The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20080915 Ver 2_NMFS final BiOp for C-W July 2013_20150507W �ahes � Ms. Kimberly D. Bose Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, District of Columbia 20426 UNITED 'STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southeast Regional Office 28313th Avenue South St. Petersburg. Florida 33701 -5505 http: ttsero. n rnfs. noaa. gov :JUL 08 2013 FISER3I:KR SER. -2009 -5473 Ref.: Catawba- Wateree Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. P- 2232 -522), Final Biological Opinion Dear Ms. Bose: Enclosed is the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS's) final biological opinion based on our review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) proposed action to renew /issue a 50- year operating license to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC ( "applicant ") for the Catawba- Wateree Hydroelectric Project. In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, the final biological opinion (opinion) analyzes the project's effects on the endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and the Carolina distinct population segment of the Atlantic sturgeon (A. ouyrinchus oxyrinchus), which has recently been listed as endangered under the ESA_ It is based on information provided by FERC, the applicant, state and federal agencies, and the published literature cited within. It is NMFS's final opinion that the action, as proposed, is likely to adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon. We appreciate FERC's efforts to identify and resolve the many technical and conservation issues associated with this project. We look forward to further cooperation with you on other FERC projects to ensure the conservation and recovery of our threatened and endangered marine species. If you have any questions regarding this consultation, please contact Karla Reece, consultation biologist, at (727) 824 -5348, or by e-mail at karla.reece @noaa.gov. Sincerely, Roy E. Crabtree, Ph.D. Regional Administrator Enc.: Biological Opinion File: 1514 -22.N I _WS70�,Oltl Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion Action Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Activity: Re- licensing of the Catawba- Wateree Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. P- 2232 -522) Consulting Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Southeast Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, St. Petersburg, Florida (SER- 2009 -54 73) Approved By: Roy E. Crabtree, Ph.D. NMFS, Southeast Regional Office St. Petersburg, Florida Date Issued: ?JUL 0 8 2013 Table of Contents 1 Background ............................................................................ ............................... 5 2 Consultation History .............................................................. ............................... 5 3 Description of the Proposed Action and Action Area ......... ............................... 8 4 Species and Critical Habitat Occurring in the Action Area that May be Affected....................................................... .............................32 5 Environmental Baseline ...................................................... ............................... 47 6 Effects of the Action ............................................................. ............................... 61 7 Cumulative Effects ............................................................... ............................... 70 8 Jeopardy Analysis ................................................................ ............................... 70 9 Conclusion ............................................................................ ............................... 76 10 Incidental Take Statement .................................................. ............................... 76 11 Conservation Recommendations ........................................ ............................... 82 12 Reinitiation of Consultation ................................................ ............................... 82 13 Literature Cited ................................................................... ............................... 83 14 Attachment A: A Protocol for Use of Shortnose, Atlantic, Gulf, and Green Sturgeons........................................................................... ............................... 94 FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1. The Catawba - Wateree Hydroelectric Project (FERC 2009) ........... ............................... 8 Table 1. Proposed Minimum Continuous In- stream Flows (FERC 2009) ... ............................... 20 Table 2. Proposed Minimum Average Daily In- stream Flows ..................... ............................... 21 Table 3. CWHP (P -2232) proposed recreational flows and schedule (Duke Energy 2006) ........ 21 Figure 2. The North American Atlantic coast depicting three shortnose sturgeon metapopulations. Figure from (Wirgin et al. 2009) ...................................... ............................... 42 Table 4. Shortnose sturgeon populations and their estimated abundances ... ............................... 43 Figure 3. The Catawba - Wateree Hydroelectric Project Action Area ........... ............................... 49 Table 5. Current Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon research permits authorized for research activities utilizing wild fish under ESA Section 10 (a)(1)(A) permits .......... ............................... 49 Figure 4. Diagram depicting existing in -water facilities within the Santee River Basin that limit or prohibit sturgeon migration. Most facilities are scheduled to be relicensed by FERC within the next decade. Major main -stem impediments are indicated by red bars and listed by number; river names are italicized in blue. The CWHP Action Area is contained within the red oval.... 55 Table 6. Summary of weighted useable area analysis for sturgeon habitat based on current conditions and on minimum continuous mandatory flows under the new license conditions...... 62 Table 7: Anticipated Annual Take of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon ....... ............................... 77 2 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS °C Degrees Celsius OF Degrees Fahrenheit ASSRT Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team BMPs Best Management Practices BO Biological Opinion CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs Cubic Feet per Second CHEOPS Computer Hydro Electric Operations and Planning Software CRA Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement CWHP Catawba - Wateree Hydroelectric Project DO dissolved oxygen DPS Distinct Population Segment EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FPA Federal Power Act fps Feet per Second ft Foot or Feet FWQIP flow and water quality implementation plan GHG Greenhouse Gases IBT Interbasin Transfer in. inch(es) IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ITS Incidental Take Statement kg Kilogram kg /km kilogram(s) per kilometer km Kilometer LIP Low Inflow Protocol in Meters MEP Maintenance and Emergency Protocol mg /1 milligram(s) per liter mgd million gallon(s) per day ml milliliter(s) msl mean sea level mt Metric Tons mtDNA Mitochondrial Deoxyribonucleic Acid MW Megawatt MWh megawatt-hours NA not applicable NCDWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration O &M operation and maintenance 3 PIT Passive Integrated Transponder ppt Parts per Thousand rkm River Kilometer RM river mile(s) RPAs Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives RPMs Reasonable and Prudent Measures SCALC South Carolina Administrative Law Court SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control SCDNR South Carolina Department of Natural Resources SLR Sea -level Rise sq mi square mile(s) TL Total Length TNC The Nature Conservancy TST Trap, Sort, and Transport USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGC United States Coast Guard USGS United States Geological Survey WQC Water Quality Certification WQMP water quality monitoring plan WUA Weighted Usable Area YOY Young -of -the -Year M Background Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 USC § 1531 et seq.), requires that each federal agency shall ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such species; Section 7(a)(2) requires federal agencies to consult with the appropriate Secretary on any such action. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) share responsibilities for administering the ESA. Consultation is required when a federal action agency determines that a proposed action "may affect" listed species or designated critical habitat. Consultation is concluded after NMFS determines that the action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat or issues a biological opinion (BO) that identifies whether a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. The BO states the amount or extent of incidental take of the listed species that may occur, develops measures (i.e., reasonable and prudent measures - RPMs) to reduce the effect of take, and recommends conservation measures to further conserve the species. Notably, no incidental destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat can be authorized, and thus there are no reasonable and prudent measures, only reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) that must avoid destruction or adverse modification. This document represents NMFS's BO to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on impacts to listed species associated with the proposed re- licensing and continued operation of the Catawba - Wateree Hydroelectric Project (CWHP), located in South Carolina. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) is the utility company currently licensed to operate the CWHP. This BO analyzes adverse effects of the CWHP on the endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), and the Carolina distinct population segment (DPS) of the endangered Atlantic sturgeon (A. oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, and is based on project information provided by FERC, Duke Energy, and state and federal agencies, as well as other sources of information, including other ESA Section 7 consultations and the published literature cited herein. 2 Consultation History This section includes information associated with NMFS's current and past involvement with the CWHP pursuant to the FERC re- licensing process specified in 18 CFR 16.8. March 23, 2009: FERC requested by letter informal Section 7 consultation for the CWHP pursuant to the ESA. FERC stated that they had determined the CWHP may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the endangered shortnose sturgeon. May 6, 2009: NMFS responded to FERC's request for consultation with a letter providing comments on FERC's draft Environmental Impact Statement. This letter is part of FERC's administrative record for this proceeding and can be viewed at http: / /www.ferc.gov /docs- filing/eLibrary.asp. 5 July 23, 2009: FERC issued the final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the CWHP. August 17, 2009: FERC forwarded a copy of the FEIS for the CWHP to NMFS. August 31, 2009: NMFS sent a letter to FERC advising them that we did not concur with their determination that the proposed action "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" the endangered shortnose sturgeon and therefore we were initiating formal consultation. In this letter NMFS requested the following additional information: "(1) How does Duke Energy intend to meet the State of South Carolina water quality standards given the recent denial by the state Department of Health and Environmental Control board for a water quality permit? (2) A copy of the Species Protection Plan (Sturgeon Plan), filed with the license application and a discussion of how FERC intends to implement the Sturgeon Plan, throughout the term of the license." October 2, 2009: FERC responded by letter to NMFS's request for additional information. Specifically, FERC provided the following response to the requested information: "(1) Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC filed a plan to maintain, improve, and monitor water quality conditions as part of their license application." October 1, 2009: Duke Energy sent NMFS information about water flows below Wateree Dam. November 11, 2009: FERC requested by letter dated October 2, 2009, to receive a draft of the Biological Opinion (BO) for review prior to NMFS releasing a final BO on the CWHP. NMFS informed FERC that a draft BO must go through the same level of review as a final BO, including General Counsel review, except that the Regional Administrator does not review or sign the document, and that this would require the consultation process to exceed the typical 135 - day time frame. FERC indicated that they would still prefer to receive a draft BO, regardless of the extended time frame January 12, 2010: NMFS sent Duke Energy a copy of the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Plan and the NMFS Protocol for Use of Shortnose Sturgeon. January 15, 2010: NMFS requested and received Appendices A, B, and C of the Santee River Basin Fish Passage Accord' from Duke Energy. February 12, 2010: NMFS requested and received a copy of the research publication by (Newcomb and Fuller 2001), regarding an anadromous and catadromous fish survey, from Duke Energy. March 23, 2010: NMFS sent to Duke Energy and FERC the minimum criteria vital to any sturgeon monitoring plan for the dam - locked portion of the Santee River Basin population of shortnose sturgeon, and the CWHP. ' The Accord is an agreement to restore diadromous fish in the Santee River Basin which includes the Catawba - Wateree River Basin. December 10, 2010: Duke Energy, NMFS, and FERC held a videoconference to discuss ongoing information needs (Sturgeon Protection Plan, etc.). May 24, 2011: NMFS hosted a meeting with FERC and Duke Energy to discuss the ongoing consultation and the Sturgeon Plan. Duke Energy committed to provide NMFS with an updated Sturgeon Plan. June 1, 2011: FERC submitted to NMFS draft notes from the May 26, 2011, meeting for review. June 13, 2011: NMFS submitted edits to FERC on the May 26, 2011, meeting notes. June 14, 2011: FERC finalized the meeting notes from the May 26, 2011, meeting. July 26, 2011: Duke Energy provided NMFS with a draft revised Sturgeon Plan and requested comments. August 18, 2011: NMFS provided comments to Duke Energy regarding the draft revised Sturgeon Plan. August 24, 2011: Duke Energy submitted a final Sturgeon Plan to FERC and NMFS. At this point, NMFS considered the consultation request package sufficiently complete to initiate formal consultation with FERC on their proposed action. Formal consultation was initiated on this date. October 21, 2011: NMFS submitted the CWHP Description section of the draft BO to Duke Energy and FERC and requested review and comments to confirm the draft section was an accurate and complete depiction of the action. October 31, 2011: Duke Energy submitted the corrected project description to NMFS. November 18, 2011: NMFS requested that Duke Energy electronically send Image 15 from the FEIS. November 21, 2011: Duke Energy sent Image 15 from the FEIS. December 1, 2011: NMFS requested and received from Duke Energy an updated status on the ongoing litigation regarding the water quality certification from the State of South Carolina. December 9, 2011: NMFS requested from Duke Energy information about available habitat under existing flows. December 12, 2011: NMFS received information about existing flows and habitat from Duke Energy. May 24, 2012: NMFS issued a draft BO. June 29, 2012: FERC sent comments to NMFS regarding the draft BO. 7 In addition to the formal correspondence listed above, many e -mails were exchanged and phone conversations occurred between FERC, Duke Energy, and NMFS staff during the consultation process. 3 Description of the Proposed Action and Action Area In its FEIS, FERC defined the geographic scope of the CWHP, for water quality and quantity purposes, as the mainstem of the Catawba and Wateree Rivers and lands adjacent to the CWHP beginning at the furthest upstream Bridgewater Development and including all mainstem reaches between project developments and the 77 miles of the Wateree River downstream of the Wateree development to the confluence with the Congaree River as shown in Figure 1. Britlgo-walor Regu�alotl Rrvar Roach Laka Hickory LaNa lames � f ' dsd "�� bake Rfwdhiss Asheville Q oarard RoRld'alad Rnor Roach L�kout ShaaW Lake Lookeut ShoaW Ragulalad River Roach Laka Notmsn -- Forest Gty }� kSounlain lsWM Lska NOR rN CAROLINA \jl - Charlotte SOurN CAROLINA / ., Lake WylW kiryps M1buMam NarrOnaV NrWary F-ar� �,\ v Lake Wrhe Ropla Wd River RedCh Greenville Spartanburg M a.0 ld I n —Sim pso n v i l l e ,Greenwood chnrlearon a Ricermane e e e - Chdrione al �oaramaaa e e Project Araa 4 A!lantrc Oeeen Rol.', iou {} Flshirp Gucek rasarvair Grodl Fallp resanorr 6rear Falls Bypass Rea Cray '4.s ev i Cadar Croak rasarverr Lairo Yumtarae ��Colum6la Catawba Wateree Action Area a a rd ze her. .e esa sn..w.o :dor Figure 1. The Catawba - Wateree Hydroelectric Project (FERC 2009). In administering Section 7 of the ESA, the Services have issued regulations (50 CFR Part 402) on interagency consultation requirements, including definitions to help guide federal agencies. When analyzing the effects of the CWHP as part of the proposed action by FERC (the re- licensing of the CWHP), NMFS carefully considered the following definitions: Action area — means all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. Effects of the action — refers to the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action, which will be added to the environmental baseline. Interrelated actions — are those that are a part of a larger action and depend on that larger action for their justification. Interdependent actions — are those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration. For purposes of this ESA consultation, NMFS will only consider operations at the most downstream facility in the CWHP, the Wateree Dam. Sturgeon passage is not part of this relicensing and ESA - listed sturgeons interact only with the furthest downstream facility, the Wateree Dam. Therefore, the Action Area to be considered is the CWHP's facilities including and from the Wateree Dam and all of the Wateree River downstream to the confluence with the Congaree River as shown in the red box in Figure 1. 3.1 Catawba - Wateree Hydroelectric Project 3.1.1 Project Location The existing CWHP is located on the Catawba - Wateree River in the counties of Burke, McDowell, Caldwell, Catawba, Alexander, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Lincoln, and Gaston in North Carolina, and the counties of York, Lancaster, Chester, Fairfield, and Kershaw in South Carolina. The Catawba River joins several creeks including Big Wateree Creek to form the Wateree River which flows to its confluence with the Congaree River. The existing project consists of 13 developments and 11 impoundments on the Catawba - Wateree River as it flows through North and South Carolina. In North Carolina, in upstream to downstream order, are Bridgewater (Lake James), Rhodhiss (Lake Rhodhiss), Oxford (Lake Hickory), Lookout Shoals (Lookout Shoals Lake), Cowans Ford (Lake Norman), and Mountain Island (Mountain Island Lake). In South Carolina, in upstream to downstream order, are Wylie (Lake Wylie), Fishing Creek (Fishing Creek Reservoir), Great Falls and Dearborn (Great Falls Reservoir), Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek (Cedar Creek Reservoir), and Wateree (Lake Wateree), as shown in Figure 1. The CWHP encompasses more than 300 river miles (RM) as measured from the confluence of the Wateree and Congaree Rivers, and a total of 81,688 reservoir surface acres at full pond (FERC 2009). we 3.1.2 Existing Project Facilities 3.1.2.1 Bridgewater The Bridgewater Development is the uppermost development in the CWHP at RM 279.6 and includes three dams that form Lake James: Linville Dam, Paddy Creek Dam, and Catawba Dam. The Linville and Paddy Creek Dams are semi - hydraulic fill earthen embankments, and the Catawba Dam is a combination of semi - hydraulic fill earthen embankments and concrete gravity. Linville Dam is 160 feet (ft) high and 1,325 ft long, Paddy Creek Dam is 165 ft high and 1,610 ft long, and Catawba Dam is 120 ft high and 3,155 ft long. There are two spillways, one for the Catawba Dam and one located midway between the Linville and Paddy Creek Dams. The Catawba spillway is an uncontrolled concrete gravity ogee spillway about 300 ft wide. The Linville -Paddy Creek spillway is a 430 -ft -wide low overflow weir, without crest control, with a paved channel extending about 464 ft downstream. The 6,754 -acre reservoir has a full pond elevation of 1,200 ft above mean sea level (msl) and a usable storage capacity of 57,349 acre - feet. A trapezoidal shaped canal connects the Catawba River arm of the reservoir with the Paddy Creek and Linville River arms to form Lake James. The canal has an excavated bottom width of 30 ft, and is about 216 ft wide at elevation 1,200 ft msl. The intake and powerhouse for this development are located at the Linville Dam on the right abutment. The reinforced concrete intake tower is founded on an excavated rock shelf at elevation 1,070 ft msl, and has three 18 -ft- wide by 22 -ft -high openings with structural steel trash racks. The tower is connected with the powerhouse by a tunnel about 900 ft long. The powerhouse contains two vertical Francis turbine- generator units with a total installed capacity of 20 megawatts (MW). As part of a dam safety seismic remediation project being implemented at the Bridgewater Development, the current powerhouse will be demolished and replaced with a new powerhouse that will have an installed capacity of 27.7 MW (FERC 2009). The two bypassed reaches formed by this development are the Catawba River Bypassed Reach and the Paddy Creek Bypassed Reach. The Catawba River bypassed reach (also known as Old Catawba River) starts at the Catawba Dam and runs about 5.65 miles to the confluence with the Linville River. The Paddy Creek bypassed reach starts at the Paddy Creek Dam and runs about 0.64 mile to the confluence with the Catawba River bypassed reach (FERC 2009). 3.1.2.2 Rhodhiss The Rhodhiss Development is located approximately 32 miles downstream from the Bridgewater Development at RM 248. The Rhodhiss Dam is composed of rolled earth embankments and a concrete gravity dam with an ungated mass - concrete ogee spillway. The dam measures 72 ft high and 1,517 ft long and the spillway is about 800 ft long with a crest elevation of 995.1 ft msl. The 2,724 -acre reservoir (Lake Rhodhiss) has a full pond elevation of 995.1 ft msl and a usable storage capacity of 7,097 acre -feet. The intake and powerhouse are integral structures, constructed from reinforced and mass concrete. There are three separate intakes, one for each turbine. Each intake has two sets of structural steel trash racks measuring 15.5 ft wide by 21.5 ft high. The powerhouse contains three vertical Francis turbine- generator units with a total installed capacity of 28.4 MW (FERC 2009). 2 An ogee spillway has a control weir which is ogee or S- shaped in profile. 10 3.1.2.3 Oxford The Oxford Development is located at RM 230 and includes the dam forming Lake Hickory. The dam is concrete gravity and rolled earth with a concrete ogee spillway. The dam measures 133 ft high and 1,336 ft long, and the main spillway is about 550 ft long with a crest elevation of 910 ft msl. An emergency spillway was constructed in 2003 by removing the top 14 ft from the left bulkhead. The main spillway has 10 Stoney -type vertical lift gates, 25 ft by 45 ft. The intake and powerhouse are integral structures, constructed from reinforced and mass concrete. The 4,072 -acre reservoir (Lake Hickory) has a full pond elevation of 935 ft msl and a usable storage capacity of 9,834 acre -feet. There are two separate intakes, one for each turbine. Each intake has two sets of structural steel trash racks measuring 15.5 ft wide by 21.5 ft high. The powerhouse contains two vertical Francis turbine- generator units with a total installed capacity of 35.7 MW (FERC 2009). 3.1.2.4 Lookout Shoals The Lookout Shoals Development is located at RM 220.3. The dam is concrete gravity and semi - hydraulic earth fill with an ungated concrete ogee spillway. The dam measures 88 ft high and 2,731 ft long, and the spillway is about 933 ft long with a crest elevation of 838.1 ft msl. The 1,155 -acre reservoir (Lookout Shoals Lake) has a full pond elevation of 838.1 ft msl and a usable storage capacity of 2,138 acre -feet. The intake and powerhouse are integral structures, constructed from reinforced and mass concrete. There are four separate intakes, one for each of the three main turbines and a fourth for the two junior turbines. Each intake has one set of structural steel trash racks measuring 18 ft wide by 22 ft high, and 7 ft wide by 14 ft high for the main and junior intakes, respectively. The powerhouse contains three large vertical Francis turbine- generator units and two small vertical Francis turbine- generator units with a total installed capacity of 25.7 MW (FERC 2009). 3.1.2.5 Cowans Ford The Cowans Ford Development, the largest development in the CWHP, is located at RM 186.9, and forms Lake Norman. The dam is concrete gravity and rolled earth with a concrete ogee spillway. The dam measures 130 ft high and 8,738 ft long, and the spillway is about 465 ft long with a crest elevation of 732 ft msl and 760 ft msl on top of the closed gates. The spillway has 11 Taintor gates, 28 ft high by 35 ft wide. The 32,339 -acre reservoir (Lake Norman) has a full pond elevation of 760 ft msl and a usable storage capacity of 298,142 acre -feet. The intake and powerhouse are integral structures, constructed from reinforced and mass concrete. There are four separate intakes, one for each turbine. Each intake has three sets of trash gates measuring 17.7 ft wide by 49 ft high. The powerhouse contains four adjustable -blade Kaplan propellers with a total installed capacity of 332.5 MW (FERC 2009). 3.1.2.6 Mountain Island The Mountain Island Development is located at RM 171.5. The dam is concrete gravity and semi - hydraulic fill earth with a concrete ogee spillway. The dam measures 140 ft high and 670 ft long, and the spillway is about 997 ft long with a crest elevation of 647.5 ft msl. A 0.7 -mile bypassed reach is located beneath the spillway. The 3,117 -acre reservoir (Mountain Island Lake) has a full pond elevation of 647.5 ft msl and a usable storage capacity of 10,146 acre -feet. The intake and powerhouse are integral structures, constructed from reinforced and mass concrete. There are four separate intakes, one for each turbine. Each intake has two sets of trash gates 11 measuring 15.5 ft wide by 21.5 ft high. The powerhouse contains four vertical Francis turbine - generator units with a total installed capacity of 55.1 MW (FERC 2009). 3.1.2.7 Wylie The Wylie Development is located at RM 143.5. The dam is concrete gravity and rolled earth with a concrete ogee spillway that consists of two gated sections separated by a curved, uncontrolled section. The gated section on the right is about 355 ft long, the uncontrolled section is 157 ft, and the left gated section is 265 ft. The dam measures 119 ft high and 3,165 ft long, and the spillway is about 793 ft long with a crest elevation of 539.4 ft msl across the gated sections and 569.4 ft msl across the uncontrolled section. The spillway has 11 steel, Stoney -type floodgates, 30 ft by 45 ft. The 12,177 -acre reservoir (Lake Wylie) has a full pond elevation of 569.4 ft msl and a usable storage capacity of 40,145 acre -feet. The intake and powerhouse are integral structures, constructed from reinforced and mass concrete. There are four separate intakes, one for each turbine. Each intake has two sets of trash gates measuring 17.7 ft wide by 24.8 ft high. The powerhouse contains four vertical Francis turbine- generator units with a total installed capacity of 69 MW (FERC 2009). 3.1.2.8 Fishing Creek The Fishing Creek Development is located at RM 104.0. The dam is concrete gravity with a concrete ogee spillway. The dam measures 97 ft high and 1,770 ft long, and the spillway is about 1,210 ft long with a crest elevation of 392.2 ft msl and 417.2 ft msl at the top of its gates. The spillway has 22 steel, Stoney -type floodgates, 25 ft by 45 ft. The 3,431 -acre reservoir (Fishing Creek) has a full pond elevation of 417.2 ft msl and a usable storage capacity of 11,159 acre -feet. There are five separate intakes, one for each turbine. Each intake has one set of trash gates measuring 26 ft wide by 20 ft high. The intake and powerhouse are integral structures, constructed from reinforced and mass concrete. The powerhouse contains five vertical Francis turbine- generator units with a total installed capacity of 48.1 MW (FERC 2009). 3.1.2.9 Great Falls and Dearborn The Great Falls and Dearborn Developments are located at RM 101.5, only 3 miles downstream from the Fishing Creek Dam. The Great Falls- Dearborn Dam is concrete gravity with a concrete ogee spillway. The dam measures 103 ft high and 835 ft long. There are two bypassed reaches associated with Great Falls and Dearborn. The Great Falls Long bypassed reach (Great Falls Diversion Dam side) is about 2.25 miles long, and runs along the east side of Mountain Island. The Great Falls Short bypassed reach (Great Falls headworks) is about 0.75 mile long, runs east and parallel to the canal spillway, and empties into the north end of Cedar Creek reservoir. The development also includes two large islands: Mountain Island and Big Island. Mountain Island separates the Great Falls Reservoir from the Great Falls Long bypassed reach, and Big Island separates the Great Falls- Dearborn canal spillway from Cedar Creek Reservoir (FERC 2009). The Great Falls- Dearborn Diversion Dam is located about 1,500 ft downstream of the Fishing Creek Dam. The diversion spillway is 1,500 ft long with a crest elevation of 355.8 ft msl. It diverts the flow of the Catawba River to a canal parallel to and west of the original Catawba River channel. The new canal flows into the Great Falls Reservoir, and the Great Falls Long bypassed reach follows the original path of the river. The canal headworks, located 1.4 miles upstream of the Great Falls- Dearborn Dam, mark the boundary between the Great Falls 12 Reservoir and the canal that feeds water to the Great Falls and Dearborn powerhouses. The headworks include a trash rack structure for the canal intake and two mass concrete overflow spillways. The main spillway is upstream of the headworks, and the canal spillway is immediately downstream of the headworks. The canal spillway is equipped with flashboards, and the elevation of the top of the flashboards, 355.8 ft msl, is the same elevation as the crest of the main spillway. Flow into the canal leading to the powerhouse is regulated by submerged openings in the canal intake structure. Floodwater is released to the Catawba River by these two spillways and the upstream diversion spillway. The 353 -acre reservoir (Great Falls Reservoir) has a full pond elevation of 355.8 ft msl and a usable storage capacity of 1,966 acre -feet (FERC 2009). The Great Falls intake and bulkhead are integral structures constructed from reinforced and mass concrete. There are nine separate intakes: one for each turbine, and one for the exciter unit. Each intake has a set of structural steel trash racks, eight 16 -ft -wide by 18.5 -ft high oval openings and one 6 -ft -wide by 9 -ft -high oval for the turbines and exciter, respectively. The Great Falls and Dearborn Developments consist of two powerhouses, with the Great Falls powerhouse on the west side of the river and the Dearborn powerhouse on the east side. The Great Falls powerhouse contains eight horizontal -shaft Francis turbine- generator units with a total installed capacity of 24.0 MW. The Dearborn intake and powerhouse are integral structures, constructed from reinforced and mass concrete. There are three separate intakes, one for each turbine. Each intake has two sets of structural steel trash racks, 15.5 ft wide by 21.5 ft high. The powerhouse contains three vertical Francis turbine- generator units with an installed capacity of 42.0 MW (FERC 2009). 3.1.2.10 Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek The Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments are located at RM 99.3 immediately downstream of the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments. The dam is concrete gravity with a concrete ogee spillway. The dam measures 69 ft high and 1,219 ft long, and the U- shaped spillway is about 1,145 ft long with a crest elevation of 284.4 ft msl and 295.4 ft msl at the top of its gates. The U- shaped spillway has two Stoney -type floodgates, 25 ft by 45 ft. The developments consist of two powerhouses: the Rocky Creek powerhouse on the east side of the river and the Cedar Creek powerhouse on the west side. The Rocky Creek intake and bulkhead are integral structures, constructed from reinforced and mass concrete. There are nine separate intakes: one for each turbine, and one for the exciter unit. Each intake has a set of structural steel trash racks, eight 18 ft wide by 21.5 ft high oval openings and one 6 ft wide by 9 ft high oval for the turbines and exciter, respectively. The Rocky Creek powerhouse contains eight horizontal - shaft Francis turbine - generator units with a total installed capacity of 25.8 MW. The Cedar Creek intake and powerhouse are integral structures, constructed from reinforced and mass concrete. There are three separate intakes, one for each turbine. Each intake has two sets of structural steel trash racks measuring 17.8 ft wide by 24.8 ft high. The Cedar Creek powerhouse contains three vertical Francis turbine- generator units with a total installed capacity of 43.0 MW. The 748 -acre reservoir (Cedar Creek Reservoir) has a full pond elevation of 284.4 ft msl and a usable storage capacity of 2,190 acre -feet (FERC 2009). 13 3.1.2.11 Wateree The Wateree Development is located at RM 76.9. The dam is concrete gravity and semi - hydraulic fill earth with a concrete ogee spillway. The dam measures 76 ft high and 1,753 ft long, and the spillway is about 1,450 ft long with a crest elevation of 225.5 ft msl. The 13,025 - acre reservoir (Lake Wateree) has a full pond elevation of 225.5 ft msl and a usable storage capacity of 65,568 acre -feet. The intake and powerhouse are integral structures, constructed from reinforced and mass concrete. There are five separate intakes, one for each turbine. Each intake has two sets of structural steel trash racks, five 18 ft wide by 22 ft high and five 12 ft wide by 22 ft high. The powerhouse contains five vertical Francis turbine - generator units with a total installed capacity of 82 MW (FERC 2009). 3.1.3 Existing Project Operations Duke Energy controls the hydroelectric operations of CWHP from their hydroelectric operations center known as Hydro Central, which uses computer -based tools to monitor project operations and watershed inflow. Duke Energy operates the CWHP to meet the peak and load - following energy demands of their transmission and distribution systems in coordination with their other generating facilities (including fossil - fueled and nuclear - fueled generating facilities). Consistent with meeting electrical demands, the CWHP developments are operated according to development - specific downstream flow requirements, including the minimum average daily flow license requirements; and development - specific continuous minimum flow releases. Operations of project developments are in accordance with the reservoir level guide curves which are not required under the current license (FERC 2009). Although not a requirement of the existing license, and in addition to regular project operations, the reservoirs of the Bridgewater, Cowans Ford, Wylie, and Wateree Developments have been part of a voluntary Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program ( SRLSP). The SRLSP limits the fluctuation of reservoir levels during a 3 -week spring fish spawning period to support fish spawning in the reservoirs. The spring spawning period is initiated by a sequence of four consecutive noontime forebay temperature readings of at least 65 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) or observed bass spawning in Lake Wateree. Once initiated, the reservoir level is maintained within a range of 1 ft below and 2 ft above the level on the day of the fourth 65 °F temperature reading. The level is maintained within the limits for 3 weeks. The initiation of the SRLSP at the other CWHP reservoirs participating in the program is keyed to the start date on Lake Wateree and shifts according to the following schedule: for Lake Wylie the three week SRLSP begins 2 days after it starts on Lake Wateree; 8 days after it starts on Lake Wateree it begins on Lake Norman; and on Lake James it starts 14 days after it begins on Lake Wateree. Each reservoir level is maintained for a period of 3 weeks once the program has been initiated (FERC 2009). 3.1.3.1 Bridgewater In addition to operating for peak demand, the Bridgewater Development operations are conducted to maintain the reservoir level within its normal operating range; the number of units and daily duration of operation are adjusted based on demand and reservoir level. One unit is run at efficiency load at least once each day, generating about 10 megawatt hours (MWh) to provide the minimum average daily flow license requirement of 66 cubic feet per second (cfs). The development currently has a license requirement for a continuous flow of 25 cfs that is met 14 through wicket gate leakage during times of non - generation. In the current license there are no flows required for the Catawba River and Paddy Creek Bypassed Reaches. Generation from the Bridgewater Development is dispatched primarily for peaking energy needs. In addition to providing for Bridgewater powerhouse's generating demands, the reservoir's large storage capacity is used to augment the much smaller storage capacities of the downstream Rhodhiss, Oxford, and Lookout Shoals Developments (FERC 2009). The normal operating target elevation for Lake James varies during the year from a low elevation of 1,192 ft on March 1 to a high elevation of 1,198 ft msl from June through September 1. The full pond water surface elevation is 1,200 ft. At any given time, the reservoir level may fluctuate within a normal operating range from 2 ft below to 2 ft above the normal operating target elevation (FERC 2009). 3.1.3.2 Rhodhiss Like Bridgewater, the Rhodhiss Development operates to maintain the reservoir level within its normal operating range and to provide flows for its minimum average daily flow license requirement. One unit is run at efficiency load at least once each day, generating about 21 MWh to meet the minimum average daily flow requirement of 225 cfs. The development currently has a license requirement for a continuous flow of 40 cfs that is met through wicket gate leakage during times of non - generation. The normal operating target elevation for Rhodhiss reservoir is 992.1 ft msl with the full pond water surface elevation at 995.1 ft. At any given time, the reservoir level may vary within a normal operating range from 2 ft below to 2 ft above the normal operating target elevation (FERC 2009). 3.1.3.3 Oxford Oxford generates electricity to meet peak demand and to maintain the reservoir level within its normal operating range. One unit is run at efficiency load at least once each day, generating about 35 MWh to meet the minimum average daily flow license requirement of 261 cfs. The development currently has a license requirement for a continuous flow of 40 cfs that is met through wicket gate leakage during times of no power generation. The Oxford generating units have black start capability, which enables operation of the station's floodgates even under emergency conditions without relying on external energy. The normal operating target elevation for Oxford Reservoir is 932 ft msl with the full pond water surface elevation at 935 ft. At any given time, the reservoir level may vary within a normal operating range from 0.5 ft below to 2 ft above the normal operating target elevation (FERC 2009). 