnership Coordinator from one of
the cooperators in order to facilitate the partnership and fulfill the
purpose of the MOU. The Partnership Coordinator shall provide a report
of the annual fish passage operations, results, and related activities
to all cooperators.
In fulfillment of the cooperation outlined in the MOU, an annual
meeting to discuss the issues and outcomes from the previous spring
conservation locking cycle is held, usually in the early part of the
following year (i.e., January or February). Powerpoints presented at
the meeting, data summaries, reports to funding agencies, and journal
articles or other publications resulting from research in the ACF are
provided to cooperators and interested parties, satisfying the annual
reporting noted in #5 of Part B. of the MOU. At the annual meeting, the
cooperators and other interested parties (e.g., universities that are
not signatories to the MOU, but are heavily involved in research
activities associated with the conservation locking in the ACF) discuss
lessons learned from the previous year and participate in planning the
next cycle of spring conservation locking, including whether the
locking operation and schedule can be improved. For example, during the
planned maintenance on the lock that occurred during the 2013-2014
season, the cooperators were able to upgrade the method of delivering
the attractant flow (a stream of high velocity water used to attract
spawning fish) from a manual system to an electric pump as a more
efficient way to direct shad through the lock when conservation locking
resumed (S. Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K.
Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage Year-End Summary Meeting, January
2014).
Although the MOU does not require implementation of conservation
locking at JWLD, USACE had demonstrated a commitment to continuing
conservation locking. The current operations considered in developing
alternatives for the updated USACE Master Water Control Manual (FEIS;
December 2016) includes standard operating procedures for conservation
locking at the JWLD to benefit Alabama shad. All alternatives
considered in the FEIS included conservation locking. The FEIS
indicates that in most years since the spring of 2005, USACE has
operated the lock at JWLD between March and May to facilitate
downstream-to-upstream passage of Alabama shad in cooperation with
pertinent state and federal agencies. In general two fish locking
[[Page 4055]]
cycles are performed each day. While studies are ongoing to determine
the most appropriate technique and timing for the locks, the number of
lock cycles per day will not change (FEIS 2016).
The presence of dams that block Alabama shad from accessing
upstream spawning habitat is believed to be the primary cause of their
decline in some river systems. The purpose of the original FPA of 1920
was the regulation of energy production, distribution, and
availability, and the promotion of hydropower, and dams were built with
little or no regard for the environmental consequences. The adverse
environmental effects, including effects to anadromous fish species,
were largely unaddressed until the 1970s with the enactment of several
major environmental laws. However, the FPA itself was amended by the
ECPA in 1986, which directed FERC to give equal consideration to
environmental issues. The FPA, through Section 18 and 10(j), provides
opportunities to implement conservation measures at existing dams.
Although some dams are not subject to the FPA, other mechanisms exist
to achieve conservation measures in addition to fish passage at non-FPA
dams (Section 7 consultation and voluntary efforts such as conservation
locking). Therefore, we ranked the inadequacy of existing dam
regulations as having a low risk of contributing significantly to the
current and foreseeable risk of extinction for Alabama shad.
Regulations Associated With Water Quality
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and amendments (FWPCA) (33
U.S.C. 1251-1376), also called the ``Clean Water Act,'' mandates
Federal protection of water quality. The law also provides for
assessment of injury, destruction, or loss of natural resources caused
by discharge of pollutants. Section 404 of the FWPCA prohibits the
discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters without a
permit. The main responsibility for water quality management resides
with the states in the implementation of water quality standards, the
administration of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program (where the state has received EPA approval to do so),
and the management of non-point sources of pollution. Section 303(d) of
the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters that do not meet
or are not expected to meet water quality standards. Each state
develops Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for its water quality-
limited waters. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a
pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality
standards, and an allocation of that load among the various point and
non-point sources of that pollutant. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act
created a system for permitting wastewater discharges. Collectively the
NPDES sets specific limits on discharge of various types of pollutants
from point-source outfalls. A non-point source control program focuses
primarily on the reduction of agricultural siltation and chemical
pollution resulting from rain runoff into streams. Efforts to reduce
non-point pollution currently rely on the use of land management
practices to reduce surface runoff through programs administered
primarily by the Department of Agriculture.
Water quality has been cited as a threat to Alabama shad (Mettee
and O'Neil 2003, Mettee et al. 1996). We reviewed the water quality
assessment reports for rivers occupied by Alabama shad submitted by
individual states to the EPA under Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act. The assessment reports prepared by the states show
that water quality in approximately half of the river mi within the
species' current range is deemed to be good. The remaining areas are
impaired for one or more reasons, including the presence of heavy
metals, low DO, impaired biota, sedimentation, and the presence of
other organic and inorganic contaminants. Further a comparison of NCCR
I-IV, published by the EPA in 2001, 2005, 2008, and 2012, shows a
pattern of overall improving water quality in the Gulf of Mexico, with
the overall condition improving from NCCR I to IV. Contaminant loads in
sediments and in fish tissue also improved from ``poor'' to ``fair.''
