[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-21864]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: September 6, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AB94
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Status for the Kootenai River Population of the White
Sturgeon
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines endangered
status pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act), for the Kootenai River population of the white sturgeon
(Acipenser transmontanus). The Kootenai River population of the white
sturgeon is restricted to approximately 270 river kilometers (km) (168
miles (mi)) of the Kootenai River, in Idaho, Montana, and British
Columbia, Canada, primarily upstream from Cora Linn Dam at the outflow
from Kootenay Lake, British Columbia. With the exception of 1974,
sturgeon recruitment has been declining since the mid-1960's, and there
has been an almost complete lack of recruitment of juveniles into the
population since 1974, soon after Libby Dam in Montana began operation.
The population also faces threats from reduced biological productivity,
and possibly poor water quality and the effects of contaminants. This
rule implements the protection and conservation provisions afforded by
the Act for the Kootenai River population of the white sturgeon.
DATES: October 6, 1994.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,
by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Office, 4696 Overland Road,
Room 576, Boise, Idaho 83705.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Charles H. Lobdell, Field
Supervisor, at the above address or telephone (208) 334-1931.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
White sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) are in the Family
Acipenseridae, which consists of 4 genera and 24 species of sturgeon.
Eight species of sturgeon occur in North America, with white sturgeon
one of five species in the genus Acipenser. White sturgeon historically
occurred on the Pacific Coast from the Aleutian Islands to central
California. The species reproduces in at least three large river
systems: the Sacramento-San Joaquin River in California, Columbia River
basin in the Pacific Northwest, and the Fraser River system in British
Columbia, Canada. The closely related green sturgeon (Acipenser
medirostris) also occurs in the Pacific Coast region but is restricted
in distribution to river estuaries.
White sturgeon were first described by Richardson in 1863 from a
single specimen collected in the Columbia River near Fort Vancouver,
Washington (Scott and Crossman 1973). All sturgeon are distinguished
from other fish in that they have a cartilaginous skeleton with a
persistent notochord, and a protractile, tube-like mouth and sensory
barbels ventrally on the snout. The white sturgeon is distinguished
from other Acipenser by the specific arrangement and number of scutes
(bony plates) along its body (Scott and Crossman 1973). The largest
authentic record of a white sturgeon is a 630 kilogram (kg) (1,387
pounds (lbs)) specimen taken from the Fraser River in British Columbia
in 1897 (Scott and Crossman 1973). Individuals in landlocked
populations tend to be smaller. For example, white sturgeon over 90 kg
(200 lbs) have not been reported from the Kootenai River system
(Apperson 1992, Graham 1981, Partridge 1983). White sturgeon are
generally long-lived, with females living from 34 to 70 years (Pacific
States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) 1992). The oldest of 342
sturgeon captured in the Kootenai River during 1977 to 1982 was
estimated to be 44 years old (Partridge 1983).
For white sturgeon in general, the size or age of first maturity in
the wild is quite variable (PSMFC 1992). Females normally require a
longer period to mature than males, with females for most sturgeon
species spawning between 15 to 25 years of age (Doroshov 1993). Only a
portion of adult white sturgeon are reproductive or spawn each year,
with the spawning frequency for females estimated at 2 to 11 years.
Spawning occurs when the physical environment permits vitellogenesis
(egg development) and cues ovulation. White sturgeon are broadcast
spawners, releasing their eggs and sperm in fast water. In the lower
Columbia River below McNary Dam, landlocked populations of white
sturgeon normally spawn during the period of peak flows from April
through July (Parsley et al. 1989). Spawning at peak flows with high
water velocities disperses and prevents clumping of the adhesive eggs.
Following fertilization, eggs adhere to the river substrate and hatch
after a relatively brief incubation period of 8 to 15 days, depending
on water temperature (Brannon et al. 1985). Recently hatched yolk-sac
larvae swim or drift in the current for a period of several hours and
settle into interstitial spaces in the substrate. Larval white sturgeon
require 20 to 30 days to metamorphose into juveniles with a full
complement of fin rays and scutes.
The Kootenai River population of white sturgeon is one of 18
landlocked populations of white sturgeon known to occur in western
North America. The Kootenai River originates in Kootenay National Park
in British Columbia, Canada. The river flows south into Montana, turns
northwest into Idaho, and north through the Kootenai Valley back into
British Columbia, where it flows through Kootenay Lake and eventually
joins the Columbia River at Castlegar, British Columbia.
Historically, little was known regarding the status and life
history of the white sturgeon population in the Kootenai River basin
prior to studies initiated during the late 1970's by the British
Columbia Ministry of Environment and Parks (Andrusak 1980), Idaho
Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) (Partridge 1983), and Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP) (Graham 1981).
The Kootenai River population of white sturgeon is restricted to
approximately 270 river km (168 river mi) in the Kootenai River basin.
This reach extends from Kootenai Falls, Montana, located 50 river km
(31 river mi) below Libby Dam, downstream through Kootenay Lake to Cora
Linn Dam at the outflow from Kootenay Lake, British Columbia, Canada.
Historically, Kootenai Falls represented an impassible natural barrier
to the upstream migration of the white sturgeon. A natural barrier at
Bonnington Falls downstream of Kootenay Lake has isolated the Kootenai
River white sturgeon from other white sturgeon populations in the
Columbia River basin since the last glacial age (approximately 10,000
years) (Apperson and Anders 1991).
Genetic analysis indicates that the Kootenai River sturgeon is a
unique stock and constitutes a distinct interbreeding population
(Setter and Brannon 1990). The average heterozygosity (or measure of
the quantity of genetic variation) determined for the Kootenai River
population at 0.54 compared to an average heterozygosity of 0.74 for
white sturgeon in the Columbia River (Setter and Brannon 1990). Based
on these comparisons, Setter and Brannon (1990) concluded ``* * * we
find adequate evidence to distinguish these fish as a separate
population based on differences in allele frequencies, the genetic
distance calculation and the overall quantity of variation displayed.''
In general, individual white sturgeon in the Kootenai River are
broadly distributed, migrating freely between the Kootenai River and
the deep, oligotrophic Kootenay Lake (Andrusak 1980). However, the
species is not commonly found upstream of Bonners Ferry, Idaho to
Montana (Apperson and Anders 1991). In 1980, Graham (1981) estimated
that only one to five adult white sturgeon resided in Montana, found in
the river reach immediately downstream of Kootenai Falls. Although
white sturgeon use the main channel of the Kootenai River upstream to
Kootenai Falls, few individuals have been reported from tributaries to
the Kootenai River in Idaho and Montana.
Based on tagging studies, Kootenai River white sturgeon are
relatively sedentary during the summer and inhabit the deepest holes of
the Kootenai River and Kootenay Lake (Apperson and Anders 1990).
Kootenai River locations used by white sturgeon were generally sites
over 20 feet (ft) (6 meters (m)) deep with column velocities less than
0.77 ft per second (fps) (less than 0.24 m per second (mps)) and water
temperature of 57 to 68 deg. F (14 to 20 deg. C) (PSMFC 1992), while
depths utilized in Kootenay Lake ranged from 30 to over 300 ft (10 to
100.5 m) (Apperson and Anders 1991). Compared with other waters
containing white sturgeon, the Kootenai River is a relatively cool
river with summer high temperatures of 68 to 72 deg. F (20 to 22 deg.
C).
White sturgeon in the Kootenai River are considered opportunistic
feeders. Partridge (1983) found white sturgeon more than 28 inches (in)
(80 centimeters (cm)) in length feeding on a variety of prey items,
including chironomids, clams, snails, aquatic insects, and fish.
Andrusak (British Columbia Environment, Parks and Lands, pers. comm.,
1993) noted that kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in Kootenay Lake,
prior to a dramatic population crash beginning in the mid 1970's, were
once considered an important prey item for adult white sturgeon.
Historically (pre-Libby Dam construction and operation), habitat
for white sturgeon spawning was considered available in an approximate
96 river km (60 river mi) stretch of the Kootenai River from Shorty's
Island in Idaho (river km 223, river mi 145) upstream to Kootenai Falls
in Montana (river km 327, river mi 203) (Apperson, Idaho Department of
Fish and Game, pers. comm., 1993). Monitoring of mature white sturgeon
tagged with ultrasonic and radio transmitters in 1990 through 1993 has
documented long distance movements upriver during the spring to
suspected staging areas located from Shorty's Island (river km 230,
river mi 143) to Bonners Ferry (river km 245, river mi 153), and the
suspected spawning reach upstream of Bonners Ferry. For example,
Apperson (1992) reported that six reproductively mature white sturgeon
(three males and three females) tagged with ultrasonic transmitters
were located weekly from April through July 1991 to monitor spawning
related movements. By May, all six fish had moved upriver 16 to 114
river km (10 to 71 river mi) between Shorty's Island and immediately
downstream of Bonners Ferry. They remained congregated in this area
through July. These fish exhibited movements similar to other sturgeon
tagged and monitored in 1990. During May through July, white sturgeon
fitted with transmitters occupied locations with water velocities that
ranged from 0.3 to 0.6 mps (1 to 2 fps) in 1990, and 0.4 to 0.8 mps
(1.3 to 2.5 fps) in 1991.