3.1.3.4 Lookout Shoals Lookout Shoals Development is operated to provide electricity and to maintain its reservoir level within its normal operating range. Minimum release requirements are met by operating one of two former exciter units that have been converted to small generating units. One exciter3 unit is 3 The exciter is itself a small generator that makes electricity, which is sent to the rotor, charging it with a magnetic field. 15 run at efficiency load 24 hours a day, generating about 9 MWh each day while meeting the current license continuous release requirement of 60 cfs. One of the three large units is run each day, generating 31 MWh to meet the minimum average daily flow license requirement of 278 cfs. Additional generation from the three large units at Lookout Shoals is dispatched primarily for peaking energy needs. The normal operating target elevation for Lookout Shoals Reservoir is 836.1 ft msl with the full pond water surface elevation at 838.1 ft. At any given time, the reservoir level may vary within a normal operating range from 1.5 ft below to 1 ft above the normal operating target elevation. 3.1.3.5 Cowans Ford Duke Energy operates the Cowans Ford Development to provide electricity during peak energy demands and they maintain the reservoir level within its normal operating range. Duke Energy runs one unit at efficiency load at least once each day, generating about 44 MWh to meet the minimum average daily flow license requirement of 311 cfs. The development is required under the current license to maintain a continuous flow of 80 cfs that is met through wicket gate leakage when the facility is not generating electricity (FERC 2009). The Cowans Ford Development is the largest development on the CWHP, and its reservoir, Lake Norman, has the largest storage capacity of this project. Duke Energy utilizes Lake Norman's large storage capacity to augment generation flows for the downstream Catawba - Wateree developments. Too much water released in too short a period of time would cause Mountain Island downstream of Cowans Ford to spill water; therefore, when Cowans Ford generates, care must be taken not to overwhelm the Mountain Island Development and cause excessive spill (FERC 2009). The normal operating target elevation for the Cowans Ford Reservoir varies during the year from an elevation of 752 ft msl in March to 758 ft msl from June through September with a full pond water surface elevation of 760 ft. At any given time, the reservoir level may fluctuate within the normal operating range from 2 ft below to 2 ft above the normal operating target elevation (FERC 2009). Duke Energy's Marshall Steam Station and McGuire Nuclear Station are located on the Cowans Ford Reservoir. The reservoir level may not be drawn down more than 15 ft below full pond, which is elevation 745 ft msl, without violating Nuclear Regulatory Commission limits set for the McGuire Nuclear Station. Thermal effects further limit the drawdown to 750 ft, 10 ft below full pond. In addition, there is an underwater weir in front of the Cowans Ford powerhouse intakes with a crest elevation of 725 ft, which presents a physical limitation on the drawdown of the reservoir (FERC 2009). 3.1.3.6 Mountain Island Duke Energy operates its generators at Mountain Island to provide electricity during peak energy demand and to maintain the reservoir level within its normal operating range. One unit is run at efficiency load at least once each day, generating about 33 MWh to meet the minimum average daily flow license requirement of 314 cfs. The development currently has a license requirement for a continuous flow of 80 cfs. Duke Energy meets this requirement through wicket gate W01 leakage when the facility is not generating electricity. These releases are made into the tailrace channel below the powerhouse, which flows into the downstream reservoir. In the current license there are no required flows for the bypassed channel (FERC 2009). The normal operating target elevation for the Mountain Island Reservoir is 643.5 ft msl, with 647.5 ft being the full pond water surface elevation. At any given time, the reservoir level may vary within a normal operating range from 0.5 ft below to 3.5 ft above the normal operating target elevation. Duke Energy manages water levels in the Mountain Island Reservoir to provide sufficient storage in the impoundment such that the operation of Cowans Ford located immediately upstream does not result in spillage at the Mountain Island Dam. Consequently, Duke Energy often starts generation at the Mountain Island Development to reduce reservoir water levels in anticipation of Cowans Ford power generation. Duke Energy's Riverbend Steam Station is located on the Mountain Island Reservoir, and its minimum lake level requirement limits the Mountain Island drawdown to 641.8 ft (FERC 2009). 3.1.3.7 Wylie Wylie Development generates electricity on a daily basis to provide flow for the benefit of downstream industrial water users (approximately 700 cfs) and to maintain the reservoir level within its normal operating range. Any additional electrical generation from the Wylie Development is used to meet peak energy demands. One unit is run at efficiency load at least once each day, generating about 49 MWh to meet the minimum average daily flow license requirement of 411 cfs. The Wylie generating units have black start capability, which enables operation of the station's floodgates even under emergency conditions (FERC 2009). The normal operating target elevation for Wylie Reservoir is 566.4 ft msl with the full pond water surface elevation at 569.4 ft. At any given time, the reservoir level may vary within a normal operating range from 2 ft below to 2 ft above the normal operating target elevation. Duke Energy's Catawba Nuclear Station and Allen Steam Station are located on the reservoir. 3.1.3.8 Fishing Creek Fishing Creek generates electricity to maintain the reservoir level within its normal operating range. One unit is run at efficiency load at least once each day, generating about 46 MWh to meet the minimum average daily flow license requirement for a flow of 440 cfs. In addition, the Fishing Creek powerhouse releases into the upper end of the reservoir for the downstream developments at Great Falls and Dearborn. The structures that contain this downstream reservoir include the Great Falls Diversion Dam immediately downstream of Fishing Creek and the Great Falls headworks farther downstream. In order not to cause a spill from the downstream development, the Fishing Creek tailrace elevation cannot exceed the top of the diversion dam or downstream headworks. This tailrace elevation limitation and the flow - through rate of the downstream generating facility result in a maximum run time of about six hours at five units' flow to avoid downstream spilling. Once this generating limit is reached, the output has to be reduced to four units' output for two hours before returning the fifth unit to operation. Consistent with these tailrace limitations, the flow from the Fishing Creek Development is used to refill the reservoirs for the next four downstream developments (Great Falls, Dearborn, Rocky Creek, and Cedar Creek) prior to their generating runs. This practice results in more efficient use of the generating capabilities of the four downstream developments. After the above - listed 17 operational constraints are satisfied, all remaining Fishing Creek generation is dispatched primarily for peaking energy needs. The generating units at Fishing Creek have black start capability, which enables operation of the station's floodgates even under emergency conditions. The normal operating target elevation for the Fishing Creek Reservoir is 414.2 ft msl with the full pond water surface elevation at 417.2 ft. At any given time, the reservoir level may vary within a normal operating range from 2 ft below to 2 ft above the normal operating target elevation (FERC 2009). 3.1.3.9 Great Falls and Dearborn Great Falls and Dearborn operate to provide electrical generation primarily to maintain the reservoir level within its normal operating range and for peak energy demand. Since the three units at the Dearborn powerhouse are more efficient than the eight units at the Great Falls powerhouse, the Great Falls units are only run to avoid spilling or during periods of high peaking energy demand. One Dearborn unit is run at efficiency load at least once each day, generating about 53 MWh to meet the minimum average daily flow license requirement of 444 cfs flow. In the current license there are no required flows for the Great Falls Long bypassed reach or for the Great Falls Short bypassed reach. The normal operating target elevation for the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments' reservoir is 353.3 ft msl with the full pond water surface elevation of 355.8 ft. At any given time, the reservoir level may vary within a normal operating range from 3.5 ft below to 2 ft above the normal operating target elevation (FERC 2009). 3.1.3.10 Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek The Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments generate electricity to maintain the reservoir level within its normal operating range, to provide required flow under the minimum average daily flow license requirement, and to provide electricity to meet peak energy demands. Since the three units at the Cedar Creek powerhouse are more efficient than the eight units at the Rocky Creek powerhouse, the Rocky Creek units are only run to avoid spilling or during periods of high peaking energy demand. One Cedar Creek unit is run at efficiency load at least once each day, generating about 40 MWh to meet the minimum average daily flow requirement of 445 cfs. The generating units at the Cedar Creek powerhouse have black start capability, which enables operation of the station's floodgates even under emergency conditions. The normal operating target elevation for the reservoir is 281.9 ft msl with the full pond water surface elevation at 284.4 ft msl. At any given time, the reservoir level may vary within a normal operating range from 1 ft below to 2 ft above the normal operating target elevation (FERC 2009). 3.1.3.11 Wateree The Wateree Development maintains its reservoir level within its normal operating range by generating electricity as needed. Additionally, one unit is operated at efficiency load at least once each day, generating about 60 MWh to meet the minimum average daily flow license requirement of 446 cfs. In the spring, the station continuous release is increased to support fish spawning as part of the voluntary SRLSP. From March 15 to May 31, the station releases a IN continuous flow that results in electrical generation of about 312 MWh per day. The continuous release to support fish spawning is sometimes reduced depending on water availability. Additional daily voluntary releases are made as needed throughout the year to support several large industrial water users downstream including a large steam - electric generating station. Except for continuous releases, generation from the Wateree Development is dispatched primarily for peaking energy needs. The normal operating target elevation for the Wateree Reservoir varies during the year from elevation 220.5 ft msl in December and January to 222.5 ft msl for most of the year excepting a 3 -week fill period in January to February and a 6 -week drawdown period in November to December. Full pond water surface elevation for the Wateree Reservoir is 225.5 ft msl. At any given time, the reservoir level may fluctuate within a normal operating range from 2 ft below to 2 ft above the normal operating target elevation (FERC 2009). 3.1.4 Proposed Project Facilities Duke Energy is not proposing to add any new hydroelectric generating capacity to the CWHP other than the following physical modifications necessary to support the implementation of the Revised Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement (CRA) (Duke Energy 2006). The physical modifications proposed include (1) the installation of flow compliance gauges at Bridgewater, Oxford, and Great Falls and Dearborn Developments; (2) the installation of aerating runners at Rhodhiss (Unit 3), Oxford (on one existing unit), and the Wylie, and Wateree Developments; (3) the installation of dissolved oxygen monitors at all 11 developments; and (4) the installation of groundwater compliance monitors at 7 of the developments. In addition the following physical modifications are proposed to be installed: a minimum flow release valve at the Catawba Dam (Bridgewater Development), a minimum flow release valve at the Oxford Development, a minimum flow aerating turbine at the Wylie and Wateree Developments. The Great Falls and Dearborn Developments would undergo modifications to the Great Falls Diversion Dam and Great Falls headworks, and the Wateree Development would have a portion of the dam crest removed to support the installation of a bladder dam (an inflatable dam, which can be raised or lowered and provides the ability to divert or spill water). In addition to these modifications, a new powerhouse at the Bridgewater Development is being constructed as part of seismic modifications to the Linville Dam. This new configuration is reflected in the CWHP Application for New License and the FEIS prepared by FERC and is thereby part of the Proposed Action. Duke Energy will construct and have operational a trap, sort, and transport (TST) fish upstream passage facility at the Wateree Dam for adult anadromous American shad and adult anadromous blueback herring by January 1, 2018, as result of Duke Energy's participation as a member of the Santee River Basin Accord for Diadromous Fish Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement (Santee Accord). This passage facility is also included in the USFWS's fishway prescription (see Section 1.3). 19 3.1.5 Proposed Project Operations 3.1.5.1 Required Minimum In- stream Flows Duke Energy will release the following minimum continuous flows in cubic feet per second (cfs) from the Bridgewater, Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Wylie, Great Falls, Dearborn, and Wateree Developments, shown in Table 1. The flows are proposed to be released on a continuous basis except when operating under the Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) or the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol (MEP). Table 1. Proposed Minimum Continuous In- stream Flows (FERC 2009). Minimum continuous flows Development(s)/location Bate Minimum continuous flows (cfs) Jan — Mar 145 Bridgewater Development Bridgewater Apr — Jul 95 Tailrace Aug — Nov 75 Dec 145 Jan — Jun 75 Bridgewater Development /Catawba River Bypassed Reach Jul —Nov Sp Dec 75 Oxford Development/NA' Jan — Dec 150 Lookout Shoals Development/NA Jan — Dec 80 Wylie Development/NA Jan — Dec 1,100 Jan — Feb 14 450 Great Falls and Dearborn Developments/ Feb 15 —May 15 850 Long Bypassed Reach May 16 — Dec 450 Great Falls and Dearborn Developments/ Short Bypassed Reach Jan —Dee 100 Jan —Feb 14 930 Feb 15 — Feb 29 2,400 Mar —Apr 2,700 Wateree Development/N.4 May 1— May 15 2,400 May 16 — May 31 1.250 Jun — Dec 930 t Not applicable In addition, Duke Energy will maintain the following minimum average daily flows from the Rhodiss, Cowans Ford, Mountain Island, Fishing Creek, and Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek 20 Developments, shown in Table 2. These flows are the same as what is required under Duke Energy's current license and are proposed to be released on an average daily basis year - round. Table 2. Proposed Minimum Average Daily In- stream Flows. Development Minimum Average Daily In- stream Flows Rhodiss 225 cfs Cowans Ford 311 cfs Mountain Island 314 cfs Fishing Creek 440 cfs Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek 445 cfs 3.1.5.2 Recreational Flows Duke Energy will provide recreational flows from the Bridgewater, Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree Developments and into the Great Falls Long and Short Bypassed Reaches as described in Table 3 below. Table 3. CWHP (P -2232) proposed recreational flows and schedule (Duke Energy 2006). Recreational floes Dates Days/description Flows Hour Hour end (inclusive) (�?t efs) start Last full weekend — 900 Saturday and Sunday Each Friday, Saturday. and Sunday plus Memorial Day 900 and Independence Day Wednesday and Thursday 900 Each Saturday and Sunday Each Friday. Saturday. and Sunday plus Labor Day Each Saturday and Sunday 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 4.30 PM 6:30 PM 900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM Dates Flows Hour Days/description Hour end (inclusive) (z cfs) start Oxford Development May 1 — Recreational Sep 30 Flow Schedule Oct 1— Oct 31 Each Satuuday and Sunday plus Memorial. Independence, and Labor Days First 4 Saturdays 21 2.600 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 2,600 10 :00 AM 3:00 PM Apr 1— Apr 30 May l— Jul 15 Bridgewater Development Juno 1 — Recreational Flow Schedule Jul 31 Jul 16— Aug 31 Sepl — Sep 30 Oct 1— Oct 31 Last full weekend — 900 Saturday and Sunday Each Friday, Saturday. and Sunday plus Memorial Day 900 and Independence Day Wednesday and Thursday 900 Each Saturday and Sunday Each Friday. Saturday. and Sunday plus Labor Day Each Saturday and Sunday 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 4.30 PM 6:30 PM 900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM Dates Flows Hour Days/description Hour end (inclusive) (z cfs) start Oxford Development May 1 — Recreational Sep 30 Flow Schedule Oct 1— Oct 31 Each Satuuday and Sunday plus Memorial. Independence, and Labor Days First 4 Saturdays 21 2.600 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 2,600 10 :00 AM 3:00 PM Recreational flows Dates Days /description Flows Hour Hour end (inclusive) (;? cfs) start Great Falls Dates Days/description and Dearborn (Inclusive) — Long Bypassed Mar 1— Two Saturdays per mouth 2,44U 10:00 AA2 3:00 PM Reach Oct 31 A total of 4 Sundays 2.940 3.000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 3.000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 6.000 10 :00 AM 4:00 PM 6.000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 6.000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 3,000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM Flows Hour Hour end (2 cfs) start Great Falls Apr 1— Last firll weekend — Apr 30 Saturday and Sunday and Dearborn May 1— Each Friday. Saturday. and 2,860 Jtm 15 Sunday plus Memorial Day Wylie Development Jun 16 — Each Friday. Saturday. and Recreational Jill Ili Sunday plus Independence Flow Schedule May I — Day Jul 16 — Each Sahuday and Sunday Reach Aug 31 and Sunday) per mouth 2.860 ' Sep 1 — Each Friday. Saturday. and Sep 30 Sunday plus Labor Day Flows Oct 1 — Each Saturday and Sunday Oct 31 Great Falls Dates Days/description and Dearborn (Inclusive) — Long Bypassed Mar 1— Two Saturdays per mouth 2,44U 10:00 AA2 3:00 PM Reach Oct 31 A total of 4 Sundays 2.940 3.000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 3.000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 6.000 10 :00 AM 4:00 PM 6.000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 6.000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 3,000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM Flows Hour Hour end (2 cfs) start Great Falls Mar 1— One Saturday per month to and Dearborn Apr 30 correspond with Long 2,860 — Short Bypassed releases 10:00 AM 3:00 PM Bypassed May I — Two weekends (Saturday Reach Oct 31 and Sunday) per mouth 2.860 ' Dates Days/description Flows Hour Hour end (inclusive) (z cfs) start Apr 1 — Last full weekend — Apr 30 Saturday and Sunday 2,760 10:00 AM 3:00 PM Wateree Development May 1 — Each Saturday and Sunday Recreational Jul 31 plus Memorial and 2,760 10:00 AM 3:00 PM Flow Schedule Independence Days Sep 1 — Each Saturday and Sunday Sep 30 plus Labor Day 2.7450 10:00 AM 3 :00 PM Oct 1 — Each Saturday and Sunday 2,760 10 :00 AM 3:00 PM Oct 31 The flows and schedules for the recreational flow releases identified in the tables for identified developments may be temporarily modified if Duke Energy is operating in accordance with the FERC- approved LIP or the MEP. Duke Energy would notify FERC, the resource agencies, and other interested parties of any modifications necessary in accordance with either operational protocol. 3.1.5.3 Wylie High Inflow Protocol In order to provide additional protection and enhancement of aquatic habitat downstream of the Wylie Development when above - average inflow is available, Duke Energy will increase the minimum continuous flow from 1,100 to 1,300 cfs from February 15 through May 15. The increase would occur if the median flows at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) streamflow gauges on the Catawba River (USGS #02137727), Johns River (USGS #02140991), and South Fork Catawba River (USGS #02145000) are at or above 105 percent of the 3 -month (November to January) median flows for the periods of record for these gauges. If, when 22 operating in the Wylie High Inflow Protocol, the February median flow for any one of these three stream flow gauges is below the February median flow for the period of record of that gauge, then the minimum flow requirement for the Wylie Development would be reduced on April 1 to 1,100 cfs. Duke Energy may suspend the Wylie High Inflow Protocol if operating under the LIP or the MEP. 3.1.5.4 Reservoir Elevations Duke Energy would meet operating elevations for each reservoir except as provided under the LIP, MEP, or SRLSP. Reservoir elevations as proposed for each development in the proposed license articles are presented in Table 4 of the FEIS, and are incorporated here by reference. The LIP, MEP, and SRLSP are included in Appendices C, D, and A (Section A -1.0), respectively, of the CRA (Duke Energy 2006), incorporated here by reference. 3.1.5.5 Reservoir Levels Duke Energy will meet the reservoir operating elevations shown in Tables 3 -13 in Appendix A Section A -1.0 of the CRA. Duke Energy will achieve these operating levels within 60 days of FERC's issuance of a new license. Duke Energy's proposed operating elevations are designed to protect and enhance the CWHP's resources that may be affected by reservoir level fluctuations. Duke Energy may temporarily modify the reservoir elevations if operating in accordance with FERC- approved LIP, MEP, or the SRLSP. Duke Energy shall notify FERC, resource agencies, and other interested parties of any such modifications affecting the normal maximum and normal minimum elevations in accordance with the LIP or the MEP (Duke Energy 2006; FERC 2009). 3.1.5.6 Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program Duke Energy will implement a SRLSP within 60 days following the issuance of a new license. The purpose of the SRLSP is to promote fish spawning at Lake James, Lake Norman, Lake Wylie, and Lake Wateree. Duke Energy will implement the SRLSP in consultation with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). Duke Energy proposes the program to consist of the following elements: 1. Trigger Points — The stabilization period for each reservoir shall begin when: (i) surface water temperatures within the subject reservoir reach 65 °F or greater for four consecutive days; (ii) a representative of Duke Energy observes bass spawning in the subject reservoir; or (iii) a Resource Agency representative notifies Duke Energy that bass spawning has been observed in the subject reservoir, whichever occurs first (Duke Energy 2006). 2. Surface Water Temperature Monitoring Locations — Duke Energy will measure temperatures in at least one location on each reservoir that is subject to this stabilization program (Duke Energy 2006). 3. Reservoir Level Variability — Duke Energy shall endeavor in good faith to maintain the water level in the subject reservoir within a range between one foot below and two feet above the reservoir elevation measured at the time that the SRLSP is triggered on that reservoir (Duke Energy 2006). 23 4. Stabilization Period — Once initiated by a trigger, the subject reservoir level shall be stabilized for three weeks (Duke Energy 2006). Duke Energy will implement the SRLSP unless it is operating in accordance with the LIP or the MEP. Duke Energy will suspend the SRLSP on Lake Wateree during any time period in which maintaining the stabilized reservoir level on Lake Wateree would prevent or alter flow releases from the Wateree Development that are required to support downstream fish habitat (Duke Energy 2006; FERC 2009). Duke Energy shall notify FERC within 10 days of suspending the SRLSP on Lake Wateree due to conflicts with downstream flow needs. Duke Energy also will notify FERC, resource agencies, and other interested parties of any suspensions of the SRLSP in accordance with the LIP or the MEP (Duke Energy 2006; FERC 2009). Any changes /modifications to the proposed SRLSP must be approved by FERC prior to implementation (Duke Energy 2006; FERC 2009). 3.1.5.7 Low Inflow Protocol Duke Energy's stated purpose for the LIP is to establish procedures for reductions in water use during periods of low inflow to the CWHP. Duke Energy developed the LIP on the basis that all parties with interests in water quantity should share the responsibility to establish priorities and to conserve the limited water supply. Included in the LIP are trigger points and procedures for how Duke Energy will operate the CWHP, as well as water withdrawal reduction measures and goals for other water users during periods of low inflow (Duke Energy 2006). Duke Energy's CRA defines periods of low inflow as "periods when there is not enough water flowing into the CWHP reservoirs to meet the normal water demands while maintaining remaining usable storage in the reservoir system at or above a seasonal target level." (Duke Energy 2006). The LIP is intended to provide additional time to allow precipitation to restore stream flow, reservoir levels, and groundwater levels to normal ranges. Duke Energy will re- evaluate and modify the LIP as necessary every five years during the term of the new license to ensure continuous improvement and implementation. These re- evaluations and modifications will be determined by the Catawba - Wateree Drought Management Advisory Group which has been established as part of the LIP (Duke Energy 2006; FERC 2009). Duke Energy will provide water flow via hydropower generation and other means (i.e. floodgates, spillage, etc.) to support electric customer needs and the instream flow needs of the CWHP. Duke Energy will maintain reservoir levels within prescribed normal operating ranges when inflow is normal (see Reservoir Elevations, Section 3.1.5.4, above). Duke Energy will progressively reduce hydropower generation and instream flows during times when inflow is not adequate to meet all of the normal demands for water and maintain levels as normally targeted. If hydrologic conditions worsen and trigger points outlined in the LIP are reached, then Duke Energy will declare a Stage 0 - Low Inflow Watch and begin meeting with the applicable agencies and water users to discuss the LIP. If hydrologic conditions continue to worsen, Duke Energy will declare various stages of a Low Inflow Condition (LIC) as defined in the LIP. Each progressive stage of the LIC will call for greater reductions in water releases and water withdrawals, and allow additional use of the available water storage within the reservoirs (Duke Energy 2006). The LIP is described in detail in Appendix C of the CRA. 24 3.1.5.8 Maintenance and Emergency Protocol (MEP) As part of its normal operations, the CWHP will require scheduled and emergency maintenance. During these times, certain license conditions may be impractical or even impossible to meet and may need to be suspended or modified temporarily to avoid taking unnecessary risks. The objectives of the MEP are to define the most likely emergency or maintenance situations, identify the potentially impacted license conditions, and outline the general approach that Duke Energy will take to mitigate the impacts to license conditions and to communicate with the resource agencies and affected parties. Due to the potential variability of these abnormal situations, this protocol is not intended to give exact directions for dealing with maintenance or emergency situations. It will, however, provide basic expectations for Duke Energy's approach to dealing with emergency or maintenance situations. Specific details will vary and will be determined on a case -by -case basis as the MEP is being enacted. Duke Energy will review the requirements of theMEP each time it is used and may revise the MEP from time to time as described in Appendix D of the CRA (Duke Energy 2006). 3.1.5.9 Flow and Reservoir Elevation Monitoring In order to monitor flow and reservoir elevation as stated in the CRA (Duke Energy 2006), Duke Energy will: • Meet the reservoir operating elevations listed in Tables 3 — 13 of the FEIS except when operating under the LIP, the MEP, or the SRLSP. • All of these reservoir elevations are also included in Appendix A, Section A -1.0 of the CRA (incorporate here by reference) for the Catawba - Wateree Hydroelectric Project (Duke Energy 2006; FERC 2009). • Duke Energy will achieve these operating levels within 60 days of FERC's issuance of a new license. • Duke Energy will maintain the existing reservoir level monitoring devices or suitable replacement devices at the dams at all CWHP developments for the term of a new license (Duke Energy 2006). • Duke Energy will implement a variety of stream flow and lake level requirements on Project operations. o Duke Energy has flow level monitors in place at all project reservoirs to allow monitoring of normal target elevations and maximum drawdown limitations. USGS currently operates six stream flow gauge stations in the Catawba - Wateree River Basin. • Duke Energy will fund the installation of an additional United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauge station on the Linville River between the Linville Dam and the confluence of the Catawba River to monitor compliance with flow release requirements from the Bridgewater Development. • Duke Energy will fund USGS for the operation and maintenance costs associated with the new gauge and the six existing gauges in the watershed in order to assure their continuing availability. 25 3.1.5. 10 Water Use Duke Energy will operate under a water agreement established as part of their relicensing process built around use of the Computer Hydro Electric Operations and Planning Software ( CHEOPS) model applied to water supply and use issues and the formation of a Water Management Team. CHEOPS is a hydropower system simulation model for evaluating physical changes and operational constraints. Net water use associated with public water supply is expected to increase from 32 percent of the net water use at present to 52 percent in 2058 (Figure 17 in the FEIS); i.e., from 55 to 243 million gallons of water per day (MGD). The totals of all withdrawals across all reservoirs are projected to increase by 125 percent by 2058 (HDR 2006). Net outflow in the Catawba - Wateree River Basin is projected to increase approximately 180 percent by 2058 from 170 MGD at present (HDR 2006). Net outflow is defined as the difference between the amount of water withdrawn within a particular reservoir's watershed and the amount of water returned within a particular reservoir's watershed. 3.1.5.11 Water Quality Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1341), FERC may not issue a license for a hydroelectric project unless the state certifying agency has either issued a water quality certification (WQC) for the CWHP or has waived certification by failing to act on a request for certification within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed one year. North Carolina issued its WQC (Certification No. 3767) for the CWHP on November 14, 2008. The status of the South Carolina WQC, according to a June 10, 2010, ruling from the South Carolina Administrative Law Court (SCALC), is that South Carolina has waived its right to issue or deny a WQC for the CWHP. This decision was appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals which reversed the SCALC's decision on December 12, 2012, and upheld its decision on May 1, 2013, in response to a rehearing request. On June 28, 2013, Duke Energy filed a petition for the Supreme Court of South Carolina to hear this case. Because the schedule for this appeal proceeding is indeterminable, this BO proceeds on the basis of the prevailing waived status of the South Carolina WQC and the proposed action as described herein. The FEIS includes all South Carolina water quality measures currently contained in the CRA. Therefore, the proposed action and this BO do not rely on the issuance of the South Carolina WQC. If South Carolina issues a WQC in the future containing additional conditions and if FERC incorporates into the new license any portions thereof altering the proposed action or requiring an amendment of the new license, then consultation regarding this BO may have to be reinitiated. 3.1.5.12 Dissolved Oxygen Management and Monitoring Duke Energy will develop and implement a flow and water quality implementation plan ( FWQIP) for completing the modifications necessary to satisfy the flow and water quality requirements at the CWHP developments under the new license (Duke Energy 2006). The FWQIP and any related monitoring would be prepared in consultation with USFWS, NMFS, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), NCWRC, SCDNR, and South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). W Duke Energy will operate the CWHP in accordance with the conditions of the Section 401 WQCs issued by the States of North Carolina and South Carolina and will implement any dissolved oxygen (DO) monitoring requirements that may be contained in them (FERC 2009). In addition to FERC's authority to enforce WQC requirements incorporated as license requirements, the WQCs provide the states with the enforcement mechanism to ensure that the CWHP operates in compliance with applicable water quality standards. FWQIP agreements identified elsewhere in the CRA, but related to water quality, are important as well: 1. Duke Energy will initiate interim measures for providing aquatic flow, DO enhancement, or both as identified in CRA Appendix L within 60 days following the issuance of the new license and closure of all rehearing and administrative challenge periods related to water quantity and quality. The interim measures would continue until the physical modifications specified in the FWQIP are complete unless Duke Energy is operating in accordance with the LIP or the MEP. 2. Following implementation of the physical modifications specified in the FWQIP, Duke Energy will operate the CWHP in accordance with the Section 401 WQC. 3. If Total Maximum Daily Loads are developed for waters within the CWHP boundaries, Duke Energy will actively consult with the appropriate state agency to determine what, if any, role the CWHP operations play in managing the pollutant(s) specified. 4. After implementation of the physical modifications specified in the FWQIP, if regular non - compliance with the WQC occurs as a result of project operations, Duke Energy shall document the non - compliance in the annual water quality compliance report; assess the reasons for non - compliance and propose corrective actions; consult with SCDHEC and NCDWQ, as appropriate; and implement the state - approved plan for corrective action. If Duke Energy concludes that its ability to comply with the WQC is not attributable to project operations, Duke Energy will assist South Carolina DHEC, NCDWQ, or both in determining the sources of the non - compliance. Measures for improvement of DO conditions in the CWHP tailwaters involve provision of minimum flows and the implementation of tailwater aeration strategies. Duke Energy will provide continuous minimum flows at the Bridgewater, Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Wylie, Great Falls, Dearborn, and Wateree Developments to protect and enhance aquatic habitat and water quality in the downstream riverine sections. Duke Energy will perform the following physical modifications to increase tailwater DO: 1. Under a previously authorized project at the Bridgewater Development, Duke Energy is building a new powerhouse at the Linville Dam that will include aeration capability on all units. Duke Energy will install a new flow valve with aerating capability that would support minimum flow releases and enhance aeration at the Bridgewater Development's Catawba Dam. 2. A new aerating runner would be installed on Unit 3 at the Rhodhiss Development to provide a continuous minimum flow that supports public water supply and industrial processes. 27 3. A minimum flow valve and a new aerating runner would be installed at an existing unit at the Oxford Dam to provide a year -round continuous minimum flow of at least 150 cfs. 4. A year -round continuous minimum flow of at least 80 cfs would be provided from the Lookout Shoals Development. Anticipating enhanced DO conditions as a result of improved releases from the upstream Oxford Development, DO management at Lookout Shoals would be controlled initially by operation of the existing vacuum breakers. Additional aeration may be accomplished, if necessary, by adding aeration capacity to auxiliary units at Lookout Shoals. 5. An existing hydropower unit at the Wylie Development would be replaced with a small aerating hydropower unit to provide year -round continuous minimum flows. 6. Existing stay vanes and hub venting would be used to manage DO in downstream releases at the Fishing Creek Development. 7. A flow release structure would be installed at the Great Falls headworks and the Great Falls Diversion Dam to provide continuous minimum flows to the bypassed reaches, and operation of existing vacuum breakers would be used to enhance DO as needed. 8. Existing hub venting at the Cedar Creek and Rocky Creek Developments would be used to manage DO in downstream releases. 9. An existing hydropower unit at the Wateree Development will be replaced with a small aerating hydropower unit to provide year -round continuous minimum flows and manage DO. 10. No changes to the equipment or operations are proposed at the Cowans Ford and Mountain Island Developments. 3.1.5.12.1 Water Quality Monitoring In order to monitor water quality as stated in the CRA (Duke Energy 2006): • Duke Energy will file with FERC, for approval, a Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP) to monitor compliance with water quality requirements within 180 days following the issuance of the license. o The WQMP will include, at a minimum, identification of compliance monitoring locations and devices at applicable CWHP developments as needed to accurately monitor and record flows, DO, and water temperatures released from CWHP developments and an implementation schedule. Duke Energy will prepare the WQMP in consultation with the NCDWQ and the SCDHEC. Duke Energy will include with the WQMP documentation of consultation with the above agencies, copies of comments and recommendations on the plan after it has been prepared and provided to the agencies, and specific descriptions of how the agencies' comments and recommendations are accommodated in the WQMP. Duke Energy will allow a minimum of 30 days for the agencies to comment prior to filing the WQMP with FERC. If Duke Energy does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include its reasons. FERC reserves the right to require changes to the WQMP. W. • Duke Energy will implement the WQMP as approved by FERC, including any changes required by FERC. By June 30 following each full calendar year for the term of this license, Duke Energy will file with FERC a report verifying compliance with any applicable Section 401 Water Quality Certifications and including the following information for the previous calendar year: • temperatures of water released from CWHP developments; • DO concentrations in water released from CWHP developments; • minimum continuous flows released from the Bridgewater, Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Wylie, and Wateree Developments; • minimum continuous flows released into the Great Falls Long and Short Bypassed Reaches; and, • documentation of instances that the Section 401 Water Quality Certification requirements were not met, along with any proposed or implemented corrective actions. • Duke Energy will provide copies of the report to the North Carolina Division of Water Resources, NCDHEC, NCWRC, SCDNR, SCDHEC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NMFS, and the USFWS. FERC may require changes to CWHP operations or to CWHP facilities based on the information in the report. The annual report will provide data and summaries of high frequency monitoring of lake levels and downstream flow releases for recreation and aquatic habitat, and will identify times and locations of any non - compliance events (Duke Energy 2006). Based on review of these annual reports, FERC reserves the right to require changes to project operations or project facilities. Federal and state resource agencies may also act on the basis of these reports (FERC 2009). 