The DO content of coastal waters in the Gulf Coast has remained
``good'' in all four reports. Based on this recent record of
performance, regulatory mechanisms governing water quality are at a low
risk of contributing significantly to the current and foreseeable risk
of extinction for Alabama shad.
Regulatory Mechanisms for Climate Change
Greenhouse gas emissions are regulated through multi-state and
international agreements, and through statutes and regulations, at the
national, state, or provincial level. One of the key international
agreements relevant to attempts to control greenhouse gas emissions,
the Copenhagen Accord, was developed in 2009 by the Conference of
Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The Copenhagen Accord identifies specific information provided by
Parties on quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020 and on
nationally appropriate mitigation actions to help achieve the goal of
capping increasing average global temperature at 2 [deg]C above pre-
industrial levels. The last conference of the Parties to the United
National Framework Convention on Climate Change was held in Lima, Peru,
in December 2014. The resulting decisions from the meeting were
primarily to continue ongoing efforts to reach a new agreement for
emissions reductions to be adopted at the 2015 meeting in Paris,
France, and to have those implemented by 2020. The new agreement would
maintain the same overall goal as the Copenhagen Accord, to cap
additional warming at 2 [deg]C.
Within the United States, President Barack Obama released the
President's Climate Action Plan in June 2013. The plan is three-
pronged, including proposed actions for mitigation, adaptation, and
international leadership. The actions listed for mitigation include
completing carbon pollution standards for new and existing power
plants, accelerating clean energy permitting, increasing funding for
clean energy innovation and technology, increasing fuel economy
standards, increasing energy efficiency in homes, businesses, and
factories, and reducing other greenhouse gas emissions including
hydrofluorocarbons and methane. The plan states that the United States
is still committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020 if all other major economies agree to similar
reductions. Additional efforts made domestically related to climate
change are more focused on facilitating adaptation to the impending
changes to the environment due to climate change in order to maintain
the country's natural and economic resources, but do not directly
address the emission of greenhouse gas.
National and international efforts to limit climate change are
ambitious, but their success is uncertain since major agreements are
still being formulated, and the outcomes of ongoing activities are not
yet known. Likewise, the effects of climate change on Alabama shad and
their habitat are also not yet known. However, climate change
predictions by the IPCC (IPCC AR5 2014) suggest that temperature
increases throughout the range of Alabama shad of 1.5-2.5 [deg]C by the
mid-21st century may be less than other areas in North America (2.5-4
[deg]C by the mid-21st century), even with no additional efforts to
constrain
[[Page 4056]]
greenhouse gas emissions. Flooding and drought are not attributable to
climate change, and the IPCC predicts little to no change in average
annual precipitation within the range of Alabama shad through 2065,
although the predictions are less certain for the remainder of the 21st
century (IPCC AR5). Sea level rise associated with climate change may
salinize groundwater and decrease freshwater availability, exacerbating
existing water allocation issues. Regulatory mechanisms addressing
water allocation issues (discussed in the following section) are likely
to have as much immediate impact on this issue as regulatory mechanisms
addressing the causes of sea level rise. It is unknown how regulations
addressing climate change may contribute to Alabama shad's extinction
risk, either now or in the foreseeable future.
Regulatory Mechanisms Associated With Water Allocation
It is unknown whether water allocation issues contribute to Alabama
shad's extinction risk. Regulations associated with water allocation
are both an intra- and inter-state issue. Within a state's borders,
state laws determine rights to use water (CBO 2006). In the East, water
rights are formed under riparian doctrine, meaning ownership of land
adjacent to a body of water (riparian land) conveys the right to use
the water in a way that is reasonable (Ruhl 2003, CBO 2006).
Determining what is reasonable involves consideration of the purpose of
the use, the suitability of the use to the body of water, economic and
social values of the use, the extent of harm caused, the practicality
of avoiding any harm by adjusting the methods or quantities of use, and
the fairness of making the user who causes harm bear losses (CBO 2006).
In practice today, owners of riparian land must obtain permits from a
state agency to use water. Permits may also be available to others who
do not own riparian land. The charters incorporating most cities give
them power to procure water for public purposes and to supply the
domestic needs of their residents, and states have modified the
riparian doctrine by introducing exceptions that allow municipal uses
(CBO 2006).