Based on a comparison of population estimates made in 1982 and
1990, Kootenai River white sturgeon declined from an estimated 1,194
fish (range of 907 to 1,503) (Partridge 1983) to approximately 880 fish
(range of 638 to 1,211) (Apperson and Anders 1991). The Bonneville
Power Administration (BPA) (1993), commenting on the proposed rule,
believes that the population has further declined in 1993 to an
estimated 785 individuals (range 569 to 1,080) based on recent
estimates of annual mortality and no natural recruitment since 1990.
The population is reproductively mature, with few of the remaining
white sturgeon younger than 20 years old (Apperson 1992). The Idaho
Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) estimates that 7 percent of the
female, and 30 percent of the male white sturgeon in the Kootenai River
are reproductive each year (Apperson 1992). Based on a 1:1 sex ratio,
this translated into 22 to 42 females and 96 to 182 males available to
spawn in 1990. The actual number of available spawners is dependent
upon size at maturity and spawning frequency. It is not certain at what
age reproductive senescence occurs in white sturgeon, although most
sturgeon species reproduce in the age brackets of 10 to 20 years for
males and 15 to 25 years for females (Doroshov 1993).
There has been an almost complete lack of recruitment of juveniles
into the population since 1974, soon after Libby Dam began operation
(Partridge 1983, Apperson and Anders 1991). The youngest white sturgeon
found in recent studies include a single specimen from the 1977
(Apperson and Anders 1991) year class and three specimens from a year
class between 1976 and 1978 (BPA 1993). Additionally, no white sturgeon
less than 51 cm (20 in) total length were collected in surveys
conducted between 1977 and 1982 on the Kootenai River (PSMFC 1992).
Partridge (1983) noted that white sturgeon recruitment was
intermittent and possibly decreasing from the mid-1960's to 1974. This
is demonstrated by lack of white sturgeon from the 1965 to 1969, 1971
to 1973, and 1975 year-classes. Partridge speculated that the lack of
recruitment was due in part to the elimination of rearing areas for
juveniles through diking of slough and marsh side-channel habitats, and
the increase in chemical pollutants (e.g., copper, zinc) in the river
that may have affected spawning success. Based on the most recent
annual mortality rate estimate of 0.0374 coupled with continuing zero
recruitment in the future, BPA believes the population will further
decline to an estimated 648 individuals by 1998, with only 17 to 33
females available to spawn annually (BPA 1993).
Fish community associates include the burbot (Lota lota) and
several native salmonids: westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus
clarki lewisi), rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri), bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), and mountain
whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni). Both burbot and spawning kokanee
salmon populations have declined dramatically in the Kootenai River
since the 1950's. The decline in burbot is not fully understood, but is
thought partially due to the changing Kootenai River hydrograph.
Several factors are believed to have contributed to the kokanee
collapse, primarily a decline in the overall biological productivity
due to system dam construction and operations and the introduction of
mysid shrimp in Kootenay Lake, an efficient competitor with kokanee for
prey (Ashley and Thompson 1993).
Previous Federal Action
On November 21, 1991, the Service included the Kootenai River
population of white sturgeon as a category 1 candidate species in the
Animal Notice of Review (56 FR 58804), based primarily on the results
of field studies conducted by IDFG. Category 1 candidates are taxa for
which the Service has on file enough substantial information on
biological vulnerability and threats to propose them for endangered or
threatened status. On June 11, 1992, the Service received a petition
from the Idaho Conservation League, Northern Idaho Audubon, and
Boundary Backpackers to list the Kootenai River population of white
sturgeon as threatened or endangered under the Act. The petition cited
the continuing lack of natural flows affecting juvenile recruitment as
the primary threat to the continued existence of the wild sturgeon
population. Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, the Service
published in the Federal Register on April 14, 1993 (58 FR 19401) a
determination that the petition presented substantial information
indicating that listing the sturgeon population as threatened or
endangered may be warranted.
Based upon the petition, status surveys, and other information on
file, the Service proposed the Kootenai River population of white
sturgeon for listing as endangered on July 7, 1993 (58 FR 36379). The
proposed rule included information submitted by various agencies,
including IDFG (Apperson 1992; Apperson and Anders 1990; 1991;
Partridge 1983), MDFWP (Graham 1981; Graham and White 1985), the
Service (Duke et al. 1990; Miller et al. 1991; Parsley et al. 1989) and
the British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Parks, Fish and
Wildlife (Andrusak 1980). The proposal included a public comment period
of 120 days ending November 4, 1993 and gave notice of one public
hearing in Sandpoint, Idaho. To accommodate additional public hearings
in Bonners Ferry, Idaho, and Libby, Montana, the Service published a
notice of public hearing on August 3, 1993 (58 FR 41237). The first
comment period on the proposal, which originally closed on November 4,
1993, was extended to November 19, 1993 (58 FR 54549) to provide the
public with more time in which to submit comments.
The Service now determines the Kootenai River population of white
sturgeon to be an endangered species with publication of this rule.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the July 7, 1993 proposed rule (58 FR 36379), all interested
parties were requested to submit comments or information that might
contribute to the development of a final determination. The Service
also gave notice of a public hearing to be held in Sandpoint, Idaho
during the public comment period ending November 4, 1993. On August 3,
1993, the Service published a Federal Register notice announcing two
additional public hearings to be held prior to the November 4, 1993
close of the comment period (58 FR 41237). Announcements of the
proposed rule and notice of public hearings were sent to at least 156
individuals including Federal, State, County, and City elected
officials; State and Federal agencies; interested private citizens; and
local area newspapers and radio stations. Announcements of the July 7,
1993 proposed rule were also published in six newspapers: the Bonners
Ferry Herald, Bonners Ferry, Idaho; Coeur d'Alene Press, Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho; the Idaho Statesman, Boise, Idaho; The Spokesman Review,
Spokane, Washington; the Tobacco Valley News, Eureka, Montana; and the
Western News, Libby, Montana. To accommodate requests for additional
public hearings in Bonners Ferry, Idaho, and Libby, Montana, the
Service published a notice of public hearings in the Federal Register
on August 3, 1993 (58 FR 41237). Three public hearings were held on the
proposal: from 5 to 8 p.m. on August 24, 1993, in Bonners Ferry, Idaho;
from 5 to 8 p.m. on August 25, 1992, in Libby, Montana; and from 1 to 4
p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on August 26, 1993, in Sandpoint, Idaho. To
provide the public with more time in which to provide comments, the
Service published a third notice, on October 22, 1993, extending the
comment period 15 days to November 19, 1993 (58 FR 54549).
Thirty-four oral and forty written comments were received on the
proposed rule. These included comments from three Federal agencies,
four Montana and Idaho State agencies, four Canadian agencies, the
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Idaho's two U.S. Senators, Montana's U.S.
Representative, Idaho's Governor, fifteen County or City officials, and
thirty-three individuals or groups. The Service considered all
comments, including oral testimony at the three public hearings. A
majority of comments opposed the proposed rule. Opposition was based on
several factors, including the possible economic impacts of listing the
white sturgeon population, and that all causes of decline are not
currently known or fully understood. Seven written comments supported
the proposed rule and five letters requested additional public
hearings. Idaho Senators Larry Craig and Dirk Kempthorne requested that
the Service ``* * * not proceed hastily towards a decision to list the
Kootenai sturgeon * * *'' and suggested that the Service consider ``* *
* the recovery strategy prepared by the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho.'' Many
commenters provided information pertaining to further research needs,
critical habitat, and recovery planning. These comments, in addition to
recovery strategies submitted by the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Idaho
Department of Fish and Game, and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife &
Parks, will be useful in the development of a recovery plan for the
Kootenai River population of white sturgeon. Several commenters
provided new and substantive biological information applicable to the
listing decision. The British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands
and Parks of Canada submitted information on a fertilization program
for Kootenay Lake. The Kootenai Tribe provided additional information
on white sturgeon captured in the Kootenai River in 1993, and the BPA
provided annual reports describing results from a 1993 white sturgeon
monitoring program ongoing in the Kootenai River. Comments of a similar
nature or point of concern are grouped for consideration and response.
A summary of these issues and the Service's response to each, are
discussed below.