3.1.6 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Protection Plan As part of the relicensing requirements for Duke Energy's CWHP and to meet the consultation requirements of the ESA, Duke Energy has prepared a Sturgeon Plan for the currently- listed shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. Duke Energy submitted the Sturgeon Plan to FERC and NMFS on August 24, 2011. The plan will be a term of the new license. The plan was developed using data and information contained in the CRA, the Application for New License for the CWHP (application), FERC FEIS for relicensing, and various supplemental publications, letters, and filings referenced throughout this document. Based on these information sources, the Sturgeon Plan describes the proposed action. The requirements of the new license will be determined by FERC when it issues the new license. The Sturgeon Plan does not supersede the actual requirements of the new license. If there is conflict between the requirements of the new license and the requirements of the Sturgeon Plan, the requirements of the new license will prevail and the Sturgeon Plan will be revised as approved by FERC. 29 In the Sturgeon Plan, Duke Energy will carry out the following: 1) Via the Santee Accord, Duke Energy will implement the 5 -year Accord Sturgeon Monitoring Program presented in Appendix B of the Sturgeon Plan to gather needed data regarding sturgeon migration and spawning behaviors in the Wateree River. Duke Energy commits that if this study is started but unable to be completed under the terms of the Santee Accord due to the dissolution of the Santee Accord, then Duke Energy will provide the remaining funding needed. 2) Duke Energy will send to NMFS each year a report of the previous year's sturgeon monitoring activity and data. 3) Duke Energy will consult with NMFS during the design stage of the Wateree Dam American shad and blueback herring TST facility (as prescribed by the USFWS) to incorporate the following sturgeon- related features that: a) Minimize to the greatest extent practical the potential of the TST facility in its initial configuration to collect or catch any sturgeon. b) In the event that a sturgeon is collected in the facility in spite of the preceding item, reduce the potential for sturgeon to be harmed. c) In the event that a sturgeon is collected by the TST truck facility, Duke Energy will agree to follow the Sturgeon Handling Protocol presented in Appendix C of the Sturgeon Plan. 3.2 Fish Passage Section 18 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) states that FERC shall require the construction, maintenance, and operation by a licensee of such fishways as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, NMFS and the U.S. Department of the Interior, USFWS may prescribe. USFWS In a letter dated June 22, 2009, USFWS provided FERC with prescriptions for fish passage to require Duke Energy to provide fishways for adult anadromous American shad and adult anadromous blueback herring at the Wateree Development no later than January 1, 2018. USFWS recommended the design of a trap, sort, and transport system for upstream passage of anadromous fish at the Wateree Dam. Trapped fish will be released upstream into Lake Wateree until the combined numbers of adult anadromous American shad and adult anadromous blueback herring reach 10,000; when the number of fish collected exceeds 10,000, they will be distributed to upstream reaches of the Catawba - Wateree River Basin within South Carolina. The USFWS reserves its authority to prescribe downstream passage facilities. Review of the existing turbines, bypasses, spill gates, and spillways at the lower Catawba - Wateree developments indicates downstream passage will be possible for out - migrating juveniles without directed fishway facilities, with downstream passage for adults not warranted due to their semelparity (a single reproductive episode before death). USFWS also prescribed passage for the American eel. USFWS prescribed that Duke Energy shall conduct a 3 -year eelway siting study at each dam in the CWHP in upstream sequence, beginning at the Wateree Dam, to determine the best location for installation of semi - permanent passage devices for upstream passage of American eel juveniles at each dam. Following 30 completion of the studies and within two years, Duke Energy shall design, construct, and operate (in consultation with USFWS), at each development, permanent or semi - permanent volitional upstream eelways. Provided that American eels are passed upstream at each development in a safe, timely, and effective manner, Duke Energy may decide to continue operation of the ramp /trap eelways or construct new permanent eelways. The USFWS reserved its authority to prescribe downstream passage facilities for American eels but prescribed that Duke Energy shall commence studies in 2024 to address the safe, timely, and effective downstream passage for American eels. NMFS NMFS requested FERC, in their June 5, 2008, letter, include the following condition in any new license that they may issue for the Catawba - Wateree Project. "The National Marine Fisheries Service expressly reserves its authority under § 18 of the Federal Power Act, as amended, to prescribe fishways, or such additional fishways, or to modify existing fishways at those locations and at such times as it may subsequently determine are necessary to provide for safe, timely and effective upstream and downstream passage of diadromous fish through the CWHP facilities. Upon approval by NMFS of such plans, designs, and implementation schedules pertaining to fishway construction, operation, maintenance, and monitoring —as may be submitted by Duke Energy in accordance with the terms of the license articles containing such fishway prescriptions, or upon any other relevant information —NMFS may modify its fishway prescriptions in order to respond to a need to provide effective fish passage. This reservation includes authority to modify or prescribe fishways for any fish species under NMFS management responsibility to be managed, enhanced, protected, or restored in the basin during the term of the license. Diadromous species under NMFS responsibility in the Santee River Basin include anadromous American shad and alosines, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, striped bass, and the catadromous American eel. Also, authority is reserved for NMFS to modify prescriptions for fishways at any time before a license is issued, as well as any time during the term of any license issued, after review of new information or for other pertinent reason." 3.3 License Term Pursuant to the FPA and the U.S. Department of Energy Organization Act, FERC is authorized to issue a license from 30 to 50 years for the construction and operation of non - federal hydroelectric development subject to its jurisdiction, on the necessary conditions: That the CWHP shall be such as in the judgment of FERC will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of water -power development, for the adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), and for other beneficial public uses, including irrigation, flood control, water supply, and recreational and other purposes referred to in Section 4(e) 16 USC §803(a). 31 3.4 Reopening the License Pursuant to license articles reserving to itself the authority to reopen a license, FERC may reopen a license at any time during the license for the purpose of making reasonable changes in project operations or facilities if supported by substantial evidence. FERC has stated in the FEIS and throughout the administrative record that they can and will reopen the license in order to change the terms and conditions to address unforeseen effects which might occur during the term of the license. FERC's discretionary authority is seen as a means to address unforeseen effects that were not previously considered, or which may arise over the term of a new license. NMFS believes this provision is critical to managing conservation of endangered and threatened species over the term of the new license, given there are no specific future provisions in the current licensing documents for listed species of fish, beyond those discussed in Section 3.1.6. NMFS considers the reopener provision to be an integral part of the proposed action. 3.5 Summary of the Proposed Action FERC will issue a new license to Duke Energy for the operation of the CWHP for a term of no more than 50 years. FERC will address unforeseen effects which may arise or were not previously considered by reopening the license to modify /add conditions. The proposed action is essentially the re- licensing of the existing CWHP with modifications to hydrology and water quality. These modifications will provide increased flows and increase the amount of consistently available habitat and DO into the waters of the Wateree River, making it more suitable for aquatic life, including sturgeon. Below we summarize the proposed action relevant to routes of potential impacts to shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon: Catawba - Wateree Hydroelectric Project: • Duke Energy will make structural changes to implement aeration technology. • Duke Energy will release the minimum, instantaneous, instream flows as described in Tables 1 and 2 of this BO. • Duke Energy will operate the CWHP in accordance with the LIP, which is part of the Catawba - Wateree Settlement Agreement (Duke Energy 2006). • Duke Energy will implement phased fish passage at the CWHP, but not for sturgeon. 4 Species and Critical Habitat Occurring in the Action Area that May be Affected 4.1 Critical Habitat There is no designated or proposed critical habitat in the Action Area. However, NMFS is in the process of proposing critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. 4.2 Fish Two ESA - listed species under NMFS jurisdiction are being considered in this BO: the shortnose sturgeon (A. brevirostrum) and the Carolina DPS of Atlantic sturgeon (A. oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), both listed as endangered throughout their ranges. There are no other listed species under NMFS jurisdiction expected to be present in the Action Area. While no sturgeon spawning, and only a few shortnose and no Atlantic sturgeon have been observed in the Wateree River in recent history, we expect the numbers of shortnose and Atlantic 32 sturgeon accessing and using the riverine habitats within the Action Area below the CWHP to increase throughout the life of the license. The Santee - Cooper Project, located downstream from the CWHP, is the first hydroelectric project in the Santee River basin and blocks passage of sturgeon in the lower Santee and Cooper Rivers. We completed a draft BO on the effects of the Santee - Cooper Project on shortnose sturgeon. In that draft BO we determined that the continued operation of the CWHP was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of shortnose sturgeon. The jeopardy determination was based in part on the fact that we did not believe that sturgeon passage and the NMFS FPA fishway prescription were reasonably certain to occur. Since the draft BO we have been working with the Santee - Cooper applicant, FERC, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to develop a plan to pass sturgeon above the two dams that make up the Santee - Cooper project and the USACE's St. Stevens dam. This plan will include NMFS's prescription, other passage actions, and dates certain for the start of passage actions. Based on this we believe that sturgeon passage at the Santee - Cooper project is reasonably certain to occur and that Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon will be present in the Action Area of the CWHP. 4.2.1 Status of Atlantic Sturgeon 4.2.1.1 Species Description Atlantic sturgeon are long - lived, late - maturing, estuarine- dependent, anadromous fish distributed along the eastern coast of North America (Waldman and Wirgin 1998). Historically, sightings have been reported from Hamilton Inlet, Labrador, south to the St. Johns River, Florida (Murawski et al. 1977; Smith and Clugston 1997). Atlantic sturgeon may live up to 60 years, reach lengths up to 14 feet, and weigh over 800 pounds (ASSRT 2007; Collette and Klein - MacPhee 2002). They are distinguished by armor -like plates (called scutes) and a long protruding snout that has four barbels (slender, whisker -like feelers extending from the head used for touch and taste). Atlantic sturgeon spend the majority of their lives in nearshore marine waters, returning to their natal rivers to spawn (Wirgin et al. 2002). Young sturgeon may spend the first few years of life in their natal river estuary before moving out to sea (Wirgin et al. 2002). Sturgeon are omnivorous benthic (bottom) feeders and filter quantities of mud along with their food. Adult sturgeon diets include mollusks, gastropods, amphipods, isopods, and fish. Juvenile sturgeon feed on aquatic insects and other invertebrates (Smith 1985b). Five separate DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon were listed under the ESA by NMFS on February 6, 2012 (77 FR 5880 and 5914). The New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic DPSs were listed as endangered. The Gulf of Maine DPS was listed as threatened. While adult Atlantic sturgeon from all DPSs mix extensively in marine waters, the majority of Atlantic sturgeon return to their natal rivers to spawn. Genetic studies show that fewer than two adults per generation spawn in rivers other than their natal river (King et al. 2001; Waldman et al. 2002b; Wirgin et al. 2000). Young sturgeon spend the first few years of life in their natal river estuary before moving out to sea. Therefore, we expect only Atlantic sturgeon from the Carolina DPS to be found in the Action Area after successful passage is implemented at the Santee - Cooper Project or should the fish successfully navigate the Santee - Cooper dams. 4.2.1.2 Life History Information Atlantic sturgeon populations show clinal variation, with a general trend of faster growth and earlier age at maturity in more southern systems. Atlantic sturgeon mature between the ages of 5 and 19 years in South Carolina (Smith et al. 1982), between 11 and 21 years in the Hudson River 33 (Young et al. 1988), and between 22 and 34 years in the St. Lawrence River (Scott and Crossman 1973). Atlantic sturgeon likely do not spawn every year. Multiple studies have shown that spawning intervals range from 1 to 5 years for males (Caron et al. 2002; Collins et al. 2000c; Smith 1985a) and 2 to 5 years for females (Stevenson and Secor 1999; Van Eenennaam et al. 1996; Vladykov and Greely 1963). Fecundity of Atlantic sturgeon has been correlated with age and body size, with egg production ranging from 400,000 to 8 million eggs per year (Dadswell 2006; Smith et al. 1982; Van Eenennaam and Doroshov 1998). The average age at which 50 percent of maximum lifetime egg production is achieved is estimated to be 29 years, approximately 3 to 10 times longer than for other bony fish species examined (Boreman 1997). Spawning adult Atlantic sturgeon generally migrate upriver in spring /early summer, which occurs in February -March in southern systems, April -May in mid - Atlantic systems, and May - July in Canadian systems (Bain 1997; Caron et al. 2002; Murawski et al. 1977; Smith 1985a; Smith and Clugston 1997). In some southern rivers, a fall spawning migration may also occur (Moser et al. 1998; Rogers and Weber 1995b; Weber and Jennings 1996). Atlantic sturgeon spawning occurs in fast - flowing water between the salt front and fall line of large rivers (Bain et al. 2000; Borodin 1925; Crance 1987; Leland 1968; Scott and Crossman 1973) over hard substrate, such as cobble, gravel, or boulders, which the highly adhesive sturgeon eggs adhere to (Gilbert 1989; Smith and Clugston 1997). Hatching occurs approximately 94 -140 hours after egg deposition and larvae assume a demersal existence (Smith et al. 1980). The yolk sac larval stage is completed in about 8 -12 days, during which time the larvae move downstream to rearing grounds ( Kynard and Horgan 2002). During the first half of their migration downstream, movement is limited to night. During the day, larvae use benthic structure (e.g., gravel matrix) as refugia ( Kynard and Horgan 2002). During the latter half of migration when larvae are more fully developed, movement to rearing grounds occurs both day and night. Juvenile sturgeon continue to move further downstream into brackish waters, and eventually become residents in estuarine waters for months or years. Juvenile and adult Atlantic sturgeon reside in upper estuarine habitat where they frequently congregate around the saltwater /freshwater interface. Estuarine habitats are important for juveniles, serving as nursery areas by providing abundant foraging opportunities, as well as thermal and salinity refuges, for facilitating rapid growth. Some juveniles will take up residency in non -natal rivers that lack active spawning sites (Bain 1997). Residency time of young Atlantic sturgeon in estuarine areas varies between one and six years (Schueller and Peterson 2010; Smith 1985a), after which Atlantic sturgeon start outmigration to the marine environment. Outmigration of adults from the estuaries to the sea is cued by water temperature and velocity. Adult Atlantic sturgeon will reside in the marine habitat during the non - spawning season and forage extensively. Coastal migrations by adult Atlantic sturgeon are extensive and are known to occur over sand and gravel substrate (Greene et al. 2009). Atlantic sturgeon remain in the marine habitat until the waters begin to warm, at which time ripening adults migrate back to their natal rivers to spawn. Upstream migration to the spawning grounds is cued primarily by rising water temperature and velocity. Therefore, fish in the southern portion of the range migrate earlier than those to the north (Kieffer and Kynard 1993; Smith 1985a). In Georgia and South Carolina, this begins in February or March (Collins et al. 2000a). Males commence upstream migration to the spawning 34 sites when waters reach around 6 °C ( Dovel and Berggren 1983; Smith 1985a; Smith et al. 1982) with females following a few weeks later when water temperatures are closer to 12° or 13 °C (Collins et al. 2000a; Dovel and Berggren 1983; Smith 1985a). In some rivers, predominantly in the south, a fall spawning migration may also occur (Moser et al. 1998; Rogers and Weber 1995b), with running ripe males found August through October and post- spawning females captured in late September and October (Collins et al. 2000c). 4.2.1.3 Population Dynamics The Carolina DPS includes all Atlantic sturgeon that are spawned in the watersheds (including all rivers and tributaries) from Albemarle Sound southward along the southern Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina coastal areas to Charleston Harbor. The marine range of Atlantic sturgeon from the Carolina DPS extends from the Hamilton Inlet, Labrador, Canada, to Cape Canaveral, Florida. Historical landings data indicate that between 7,000 and 10,500 adult female Atlantic sturgeon were present in North Carolina prior to 1890 (Armstrong and Hightower 2002; Secor 2002). Secor (2002) estimates that 8,000 adult females were present in South Carolina during that same timeframe. The Atlantic sturgeon spawning population in at least one river system (the Sampit River) within the Carolina DPS has been extirpated, and the statuses of four additional spawning populations are uncertain. There are believed to be only five of 7 -10 historical spawning populations remaining in the Carolina DPS. In some rivers, spawning by Atlantic sturgeon may not be contributing to population growth because of lack of suitable habitat and the presence of other stressors on juvenile survival and development. The abundances of the remaining river populations within the DPS, each estimated to have fewer than 300 spawning adults, are estimated to be less than 3 percent of what they were historically (ASSRT 2007). The concept of a viable population able to adapt to changing environmental conditions is critical to Atlantic sturgeon. Low population numbers of every river population in the Carolina DPS put them in danger of extinction; none of the populations are large or stable enough to provide with any level of certainty for continued existence of Atlantic sturgeon in this part of its range. Although the largest impact that caused the precipitous decline of the species has been restricted (directed fishing), the population sizes within the Carolina DPS have remained relatively constant at greatly reduced levels (approximately 3 percent of historical population sizes) for 100 years. Small numbers of individuals resulting from drastic reductions in populations, such as occurred with Atlantic sturgeon due to the commercial fishery, can remove the buffer against natural demographic and environmental variability provided by large populations (Berry 1971; Shaffer 1981; Soule 1980). Recovery of depleted populations is an inherently slow process for a late - maturing species such as Atlantic sturgeon, and they continue to face a variety of other threats that contribute to their risk of extinction. Their late age at maturity provides more opportunities for individual Atlantic sturgeon to be removed from the population before reproducing. While a long lifespan also allows multiple opportunities to contribute to future generations, it also increases the lifespan over which exposure to the multitude of threats facing the Carolina DPS can occur. The viability of the Carolina DPS depends on having multiple self - sustaining riverine spawning populations and maintaining suitable habitat to support the various life functions (spawning, feeding, growth) of Atlantic sturgeon populations. Because a DPS is a group of populations, the 35 stability, viability, and persistence of individual populations affects the persistence and viability of the larger DPS. The loss of any population within a DPS will result in: (1) a long -term gap in the range of the DPS that is unlikely to be recolonized; (2) loss of reproducing individuals; (3) loss of genetic biodiversity; (4) potential loss of unique haplotypes; (5) potential loss of adaptive traits; (6) reduction in total number; and 7) potential for loss of population source of recruits. The loss of a population will negatively impact the persistence and viability of the DPS as a whole, as fewer than two individuals per generation spawn outside their natal rivers (King et al. 2001; Waldman et al. 2002a; Wirgin et al. 2000). The persistence of individual populations, and in turn the DPS, depends on successful spawning and rearing within the freshwater habitat, the immigration into marine habitats to grow, and then the return of adults to natal rivers to spawn. 4.2.1.4 Status, Distribution, and Threats Rivers known to have current spawning populations within the range of the Carolina DPS include the Roanoke, Tar - Pamlico, Cape Fear, Waccamaw, and Yadkin -Pee Dee River. There may also be spawning populations in the Neuse, Santee, and Cooper Rivers, though it is uncertain. We determined spawning was occurring if YOY were observed, or mature adults were present, in freshwater portions of a system. However, in some rivers, spawning by Atlantic sturgeon may not be contributing to population growth because of lack of suitable habitat and the presence of other stressors on juvenile survival and development. Historically, both the Sampit and Ashley Rivers in South Carolina were documented to have spawning populations at one time. However, the spawning population in the Sampit River is believed to be extirpated and the current status of the spawning population in the Ashley River is unknown. Both rivers may be used as nursery habitat by young Atlantic sturgeon originating from other spawning populations. This represents our current knowledge of the river systems utilized by the Carolina DPS for specific life functions, such as spawning, nursery habitat, and foraging. However, fish from the Carolina DPS likely use other river systems than those listed here for their specific life functions. Atlantic sturgeon were once numerous along the East Coast until fisheries for their meat and caviar reduced the populations by over 90 percent in the late 1800s. Fishing for Atlantic sturgeon became illegal in state waters in 1998 and in remaining U.S. waters in 1999. Dams, dredging, poor water quality, and accidental catch (bycatch) by fisherman continue to threaten Atlantic sturgeon. Though Atlantic sturgeon populations appear to be increasing in some rivers, other river populations along the East Coast continue to struggle and some have been eliminated entirely. The Carolina DPS was listed as endangered under the ESA as a result of a combination of habitat restriction and modification, overutilization (i.e., being taken as bycatch) in commercial fisheries, and the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms in ameliorating these impacts and threats. 4.2.1.4.1 Dams Dams for hydropower generation, flood control, and navigation adversely affect Atlantic sturgeon habitat by impeding access to spawning, developmental, and foraging habitat, modifying free - flowing rivers to reservoirs, physically damaging fish on upstream and downstream migrations, and altering water quality in the remaining downstream portions of spawning and nursery habitat (ASSRT 2007). Attempts to minimize the impacts of dams using measures such as fish passage have not proven beneficial to Atlantic sturgeon, as they do not regularly use existing fish passage devices, which are generally designed to pass pelagic fish W (i.e., those living in the water column) rather than bottom - dwelling species like sturgeon. Dams have restricted Atlantic sturgeon spawning and juvenile developmental habitat by blocking over 60 percent of the historical sturgeon habitat upstream of the dams in the Cape Fear and Santee - Cooper River systems. Water quality (velocity, temperature, and DO) downstream of these dams, as well as on the Roanoke River, has been reduced, which modifies and restricts the extent of spawning and nursery habitat for the Carolina DPS. 4.2.1.4.2 Dredging Riverine, nearshore, and offshore areas are often dredged to support commercial shipping and recreational boating, construction of infrastructure, and marine mining. Environmental impacts of dredging include the direct removal/burial of prey species; turbidity /siltation effects; contaminant resuspension; noise /disturbance; alterations to hydrodynamic regime and physical habitat; and actual loss of riparian habitat (Chytalo 1996; Winger et al. 2000). According to Smith and Clugston (1997), dredging and filling impact important habitat features of Atlantic sturgeon as they disturb benthic fauna, eliminate deep holes, and alter rock substrates. Dredging in spawning and nursery grounds modifies the quality of the habitat and is further restricting the extent of available habitat in the Cape Fear and Cooper Rivers, where Atlantic sturgeon habitat has already been modified and restricted by the presence of dams. 4.2.1.4.3 Water Quality Atlantic sturgeon rely on a variety of water quality parameters to successfully carry out their life functions. Low DO and the presence of contaminants modify the quality of Atlantic sturgeon habitat and in some cases, restrict the extent of suitable habitat for life functions. Secor (1995) noted a correlation between low abundances of sturgeon during this century and decreasing water quality caused by increased nutrient loading and increased spatial and temporal frequency of hypoxic (low oxygen) conditions. Of particular concern is the high occurrence of low DO coupled with high temperatures in the river systems throughout the range of the Carolina DPS in the Southeast. Sturgeon are more highly sensitive to low DO than other fish species ( Niklitschek and Secor 2009a; Niklitschek and Secor 2009b) and low DO in combination with high temperature is particularly problematic for Atlantic sturgeon. Studies have shown that juvenile Atlantic sturgeon experience lethal and sublethal (metabolic, growth, feeding) effects as DO drops and temperatures rise ( Niklitschek and Secor 2005; Niklitschek and Secor 2009a; Niklitschek and Secor 2009b; Secor and Gunderson 1998). Reductions in water quality from terrestrial activities have modified habitat utilized by the Carolina DPS. In the Pamlico and Neuse systems, nutrient loading and seasonal anoxia are occurring, associated in part with concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Heavy industrial development and CAFOs have degraded water quality in the Cape Fear River. Water quality in the Waccamaw and Yadkin -Pee Dee Rivers has been affected by industrialization and riverine sediment samples contain high levels of various toxins, including dioxins (ASSRT 2007). Additional stressors arising from water allocation and climate change threaten to exacerbate water quality problems that are already present throughout the range of the Carolina DPS. Water quality in the Wateree River has fecal coliform, phosphorus, turbidity and pH impairments (MRCS 2010). More recent sampling reveals an increasing trend in pH and decreasing trends in turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria suggest improving conditions for these parameters (SCDHEC 2012). 4.2.1.4.4 Water Quantity 37 Water allocation issues are a growing threat in the Southeast and exacerbate existing water quality problems. Taking water from one basin and transferring it to another fundamentally and irreversibly alters natural water flows in both the originating and receiving basins, which can affect DO levels, temperature, and the ability of the basin of origin to assimilate pollutants (GWC 2006). Twenty interbasin water transfers in existence prior to 1993, averaging 66.5 million gallons per day (mgd), were authorized at their maximum levels without being subjected to an evaluation for certification by the NCDENR or other resource agencies. Since the 1993 legislation requiring certificates for transfers, almost 170 mgd of interbasin water withdrawals have been authorized, with an additional 60 mgd pending certification. The removal of large amounts of water from the system will alter flows, temperature, and DO. Existing water allocation issues will likely be compounded by population growth, and potentially, climate change. 4.2.1.4.5 Climate Change The Carolina DPS is within a region the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts will experience overall climatic drying (IPCC 2008). The Carolina DPS is already susceptible to reduced water quality resulting from inputs of nutrients; contaminants from industrial activities, CAFOs, and non -point sources; and interbasin transfers of water. The IPCC report projects with high confidence that higher water temperatures and changes in extremes in this region, including floods and droughts, will affect water quality and exacerbate many forms of water pollution —from sediments, nutrients, dissolved organic carbon, pathogens, pesticides, and salt, as well as thermal pollution, with possible negative impacts on ecosystems (IPCC 2008). In addition, sea level rise is projected to extend areas of salinization of groundwater and estuaries, resulting in a decrease of freshwater availability for humans and ecosystems in coastal areas. Some of the most populated areas of this region are low- lying, and the threat of salt water entering into its aquifers with projected sea level rise is a concern (USGRG 2004). Existing water allocation issues would be exacerbated, leading to an increase in reliance on interbasin water transfers to meet municipal water needs, further stressing water quality. Dams, dredging, and poor water quality have already modified and restricted the extent of suitable habitat for Atlantic sturgeon spawning and nursery habitat. Changes in water availability (depth and velocities) and water quality (temperature, salinity, DO, contaminants, etc.) in rivers and coastal waters inhabited by Atlantic sturgeon resulting from climate change will further modify and restrict the extent of suitable habitat for the Carolina DPS. Effects could be especially harmful since these populations have already been reduced to low numbers, potentially limiting their capacity for adaptation to changing environmental conditions (Belovsky 1987; Salwasser et al. 1984; Soule 1987; Thomas 1990). 4.2.1.4.6 Bycatch Mortality Overutilization of Atlantic sturgeon from directed fishing caused initial severe declines in Atlantic sturgeon populations in the Southeast, from which they have never rebounded. Further, continued overutilization of Atlantic sturgeon as bycatch in commercial fisheries is an ongoing impact to the Atlantic sturgeon (ASSRT 2007). Atlantic sturgeon are highly sensitive to bycatch mortality because they are a long -lived species, have an older age at maturity, have lower maximum reproductive rates, and a large percentage of egg production occurs later in life. Based on these life history traits, Boreman (1997) calculated that Atlantic sturgeon can only W. withstand the annual loss of up to 5 percent of their population to bycatch mortality without suffering population declines. Mortality rates of Atlantic sturgeon taken as bycatch in various types of fishing gear range between 0 and 51 percent, with the greatest mortality occurring in sturgeon caught by sink gillnets. Atlantic sturgeon are particularly vulnerable to being caught in sink gillnets; therefore, fisheries using this type of gear account for a high percentage of Atlantic sturgeon bycatch. Limited data from several fisheries exists on bycatch in the Southeast and high levels of bycatch underreporting are suspected. Further, total population abundance for the DPS is not available, and it is therefore not possible to calculate the percentage of the DPS subject to bycatch mortality based on the available bycatch mortality rates for individual fisheries. However, fisheries known to incidentally catch Atlantic sturgeon occur throughout the marine range of the species and in some riverine waters as well. Because Atlantic sturgeon mix extensively in marine waters and may access multiple river systems, they are subject to being caught in multiple fisheries throughout their range. In addition, stress or injury to Atlantic sturgeon taken as bycatch but released alive may result in increased susceptibility to other threats, such as poor water quality (e.g., exposure to toxins and low DO). This may result in reduced ability to perform major life functions, such as foraging and spawning, or even post - capture mortality. 4.2.1.5 Atlantic Sturgeon Status Summary In summary, the Carolina DPS is estimated to number less than 3 percent of its historic population size. There are estimated to be less than 300 spawning adults per year (total of both sexes) in each of the major river systems occupied by the DPS in which spawning still occurs, whose freshwater range occurs in the watersheds (including all rivers and tributaries) from Albemarle Sound southward along the southern Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina coastal areas to Charleston Harbor. Recovery of depleted populations is an inherently slow process for a late - maturing species such as Atlantic sturgeon. Their late age at maturity provides more opportunities for individuals to be removed from the population before reproducing. While a long lifespan also allows multiple opportunities to contribute to future generations, this is hampered within the Carolina DPS by habitat alteration and bycatch. This DPS was severely depleted by past directed commercial fishing, and faces ongoing impacts and threats from habitat alteration or inaccessibility, bycatch, and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address and reduce habitat alterations and bycatch that have prevented river populations from rebounding and will prevent their recovery. The presence of dams has resulted in the loss of over 60 percent of the historical sturgeon habitat on the Cape Fear River and in the Santee - Cooper system. Dams are contributing to the status of the Carolina DPS by curtailing the extent of available spawning habitat and further modifying the remaining habitat downstream by affecting water quality parameters (such as depth, temperature, velocity, and DO) that are important to sturgeon. Dredging is also contributing to the status of the Carolina DPS by modifying Atlantic sturgeon spawning and nursery habitat. Habitat modifications through reductions in water quality are contributing to the status of the Carolina DPS due to nutrient - loading, seasonal anoxia, and contaminated sediments. Interbasin water transfers and climate change threaten to exacerbate existing water quality issues. Bycatch is also a current threat to the Carolina DPS that is contributing to its status. Fisheries known to incidentally catch Atlantic sturgeon occur throughout the marine range of the species and in some riverine waters as well. Because Atlantic sturgeon mix extensively in marine waters and 39 may utilize multiple river systems for nursery and foraging habitat in addition to their natal spawning river, they are subject to being caught in multiple fisheries throughout their range. In addition to direct mortality, stress or injury to Atlantic sturgeon taken as bycatch but released alive may result in increased susceptibility to other threats, such as poor water quality (e.g., exposure to toxins). This may result in reduced ability to perform major life functions, such as foraging and spawning, or even post - capture mortality. While many of the threats to the Carolina DPS have been ameliorated or reduced due to the existing regulatory mechanisms, such as the moratorium on directed fisheries for Atlantic sturgeon, bycatch is currently not being addressed through existing mechanisms. Further, access to habitat and water quality continues to be a problem even with NMFS's authority under the FPA to prescribe fish passage and existing controls on some pollution sources. 4.2.2 Status of the Shortnose Sturgeon 4.2.2.1 Species Description The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is the smallest of the three sturgeon species that occur in eastern North America. It attains a maximum length of about 6 feet, and a weight of about 55 pounds. Shortnose sturgeon inhabit large coastal rivers of eastern North America. Although it is considered an anadromous species (i.e., one that lives primarily in marine waters and breeds in freshwater), shortnose sturgeon are more properly characterized as "freshwater amphidromous," meaning that they move between fresh and salt water during some part of their life cycle, but not necessarily for spawning. Shortnose sturgeon rarely leave their natal river. Shortnose sturgeon feed opportunistically on benthic insects, crustaceans, mollusks, and polychaetes (Dadswell et al. 1984). Shortnose sturgeon were initially listed as an endangered species by USFWS on March 11, 1967, under the Endangered Species Preservation Act (32 FR 4001). Shortnose sturgeon continued to meet the listing criteria as "endangered" under subsequent definitions specified in the 1969 Endangered Species Conservation Act and remained on the list with the inauguration of the ESA in 1973. NMFS assumed jurisdiction for shortnose sturgeon from USFWS in 1974 (39 FR 41370). The shortnose sturgeon currently remains listed as an endangered species throughout all of its range along the east coast of the United States and Canada. A recovery plan for shortnose sturgeon was published by NMFS in 1998 (63 FR 69613). 