In Georgia, the 15-county Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning
District was created through legislation to manage the water supply and
its consumption for economic, environmental, and social well-being. The
Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District prohibits the inter-
basin transfers of water from outside the district to meet water supply
demands within the district (Cole and Carver 2011). The Metropolitan
North Georgia Water Planning District encompasses the Atlanta
metropolitan area, the most populous area in Georgia and the ninth
largest metro area in the U.S. Therefore, regulations that limit inter-
basin transfers would benefit Alabama shad by limiting the amount of
water removed from rivers within their range. Georgia's Board of
Natural Resources adopted an instream flow policy in 2001 that ensures
the minimum flows required to protect aquatic habitat, such as that for
Alabama shad, are maintained downstream of new water withdrawals (Cole
and Carver 2011). In Florida, when determining whether the public
interest is served by a transfer of groundwater from one water district
to another, or surface water from one county to another, the governing
board or department must consider an array of factors, including the
potential environmental impacts (Cole and Carver 2011). The State of
Florida statutes require local governments to consult with water
suppliers to ensure that adequate water supplies will be in place and
available to serve a new development by the time the local government
issues the development's certificate of occupancy (Cole and Carver
2011). In addition to state laws governing water allocation, many
states within the range of Alabama shad also have state water plans
that are intended to be comprehensive strategies for the long-term
management of water resources on a watershed basis. Georgia, Florida,
Missouri, and Arkansas have state water plans in place, and Alabama and
Louisiana have draft plans. The state plans vary in detail and goals,
but generally attempt to balance economic, public health, and
environmental needs. Water planning that considers environmental needs,
such as downstream habitat for fish, are likely to benefit Alabama shad
because it increases the likelihood that adequate water flows will be
available.
When water allocation issues arise between states, there are
generally three ways to resolve the issue. States can enter into a
compact agreeing to a division of resources, which would then require
congressional approval (Ruhl 2003). Second, the commerce clause of the
Constitution gives Congress the authority to allocate interstate waters
to serve the national interest, even if doing so means overriding state
law (Ruhl 2003, CBO 2006). The third option is for states to take their
dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court, which can exercise its jurisdiction
to arrive at an equitable apportionment of the water (Ruhl 2003).
The major water allocation issues affecting Alabama shad are
between Alabama, Georgia, and Florida over use of water in the ACT and
ACF River basins. SELC (2015b) documented the following history of the
dispute, which ensued in 1989 after USACE recommended reallocation of
water from reservoirs in the ACT and ACF basins to supply the Atlanta,
Georgia, metro area. Alabama sued USACE, stating they had ignored
environmental impacts on the downstream states and breached their duty
to benefit all downstream users. Florida intervened on the side of
Alabama, and Georgia and metro Atlanta municipalities intervened or
initiated their own lawsuits against USACE for not allowing the
reservoirs to serve current and future water supply needs. The lawsuit
was put on hold to allow the three states and USACE to negotiate a
resolution, conduct comprehensive studies, and create a structure that
would allow the states to work together. Each state passed a compact,
and they were ratified by Congress in 1997. However, agreement could
not be reached, the compacts expired without resolution in 2003 and
2004, and the states went back to court. The litigation continued for
over a decade. In 2009, a judge ruled that Lake Lanier (part of the ACF
basin) was not authorized to supply water to metro Atlanta. The ruling
was reversed by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and after the U.S.
Supreme Court subsequently declined to hear the case, the litigation
was temporarily suspended. Currently at the U.S. Supreme Court is a
case brought by Florida against Georgia alleging harm to Apalachicola
Bay resulting from Georgia's disproportionate use of water from the ACF
River system.
We evaluated water allocation issues under the ``Present or
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of its Habitat or
Range'' (Factor A). Transferring water from one river basin to another
can alter natural water flows in both the originating and receiving
basins, and exacerbate any existing water quality issues. It is not
known how much water is already being removed and transferred from
rivers used by Alabama shad. The biggest interstate allocation dispute
is occurring in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia over the future
allocation of water in the ACF and ACT River basins. While the outcomes
of water allocation and the regulatory mechanisms governing it are
unknown, the Alabama shad population in the ACF continues to be the
largest known spawning population, and
[[Page 4057]]
conservation locking is occurring in both the ACF and ACT basins to
reduce the effects of dams, the primary threat to the species in both
systems. Under Factor A, we determined that it is unknown whether water
allocation issues contribute to Alabama shad's extinction risk, either
now or in the foreseeable future. It is also unknown whether the
regulatory mechanisms for managing water allocation in Alabama shad's
riverine habitat are adequate or whether they are contributing to the
species' extinction risk, either now or in the foreseeable future due
to the complexity of the issue, the length of time (more than 25 years)
the issue has persisted, and the inability of the major stakeholders to
come to agreement or final decision. However, state and Federal
agencies and an environmental organization (USACE, USFWS, NMFS, Georgia
DNR, FFWCC, and TNC) did achieve agreement in the signed 2012 MOU for a
cooperative fish passage strategy at JWLD that it was to their mutual
interest and benefit to coordinate efforts for fish passage for the
conservation and restoration of migratory fish, such as Alabama shad,
in the ACF River Basin.