Issue 1: Several commenters requested that the Service delay or
preclude listing the Kootenai River white sturgeon because too little
is known regarding all causes of decline. They also believed there were
``obvious uncertainties'' regarding the Kootenai sturgeons' current
status throughout its range. Some commenters questioned whether
population estimates for Kootenai River white sturgeon cited in the
proposed rule are a reliable indicator of its current status since the
fish moves between the river and Kootenay Lake and additional fish may
reside in the lake. Other respondents claim that the Service ignored
all potential causes of decline in the proposed rule. Specifically,
assertions in the proposed rule that ascribe the primary cause of
decline to Kootenai River flow modification such as ``* * * the free-
flowing river habitat has been modified and impacted from development
of the Kootenai River basin * * *''. The Lincoln County Board of
Commissioners (Montana) believe ``* * * other potential causes of
decline must be analyzed before a decision is made on the listing of
the white sturgeon, while another respondent stated that ``* * *
information strongly suggest other mechanisms are limiting sturgeon
recruitment into the population.'' Because it appears that the Kootenai
River white sturgeon population has been declining since the mid-
1960's, prior to the construction and operation of Libby Dam,
additional causes of decline contributing to a lack of recruitment and
survival should be investigated. These respondents also suggested that
the Service initiate a comprehensive research study to develop
additional data on the biological and environmental factors limiting
sturgeon recruitment prior to any listing decision.
Service response: The listing process includes an opportunity for
the public to comment and provide new information that is evaluated and
considered by the Service before making a final decision. Aside from
previously cited studies and reports in the proposed rule (58 FR
36379), the Service has reviewed and considered new information
regarding distribution and general life history for the Kootenai River
population of white sturgeon from BPA (1993), the Kootenai Tribe of
Idaho (1993), and Marcuson (1993); information about Kootenay Lake
fertilization studies (Ashley and Thompson 1993); and information
contained in an independent status review prepared for the Pacific
Northwest Utilities Conference Committee (Giorgi 1993).
New information submitted during the comment period reaffirmed that
the white sturgeon population continues to decline, and is not more
widespread or found in other areas of the Kootenai River basin.
According to BPA (1993) and Giorgi (1993), estimates showing a decline
in the white sturgeon population from an estimated 1,194 fish (range
907 to 1503) in 1982 (Partridge 1983) to 880 (range 638 to 1,211) in
1990 (Apperson and Anders 1991) are not directly comparable because the
1990 survey occurred in a river sampling reach almost 50 river km (31
river mi) longer. However, both BPA and Georgi concur the population is
declining. The Service believes recent population trends and population
estimates accurately reflect the current status of the fish. Trends in
population demographics reveal an aging population with no known
recruitment of age 1 sturgeon since 1978. Additionally, although mark-
recapture studies reveal that white sturgeon move freely between the
Kootenai River and Kootenay Lake, there is no evidence that white
sturgeon reside or spawn in other tributaries entering Kootenay Lake,
British Columbia.
The Service acknowledged in the proposed rule that the white
sturgeon population in the Kootenai River has been declining since the
mid-1960's, with limited intermittent recruitment until 1974; and
indicated that there are causal factors of decline other than ``* * *
significant modifications of the natural hydrograph * * *'' (58 FR
36379). For example, reduced biological productivity, habitat loss due
to diking, poor water quality and contaminants, inadequate regulatory
mechanisms, and possibly disease were all identified in the proposed
rule as contributing to the decline and affecting recruitment of
Kootenai River white sturgeon. Giorgi (1993) also reported that the
relationship between recruitment and ``* * * spring/summer flow volumes
in the Kootenai River is not apparent''. Based on year-class
comparisons between 1974 (the last year of successful reproduction and
measurable recruitment) and recent years with high flow conditions that
resulted in no recruitment, Giorgi concluded that if ``* * * the
linkage between flow levels, spawning, and recruitment were as strong
as some have theorized, recruitment from these years should have
occurred.'' The Service believes these types of comparisons are valid
only if additional flow-related factors considered important in
affecting sturgeon spawning behavior and early age recruitment are
considered--the seasonal timing and duration of peak flows to encourage
spawning behavior and the effects of load-factoring. For example,
recent tracking studies have revealed reproductively mature white
sturgeon equipped with radio and sonic transmitters moving upriver to
the pre-spawning staging areas downstream of Bonners Ferry around mid-
May (Apperson 1992; Marcuson 1993). These fish will commonly stay in
the suspected spawning reach immediately upstream through July
dependent upon flow conditions and whether they have spawned. In 1974
when the last strong year-class of sturgeon occurred, flows were
increasing and remained highest during the May and June period,
providing habitat conditions suitable to spawning and survival of eggs/
larvae to age 1 recruitment.
Peak flows in the Kootenai River have varied seasonally in each
year since 1975 when Libby Dam operations began. Load-factoring has
affected the discharge stability at Libby Dam and sustained flows
through the spawning reach near Bonners Ferry throughout the spring/
summer sturgeon reproduction season. For example, in 1981 flows peaked
at Bonners Ferry near the same volume as in 1974, but not until July,
while higher than normal natural flows (since 1974) peaked around mid-
June in 1990, early May in 1991, and May 15 in 1993. Recent monitoring
efforts documented white sturgeon spawning in 1991 and 1993, and some
level of spawning has likely occurred in several or most years since
1974. The Service believes the combination of diminished mean discharge
since 1974 at Bonners Ferry and the effects of daily and weekly load-
factoring on flow fluctuations have adversely affected sturgeon
spawning behavior and egg/larval survival which has inhibited
recruitment to age 1 since 1974.
In summary, no new significant distributional or demographic
information affecting the status of the white sturgeon were reported by
any respondent. Moreover, monitoring and survey programs conducted from
1990 through 1993 substantiate conclusions in the proposed rule that
the Kootenai River white sturgeon population continues to decline and
recruitment has been virtually non-existent since 1974. There is no
recent evidence of successful spawning and survival past the egg stage.
Existing regulations and experimental flow programs have not been
effective in arresting this decline. The Service maintains that this
final rule is based on the best information available. The Service also
believes that sufficient information is provided on the Kootenai River
population of white sturgeon to warrant making a determination on their
status under the Act.
Issue 2: Many commenters expressed concerns with the potential
economic impacts to hydropower generation, recreation, agriculture and
timber harvesting in the Kootenai River basin from listing the Kootenai
River population of white sturgeon under the Act. For example, British
Columbia (BC) Hydro believes that ``* * * some Canadian citizens and
all B.C. Hydro ratepayers would be adversely affected by the proposed
rule to list the sturgeon * * * as endangered.'' The Kootenai Valley
Reclamation Association was concerned that higher Kootenai River flows
during the sturgeon spawning season would increase pumping costs for
area farmers growing crops behind levies downstream of Libby Dam. Other
respondents requested that the Service consider the potential impacts
to recreational boating and resident fisheries at Lake Koocanusa from
future recovery measures dependent upon storage water regulated at
Libby Dam. They also cited the possible negative consequences of
implementing the interim flow strategy to benefit sturgeon spawning and
recruitment as cited in the proposed rule, including impacts to
reservoir refill and the effects of early summer drawdowns in Lake
Koocanusa.
Service response: Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the listing
process is based solely on the best scientific and commercial
information available and economic considerations are not applicable.
The legislative history of the provisions clearly states the intent of
Congress to ``ensure'' that listing decisions are ``based solely upon
biological criteria and to prevent non-biological considerations from
affecting such decisions.'' (H.R. Rep. No. 97-835, 97th Congress 2nd
Session 19 (1982)). Because of the clear intent of Congress to preclude
the Service from considering economic and other non-biological impacts
in the listing process, the Service has not addressed such impacts in
this final rule. However, economic factors are considered when
designating critical habitat and during the development of a recovery
plan.
Issue 3: Several respondents requested that the Service designate
critical habitat during the final rulemaking process so that the
potential economic impacts could be evaluated. Boundary County of Idaho
officials believed that ``* * * To list the sturgeon without addressing
critical habitat is a serious disservice to the people of Boundary
County and a direct circumvention of the mandates of law * * *''.
Another commenter representing the petitioner Idaho Conservation League
stated that without critical habitat designation ``* * * it seems that
the management plans that you (affected agencies) come up with will be
out of touch with the direct habitat needs that exist on the ground * *
*''.
Service response: Under section 4(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the
Secretary shall designate critical habitat to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable at the time a species is determined to be
threatened or endangered. Critical habitat is not a management plan,
but a legally described list of those areas considered essential for
the conservation of the species and that may require special management
consideration or protection. It should be noted that a designation of
critical habitat does not create a wildlife refuge or wilderness area,
nor does it close the area to human activity. It applies only to
Federal agencies that propose to fund, authorize, or carry out
activities that may affect areas within designated critical habitat.
Although critical habitat may be designated on private or State lands,
activities on these lands are not affected by the designation unless
they involve Federal authorization or funding. Additionally, critical
habitat is not designated within foreign countries or in other areas
outside of United States jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(h)).
At the time of the proposed listing determination, critical habitat
was not determinable because information necessary to perform the
required analysis was not available. Because information sufficient to
complete required analyses for a designation is still lacking, critical
habitat for the Kootenai River population of white sturgeon is not
presently determinable. The Service concludes that the threats to the
Kootenai River white sturgeon population and benefits associated with
listing justify taking action now, rather than waiting until a full
analysis of critical habitat can be completed. See the ``Critical
Habitat'' section below for a complete discussion on the issue of
critical habitat designation relative to the listing of the Kootenai
River population of white sturgeon. Furthermore, economic analyses
conducted on determinations of critical habitat examine the costs
attributed to critical habitat over and above costs associated with
listing. Consequently, designating critical habitat would not result in
an analysis of the costs of listing the sturgeon.