4.2.2.2 Life History Information Shortnose sturgeon populations show clinal variation, with a general trend of faster growth and earlier age at maturity in more southern systems. Fish in the southern portion of the range grow the fastest, but do not reach the larger size of fish in the northern part of the range that continue to grow throughout life. Male shortnose sturgeon mature at 2 -3 years in Georgia, 3 -5 years in South Carolina, and 10 -11 years in the Saint John River, Canada. Females mature at 4 -5 years in Georgia, 7 -10 years in the Hudson River, and 12 -18 years in the Saint John River. Males begin to spawn 1 -2 years after reaching sexual maturity and spawn every 1 -2 years (Dadswell 1979; Kieffer and Kynard 1996; NMFS 1998a). Age at first spawning for females is about 5 years post - maturation with spawning occurring every 3 -5 years (Dadswell 1979). Fecundity of shortnose sturgeon ranges between approximately 30,000- 200,000 eggs per female (Gilbert 1989). .I Adult shortnose sturgeon spawn in their natal rivers. Initiation of the upstream movement of shortnose sturgeon to spawn is likely triggered partially by water temperatures above 8 °C (Dadswell 1979; Kynard 1997) during late winter /early spring (southern rivers) to mid -to -late spring (northern rivers), occurring in the southern range (North Carolina and south) between late December and March. Southern populations of shortnose sturgeon usually spawn at least 200 kilometers upriver (Kynard 1997) or throughout the fall zone, if they are able to reach it. Substrate in spawning areas is usually composed of gravel, rubble, cobble, or large rocks (Buckley and Kynard 1985; Dadswell 1979; Kynard 1997; Taubert and Dadswell 1980), or timber, scoured clay, and gravel (Hall et al. 1991). Water depth and flow are also important parameters for spawning sites (Kieffer and Kynard 1996). Spawning sites are characterized by moderate river flows with average bottom velocities between 0.4 and 0.8 meters per second (Hall et al. 1991; Kieffer and Kynard 1996; NMFS 1998a). Spawning in the southern rivers has been reported at water temperatures of 10.5 °C in the Altamaha River (Heidt and Gilbert 1978) and 9 °- 12 °C in the Savannah River (Hall et al. 1991). In the southern portion of the range, adults typically spawn well upriver in the late winter to early spring and spend the rest of the year in the vicinity of the saltwater /freshwater interface water interface (Collins and Smith 1993). Little is known about YOY behavior and movements in the wild but shortnose sturgeon at this age are believed to remain in channel areas within freshwater habitats upstream of the saltwater /freshwater interface for about one year, potentially due to low tolerance for salinity (Dadswell et al. 1984; Kynard 1997). Residence of YOY in freshwater is supported by several studies on cultured shortnose sturgeon (Jarvis et al. 2001; Jenkins et al. 1993; Ziegeweid et al. 2008). Inmost rivers, juveniles age one and older join adults and show similar patterns of habitat use (Kynard 1997). In the Southeast, juveniles age one and older make seasonal migrations like adults, moving upriver during warmer months where they shelter in deep holes, before returning to the fresh/salt water interface when temperatures cool (Collins et al. 2002; Flournoy et al. 1992). Due to their low tolerance for high temperatures, warm summer temperatures (above 28 °C) may severely limit available juvenile rearing habitat in some rivers in the southeastern United States. Juveniles in the Saint John, Hudson, and Savannah Rivers use deep channels over sand and mud substrate for foraging and resting (Dovel et al. 1992; Hall et al. 1991; Pottle and Dadswell 1979). 4.2.2.3 Population Dynamics The 1998 shortnose sturgeon recovery plan identified 19 discrete shortnose sturgeon populations based on natal rivers. Since 1998, significantly more tagging /tracking data on straying rates to adjacent rivers has been collected, and several genetic studies have determined where coastal migrations and effective movement (i.e., movement with spawning) are occurring. New genetic analyses aided in identifying population structure across the range of shortnose sturgeon. Several studies (King et al. 2001; Waldman et al. 2002c; Wirgin et al. 2005; Wirgin et al. 2009; Wirgin et al. 2000) indicate that most, if not all, shortnose sturgeon riverine populations are statistically different (P <0.05) based on tests using both mitochondrial and nuclear genetic markers. That is, while shortnose sturgeon tagged in one river may later be recaptured in another, it is likely that the individuals are not spawning in those non -natal rivers, as gene flow is known to be low between riverine populations. This is consistent with our knowledge of the life history traits of adult shortnose sturgeon (i.e., they are known to return to their natal rivers to 41 spawn). However, there is some evidence that greater mixing of riverine populations occurs in areas where the distance between rivers mouths is relatively close between adjacent rivers, such as in the Southeast (Wirgin et al. 2009). Significant levels of genetic diversity are present in the shortnose sturgeon genome. Characterization of genetic differentiation (haplotype frequency) and estimates of gene flow (genetic distance) provide a quantitative measure to investigate population structure across the range of the shortnose sturgeon and determine their reproductive isolation or connection. Researchers have identified levels of genetic differentiation that indicate high degrees of reproductive isolation in at least three groupings (i.e., metapopulations) of shortnose sturgeon (Figure 2). Genetic analyses grouped shortnose sturgeon populations in the Southeast into one metapopulation (shown within the "Carolinian Province" in Figure 2). Wirgin et al. (2009) note that genetic differentiation among populations within the Carolinian Province was considerably less pronounced than among those in the other two provinces and contemporary genetic data suggest that reproductive isolation among these populations is less than elsewhere. �3 J� Pm7pb=t RW KcmMbec Rim - AndrosvoWn Rw Acadian Province 1' ------------------- ti "aft= Wvar n Virginian Province Ctleaavvake Bar frtt}---------------------------- - \ C�Wv Few Rw Carolinian Province 4- so-we River �•' —��° WWO say \1 7" COOW Rhw LAM Mion - Sovwmh Rivar yy �Ope AftaffuM Povar sera fl o- z- wa1.,n, ..o tlaiae wwmaea pan /r N C-- KM 16- 0 200 Figure 2. The North American Atlantic coast depicting three shortnose sturgeon metapopulations. Figure from (Wirgin et al. 2009). 42 The current status of the shortnose sturgeon in the Southeast is mixed. Populations within the southern metapopulation are relatively small compared to their northern counterparts. Table 4 shows available abundance estimates for rivers in the Southeast. The Altamaha River supports the largest known shortnose sturgeon population in the Southeast with successful self - sustaining recruitment. Population estimates for sturgeon in the Altamaha have been calculated several times since 1993. Total population estimates in the Altamaha show large interannual variation is occurring; estimates have ranged from as low as 468 fish in 1993 to over 6,300 fish in 2006 (DeVries 2006; NMFS 1998a). The Ogeechee River is the next most studied river south of Chesapeake Bay, and abundance estimates indicate that the shortnose sturgeon population in this river is considerably smaller than that in the Altamaha River. The highest point estimate in 1993 using a modified Schnabel technique resulted in a total Ogeechee River population estimate of 361 shortnose sturgeon (95 percent Cl: 326 -400). In contrast, the most recent survey resulted in an estimate of 147 shortnose sturgeon (95 percent Cl: 104 -249), suggesting that the population may be declining. Spawning is also occurring in the Savannah River, the Edisto River, the Cooper River, the Congaree River, and the Yadkin -Pee Dee River. The Savannah River, possibly the second largest population in the Southeast with an estimated 1,000 -3,000 adults, is facing many environmental stressors and spawning is likely occurring in only a very small area. While active spawning is occurring in South Carolina's Winyah Bay complex (Black, Sampit, Yadkin -Pee Dee, and Waccamaw Rivers), the Congaree River, and the Edisto River, the population status for these rivers are unknown. Status of the other riverine populations supporting the Southern metapopulation is unknown due to limited survey effort, with capture in some rivers limited to less than five fish. Table 4. Shortnose sturgeon populations and their estimated abundances. Population (Location) Data Abundance Estimate Population Reference Series C.I.) Segment Cape Fear River (NC) unknown Winyah Bay C, SC unknown Santee River SC unknown Cooper River (SC) 1996- 220 (87 -301) Adults Cooke et al. 2004 1998 ACE (Ashepoo, Combahee, and Edisto Rivers) Basin unknown SC Savannah River (SC, GA) 1,000 -3,000 Adults B Post, SCDNR 2003; NMFS un ubl. Ogeechee River (GA) 1993 266 (236 -300) Weber 1996, 1998 1993 361 (326 -400) Total Rogers and Weber 1994, NMFS 1998a 1999- 147 (104 -249) Fleming et al. 2003; 2004 NMFS un ubl. Altamaha River (GA) 1988 2,862 (1,069- 4,226) Total NMFS 1998a 1990 798 645 - 1,045) Total NMFS 1998a 1993 468 316 -903 Total NMFS 1998a 6,320 4,387 -9,249 Total DeVries 2006 Satilla River (GA) unknown Saint Marys River (FL) unknown Saint Johns River (FL) unknown FFWCC 2007c EN 'Population estimates (with confidence intervals) are established using different techniques and should be viewed with caution. In some cases, sampling biases may have violated the assumptions of the procedures used or resulted in inadequate representation of a population segment. Some estimates (e.g., those without confidence intervals or are depicted by ranges only) are the "best professional judgment" of researchers based on their sampling effort and success. Annual variation in population estimates in many basins is due to changes in yearly capture rates, which are strongly correlated with weather conditions (river flow and water temperatures). In "dry years" fish move into deep holes upriver of the saltwater /freshwater interface, which can make them more susceptible to gillnet sampling. Consequently, rivers with limited data sets among years and limited sampling periods within a year may not offer a realistic representation of the size or trend of the shortnose sturgeon population in the basin. As a whole, the data on shortnose sturgeon populations is rather limited and some of the differences observed between years may be an artifact of the models and assumptions used by the various studies. Long -term data sets and an open population model would likely provide for more accurate population estimates across the species range, and could provide the opportunity to more closely link strong - year classes to habitat conditions. The persistence of a species is dependent on the existence of metapopulations. As demonstrated in Wirgin et al. (2009), there are three metapopulations of shortnose sturgeon. These three metapopulations of shortnose sturgeon should not be considered collectively but as individual units of management, as each metapopulation is reproductively isolated from the other and therefore, constitutes an evolutionarily (and likely an adaptively) significant lineage. The loss of any metapopulation would result in the loss of evolutionarily significant biodiversity and would result in a significant gap(s) in the species' range. Loss of the Southern shortnose sturgeon metapopulation would result in the loss of the southern half of the species' range (i.e., no known reproduction south of the Delaware River). Loss of the Mid - Atlantic metapopulation (Virginian Province) would create a conspicuous discontinuity in the range of the species from the Hudson River to the northern extent of the Southern metapopulation. The Northern metapopulation constitutes the northernmost portion of the U.S. range. Loss of this metapopulation would result in a significant gap in the range that would serve to isolate the shortnose sturgeon residing in Canada from the remainder of the species' range in the United States. The loss of any metapopulation would result in a decrease in spatial range, biodiversity, unique haplotypes, adaptations to climate change, and gene plasticity. Loss of unique haplotypes that may carry geographic specific adaptations would lead to a loss of genetic plasticity and, in turn, decrease adaptability. The loss of any metapopulation would increase species' vulnerability to stochastic events. 4.2.2.4 Status, Distribution, and Threats Historically, shortnose sturgeon were found in the coastal rivers along the east coast of North America from the Saint John River, New Brunswick, Canada, to the St. Johns River, Florida, and perhaps as far south as the Indian River in Florida (Evermann and Bean 1898; Gilbert 1989). Currently, the distribution of shortnose sturgeon across their range is disjunct, with northern populations separated from southern populations by a distance of about 400 kilometers near their geographic center in Virginia. In the southern portion of the range, they are currently found in the Cooper, Altamaha, Ogeechee, and Savannah Rivers in Georgia. Rogers and Weber (1995a), Kahnle et al. (1998), and Collins et al. (2000b) concluded that shortnose sturgeon are extinct .. from the Satilla River in Georgia, the Saint Marys River along the Florida and Georgia border, and the Saint Johns River in Florida. However, a single specimen was found in the Saint Johns River by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission during extensive sampling of the river in 2002 and 2003. The shortnose sturgeon was listed as endangered under the ESA as a result of a combination of habitat degradation or loss (resulting from dams, bridge construction, channel dredging, and pollutant discharges), mortality (from impingement on cooling water intake screens, turbines, dredging, and incidental capture in other fisheries), and the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms in ameliorating these impacts and threats. 4.2.2.4.1 Dams Dams for hydropower generation, flood control, and navigation adversely affect shortnose sturgeon habitat by impeding access to spawning, developmental, and foraging habitat, modifying free - flowing rivers to reservoirs, physically damaging fish on upstream and downstream migrations, and altering water quality in the remaining downstream portions of spawning and nursery habitat. Attempts to minimize the impacts of dams using measures such as fish passage have not proven beneficial to shortnose sturgeon, as they do not regularly use existing fish passage devices, which are generally designed to pass pelagic fish (i.e., those living in the water column) rather than bottom - dwelling species like sturgeon. Dams have separated the shortnose sturgeon population in the Cooper River, trapping some above the structure and blocking access upstream to sturgeon below the dam. Telemetry studies (i.e., sturgeon under study can be outfitted with acoustic tags, which include sensors that measure location and duration using stationary receivers which are deployed at fixed locations and monitored for movement) indicate that shortnose sturgeon do not pass upriver through the vessel lock in the Pinopolis Dam on the Cooper River. Shortnose sturgeon have been documented entering the lock but have never passed into the reservoir, probably because there is a 12 -m vertical wall at the upstream end. Shortnose sturgeon inhabit only the upper of the two reservoirs, Lake Marion. There is currently no estimate for the portion of the population that inhabits the reservoirs and rivers above the dam. 4.2.2.4.2 Dredging Riverine, nearshore, and offshore areas are often dredged to support commercial shipping and recreational boating, construction of infrastructure, and marine mining. Environmental impacts of dredging include the direct removal /burial of prey species; turbidity /siltation effects; contaminant resuspension; noise /disturbance; alterations to hydrodynamic regime and physical habitat; and actual loss of riparian habitat (Chytalo 1996; Winger et al. 2000). Dredging in spawning and nursery grounds modifies the quality of the habitat and is further restricts the extent of available habitat in the Cooper and Savannah Rivers, where shortnose sturgeon habitat has already been modified and restricted by the presence of dams. 4.2.2.4.3 Water Quality Shortnose sturgeon rely on a variety of water quality parameters to successfully carry out their life functions. Low DO and the presence of contaminants modify the quality of sturgeon habitat and in some cases, restrict the extent of suitable habitat for life functions. Secor (1995) noted a correlation between low abundances of sturgeon during this century and decreasing water quality 45 caused by increased nutrient loading and increased spatial and temporal frequency of hypoxic (low oxygen) conditions. Of particular concern is the high occurrence of low DO coupled with high temperatures in the river systems throughout the range of the shortnose sturgeon in the Southeast. Sturgeon are more highly sensitive to low DO than other fish species (Niklitschek and Secor 2009a; Niklitschek and Secor 2009b) and low DO in combination with high temperature is particularly problematic. Low DO is modifying sturgeon habitat in the Savannah due to dredging, and non -point source inputs are causing low DO in the Ogeechee River. 4.2.2.4.4 Water Quantity Water allocation issues are a growing threat in the Southeast and exacerbate existing water quality problems. Taking water from one basin and transferring it to another fundamentally and irreversibly alters natural water flows in both the originating and receiving basins, which can affect DO levels, temperature, and the ability of the basin of origin to assimilate pollutants (GWC 2006). Water quality within the river systems in the range of the shortnose sturgeon is negatively affected by large water withdrawals. Known water withdrawals of over 240 million gallons per day are permitted from the Savannah River for power generation and municipal uses. However, permits for users withdrawing less than 100,000 gallons per day are not required, so actual water withdrawals from the Savannah and other rivers within the range of the shortnose sturgeon are likely much higher. The removal of large amounts of water from the system will alter flows, temperature, and DO. Water shortages and "water wars" are already occurring in the rivers occupied by the shortnose sturgeon and will likely be compounded in the future by population growth and potentially by climate change. 4.2.2.4.5 Climate Change Shortnose sturgeon in the Southeast are within a region the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts will experience overall climatic drying. The Southeast has experienced an ongoing period of drought since 2007. During this time, South Carolina experienced drought conditions that ranged from moderate to extreme (SCSCO 2008). From 2006 until mid -2009, Georgia experienced the worst drought in its history. In September 2007, many of Georgia's rivers and streams were at their lowest levels ever recorded for the month, and new record low daily stream flows were recorded at 15 rivers with 20 or more years of data in Georgia (USGS 2007). The drought worsened in September 2008. All streams in Georgia except those originating in the extreme southern counties were extremely low. While Georgia has periodically undergone periods of drought —there have been 6 periods of drought lasting from 2 to 7 years since 1903 (USGS 2000) — drought frequency appears to be increasing (Ruhl 2003). Abnormally low stream flows can restrict access by sturgeon to habitat areas, reduce thermal refugia, and exacerbate water quality issues, such as water temperature, reduced DO, nutrient levels, and contaminants. Shortnose sturgeon are already susceptible to reduced water quality resulting from dams, inputs of nutrients, contaminants from industrial activities and non -point sources, and interbasin transfers of water. The IPCC report projects with high confidence that higher water temperatures and changes in extremes in this region, including floods and droughts, will affect water quality and exacerbate many forms of water pollution —from sediments, nutrients, dissolved organic carbon, pathogens, pesticides, and salt, as well as thermal pollution, with possible negative impacts on ecosystems. In addition, sea level rise is projected to extend areas of salinization of M, groundwater and estuaries, resulting in a decrease of freshwater availability for humans and ecosystems in coastal areas. Some of the most populated areas of this region are low- lying, and the threat of salt water entering into its aquifers with projected sea -level rise is a concern (USGRG 2004). Existing water allocation issues would be exacerbated, leading to an increase in reliance on interbasin water transfers to meet municipal water needs, further stressing water quality. Dams, dredging, and poor water quality have already modified and restricted the extent of suitable habitat for shortnose sturgeon spawning and nursery habitat. Changes in water availability (depth and velocities) and water quality (temperature, salinity, DO, contaminants, etc.) in rivers and coastal waters inhabited by shortnose sturgeon resulting from climate change will further modify and restrict the extent of suitable habitat for shortnose sturgeon. Effects could be especially harmful since these populations have already been reduced to low numbers, potentially limiting their capacity for adaptation to changing environmental conditions (Belovsky 1987; Salwasser et al. 1984; Soule 1987; Thomas 1990). 4.2.2.4.6 Bycatch Overutilization of shortnose sturgeon from directed fishing caused initial severe declines in shortnose sturgeon populations in the Southeast, from which they have never rebounded (NMFS 1998a). Further, continued overutilization of shortnose sturgeon as bycatch in commercial fisheries is an ongoing impact. Shortnose sturgeon are sensitive to bycatch mortality because they are a long -lived species, have an older age at maturity, have lower maximum reproductive rates, and a large percentage of egg production occurs later in life. In addition, stress or injury to shortnose sturgeon taken as bycatch but released alive may result in increased susceptibility to other threats, such as poor water quality (e.g., exposure to toxins and low DO). This may result in reduced ability to perform major life functions, such as foraging and spawning, or even post - capture mortality. 4.2.2.5 Shortnose Sturgeon Status Summary In summary, as a wide - ranging anadromous species, shortnose sturgeon are subject to numerous federal (United states and Canadian), state and provincial, and inter jurisdictional laws, regulations, and agency activities. While these mechanisms have addressed impacts to short sturgeon through directed fisheries, there are currently no mechanisms in place to address the significant risk posed to shortnose sturgeon from commercial bycatch. Though statutory and regulatory mechanisms exist that authorize reducing the impact of dams on riverine and anadromous species, such as shortnose sturgeon, and their habitat, these mechanisms have proven inadequate for preventing dams from blocking access to habitat upstream and degrading habitat downstream. Further, water quality continues to be a problem in the historical spawning rivers along the Atlantic coast, even with existing controls on some pollution sources. Current regulatory authorities are not necessarily effective in controlling water allocation issues (e.g., no restrictions on interbasin water transfers in South Carolina, the lack of ability to regulate non - point source pollution, etc.). 5 Environmental Baseline This section describes the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species, their habitat, and ecosystem, within the Action Area. The environmental baseline is a snapshot of the Action Area at a specified point in time and includes 47 state, tribal, local, and private actions already affecting the species, or that will occur contemporaneously with the consultation in progress. Unrelated federal actions affecting the same species or critical habitat that have completed formal consultation are also part of the environmental baseline, as are federal and other actions within the Action Area that may benefit listed species or critical habitat. A wide range of activities funded, authorized, or carried out by federal agencies may affect the habitat requirements of endangered shortnose sturgeon and the endangered Carolina DPS of the Atlantic sturgeon. These may include dredging, dock/marina construction, bridge/highway construction, shoreline stabilization, breakwaters, impoundment structure (such as a dam/weir /lock system), the installation of subaqueous cables or pipelines, and fishing activities. Other federal actions (or actions with a federal nexus) that may affect shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon include actions by FERC, EPA, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Park Service, United States Coast Guard (USCG), and the USACE to manage discharges into waterways; and management of national refuges and protected species by the USFWS. The following information summarizes the primary human and natural phenomena in the Catawba - Wateree River Basin in South Carolina, that are believed to affect the status and trend of endangered shortnose sturgeon and the endangered Carolina DPS of the Atlantic sturgeon, as well as their probable responses to these phenomena. 5.1 Factors Affecting Sturgeon Environment within the Action Area As stated in Section 3 ( "Description of the Proposed Action and Action Area "), the proposed CWHP's geographic scope is from the Wateree Dam, and includes the Wateree River, downstream to the confluence with the Congaree River as shown in Figure 3. Numerous activities have been identified as threats and may affect shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon in the Action Area. The following analysis examines actions that may affect these species' environment within the Action Area. .• Greenwood CMd71e5tOn ep 0 s�lluda �� Catawba Wateree Action Affonfic Ocean Figure 3. The Catawba - Wateree Hydroelectric Project Action Area. Suurto ESRi Stren+ao.:G[Q 5. 1.1 ESA - Related Activities Through an ESA Section 6 cooperative agreement with South Carolina, NMFS has supported numerous research projects within the Action Area to investigate the life histories of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. Since 2002, NMFS has funded at least eight shortnose sturgeon and six Atlantic sturgeon research projects within or adjacent to the Action Area. There are currently two Section I0(a)(1)(A) scientific research permits issued to study Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon in the Action Area. Each permit approves sampling methodology and authorizes incidental take (Table 5). Ongoing research involves river survey, genetic tissue sampling, and gastric lavage to determine diet. Tagging and telemetry is occurring to identify movement patterns. The specific stressors to fish subject to NMFS- issued ESA permit conditions are capture in nets; handling and restraint during examinations; tagging using (Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT), internal, and external tags; tissue sampling; anesthetizing; laparoscopy; blood sampling; and gonad biopsy. Table 5. Current Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon research permits authorized for research activities utilizing wild fish under ESA Section 10 (a)(1)(A) permits. Species/Permit No. Location Authorized Take Research Activity Investigation of Atlantic Sturgeon South Carolina rivers population dynamics Permit #16442 (Carolina & South 350 adult/subadult/juv and migration of Expires: 4/5/2017 Atlantic DPS) 100 ELS Atlantic sturgeon captured in South Carolina rivers and .. There is no Recovery Plan yet drafted for the recently ESA - listed Atlantic sturgeon. NMFS finalized the Recovery Plan for the shortnose sturgeon in 1998 as required by ESA Section 4, with the following recovery objective: "to recover shortnose sturgeon populations to levels of abundance at which they no longer require protection under the ESA, and for each population segment, the minimum population size will be large enough to maintain genetic diversity and avoid extinction. " The Recovery Plan identified 19 discrete populations of shortnose sturgeon: both the Santee and Cooper River populations were determined to be discrete (NMFS 1998b). The 1998 Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Plan also identified four main recovery actions: establish listing criteria for shortnose sturgeon population segments; protect shortnose sturgeon and their habitats; rehabilitate shortnose sturgeon populations and habitats; and implement recovery tasks. To rehabilitate shortnose sturgeon habitats and population segments, the Recovery Plan specifically calls for actions to restore access to habitats, spawning habitat, and foraging habitat. In 2007, NMFS initiated a shortnose sturgeon status review pursuant to ESA Section 4; a draft status review report has been peer- reviewed and we expect it to be finalized during 2013. Once completed NMFS will then consider if the current listing is appropriate. NMFS would propose any changes through the federal rule- making process outlined in 50 CFR 424. Once the shortnose sturgeon status review is complete, we intend to designate a new recovery team and initiate a revision of the 1998 recovery plan. In 2007, NMFS published a status review report for Atlantic sturgeon. Atlantic Sturgeon was proposed for listing in October 2010 (75 FR 61904 and 61872), and placed on the Endangered Species List (77 FR 5880 and 5419) in February, 2012. The listing was effective April 6, 2012. NMFS has not yet drafted a Recovery Plan nor designated critical habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon. 5.1.2 State or Private Actions A number of activities that may directly or indirectly affect shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon include impacts from fisheries, wastewater systems, stormwater systems, and residential or commercial developments adjacent to waterways. The direct and indirect impacts from some of these activities are difficult to quantify. However, where possible, conservation actions through the ESA Section 7 processes, ESA Section 10 permitting, ESA Section 6 cooperative 50 coastal waters through mark - recapture and tel techni ues. Capture with gill & trammel net or trawl, measure, weigh, Shortnose Sturgeon, photograph/video, dart Permit #15677 South Carolina Rivers 154 adult /juv tag, PIT tag, genetic Expires: 5/31/2016 and Estuaries 100 ELS tissue sample, anesthetize, laparoscopy, gonadal biopsy, blood sample; collect ELS There is no Recovery Plan yet drafted for the recently ESA - listed Atlantic sturgeon. NMFS finalized the Recovery Plan for the shortnose sturgeon in 1998 as required by ESA Section 4, with the following recovery objective: "to recover shortnose sturgeon populations to levels of abundance at which they no longer require protection under the ESA, and for each population segment, the minimum population size will be large enough to maintain genetic diversity and avoid extinction. " The Recovery Plan identified 19 discrete populations of shortnose sturgeon: both the Santee and Cooper River populations were determined to be discrete (NMFS 1998b). The 1998 Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Plan also identified four main recovery actions: establish listing criteria for shortnose sturgeon population segments; protect shortnose sturgeon and their habitats; rehabilitate shortnose sturgeon populations and habitats; and implement recovery tasks. To rehabilitate shortnose sturgeon habitats and population segments, the Recovery Plan specifically calls for actions to restore access to habitats, spawning habitat, and foraging habitat. In 2007, NMFS initiated a shortnose sturgeon status review pursuant to ESA Section 4; a draft status review report has been peer- reviewed and we expect it to be finalized during 2013. Once completed NMFS will then consider if the current listing is appropriate. NMFS would propose any changes through the federal rule- making process outlined in 50 CFR 424. Once the shortnose sturgeon status review is complete, we intend to designate a new recovery team and initiate a revision of the 1998 recovery plan. In 2007, NMFS published a status review report for Atlantic sturgeon. Atlantic Sturgeon was proposed for listing in October 2010 (75 FR 61904 and 61872), and placed on the Endangered Species List (77 FR 5880 and 5419) in February, 2012. The listing was effective April 6, 2012. NMFS has not yet drafted a Recovery Plan nor designated critical habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon. 5.1.2 State or Private Actions A number of activities that may directly or indirectly affect shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon include impacts from fisheries, wastewater systems, stormwater systems, and residential or commercial developments adjacent to waterways. The direct and indirect impacts from some of these activities are difficult to quantify. However, where possible, conservation actions through the ESA Section 7 processes, ESA Section 10 permitting, ESA Section 6 cooperative 50 agreements, and state permitting programs are being implemented to monitor or study impacts from these sources. 5.1.3 Climate Change /Sea Level Rise Long -term observations confirm that climate change is occurring at a rapid rate. Over the 20th century, the average annual U.S. temperature has risen by almost 2 °F and precipitation has increased nationally by 5 -10 percent, mostly due to an increase in heavy downpours (Karl et al. 2009; NAST 2000). These trends are most apparent over the past few decades. Climate model projections exhibit a wide range of plausible scenarios for both temperature and precipitation over the next century. Both of the principal climate models used by the National Assessment Synthesis Team project warming in the Southeast by the 2090s, but at different rates (NAST 2000): the Canadian model scenario shows the southeast United States experiencing a high degree of warming, which translates into lower soil moisture as higher temperatures increase evaporation; the Hadley model scenario simulates less warming and a significant increase in precipitation (about 20 percent). Scenarios examined, which assume no major interventions to reduce continued growth of world greenhouse gases (GHG), indicate that temperatures in the United States will rise by about 3 ° -5 0C (50-9 °F) on average in the next 100 years, which is more than the projected global increase (NAST 2000). For the next two decades a global warming of about 0.2 °C per decade is projected for a range of emission scenarios (IPCC 2007a). This increase in temperature will very likely be associated with more extreme precipitation and faster evaporation of water, leading to greater frequency of both very wet and very dry conditions. In the southeast United States, climate models project warming to occur, with different emissions scenarios predicting that temperatures could rise by about 4.5 °F (under the B 1 scenario) to 9 °F (under the AIR scenario), on average, by the 2080s. The emissions scenarios include different predictions of the future based on characterizations of economic growth, population growth, the use of new technologies, use of fossil fuels, use of alternative non - fossil energy sources, regionally or globally oriented development, social and environmental stability, and others. The B 1 scenarios are of a world more integrated, and more ecologically friendly while the A IF 1 is the most pessimistic fossil -fuel based predictions (IPCC 2007b). A warmer and drier climate will reduce stream flows and increase water temperatures in the Action Area. Expected consequences would be a decrease in the amount of DO in surface waters and an increase in the concentration of nutrients and toxic chemicals due to reduced flushing rate (Murdoch et al. 2000). Because many rivers are already under a great deal of stress due to excessive water withdrawal or land development and this stress may be exacerbated by changes in climate, anticipating and planning adaptive strategies may be critical (Hulme 2005). A warmer, wetter climate could ameliorate poor water quality conditions in places where human - caused concentrations of nutrients and pollutants currently degrade water quality (Murdoch et al. 2000). Increases in water temperature and changes in seasonal patterns of runoff will very likely disturb fish habitat and affect recreational uses of lakes, streams, and wetlands. Surface water resources in the Southeast are intensively managed with dams and channels and almost all are affected by human activities; in some systems water quality is either below 51 recommended levels or nearly so. A global analysis of the potential effects of climate change on river basins indicates that due to changes in discharge and water stress, the area of large river basins in need of reactive or proactive management interventions in response to climate change will be much higher for basins impacted by dams than for basins with free - flowing rivers (Palmer et al. 2008). Human - induced disturbances also influence coastal and marine systems, often reducing the ability of the systems to adapt so that systems that might ordinarily be capable of responding to variability and change are less able to do so. Because stresses on water quality are associated with many activities, the impacts of the existing stresses are likely to be exacerbated by climate change. Within 50 years, river basins that are impacted by dams or by extensive development, like the Catawba, will experience greater changes in discharge and water stress than unimpacted, free - flowing rivers Palmer et al. 2008). 5.1.4 Drought Large -scale factors impacting riverine water quality and quantity that likely exacerbate habitat threats to sturgeon include drought and intra- and inter -state water allocation. Since 2007, the southeastern United States has experienced several years of drought. During this time, South Carolina experienced drought conditions that ranged from moderate to extreme (South Carolina State Climatology Office 2008). Meanwhile, water allocation issues are increasing with population growth. Water quality in the Wateree River has fecal coliform, phosphorus, turbidity and pH impairments (MRCS 20 10) but is showing signs of improvement in these parameters (SCDHEC 2012). Existing water allocation issues will likely be compounded by population growth and potentially climate change. An interbasin transfer (IBT) will transfer water from the Catawba River to the cities of Concord and Kannapolis in North Carolina. The IBT, settled in an agreement made December 3, 2010: allows the withdrawal of 10 MGD from the Catawba River except during drought; limits withdrawals to 6 MGD during times of most severe drought, or "exceptional" drought; 7 MGD during "extreme" drought; 8.5 MGD during "severe" drought; and 9 MGD during "moderate" drought; prohibits Concord and Kannapolis from withdrawing more than 3 MGD from the Catawba until July 1, 2015, and after they first are withdrawing 5 MGD from the Yadkin River (NCDNER 2007). Abnormally low stream flow can restrict access to habitat areas, reduce thermal refugia, and exacerbate water quality issues such as high temperature, low DO, and elevated nutrient and contaminant levels. Further reduction in flow would likely disrupt spawning cues and upstream migration may occur earlier; a disparity between prey availability and demand by larvae could ensue. Human - induced modifications to free - flowing rivers also influence coastal and marine systems, often reducing the ability of the system to adapt to natural variability and change. Drought and water allocation issues and their associated impacts on water quality will likely work synergistically with climate change impacts in the Santee River Basin. While debated, researchers anticipate (1) the frequency and intensity of droughts and floods will change across the Nation; (2) a warming of about 2 °C per decade; and (3) a rise in sea level (NAST 2000). A 52 warmer and drier climate will reduce stream flows and increase water temperature, resulting in a decrease of DO and an increase in the concentration of nutrients and toxic chemicals due to reduced flushing. Sea level is expected to continue rising: during the 20th century, global sea level has increased 15 to 20 cm, and between 1985 and 1995 more than 32,000 acres of coastal salt marsh were lost in the southeastern United States due to a combination of human development activities, sea level rise, natural subsidence and erosion. Rising sea level will likely drive the saltwater /freshwater interface further upstream possibly affecting the survival of drifting larvae and constricting available foraging habitat, well below the Action Area dams. While this will occur below the Action Area, it will impact fish migrating up into the Action Area from the estuary. 