Other Regulatory Mechanisms Affecting Alabama Shad
Other ESA listings and critical habitat designations for species
within the range of Alabama shad may also promote the conservation of
Alabama shad. For instance, Gulf sturgeon, listed under the ESA as
threatened in 1991 (56 FR 49653), inhabit many of the same rivers along
the Gulf of Mexico as Alabama shad. Critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon
was designated in 2003 (68 FR 13370). The primary constituent elements
of Gulf sturgeon critical habitat include habitat elements that are
also important for shad (i.e., abundant food items, riverine spawning
sites, riverine aggregation areas, flow regime, water quality, sediment
quality, and safe and unobstructed migratory pathways). Measures to
improve habitats and reduce impacts to Gulf sturgeon may directly or
indirectly benefit Alabama shad. Both species are anadromous; adults
spawn in freshwater in the spring and early summer then migrate back
into estuarine and marine waters. Many of the habitats that Gulf
sturgeon occupy are also habitats that Alabama shad use for spawning,
migration, and juvenile rearing. Therefore, protection measures for
Gulf sturgeon, such as improved fish passage and water quality, or
reduction of water withdrawals, may also provide a benefit to Alabama
shad. Passage for sturgeon species, although less studied, has become
more of a priority in recent years (Kynard et al. 2008), while passage
technologies are considered to be well developed and well understood
for the main anadromous species, including Alosa species (Kynard et al.
2008, Larinier and Marmulla 2004). Sturgeon species are known to be
more highly sensitive than most other species to water quality
problems, such as low DO and contaminants (Niklitschek and Secor 2009a,
2009b, Dwyer et al. 2005). Because Alabama shad are likely easier to
pass through fish passages and are less susceptible to water quality
problems, it is reasonable that measures to improve fish passage and
water quality for Gulf sturgeon will apply to Alabama shad, as well.
Alabama shad in the ACF River system have been found to be the host
for the larvae of an ESA-listed freshwater mussel (S. Herrington, The
Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. to K. Shotts, NMFS, JWLD Fish Passage
Year-End Summary Meeting, January 2014). The purple bankclimber, a
freshwater mussel listed as threatened under the ESA (63 FR 12664), is
potentially one of the species using Alabama shad to transport larvae
upstream. Critical habitat for the purple bankclimber and other listed
freshwater mussels has been designated in the ACF River system (72 FR
64286), and the primary constituent elements include a geomorphically
stable stream channel, stream substrate with low to moderate amounts of
silt and clay, permanently flowing water, water quality, and fish hosts
that support the larval life stages of the seven mussels. Conservation
actions to benefit the purple bankclimber mussel could potentially
protect both the Alabama shad and its habitat. For example when the
USFWS consulted on the drought operations for the Interim Operating
Plan for JWLD in 2007, they considered effects to the purple
bankclimber. Reasonable and prudent measures required by USFWS (2007)
during drought operations that may benefit Alabama shad include (1)
adaptively managing operation of the system using information collected
on species and their habitats, upstream water use, and climatic
conditions, (2) increasing the lower threshold for reservoir storage
from 8,000 to 10,000 cubic feet per second (i.e., increasing flows in
downstream areas by limiting reservoir storage during low flow times),
(3) modifying the operation plan to provide higher minimum flow to the
Apalachicola River when conditions permit, and (4) evaluating the
sediment dynamics and channel morphology in the Apalachicola River to
allow better prediction of the effects of operations on species in the
riverine environment.
Thus, other ESA listings and critical habitat designations, are
unlikely contributing to the extinction risk of Alabama shad. Overall,
harvest and collection of Alabama shad are adequately controlled
through the state regulations. Regulatory mechanisms governing water
quality appear to be having success, although water quality is still
impaired in some areas throughout the Alabama shad's range. The
outcomes of state, Federal, and international laws governing dams,
water allocation, and climate change, and their adequacy in protecting
Alabama shad and their habitat, are unknown. Therefore, we ranked the
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms overall as having a low risk of
contributing significantly to the current and foreseeable risk of
extinction for Alabama shad.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Bycatch, the incidental catch of a species in fisheries targeting
another species, is a potential threat to Alabama shad in the marine
environment. Although there are no reports of Alabama shad being taken
as bycatch in fisheries, many fisheries lack comprehensive bycatch
monitoring (Harrington et al. 2005, Crowder and Murawski 1998). While
bycatch in shrimp trawls is a significant source of mortality for many
finfish in the Southeast, no Alosa species were recorded during
mandatory observer reporting from the Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl
fishery in 2007-2010 (Scott-Denton et al. 2012). Guillory and Hutton
(1982) surveyed incidental catch in the Louisiana Gulf menhaden
(Brevoortia patronus) purse seine fishery in 1980 and 1981 by taking
samples at processing plants. Total bycatch comprised 2.68 percent by
number and 2.35 percent by weight of the menhaden catch. While no
Alabama shad were found in the bycatch, another Alosa species, the
skipjack herring, made up 0.1 percent both by number and weight of the
overall bycatch. Hutchings and Reynolds (2004) stated that clupeids are
more resilient than other fish in the marine environment, attributed in
part to their reduced vulnerability to bycatch. There are no reports of
Alabama shad being taken as bycatch in fisheries, although we have no
information on life history or location of Alabama shad within the
marine environment and much bycatch goes unreported. It is unknown
whether incidental capture in other fisheries contributes to Alabama
shad's
[[Page 4058]]
extinction risk, either now or in the foreseeable future.