Issue 4: Several commenters maintain that habitat problems should
be addressed through existing regulatory processes and not through the
Federal listing process. For example, Direct Services Industries, Inc.
stated that the ``* * * USFWS has incorrectly determined that existing
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to assure conservation and
recovery of the sturgeon and promote recovery of its purportedly
declining population.'' They and other respondents also believe that
operations at Libby Dam have not been modified to date because the
biological needs and requirements of white sturgeon are not currently
known. The IDFG also believes that recovery of the sturgeon population
is still achievable without listing under the Act if the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) would modify Kootenai River flow management
to benefit sturgeon recruitment and survival.
Service response: The Service believes that, although the lack of
reproduction and successful recruitment is the most immediate threat to
the sturgeon population, other factors are also contributing to their
decline. In recent years, efforts by various State agencies and the
Kootenai Tribe, authorized by the Northwest Power Planning Council
(NWPPC) (1987) and funded by BPA, have been undertaken to identify all
environmental factors limiting the white sturgeon population in the
Kootenai River. Additionally, the Corps and BPA have committed to
providing experimental flows releases from Libby Dam for sturgeon. For
example, 400,000 acre-feet of water was released from Libby Dam during
May and June 1993 as a test to stimulate sturgeon spawning. However,
the experiment was intended only to evaluate possible spawning flow
thresholds, not to provide flow or habitat conditions necessary for
survival beyond the egg stage throughout the spawning season.
The Corps and BPA, in conjunction with the Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation), have also developed a flow proposal starting in 1994
based on results of the 1993 experimental flow and water availability
in an effort to provide for spawning and recruitment of Kootenai River
white sturgeon. The flow proposal includes provisions to ``shape''
flows from Libby Dam to achieve the ``desired'' sturgeon flows in 3 out
of every 10 years, dependent upon flow forecasts (water availability),
and only to the extent that flows will not reduce refill or violate
flood control requirements (Corps 1993).
Despite this flow proposal and cooperative monitoring efforts to
better comprehend the factors affecting the Kootenai River white
sturgeon, there is no long-term commitment to modify dam operations and
manage stored water at other times of the year to ensure that sturgeon
flows are provided starting in 1994 or other early years of the 10 year
cycle. The Corps and BPA continue to prioritize Libby Dam operations to
meet other demands, primarily hydropower and recreation, and not for
the benefit of Kootenai River white sturgeon or other resident fishes.
In summary, long-term provisions to govern future Libby Dam water
management that fully consider the habitat needs of white sturgeon
reproduction in the Kootenai River are still required and have not been
implemented to date. See Factor D in ``Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species'' for a complete discussion on the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms for the Kootenai River population of white
sturgeon.
Issue 5: Several respondents expressed support for the Kootenai
River white sturgeon recovery strategy prepared by the Kootenai Tribe
of Idaho. The Kootenai Tribal Plan (Plan), submitted during the public
comment period, describes a detailed conservation program based on
three recovery strategies: (1) the re-establishment of natural
spawning, (2) a supplementation program, and (3) additional research.
The Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee; Direct Services
Industries, Inc.; City of Bonners Ferry, Idaho; Boundary County Board
of Commissioners, Idaho; and Idaho's U.S. Senators Larry Craig and Dirk
Kempthorne, among others, endorsed the Plan and requested that the
Service implement the Plan in lieu of federally listing the sturgeon.
Additionally, the IDFG and MDFWP each submitted recovery strategies
that describe their respective recommendations for recovery of the
Kootenai River white sturgeon. Both IDFG and MDFWP's recovery
strategies are similar in that each relies on re-establishment of
natural spawning in years when precipitation provides average or above
average water availability, and population augmentation and/or
supplementation in below average or drought water years.
Service response: According to section 2(b) of the Act, one of the
``purposes of this Act [is] to provide a means whereby the ecosystems
upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be
conserved.'' Once a species becomes listed as threatened or endangered,
section 4(f) of the Act directs the Service to develop and implement
recovery plans for that species. Recovery means improvement in the
status of a listed species to the point at which listing is no longer
appropriate under the criteria provided in section 4 of the Act (50 CFR
402.02). Two goals of the recovery process are: (1) the maintenance of
secure, self-sustaining wild populations of the species; and (2)
restoration of the species to a point where it is a viable, self-
sustaining component of its ecosystem.
Recovery programs submitted by the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, IDFG,
and MDFWP are basically similar in that their overall goal is to
achieve a naturally reproducing, self-sustaining population of Kootenai
River white sturgeon. However, each of the three programs differs in
its reliance on supplementation as an interim augmentation measure, and
for meeting long-term recovery goals. While the Service recognizes that
captive propagation and supplementation can be valid conservation tools
and assist in recovery efforts, they, by themselves, do not contribute
to the maintenance of a secure, self-sustaining Kootenai River white
sturgeon population in the wild. For example, if the Service were to
implement provisions of any or each of the three agency recovery
strategies in lieu of listing, such implementation would not be binding
on the Corps or BPA to modify the current Libby Dam operations or flow
regime in the Kootenai River for the long-term benefit of white
sturgeon recruitment and survival in the wild. See Factor D in
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' for a complete discussion
on the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms for the Kootenai
River population of white sturgeon.
In summary, the Service believes that information contained in each
of the three agency recovery strategies will be useful in future
recovery planning efforts and the development of a recovery plan. Such
a recovery plan would include measures to address all threats to the
sturgeon and incorporate provisions that implement realistic, natural
flow based solutions within water management constraints for successful
white sturgeon recruitment in the Kootenai River.
Issue 6: Several comments were received from Canadian agencies and
individuals requesting that the Service consider the international
implications of any final listing decision. For example, the Canadian
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, while concurring that action must
be taken to protect the sturgeon, was concerned that ``* * * in
protecting the white sturgeon, measures could be implemented which have
the potential to impact other non-targeted stocks of Canadian fish.''
British Columbia Environment also expressed similar concerns regarding
impacts to fish resources and recreational angling in area reservoirs
and rivers ``* * * given the integrated nature of the power grid in
B.C., Washington, Idaho and Montana.'' B.C. Hydro believes listing the
sturgeon population will impose adverse environmental, social
(recreational), and energy costs on many citizens in Canada.
Service response: As stated previously (Issue #2), listing
decisions are to be based solely on the best scientific and commercial
information available, and socioeconomic considerations and non-
biological impacts may not be considered in listing decisions. The
Service shares Canada's concerns regarding possible environmental and
economic impacts from any listing decision. The Service will work with
Canadian government agencies to promote international cooperation for
recovery of the Kootenai River white sturgeon and address potential
environmental impacts to other aquatic resources in Canada and the
United States.
Issue 7: Many comments were received expressing concerns that any
recovery measures implemented for white sturgeon would adversely affect
other species in the Kootenai River basin. These resident species
include the Idaho State sensitive burbot or ling, westslope cutthroat
trout, and the bull trout. For example, concerns were expressed that
future changes in Libby Dam operations to benefit white sturgeon could
reduce bull trout access to spawning streams and impact reservoir
productivity affecting reservoir bull trout populations. Some
respondents believe that future Kootenai River flow management schemes,
developed for the benefit of Kootenai River white sturgeon spawning and
recruitment, could also reduce the hydroelectric systems flexibility to
provide ``federally-mandated flows'' for listed salmon stocks
downstream in the mid-Columbia River, and cause direct and indirect
impacts to resident fish species in Lake Koocanusa behind Libby Dam.
Service response: The Service agrees that these are valid concerns.
Concerns regarding the possible adverse environmental and non-
biological effects from implementing future recovery measures cannot be
considered in a decision to list a species. However, these concerns are
important in developing recovery measures that take into account
environmental effects to other species. The Service will fully consider
the environmental effects and consequences of implementing future
recovery measures for Kootenai River white sturgeon.
Issue 8: Several commenters requested that the Service prepare an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the proposed listing
action. For example, Scott Orr of the Montana House of Representatives
believes that NEPA is required for the Service to ``* * * fully
disclose its understanding of what the status of the white sturgeon
really is. It would provide the public with the same information the
Service has and it would allow the public to completely understand the
reasoning behind any decision the Service may make.'' Additionally,
Direct Services Industries, Inc., also maintains that the interim flow
strategy developed for white sturgeon spawning and recruitment as
described in the proposed rule ``* * * would constitute a major federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the environment, which
would necessitate preparation of an EIS under NEPA.''
Service response: As discussed in the NEPA section of this rule, it
has been determined that such analyses are not required in connection
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice outlining the Service's
reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). The Service will consider economic and
other environmental factors during the analysis of critical habitat
designation and in development of a recovery plan. Federal actions to
implement a recovery plan would be subject to NEPA analysis at the time
they are proposed.