5.1.5 Water Allocation Water is removed from the Catawba - Wateree dam system upriver from and within the Action Area for uses other than hydroelectric generation: irrigation, industrial uses, and municipal drinking water supply. This use is expected to increase from 55 to 243 MGD (FERC 2009). The totals of all withdrawals across all reservoirs are projected to increase by 125 percent by 2058. Except at the Fishing Creek Development, water returns are less than withdrawals; net water use in the Catawba - Wateree River Basin is projected to increase approximately 180 percent by 2058 from 170 MGD at present. Depending on the development, outflow ranges from 0 to 12 percent of the mean river flow. The State of South Carolina designates the beneficial uses of the freshwaters within the Catawba - Wateree River Basin as primary and secondary contact recreation, drinking water supply after conventional treatment in accordance with requirements, fishing, indigenous aquatic community habitat, and industrial and agricultural uses. Point source discharges and compounds associated with discharges (contaminants including toxic metals, polychlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls)— although difficult to attribute to specific federal, state, local, or private action—contribute to poor water quality and may also impact the health of sturgeon populations. Poor water quality can have substantial deleterious effects on aquatic life, including production of acute lesions, growth retardation, and reproductive impairment (Sindermann 1994). Ultimately, toxins introduced to the water column become associated with the benthos and can be particularly harmful to benthic organisms (Varanasi 1992) like sturgeon. Available data suggest that early life stages of fish are more susceptible to environmental and pollutant stress than older life stages (Rosenthal and Alderdice 1976). 5.1.6 Water Quality The EPA published its second edition of the National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR II) (2005), which is a "report card" summarizing the status of coastal environments along the coasts of the United States. The report analyzes water quality, sediment, coastal habitat, benthos, and fish contaminant indices to determine status. The Southeast Region (North Carolina through Florida) received an overall grade of B -, which is the best rating in the nation. No indices were rated below a grade of C. Areas in the Southeast that had poor index scores were: (1) Pamlico Sound (water quality), (2) ACE (Ashepoo, Combahee, and Edisto Rivers) Basin (water quality), and (3) St. Johns River (sediment). 53 Wilhelm et al. (1998) identified the following water quality issues as high priority, regional -scale issues of concern in the Santee River Basin: (1) enrichment by nitrogen and phosphorus that has caused algal populations to increase; (2) sediment erosion due to agricultural practices of the 19th and 20th centuries; (3) runoff from urban areas that transport trace elements and synthetic organic compounds; (4) pesticides and nutrients that can contaminate surface and ground water; and (5) elevated concentrations of mercury in fish that inhabit the basin. Feaster and Conrads (1999) also identified the following point and non -point sources of bacterial contamination in the Santee River Basin. Point sources within the Santee River Basin are from both municipal and industrial discharges. Non -point sources are from agricultural sources (animal waste, application of manure and bio- solids to fields, and crop irrigation from contaminated storage ponds), urban/residential (failed waste - disposal systems, pet waste, litter, landfill leakage), recreational (direct discharge of marine -craft sewage), and wildlife waste. Twenty -eight pesticides were detected in USGS- monitored surface -water stations from 1973 -93: 5 herbicides and 23 insecticides. Pesticides are used on a regular basis for agricultural, commercial, and domestic protection of plants, woods, soil, and to control the growth of certain vegetation. Each of these applications is a potential source of pesticide entry into the Santee River Basin. Waterborne contaminants may affect the aquatic environment. Issues such as raised fecal coliform and estradiol concentrations affect all wildlife that utilize riverine habitat. The impact of many of these waterborne contaminants on shortnose sturgeon is unknown, but they are known to affect other species of fish in rivers and streams. These compounds may enter the aquatic environment via wastewater treatment plants, agricultural facilities, as well as runoff from farms (Folmar et al. 1996) Culp et al. 20001 (Wallin et al. 2002; Wildhaber et al.) and settle to the bottom, therefore affecting benthic foragers to a greater extent than pelagic (Geldreich and Clarke 1966). For example, estrogenic compounds are known to affect the male to female sex ratio of fish in streams and rivers via decreased gonadal development, physical feminization, and sex reversal (Folmar et al. 1996). Although the effects of these contaminants are unknown in shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon, Omoto et al. (2002) found that varying the oral doses of estradiol -170 or 17a- methyltestosterone given to captive hybrid "bester" sturgeon (Huso huso female X Acipenser ruthenus male) could induce abnormal ovarian development or a lack of masculinization. 5.1.7 Dams The Santee River Basin is geographically segmented by about 50 dams on the mainstem rivers (USFWS et al. 2001). These dams dictate distribution of diadromous fishes throughout the basin as they impede or impair upstream and /or downstream movement. The three dams below the Action Area (i.e., Wilson, Pinopolis, and St. Stephen, labeled Dams 1, 2, and 3 in Figure 4) are located at the extreme lower end of the coastal plain and therefore these dams are the first impediments encountered by all anadromous fish species migrating between estuarine /marine coastal waters into freshwater habitats of the Santee River Basin. Jointly, the Cooper and Santee Rivers are the keystone corridors used by diadromous fish to access habitats in the Santee River Basin (USFWS et al. 2001), including upstream into the Wateree River. 54 Priorities to provide fish passage throughout the Santee River Basin were identified in 2001 (USFWS et al. 2001). Essential to diadromous fish (specifically: Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, American shad, hickory shad, blueback herring, striped bass, and American eel) restoration in the Santee River Basin is improvement of fish passage at the lower dams on the Santee and Cooper Rivers (USFWS et al. 2001); adequate passage beyond these dams is essential to diadromous fish restoration throughout the basin. Next, restoring fish passage within the Broad River would provide the greatest benefit in the Santee's three main sub - basins above the Congaree River and should re- establish and enhance access to approximately 500 miles of habitat (Figure 4), followed by restoring passage in the Saluda, Wateree, and Catawba sub - basins (USFWS et al. 2001). PI c_ co'.." C". 0.1h Nhd W P�4 Cuhenan x. ARvsW UPµa6y,yM Y4 .1 Sh h RxJ srrom rn Cr— � F.I_ +O+e�sM fLre. �y P..w sh-K (irTnnt L_P..w soon Harbor Atlanw HO.WW Sarro Ocean Pon Rayr Souno 1 Pinopolis Dam 2 St. Stephen Dam 3 Wilson Dam 4 Granby Dam S Columbia Dam 6 Lake Murray Dam 7 Greenwood Dam 8 Parr Shoals Dam 9 Neal Shoals Dam 10 Lockhart Dam 11 Wateree Dam 12 Rocky Creek/Cedar Creek Dam 13 Great Falls /Dearborn Dam 14 Fishing Creek Dam 15 Wylie Dam Figure 4. Diagram depicting existing in -water facilities within the Santee River Basin that limit or prohibit sturgeon migration. Most facilities are scheduled to be relicensed by FERC within the next decade. Major main -stem impediments are indicated by red bars and listed by number; river names are italicized in blue. The CWHP Action Area is contained within the red oval. Dams and their operations are also the cause of major instream flow alteration in the Southeast (USFWS et al. 2001), including the Action Area. Hill (1996) identified the following impacts of altered flow to anadromous fishes by dams: (1) altered DO concentrations and temperature; (2) artificial destratification; (3) water withdrawal; (4) changed sediment load and channel 55 morphology; (5) accelerated eutrophication and change in nutrient cycling; and (6) contamination of water and sediment. Activities associated with dam maintenance, such as dredging and minor excavations along the shore, can release silt and other fine river sediments that can be deposited in nearby spawning habitat. Dams may reduce the viability of sturgeon populations by removing free - flowing river habitat. Seasonal deterioration of water quality can be severe enough to kill fish in deep storage reservoirs that receive high nutrient loadings from the surrounding watershed (Cochnauer 1986). Important secondary effects of altered flow and temperature regimes include decreases in water quality, particularly in the reservoir part of river segments, and changes in physical habitat suitability, particularly in the free- flowing part of river segments. The most commonly reported factor influencing year -class strength of sturgeon species is flow during the spawning and incubation period (Jager et al. 2002). 5.1.8 State or Private Actions A number of activities that may directly or indirectly affect shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon include impacts from fisheries, wastewater systems, stormwater systems, and residential or commercial developments adjacent to waterways. The direct and indirect impacts from some of these activities are difficult to quantify. However, where possible, conservation actions through the ESA Section 7 processes, ESA Section 10 permitting, ESA Section 6 cooperative agreements, and state permitting programs are being implemented to monitor or study impacts from these sources. 5.2 Status and Distribution of Atlantic Sturgeon within the Action Area 5.2.1 Distribution Atlantic sturgeon were likely present in many South Carolina rivers /estuary systems historically, but it is not known where spawning occurred. Secor (2002) estimated that 8,000 spawning females were likely present prior to 1890; since then populations have declined dramatically (Collins and Smith). Over the last two decades, Atlantic sturgeon have been observed in most South Carolina coastal rivers, although it is not known if all rivers support a spawning population (Collins and Smith). Downstream from the Action Area, Atlantic sturgeon are known to be present in both the Cooper and Santee Rivers; only carcasses have been reported in the reservoirs upstream from the Santee - Cooper dams. Two Atlantic sturgeon (151 -157 cmTL) carcasses were found on separate occasions washed up against the St. Stephen Dam (Collins and Smith 1997b). One additional carcass was later found upstream of St. Stephen. A total of 81 net sets between June 2004 to May 2006 (n =35.7 net hours) captured no Atlantic sturgeon in Lake Marion (Collins et al. 2006). NMFS is not aware of any additional reports of Atlantic sturgeon or Atlantic sturgeon spawning in Lake Marion or Moultrie, or waters of the Wateree. There are many reports of Atlantic sturgeon in the Santee River. In 1997, 151 subadult Atlantic sturgeon, including age -1 juveniles, were captured (Collins and Smith). Subadult and age -1 Atlantic sturgeon were again captured during winter 2003/4: (1) a juvenile was captured in the Santee River; and (2) 15 subadult Atlantic sturgeon were captured in the Santee estuary during a shortnose sturgeon survey with 156.6 hrs of effort. Because these sturgeon were not reproducing adults, it is not known if these small fish (360 and 378 mm FL) were resident or migratory YOY, as flood waters from the Pee Dee or Waccamaw River could have transported fish to the Santee - Cooper system via Winyah Bay and the Intracoastal Waterway (McCord 2004). w In March 2007 a large adult Atlantic sturgeon (1.4 in TL) was removed from the fishway exit channel at St. Stephen; the fish had migrated up the re- diversion canal from the Santee River. Given the relatively large number of Atlantic sturgeon that are annually reported as bycatch in the shad fishery in the Santee River, South Carolina, as reported to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, we expect an Atlantic sturgeon population exists in the Santee River as subadults, age -1 juveniles, and adults are reported. These fish will have passage to the Wateree river once the Santee- Cooper Project relicensing is completed as described previously in Section 4.2. 5.2.2 Abundance Historically, Atlantic sturgeon were abundant enough in South Carolina to support a commercial fishery with an average catch of 78,864 kg between 1880 -1901 (Secor). Landings of Atlantic sturgeon in South Carolina were greatest just north of the CWHP area in Winyah Bay (Secor 2002): harvesting also occurred in both the Cooper and Santee Rivers (Secor 2002). Based on mean annual harvest levels (1880 - 1901), abundance of spawning females was estimated at 8,000 for the state of South Carolina (Secor 2002). Current abundance estimates for Atlantic sturgeon are not available for the Santee River, Lakes Marion and Moultrie, the Cooper River, or the Action Area. While specific abundance estimates are not available, the shad gillnet fishery in the Cooper River reported a 10 -year average (2000 to 2009) of —85 Atlantic sturgeon caught annually. No spawning or live Atlantic sturgeon have been observed in the Wateree River in recent history. We expect the conditions created by the CRA under the new license will provide appropriate flows and usable habitat for the fish that live downstream of the Action Area. Those fish will have access into the Action Area once passage is implemented at the Santee - Cooper Project as described in Section 4.2. The best available information indicates that the abundances of spawning river populations within the Carolina DPS, though not confirmed for the population living downstream of the Santee - Cooper Project, are each estimated to have fewer than 300 spawning adults (ASSRT 2007). 5.3 Status and Distribution of Shortnose Sturgeon within the Action Area 5.3.1 Distribution Relative to historical abundance, the shortnose sturgeon population within the watershed has significantly decreased in number, mostly attributed to overfishing and habitat modification due to construction of dams. The major rivers along the East Coast, of which the Wateree River is a part of, historically supported the largest commercial sturgeon fishery in the South. Records show no differentiation between shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon was noted in landings records (NMFS 1998a). Fisheries for the shortnose sturgeon have been closed since 1967, followed by the closure of the Atlantic sturgeon fishery in South Carolina in 1985. Because habitat accessibility and dams are inseparably linked, fish passage at one facility determines the passage potential of other dams. The accessibility to, and condition of, habitat throughout the river system continues to be negatively impacted by dams. Genetic analysis has confirmed that the shortnose sturgeon predominately found downstream of the Action Area in the Cooper River, Santee River, and Lake Marion are not significantly different from one another; however, these fish are genetically distinct even from the adjacent population of shortnose sturgeon in Winyah Bay, separated by only 11 km of coastal waters 57 (Wirgin et al. 2009). These shortnose sturgeon do not interbreed with fish from any other population. Shortnose sturgeon in the Santee - Cooper population are related to each other while being a part of a larger metapopulation, as individuals within the Santee River Basin share a common gene pool and can be identified and classified to their discrete population. Therefore, in this and subsequent sections, we assess CWHP's impacts to the Santee - Cooper population of shortnose sturgeon because we expect these fish to move into the Action Area. Residing above the Santee - Cooper dams in Lakes Marion and Moultrie below the Action Area is a partially isolated or dam - locked group of shortnose sturgeon (Kynard and Horgan 2002). Below the Santee - Cooper dams reside two other partially isolated groups of shortnose sturgeon, likely descendants of reservoir -fish that do not ascend to historic spawning areas for successful spawning. Collins et al. (2003) observed that fish collected above the Santee - Cooper dams in Lakes Marion and Moultrie have poor body condition compared to those below the dam (i.e., in the Cooper River) which suggests poor foraging habitat quality in the lakes (e.g., inadequate food or lack of access to physiologically important habitat). In addition, the high incidence of shortnose sturgeon captured on baited hooks in the reservoirs was hypothesized to be a result of limited food availability (Collins et al. 2003). A diet study of shortnose sturgeon collected in Lake Marion indicated a diet predominated by insects and polychaetes (Collins et al. 2006). The absence of amphipods in the guts of these shortnose sturgeon was further investigated, as shortnose sturgeon collected from river systems are known to have a specialized diet of amphipods. Periodic sediment grabs in Lake Marion were conducted; results of the sediment grabs and shortnose sturgeon gut contents were both consistently predominated by mayfly larvae (Collins et al. 2006). A portion of life cycle of the Santee - Cooper shortnose sturgeon population occurs below the Action Area: adults grow, mature, and forage in the areas below the downstream (Santee - Cooper) dams and attempt to migrate upstream to spawning habitat in the Wateree and Congaree Rivers. Spawning has been observed in the Congaree River below Columbia (Collins et al. 2003). These fish are expected to move into the Wateree River once the flows under the new license are implemented, either by passing through the Santee - Cooper dams or once passage is implemented at Santee - Cooper. While no spawning sites were observed, Leach and Cooke (2006) assumed a shortnose sturgeon that ascended the Wateree River several miles was searching for or using suitable spawning habitat within the Wateree River. In a FERC study, Cooke and Leach (2003) also reported one fish entering the Wateree River. In early March 2011, SCDNR captured 19 adult shortnose sturgeon (70.6 — 106.7 cm TL) in the tailrace of the Pinopolis Dam. Eighteen of those shortnose sturgeon were tagged with an acoustic telemetry tag and released; the other fish had been tagged previously. Two of the tagged shortnose sturgeon moved through Pinopolis Lock, through Lakes Marion and Moultrie, and into the Wateree River. One shortnose sturgeon was recorded on the receiver at the Wateree Tailrace (approximately 1/4 mile downstream from the Wateree Dam) on both March 16 and 18, W. 2011, and spent a total of 8 days in the Wateree River. Another shortnose sturgeon entered the Wateree River, was recorded within 4 miles of the Wateree Dam, and spent a total of 14 days in the Wateree River (B. Post, SCDNR, pers. comm. to K. Reece, NMFS, 2011). Both of these fish then moved out of the Wateree River and into the headwaters of the Congaree River for 18 and 19 days, respectively, before returning to Lakes Marion and Moultrie. Since then one sturgeon remains in the Lake Moultrie and the other passed safely downstream into the Cooper River via either the Pinopolis lock or through the turbines on April 14, 2011. The remaining 16 shortnose sturgeon have been repeatedly located in the Cooper River. During April and May 2011, 17 of the tagged shortnose sturgeon, including the one that passed upstream and downstream of Pinopolis Dam, have been residing in the Cooper River between rkm 31.7- 45.8. While these are only a few contemporary documentations of sturgeon in the Wateree River, it is probable that other untagged fish also make the migration through the downstream dams and ascend into the Wateree River. 5.3.2 Abundance The Santee River Basin historically supported diverse populations of diadromous fish and important fisheries throughout the Piedmont and Coastal Plain regions. These species include the Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, American shad, hickory shad, blueback herring and alewife, striped bass, and American eel. Written accounts mention sturgeon occurring in the Broad River (Logan 1859), and in Fairfield County (Mills 1826) where they may have reached the Saluda and Enoree Rivers. These written accounts document diadromous fish ascending through the entire Santee River Basin, clearly indicating that sturgeon migrated above the fall line to access extensive bedrock, cobble, and gravel shoal areas in the upper regions that provided high quality spawning habitat (USFWS et al. 2001). It is likely that anadromous fish landings data from the Santee River Basin were underrepresented because of the remoteness of the lower river coupled with the absence of a central location for collection of landings data (McDonald 1887). During 1800 -1835, navigation canals and diversion dams were constructed at the fall line in the Santee Basin, substantially blocking the majority (in excess of 300 miles) of anadromous fish spawning habitat area. Canals at Landsford on the Catawba River, Columbia Canal on the Broad River, and Deeher Shoals on the Saluda River allowed river boats to move from the upper Piedmont to the cities of Columbia and Charleston bringing cotton and other important products to market. Fortunately, some spawning habitat for sturgeon and other anadromous species remained below those early dam and canal projects. With the completion of the Santee - Cooper Diversion Dam and Canal Project in 1942, anadromous fish migrations were generally confined to habitat below the dam. A small population of land - locked shortnose sturgeon remain above the Santee- Cooper Project but are limited in their ability to migrate to the saltwater /freshwater interface. Sturgeon have been observed moving through the Santee - Cooper project as described previously (Section 5.3. 1) when two sturgeon moved upriver into the Wateree River and Congaree River in the spring of 2011. 59 Sturgeon were abundant enough to sustain a fishery within the Santee River Basin in the late nineteenth century (Secor 2002). Relative to historical abundance, the sturgeon population within the Santee River Basin significantly decreased, mostly attributed to overfishing and habitat modification due to construction of dams. The major rivers along the East Coast historically supported the largest commercial sturgeon fishery in the South, though no differentiation between shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon was noted in landings records (NMFS 1998a). Fisheries for the shortnose sturgeon closed in 1967. The total number of shortnose sturgeon within the Action Area is greatly decreased from historic accounts. There are currently no abundance estimates available for the Action Area or for the sturgeon landlocked above the Santee - Cooper project. We expect the conditions created by the CRA under the new license will provide appropriate and usable habitat for the fish that live downstream of the Action Area. The flows under the CRA and the new license are expected to act as an attractant to the landlocked population. They are expected to begin using the Wateree River once the new flows are implemented, with the populations downstream of the Santee - Cooper Project moving into the Action Area once passage is implemented at the Santee - Cooper Project, as described above in Section 4.2. The best scientific and commercial information available for the population downstream of the Santee - Cooper Project is the 301 (95 percent CL 150 -659) adult shortnose sturgeon (total of both sexes) estimated during the spawning season in the Cooper River in the late 1990s (Cooke et al. 2004). Based upon the tracking information presented in Section 5.3.1 above, it is known that some of the adult shortnose sturgeon from the population below the Santee - Cooper Project are ascending to the Action Area. Given the tendency of sturgeon to migrate as far upstream as possible to spawn (Lawson 1709, McDonald 1887, Hightower 1998), we expect them to be present in the Action Area in greater abundance once passage is provided at the Santee - Cooper Project downstream and habitat improvements are made due to CRA implementation. 5.4 Summary of Environmental Baseline for Sturgeon Shortnose sturgeon occur in the Action Area and may be adversely affected by the proposed action. Research shows that sturgeon likely move through all areas of a river system but often remain in important resting and feeding aggregations for extended time periods (Kieffer and Kynard 1993). While neither large numbers of shortnose sturgeon nor any Atlantic sturgeon have been recently documented in the Wateree River through three potential routes, 1) from the landlocked population, 2) from fish passing the Santee- Cooper dams before passage is implemented, and 3) from fish passing Santee - Cooper after passage is implemented. Given the tendency of sturgeon to migrate as far upstream as possible to spawn (Hightower 1998; Lawson 1709; McDonald 1887), we expect them to be present in the Action Area once new flows are implemented under the new license and increased habitat becomes available and after they are provided passage at the Santee- Cooper Project downstream. We have summarized above the current and ongoing factors influencing the landscape in the Wateree River where the proposed action will occur; many of these are detrimental to the shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. The demersal nature of sturgeon makes them vulnerable to the low DO levels that results from regulated water flow. Reduced water levels due to allocation and drought limit access and availability of habitats. Projected warming from climate change is 16 1' expected to increase water temperatures. In the Southeast, deterioration of water quality appears to be degrading both the nursery areas and the deep -water refugia where sturgeon aggregate in the summer (Collins et al. 2000a). The survival of juvenile shortnose sturgeon and their subsequent recruitment to the adult population has been identified as a potential limiting factor in population growth (Smith et al. 1992); natural recruitment is already low as indicated by the lack of YOY and low catch rate of juvenile sturgeon in the Santee system as a whole. Because dams have fragmented the free- flowing rivers into isolated ecosystems, these environmental effects influence each habitat fragment individually as well as the Santee River Basin collectively. 6 Effects of the Action In this section of the BO, we assess the effects of the proposed action (both direct and indirect effects) on the Santee - Cooper shortnose sturgeon population and the Atlantic sturgeon Carolina DPS. The analysis in this section forms the foundation for the jeopardy analysis in Section 8. A jeopardy determination is reached if we would reasonably expect a proposed action to cause reductions in numbers, reproduction, or distribution that would appreciably reduce a listed species' likelihood of surviving and recovering in the wild. Shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon are likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits activities that "take" any endangered species within the United States or its territorial sea. 16 USC § 1538(a)(1)(B). "Take" is defined as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." 16 USC § 1532(19). NMFS has defined "harm" to include "significant habitat modification or degradation which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering." 50 CFR. § 222.102. NMFS has also explained that habitat modification that significantly impairs essential behaviors constitutes injury and a prohibited "take." 64 Federal Register 60727, 60728 (November 8, 1999). Shortnose sturgeon are listed as endangered throughout their range. Across their range their status is considered mixed as some populations are increasing and others are decreasing or unknown. The Santee - Cooper population has decreased dramatically from historic levels. Current population trends are unknown for this system. The proposed action will impact one riverine population of shortnose sturgeon that is one of only three documented spawning populations of the southern metapopulation of shortnose sturgeon. Atlantic sturgeon are listed as threatened in one DPS (Gulf of Maine) and endangered in the others (New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic). Across their range their status is considered mixed as some populations are increasing and others are decreasing or unknown. The Carolina DPS has decreased dramatically from historic levels. Current population trends are unknown for this system. The 50 -year term of the license proposed to be issued by FERC to Duke Energy for the CWHP will affect about eight generations of shortnose sturgeon. Mean generation time (mean period elapsing between the birth of the parents and the birth of the offspring) is estimated to be approximately seven years for shortnose sturgeon within the CWHP area (Marchette and Smiley 61 unpublished data). Twenty years is equal to at least one generation of Atlantic sturgeon (ASSRT 2007), and possibly multiple generations in the Southeast where Atlantic sturgeon may reach sexual maturity as early as five years (Smith et al. 1982). Hence, the effects of the re- licensing of the CWHP for an additional 50 years will result in long -term impacts to the Santee - Cooper shortnose and Carolina DPS Atlantic sturgeon. Impacts from increased mortality or decreased fecundity and recruitment accrue geometrically with each generation impacted. Thus, population declines can become very large, even devastating, with apparently small annual impacts when they are compounded over many generations. 6.1 Hydrologic Conditions under the Terms of the Revised License 6. 1.1 Flow Regime Hydropower dams directly affect the volume and rate of water discharged and thereby affect water depths and the extent of available habitat downstream of the CWHP dams. Under the current license and operations, Duke Energy is required to release a minimum average daily now from the Wateree Dam of 446 cfs which can include extended periods of leakage -only (-100cfs) flows between peak generation runs. Under the new license, Duke Energy will be required to release minimum flows of 930 cfs (June through February 14); 2,400 cfs (February 15 -29 and May 1 —May 15); 2,700 cfs (March — April); and 1,250 cfs (May 16 —May 31) from the Wateree Dam. Minimum flows under the new license will result in increased habitat that may be usable by sturgeon, as compared to the status quo. This has been identified as weighted usable area (WUA), measured as ft2 /1,000 ft. In this case, the habitat suitability curves used for calculation of WUA for evaluation of the relationship between flow and available habitat indicate that sturgeon prefer water depths greater than 6 ft and water velocities between 0.5 and 3 ft per second (FERC 2009). Analysis of the proposed flows by Duke Energy show WUAs as shown in Table 6. Table 6. Summary of weighted useable area analysis for sturgeon habitat based on current conditions and on minimum continuous mandatory flows under the new license conditions. Time Period Flow cfs WUA Current year -round average daily flow 446 0 June — February 14 930 7,090 February 15 -29 2,400 23,363 March 2,700 27,176 April 2,700 27,176 May 1 -15 2,400 23,363 May 16 -31 1,250 9,782 The Minimum Average Daily Flow (MADF) requirement under the current license at Wateree Dam is 446 cfs. It is important to note, however, that this is an average and not a continuous minimum flow requirement. This means, for example, the 446 cfs MADF could be met by 4 hours of generation releasing 2,176 cfs and 20 hours of no generation releasing only CL approximately 100 cfs of leakage flow. So, even when meeting the 446 cfs MADF requirement in the current license, 446 cfs is not likely the continuous flow released from the Wateree Dam. Even under flow releases compliant with the current 446 cfs MADF requirement, the flow release from Wateree Dam can be only leakage during the majority of the day. Under leakage - only conditions, the WUA is negligible and virtually non - existent (M. Oakley, Duke Energy, pers. comm. to K. Reece, NMFS, 2011). Hence, while 446 cfs is an average flow, because the flow is not constant no actual usable sturgeon habitat is available under current conditions. Importantly, minimum flows under the new license will be continuous rather than a daily average and will eliminate long periods of leakage -only flows that currently eliminate or limit sturgeon habitat between the Wateree Dam and the Congaree River. Maintaining a higher continuous minimum flow release and corresponding habitat should provide sturgeon with the opportunity to utilize (and spawn in) the entire Wateree River, below the Wateree Dam, not only during continuous minimum flow conditions but also during higher flow events, creating more spawning and rearing habitat. NMFS expects, based on the best available information, that flows under the new license will increase water depths, the lateral extent of the river channel, and flows downstream of the CWHP. This, in turn, will increase the amount of spawning and rearing habitat available for use by shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. Suitable spawning habitat has been observed in multiple locations below the Wateree Dam (P. Brownell, NMFS, pers. comm. to K. Reece, NMFS, 2013) It should be noted that there are several caveats to meeting the required minimum flows specified in the Catawba - Wateree Settlement Agreements including the LIP and the MEP. FERC concludes that the recommended minimum flows in the revised CRA are sustainable through 2048 to 2058 under critical extended low inflow periods typical of the hydrologic record since 1930. Additionally, the ability to meet these minimum flows may be compromised during extended periods of severe low inflow when regional growth and associated water demand projected beyond the year 2048 may tax the ability of operating protocols to balance and maintain system storage capacity (FERC 2009). Prior to the potential water shortfalls expected to occur around 2048, beneficial impacts of the projected increases in quantity and quality of spawning habitat downstream of the CWHP on sturgeon could be evidenced by documented increases in spawning success, reproductive rate, and population size. Increased flows are known to act as environmental cues to sturgeon, triggering them to migrate further upstream in search of historically available spawning habitat (Auer 1996). Lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) were shown to have greater spawning density, higher percentage of females, increased reproductive readiness, and shorter residence time at spawning sites when hydropower operations consistently mimicked natural flows (Auer 1996; Cooke and Leach 2004). Another study focusing on the recovery of pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) in Yellowstone National Park determined that the restoration of flow was considered to be a historical ecological condition and would be required for recovery (Bramblett and White 2001; Cooke and Leach 2004). While the extent of the beneficial effects with current information cannot be accurately quantified, the increase in continuous flow will improve current hydrologic conditions downstream, which will be noted in improved water quality (increased DO and dilution of existing effluent outfalls), enhanced flow velocities, and expansion of spawning habitat through additional inundated area. The increase in base flow is beneficial to the 63 downstream reaches of the Wateree River and will have a positive effect on the Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon populations and will increase their likelihood of surviving and recovering in the wild. 6.1.2 Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) Under the current license and operations when drought conditions arise, procedures are not established to deal with the low inflow. The LIP has been devised to deal with low inflow under the new license. The goal of the LIP is to establish agreed upon procedures that can be quickly implemented at the first signs of drought conditions. Under the new license, the LIP will be implemented during periods when there is not enough water flowing into the CWHP's reservoirs to meet the required minimum instream flows while maintaining reservoir water elevations within normal operating ranges. The LIP provides trigger points and operating procedures that Duke Energy will follow. Duke Energy and large water intake owners have voluntarily implemented this protocol before the issuance of the new license, most notably during the record drought of 2007 -2009. 