Conclusions on Extinction Risk of Alabama Shad Throughout Its Range
The presence of dams throughout the Alabama shad's range blocks
access to upstream spawning sites in many rivers and is believed to be
the primary cause of population decline in the species. While there are
little historical or current data quantifying declines in Alabama shad,
we believe that the species' abundance is reduced from historical
levels. We believe both low abundance and the presence of dams are the
greatest threats to Alabama shad and ranked both as posing moderate
risks to the species. We noted these factors could, in combination with
other factors, contribute significantly to their risk of extinction. In
this section, we consider these factors in combination with other
relevant demographic factors and threats to determine whether
synergistic effects would result in a significantly greater extinction
risk for Alabama shad to the extent that the species' persistence is at
risk.
The abundance of Alabama shad in many river systems is considered
to be low. However, we have estimates of current abundance from only
one river system and we do not have any historical abundance estimates
of Alabama shad, which can be indicative of abundance levels associated
with low extinction risk. However, populations may also be at low risk
of extinction at abundance levels below historical levels, and accurate
estimates of historical abundance are not essential for evaluating
extinction risk. Whether a species qualifies for listing under the ESA
depends on whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future as a result of one or more of
the factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. If a species is
viable at its current population levels into the foreseeable future, it
is irrelevant whether that population level is or is not close to its
historical levels. We believe the low abundance of Alabama shad is
offset by the high productivity and spatial distribution of the
species, which is believed to be stable. We ranked productivity and
spatial distribution as having a low probability of posing an
extinction risk to the species. Alabama shad are highly productive,
reaching spawning age at 1-2 years, and spawning multiple times during
a single spawning season, as well as potentially throughout their
lifetime. The nine known Alabama shad spawning populations are widely
distributed, ranging from Gulf Coast rivers and their tributaries, from
the Suwannee River, Florida, to the Mississippi River, including Lower
Mississippi tributaries in the Midwest.
Although some of these spawning populations are small, this wide
geographic distribution of spawning populations increases the
resiliency of the species, reducing its vulnerability to catastrophic
events such as storms, disease, or manmade threats, which usually occur
at smaller scales. The short generation time for the species also adds
to its resiliency, allowing it to take advantage of suitable habitat
conditions for reproduction. The spawning success of Alabama shad in
the ACF River system illustrates this ability to take advantage of
newly available spawning habitat made accessible through conservation
locking at JWLD.
Alabama shad are anadromous and generally return to their natal
rivers to spawn. While the genetic diversity of Alabama shad is low,
likely due to natural bottleneck events that occurred during the
Pleistocene, we ranked diversity as having a low probability of posing
an extinction risk to the species. The bottleneck is believed to have
reduced their genetic load (presence of harmful genes) and genetic
analyses indicate the species strays into other river systems to spawn
at a greater rate than most anadromous species. This higher rate of
straying into other river systems, combined with the species' high
productivity and ability to take advantage of suitable environmental
conditions, along with the wide spatial distribution of the spawning
populations increases the species resilience and could allow
individuals to enhance smaller river populations and repopulate river
systems that have experienced declines or extirpations.
Existing dams continue to block access by Alabama shad to upstream
habitat, although few new dams are being built today. Under
``Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms'' (Factor D), we ranked
the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms regulating dams, primarily the
FPA and ESA, as posing a low risk of extinction to the species. The FPA
provides for protecting, mitigating damages to, and enhancing fish and
wildlife resources, including anadromous fish, impacted by
hydroelectric facilities regulated by the FERC. The FPA does not apply
to non-hydropower dams, such as those operated by USACE for navigation
purposes, but maintenance, repairs, and operational changes may require
ESA section 7 consultation and allow conservation measures benefitting
Alabama shad and other species to be recommended or required. In two
river systems inhabited by Alabama shad (the ACF and Alabama River
systems), USACE has voluntarily cooperated with state and Federal
agencies to implement conservation locking for Alabama shad and other
anadromous species. Conservation locking in the Alabama River,
occurring since 2009, has only been coupled with stocking and
monitoring since 2014, and any benefits to the species are not expected
to be evident for a few years. Conservation locking in the ACF River
system has had success. The abundance of Alabama Shad in the ACF has
been variable, but higher in many of the years, since locking began.
Also, a study by Schaffler et al. (2015) reported that 86 percent of
Alabama shad were spawned above JWLD after conservation locking began.
Even more compelling is a genetic study (Schaffler et al. 2015) that
shows 86 percent of the spawning adult Alabama shad in the ACF were
spawned in the Flint River, which has only become accessible with the
recent conservation locking. In light of the inter-agency cooperation
with other entities noted above in the discussion of the ACF system, we
expect conservation locking to continue at JWLD. Although dams exist in
other river systems, spawning populations of Alabama shad have
persisted in a number of those systems notwithstanding the presence of
obstacles to passage, as shown in range maps and discussed above.
