Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To List the Alabama Sturgeon as Endangered

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF56

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To

List the Alabama Sturgeon as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to list

the Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) as endangered under the

authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The

Alabama sturgeon's historic range once included about 1,600 kilometers

(km) (1,000 miles (mi)) of the Mobile River system

[[Page 14677]]

in Alabama (Black Warrior, Tombigbee, Alabama, Coosa, Tallapoosa,

Mobile, Tensaw, and Cahaba rivers) and Mississippi (Tombigbee River).

Since 1985, all confirmed captures have been from a short, free-flowing

reach of the Alabama River below Miller's Ferry and Claiborne locks and

dams in Clarke, Monroe, and Wilcox counties, Alabama. The historic

decline of the Alabama sturgeon is attributed to over-fishing, loss and

fragmentation of habitat as a result of navigation-related development,

and water quality degradation. Current threats primarily result from

its small population numbers and its inability to offset mortality

rates with reproduction and recruitment. This proposed rule, if made

final, would extend the Act's protection to the Alabama sturgeon.

DATES: Send your comments to reach us on or before May 26, 1999. We

will not consider comments received after the above date in making our

decision on the proposed rule. We must receive requests for public

hearings by May 10, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send comments and materials concerning this proposal to the

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6578 Dogwood View

Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213. Comments and materials received

will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal

business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Hartfield at the above address

(telephone 601/965-4900, extension 25; facsimile 601/965-4340).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) is a small,

freshwater sturgeon that was historically found only in the Mobile

River Basin of Alabama and Mississippi. This sturgeon is an elongate,

slender fish growing to about 80 centimeters (cm) (30 inches (in)) in

length. A mature fish weighs 1 to 2 kilograms (kg) (2 to 3 pounds

(lb)). The head is broad and flattened shovel-like at the snout. The

mouth is tubular and protrusive. There are four barbels (whisker-like

appendages used to find prey) on the bottom of the snout, in front of

the mouth. Bony plates cover the head, back, and sides. The body

narrows abruptly to the rear, forming a narrow stalk between the body

and tail. The upper lobe of the tail fin is elongated and ends in a

long filament. Characters used to distinguish the Alabama sturgeon from

the closely-related shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus)

include larger eyes, orange color, number of dorsal plates, dorsal fin

ray numbers, and spines on snout.

The earliest specimens of Alabama sturgeon in museum collections

date from about 1880. The first mention of the fish in the scientific

literature, however, was not until 1955, when a report of the

collection of a single specimen from the Tombigbee River was published

by Chermock. In 1976, Ramsey referred to the Alabama sturgeon as the

``Alabama shovelnose sturgeon,'' noting that it probably was distinct

from the shovelnose sturgeon which is found in the Mississippi River

Basin, and was also historically known from the Rio Grande. In 1991,

Williams and Clemmer formally described the species based on a

comparison of relative sizes and numbers of morphological structures of

Alabama and shovelnose sturgeons.

The methods used by Williams and Clemmer (1991) to justify species

designation for the Alabama sturgeon have been criticized. In

unpublished manuscripts, (e.g., Blanchard and Bartolucci 1994, Howell

et al. 1995), and in one published paper (Mayden and Kuhajda 1996),

several authors identified a variety of statistical and methodological

errors and limitations [e.g., small sample size, clinal variation,

allometric growth (growth of parts of an organism at different rates

and at different times), inappropriate statistical tests, and others]

that appeared in the analyses used in the original description. Howell

et al. (1995) in an unpublished manuscript, reexamined the data set

used by Williams and Clemmer (1991), corrected certain errors, and

recommended that S. suttkusi be synonymized with S. platorynchus.

Mayden and Kuhajda (1996), in a peer-reviewed paper published in the

journal Copeia, reevaluated the morphological distinctiveness of the

Alabama sturgeon using improved statistical tests and new data derived

from examination of additional shovelnose sturgeon specimens from a

larger geographic area. Mayden and Kuhajda (1996) identified eight new

diagnostic characters, found that there was little evidence of

geographic clinal variation in these diagnostic features, and concluded

that the Alabama sturgeon was a distinct and valid species. Bartolucci

et al. (1998) showed the Alabama and shovelnose sturgeon to be

indistinguishable using principal component analyses, as published in a

peer-reviewed statistical journal.

Genetic analyses of sturgeon DNA used in attempts to clarify

taxonomic findings have met with limited success. In an unpublished

report, Schill and Walker (1994) used tissue samples from the Alabama

sturgeon collected in 1993 to compare the three nominal Scaphirhynchus

species. Based on estimates of sequence divergence at the mitochondrial

cytochrome b locus, they concluded that the Alabama, shovelnose, and

pallid sturgeons were indistinguishable. Other studies have also found

that the cytochrome b locus was not useful for discriminating among

some congeneric fish species which were otherwise distinguished by

accepted morphological, behavioral, and other characteristics (Campton

et al. 1995).

In two unpublished reports for us and the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (Corps) by Genetic Analyses Inc. (1994, 1995), nuclear DNA

fragments were compared among the three Scaphirhynchus species. The

three Alabama sturgeon specimens examined proved genetically divergent

from pallid and shovelnose, while there were no observed differences of

DNA fragments between the pallid and shovelnose sturgeons. However, the

1995 study also noted that two of the Alabama sturgeon differed

substantially from the third, and recommended additional studies to

examine genetic diversity within the Alabama sturgeon population.

A comparative study of the mitochondrial DNA d-loop of

Scaphirhynchus species has also been completed (Campton et al. 1995).

The d-loop is considered to be a rapidly evolving part of the genome.

Campton et al. (1995) found that haplotype (genetic markers)

frequencies of the d-loop from the three Scaphirhynchus species were

significantly different, with the Alabama sturgeon having a unique

haplotype. However, the relative genetic differences among the three

species was small, suggesting that the rate of genetic change in the

genus is relatively slow and/or they have only recently diverged. The

genetic similarity between the pallid and shovelnose sturgeon has been

suggested to be due to interbreeding that has recently occurred as a

result of niche overlap resulting from widespread habitat losses

(Carlson et al. 1985, Keenlyne et al. 1994).