6.1.3 Water Quality DO is a measure of the amount of gaseous oxygen (OZ) dissolved in an aqueous solution. Oxygen gets into water by diffusion from the surrounding air, by aeration (rapid movement), and as a waste product of photosynthesis; in turn, fishes take up the oxygen in the water via their gills for respiration. There are many factors that reduce water's ability to hold oxygen. The amount of oxygen held depends greatly on the temperature of the water. As temperatures rise, the amount of DO the water can hold lessens. Other factors which influence DO levels are the amount of other compounds present in the water. These compounds may be solids, chemicals, or even other gasses, all of which can reduce the amount of DO the water can hold. Sturgeon do well in water that contains at least 5 mg /L of DO; the lower the levels the greater the stress. Low DO levels can be physiologically stressful or lethal to fish dependent on aerobic respiration. At levels below 5 mg /L, sturgeon become stressed; they will often move to areas of higher DO if able. Different fish have specific requirements for particular DO levels, below which they will not reproduce, feed, or survive: Larger fish, such as sturgeon, usually have a greater oxygen demand than smaller fish of the same species; more active fish often require more oxygen than fish that are less active; and most organisms need more oxygen while digesting food. Low DO levels (hypoxia) can impair animal growth or reproduction, and the complete lack of oxygen (anoxia) will kill animals. The bottom layer of a waterbody becomes oxygen depleted before the rest of the water column: dead algal cells sink and consume available oxygen as they decompose. In slow, stagnant waters, oxygen regularly only enters the top layer of water, and deeper water is regularly low in DO. In general, water that is slow- moving, poorly- mixed, and has abundant nutrients is more likely to become hypoxic and remain so for long periods of time. Benthic - dwelling sturgeon occupy the bottom layer of the water column that is most susceptible to low DO. Sensitivity by sturgeon and other fishes to temperature, oxygen, and their interaction has been evaluated experimentally through respirometry. Critical oxygen concentration is determined by melding the metabolic response curve to required DO concentration; oxygen levels below that point will constrain metabolism, growth, swimming activity, and consumption. As basal .I metabolism of fishes increases with water temperature, the critical concentration becomes higher and demand outpaces availability. At very low oxygen concentrations, metabolism decreases rapidly and the fish dies; this is termed threshold concentration. Both critical and threshold concentrations are substantially higher for sturgeons in comparison to freshwater fishes. In comparison to other fishes, sturgeon are more sensitive to low DO conditions. Sturgeons have limited behavioral and physiological capacity to respond to hypoxia (multiple references reviewed and cited by Secor and Niklitschek 2001 and 2003). Their basal metabolism, growth, consumption, and survival are all very sensitive to changes in oxygen levels, which may indicate their relatively poor ability to oxyregulate (EPA 2003). In summer, the coupling of low DO and water temperatures greater than 20 °C amplifies the effect of hypoxia on sturgeon and other fishes due to a temperature- oxygen habitat squeeze (Coutant 1987). Sturgeon often find the temperatures they prefer in deeper waters that consequently have low DO levels. Sturgeon are therefore forced to occupy either unsuitable or constricted habitats. Jenkins et al. (1993) examined environmental tolerance of DO on shortnose sturgeon and found that younger fish were differentially susceptible to low DO levels in comparison to older juveniles. Shortnose sturgeon older than 77 days experienced minimal mortality at nominal levels >2.5 mg /L; mortality at 2.0 mg /L increased to 24 -38 percent. DO at 3.0 mg /L resulted in an 18 -38 percent mortality of fish less than 78 days old, increasing to 80 percent at 2.5mg/L (Jenkins et al. 1993). More rigorous tests, using YOY shortnose sturgeon (77 -134 days old) coupling temperature and DO values also found a high degree of sensitivity to low DO in acute tests at low salinities (Campbell and Goodman 2004). YOY shortnose sturgeon exposed to DO levels ranging from 2.2 mg /L to 3.1 mg /L experienced a mortality rate of 96 percent within 4 hours of exposure. Seventy- seven - day -old shortnose sturgeon had an estimated median lethal concentration (LC50) at 2.7 mg /L at 25 °C (Campbell and Goodman 2004); an LC50 of 2.2 mg /L was found for fish 104 and 134 days old at temperatures of 21.80 to 26.4 °C. One - hundred- day -old fish exposed to 29 °C were most sensitive to low DO, yielding a LC50 of 3.1 mg /L (Campbell and Goodman 2004). Niklitschek (2001) observed poor survival of both shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon at DO concentrations of 40 percent versus 70 percent saturation (100 percent saturation is the maximum level of oxygen that can be dissolved in water at a given temperature) with the effects being conditional on temperature. The proportion of energy allocated to growth also decreased as DO concentration varied from normal. Bioenergetic and behavioral responses indicate that habitat for YOY ( -30 to 200 days old) becomes unavailable with less than 60 percent saturation ( Secor and Niklitschek 2001); this occurs at summertime temperatures of 220-27 °C with DO of 4.3 -4.7 mg/L. Sublethal effects of low DO include impacted growth, metabolism, and foraging; a concurrent increase in water temperature amplifies effects of low DO. Laboratory results indicate that at water temperatures of 20 °C and 40 percent saturation (e.g., 3.3 mg/L), effects to shortnose sturgeon included a reduction in growth by about 30 percent, a reduction in eating by about 28 percent, and a reduction in routine metabolism by about 20 percent ( Niklitschek 2001). While keeping saturation constant at 40 percent and increasing temperature to 27 °C (corresponding to 65 2.9 mg /L), growth was further reduced by 69 percent, consumption by 45 percent, and routine metabolism by 21 percent ( Niklitschek 2001). Because the Niklitschek (2001) investigation reported routine rather than basal metabolism, estimates of critical concentrations are not available. In a separate laboratory study using Atlantic sturgeon, Secor and Gunderson (1998) reported about a 3 -fold reduction in growth rate due to hypoxia at 26 °C compared to 19 °C. Beyond metabolic response, sturgeons undertake other physiological and behavioral responses to hypoxia. Signs of stress observed in shortnose sturgeon exposed to low DO included reduced swimming and feeding activity, coupled with increased ventilation frequency (Campbell and Goodman 2004). Niklitschek (2001) observed that egestion levels for Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon juveniles increased significantly under hypoxia, indicating that consumed food was incompletely digested. Behavioral studies indicate that Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon are quite sensitive to ambient conditions of DO and temperature. In choice experiments, juvenile sturgeons consistently selected normoxic over hypoxic conditions ( Niklitschek 2001). Beyond escape or avoidance, sturgeons respond to hypoxia through increased ventilation, increased surfacing (to ventilate relatively oxygen -rich surficial water), and decreased swimming and routine metabolism (Crocker and Cech 1997; Niklitschek 2001; Nonnotte et al. 1993; Secor and Gunderson 1998). FERC expects the proposed modifications in operations of the CWHP (discussed above in Section 3.1.5) to alleviate some of the chronic ill effects due to poor water quality (FERC 2009). Water quality testing performed by Duke Energy indicates that the proposed enhancement measures will meet the state standards (FERC 2009). FERC expects the water quality improvements and enhancement measures, coupled with the increased flow rates, are likely to improve the quality of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon foraging and spawning habitat through increased DO. NMFS believes that the proposed modifications in operations of the CWHP will result in successful water quality improvements that will increase survival and recruitment rates of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. 6.2 Effects of Hydroelectric Dam on Fish Passage and Spawning Shortnose sturgeon, unlike many of their congeners, are considered freshwater amphidromous species; they typically migrate between freshwater and mesohaline river reaches and do not migrate extensively to marine habitats for feeding (Kynard 1997). Sturgeon migrate to optimize feeding, avoid unfavorable conditions, and to optimize reproductive success (McKeown 1984; Northcote 1978; Tsyplakov 1978), and these options are somewhat restrained for amphidromous species. Sturgeon stocks in the Santee - Cooper system, which includes the Wateree River, are much depressed relative to historic levels (FERC 2009). For example, an estimated 8,000 female sturgeon (no differentiation between Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon) were likely present in South Carolina for the period 1880 -1901, based on U.S. Fish Commission landing records ( Secor 2002). Since the 1800s, populations have declined dramatically (Collins and Smith 1997b). The Santee - Cooper dams below the CWHP have impeded upstream and downstream movement of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon since the Santee - Cooper Project was constructed between 1938 and 1942. Thus, upstream migration by sturgeon residing in the rivers below the dams has been by and large prevented; however, as noted above in Section 5.3.1, some sturgeon have 0 continued to successfully navigate past the Santee - Cooper project into the Action Area. Shortnose sturgeon spawning has been documented in the tailrace area immediately below the Pinopolis Dam since 1997 (Cooke and Leach 1999). At least two studies have focused on capturing and tracking sturgeon from the reservoirs above the Santee - Cooper dams (Lake Moultrie and Lake Marion). Individuals from these land - locked population of shortnose sturgeon have been observed moving upstream into the Congaree River and confirmed spawning sites have been located via identification of fertilized eggs approximately 60 km above Lake Marion near Columbia, South Carolina (Collins et al. 2003). None of the fish in the 2003 study were observed moving into the Action Area. Historically, sturgeon ascended to the furthest freshwater reaches and river heads in order to reach natal spawning grounds (Lawson 1709, McDonald 1887, Hightower 1998). Spawning sites are the most upstream river reaches used by shortnose sturgeon (Kynard and Horgan 2002). The existence of an impediment blocking migration, such as a dam, could force shortnose sturgeon to spawn at locations further downriver in areas that were not historically used for spawning (Kynard et al. 1999). Female shortnose sturgeon do not always release all or a portion of their eggs at the first available habitat encountered containing gravel, cobble, or rocky substrate suitable for egg deposition (S. Bolden, NMFS, pers. comm. to K. Reece, NMFS, 2013) and will bypass seemingly appropriate habitat in search of spawning areas further upstream. If these sturgeon deposit eggs in habitat which is not suitable for successful adherence, fertilization, and development, then those eggs may not become viable progeny. This will affect the survival and recruitment of individuals of that particular year class and, over time, reduce the reproductive success and recruitment of new individuals to the population. By continuing to impede the river with the dams, upstream migration to habitat areas above the Wateree Dam and beyond is prevented. Thus, the CWHP is harming these individuals and the population (under the regulatory definition of harm) by restricting/limiting migration/spawning to the Wateree River above the dam. Over time, if sturgeon populations increase as expected (from increased habitat, improved water quality, along with passage provided at the Santee - Cooper Dam located downstream of the Wateree Dam) accessibility to habitat (fish passage) above the Wateree Dam may become necessary. 6.3 Fish Passage NMFS, by letter filed on June 5, 2008, expressly reserves its authority to prescribe fish passage under Section 18 of the Federal Power Act. USFWS provided FERC with a prescription for fish passage by letter dated June 22, 2009, to require Duke Energy to provide upstream fishways for adult anadromous American shad and adult anadromous blueback herring at the Wateree Development no later than January 1, 2018. The USFWS reserved its authority to prescribe downstream passage facilities for these species. USFWS also prescribed passage for the American eel. USFWS recommended the design of a trap, sort, and transport (TST) system for upstream passage of anadromous fish at the Wateree Dam. Although NMFS believes it is unlikely, the proposed TST facility could potentially capture shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. Capture is defined by the Endangered Species Act as a form of take, ESA §3(19). The TST facility will be designed to capture primarily adult anadromous American shad and adult anadromous blueback herring, and it is anticipated that this design will 67 not result in sturgeon captures during the March -May operation of the TST facility. However, in the event that a sturgeon is captured in the TST facility, Duke Energy has agreed to follow a sturgeon handing protocol found in their Sturgeon Plan that was developed based on recommendations by Damon - Randall et al. (20 10) and Kahn and Mohead (2010). There are currently no known spawning sites for Atlantic or shortnose sturgeon in the Wateree River. While reports of shortnose sturgeon near the base of the dam have been documented recently (B. Post, SCDNR, pers. comm. to K. Reece, NMFS, 2011) none have been documented spawning in the Action Area. This is most likely due to the low flow which contributes to the lack of suitable habitat depth. Also, no studies have been carried out in the Wateree to determine if spawning has occurred there. The proposed action will increase water flow, depth, and quality throughout the Wateree River, which in NMFS's opinion will increase available spawning and rearing habitat. These improvements are expected to increase overall sturgeon populations (shortnose and Atlantic) which will increase the take over time. If the species trend upward in population as expected, the amount of sturgeon that could be captured in the TST facility is expected to increase as well. This variability in population will directly affect the estimated take for the CWHP. There are no TST facilities known to pass sturgeon on the East Coast. Only a few East Coast fish passage facilities (fish lifts) are known to have passed sturgeons (Saco River, Maine; West Springfield Dam, Massachusetts; Holyoke Dam, Massachusetts; St. Stephen Dam, South Carolina) and, while passage efficiency is difficult to quantify, it is unlikely that any can be considered an efficient means of sturgeon passage. Of these facilities, the Holyoke Dam fish lifts on the Connecticut River, Massachusetts, and the St. Stephen fish lift on the Santee River, South Carolina, have the most reports of upriver sturgeon passage. Continuing studies found that between 1975 -2011, the fish lifts at Holyoke passed 125 shortnose sturgeon, an average of 3.38 per year (Kynard 1998; Kynard et al. 1999; USFWS 2011). Using current estimates, a population of about 1,200 adults is estimated in the Connecticut River. Alternately, the St. Stephen Dam fish lift has captured six sturgeon (four in 1994 and two in 1998) over the past 27 years (1985- 2011), an average of 0.22 per year (B. Post, SCDNR, pers. comm. to R. Hendren, NMFS -PRD). The greater adult abundance in northern and north - central populations likely reflects a historical difference with southern populations that is currently accentuated by increased anthropogenic impacts on southern populations. Adult abundance in the South is less than the minimum estimated viable population abundance of 1,000 adults for all natural southern populations (Kynard 1997). This being said, review of the numbers of fish lifted by these two facilities shows a pattern of probability. The lift facility at St. Stephen has passed, on average, approximately 0.22 sturgeon per year over the 27 years of operation with a population of approximately 300 adults of each species in the river system. The maximum number of sturgeon passed in a single year was four. Similarly, the lift facilities at Holyoke Dam have passed, on average, 3.38 sturgeons per year over the past 37 years. The maximum number of sturgeon passed in a single year was 16 between two lifts at Holyoke. Obviously there are large differences between the lift operations at Holyoke and St. Stephen. The population in the Connecticut River is four times larger than the Santee - Cooper system; however, the rates at which the lifts encountered sturgeon were roughly similar when population size was considered. M: The average number of sturgeon encountered (rounded up to the nearest whole number) multiplied by the estimated population for the river on which the lift(s) was located yielded a value of 0.3 percent. This is the value (in percent) of the average amount of sturgeon population that is passed per year. It is impossible at this time to quantify how many fish will pass through the Santee - Cooper Project and ascend into the Wateree River, or when passage will be implemented. We can make reasonable assumptions based on known sturgeon behavior that spawning adults will ascend to the highest available reaches in the river to spawn. When passage is successful at the Santee - Cooper Project, therefore, we must assume that spawners will ascend in search of spawning habitat. Currently, there is uncertainty about when passage will be implemented due to ongoing negotiations between the Santee - Cooper applicant, FERC, the USAGE, and NMFS, as described in Section 4.2. What is certain, however, is that passage will occur within the proposed relicensing term of the C"P. NMFS expects the amount of take from the fish passage facility (TST) to be approximately 0.3 percent of the both Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon populations per year. This number is derived from our opinion that while the possibility of sturgeon being incidentally captured is real, the anticipated numbers captured per year are very low and subject to population size. The effects of the TST will not be realized until the TST facility at the Wateree Dam is operational (no later than January 2018). Once the TST is operational, nonlethal take in the amount of 0.3 percent each of the Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon populations is anticipated annually. 6.4 Summary of Effects Consequences of FERC issuing the 50 -year license to Duke Energy under the terms outlined in the FEIS include: 1) Increased flows are expected to increase the extent of foraging and spawning habitat downstream of the Wateree Dam over what it is today. 2) Water quality improvements (improved DO from the newly installed aerating hydro units as described in Section 3.1.5.12.1) are expected to enhance the suitability of spawning habitat downstream of the Wateree Dam. 3) The upstream dams will continue to regulate water flows, riverine flushing, floodplain inundation, overall foraging habitat quality and quantity, and spawning habitat quantity and quality. 4) The increases in flow rates and water quality will be improvements over the status quo, but it is unclear how much it will benefit shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. 5) All migrating shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon in the Wateree River at the Wateree Dam will continue to be denied access to upstream habitat. 6) The proposed TST facility may take shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon migrating upstream to spawn. C01 7 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are the effects of future state, local, or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the Action Area considered in this BO. Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. The present, major human uses of the Action Area, such as commercial and recreational fishing and boating, are expected to continue at the present levels of intensity in the near future, as are their associated risks of injury or mortality to sturgeon by incidental capture by fishermen. Human activities that affect water quality and quantity such as farming, industrial and sewer discharges, and water returns are expected to increase over the term of the license. Future cooperation between NMFS and Duke Energy on these issues will provide measures to maintain the expected increases in habitat quantity and quality. NMFS will continue to work with states to implement ESA Section 6 agreements, and researchers with Section 10 permits, to enhance programs to quantify and mitigate takes. Climatically, over the 50 -year license term, sea level is expected to continue to rise, water temperatures are expected to continue to rise, and levels of precipitation are likely to fluctuate more drastically. Drought and inter- and intra -state water allocations and their associated impacts will continue and may intensify. A rise in sea level will likely drive the saltwater /freshwater interface upriver on the Santee River system, further constricting shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon habitat. 8 Jeopardy Analysis The analyses conducted in the previous sections of this BO serve to provide a basis to determine whether the proposed action would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered shortnose sturgeon and the endangered Atlantic sturgeon Carolina DPS, by identifying the nature and extent of adverse effects (take) expected to impact each species. Next we consider how sturgeon will be impacted by the proposed relicensing of the CWHP in terms of overall population effects and whether those effects of the proposed action will jeopardize the continued existence of the species when considered in the context of the status of the species and their habitat (Section 4), the environmental baseline (Section 5), and cumulative effects (Section 7). It is the responsibility of the action agency to "ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species..." (ESA Section 7(a)(2)). Action agencies must consult with and seek assistance from the Services to meet this responsibility. The Services must ultimately determine in a BO whether the action jeopardizes listed species. To jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species is defined as "to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of 70 that species" (50 CFR 402.02). The following jeopardy analysis first considers the effects of the action to determine if we would reasonably expect the action to result in reductions in reproduction, numbers, or distribution of these sturgeon species. The analysis next considers whether any such reduction would in turn result in an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of survival of these species in the wild, and the likelihood of recovery of these species in the wild. In this context, the survival of the species refers to the continued existence of the species in the wild, and whether or not any anticipated take of that species will result in any reduction in reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species that may appreciably increase a species' risk of extinction, or appreciably interfere with achieving recovery objectives, in the wild. In the following analysis, we will show how the anticipated take of Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon within the Wateree River over the course of a 50 -year license is not expected to have any measurable impact on the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the species. Furthermore, given the available information, this action is not expected to appreciably increase the risk of extinction of these species in the wild, or appreciably interfere with achieving recovery objectives for the species. As a reminder: it is unknown the degree to which Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon are currently using the Action Area. Once the new license is implemented, improvements in flow will increase spawning and rearing habitat for sturgeon in the Action Area. As explained above, this habitat improvement is expected to attract sturgeon that reside in the river basin (the landlocked population mentioned in Section 5.3. 1) but do not currently move into the Wateree River because of the lack of appropriate habitat as well as sturgeon that are able to pass through the Santee - Cooper dams before passage is implemented. Additionally, at some point during the 50 -year license fish passage will be implemented at the downstream Santee - Cooper Project. This passage will allow sturgeon populations downstream of the Santee - Cooper Project to migrate into the Action Area. 8.1 Shortnose Sturgeon 8.1.1 Shortnose Sturgeon Survival The Santee - Cooper population of shortnose sturgeon, that would likely utilize the Action Area if they had access, has been experiencing the chronic effects of water control projects for over 100 years. Habitat fragmentation, low flows, and poor water quality have combined with other sources of human induced stress and mortality to greatly reduce this population from historic levels. The Santee - Cooper population has been precluded from the Action Area due to lack of access and lack of appropriate habitat. Shortnose sturgeon have been documented in telemetry studies in Lake Marion, Lake Moultrie, the Saluda and Broad Rivers, and downstream of the Santee - Cooper Project. Currently, the best available scientific data does not provide the information necessary to quantify the number of new recruits to the population or the survival rate of shortnose sturgeon in the Santee - Cooper system or the Action Area. The population of shortnose sturgeon is at a low level with serious impairments to all major life stages and functions because of the combined impacts of all the dams. 71 The USFWS along with NMFS define survival as "the species' persistence, as listed or as a recovery unit, beyond the conditions leading to its endangerment, with sufficient resilience to allow recovery from endangerment. Survival is the condition in which a species continues to exist into the future while retaining the potential for recovery. This condition is characterized by a species with a sufficiently large population, represented by all necessary age classes, genetic heterogeneity, and number of sexually mature individuals producing viable offspring, which exists in an environment providing all requirements for completion of the species' entire life cycle, including reproduction, sustenance, and shelter" ( USFWS and NMFS 1998). Under present conditions (i.e., including status quo operations of the CWHP), the Santee - Cooper population of shortnose sturgeon is not meeting this definition of survival. NMFS believes that the proposed action is expected to improve spawning and rearing habitat within the Action Area. As the CWHP dams currently in place will remain in place, the CWHP operations will continue to affect sturgeon by not allowing free passage above any of the CWHP dams to additional spawning habitat. However, NMFS believes that the proposed Project operations will improve future river conditions (habitat quantity and quality) compared to current river conditions, because of increased minimum flows and improved water quality, as discussed in Section 6. The combined effects of the proposed enhanced water quality and quantity are significant improvements over the baseline conditions which have persisted since the initial operation of the Wateree Dam. NMFS believes that the proposed flow and water quality will substantially increase and improve sturgeon spawning and rearing habitat downstream of Wateree Dam, which will increase the probability of successful spawning and survival of larval and juvenile sturgeon and will allow sturgeon to repopulate the Action Area. Therefore, NMFS concludes the proposed action is not likely to appreciably reduce the shortnose sturgeon's likelihood for survival in the wild. 8.1.2 Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery In the above analysis on the effects of the action, we determined that the CWHP will continue to block spawning habitat for shortnose sturgeon above the dam, but due to improvements to water quality and flows, will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the shortnose sturgeon's survival within the Wateree River. We will analyze the likelihood of shortnose sturgeon recovery in the wild by considering effects resulting from the proposed action relative to accomplishing the conservation goals described in the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Plan (NMFS 1998a). The long -term recovery goal for shortnose sturgeon focuses on recovering each population independently. An increase in the population to a size that maintains a steady recruitment of individuals representing all life stages would provide population stability and enable the population to sustain itself in the event of unavoidable impacts. Goals listed in the 1998 shortnose sturgeon recovery plan that could be affected by the proposed action include: 1. Restore habitats and their functions in the life histories of each population segment. 2. Restore spawning habitat and conditions. 3. Restore flows in regulated rivers during spawning periods to promote spawning success and rehabilitate degraded spawning substrate. 4. Resolve CWHP conflicts that potentially impact shortnose sturgeon or their habitat. 72 5. Establish consistent operating policies that allow federal agencies to meet mission goals while protecting shortnose sturgeon and their habitats. The current conditions, which include fragmented habitat, altered/reduced flow, and decreased water quality, have, in part, contributed to the continued low abundance of the Santee - Cooper shortnose sturgeon population. NMFS believes that there are enough sexually mature individuals and genetic diversity currently in the population to retain the potential for recovery of this unique genotype. Project operations are expected to improve habitat in the spawning areas, that will in turn increase recruitment success rates. Nursery habitat for early life stages of larval and juvenile sturgeon will also be improved through increased flow and water quality. This increase in survival will help to rebuild the population, thereby aiding in the recovery of the species. Although the proposed action includes fish passage for anadromous species (American shad and adult blueback herring) other than sturgeon, the proposed action does not include safe upstream or downstream passage for sturgeon, and sturgeon passage has not been prescribed at this time as discussed in Section 3.2. Quality habitat exists above the Wateree Dam, but access to these waters is restricted by the presence of four other structures in relatively close proximity to each other: Rocky Creek Dam, Fishing Creek Dam, Great Falls Weir, and the Great Falls Diversion Dam. Providing upstream passage at this time would potentially harm the species, hence, NMFS will specify that shortnose sturgeon be excluded from the TST passage facility. Denying upstream access to sturgeon may continue to have an effect on population growth. However, the 76 -mile stretch of river below the Wateree Dam is expected to significantly improve due to enhanced water quality and flows, which will expand available spawning and rearing sites, and aid the recovery of the species despite the continued blockage. The majority of this BO's assessment of effects is based on instream flow studies and hydrologic modeling (see Section 6.1) which give us some level of understanding of anticipated water flow and stage. With this data we can make assumptions based on our experience of habitat suitability for sturgeon and other species. However what ultimately happens in the environment is not as predictable; therefore, monitoring will be required to assess sturgeon spawning habitat within the Action Area. Based on the best available data, the proposed CWHP operations will continue to affect sturgeon by blocking access to habitat above the Wateree Dam. Downstream we expect CWHP operations will increase available spawning and rearing habitat. This increase in flow and existing spawning and rearing habitat will in turn increase survival and recruitment. We believe that over the 50 -year time frame of the proposed action, the population will retain the potential to recover and population growth is expected under the proposed operational changes. Thus, it is our opinion that the proposed action will not result in an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of shortnose sturgeon's recovery in the wild. 73 8.2 Atlantic Sturgeon 8.2.1 Atlantic Sturgeon Survival The Carolina DPS of Atlantic sturgeon that would likely utilize the Action Area if they had access has been experiencing the chronic effects of water control projects for over 100 years. Habitat fragmentation, low flows, and poor water quality have combined with other sources of human induced stress and mortality to greatly reduce this population from historic levels. The Carolina DPS has been precluded from the Action Area due to a lack of appropriate habitat and lack of access. Major threats impacting the Atlantic sturgeon Carolina DPS were summarized in the proposed listing (75 FR 61904) and include: I . Dams that curtail the extent of available habitat, as well as modifying sturgeon habitat downstream through a reduction in flow and water quality. 2. Dredging that modifies the quality and availability of Atlantic sturgeon habitat. 3. Degraded water quality that modifies and curtails the extent of available habitat for spawning and nursery areas. 4. Climate change that exacerbates the effects of modification and curtailment of Atlantic sturgeon habitat caused by dams, dredging, and reduced water quality. 5. Overutilization for commercial purposes that contributed to the historical drastic decline in Atlantic sturgeon populations throughout the species' range. 6. Inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to control bycatch and the modification and curtailment of Atlantic sturgeon habitat. Survival of the Atlantic sturgeon Carolina DPS has been and will continue to be affected by CWHP operations. Five of the six threats listed above are known to occur within the Action Area. CWHP facilities and operations directly affect the Carolina DPS, given: (1) Project dams limit access to upstream habitat and, (2) impoundments and restricted flow degrade water quality and availability of spawning and rearing habitat. Currently, the best available scientific data does not provide the information necessary to quantify the number of new recruits to the population or the survival rate of sturgeon in the Santee - Cooper system or the Action Area. The Carolina DPS population of shortnose sturgeon is at a low level with serious impairments to all major life functions because of the combined impacts of all the dams. The Atlantic sturgeon situation is precarious and they face a very high risk of extinction. Atlantic sturgeon have been documented in telemetry studies in the Santee River (B. Post, SCDNR, pers. comm. to K. Reece, NMFS, 2011). NMFS believes the proposed action will improve spawning and rearing habitat available in the Action Area for use by Carolina DPS Atlantic sturgeon once passage is implemented at the Santee - Cooper Project. As the CWHP dams currently in place will remain in place, the CWHP operations will continue to affect sturgeon by not allowing free passage above any of the CWHP dams to additional spawning habitat. However, NMFS believes that the proposed Project operations will improve future river conditions (habitat quantity and quality) compared to current river conditions, because of increased minimum flows and improved water quality, as discussed in Section 6. The combined effects of the proposed enhanced water quality and quantity are 74 significant improvements over the baseline conditions which have persisted since the initial construction and operation of the Wateree Dam. NMFS believes that the proposed flow and water quality will substantially increase and improve sturgeon spawning and rearing habitat downstream of Wateree Dam, which will increase the probability of successful spawning and survival of larval and juvenile sturgeon and may allow sturgeon to repopulate the Action Area. Therefore, NMFS concludes the proposed action is not likely to appreciably reduce the shortnose sturgeon's likelihood for survival in the wild. 8.2.2 Atlantic Sturgeon Recovery The Carolina DPS of Atlantic sturgeon has been experiencing the chronic effects of water control (i.e., hydroelectric dam) projects for over 100 years. Habitat fragmentation, low flows, and poor water quality have combined with other sources of human induced stress and mortality to greatly reduce this population from historic levels. Nonetheless, Atlantic sturgeon have managed to persist in the wild under the previous license and operation of the CWHP. Major threats impacting the Atlantic sturgeon Carolina DPS were summarized above. We also noted the threats occurring within in the Action Area, as well as how CWHP operations directly affect the Carolina DPS. Next we determine if the proposed action will reduce or eliminate effects of the threats occurring within the Action Area. Threats included in the listing rule for Atlantic sturgeon that are affected by CWHP operations include: Habitat alterations, due to the dams are a major threat to the continued existence of the Carolina DPS, given that dams: a. curtail the extent of available habitat resulting from reduced quantities of water; b. modify sturgeon habitat downstream through a reduction in water quality; c. impede access to spawning, developmental, and rearing habitat due to reduced quantities of water; d. modify free - flowing rivers to reservoirs; e. physically damage fish on upstream and downstream migrations; and, f. alter water quality and quantity in the remaining downstream portions of spawning and nursery habitats (75 FR 61916). 2. Habitat alterations due to degraded water quality and quantity are contributing to the endangered status of the Carolina DPS by modifying and curtailing the extent of available habitat for spawning and nursery areas. 3. Climate change threatens to exacerbate the effects of modification and curtailment of Atlantic sturgeon habitat caused by dams, dredging, and reduced water quality and quantity. The current conditions, which include fragmented habitat, altered/reduced flow, and decreased water quality have, in part, led to the Carolina DPS decline. NMFS believes that there are enough sexually mature individuals and genetic diversity currently in the population that it retains the potential for recovery. The proposed Project operations are expected to improve habitat in the spawning areas that will in turn increase recruitment success rates once access to the Action Area has been restored via passage at Santee - Cooper. Nursery habitat for early life 75 stages of larval and juvenile sturgeon will also be improved through increased flow and water quality. This increase in survival will help to rebuild the population, thereby aiding in the recovery of the species. Although the proposed action includes fish passage for anadromous species (American shad and adult blueback herring) other than sturgeon, the proposed action does not include safe upstream or downstream passage for sturgeon, and sturgeon passage has not been prescribed at this time as discussed in section 3.2. Quality habitat exists above the Wateree Dam, but access to these waters are further restricted by the presence of four other structures in relatively close proximity to each other: Rocky Creek Dam, Fishing Creek Dam, Great Falls Weir, and the Great Falls Diversion Dam. Providing upstream passage at this time would potentially harm the species; through habitat fragmentation hence, NMFS will specify that Atlantic sturgeon be excluded from the TST passage facility. Denying upstream access to sturgeon may continue to have an effect on population growth. However, the 76 -mile stretch of river below the Wateree dam is expected to significantly improve due to enhanced water quality and flows, which will expand available spawning and rearing sites, and aid the recovery of the species despite the continued blockage. The majority of this BO's assessment of effects is based on instream flow studies and hydrologic modeling which give us some level of understanding of anticipated water flow and stage. With this data we can make assumptions based on our experience of habitat suitability for sturgeon and other species. However, what ultimately happens in the environment is not as predictable; therefore, monitoring will be required to assess sturgeon spawning habitat. Based on the best available data, the proposed Project operations will continue to affect Atlantic sturgeon by blocking access to habitat above the dam. Downstream we expect Project operations will be less harmful as flows will be increased. This increase in flow will improve existing spawning and rearing habitat and in turn increase survival and recruitment. Thus, it is our opinion that the proposed action will not result in an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of Atlantic sturgeon's recovery in the wild, and may actually increase it. 9 Conclusion We analyzed the best available data, the current status of the species, environmental baseline, effects of the proposed action, and cumulative effects and have determined that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of shortnose sturgeon or the Carolina DPS of Atlantic sturgeon, based on the impacts to the populations of these species in the Wateree River. 