Issue 9: Two respondents believe that if the Kootenai River
population of white sturgeon is provided protection under the Act, it
should be listed as threatened instead of endangered. Specifically,
without defined threshold criteria to distinguish between a threatened
or endangered status, ``* * * it will be difficult to develop delisting
criteria to rebuild the Kootenai River white sturgeon population.''
Service response: The proposal to list the Kootenai River
population of white sturgeon as endangered was based on an assessment
of the best scientific and commercial information available at the
time. In making this final listing determination, the Service has
considered the current status of the fish, including population
demographics, and continued lack of successful reproduction and
recruitment since the mid-1970's. The population had declined to an
estimated 880 individuals in 1990, and possibly declined to around 785
individuals in 1993 based upon BPA's (1993) recent estimates. The
population may be reaching the age of reproductive senescence, since
for most sturgeon species females reproduce between the ages of 15 to
25 years (Doroshov 1993). Although the continuing lack of natural flows
affecting sturgeon juvenile recruitment is considered the primary
threat to its continued existence, other factors are also contributing
to the wild populations' decline. See the ``Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species'' section for a more complete discussion on the
factors affecting the white sturgeon's decline. Consequently, the
Service has determined that this distinct population of white sturgeon
is in danger of extinction throughout its range and therefore fits the
Act's definition of an endangered species.
Issue 10: In comments on the proposed rule, BPA stated that two
Libby Dam operational decisions cited as examples of other uses taking
priority over the needs of Kootenai River white sturgeon need further
clarification. Additionally, BPA believes the proposed rule also
misinterpreted the level of cooperation between the Service and other
State, Federal, Canadian agencies and the Kootenai Indian Tribe in
forming the White Sturgeon Technical Committee in June 1992 to address
Kootenai River white sturgeon issues. Specifically, the statement that
``* * * Based on discussions and recommendations by the Kootenai River
Sturgeon Technical Committee, the Service adopted an interim flow
proposal as the basis of any prelisting Conservation Agreement * * *''.
Service response: The two operational decisions in question were
described in Factor D of the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species'' section of the proposed rule. The first example occurred
during early June 1992. BPA required that water be stored behind Libby
Dam for recreational purposes (not as part of an energy exchange as
stated in the proposed rule) at the request of B.C. Hydro. As a result,
flows dropped from nearly 20,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 4,000
cfs (566 cubic meters per second (cms) to 113 cms) in the Kootenai
River during the critical spawning period. At that time, three mature
female sturgeon tagged with ultrasonic transmitters were staging in the
suspected spawning reach near Bonners Ferry when suitable temperature
and possibly adequate flow conditions were present. Subsequent to the
flow reduction no eggs or larvae or other evidence of spawning were
reported for the 1992 sturgeon spawning season.
In the second example, BPA in mid-February 1993 started drafting
the nearly 1 million acre-feet stored behind Libby Dam to meet firm
power needs. The Service had been working with the Corps to develop an
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that included a flow regime for 1993
using all or part of this stored water for white sturgeon reproduction.
Approximately 400,000 acre-feet of this water ended up being released
as the 1993 experimental flow test. As previously described, BPA
acknowledged that this experimental test flow was probably insufficient
to maximize sturgeon spawning opportunity and ensure egg/larvae
survival in 1993, likely contributing to another year-class failure.
The BPA also noted that the early drafting ``* * * was done consistent
with the Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement * * *'' Regardless of
the causes, these actions demonstrate the continued reluctance to
manage Kootenai River water for most non-hydropower purposes.
Regarding the Sturgeon Technical Committee, the Service agrees that
committee members were not authorized to approve future management
actions, or did not necessarily support the interim flow proposal. As
stated in the proposed rule, the Service adopted the interim flow
proposal based upon the best empirical data and only as a minimum first
step to address flow related problems affecting white sturgeon
reproduction in the Kootenai River.
In summary, no substantive comments were received indicating that
the Kootenai River white sturgeon is more abundant, widespread or less
endangered than described in the proposed rule. Opposing comments were
based primarily upon concerns that listing of the Kootenai River white
sturgeon would affect water management at Libby Dam (and Koocanusa
Reservoir) or impact the economy of the Kootenai River basin, rather
than information concerning the species status. Because many of these
comments focused on recovery concerns, they will be useful in
developing recovery options for the Kootenai River population of white
sturgeon. Some opposing comments questioned the adequacy of the
Service's data, specifically concerning the current status of the
population and whether all of the causes of decline have been
considered. The Service has continued to gather information regarding
the status of the Kootenai River white sturgeon since publication of
the proposed rule in July 1993 and believes that this final rule is
based on the best scientific and commercial information available. As
discussed in detail in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species''
section, the Service concludes that the Kootenai River population of
white sturgeon continues to decline from the combined effects of lack
of recruitment and natural mortality and is in danger of extinction.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and
regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated to implement the listing
provisions of the Act set forth the procedures for adding species to
the Federal Lists. 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 applicability to the Kootenai
River population of white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) are as
follows:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of its Habitat or Range
The significant modifications to the natural hydrograph in the
Kootenai River caused by flow regulation at Libby Dam is considered the
primary reason for the Kootenai River white sturgeon's continuing lack
of recruitment and declining numbers (Apperson and Anders 1991). Since
1972 when Libby Dam began regulating flows (though not fully
operational until 1975), spring flows in the Kootenai River have been
reduced an average 50 percent, and winter flows have increased by 300
percent over normal. As a consequence, natural high spring flows
required by white sturgeon for reproduction rarely occur during the May
to July spawning season when suitable temperature, water velocity, and
photoperiod conditions exist. Spring flows in the Kootenai River below
Libby Dam are also normally far below the flows observed in 1974, the
last year with appreciable white sturgeon production (Apperson 1992).
Flows in 1974 exceeded 35,000 cfs (1,000 cms) during most of the
spawning season. The current operation of Libby Dam drastically alters
seasonal downstream discharge by storing the natural spring runoff,
providing more predictable flows throughout the year, and allowing late
summer load factoring (power peaking) flows (Apperson 1992).
Evidence of spawning by Kootenai River white sturgeon has been
documented only in 1991 and 1993. In 1990 and 1991, river discharge
during the suspected spawning period was atypical for the post-Libby
Dam period. Instead of discharge declining through late spring as
occurred during 1989 and most prior years following Libby Dam
operation, increasing and higher than ``normal'' flows coincided with
increasing water temperatures through June in 1990 and 1991. In both
years, mature female sturgeon tagged with ultrasonic transmitters moved
from 15 to 110 river km (10 to 68 river mi) upriver and congregated in
the 16 river km (10 river mi) reach near Bonners Ferry (Apperson 1992).
These migrations coincided with an increase in flows near Bonners Ferry
from approximately 24,700 cfs to nearly 42,400 cfs (700 to 1,200 cms)
and an increase in water temperature from 8 to 14 deg.C (46 to 57
deg.F).
Although no sturgeon eggs were recovered in 1990, 13 eggs were
collected in early July 1991 from an artificial substrate placed in the
suspected spawning area near river km 243 (river mi 155) at Bonners
Ferry, within 0.06 mi (100 m) downriver from the railroad bridge
(Apperson 1992). The eggs, estimated to be approximately 3 days of age,
were spawned when water temperatures were 14 deg.C (57 deg.F) and
discharge between June 29 and July 2 ranged from 14,125 to 19,400 cfs
(400 to 500 cms). Water velocities where sturgeon eggs were collected
were estimated at 2.4 to 3.1 fps (0.8 to 1.0 mps); these velocities
were at the lower end of velocity ranges measured in white sturgeon
spawning areas during egg collection in the lower Columbia River (1.6
to 9.1 fps or 0.5 to 2.8 mps) (Miller et al. 1991). Although pre-
spawning migratory behavior was observed in both 1990 and 1991, the
higher than normal Kootenai River flows through the suspected spawning
area occurred only for a brief period, with a few viable eggs collected
in 1991. Evidence that more than one female spawned successfully, or
whether the eggs spawned in 1991 survived past the larval stage, is
lacking.
Spawning was also documented during the 1993 experimental test flow
(see Factor D below for a more complete discussion of this test flow).
Two eggs spawned from two separate females were collected during the
test flow period on artificial substrate mats in the same general
location where eggs were found in 1991. The first egg was collected on
June 10, with an estimated spawning date of June 7. The second egg
collected on June 15 was not fertilized. Flows at Bonners Ferry during
this period averaged 20,000 cfs (566 cms) with no load-following and
water temperatures ranged from 12 to 14 deg.C (54 to 57 deg.F). A
third egg was collected on July 10 in a D-ring net. However, the egg
was dead and the back-calculated time of spawning was not determinable.
Although 1993 spawning monitoring efforts were intense, larval sturgeon
are normally difficult to collect. Similar to 1991 results, there is
currently no evidence that eggs spawned in 1993 survived past the
larval stage.