We acknowledge that there is some disagreement concerning the

Alabama sturgeon's taxonomic status. However, the description of the

Alabama sturgeon (S. suttkusi) complies with the rules of the

International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Sec. 17.11(b)).

Furthermore, our analysis of the best available evidence supports its

consideration as a species in this proposed rule.

Very little is known of the life history, habitat, or other

ecological requirements

[[Page 14678]]

of the Alabama sturgeon. Observations by Burke and Ramsey (1985)

indicate the species prefers relatively stable gravel and sand

substrates in flowing river channels. Verified captures of Alabama

sturgeon have primarily occurred in large channels of big rivers;

however, at least two historic records were from oxbow lakes (Williams

and Clemmer 1991). Examination of stomach contents of museum and

captured specimens show that these sturgeon are opportunistic feeders,

preying primarily on aquatic insect larvae (Mayden and Kuhajda 1996).

Mayden and Kuhajda (1996) deduced other aspects of Alabama sturgeon

life history by a review of spawning habits of its better known

relative, the shovelnose sturgeon. Life history of the shovelnose

sturgeon has also been recently summarized by Keenlyne (1997). These

data indicate that Alabama sturgeon are likely to migrate upstream

during late winter and spring to spawn. Downstream migrations may occur

to search for feeding and summer refugia areas. Eggs are probably

deposited on hard bottom substrates such as bedrock, armored gravel, or

channel training works in deep water habitats, and possibly in

tributaries to major rivers. The eggs are adhesive and require current

for proper development. Sexual maturity is believed to occur at 5 to 7

years of age. Spawning frequency is influenced by food supply and fish

condition, and may occur every 1 to 3 years. Alabama sturgeon may live

up to 15 years of age.

The Alabama sturgeon's historic range consisted of about 1,600 km

(1,000 mi) of river habitat in the Mobile River Basin in Alabama and

Mississippi. There are records of sturgeon captures from the Black

Warrior, Tombigbee, Alabama, Coosa, Tallapoosa, Mobile, Tensaw, and

Cahaba rivers (Burke and Ramsey 1985, 1995). The Alabama sturgeon was

once common in Alabama, and perhaps also in Mississippi. The total 1898

commercial catch of ``shovel-nose'' sturgeons (i.e., Alabama sturgeon)

from Alabama was reported as 19,000 kg (42,900 lb) in a statistical

report to Congress (U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries 1898). Of

this total, 18,000 kg (39,500 lb) came from the Alabama River and 1,000

kg (2,300 lb) from the Black Warrior River. Given that an average

Alabama sturgeon weighs about 1 kg (2 lb), the 1898 commercial catch

consisted of approximately 20,000 fish. These records indicate a

substantial historic population of Alabama sturgeon.

Between the 1898 report and 1970, little information was published

regarding the Alabama sturgeon. An anonymous article published in the

Alabama Game and Fish News in 1930 stated that the sturgeon was not

uncommon; however, by the 1970's, it had become rare. In 1976, Ramsey

considered the sturgeon as endangered and documented only six specimens

from museums. Clemmer (1983) was able to locate 23 Alabama sturgeon

specimens in museum collections, with the most recent collection dated

1977. Clemmer also found that commercial fishermen in the Alabama and

Tombigbee rivers were familiar with the sturgeon, calling it

hackleback, buglemouth trout, or devilfish.

During the mid-1980's Burke and Ramsey (1985) conducted a status

survey to determine the distribution and abundance of the Alabama

sturgeon. Interviews were conducted with commercial fishermen on the

Alabama and Cahaba rivers, some of whom reported catch of Alabama

sturgeon as an annual event. However, during their collection efforts

in areas identified by fishermen, Burke and Ramsey were able to collect

only five Alabama sturgeons, including two males, two gravid females,

and one juvenile about 2 years old. Burke and Ramsey (1985) concluded

that the Alabama sturgeon had been extirpated from 57 percent (950 km

or 600 mi) of its range and that only 15 percent (250 km or 150 mi) of

its former habitat had the potential to support a good population. An

additional sturgeon was taken in 1985 in the Tensaw River and

photographed, but the specimen was lost (Mettee, Geologic Survey of

Alabama, pers. comm. 1997).

In 1990 and 1992, biologists from the Alabama Department of

Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR), with the assistance of the

Corps, conducted searches for Alabama sturgeon using a variety of

sampling techniques, without success (Tucker and Johnson 1991, 1992).

However, some commercial and sports fishermen continued to report

recent catches of small sturgeon in Millers Ferry and Claiborne

reservoirs and in the lower Alabama River (Tucker and Johnson 1991,

1992).

In 1993, our biologists and the ADCNR conducted another extensive

survey for Alabama sturgeon in the lower Alabama River. On December 2,

1993, a mature male was captured alive in a gill net downstream of

Claiborne Lock and Dam, at river mile 58.8 in Monroe County, Alabama

(Parauka, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1995). This

specimen represented the first confirmed record of Alabama sturgeon in

about 9 years. This fish was moved to a hatchery where it later died.

On April 18, 1995, an Alabama sturgeon captured by fishermen below

Claiborne Lock and Dam was turned over to ADCNR and Service biologists.

This fish was carefully examined, radio-tagged, and returned to the

river where it was tracked for 4 days before the transmitter switched

off (Parauka, pers. comm. 1995). In June 1995, it was determined that

the tag had dislodged. On May 19, 1995, our biologists took another

Alabama sturgeon in Monroe County, Alabama, near the 1993 collection

site. Unfortunately, shortly after the fish was tagged and released, it

was found entangled and dead in a vandalized gill net lying on the

river bottom (Parauka, pers. comm. 1995). On April 26, 1996, a

commercial fisherman caught, photographed, and released an Alabama

sturgeon (estimated at about 51 to 58 cm (20 to 23 in) total length and

1 kg (2.5 lb) weight in the Alabama River, 5 km (3 mi) south of Millers

Ferry Lock and Dam (Reeves, ADCNR, pers. comm. 1996).