We also evaluated water quality and the adequacy of regulations
governing water quality in combination with the moderate threats of low
abundance and the presence of dams, because water quality is often
cited as a concern for Alabama shad and dams may affect water quality.
Dredging and land-based activities (agriculture, silviculture, and
industrial, commercial, and residential development) can also result in
degraded water quality in rivers and coastal waters inhabited by
Alabama shad. We looked at state water quality reports, required by
Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, for river systems
inhabited by Alabama shad spawning populations. Of the assessed river
mi, about half were deemed to have good water quality and half were
impaired. Low DO, mercury, impaired biota, and sedimentation were
listed as the primary impairments, although there are no known studies
linking these impairments to effects in Alabama shad or indicating that
the species is susceptible to effects from these impairments. We
reviewed the EPA's NCCR I-IV reports, which show that the overall
condition of the Gulf Coast
[[Page 4059]]
region is fair and coastal water quality in the Gulf of Mexico has
improved since 2001. We ranked water quality as having an unknown
probability of posing an extinction risk to the species. We ranked the
inadequacy of regulations governing water quality as having a low
probability of posing an extinction risk to the species, as landmark
laws such as the Clean Water Act have successfully worked to improve
and maintain water quality in aquatic habitats supporting Alabama shad.
We do not believe water quality or the inadequacy of regulations
governing water quality, alone or in combination with other factors,
are contributing significantly to the extinction risk of Alabama shad.
Other known threats ranked as posing an unknown, unlikely, or low
risk of extinction to Alabama shad include climate change, direct
harvest, bycatch, and the regulatory mechanisms governing these and
other threats. National and international efforts to stem climate
change are ambitious, but their success is uncertain since major
agreements are still being formulated, and the outcomes of ongoing
activities are not yet known. The effects of climate change on Alabama
shad and their habitat are also uncertain, although based on the
species' life history and evidence from responses by other Alosa
species to temperature shifts, we believe there is a low probability of
this factor contributing significantly to the extinction risk of
Alabama shad. Data and literature suggest that harvest of Alabama shad,
either directly for commercial, recreational, or scientific purposes or
as incidental bycatch, is unlikely to contribute to the extinction risk
of Alabama shad and existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate to
control harvest. Additionally, environmental regulations, such as the
FWCA and the ESA listing and critical habitat designations for other
species are likely benefitting the species. We do not believe climate
change, direct harvest, bycatch, and the regulatory mechanisms
governing these and other threats, alone and in combination with other
factors, are contributing significantly to the extinction risk of
Alabama shad.
We were unable to rank the contribution of water allocation and the
adequacy of regulatory mechanisms governing it, DWH, and disease and
predation to the extinction risk of Alabama shad. Water allocation
issues are a growing concern in the Southeast United States. One of the
biggest interstate allocation disputes is ongoing between Alabama,
Florida, and Georgia over the future allocation of water in the ACF and
ACT River basins. The complexity of the issue, the length of time (more
than 25 years) that the water allocation issue remains unresolved, and
the inability of the major stakeholders to come to agreement or final
decision, as well as the fact that we do not know whether or how
Alabama shad may be affected by water allocation issues, leads to great
uncertainty about the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms for managing
water allocation in Alabama shad's riverine habitat. While the outcomes
of water allocation and the adequacy of the regulatory mechanisms
governing it are unknown, the Alabama shad population in the ACF
continues to be the largest known spawning population, and conservation
locking is occurring in both the ACF and ACT basins to alleviate the
effects of dams, the primary threat to the species in both systems.
There is no evidence that Alabama shad were affected immediately after
the DWH oil spill. Given that the spill occurred in April when the most
vulnerable early life stages were in riverine areas, it is unlikely
they were directly exposed. The more mature Alabama shad that entered
coastal and nearshore waters following the DWH spill in late summer
through winter may have been exposed to toxins from the DWH spill, but
studies of other coastal species affected by the spill show that most
recovered by the following year. It is likely that the worst acute
effects were experienced further offshore in the marine environment and
more studies will be necessary to determine any long-term, chronic
impacts from the DWH spill. There are few data on disease and predation
in relation to Alabama shad and it is unknown whether either factor is
contributing to the species' extinction risk.
In summary, we did not identify any demographic factors or threats
that are likely or highly likely to contribute significantly to the
Alabama shad's risk of extinction. We conclude that the greatest
threats to Alabama shad, low abundance and the presence of dams, pose a
moderate threat to the species. However, these threats, alone and in
combination with other factors, do not pose a significant risk of
extinction. Other demographic factors that pose a low likelihood of
contributing to extinction risk, and potentially offset the threats of
low abundance and dams, include the species' high productivity, wide
spatial distribution, and genetic evidence that the presence of harmful
genes has been reduced and genetic transfer between spawning
populations is likely occurring at a greater rate than for most
anadromous species. While dams originally led to declines in Alabama
shad, the lack of new dam construction, the adequacy of regulations
governing new and existing dams, and ongoing conservation efforts also
reduce the effects of dams on Alabama shad. We believe water quality,
climate change, direct harvest, bycatch, and the inadequacy of the
regulatory mechanisms governing these and other threats are not
contributing, alone or in combination, to the extinction risk of
Alabama shad. We evaluated other threats (water allocation issues, DWH,
disease, and predation), but found there was not enough information or
too much uncertainty in pending outcomes, to determine their
contribution to the extinction risk of Alabama shad. Based on these
conclusions, we find that the Alabama shad is at low risk of extinction
throughout all of its range, now and in the foreseeable future.