Additional adverse impacts to sturgeon because of reduced spring
flow conditions may result from load-factoring or load-following at
Libby Dam. Load-factoring, the deliberate practice of artificially
raising and lowering river levels over a daily or weekly pattern for
peak power generation or recreation, can create rapid changes in
tailwater flows and affect depth, temperature, dissolved gases, and
other physical-chemical conditions in the tailwater. Load-factoring at
Libby Dam is a frequent and sporadic operating practice contributing to
routine fluctuations in river elevations of 1 to 3 ft (0.3 to 0.9 m)
per day (Kim Apperson, IDFG, pers. comm., 1993). These fluctuations may
adversely affect sturgeon spawning behavior and reduce any egg/larvae
survival by dewatering early rearing habitats. Because sturgeon
spawning coincides with peak flows during spring and early summer,
flows within natural fluctuations are considered important in
maintaining consistent sturgeon spawning behavior during the spawning
period (Lance Beckman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm.,
1993).
Kootenai River white sturgeon eggs and larvae are subject to
downstream drift and are vulnerable to dewatering from flow
fluctuations for 4 to 6 weeks post-spawning. This is especially
critical for eggs and larvae deposited in shallow, littoral areas
within the 16 river km (10 river mi) stretch downstream of Bonners
Ferry. For example, initial study results from Instream Flow
Incremental Methodology (IFIM) monitoring in the Kootenai River near
Bonners Ferry indicate that potential egg and larval habitats may be
exposed or dewatered when flows drop below 11,000 cfs (BPA 1993). Load-
factoring also affects and modifies the primary and secondary
productivity in lotic ecosystems (Ward and Stanford 1979). White
sturgeon normally begin exogenous feeding within 2 weeks following
hatching. Therefore, the availability of native benthos, periphyton,
and zooplankton suitable as prey organisms is critical to their early
survival.
The Service believes that some sturgeon spawning may occur on a
periodic, and possibly annual basis in the Kootenai River. However,
survival past the age/larval stage is suspect since recruitment (above
age 1) was virtually non-existent from 1974 to 1978, and unknown after
1978. For example, three adult white sturgeon were captured in 1993
near Shorty's Island (river mi 141, river km 227) while fishing for
broodstock sturgeon (BPA 1993). One fish was estimated at 14 years old,
likely spawned during 1978. A second fish was estimated to be 14 to 17
years of age, suggesting it came from the 1975 to 1978 year class(es)
while the third fish was not aged because both aging structures
(pectoral fin rays) were deformed.
Another contributing factor to the white sturgeon decline is the
elimination of side channel slough habitat in the Kootenai River
floodplain due to diking and bank stabilization to protect agricultural
lands from flooding. Much of the Kootenai River has been channelized
and stabilized from Bonners Ferry downstream to Kootenay Lake,
resulting in reduced aquatic habitat diversity, altering flow
conditions at potential remaining spawning and nursery areas, and
altering remaining substrates and conditions necessary for survival.
The former slough and side channel areas were considered important
rearing and foraging habitat for early age sturgeon and their prey
(Partridge 1983).
In summary, these extensive aquatic habitat and flow modifications
in the Kootenai River basin are believed to have caused adverse effects
on white sturgeon reproduction, recruitment, and survival, and threaten
the continued existence of the population.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
All legal commercial and sport harvest for Kootenai River white
sturgeon has been eliminated in Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia.
However, it is not known what impact, if any, to Kootenai River
sturgeon may still be occurring from the illegal harvest.
While no historic evidence of white sturgeon exploitation in the
Kootenai River basin during the 1800's exists (PSMFC 1992), sturgeon
were utilized by the Kootenai Indians ``* * * at least several hundred
years ago'' (Graham and White 1985). In Idaho, the harvest of white
sturgeon in the Kootenai River was first regulated in 1944 when
commercial fishing was prohibited and sport fishing restrictions were
imposed (Apperson 1992). With increasingly restrictive harvest and
length restrictions, an estimated 10 to 20 white sturgeon were
harvested per year from 1944 through the mid-1970's. Partridge (1983)
reported that although the legal harvest had reached a relatively
constant 51 to 52 fish per year over the 1979 through 1981 period, the
total number of sturgeon caught was decreasing with fewer fish being
released. Partridge also found that only 13 percent (n = 50) of the 342
sturgeon sampled were younger than age 15 and smaller than the legal
size of 32 in (92 cm) total length. He concluded that lack of
recruitment was limiting the population and fishery. Following this
investigation and citing concerns about the status of the population,
Idaho terminated the legal sport harvest in 1984, limiting the sturgeon
fishery to catch and release only.
In Montana, the harvest of white sturgeon was not restricted prior
to 1972 (Apperson 1992). Graham and White (1985) reported that burbot
(ling) anglers and fishermen using set-lines harvested sturgeon in the
Kootenai River downstream of Kootenai Falls during the 1940's and
1950's. Beginning in 1972, harvest was restricted to two sturgeon per
year with a slot (size) limit of between 36 and 54 in (102 to 183 cm).
Over a 6-year period, 5 to 18 sturgeon were harvested annually. Fishing
for sturgeon in Montana has been prohibited since 1979, and the species
is now classified as a ``Species of Special Concern'' (MTNHP 1993).
In British Columbia, the white sturgeon harvest was first regulated
in 1952 (Apperson 1992). During the 1974 through 1989 period, anglers
were required to secure a permit to fish for white sturgeon and allowed
to harvest one white sturgeon per year over 1 m total length. An
average of 55 permits were issued annually from 1973 to 1980 with an
estimated annual legal and illegal harvest of 10 to 20 fish (Graham
1981). Most sturgeon angling occurred on or near the Kootenai River
delta or in the river. Setlining for white sturgeon in British Columbia
was prohibited in 1989, and a total ban on the sport harvest was
imposed in 1990. Current regulations allow catch and release only for
white sturgeon in Kootenay Lake.
A few adult white sturgeon are collected each year for experimental
culture purposes. The Kootenai Tribal Experimental Hatchery in Bonners
Ferry, Idaho, is currently evaluating factors limiting recruitment,
including the relationship between water quality and gamete viability,
as well as habitat use and survival of juvenile white sturgeon released
into the Kootenai River. Collection for experimental culture purposes
does not appear to be a threat at this time. The BPA recently completed
an evaluation of a captive broodstock program to determine the
environmental impacts and genetic risk of supplementation on the
remaining wild white sturgeon population in the Kootenai River (Kincaid
1993).
C. Disease or Predation
Not known to be applicable. However, the potential exists for
disease to enter the wild Kootenai River white sturgeon population
through the release of hatchery raised sturgeon, such as those from the
Kootenai Tribe's experimental hatchery. Diseases known to occur in
white sturgeon hatcheries include bacterial diseases, protozoans,
fungi, adenovirus, and the white sturgeon iridovirus (WSIV) (PSMFC
1992). Many of these causative diseases are commonly found in natural
water systems, while the WSIV pathogen is thought to reside naturally
in several wild populations of white sturgeon. During late November
1992, an outbreak of the WSIV killed most of the nearly 23,000
fingerling Kootenai River white sturgeon being raised at the Kootenai
Tribe hatchery, and the IDFG hatchery at Sandpoint, Idaho. High fish
densities and low dissolved oxygen conditions at the hatchery at the
time of the WSIV outbreak were considered contributing factors.
According to BPA (1993), WSIV problems at the experimental hatchery
have been alleviated by installing additional tanks and supplying
additional water. Although it appears that white sturgeon fingerlings
are most susceptible to WSIV when confined under hatchery rearing
conditions, the Service is concerned that WSIV and other diseases in
wild white sturgeon reared in hatcheries may also be transmitted to the
remaining wild population when released.
Fish predation may be a contributing source of mortality for
Kootenai River white sturgeon eggs and larvae, although no data to
support this suggestion exists specific to the Kootenai River. In the
Columbia River downstream of McNary Dam, common carp (Cyprinus carpio),
largescale suckers (Catostomus macrocheilus), and northern squawfish
(Ptychocheilus oregonensis) have been collected with white sturgeon
eggs in their stomachs (Duke et al. 1990).
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The IDFG currently classifies the Kootenai River population of
white sturgeon as endangered, which it defines as ``any species in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
Idaho range'' (IDFG 1992). While such designation regulates the take or
possession of those species classified as threatened or endangered, the
State lacks authority to impose or implement additional conservation
measures to ensure survival or recovery of the Kootenai River
population of white sturgeon.
In Montana, the Kootenai River white sturgeon is classified as a
``Species of Special Concern'' (MTNHP 1993). The fish is currently
managed under restricted harvest regulation, with catch and release
only and possession prohibited. Similar to Idaho, Montana also lacks
authority to impose additional conservation measures on flow management
at Libby Dam to benefit white sturgeon.
The Corps regulates the management of water at Libby Dam. The Libby
Dam project was authorized by Title II of Public Law 81-516, the Flood
Control Act of 1950, primarily for flood control, hydropower
generation, and recreation purposes (Corps 1984). Present Corps policy
states that equal consideration should be given to environmental
concerns in accordance with project objectives. However, other than
providing minimum flow releases of 4,000 cfs (113 cms) from Libby Dam
to maintain rainbow trout habitat downstream, permanent operational
flow alternatives for Libby Dam to benefit white sturgeon recruitment
have not been implemented.