During the spring of 1996, members of the Mobile River Basin

Recovery Coalition began discussions to develop and implement a

conservation plan for the Alabama sturgeon that could receive wide

support. A draft plan was subsequently endorsed by the ADCNR, Service,

Mobile District Corps of Engineers, and representatives of the Alabama-

Tombigbee Rivers Coalition. The draft plan identified the need to

develop life history information through capture, tagging, and

telemetry; capture of broodstock for potential population augmentation;

construction of hatchery facilities for sturgeon propagation; and

habitat identification and quantification in the lower Alabama River.

In March 1997, the ADCNR implemented the collection component of

the conservation plan. The Geological Survey of Alabama, Corps,

Waterways Experiment Station, Alabama Power Company, and the Service

also participated in the effort. Up to four crews were on the river at

any one time using gill nets and trot lines. Most of the effort focused

on the lower Alabama River where recent previous captures had been

made. Personnel from the ADCNR caught one small sturgeon (1 kg (2 lb)

weight) on April 9, 1997, immediately below Claiborne Lock and Dam.

The ADCNR continued fishing for sturgeon through the fall and

winter and collected another sturgeon below Miller's Ferry Lock and Dam

on December 10, 1997. This fish was also transported to the Marion Fish

Hatchery, where both fish are being held for potential use as

broodstock. In January 1998, the two fish were

[[Page 14679]]

biopsied to determine sex. The April specimen was found to be a mature

female with immature eggs, whereas the December fish was a mature male.

Alabama broodstock collection efforts in 1998 resulted in the

capture of a single fish on November 12, 1998. A biopsy performed in

December found the specimen to be a reproductively inactive male. The

two 1997 fish were also biopsied at this time, and were determined to

be candidates for propagation in the spring.

The chronology of commercial harvest, scientific collections, and

incidental catches by commercial and sport fishermen demonstrate a

significant decline in both the population size and range of the

Alabama sturgeon in the past 100 years. Historically the fish occurred

in commercial abundance and was found in all major coastal plain

tributaries of the Mobile River system. The Alabama sturgeon has

apparently disappeared from the upper Tombigbee, lower Black Warrior,

lower Tallapoosa, and upper Cahaba, where it was last reported in the

1960's; the lower Coosa, last reported around 1970; the lower

Tombigbee, last reported around 1975; and lower Cahaba, last reported

in 1985 (Clemmer 1983; Burke and Ramsey 1985, 1995; Williams and

Clemmer 1991; Mayden and Kuhajda 1996). The fish is known from a single

1985 record in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta; however, no incidental catches

by commercial or recreational fishermen have been reported since that

time. Recent collection efforts indicate that very low numbers of

Alabama sturgeon continue to survive in portions of the 216 km (130 mi)

length of the Alabama River channel below Millers Ferry Lock and Dam.

The historic population decline of the Alabama sturgeon was

probably initiated by unrestricted harvesting near the turn of the

century. Although there are no reports of commercial harvests of

Alabama sturgeon after the 1898 report, it is reasonable to assume that

sturgeon continued to be affected by the commercial fishery. Keenlyne

(1997) noted that in the early years of this century, shovelnose

sturgeon were considered a nuisance to commercial fishermen and were

destroyed when caught. Interviews with commercial and recreational

fishermen along the Alabama River indicate that Alabama sturgeon

continued to be taken into the 1980's (Burke and Ramsey 1985). Studies

of other sturgeon species suggest that newly exploited sturgeon

fisheries typically show an initial high yield, followed by rapid

declines. There may be little or no subsequent recovery with continued

exploitation and habitat loss, even after nearly a century (National

Paddlefish and Sturgeon Steering Committee 1993, Birstein 1993).

Although unrestricted commercial harvesting of the Alabama sturgeon

may have significantly reduced its numbers and initiated a population

decline, the present curtailment of the Alabama sturgeon's range is the

result of 100 years of cumulative impacts to the rivers of the Mobile

River Basin (Basin) as they were developed for navigation. Navigation

development of the Basin affected the sturgeon in major ways. This

development significantly changed and modified extensive portions of

river channel habitats; blocked long-distant movements, including

migrations; and fragmented and isolated sturgeon populations.

The Basin's major rivers are now controlled by more than 30 locks

and/or dams, forming a series of lakes that are interspersed with

short, free-flowing reaches. Within the sturgeon's historic range,

there are three dams on the Alabama River (built between 1968 and

1971); the Black Warrior has two (completed by 1959); and the Tombigbee

six (built between 1954 and 1979). These 11 dams affect and fragment

970 km (583 mi) of river channel habitat. Riverine (flowing water)

habitats are required by the Alabama sturgeon to successfully complete

its life cycle. Alabama sturgeon habitat requirements are not met in

impoundments, where weak flows result in accumulations of silt making

bottom habitats unsuitable for spawning and, perhaps, for the bottom-

dwelling invertebrates on which the sturgeon feed.

Prior to widespread construction of locks and dams throughout the

Basin, Alabama sturgeon could move freely between feeding areas, and

from feeding areas to sites that favored spawning and development of

eggs and larvae. Additionally the sturgeon may have sought thermal

refuges during summer months, when high water temperatures became

stressful. Such movements might have been extensive, since other

Scaphirhynchus species of sturgeons are known to make long distance

movements exceeding 250 km (150 mi) (Moos 1978, Bramblett 1996). Locks

and dams, however, fragmented the sturgeons' range, forming isolated

metapopulations between the dams where all the species' habitat needs

were not necessarily met. With avenues of movement and migration

restricted, these metapopulations also became more vulnerable to local

declines in water and habitat quality caused by riverine and land

management practices and/or polluting discharges.