Significant Portion of the Range Evaluation
The ESA definitions of ``endangered'' and ``threatened'' species
refer to two spatial scales: A species' entire range or a significant
portion of its range. We initially evaluated the extinction risk of
Alabama shad throughout its entire range and found it to be low. So we
must consider if a ``significant portion of its range'' is at higher
risk, such that it elevates the entire species' status to endangered or
threatened. However, this evaluation can only be conducted if a
``significant portion of its range'' where the species' status is more
imperiled can be identified.
The USFWS and NMFS have jointly finalized a policy interpreting the
phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPOIR) (79 FR 37578; July
1, 2014). The SPOIR policy provides that: (1) If a species is found to
be endangered or threatened in only a significant portion of its range,
the entire species is listed as endangered or threatened, respectively,
and the ESA's protections apply across the species' entire range; (2) a
portion of the range of a species is ``significant'' if the species is
not currently endangered or threatened throughout its range, and the
portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so important
that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future,
throughout all of its range; and (3) the range of a species is
considered to be the general geographical area within which that
species can be found at the time we make any particular status
determination. We evaluated
[[Page 4060]]
whether substantial information indicated that (i) the portions may be
significant and (ii) the species occupying those portions may be in
danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable
future (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). Under the SPOIR policy, both
considerations must apply to warrant listing a species as threatened or
endangered throughout its range based upon its status within a portion
of the range.
We reviewed the best available information on Alabama shad and
considered several relevant factors in identifying whether portions of
the species' range may be significant: (1) Population abundance, (2)
contributions to other populations, and (3) concentration and acuteness
of threats. Based on these criteria, we initially identified only one
population, the Alabama shad that spawn in the ACF River system, as
potentially constituting a SPOIR. First, we considered population
abundance. The Alabama shad population spawning in the ACF is believed
to be one to several orders of magnitude larger than other spawning
populations. Next we considered the potential contribution of the ACF
spawning population to other populations. Genetic analyses indicate
that Alabama shad spawn in systems other than their natal system at a
rate of about 10 migrants per year. Because the spawning population in
the ACF River system is large relative to other systems, migrants from
the ACF may make greater contributions as compared to shad from smaller
populations. The loss of the largest spawning population of Alabama
shad would leave only smaller populations of Alabama shad and could
make the species as a whole less resilient to environmental
perturbations, including catastrophic events. Finally, we looked at
concentration and acuteness of threats. While the majority of threats
to Alabama shad are neither concentrated nor acute in specific portions
of the species' range, the ACF River system is one of two river systems
within the range of Alabama shad that we identified as being threatened
by water allocation issues.
We initially identified the spawning population of Alabama shad in
the ACF River system as being potentially significant under the SPOIR
policy because (1) it is believed to be the largest spawning population
by one to several orders of magnitude, (2) it could contribute to the
viability of the species as a whole because of its large relative size
and potential role in enhancing other river populations through
outmigration, and (3) the threat of water allocation issues is
concentrated in the ACF River system. We did not identify any other
SPOIRs since (1) we do not have abundance estimates for any other
Alabama shad populations, although they are believed to be at least one
order of magnitude smaller than the ACF population, (2) we do not have
information that another population is making significant contributions
to other populations, and (3) we did not identify any other populations
that were differentially experiencing concentrated nor acute threats
compared to other populations.
Following the SPOIR policy, we next evaluated whether the species
occupying this portion of the range may be in danger of extinction or
likely to become so within the foreseeable future. In our evaluation of
the status of the species range-wide, we determined that none of the
demographic risks or threats contribute, alone or in combination, to
extinction risk for Alabama shad to the extent that the species'
persistence is at risk. We believe this conclusion also applies to the
Alabama shad in the ACF River system. We did identify the threat of
water allocation as being concentrated in the ACF River system. As with
the range-wide evaluation, we were unable to rank the contribution of
water allocation, as we do not have information that water allocation
is affecting Alabama shad, or the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms
governing it to the extinction risk of Alabama shad in ACF, due to the
complexity of the issue, the length of time (more than 25 years) that
the water allocation issue remains unresolved, and the inability of the
major stakeholders to come to agreement or final decision. While the
outcomes of water allocation and the regulatory mechanisms governing it
are unknown, upstream water withdrawals for public use have been
occurring for over 25 years during which time the Alabama shad
population in the ACF has persisted. The ACF population of Alabama shad
continues to be the largest known spawning population. The abundance of
Alabama shad in the ACF has been variable, but generally higher since
conservation locking was undertaken, alleviating the effects of dams,
the primary threat to the species in the system. The genetic study by
Schaffler et al. (2015) shows that 86 percent of the spawning adult
shad were spawned upstream of JWLD in newly available habitat in the
Flint River, which was inaccessible prior to conservation locking.