Because operation of Libby Dam is considered part of the
Coordinated Columbia River System, BPA is also involved in the
management of Kootenai River operations. The Coordinated Columbia River
System refers to all projects operated under at least three
authorities: The Columbia River Treaty, the Pacific Northwest
Coordination Agreement, and Federal flood control statutes. The
Columbia River Treaty of 1961 between Canada and the United States
provided for the building of four storage reservoirs including Libby
Dam, in the upper Columbia River drainage, primarily for flood control
and power production. The Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement, an
intricate contract between the Corps, BPA, and Reclamation, calls for
the planned operation to accommodate all of the authorized purposes of
the Columbia River hydropower system. These authorized purposes include
flood control, navigation, irrigation, and power production (System
Operation Review Interagency Team 1991).
The aforementioned treaty and contract, and various Federal flood
control statutes, have established stringent planning and operation
criteria for the Columbia River system. In addition, alternative
operational scenarios for the 14 Federal hydro projects of the
Coordinated Columbia River system are being developed and analyzed by
the Systems Operations Review (SOR) program. The Resident Fish
Technical Work Group of SOR is evaluating alternative operations at
each of the Federal projects that address the needs of Kootenai River
white sturgeon, and other resident fishes. At the time of this rule,
the SOR is still undergoing NEPA review and analysis. Therefore,
operational changes at Libby Dam to benefit white sturgeon and other
resident fish in the Kootenai River basin resulting from the SOR
process are not likely to be implemented any time soon.
The Service joined efforts in June 1992 with IDFG, MDFWP, the
Corps, the Kootenai Tribe, and other U.S. and Canadian regional
agencies to form a Kootenai River White Sturgeon Technical Committee
(Committee). The goal of the Committee was to identify factors
affecting Kootenai River white sturgeon and develop a regional,
prelisting recovery strategy that would form the basis of a
Conservation Agreement (CA) or Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
the Service and the various agencies. The Service noted the MOA would
need to include measures to remove threats to the sturgeon and include
long-term provisions to modify flows in the Kootenai River below Libby
Dam that would result in successful spawning and recruitment.
Based on discussions and recommendations by some members of the
Committee, the Service adopted an interim flow proposal as the basis of
any prelisting CA or MOA. This alternative attempted to match flows of
1974, the last year of successful reproduction and measurable
recruitment to the population, but reduced peak flows to 35,000 cfs
(1,000 cms) to minimize flooding impacts and dike damage at Bonners
Ferry and reduce nitrogen supersaturation effects below Libby Dam. The
interim flow strategy specified that discharge from Libby Dam be
regulated so that river flows through the suspected spawning reach near
Bonners Ferry stay at the 35,000 cfs (1,000 cms) discharge throughout
the white sturgeon spawning, egg incubation, and early rearing period.
The flow strategy also contained provisions to eliminate peak-loading
during the enhanced flow period. Prior to publication of the proposed
rule (58 FR 36379), the Service was unable to successfully negotiate a
CA to implement the interim flow proposal developed by the Committee.
Partially as an outcome of the Committee discussions, the Corps and
BPA provided 400,000 acre-feet of water from Lake Koocanusa as a test
flow to stimulate white sturgeon spawning in 1993. The water was
initially stored to provide flows for federally listed salmon in the
lower Columbia River. However, the water was shaped and released in a
manner to provide a test for white sturgeon. This water was released
from Libby Dam between May 28 and June 16 to elevate Kootenai River
flows at Bonners Ferry to approximately 20,000 cfs (566 cms), to
provide information about sturgeon spawning activity at that flow (BPA
1993). BPA acknowledges that the duration of the 1993 test flow ``* * *
was probably not sufficient to allow all white sturgeon an opportunity
to spawn.'' Intensive egg sampling and monitoring by the IDFG and
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho during and following the test flow period
collected three sturgeon eggs, presumably spawned by at least two
female sturgeon. Based on monitoring results from the 1991 and 1993
spawning test flow, the Corps and BPA have suggested that white
sturgeon will successfully spawn at flow levels lower than the `shaped'
35,000 cfs peak flows some members of the Committee, including the
Service, believe are needed to maximize sturgeon reproduction
opportunities (BPA 1993; Corps 1993). Subsequently, these agencies have
proposed an alternate flow strategy to provide for ``* * * maximum
spawning opportunity'' in 3 out of 10 years starting in 1994 based on
research to date and dependent upon flow forecasts and water
availability. General provisions are as follows:
In May, release flows to maintain 15,000 cubic feet per second
at Bonners Ferry, Idaho, as local inflow subsides. Increase flows to
20,000 cubic feet per second at Bonners Ferry beginning at the time
when water temperatures there have reached 12-13 deg. C, and
maintain for 25 days for sturgeon spawning. Commencement of 20,000
cubic feet per second flows would generally occur in early June.
Flows would be reduced over 3 days to 11,000 cubic feet per second
at Bonners Ferry and maintained for 28 days. Load following would be
eliminated during May through July in years that proposed sturgeon
flows are attempted.
The Service considers the proposal an acknowledgement by the water
management agencies that flows are indeed an important component
affecting sturgeon recruitment and is encouraged that the effects of
flow stability, i.e., duration of and load-factoring, on sturgeon
reproductive success are addressed in the flow proposal.
However, the Service believes the proposed action is deficient in
at least four areas: (1) The flow proposal is not based on empirical
evidence or data to support the conclusion that sturgeon spawning
opportunity will be maximized throughout the potential reproductive
season; (2) there is no agency commitment to initiate proposed sturgeon
flows early in the 10 year cycle. For example, the flow proposal as
currently worded would allow enhanced flows to start in year 7 or 8;
(3) providing sturgeon flows each year is solely dependent upon ``above
average'' water availability and will not reduce refill in Lake
Koocanusa; and (4) there are no provisions to adjust flows or modify
operations in future years if monitoring demonstrates a need for
additional flows for white sturgeon recruitment. Additionally, the
question whether successful natural recruitment 3 out of 10 years is
sufficient to maintain this population still needs to be addressed.
In summary, the BPA and the Corps have committed to only providing
experimental flows for white sturgeon in some years with several
qualifying conditions. They have not yet committed to implement long-
term conservation measures on Libby Dam operations for non-hydropower
purposes, specifically to protect and enhance recruitment opportunities
for white sturgeon in the Kootenai River basin. Additionally, BPA has
previously stated that additional conservation measures to benefit
sturgeon would be available if the species were listed.
The Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act
of 1980 (Power Planning Act) was a recent attempt by the U.S. Congress
to address the hydropower impacts on fish and wildlife in the Columbia
River system. The Power Planning Act directed the NWPPC to ``* * *
promptly develop and adopt * * * a program to protect, mitigate, and
enhance fish and wildlife, including related spawning grounds and
habitat, on the Columbia River and its tributaries'' (16 U.S.C.
839b(h)(1)(A)). BPA has been charged with funding all efforts and
projects to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife consistent
with the NWPPC's Program. Ongoing efforts by various State agencies and
the Kootenai Tribe, authorized by the NWPPC (1987) and funded by BPA,
have been undertaken to identify environmental factors limiting the
white sturgeon population in the Kootenai River, and develop and
maintain an experimental white sturgeon culture facility on the
Kootenai River. Despite these efforts to better comprehend the factors
affecting the Kootenai River white sturgeon, a change in the flow
regime associated with dam operation on the Kootenai River is still
needed to enable this population to successfully reproduce and increase
in size.
In summary, the Corps and BPA have committed to experimental flow
releases from Libby Dam for Kootenai River white sturgeon in possibly 3
out of the next 10 years. However, providing these flows is contingent
upon meeting other project priority uses. The proposed action increases
discharge and sustains flows in the Kootenai River at only 57 percent
of the discharge the Service believes is necessary to maximize sturgeon
spawning and maintain suitable larval rearing habitats. Existing
regulatory mechanisms are not sufficient to ensure the survival and
recovery of this species.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Although not fully understood, there is evidence that the overall
biological productivity of the Kootenai River downstream of Libby Dam
has been altered. Based on limnological studies of Kootenay Lake, Daley
et al. (1981) concluded that the construction and operation of Libby
Dam (and Duncan Dam, Canada) ``* * * has drastically altered the annual
hydrograph and has resulted in modifications to the quality of water
now entering the lake by removing nutrients, by permitting the
stripping of nutrients from the water in the river downstream from the
dam, and altering the time at which the nutrients are supplied to the
lake.'' Potential threats to the Kootenai River white sturgeon from
declining biological productivity include: (1) decreased prey abundance
and limited food availability for all life stages of sturgeon
downstream of Libby Dam, (2) reduced condition factor in adult white
sturgeon, possibly impacting fecundity and reproduction, and (3) a
possible reduction in the overall capacity for the Kootenai River and
Kootenay Lake systems to sustain substantial populations of white
sturgeon and other native fishes. The British Columbia Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks is currently experimenting with
fertilization of Kootenay Lake to increase biological productivity and
enhance native fisheries (Ashley and Thompson 1993). Beginning in 1993,
BPA funded IDFG and Idaho State University to study primary
productivity, community respiration, and nutrient cycling in the
Kootenai River from Libby Dam downstream to Kootenay Lake (BPA 1993).