Most of the major rivers within the historic range of the Alabama

sturgeon have also been dredged and/or channelized to make them

navigable. For example, the 740-km (460-mi) long Warrior-Tombigbee

Waterway channel was originally dredged to 45 meters (m) by 2 m (150

feet (ft) by 6 ft) and later to 61 m by 2 m (200 ft by 9 ft). The lower

Alabama and Tombigbee rivers are routinely dredged in areas of natural

deposition to maintain navigation depths. Dredged and channelized river

reaches, in comparison to natural river reaches, have reduced habitat

diversity (e.g., loss of shoals, removal of snags, removal of bendways,

reduction in flow heterogeneity, etc.), which results in decreased

aquatic diversity and productivity (Hubbard et al. 1988 and references

therein). The deepening and destruction of shoals and shallow runs or

other historic feeding and spawning sites as a result of navigation

development likely contributed to local and overall historic declines

in range and abundance of the Alabama sturgeon.

Dams constructed for navigation and power production also affected

the quantity and timing of water moving through the Basin. Water depths

for navigation are controlled through discharges from upstream dams,

and flows have also been changed as a result of hydroelectric

production by upstream dams (Buckley 1995; Freeman and Irwin, U.S.

Geological Survey, pers. comm. 1997).

The construction and operation of dams and development of

navigation channels were significant factors in curtailment of the

historic range of the Alabama sturgeon and in defining its current

distribution. While these structures and activities are likely to

continue to influence the ecology of this species and others, the

present effects of the operation of existing structures, flow

regulation, and navigation maintenance activities on the sturgeon are

poorly understood. This is due in large part to lack of specific

information on the behavior and ecology of the Alabama sturgeon.

In summary, the Alabama sturgeon has undergone marked declines in

population size and range during the past century. Over-fishing and

navigation development were significant factors in the sturgeon's

historic decline. The Alabama sturgeon currently inhabits only about 15

percent of its historic range, and the species is known to survive only

in the Alabama River channel below Millers Ferry Lock and Dam.

[[Page 14680]]

Previous Federal Actions

The Alabama sturgeon was included in Federal Register notices of

review for candidate animals in 1982, 1985, 1989, and 1991. In the 1982

and 1985 notices (47 FR 58454 and 50 FR 37958), this fish was included

as a category 2 species (a species for which we had data indicating

that listing was possibly appropriate, but for which we lacked

substantial data on biological vulnerability and threats to support a

proposed rule). We discontinued designation of Category 2 species in

the February 28, 1996, notice of review (61 FR 7956). In the 1989 and

1991 notices (54 FR 554 and 56 FR 58816), the Alabama sturgeon was

listed as category 1 candidate species (a species for which we have on

file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to

support issuance of a proposed rule).

On June 15, 1993, we published a proposed rule to list the Alabama

sturgeon as endangered with critical habitat (58 FR 33148). On July 27,

1993, we published a notice scheduling a public hearing on the proposed

rule (58 FR 40109). We published a notice on August 24, 1993 (58 FR

44643), canceling and rescheduling the hearing. On September 13, 1993

(58 FR 47851), we published a notice re-scheduling the public hearing

for October 4, 1993, and extending the comment period to October 13,

1993. The October 4 public hearing was held on the campus of Mobile

College, Mobile, Alabama. On October 25, 1993 (58 FR 55036), we

published a notice announcing a second public hearing date, reopening

the comment period, and stating the availability of a panel report.

This second public hearing was canceled in response to a preliminary

injunction issued on November 9, 1993.

On January 4, 1994 (59 FR 288), we published a notice rescheduling

the second public hearing and extending the comment period. However,

this hearing was subsequently rescheduled in a January 7, 1994, notice

(59 FR 997). We held the second public hearing on January 31, 1994, at

the Montgomery Civic Center, Montgomery, Alabama.

We published a 6-month extension of the deadline and reopening of

the comment period for the proposed rule to list the Alabama sturgeon

with critical habitat on June 21, 1994 (59 FR 31970). On September 15,

1994 (59 FR 47294), we published another notice that further extended

the comment period and sought additional comments on only the

scientific point of whether the Alabama sturgeon still existed. We

withdrew the proposed rule on December 15, 1994, (59 FR 64794) on the

basis of insufficient information that the Alabama sturgeon continued

to exist. On September 19, 1997, after capture of several individuals

confirming that the species was extant, we included the Alabama

sturgeon in the candidate species notice of review (62 FR 49403). A

candidate species is defined as a species for which we have on file

sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to

support issuance of a proposed rule.

We published Listing Priority Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998 and

1999 on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). That guidance clarifies the order in

which we will process rulemakings, giving highest priority (Tier 1) to

processing emergency rules to add species to the Lists of Endangered

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists); second priority (Tier 2) to

processing final determinations on proposals to add species to the

Lists, processing new proposals to add species to the Lists, processing

administrative findings on petitions (to add species to the Lists,

delist species, or reclassify listed species), and processing a limited

number of proposed or final rules to delist or reclassify species; and

third priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed or final rules

designating critical habitat. Processing of this proposed rule is a

Tier 2 action.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

The procedures for adding species to the Federal lists are found in

section 4 of the Act and the accompanying regulations (50 CFR part

424). A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened

species due to one or more of the five factors described in section

4(a)(1). These factors and their application to the Alabama sturgeon

(Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) are as follows:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range. The Alabama sturgeon has

apparently disappeared from 85 percent of its historic range. Its

decline has been associated with construction of dams, flow regulation,

navigation channel development, other forms of channel modification,

and pollution. Dams in the Alabama River have reduced the amount of

riverine habitat, impeded migration of Alabama sturgeon for feeding and

spawning needs, and changed the river's flow patterns. The species is

now restricted to a 216 km (130 mi) reach of the Alabama River below

Millers Ferry Lock and Dam. It is unknown if the quantity of fluvial

(stream) habitat currently available to the species in this river reach

is adequate to meet all of its ecological needs.