We were able to model and quantify the resilience of Alabama shad
from the ACF River system since it is the most studied population with
the most available data, including the only population abundance
estimate. Smith et al. (2011) conducted a population viability analysis
(PVA) of Alabama shad in the ACF River system that estimated the future
size and risk of extinction of Alabama shad. The results of any PVA are
not an absolute predictor of what will happen to a population or a
species; rather, a PVA is a tool to explore potential consequences of
management actions in light of an uncertain future.
Using a sex-specific (females only), age-structured model, Smith et
al. (2011) used data from the literature (e.g., age at maturity, annual
spawning period, natural mortality, carrying capacity, available
habitat, frequency of drought, and anthropogenic mortality) and
projected changes in population size over time under different
scenarios (e.g., varying mortality, survivorship, carrying capacity,
and density dependence). Each modeled scenario was run 10,000 times to
provide estimates of the range of possible values under the stochastic
conditions specified. Smith et al. (2011) reported the estimated number
of females returning to the ACF as the proportional increase or
decrease in the population after 20 years from the initial population
size (12,400 females). Quasi-extinction rates were measured as the
probability of fewer than 420 females returning at least 1 year over 20
years. The number of females (420) used to initiate the model was taken
from Ely et al. (2008; lower 95 percent confidence limit) as the
approximate lowest population size, since historical population sizes
of Alabama shad in the ACF River system are not available.
In most scenarios (15 out of 20), the PVA revealed positive
proportional change in mean abundance from initial abundance and
averaged about 250 percent for these positive scenarios (Smith et al.
2011). In 2 scenarios, the population abundance was relatively stable
over the 20-year time period. In 3 scenarios, there was an overall
decrease in population abundance after 20 years. The baseline model
(i.e., no anthropogenic mortality, density dependence affecting all
vital rates, current carrying capacity of 75,687 females) predicted the
population would increase to 23 percent of carrying capacity after 5
years and 37 percent after 10 years (Smith et al. 2011). When
introducing potential mortality from downstream passage through dams
under different scenarios, the number of females was still 16-37
percent of carrying capacity in 10 years. Only one scenario resulted in
a 50-percent or higher probability of reaching quasi-extinction in 14
years (median time)
[[Page 4061]]
during the 20-year projection (Smith et al. 2011). The remaining
scenarios with population declines (scenarios m and s) did not drop
below the quasi-extinction level more than 50 percent of the time.
While Smith et al.'s (2011) PVA cannot predict precisely the
population size of the Alabama shad population in the ACF River system
in the future, it demonstrates that Alabama shad populations are highly
resilient and will likely increase, even when faced with anthropogenic
induced mortality and drought, under all but the most dire conditions.
While available information suggests the spawning population of Alabama
shad in the ACF may be significant, we do not find that the species
within this portion of its range is in danger of extinction nor do we
believe it is likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
Consequently, we are unable to identify a SPOIR for Alabama shad that
would change the listing determination relative to the status of the
species range-wide.
Listing Determination
Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that NMFS make listing
determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data
available after conducting a review of the status of the species and
after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any
state or foreign nation, or political subdivision thereof, to protect
and conserve the species. We have independently reviewed the best
available scientific and commercial information on Alabama shad,
including the petition, public comments submitted on our 90-day
finding, and other published and unpublished information. We considered
each of the section 4(a)(1) factors to determine whether it presented
an extinction risk to the species. We found that the risk of extinction
to Alabama shad throughout its entire range was low. We could not
identify a SPOIR that was both significant and where the species'
status is threatened or endangered. Therefore, our determination is
based on a synthesis and integration of the foregoing information,
factors, and considerations, and their effects on the status of the
species throughout its entire range. We conclude that the Alabama shad
is not presently in danger of extinction, nor is it likely to become so
in the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, and that listing as threatened or endangered is not
warranted.
Peer Review
In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing
minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public
disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public
participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented under the Information
Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554) is intended to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Federal government's scientific information, and
applies to influential or highly influential scientific information
disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. To satisfy our requirements
under the OMB Bulletin, we obtained independent peer review of our
review of the status of Alabama shad, including our extinction risk
analysis. Three independent specialists were selected from the academic
and scientific community, Federal and state agencies, and the private
sector for this review. All peer reviewer comments were addressed prior
to dissemination of the publication of this 12-month determination. The
peer review comments can be found at: https://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prplans/ID322.html.
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available at:
https://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/listing_petitions/species_esa_consideration/.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: January 5, 2017.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-00372 Filed 1-11-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