It will be several years before results from these studies explain what
extent, if any, reduced biological productivity has been a contributing
factor to the Kootenai River white sturgeon's population decline.
Poor water quality and excessive nutrients in the Kootenai River
were once considered major problems for the white sturgeon and other
native fishes prior to the construction and operation of Libby Dam.
Graham (1981) concluded that poor water quality conditions in the
1950's and 1960's resulting from industrial and mine development most
likely affected white sturgeon reproduction and recruitment. Poor water
quality, i.e., heavy metals and other contaminants, may have affected
white sturgeon reproductive success and impacted their prey base.
Major sources of pollution in the Kootenai River basin were
effluents from a lead-zinc mine and concentrator; a fertilizer
processing plant; and sewage treatment plants on the St. Mary River (an
upstream tributary in Canada); and a vermiculite mine and processing
plant 11 river km (7 river mi) upstream of Libby, Montana. Significant
improvements in Kootenai River water quality were noted by 1977, due in
part to waste water control and effluent recycling measures initiated
in the late 1960's.
Today, many of these pollutants and contaminants persist, primarily
bound in sediments. Apperson (1992) noted that detectable levels of
aluminum, copper, lead, zinc, and strontium were found in sturgeon
oocyte (egg) samples from the Kootenai River along with detectable
levels of PCB's and pesticides. However, other than copper the
detectable levels of these compounds (e.g., PCB's, organochlorines,
zinc) were either (1) lower than levels found in other Columbia River
basin sturgeon populations that successfully reproduce, or (2) not
enough is known regarding the toxicity of these pollutants to sturgeon.
Partridge (1983) expressed concerns that contaminants, primarily high
concentrations of copper and zinc, may inhibit survival of white
sturgeon eggs and larvae. Apperson (1992) believed that ``* *
*concentrations of copper found in white sturgeon oocytes potentially
present the most severe contaminant effect on reproductive success''
since some of the copper concentrations found in water samples taken in
the Kootenai River were in the range of levels known to inhibit yolk
uptake in larval white sturgeon.
One of the initial objectives of the Kootenai Indian Tribe's
experimental hatchery was to determine the relationship between water
quality (including toxicants) and gamete viability. Initial culture
efforts documented successful fertilization and incubation, and that
sturgeon gametes (i.e. eggs and sperm) from wild sturgeon are generally
viable (Apperson and Anders 1991). While this demonstrates that wild
sturgeon eggs are viable when spawned under hatchery conditions, the
effects of heavy metals, organochlorines, and other contaminants in
Kootenai River waters and sediments on the reproductive success of wild
sturgeon is unknown.
Sturgeon eggs and embryos are sensitive to pollutants, with some
heavy metals known to be toxic at very minute concentrations (Dettlaff
et al. 1993). Georgi (1993) notes that the chronic effects of wild
sturgeon spawning in ``chemically polluted'' water and rearing on
contaminated sediments, in combination with bioaccumulation of
contaminants in the food chain, is possibly impacting the successful
reproduction and early age recruitment to the Kootenai River white
sturgeon population. In summary, the degree to which poor water
quality, sediment, and prey base contamination are factors threatening
Kootenai River white sturgeon survival are not known, and remain
potential threats to the species.
The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by the species in determining to issue this rule.
Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list the Kootenai
River population of white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) as
endangered because the population has been declining since the mid-
1960's. The remaining population in 1993 is estimated at 785
individuals (range 569 to 1,080) based on estimated annual mortality
rates and recent zero recruitment, with most individual sturgeon older
than 20 years of age. There has been almost no recruitment of juveniles
into the population since 1974 and the population may be reaching a
stage of reproductive senescence.
The reduced river flows during the critical spring spawning and
early rearing season as a result of the operation of Libby Dam has
impacted recruitment since the mid-1970's, and threatens the continued
existence of this population. The population also faces threats from
reduced biological productivity, and possibly poor water quality and
the effects of contaminants. Because this distinct population of white
sturgeon is in danger of extinction throughout its range, it fits the
Act's definition of an endangered species. For reasons discussed below,
critical habitat is not being proposed at this time.
Critical Habitat
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, requires that critical
habitat be designated to the maximum extent prudent and determinable
concurrently with the determination that a species is endangered or
threatened. Regulations implementing section 4 of the Act provide that
a designation of critical habitat is not determinable when one or both
of the following situations exists: (1) Information sufficient to
perform required analyses of the impacts of the designation is lacking,
or (2) the biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat (50 CFR
424.12). The Service has completed its analysis of the biological
status of the Kootenai River population of the white sturgeon, yet has
not completed the analysis necessary for the designation of critical
habitat. The Service has decided to proceed with the final listing
determination now and to consider the designation of critical habitat
in a separate rulemaking.
Consequently, the Service has determined that critical habitat for
the Kootenai River population of white sturgeon is not presently
determinable because information sufficient to perform the required
analyses of the impacts of such a designation is lacking. The Service
will continue to gather and review information concerning habitat
requirements of this sturgeon and has identified several activities
that may adversely impact those habitats. For example, the Service has
identified the lack of natural flows in the Kootenai River below Libby
Dam as the primary threat to this white sturgeon population. Other than
a need for basic understanding of streamflow conditions necessary for
providing spawning and early rearing habitat during the normal May
through July sturgeon spawning season, the life history requirements
for other life stages of white sturgeon are not sufficiently well known
to permit identification of an area in the Kootenai River basin as
designated critical habitat. Additionally, many Kootenai River white
sturgeon migrate freely throughout the Kootenai River system and spend
part of their life in Kootenay Lake in British Columbia, Canada.
Critical habitat designation is not allowed outside the United States
since only Federal agencies are under the jurisdiction of section 7 of
this Act.
The Service is still gathering and reviewing information on the
life history needs of the Kootenai River population of the white
sturgeon and the potential economic consequences of designating
critical habitat. Additional biological information that may be useful
in designating critical habitat for Kootenai River white sturgeon may
include identification of specific river areas necessary for spawning,
reproduction, and rearing of offspring; and water quantity,
temperatures, and velocity in the Kootenai River required to meet some
life history need (e.g., spawning and early rearing). Economic
considerations in critical habitat designations are only the economic
costs and benefits of additional requirements or management measures
likely to result from the designation that are above the economic
effects attributable to listing the population.
The Service concludes that the threats to the Kootenai River white
sturgeon population and the benefits associated with listing justify
taking action now, rather that waiting until a full analysis of
critical habitat is completed. Protection of the sturgeon's habitat
will be addressed through the recovery process and through section 7
consultations to determine whether Federal actions are likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act include recognition,
recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions
against certain activities. Recognition through listing results in
public awareness and conservation actions by Federal, State, and local
agencies, private organizations, 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. Such
actions may be initiated following listing. 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) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service 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 subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to
insure 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 the Service.
Federal actions that may be affected by this listing include the
continued operation of Libby Dam and Kootenai River flow management by
the Corps. The Corps would be required to consult with the Service on
the previously mentioned Libby Dam operations. Bonneville Power
Administration would be required to consult with the Service regarding
the Kootenai River white sturgeon research program authorized by the
Northwest Power Planning Council (1987) and funded by BPA. In addition,
consultation by the Corps, BPA, and Reclamation may be necessary if the
SOR process results in a change in the operation or reauthorization of
the Joint Coordination Columbia River System.
The Act and 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
(including harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, collect, or attempt any such conduct), import or export,
transport in interstate or foreign 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 such wildlife that has been taken
illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State
conservation agencies.
Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances.
Regulations governing endangered species permits are 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. In some
instances, permits may be issued during a specified period of time to
relieve undue economic hardship that would be suffered if such relief
were not available.
Requests for copies of the regulations on listed wildlife and
inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Permits, 911 N.E.
11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 (telephone 503/231-2063,
facsimile 503/231-6243).
National Environmental Policy Act
The Service has determined that an Environmental Assessment, 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 Endangered Species Act, as amended. A
notice outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was
published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others,
is available upon request from the Idaho State Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
Author
The primary author of this final rule is Stephen D. Duke, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Idaho State Office (see ADDRESSES section);
telephone (208) 334-1931.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, is hereby amended 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. Section 17.11(h) is amended by adding the following, in
alphabetical order under FISHES, to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate population
--------------------------------------------------- Historic range where endangered or Status When listed Critical Special
Common name Scientific name threatened habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fishes
* * * * * * *
Sturgeon, white......... Acipenser transmontanus. U.S.A. (AK, CA, ID, MT, U.S.A. (ID, MT), Canada E 549 NA NA
OR, WA), Canada (BC). (BC), (Kootenai R.
system).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: August 19, 1994.
Mollie H. Beattie,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 94-21864 Filed 9-2-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P