Changes in natural river flow regimes by operation of hydroelectric

dams are known to be detrimental to other sturgeon species (e.g.,

Khoroshko 1972, Zakharyan 1972, Veshchev 1982, Veshchev and Novikova

1983, Auer 1996). Flow quantity is believed to be adequate to sustain

the sturgeon in the lower Alabama River (Biggins 1994). The Alabama

Power Company currently releases 57 cubic meters per second (cms) (2000

cubic feet per second (cfs)) seasonal minimum flow from Jordan Dam into

the lower Coosa River, and 34 cms (1200 cfs) minimum flow from Thurlow

Dam into the lower Tallapoosa River. These two releases provide a

combined 91 cms (3200 cfs) minimum flow to the upper Alabama River for

passage through the three Alabama River locks and dams. Alabama River

flows are further augmented by generating flows from Jordan, Thurlow,

and Bouldin dams, as well as other Alabama River tributary flows. The

average daily flows measured over the last decade downstream of

Claiborne Lock and Dam have ranged from over 100 cms to nearly 7,000

cms (4,000 to 240,000 cfs). While there is no evidence to suggest that

the Alabama sturgeon is limited by water quantity below Robert F. Henry

and Millers Ferry locks and dams, these dams house hydropower

facilities and neither is required to maintain a minimum flow. Current

low flow releases from these two facilities can be as little as 3 hours

of generation timed according to peaking needs, plus lockage releases.

The effect of such daily flow fluctuations below Millers Ferry Lock and

Dam on Alabama sturgeon reproductive, larval, or juvenile habitat

requirements may be negative; however, the importance of the area

between Robert F. Henry and Claiborne lock and dams for sturgeon

reproduction is currently unknown.

The most visible continuing navigation impact within presently

occupied Alabama sturgeon habitat is maintenance dredging of navigation

channels. At this time, there is no evidence that it currently

constitutes a limiting factor to the sturgeon (Biggins 1994). The Corps

has constructed 67 channel training works (jetties) at 16 locations in

the lower Alabama River, eliminating about 60 percent of dredging

requirements at those locations. In the Mississippi River drainage,

such channel training works are believed to be used as spawning areas

by other sturgeon species (Mayden and Kuhajda 1996).

[[Page 14681]]

Maintenance dredging continues to be necessary in the Alabama River

to remove seasonally accumulated material from deposition areas within

the navigation channel. Dredged materials are usually placed on natural

deposition features adjacent to the navigation channel, such as point

bars or lateral bars. Due to the natural dynamics of river channels and

annual sediment movement, maintenance areas have remained fairly

constant over time, with the same areas repeatedly dredged or used for

disposal. Recent investigations by us, the Corps, and ADCNR indicate

that the distribution of stable benthic (bottom) habitats in the

riverine portions of the Alabama River has been, and continues to be,

strongly influenced by historical dredge and disposal practices.

Changes in disposal practices could disrupt the existing equilibrium.

For example, river channels are strongly influenced by the amount of

sediment moving through them. Increases in sediment budget can cause

aggradation (filling) of the channel, while decreases in sediment can

cause degradation (erosion). With the upstream dams forming barriers to

the movement of sediment through the Alabama River, additional

reduction of sediment availability (e.g., through upland disposal)

could increase river bed and bank erosion, including areas that are now

important, stable habitats. In consideration of this, significant

changes in current disposal methods in the Alabama River could

adversely affect the Alabama sturgeon.

Recent investigations by us and ADCNR biologists have documented

the presence of high quality, stable river bottom habitats interspersed

within and between dredge and disposal sites in the lower Alabama River

(Hartfield and Garner 1998). These included stable sand and gravel

river bottom supporting freshwater mussel beds, and bedrock walls and

bottom. Mussel beds are excellent indicators of riverine habitat

stability because freshwater mussels may live in excess of 30 years and

mussel beds require many decades to develop (Neves 1993). Clean bedrock

has been identified as potential Alabama sturgeon spawning habitat

(Mayden and Kuhajda 1996). The significance of such areas of stability

are suggested by the location of recent and historic Alabama sturgeon

capture sites below Millers Ferry and Claiborne locks and dams. Dive

surveys at 19 capture sites dating back to 1950 found 17 in the

vicinity of dense mussel beds (15 sites) and/or clean bedrock riverine

habitat (11 sites) (Hartfield and Garner 1998). Depths at these areas

(5 to 15 m (15 to 45 ft)) are well below the minimum navigation

maintenance depth of 3 m (9 ft).

Sand and gravel mining has had historic impacts on riverine

habitats in the lower Tombigbee and Alabama river channels. Instream

dredging for sand and gravel can result in localized biological and

geomorphic changes similar to those caused by channelization and

navigation channel development. For example, mining of rivers has been

shown to reduce fish and invertebrate biomass and diversity, and can

induce geomorphic changes in the river channel both above and below

mined areas (Simons et al. 1982, Brown and Lyttle 1992, Kanehl and

Lyons 1992, Hartfield 1993, Patrick and Dueitt 1996). Sand and gravel

dredging of the Tombigbee and Alabama river channels within the

historic and current range of the Alabama sturgeon has occurred

periodically since the 1930's (Simons et al. 1982). We are not aware of

any currently active sand and gravel dredging operations in the Alabama

River; however, future mining of gravel from stable river reaches used

by the Alabama sturgeon would be detrimental to the species.

Pollution may adversely impact sturgeon (Ruelle and Keenlyne 1993),

and it was likely a factor in the decline of the Alabama sturgeon,

especially prior to implementation of State and Federal water quality

regulations. Presently, the major sources of water pollution in Alabama

are agriculture, municipal point sources, resource extraction, and

contaminated sediments, in order of decreasing importance based on

numbers of miles impaired (Alabama Department of Environmental

Management 1994). Water quality in the lower Alabama River is generally

good; however, two localized river segments above Claiborne Lock and

Dam have been reported as occasionally impaired due to excess nutrients

and organic enrichment (Alabama Department of Environmental Management

1994). Sources of impairment were broadly identified as the combined

effects of industrial and municipal discharges, and runoff from

agriculture and silviculture. These river segments are also affected by

hydropower discharges from Millers Ferry Lock and Dam.

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes. As discussed in the ``Background'' section of

this proposed rule, the Alabama sturgeon was commercially harvested

around the turn of the century. Alabama State law (sect. 220-2--.26-4)

now protects the Alabama sturgeon and other sturgeons requiring that

``* * * any person who shall catch a sturgeon shall immediately return

it to the waters from whence it came with the least possible harm.'' As

a result, sturgeon are not currently pursued by commercial or

recreational fishermen. Nonetheless, Alabama sturgeon are occasionally

caught by fishermen in nets or trot lines set for other species. For

example, one of the Alabama sturgeons caught in 1995 was hooked by a

fisherman on a trot line, and the Alabama sturgeon caught in 1996 was

trapped in a hoop net; both of these fish were released. Doubtless

there have been additional, undocumented incidental captures by

commercial and sport fishermen; however, the surveys and collection

efforts of the past decade have shown such captures to be rare.

C. Disease or predation. There are no known threats from disease or

natural predators. To the extent that disease or predation occurs, it

becomes a more important consideration as the total population

decreases in number.

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. As we

discussed in factor B, Alabama State law (sect. 220-2-.26-4) protects

the Alabama sturgeon and other sturgeons requiring that ``* * * any

person who shall catch a sturgeon shall immediately return it to the

waters from whence it came with the least possible harm.'' As a result,

sturgeon are not currently pursued by commercial or recreational

fishermen. There is currently no requirement within the scope of other

environmental laws or Alabama State law to specifically consider the

Alabama sturgeon or ensure that a project will not jeopardize its

continued existence.

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued

existence. The primary threat to the immediate survival of the Alabama

sturgeon is its apparent inability to offset mortality rates with

current reproduction rates. As noted in the ``Background'' section,

incidents of capture of Alabama sturgeon have been steadily diminishing

for the past two decades, indicating declining population numbers over

this time. Recent studies suggest that below some minimum population

size, termed ``minimum viable population'' (MVP), a species is unable

to offset mortality rates with natural reproduction and recruitment

(Soule 1987). In such cases, the species becomes more vulnerable to

extinction from natural or human-induced random events (e.g., droughts,

floods, competition, variations in prey abundance, toxic spills, etc.),

which further reduce recruitment or increase mortality. Estimates of

the MVP in vertebrates range from hundreds to thousands of reproducing

individuals

[[Page 14682]]

(Belovsky 1987, Shaffer 1987, Lande and Barrowclough 1987).

Sturgeons may be especially sensitive to MVP effects (likely to

become extinct) for several reasons. Age at first spawning (ranging

from 5 to 7 years for shovelnose sturgeon) is much delayed in

comparison to other fishes, and female sturgeons may not spawn for

intervals of several years (Wallus et al. 1990). Thus, the effective

population size (number of adult males and females capable of

reproducing in a given year) is much smaller than it would be if

reproduction began earlier and took place annually. Also, recruitment

success in fish is subject to considerable natural variability owing to

fluctuations of environmental conditions, and there can be several

years between periods of good recruitment.

Currently, there are no population estimates for the Alabama

sturgeon. Recent collection efforts demonstrate its increasing rarity.

For example, beginning in the spring of 1997 through 1998, up to four

crews of professional fisheries biologists have expended approximately

3,000 man-hours of fishing effort in the lower Alabama River to capture

Alabama sturgeon for use as broodstock. This effort resulted in the

capture of only three Alabama sturgeon. During this time, commercial

and recreational fishermen encountered on the Alabama River were

interviewed, and asked to report any captures of sturgeon to the ADCNR.

No incidental catches were reported. Thus, approximately 18 months of

fishing by professional, commercial, and recreational fishermen

resulted in the capture of only three Alabama sturgeon. Compared to the

estimated 20,000 Alabama sturgeon reported in the 1898 harvest, the

amount of effort currently required to capture Alabama sturgeon

indicates that the species' population numbers are extremely low. This

strongly suggests that the Alabama sturgeon is highly vulnerable to MVP

effects.

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial

information available regarding the past, present, and future threats

faced by the Alabama sturgeon in determining to propose this rule.

Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list the Alabama

sturgeon as endangered. The Act defines an endangered species as one

that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion

of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become an

endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of its range. Endangered status is appropriate for

the Alabama sturgeon due to the extensive curtailment of its range and

extremely low population numbers.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) the

specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at

the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found

those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation

of the species and (II) that may require special management

consideration or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the

geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon

a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of

the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and

procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing

under the Act is no longer necessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing

regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent

and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time

the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our

regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical

habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations

exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other activity and

the identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the

degree of threat to the species, or (2) Such designation of critical

habitat would not be beneficial to the species. We find that

designation of critical habitat is not presently prudent for the

Alabama sturgeon.

Critical habitat receives consideration under section 7 of the Act.

Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service

to ensure that any action they carry out, authorize, or fund does not

jeopardize the continued existence of a federally listed species or

destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. The Service's

implementing regulations (50 CFR part 402) define ``jeopardize the

continuing existence of'' and ``destruction or adverse modification

of'' in very similar terms. To jeopardize the continuing existence of a

species means to engage in an action ``that reasonably would be

expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood

of both the survival and recovery of a listed species by reducing the

reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species.'' Destruction

or adverse modification of habitat means a ``direct or indirect

alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat

for both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild.''

Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect to both

the survival and recovery of a listed species.

For any listed species, an analysis to determine jeopardy under

section 7(a)(2) would consider impacts to the species resulting from

impacts to habitat. Therefore, an analysis to determine jeopardy would

include an analysis closely parallel to or, for the Alabama sturgeon,

equivalent to an analysis to determine adverse modification of critical

habitat. For the Alabama sturgeon, any modification to suitable habitat

within the species' range has the potential to affect the species.

Actions that may affect the habitat of the Alabama sturgeon in the

lower Alabama River include those with impacts on river channel

morphology, bottom substrate composition, water quantity and quality,

and stormwater runoff. Any activity that would be determined to cause

an adverse modification to critical habitat also would jeopardize the

continued existence of this fish given its restricted distribution and

imperiled status.

Critical habitat designation within a species' occupied range

heightens the awareness of Federal agencies to the potential presence

of the species, and encourages consideration of the effects of Federal

actions on the species' habitat. We have worked closely with Federal

agencies, particularly the Corps, in evaluating Federal agency actions

and their potential effects to the Alabama sturgeon (Biggins 1994). All

potentially affected Federal agencies are currently aware of the

location and extent of habitat occupied by the Alabama sturgeon. In

addition, should the species be listed, Federal actions that might

affect occupied sturgeon habitat would be subject to review under

section 7(a)(2) of the Act, whether or not critical habitat is

designated. Therefore, habitat protection for the Alabama sturgeon can

be accomplished through the section 7 jeopardy standard and there is no

benefit in designating occupied habitat as critical habitat.

Designation of unoccupied habitat as critical habitat may, in

certain instances, provide additional protection to that afforded by

the jeopardy standard. Specific areas outside the geographic area

occupied by a species at the time it is listed may be designated as

critical habitat, if it is determined that such areas are essential for

the conservation of the species. The ecological requirements of the

Alabama sturgeon are so poorly known, its historical habitats are so

severely modified and fragmented, and its population numbers are so

small, that extensive research

[[Page 14683]]

over an extended period of time would be required to identify any

existing essential unoccupied habitats (see ``Background'' and

``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' sections).

Though critical habitat designation directly affects only Federal

agency actions, this process can arouse public concern and resentment.

Although Alabama sturgeon are currently protected from commercial or

recreational fishing, they are occasionally captured (see factor B).

Publicity or controversy accompanying critical habitat designation may

increase the potential for illegal take. For example, on June 15, 1993,

the Alabama sturgeon was initially proposed for endangered status with

critical habitat (59 FR 33148). Proposed critical habitat included the

lower portions of the Alabama, Cahaba, and Tombigbee rivers in south

Alabama. The proposal generated thousands of comments with the primary

concern that the proposed listing and designation of these rivers as

critical habitat would devastate the economy of the State of Alabama

and severely impact adjoining States. There were reports from State

conservation agents and other knowledgeable sources of rumors inciting

the capture and destruction of Alabama sturgeon.

The primary threat to the Alabama sturgeon has been identified as

its small numbers and its apparent inability to offset mortality rates

with current reproduction rates (see factor E). As noted in the

``Available Conservation Measures'' section, a collaborative effort by

public and private partners to address this threat and conserve the

Alabama sturgeon was initiated in 1997. Essential to this effort is the

collection of sturgeon for use as broodstock for hatchery propagation,

and for telemetry studies on habitat and behavior. Commercial and

recreational fishermen have caught two of the seven fish captured over

the past decade. Their continued cooperation is important to on-going

Alabama sturgeon conservation efforts. The loss of the cooperation of

fishermen and other private partners, as a result of proposed

designation of unoccupied habitat as critical habitat, would be

detrimental to the survival and recovery of the species.

It should also be noted that regardless of critical habitat

designation, Federal agencies are required by section 7(a)(1) of the

Act to utilize their authorities in furtherance of the Act's purposes

by carrying out conservation activities for listed species. We have

been working with the Corps and other partners to assess habitat

quantity, quality, and accessibility within the historic range of the

Alabama sturgeon. Such studies, along with ongoing broodstock

collection efforts, hatchery propagation, and other activities have

focused attention on the sturgeon, its habitat, and threats to its

existence, and will continue should the species be listed. Thus, any

benefit that might accrue from designation of unoccupied habitat as

critical is being accomplished under the existing coordination process.

Based on the above analysis, we have concluded critical habitat

designation would provide no additional benefit for the Alabama

sturgeon beyond that which would accrue from listing under the Act. In

addition, we also conclude that any potential benefit from such a

designation would be outweighed by a loss of cooperation by fishermen

and other partners in current conservation efforts, and an increased

level of vulnerability to illegal take. Therefore, the designation of

critical habitat for the Alabama sturgeon is not prudent.

Available Conservation Measures

The ADCNR has implemented a conservation plan for the sturgeon that

addresses the immediate threat to the species, its depressed population

size, and seeks to develop information on the species and its habitat

needs. A variety of public and private groups, including the Service,

Army Corps of Engineers, Geological Survey of Alabama, Auburn

University, the Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition, and the Mobile

River Basin Coalition are participating in, and/or endorse,

implementation of this plan. The immediate focus of the plan is to

prevent extinction through a captive breeding program and release of

propagated fish. Other objectives of the plan include habitat

restoration and determining life history information essential to

effective management of the species. A freshwater sturgeon conservation

plan working group composed of scientists and resource managers from a

variety of Federal and State agencies, industry, and local universities

was formed in September 1996 to establish collection and handling

protocols, and to recommend and participate in research efforts.

Implementation of the conservation plan began in March 1997, with

broodstock collection efforts. A female and two male sturgeon have been

collected and are being held at the Marion Fish Hatchery. The hatchery

has been upgraded to accommodate sturgeon propagation. An attempt to

spawn the captive sturgeon is planned for spring 1999. Coordinated

studies are currently in progress by us, the ADCNR, and the Corps to

identify and quantify stable riverine habitat in the Alabama River, and

to develop strategies for its management. Life history and habitat

studies in progress include habitat characterization at historic

sturgeon collection sites, prey density studies, and larval sturgeon

surveys.

The Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Coalition, a

partnership comprised of diverse business, environmental, private

landowner, and agency interests, has been meeting regularly to

participate in recovery planning for 15 listed aquatic species in the

Basin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). The Coalition promotes

increased stewardship awareness by private landowners throughout the

Basin, and encourages the control of nonpoint source pollution through

the implementation of Best Management Practices. All aquatic habitats,

including Alabama sturgeon habitat, will benefit from such efforts.

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain

practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in

conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups,

and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and

cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be

carried out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal

agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are discussed, in

part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to

evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or

listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical

habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this

interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR

part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer

informally with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or

adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is

listed, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that

activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to destroy or

adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a

listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency

must enter into formal consultation with us.

Federal activities that could occur and impact the Alabama sturgeon

include, but are not limited to, the carrying out or the issuance of

permits for reservoir

[[Page 14684]]

construction, stream alterations, discharges, wastewater facility

development, water withdrawal projects, pesticide registration, mining,

and road and bridge construction. It has been our experience that

nearly all section 7 consultations have been resolved so that the

species have been protected and the project objectives have been met.

The Act and its implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set

forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all

endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for

any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take

(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or

collect; or to attempt any of these), import or export, ship in

interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or

offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It

also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship

any wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to

our agents and agents of State conservation agencies.

It is our policy, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994

(59 FR 34272), to identify, to the maximum extent practicable, those

activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9

of the Act if this species is listed. The intent of this policy is to

increase public awareness as to the effects of these proposed listings

on future and ongoing activities within a species' range.

Activities that we believe are unlikely to result in a violation of

section 9 for the Alabama sturgeon are:

(1) Discharges into waters supporting the sturgeon, provided these

activities are carried out in accordance with existing regulations and

permit requirements (e.g., activities subject to section 404 of the

Clean Water Act and discharges regulated under the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)).

(2) Maintenance dredging of unconsolidated sediments undertaken or

approved by the Corps of Engineers.

(3) Development and construction activities designed and

implemented pursuant to State and local water quality regulations and

implemented using approved Best Management Practices.

(4) Lawful commercial and sport fishing.

(5) Actions that may affect the Alabama sturgeon and are

authorized, funded or carried out by a Federal agency when the action

is conducted in accordance with an incidental take statement issued by

the Service pursuant to section 7 of the Act.

Activities that we believe could potentially result in ``take'' of

the Alabama sturgeon, if it becomes listed, include:

(1) Illegal collection of the Alabama sturgeon.

(2) Unlawful destruction or alteration of the Alabama sturgeon's

habitat (e.g., un-permitted instream dredging, channelization,

discharge of fill material).

(3) Violation of any discharge or water withdrawal permit in waters

supporting the Alabama sturgeon.

(4) Illegal discharge or dumping of toxic chemicals or other

pollutants into waters supporting the Alabama sturgeon.

Other activities not identified above will be reviewed on a case-

by-case basis to determine if a violation of section 9 of the Act may

be likely to result from such activity should the sturgeon become

listed. We do not consider these lists to be exhaustive and provide

them as information to the public.

You should direct questions regarding whether specific activities

will constitute a violation of section 9, should the sturgeon be

listed, to the Field Supervisor of our Jackson Field Office (see

ADDRESSES section).

We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities

involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances.

Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23.

Such permits are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the

propagation or survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in

connection with otherwise lawful activities. Send requests for copies

of regulations regarding listed species and inquiries about

prohibitions and permits to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Ecological Services Division, 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, Georgia

30345 (telephone 404/679-7313; facsimile 404/679-7081).

Public Comments Solicited

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will

be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request

comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental

agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested

party concerning this proposed rule. Comments particularly are sought

concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning

any threat (or lack thereof) to this species;

(2) The location of any additional populations of this species and

the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be

critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act;

(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and

population size of this species; and

(4) Current or planned activities in the lower Alabama River and

their possible impacts on this species.

We will take into consideration your comments and any additional

information received on this species when making a final determination

regarding this proposal. We will also submit the available scientific

data and information to appropriate, independent specialists for

review. We will summarize the opinions of these reviewers in the final

decision document. The final determination may differ from this

proposal based upon the information we receive.

You may request a public hearing on this proposal. Your request for

a hearing must be made in writing and filed within 45 days of the date

of publication of this proposal in the Federal Register. Address your

request to the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).

Executive Order 12866

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations

that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make

this rule easier to understand including answers to the following: (1)

Are the requirements of the rule clear? (2) Is the discussion of the

rule in the Supplementary Information section of the preamble helpful

in understanding the rule? (3) What else could we do to make the rule

easier to understand?

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that Environmental Assessments and Environmental

Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection

with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We

published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain any new collections of information other

than those already approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of Management and Budget

clearance number 1018-0094. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a

person is not required to respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a

[[Page 14685]]

currently valid control number. For additional information concerning

permit and associated requirements for endangered species, see 50 CFR

17.22.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited in this document, as well

as others, is available upon request from the Field Supervisor (see

ADDRESSES section).

Author: The primary author of this document is Paul Hartfield (see

ADDRESSES section)(601/965-4900, extension 25).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service proposes to amend part 17, subchapter B of

chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth

below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.

4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend section 17.11(h) by adding the following to the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, in alphabetical order under FISHES:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

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

Species Vertebrate

-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special

Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules

Common name Scientific name threatened

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

* * * * * * *

Fishes

* * * * * * *

Sturgeon, Alabama................ Scaphirhynchus U.S.A.(AL, MS)..... Entire............. E NA NA

suttkusi.

* * * * * * *

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

Dated: March 18, 1999.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 99-7387 Filed 3-23-99; 9:43 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P