10 Incidental Take Statement Section 9 of the ESA and federal regulation pursuant to Section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by NMFS to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is W defined by USFWS as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of Section 7(b)(4) and Section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement. NMFS must estimate the extent of take expected to occur from implementation of the proposed action so as to frame the limits of the take exemption provided in the Incidental Take Statement. These limits set thresholds which, if exceeded, would be the basis for reinitiating consultation. The following section describes the extent of take that NMFS anticipates will occur as a result of implementing the proposed action and the subsequent operation of the C"P. If actual take exceeds the amount (or geographic or temporal extent) specified here, the exemption from the prohibition on take will be invalid for the excess amount, and re- initiation of consultation is required. 10.1 Extent of Anticipated Take Despite conservation measures aimed at reducing the negative impacts of this project to shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon, NMFS anticipates that the proposed action could potentially result in incidental take of these listed species in the form of capture, harm, and/or harassment to occur. Per our assessment, 0.3 percent of the estimated adult spawning population of shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon are anticipated to be captured annually by the TST during the term of the new license, which shall not exceed 50 years. No lethal take of any shortnose sturgeon or Atlantic sturgeon in the TST facility is authorized during this project. NMFS assumes the populations for shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon are approximately 300 spawning adults for each species. The extent of take will initially be set at 1 Atlantic and 1 shortnose sturgeon to be non - lethally taken each year in the fish passage facility (once operational) unless and until additional information becomes available indicating a change in the assumed populations of shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon present in the Action Area (0.3% x 300 = 0.9 z 1), as shown in Table 7. Because it is impossible to take a partial fish (0.9), the number will be rounded up to the next whole number (one). Table 7: Anticipated Annual Take of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon. Species Life Stage Amount or Extent of take Take Activity Location Shortnose Adult 0.3% of the annual number A) Trap, Sort, Transfer Base of sturgeon of spawners for each Facility (Fish Lift Capture) Wateree & sturgeon species rounded Dam Atlantic up to the next whole sturgeon number per year to be taken in the fish passage facility. Example: (0.3% x 300 = 0.9z 1) I shortnose star eon 77 10.2 Reasonable and Prudent Measures Section 7(b)(4) of the ESA requires that, when an agency action is found to comply with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and the proposed action may incidentally take individuals of listed species, NMFS will issue a statement specifying the impacts of any incidental talking. It also states that reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) are nondiscretionary and necessary to minimize impacts, and terms and conditions to implement those measures must be provided and must be followed to minimize those impacts. Only incidental taking by the federal agency or applicant that complies with the specified terms and conditions is authorized. The RPMs and terms and conditions are specified as required by 50 CFR 402.14(i)(1)(ii) and (iv) to document the incidental take by the proposed action and to minimize the impact of that take on sturgeon. These measures and terms and conditions are non - discretionary, and must be implemented by FERC or Duke Energy in order for the protection of ESA Section 7(0)(2) to apply. FERC has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If FERC and/or Duke Energy fails to adhere to the terms and conditions through enforceable terms, and/or fail to retain oversight to ensure compliance with these terms and conditions, the protective coverage of Section 7(0)(2) may lapse. NMFS has determined the following RPMs are necessary and appropriate to minimize the impacts of future takes on Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon and to monitor levels of incidental take as FERC re- licenses the CWHP for up to the next 50 years. 1. All potential adverse impacts to sturgeon during the construction and operations of the fish passageways or during other construction activities or maintenance of the Wateree Dam are to be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. 2. Sturgeon captured or injured at the Wateree Dam in the TST fish passage facility during the term of the license must be handled appropriately, as detailed by current NMFS protocol (Attachment A). W. I Atlantic sturgeon Shortnose Adult Unquantified — Extent of B) Blocked access due to Wateree sturgeon take assessed through dam River and surrogate population Atlantic modeling sturgeon Shortnose Adult Unquantified C) Reduced reproductive Wateree sturgeon success River and Atlantic sturgeon Shortnose Eggs, Unquantified D) Reduced survival of Wateree sturgeon Larvae, early life stages River and Young of Atlantic Year sturgeon 10.2 Reasonable and Prudent Measures Section 7(b)(4) of the ESA requires that, when an agency action is found to comply with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and the proposed action may incidentally take individuals of listed species, NMFS will issue a statement specifying the impacts of any incidental talking. It also states that reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) are nondiscretionary and necessary to minimize impacts, and terms and conditions to implement those measures must be provided and must be followed to minimize those impacts. Only incidental taking by the federal agency or applicant that complies with the specified terms and conditions is authorized. The RPMs and terms and conditions are specified as required by 50 CFR 402.14(i)(1)(ii) and (iv) to document the incidental take by the proposed action and to minimize the impact of that take on sturgeon. These measures and terms and conditions are non - discretionary, and must be implemented by FERC or Duke Energy in order for the protection of ESA Section 7(0)(2) to apply. FERC has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If FERC and/or Duke Energy fails to adhere to the terms and conditions through enforceable terms, and/or fail to retain oversight to ensure compliance with these terms and conditions, the protective coverage of Section 7(0)(2) may lapse. NMFS has determined the following RPMs are necessary and appropriate to minimize the impacts of future takes on Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon and to monitor levels of incidental take as FERC re- licenses the CWHP for up to the next 50 years. 1. All potential adverse impacts to sturgeon during the construction and operations of the fish passageways or during other construction activities or maintenance of the Wateree Dam are to be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. 2. Sturgeon captured or injured at the Wateree Dam in the TST fish passage facility during the term of the license must be handled appropriately, as detailed by current NMFS protocol (Attachment A). W. 3. Water quantity must meet or exceed levels detailed in Section 6. 1, Table 6, to ensure appropriate and sufficient habitat is available to sturgeon in the Action Area over the full term of the new license. 4. Water quality in the Action Area must be monitored to meet water quality standards as outlined in Section 13 of the CRA and over the full term of the new license. 10.3 Terms and Conditions In order to be exempt from liability for take prohibited by Section 9 of the ESA, FERC and Duke Energy must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the RPMs described above. These terms and conditions (T &Cs) are nondiscretionary. 1. To reduce adverse effects to sturgeon per RPM No. 1, FERC shall implement the following conditions for the protection of sturgeon: a. During construction of the fish passage facility or during any maintenance at the Wateree Dam or any other in -water work in the Action Area: No in -water work in the river from and within 500 yards of the Wateree Dam, may occur between February 1 and April 30 of any year. The in- water work prohibition applies to any in -water construction activity. This does not apply to emergency work (i.e., work that cannot wait until after the time restriction) or work related to dam safety. ii. If a sturgeon is seen within 100 yards of the active daily construction/maintenance operation or vessel movement, all appropriate precautions shall be implemented to ensure its protection. These precautions shall include cessation of operation of any moving equipment closer than 50 feet to a sturgeon. Operation of any mechanical construction equipment shall cease immediately if a sturgeon is seen within a 50 -ft radius of the equipment. Activities may not resume until the sturgeon has departed the Project area of its own volition. iii. Appropriate erosion and turbidity controls shall be utilized during any in- water work carried out by Duke Energy in the Action Area to limit contaminant laden sediments from entering the water. iv. No construction debris shall be allowed to enter the water. v. Construction shall be conducted according to current best management practices (BMPs) for the State of South Carolina: i.e., South Carolina's Complete Stormwater Management BMP Handbook: http://www.scdhec.gov/enviroment/water/swater/BMPhandbook.htm. b. Fish passage structures at the Wateree Dam must be designed such that they exclude sturgeon (Atlantic and shortnose). c. NMFS personnel (or its delegated representative) must be granted access to the fish passage records and facilities upon request. 79 d. An operations and inspections report of the fish passage facility and TST operation must be prepared and submitted to NMFS annually to the NOAA Southeast Regional Office, Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701, phone (727) 824 -5312. This opinion's issuance date, title, and identifier number (SER- 2009 -5473) shall be referenced in the correspondence. It must include at a minimum the: i. quantity of the Atlantic or shortnose sturgeon captured or observed, ii. hours of operations, iii. volume of water utilized during operations, iv. identity and quantity of sturgeon observed below the lift, v. maintenance schedule, vi. operational issues, if any, and vii. proposed/recommended modification(s), if any. 2. To comply with RPM No. 2, FERC shall implement the following special conditions for the protection of sturgeon: a. Any handling of sturgeon will comply with the NMFS's Protocol for Use of Shortnose, Atlantic, Gulf, and Green Sturgeons (Attachment A). http : / /www.nmfs.noaa.gov /pr /pdfs /species /kahn mohead 2010.pdf. b. A tissue sample shall be taken of any sturgeon handled, per Attachment A. c. If any sturgeon are captured, injured, or killed during the term of the new license, notification of take shall be provided to NMFS at the following e -mail address within 24 hours: (takereport.nmfsser @ noaa.gov); and this BO's issuance date, title, and identifier number (SER- 2009 -5473) shall be referenced in the correspondence. d. If a lethal take occurs, the carcass should be frozen and NMFS contacted immediately to provide instructions for shipping and preparation. NMFS requests all shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon interactions be reported to Kelly Shotts, (Kelly.Shotts @noaa.gov or (727) 551 - 5603). All sturgeon handled in the TST fish passage facility shall be scanned for a PIT tag; codes shall be included in the take report submitted to NMFS. The PIT tag reader shall be able to read both 125 kHz and 134 kHz tags. Sturgeon without PIT tags will have one installed per guidance in Attachment A and included in the take report submitted to NMFS. 3. To comply with RPM No. 3 regarding habitat availability, FERC shall require Duke Energy to: a. Accurately monitor water quantity daily over the life of the license to determine the amount of habitat (WUAs) consistently available to sturgeon and to ensure flows meet levels specified in the CRA (also found in Section 6.1.1, Table 6 of this BO). An annual report detailing flows and the resulting WUAs must be f prepared and submitted to NMFS annually to NOAA Southeast Regional Office, Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701, phone (727) 824 -5312. This opinion's issuance date, title, and identifier number (SER - 2009 -5473) shall be referenced in the correspondence. b. Quantify and map available spawning habitat under the new flow regime in the Action Area (from the Wateree Dam to the confluence with the Congaree River) beginning one year after of the issuance of the new license to establish a reliable environmental baseline and confirm that the action is having the predicted effect of increasing spawning habitat within the Action Area that is available to shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon on a monthly basis. A report detailing the quantity and location of available spawning habitat under each flow level predicted in Table 6, Section 6.1.1, must be prepared and submitted to NMFS annually to NOAA Southeast Regional Office, Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701, phone (727) 824 -5312. This opinion's issuance date, title, and identifier number (SER- 2009 -5473) shall be referenced in the correspondence. 4. To comply with RPM No. 4, regarding water quality, FERC shall require Duke Energy to: a. Accurately monitor water quality (DO, and water temperatures, etc.) in the Action Area over the life of the license. Monitoring stations shall be identified with the assistance of SCDHEC and USGS and approved by NMFS within one year of the issuance of the license. These stations should target locations where water temperatures are likely to be highest and DO concentrations lowest. An annual report detailing this information must be prepared and submitted to NMFS annually to NOAA Southeast Regional Office, Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701, phone (727) 824 -5312. This opinion's issuance date, title, and identifier number (SER- 2009 -5473) shall be referenced in the correspondence. Throughout this biological opinion NMFS has used the best available data and information to determine what the likely effects of the proposed action are on shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. Where information is lacking we have conservatively erred on the side of the species. The reasonable and prudent measures and implementing terms and conditions have been developed to not only limit the incidental take which is expected to occur, but to also ascertain the true extent of take which might be occurring. The Catawba - Wateree Hydroelectric Project proposed for re- licensing has existed for decades, yet little monitoring has been collected on its cause and effects to shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon or other anadromous species. NMFS views the required monitoring /assessment as an effective and essential means of detecting and monitoring the CWHP's effects on shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. M. It Conservation Recommendations Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs federal agencies to utilize their authority to further the purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat to help implement recovery plans or to develop information. For the CWHP, NMFS provides the following conservation recommendations: FERC and Duke Energy should strive to make the existing hydroelectric facilities and operations sustainable over the term of the new license. Specifically: 1. Construct safe /suitable upstream and downstream volitional fish passageways for all anadromous species at all eleven of the dams operated by Duke Energy. 2. Support future monitoring to identify migration patterns of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon within the Santee - Cooper system. 3. Support future monitoring that evaluates the relationship between stream flow and sturgeon migration. Additional information on this relationship would provide a better estimate of the flow needed to cue and successfully initiate sturgeon movement. FERC could apply this information to determine future adequate flow rates for other hydropower projects due for re- licensing. 4. Support future monitoring that establishes and monitors population estimates for shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon in the waters downstream of the Wateree Dam over the life of the new license. 5. Quantify the amount of sturgeon spawning and rearing habitat (upstream of the Wateree Dam to Lake Wylie). 12 Reinitiation of Consultation This concludes the formal consultation on the re- licensing of the CWHP. As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required if discretionary federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and: if the monitoring of sturgeon habitat indicates the area of sturgeon habitat (Section 6.1.1, Table 6) or water quality expected from dissolved oxygen improvements are not as predicted; or if the fish passage is not functioning as intended (excluding sturgeon as required), and these impacts cannot be addressed through adaptive management and be corrected within one year of discovery, this would trigger re- initiation of consultation with NMFS. If: The amount of capture at the TST specified in the ITS is exceeded (Section 10.1 and Table 7); 2. The monitoring of sturgeon habitat indicates the area of sturgeon habitat (Section 6.1.1, Table 6) or water quality expected from dissolved oxygen improvements (Section 3.1.5.11) are not as predicted; or if the fish passage is not functioning as intended ;1 (excluding sturgeon as required), and these impacts cannot be addressed through adaptive management and be corrected within one year of discovery, this would trigger re- initiation of consultation with NMFS. 3. New information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat (when designated) in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; 4. A new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action; 5. The identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to listed species or critical habit that was not considered in the biological opinion; 13 Literature Cited Armstrong, J. L., and J. E. Hightower. 2002. Potential for restoration of the Roanoke River population of Atlantic sturgeon. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18(4- 6):475 -480. ASSRT. 2007. Status review of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office by Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team. Auer, N. A. 1996. Importance of habitat and migration to sturgeons with emphasis on lake sturgeon. Canadian Journal of Aquatic Sciences 53:152 -160. Bain, M., N. Haley, D. Peterson, J. R. Waldman, and K. Arend. 2000. Harvest and habitats of Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus Mitchill, 1815 in the Hudson River estuary: lessons for sturgeon conservation. Boletin. Instituto Espanol de Oceanografia 16:43 -53. Bain, M. B. 1997. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons of the Hudson River: common and divergent life history attributes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48(1):347 -358. Belovsky, G. E. 1987. Extinction models and mammalian persistence. Chapter 3 In: Soule, M.E. (ed), Viable Populations for Conservation. Cambridge University Press, pp.35 -57. Berry, R. J. 1971. Conservation aspects of the genetical constitution of populations. Pages 177- 206 in E. D. Duffey, and A. S. Watt, editors. The Scientific Management of Animal and Plant Communities for Conservation, Blackwell, Oxford. Boreman, J. 1997. Sensitivity of North American sturgeons and paddlefish to fishing mortality. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48(1):399 -405. Borodin, N. 1925. Biological Observations on the Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser sturio). Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 55(1):184 -190. Bramblett, R. G., and R. G. White. 2001. Habitat Use and Movements of Pallid and Shovelnose Sturgeon in the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers in Montana and North Dakota. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130(6):1006 -1025. Buckley, J., and B. Kynard. 1985. Habitat use and behavior of pre- spawning and spawning shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), in the Connecticut River. North American Sturgeons: l I 1 -117. M. Campbell, J. G., and L. R. Goodman. 2004. Acute Sensitivity of Juvenile Shortnose Sturgeon to Low Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133(3):772 -776. Caron, F., D. Hatin, and R. Fortin. 2002. Biological characteristics of adult Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinehus) in the St Lawrence River estuary and the effectiveness of management rules. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18(4- 6):580 -585. Chytalo, K. 1996. Summary of Long Island Sound dredging windows strategy workshop. Management of Atlantic Coastal Marine Fish Habitat: Proceedings of a workshop for habitat managers. ASMFC Habitat Management Series #2. Cochnauer, T. 1986. Abundance, distribution, growth and management of white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) in the Middle Snake River, Idaho. University of Idaho. Collette, B., and G. Klein- MacPhee. 2002. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine, 3rd edition. Smithsonian Institution Press. Collins, M. R., and coauthors. 2003. Shortnose Sturgeon in the Santee - Cooper Reservoir System, South Carolina. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132(6):1244 -1250. Collins, M. R., C. Norwood, B. Post, and A. Hazel. 2006. Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeons: Final Report to NFWF. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine. Collins, M. R., W. C. Post, D. C. Russ, and T. I. J. Smith. 2002. Habitat Use and Movements of Juvenile Shortnose Sturgeon in the Savannah River, Georgia —South Carolina. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:975 -979. Collins, M. R., S. G. Rogers, T. I. J. Smith, and M. L. Moser. 2000a. Primary factors affecting sturgeon populations in the southeastern United States: fishing mortality and degradation of essential habitats. Bulletin of Marine Science 66(3):917 -928. Collins, M. R., S. G. Rogers, T. I. J. Smith, and M. L. Moser. 2000b. Primary factors affecting sturgeon populations in the southeastern United States: fishing mortality and degradation of essential habitats. Bulletin of Marine Science 66(3):917 -928. Collins, M. R., and T. Smith. 1993. Characteristics of the Adult Segment of the Savannah River Population of Shortnose Sturgeon. Collins, M. R., and T. I. J. Smith. 1997a. Distributions of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeons in South Carolina. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17(4):955 -1000. Collins, M. R., and T. I. J. Smith. 1997b. Management Briefs: Distributions of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeons in South Carolina. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17(4):995 -1000. Collins, M. R., T. I. J. Smith, W. C. Post, and O. Pashuk. 2000c. Habitat Utilization and Biological Characteristics of Adult Atlantic Sturgeon in Two South Carolina Rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129(4):982 -988. Cooke, D. W., J. P. Kirk, J. J. V. Morrow, and S. D. Leach. 2004. Population dynamics of a migration limited shortnose sturgeon population. Proceedings of the Annual Conference, Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 58:82 -91. II Cooke, D. W., and S. D. Leach. 1999. Santee - Cooper blueback herring studies. Annual Report, SCR 1 -22. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. . Cooke, D. W., and S. D. Leach. 2003. Santee Cooper FERC Studies - Tracking Shortnose Sturgeon in Lake System Santee River Sturgeon Study: Unpublished Report. Cooke, D. W., and S. D. Leach. 2004. Implications of a migration impediment on shortnose sturgeon spawning. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24(4):1460 -1468. Coutant, C. 1987. Thermal preference: when does an asset become a liability? Environmental Biology of Fishes 18(3):161 -172. Crance, J. H. 1987. Habitat suitability index curves for anadromous fishes. In: Common strategies of anadromous and catadromous fishes: proceedings of an International Symposium held in Boston, Massachusetts, USA, March 9 -13, 1986. Pages 554 in M. J. Dadswell, editor. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Crocker, C. E., and J. J. Cech. 1997. Effects of environmental hypoxia on oxygen consumption rate and swimming activity in juvenile white sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus, in relation to temperature and life intervals. Environmental Biology of Fishes 50(4):383- 389. Dadswell, M. J. 1979. Biology and population characteristics of the shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur 1818 (Osteichthyes:Acipenseridae), in the Saint John River Estuary, New Brunswick, Canada. Can J Zool 57(11):2186 -2210. Dadswell, M. J. 2006. A review of the status of Atlantic sturgeon in Canada, with comparisons to populations in the United States and Europe. Fisheries 31(5):218 -229. Dadswell, M. J., B. D. Taubert, T. S. Squiers, D. Marchette, and J. Buckley. 1984. Synopsis of biological data on shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur 1818. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, [Seattle, Wash.]. Damon - Randall, K., and coauthors. 2010. Atlantic sturgeon research techniques. NOAA technical memorandum NMFS -NE ; 215. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Mass. DeVries, R. J. 2006. Population dynamics, movements, and spawning habitat of the shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in the Altamaha River. Thesis. University of Georgia. Dovel, W. L., and T. J. Berggren. 1983. Atlantic sturgeon of the Hudson River estuary, New York. New York. Fish and Game Journal 30:140 -172. Dovel, W. L., A. W. Pekovitch, and T. J. Berggren. 1992. Biology of the shortnose sturgeon ( Acipenser brevirostrum Lesueur, 1818) in the Hudson River estuary, New York. Pages 187 -216 in C. L. Smith, editor. In: Estuarine Research in the 1980s. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York. Duke Energy. 2006. Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement for the Catawba - Wateree Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2232. . M. EPA. 2003. Biological evaluation for the issuance of ambient water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen, water clarity and chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III. EPA. 2005. National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR II): Second Edition. Evermann, B. W., and B. A. Bean. 1898. Indian River and its fishes. Feaster, T. D., and P. A. Conrads. 1999. Characterization of water quality and simulation of temperature, nutrients, biochemical oxygen demand, and dissolved oxygen in the Wateree River, South Carolina, 1996 -98: U.S. Geological WRIR -99 -4234. U.S. Geological FERC. 2009. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Catawba Wateree Hydroelectric Project. North and South Carolina: FERC Project No.s 2322. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Flournoy, P. H., S. G. Rogers, and P. S. Crawford. 1992. Restoration of shortnose sturgeon in the Altamaha River, Georgia. Final Report to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Folmar, L. C., and coauthors. 1996. Vitellogenin induction and reduced serum testosterone concentrations in feral male carp (Cyprinus carpio) captured near a major metropolitan sewage treatment plant. Environmental Health Perspectives 104(10):1096 -1101. Geldreich, E. E., and N. A. Clarke. 1966. Bacterial Pollution Indicators in the Intestinal Tract of Freshwater Fish. Applied Microbiology 14(3):429 -437. Gilbert, C. R. 1989. Species profiles : life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Mid - Atlantic Bight) : Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons. Coastal Ecology Group, Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Research and Development, National Wetlands Research Center, Vicksburg, MS, Washington, DC. Greene, K. E., J. L. Zimmerman, R. W. Laney, and J. C. Thomas - Blate. 2009. Atlantic coast diadromous fish habitat: A review of utilization, threats, recommendations for conservation, and research needs. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Washington, D.C. GWC. 2006. Georgia Water Coalition. Interbasin Transfer Fact Sheet. http: / /www.garivers.org/ ag water/ pdf% 20files /IBT %20fact %20sheet02- 06.pdf. Hall, J. W., T. I. J. Smith, and S. D. Lamprecht. 1991. Movements and habitats of shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in the Savannah River Copeia 1991(3):695 -702. HDR. 2006. Water supply study, final report, Catawba - Wateree Hydroelectric Relicensing Project. Prepared for Duke Energy 84 pp. Heidt, A. R., and R. J. Gilbert. 1978. The shortnose sturgeon in the Altamaha River drainage. Pages 54 -60 in R. R. O. a. L. L. (eds.), editor Proceedings of the rare and endangered wildlife symposium. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division. Hightower, J. E. 1998. Prioritizing habitat restoration efforts for anadromous fishes in North Carolina. Report to the NC Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division. :O Hill, J. 1996. Environmental considerations in licensing hydropower projects: policies and practices at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 1996. Hulme, P. E. 2005. Adapting to climate change: is there scope for ecological management in the face of a global threat? Journal of Applied Ecology 42(5):784 -794. IPCC. 2007a. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I,11 and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. IPCC. 2007b. Summary for poheymakers. Pages 7 -22 in M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson, editors. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. IPCC. 2008. Climate Change and Water, Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, 210 pp. Jager, H. I., and coauthors. 2002. A Simulation Study of Factors Controlling White Sturgeon Recruitment in the Snake River. Pages 127 -150 in. Jarvis, P. L., J. S. Ballantyne, and W. E. Hogans. 2001. The Influence of Salinity on the Growth of Juvenile Shortnose Sturgeon. North American Journal of Aquaculture 63:272 -276. Jenkins, W. E., T. L J. Smith, L. D. Heyward, and D. M. Knott. 1993. Tolerance of shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, juveniles to different salinity and dissolved oxygen concentrations. Pages 476 -484 in E. A.G. Eversole, editor Proceedings of the 47th Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Atlanta, Georgia. Kahn, J., and M. Mohead. 2010. A protocol for use of shortnose, Atlantic, Gulf, and green sturgeons. Pages I online resource (iv, 62 p.) in NOAA technical memorandum NMFS- OPR ; 45. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. Kahnle, A. W., and coauthors. 1998. Stock status of Atlantic sturgeon of Atlantic coast estuaries. Draft II1. Karl, T. R., J. M. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press. Kieffer, M., and B. Kynard. 1996. Spawning of shortnose sturgeon in the Merrimack River, Massachusetts. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:179 -186. Kieffer, M. C., and B. Kynard. 1993. Annual Movements of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeons in the Merrimack River, Massachusetts. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122(6):1088 -1103. King, T. L., B. A. Lubinski, and A. P. Spidle. 2001. Microsatellite DNA variation in Atlantic sturgeon ( Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) and cross - species amplification in the Acipenseridae. Conservation Genetics 2(2):103 -119. Kynard, B. 1997. Life history, latitudinal patterns, and status of the shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48(1):319 -334. Kynard, B. 1998. Twenty -two Years of Passing Shortnose Sturgeon in Fish Lifts on the Connecticut River: What has been Learned? M. Jungwirth, Schmutz,S., Weiss,S., editor. Fish migration and fish bypasses. Fishing News Books, London. Kynard, B., and M. Horgan. 2002. Ontogenetic behavior and migration of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus, and shortnose sturgeon, A. brevirostrum, with notes on social behavior. Environmental Behavior of Fishes 63:137 -150. Kynard, B., M. Kieffer, M. Burlingame, and M. Horgan. 1999. Studies on shortnose sturgeon. Final Report to Northeast Utilities Service Company, Berlin CT and the City of Holyoke, MA. Lawson, J. 1709. Lawson, J. 1709. A New Voyage to Carolina. British Surveyor- General of North Carolina. 192pp.:192. Leach, S. D., and D. W. Cooke. 2006. Santee - Cooper Basin Shortnose Sturgeon Monitoring. Leland, J. G. 1968. A survey of the sturgeon fishery of South Carolina. Bears Bluff Laboratories, Wadmalaw Island, S.C. Logan, J. H. 1859. A history of the upper country of South Carolina from the earliest periods to the close of the War of Independence. S. G. Courtenay and Company, Charleston, SC. McCord, J. W. 2004. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Atlantic sturgeon plan — amendment 1 South Carolina annual report for calendar year 2003. Compliance report submitted to Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, . McDonald, M. 1887. The rivers and sounds of North Carolina. The fisheries and fishery industries of the United States, Section V. U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries.625- 637. McKeown, B. A. 1984. Fish Migration. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. Mills, R. 1826. Statistics of South Carolina. . Moser, M. L., J. B. Bichy, and S. B. Roberts. 1998. Sturgeon Distibution in North Carolina. Center for Marine Science Research, Wilmington, North Carolina. Murawski, S. A., A. L. Pacheco, and United States. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1977. Biological and fisheries data on Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus (Mitchill). Sandy Hook Laboratory, Northeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Highlands, N.J. Murdoch, P. S., J. S. Baron, and T. L. Miller. 2000. POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON SURFACE -WATER QUALITY IN NORTH AMERICAL JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36(2):347 -366. NAST. 2000. Climate change impacts on the United States: the potential consequences of climate variability and change. . US Global Change Research Program, Washington D.C. Newcomb, T. J., and J. S. Fuller. 2001. Anadromous and Catadromous Fish Survey of Santee /Cooper Basin in North Carolina and South Carolina: Final Report, Prepared for N. . Duke Power. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Niklitschek, E. J. 2001. Bioenergetics modeling and assessment of suitable habitat for juvenile Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons (Acipenser oxyrinchus and A. brevirostrum) in the Chesapeake Bay Dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Niklitschek, E. J., and D. H. Secor. 2005. Modeling spatial and temporal variation of suitable nursery habitats for Atlantic sturgeon in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 64(1):135 -148. Niklitschek, E. J., and D. H. Secor. 2009a. Dissolved oxygen, temperature and salinity effects on the ecophysiology and survival of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon in estuarine waters: 1. Laboratory results. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 381(Supplement 1):5150 -5160. Niklitschek, E. J., and D. H. Secor. 2009b. Dissolved oxygen, temperature and salinity effects on the ecophysiology and survival of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon in estuarine waters: 11. Model development and testing. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 381(Supplement 1):5161 -5172. NMFS. 1998a. Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Pages 104 in P. b. t. S. S. R. T. £ t. N. M. F. Service, editor, Silver Spring, Maryland. NMFS. 1998b. Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 104p. Nonnotte, G., V. Maxime, J. P. Truchot, P. Williot, and C. Peyraud. 1993. Respiratory responses to progressive ambient hypoxia in the sturgeon, Acipenser baeri. Respiration Physiology 91(1):71 -82. Northcote, T. G. 1978. Migratory strategies and production of freshwater fishes. Pages 326 -359 in S. Gerking, editor. Ecology of freshwater fish production. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. NRCS. 2010. An Assessment of the Wateree Subbasin - Hydrologic Unit Code 03050104.24 pp. Omoto, N., and coauthors. 2002. Effects of estradiol -17(3 and 17a- methyltestosterone on gonadal sex differentiation in the F2 hybrid sturgeon, the bester. Fisheries Science 68(5):1047- 1054. Palmer, M. A., and coauthors. 2008. Climate change and the world's river basins: anticipating management options. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6(2):81 -89. Pottle, R., and M. J. Dadswell. 1979. Studies on larval and juvenile shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Report to the Northeast Utilities Service Company, Hartford, Connecticut. Rogers, S. G., and W. Weber. 1995a. Status and restoration of Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons in Georgia. Final Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, Florida. o, Rogers, S. G., and W. Weber. 1995b. Status and restoration of Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons in Georgia, Final Report. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, Florida. Rosenthal, H., and D. F. Alderdice. 1976. Sub - lethal effects of environmental stressors, natural and pollutional, on marine fish eggs and larvae. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33:2047 -2065. Ruhl, J. B. 2003. Equitable Apportionment of Ecosystem Service: New Water Law for a New Water Age. Florida State University College of Law forum on "The Future of the Appalachicola- Chattahoochee -Flint River System: Legal, Policy, and Scientific Issues ". Salwasser, H., S. P. Mealey, and K. Johnson. 1984. Wildlife population viability: a question of risk. Pages 421 -439 in Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. SCDHEC. 2012. Watershed Water Quality Assessment: Catawba River Basin, 2012. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Schueller, P., and D. L. Peterson. 2010. Abundance and Recruitment of Juvenile Atlantic Sturgeon in the Altamaha River, Georgia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139(5):1526 -1535. Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada., Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin. SCSCO. 2008. South Carolina State Climatology Office. Secor, D. 1995. Chesapeake Bay Atlantic sturgeon: current status and future recovery. Summary of findings and recommendations from a workshop convened 8 November 1994 at Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. Chesapeake Bay Biological Laboratory, Center for Estuarine and Environmental Studies, University of Maryland System, Solomons, MD. Secor, D. H. 2002. Atlantic sturgeon fisheries and stock abundances during the late nineteenth century. Pages 89 -98 in American Fisheries Society Symposium. Secor, D. H., and T. E. Gunderson. 1998. Effects of hypoxia and temperature on survival, growth, and respiration of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon ( Acipenser oxyrinchus). Fishery Bulletin U.S. 96:603 -613. Secor, D. H., and E. J. Niklitschek. 2001. Hypoxia and sturgeons. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory Technical Report Series - Number TS- 314- 01 -CBL. Shaffer, M. L. 1981. Minimum Population Sizes for Species Conservation. BioScience 31(2):131 -134. Sindermann, C. J. 1994. Quantitative effects of pollution on marine and anadromous fish populations. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS -F/NEC -104. National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Smith, T. 1985a. The fishery, biology, and management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus, in North America. Environmental Biology of Fishes 14(1):61 -72. Smith, T. I. J. 1985b. The fishery, biology, and management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus, in North America. Environmental Biology of Fishes 14(1):61 -72. M Smith, T. I. J., and J. P. Clugston. 1997. Status and management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus, in North America. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48(1- 4):335 -346. Smith, T. I. J., E. K. Dingley, and E. E. Marchette. 1980. Induced spawning and culture of Atlantic sturgeon Progressive Fish Culturist 42:147 -151. Smith, T. I. J., E. Kennedy, and M. R. Collins. 1992. Identification of critical habitat requirements of shortnose sturgeon in South Carolina. Final Report to USFWS. Atlanta, Georgia. Smith, T. I. J., D. E. Marchette, and R. A. Smiley. 1982. Life history, ecology, culture and management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus, Mitchill, in South Carolina. Final Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resources Department. Soule, M. E. 1980. Thresholds for survival: maintaining fitness and evolutionary potential. Pages 151 -170 in M. E. Soule, and B. A. Wilcox, editors. Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary- Ecological Perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. Soule, M. E. 1987. Where do we go from here? Chapter 10 In: Soule, M.E. (ed), Viable Populations for Conservation. Cambridge University Press, pp. 175-183. Stevenson, J. C., and D. H. Secor. 1999. Age determination and growth of Hudson River Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus). Fishery Bulletin 97:153 -166. Taubert, B. D., and M. J. Dadswell. 1980. Description of some larval shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) from the Holyoke Pool, Connecticut River, Massachusetts, U.S.A., and the Saint John River. New Brunswick, Canada. Can J Zoo158(6):1125 -8. Thomas, C. D. 1990. What Do Real Population Dynamics Tell Us About Minimum Viable Population Sizes? Conservation Biology 4(3):324 -327. Tsyplakov, E. P. 1978. Migrations and distribution of the starlet, Acipenser ruthenus, in Kuybyshev reservoir Journal of Ichthyology 18:905 -912. USFWS. 2011. Connecticut River Historic Fish Counts." from hn: / /www .fws.gov /r5crc /Fish/hist.html (accessed February 8, 2012). . USFWS, and NMFS. 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook. Procedures for Conducting Section 7 Consultations and Conferences. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, March 1998. USFWS, NMFS, and SCDNR. 2001. Santee - Cooper Basin Diadromous Fish Passage Restoration Plan.:5Opp + App. USGRG. 2004. U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, Regional Paper: The Southeast. U.S. Global Research Group. Washington, D.C., August 20, 2004. USGS. 2000. Droughts in Georgia. Open -File Report 00 -380. USGS. 2007. Drought Worsens for September with Many Streams Setting New Record Lows. Prepared by the Georgia Water Science Center. 91 Van Eenennaam, J. P., and S. I. Doroshov. 1998. Effects of age and body size on gonadal development of Atlantic sturgeon. Journal of Fish Biology 53(3):624 -637. Van Eenennaam, J. P., and coauthors. 1996. Reproductive Conditions of the Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) in the Hudson River. Estuaries 19(4):769 -777. Varanasi, U. 1992. Chemical contaminants and their effects on living marine resources. Pages 59 -71 in R. H. Stroud, editor Stemming the Tide of Coastal Fish Habitat Loss. Proceedings of the Symposium on Conservation of Fish Habitat, Baltimore, Maryland, Marine Recreational Fisheries Number 14. National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc., Savannah, Georgia. Vladykov, V. D., and J. R. Greely. 1963. Order Acipenseroidei. Pages 1630 pp in Fishes of Western North Atlantic, Sears Foundation. Marine Research, Yale University. Waldman, J. R., C. Grunwald, J. Stabile, and I. Wirgin. 2002a. Impacts of life history and biogeography on the genetic stock structure of Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus, Gulf sturgeon A- oxyrinchus desotoi, and shortnose sturgeon A- brevirostrum. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18(4- 6):509 -518. Waldman, J. R., C. Grunwald, J. Stabile, and I. Wirgin. 2002b. Impacts of life history and biogeography on the genetic stock structure of Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus, Gulf sturgeon A oxyrinchus desotoi, and shortnose sturgeon A brevirostrum. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18(4- 6):509 -518. Waldman, J. R., C. Grunwald, J. Stabile, and I. Wirgin. 2002c. Impacts of life history and biogeography on the genetic stock structure of Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus, Gulf sturgeon A. oxyrinchus desotoi, and shortnose sturgeon A. brevirostrum. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18:509 -518. Waldman, J. R., and I. 1. Wirgin. 1998. Status and Restoration Options for Atlantic Sturgeon in North America. Conservation Biology 12(3):631 -638. Wallin, J., M. Hattersley, D. Ludwig, and T. Iannuzzi. 2002. Historical Assessment of the Impacts of Chemical Contaminants in Sediments on Benthic Invertebrates in the Tidal Passaic River, New Jersey. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 8(5):1155 -1176. Weber, W., and C. A. Jennings. 1996. Endangered species management plan for the shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum. Final Report to Port Stewart Military Reservation, Fort Stewart, GA. Wildhaber, M. L., and coauthors. 2000. Natural and Anthropogenic Influences on the Distribution of the Threatened Neosho Madtom in a Midwestern Warmwater Stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129(1):243 -261. Winger, P. V., P. J. Lasier, D. H. White, and J. T. Seginak. 2000. Effects of Contaminants in Dredge Material from the Lower Savannah River. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 38(1):128 -136. Wirgin, I., and coauthors. 2005. Range -wide population structure of shortnose sturgeonAcipenser brevirostrum based on sequence analysis of the mitochondrial DNA control region. Estuaries and Coasts 28(3):406 -421. 0 Wirgin, I., C. Grunwald, J. Stabile, and J. Waldman. 2009. Delineation of discrete population segments of shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum based on mitochondrial DNA control region sequence analysis Conservation Genetics:22. Wirgin, I., J. Waldman, J. Stabile, B. Lubinski, and T. King. 2002. Comparison of mitochondrial DNA control region sequence and microsatellite DNA analyses in estimating population structure and gene flow rates in Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18(4- 6):313 -319. Wirgin, I., and coauthors. 2000. Genetic Structure of Atlantic Sturgeon Populations Based on Mitochondrial DNA Control Region Sequences. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129(2):476 -486. Young, J. R., T. B. Hoff, W. P. Dey, and J. G. Hoff. 1988. Management recommendations for a Hudson River Atlantic sturgeon fishery based on an age - structured population model. Fisheries Research in the Hudson River. State of University of New York Press, Albany, New York. Ziegeweid, J., C. Jennings, and D. Peterson. 2008. Thermal maxima for juvenile shortnose sturgeon acclimated to different temperatures. Environmental Biology of Fishes 82(3):299 -307. 93 14 Attachment A: A Protocol for Use of Shortnose, Atlantic, Gulf, and Green Sturgeons llI A Protocolfor Use of Shortnose, Atlantic, Gulf, and Green Sturgeons Jason Kahn and Malcolm Mohead oP4��F�y7 OF CO1�� "rHTES OF P U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS- OPR -45 March 2010 Atlantic sturgeon (Robert Michelson, Photography by Michelson, Inc.) Gulf sturgeon (Oscar Sosa, New York Times) Green sturgeon (Thomas Dunklin) Cover: shortnose sturgeon (credit: Robert Michelson) A Protocol for Use of Shortnose, Atlantic, Gulf, and Green Sturgeons Jason Kahn and Malcolm Mohead NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS- OPR -45 March 2010 �o p1n�o�N a U.S. Department of Commerce Gary Locke, Secretary of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., Administrator of NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Eric C. Schwaab, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Suggested citation: Kahn, Jason, and Malcolm Mohead. 2010. A Protocol for Use of Shortnose, Atlantic, Gulf, and Green Sturgeons. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- OPR -45, 62 p. A copy of this report may be obtained from: Jason Kahn Office of Protected Resources NMFS, NOAA 1315 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 jason.kahn @noaa.gov ii I W_\a 110 Ell [Kl] 01Y M 0101 .� INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... ............................... I NON - TARGETED SPECIES CONCERNS IN THE RESEARCH AREA .............. ............................... 2 CAPTURE...................................................................................................................... ............................... 3 DISSOLVED OXYGEN, TEMPERATURE, AND SALINITY ............................................. ............................... 3 GILLNETS AND TRAMMEL NETS ................................................................................ ............................... 6 ELECTROFISHING....................................................................................................... ............................... 8 OTHER NON - LETHAL SAMPLING GEAR .................................................................... ............................... 8 TRAWLING.................................................................................................................. ............................... 9 D -NETS ....................................................................................................................... ............................... 9 EGGMATS ................................................................................................................ ............................... 10 OTHER METHODS OF EGG COLLECTION ................................................................ ............................... 10 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................... ............................... 10 HANDLINGAND HOLDING ................................................................................... ............................... 12 PROPER HANDLING OF STURGEON ......................................................................... ............................... 12 SHORT-TERM HOLDING .......................................................................................... ............................... 12 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................... ............................... 14 STANDARD RESEARCH METHODS .................................................................... ............................... 15 MEASURING.............................................................................................................. ............................... 15 WEIGHING................................................................................................................ ............................... 16 PHOTOGRAPHING..................................................................................................... ............................... 16 PITTAGS ................................................................................................................. ............................... 16 GENETICTISSUE SAMPLING .................................................................................... ............................... 18 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................... ............................... 18 ANESTHETIZATION ................................................................................................ ............................... 20 CHEMICALANESTHETIC ......................................................................................... ............................... 22 PHYSICALANESTHETIC ........................................................................................... ............................... 25 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................... ............................... 27 TAGGING.................................................................................................................... ............................... 28 TELEMETRYTAGS ................................................................................................... ............................... 28 EXTERNAL IDENTIFIER TAGS .................................................................................. ............................... 31 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................... ............................... 32 GASTRICLAVAGE ................................................................................................... ............................... 33 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................... ............................... 35 SEX IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................................ ............................... 36 ENDOSCOPY.............................................................................................................. ............................... 36 SURGICALBIOPSY .................................................................................................... ............................... 38 ULTRASOUND........................................................................................................... ............................... 39 BLOODPLASMA ....................................................................................................... ............................... 40 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................... ............................... 41 AGEESTIMATION ................................................................................................... ............................... 42 ACCURACY AND PRECISION OF ESTIMATES ........................................................... ............................... 43 AGEVALIDATION ..................................................................................................... ............................... 45 DELETERIOUS EFFECTS OF FIN SPINE SAMPLING .................................................. ............................... 46 ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR AGE ESTIMATION ................................................... ............................... 46 111 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................... ............................... 47 SALVAGESPECIMENS ........................................................................................... ............................... 48 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................ ............................... 49 REFERENCES............................................................................................................ ............................... 50 IV Introduction The goal of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) protocols for the use of sturgeon is standardization of research practices to benefit the recovery of Gulf of Mexico (Gulf), green, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon while also minimizing potentially negative impacts of research. As with A Protocol for the Use of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon (Moser et al. 2000a), these protocols provide guidelines for consistent and safe sampling methods when conducting research on sturgeon. They were developed from a comprehensive review of the best available scientific information at the time of publication, including peer reviewed journals, technical memorandums, species status reviews, interviews with researchers, and empirical evidence provided by researchers. Currently, some state agencies have been delegated authority for issuing research permits for Gulf and green sturgeon. However, due to previous lack of protocols established for these species, they were incorporated into this document. The majority of research conducted on sturgeon falls into several categories: capturing, handling, holding, standard research, anesthetization, tagging, gastric lavage, sex identification and stage of maturation, and age estimation. First, sturgeon must be captured, which may also require consideration of the waterway sampled to mitigate impacts on other federally listed threatened or endangered species. NMFS has determined that measuring, passive integrated transponder (PIT) tagging, and genetic sampling are essential procedures to provide NMFS with the most basic information on each fish and therefore those procedures are strongly recommended. After those procedures are completed, other discretionary research might include telemetry tagging, gastric lavage, sex identification, and age estimation. These discretionary procedures should use either chemical or physical anesthesia, potentially increasing risks to sturgeon. These protocols were developed to allow for safe, non - lethal research on sturgeon, balancing the necessary negative impacts of research while still allowing researchers to gather information vital to the recovery of listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These protocols are based on a thorough and comprehensive review of the best available scientific information on current research methods and the subsequent risk to these species. When researchers or managers have reason to exceed recommendations in this document using less known or riskier techniques, NMFS recommends first using surrogate Acipenserids or hatchery- reared sturgeon. When researchers or managers feel non - recommended methods must be conducted on wild listed or candidate species, the researchers should consult with the appropriate permitting agency in order to justify why their methodology is necessary to provide information for the recovery of these species. Non - Targeted Species Concerns in the Research Area When sampling shortnose, Atlantic, Gulf, and green sturgeon, the potential exists for researchers to encounter other ESA or Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) listed species, in addition to other locally or state protected species. These circumstances will vary with location and NMFS encourages consultation with the appropriate management authority in all cases. When other ESA protected species are potentially present in an action area, the researcher must contact NMFS or the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for clarification on the likelihood to adversely impact any listed species, or destroy or adversely modify any critical habitat for that species. The presence of listed species may require researchers to alter sampling plans to avoid taking listed fish, such as Pacific or Atlantic salmonids, or mammals, such as Stellar sea lions or manatees. In many other locations, marine mammals, protected under the MMPA but not the ESA, may be present. The MMPA places a moratorium, with certain exceptions, on the taking and importing of marine mammals and marine mammal products. In 1981, Congress amended the MMPA to allow the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region. If marine mammals, including non -ESA listed pinnipeds or cetaceans, have the potential to be taken incidental to scientific research activities on sturgeon (e.g., there is a chance of entanglement), the researcher should consult with NMFS under section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA to determine if an incidental take authorization is warranted. Contact: Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland (301- 713 - 2289). In other instances, predators may frequent sampling areas posing threats to listed sturgeon species. In such cases, nets must be monitored at all times and pulled if predators are evidenced. Pinnipeds have been seen feeding on listed sturgeon by researchers (Fernandez 2008, Marty Gingras, California Department of Fish and Game, pers. comm.), potentially other predatory species such as odontocetes and sharks could take sturgeon while trapped in gillnets or trammel nets. If there are reasons to believe sturgeon could be harmed by predators while captured in gillnets or trammel nets, those nets should be continuously monitored. 2 Capture Researchers most often capture Gulf, Atlantic, green, and shortnose sturgeon using a variety of gears including gillnets (drift and anchored), trammel nets, seine nets, trawls, trot lines, pound nets, and electrofishing. Nets of varying length and mesh size are chosen to target different life stages of sturgeon (Mason and Clugston 1993, DeVries 2006). Generally, sturgeon are hardy, allowing some research methods lethal to other fish. These methods can still be stressful to sturgeon, occasionally resulting in lethal and, more often, sub - lethal effects. For example, during pre- spawning activities, capture and handling is thought to have resulted in immediate downstream migration or aborted spawning runs (Moser and Ross 1995, Kynard et al. 2007, Gail Wippelhauser, Maine Department of Marine Resources, pers. comm.). Also, during periods of warm water or low dissolved oxygen (DO), fish have been lethally stressed (Hastings et al. 1987, Secor and Gunderson 1998). NMFS recommends capturing adult sturgeon while they are still in their winter staging areas, but does not recommend targeting sturgeon during their upstream spawning migration due to the risks of aborted spawning runs. However, when the purpose of the research is to document the size of the spawning run, managers must determine whether the information to be gained is worth the risk posed by the research. Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, and Salinity For all sturgeon species, research has revealed that survival is affected by a relationship between temperature, DO, and salinity and this vulnerability may be increased by the research - related stress of capture, holding, and handling. The following environmental information is considered relevant for establishing recommendations for directed sampling on early life stages to adult life stages of sturgeon. Jenkins et al. (1993), Secor and Gunderson (1998), Niklitschek (2001), Secor and Niklitschek (2001 and 2002), and Niklitshek and Secor (2009a and 2009b) demonstrated shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon survival in a laboratory setting was affected by reduced DO, increased temperature, or increased salinity. Other researchers have demonstrated similar relationships between temperature, DO, and salinity in green sturgeon (Van Eenennaam et al. 2005, Allen et al. 2006, Allen and Cech 2007). Likewise, Altinok et al. (1998), Sulak and Clugston (1998), Sulak and Clugston (1999), and Waldman et al. (2002) reported high temperatures, low DO, and high salinities result in lower survival of Gulf sturgeon. Though there may be differences between populations in different geographical regions, optimal growth for both Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon has been shown to occur at 70% oxygen saturation with a temperature of approximately 20 °C ( Niklitschek 2001). Shortnose sturgeon have also been shown to experience significant reductions in food consumption when temperatures exceed 25.8 °C ( Niklitschek 2001). Green sturgeon require cooler temperatures, growing optimally between 15° and 19 °C, and experiencing reduced growth rates between 20° and 24 °C (Mayfield and Cech 2004). However, larval green sturgeon grow more optimally at 24 °C compared to 19 °C (Allen et al. 2006). Gulf 3 sturgeon also appear dependent on temperature for optimal growth, fasting during hot summer months and feasting during winter when water temperatures and DO in the Gulf of Mexico and tributaries are more optimal (Sulak and Randall 2002). Considerable work has been conducted on temperature tolerances of sturgeon (Wang et al. 1985, Wehrly 1995, Kynard 1997, Campbell and Goodman 2004, Cech and Doroshov 2004, Van Eenennaam et al. 2005, Ziegeweid et al. 2007, Sardella et al. 2008). In recent work on critical thermal maximum, Ziegeweid et al. (2007) demonstrated hatchery- raised young of year shortnose sturgeon can tolerate between 28° and 30 °C, while the maximum safe temperature limits for adults ranges between 28° and 31 °C. Kynard (1997) also notes empirical temperatures of 28° to 30 °C in summer months creates unsuitable shortnose sturgeon habitat. Atlantic sturgeon experience lower survival when water temperatures exceed 28 °C ( Niklitshek and Secor 2005). Mayfield and Cech (2004) estimated the lethal water temperature for green sturgeon in the wild at 27°C. Sardella et al. (2008) found green sturgeon lethal limits in a laboratory is approximately 33 °C, in freshwater and sea water, although the maximum respiratory response evidenced is 26° to 28 °C. Although Gulf sturgeon reside in freshwater during summer months where water temperatures range from 28° to 32 °C, there have been no studies estimating lethal temperature limits for Gulf sturgeon. It is worth noting, however, the healthiest population of Gulf sturgeon occurs in the Suwannee River, where temperatures are generally maintained at 28 °C by springs in parts of the river. There is no clear evidence to suggest minimum water temperatures negatively affect sturgeon when captured beyond the early life stages. Therefore, this document identifies only upper water temperature restrictions to establish safe sampling limits for threatened or endangered sturgeon. However, when air temperatures are below freezing, handling procedures should be limited to less than two minutes to prevent exposure of a sturgeon's skin to freezing temperatures. Because warm water can hold less DO, percent oxygen saturation is a measurement that accounts for water temperatures and DO concentrations, providing a general index of how much DO is available to sturgeon under various environmental conditions. All three measures are used in this document to highlight risks to sturgeon survival (Table 1). The 24 hour LC50 (concentration lethal to 50% of the test fish) of DO for shortnose sturgeon is documented between 2.2 and 3.1 mg /L at temperatures ranging from 22 °C to 29 °C (Campbell and Goodman 2004). Secor and Niklitschek (2002) reported the critical DO concentration for Eurasian sturgeons to be 4.5 mg /L at 24 °C, but also found 3.6 mg /L DO critical at 20 °C. Following a similar pattern, critical concentrations of DO between 4.3 and 4.7 mg /L were found for shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon at temperatures ranging from 22° and 27°C respectively. Further, acute lethal effects to shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon were observed when DO was 3.3 mg /L at temperatures between 22° and 27°C (Secor and Niklitschek 2002). Survival of Atlantic sturgeon was observed to be 100% in water temperatures of 26 °C with 7 mg/L DO; however, 12% survival was observed in waters with 3 mg /L DO at the same temperature (Secor and Gunderson 1998). Even when water temperatures were only 19 °C and DO was 3 mg /L, 25% of the Atlantic sturgeon died. Similar to reduced growth rates experienced by shortnose sturgeon when temperatures are above 25 °C, both shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon growth is impaired when DO is less than 4.7 mg /L ( Secor and Niklitschek 2002). Jenkins et al. (1993) confirmed 12% mortality for 339 mm juvenile sturgeon when held at 2.5 mg /L DO and 22.5 °C, while no sturgeon died when DO was above 4 mg/L, at any temperature. Likewise, Secor and Gunderson (1998) found the DO level required avoiding mortality was 5 mg/L. Specific DO tolerance levels have not been established for green or Gulf sturgeon, although hypoxia for many Acipenser species has been documented to begin at 4 mg/L (Cech et al. 1984, Jenkins et al. 1993, Secor and Gunderson 1998). Similarly, Cech and Crocker (2002) identified hypoxia for sturgeon as 58% oxygen saturation. Table 1. Water temperature, dissolved oxygen, percent oxygen saturation of the water, and survival rates of sturgeon tested. Authors Species Temp ( °C) DO (mg/L) % Saturation Effects Jenkins et al. Shortnose 22.5 2.5 29% 88% survival 1993 Campbell and Goodman Shortnose 22-29 2.2-3.1 25-41% 50% survival 2004 Secor and Atlantic Acute lethal Niklitschek and 22-27 3.3 38-42% effects 2002 shortnose Secor and Gunderson Atlantic 26 3 37% 12% survival 1998 Secor and Gunderson Atlantic 19 3 33% 75% survival 1998 24 4.5 Critical DO Secor and 54% concentration, Niklitshek Eurasian onset of sub- 2002 20 3.6 40% lethal effects Critical DO Secor and Atlantic concentration, Niklitshek and 22-27 4.3-4.7 50-60% onset of sub- 2002 shortnose lethal effects NMFS recognizes the synergistic effects of water temperature and DO present difficulties when establishing finite levels for safe sturgeon sampling (Table 1). It is clear from reported empirical catch data and scientific literature, higher temperatures and lower DOs stress sturgeon even if the percent oxygen saturation remains constant or increases. Water temperature and DO can be responsible for mortality events. Each individual sturgeon will react differently to changes in environmental conditions such as water quality, salinity, and stress associated with capture and handling, which compounds the difficulty of conducting a risk assessment. 5 Using data reported from capture of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon from the 1970s to present and the critical thresholds and LC50s reported in the scientific literature as reference points, NMFS established safe environmental limits for capturing and handling sturgeon species. NMFS recommends not capturing or handling Gulf, Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon when DO concentrations are below 4.5 mg/L. Green sturgeon should not be captured or handled when DO concentrations are below 5 mg/L. Additionally, NMFS recommends not sampling for Gulf, shortnose, or Atlantic sturgeon when temperatures exceed 28 °C and green sturgeon should not be captured when water temperatures exceed 25 °C. When establishing these recommendations, NMFS also considered the percent oxygen saturation of water and recommends not sampling for Gulf, Atlantic, or shortnose sturgeon when oxygen saturation is below 55% or green sturgeon when oxygen saturation is below 58 %. Sampling at higher temperatures or lower DO levels may be possible if the percent oxygen saturation in water is maintained at these levels. Gillnets and Trammel Nets Researchers typically use gillnets and trammel nets to capture sturgeon. These netting techniques, while potentially lethal for many species of fish, are somewhat safer for sturgeon. However, given the implications of water temperature, DO, and percent oxygen saturation, both soak times and mesh size are important factors considered for safely capturing and handling sturgeon. Mesh size that is too small for the targeted life stage is more likely to constrict gills resulting in mortality via suffocation. The mesh size chosen for gill netting sturgeon, therefore, should be carefully considered and appropriate for the species and life stage targeted. Experimental nets with multiple mesh sizes may be appropriate for researchers to discover the safest and most effective mesh size. For example, due to disproportionately high reports of mortality using ten inch stretch mesh with Atlantic sturgeon (Balazik et al. 2009), this size mesh should not be used to sample adult Atlantic or Gulf sturgeon. Safe net soak times are influenced by water temperature, DO, and, to a lesser extent, salinity. While there are no publications documenting the effects of soak times on mortality rates of sturgeon, there is consensus amongst sturgeon researchers that shorter soak times are safer than longer soak times (Mark Collins, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources; Matt Fisher, Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife; Dewayne Fox, Delaware State University; Chris Hager, Virginia Institute of Marine Science; Doug Peterson, University of Georgia; William Post, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources; Mike Randall, United States Geological Survey (USGS); and Ken Sulak, USGS, pers. comm.). By monitoring signs of stress such as excessive redness, mucous production, or lethargy, experienced researchers will often shorten net deployment regardless of measured environmental conditions (Kathryn Hattala, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; Tom Savoy, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection; and Doug Peterson, University of Georgia, pers. comm.). When using anchored gillnets while targeting Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, soak times of 14 hours are safe when water temperatures at the sampling depth are under 15 °C. However, soak times should not exceed four hours in waters up to 20 °C, two hours in IN waters up to 25 °C, and one hour in waters up to 28 °C at the sampling depth (Table 2). Similar effects were alluded to in Moser et al. (2000a), but were not clearly defined. Gulf sturgeon net set durations should not exceed four hours under any conditions. Mortalities have been documented in the empirical records of researchers while fishing above 20 °C at net set durations ranging from 45 minutes to 24 hours. However, mortalities have been extremely rare when fishing nets less than two hours and at temperatures between 20° and 25 °C. The one hour soak time at water temperatures between 25° and 28 °C (Table 2) accommodates standard research practices of netting at slack tides (i.e., the occurrence of relatively still water at the turn of the low tide). There have been only two recorded sturgeon mortalities documented when fishing in this manner. Table 2. Appropriate fishin rotocols for Gulf, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon. Net set duration (hours) Temperature at sampling depth Minimum DO at sampling de th % oxygen saturation at sampling depth 14t Up to 15 °C 4.5 m /L 55% 4 15° to 20 °C 4.5 m /L 55% 2 20° to 25 °C 4.5 m /L 55% 1 25° to 28 °C 4.5 m /L 55% No sampling Over 28 °C 4.5 m /L 55% t Net set duration for Gulf sturgeon should not exceed four hours for all temperatures up to 20 °C. When fishing for green sturgeon, NMFS recommends that gill net fishing not be conducted in the Sacramento River, California all year to prevent interactions with listed salmonids and to also protect green sturgeon during their upstream migrations. NMFS also recommends that no gillnetting or trammel netting occur in the Feather River between October 31 st and March 1St of each year to protect spawning salmonids. When fishing for green sturgeon in other locations, the risk of interactions between gillnets or trammel nets and listed salmonids or pinnipeds requires the nets to be manned at all times. Additionally, pinnipeds are protected by the MMPA and the presence of gillnets in the water could pose an entanglement risk and require an Incidental Take Authorization (Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA). NMFS recommends net soak times should not exceed four hours in water temperature up to 19 °C, two hours between 19° and 23 °C, and one hour for water temperature between 23° and 25 °C (Table 3). Table 3. Appropriate fishing protocols for green sturgeon. Net soak times hours Temperature at sampling depth Minimum DO at sampling depth % oxygen saturation at sampling depth 4 U to 19 °C 5 m /l 58% 2 19° to 23 °C 5 m /l 58% 1 23° to 25 °C 5 m /l 58% No netting Over 25 °C 5 mg/1 58% When following the protocols in Table 2 between 2005 and 2009, East Coast sturgeon researchers recorded over 3,800 captures of shortnose sturgeon resulting in no mortality. 7 However, while fishing outside of these recommended criteria, the same researchers experienced a 0.6% mortality rate of captured shortnose sturgeon. This is the same mortality rate documented for shortnose sturgeon captured between 2000 and 2004 when researchers followed the Moser et al. (2000a) protocols. When drift gillnetting, nets are allowed to drift on the rising tide or in slack tide until just after high tide for approximately thirty minutes to several hours, depending on the location and swiftness of the tide. Water quality conditions and net soak times for drift gill nets are the same as for anchored gillnets. However, drift nets must be tended because of the risk of gear entanglement or loss of gear resulting in ghost nets. For drift gillnet fishing, gear should be pulled immediately if it is obvious a sturgeon has been captured. Electrofishing Electrof uhing gear poses documented risks and potentially lethal effects to all sturgeon species (Moser et al. 2000b, Holliman and Reynolds 2002). Sturgeon have exceptional electro- sensory abilities and actively avoid electrofishing gear (Moser et al. 2000b). If sturgeon are likely present in areas where agencies are using electrofishing gear to target other species, only low voltage direct current should be used if no alternative sampling method is available. While electrofishing likely reduces feeding and alters spawning behavior (Moser et al. 2000b), such sub - lethal effects may not be significantly different than effects caused by other capture methods. However, due to more effective and safer methods of capture, NMFS prohibits electrofishing to capture Gulf, green, Atlantic, or shortnose sturgeon. Other Non - Lethal Sampling Gear While fyke, hoop, and pound nets are not commonly used by researchers to capture sturgeon, they occasionally capture sturgeon as bycatch in several fisheries. Usually sturgeon captured as bycatch in these gear types are found in relatively good condition. Large numbers of sturgeon captured in fyke, hoop, and pound nets have been used by researchers in cooperation with these commercial fisheries in Canada. Because these nets are less stressful to sturgeon, they are an acceptable alternative to gillnets. Set lines have also been used to effectively sample white, pallid, shovelnose, and lake sturgeon and are approved options for sampling Gulf, green and Atlantic sturgeon as well. Shortnose sturgeon are less likely to be taken on a set line because of their diets. The two concerns with set lines are predation and hooking mortality. If there are predators such as pinnipeds in the area, the set line should be monitored constantly and pulled if any predators are seen surfacing. The hooks can be swallowed, damaging organs such as the gills and stomach, if the hook sizes are too large or small for the targeted sturgeon life stage. Every effort should be made to limit and monitor adverse effects, including not using set lines in some locations if they cannot be fished without mortality. N. Trawling While gillnets and trammel nets are most commonly used for targeting adult and sub - adult sturgeon, they are not as effective as trawls at capturing young of the year juvenile sturgeon. In larger river systems such as the Mississippi and Missouri River, and more recently in Atlantic coastal rivers, researchers have successfully employed a modified "Missouri trawl" (Herzog et al. 2005) a two -seam (i.e., standard) slingshot balloon trawl (Gutreuter et al. 1995) completely covered with heavy, delta -style mesh. Trawls in general are limited by shallow water (less than 20 inches) and benthic obstacles. The location of trawling should be monitored using a sounding device and global positioning system to avoid snags and limit repeated disturbance of the same location. The tow rope should be quickly released from the boat if any debris is caught and the trawl unengaged to minimize damage to the substrate or catch. Ideally, a chase boat is recommended to assist with recovery of the cod end or assisting with snags, but if that is not possible, a buoy should be attached to a single 70 to 100 foot rope line fastened to the cod end of the trawl to assist retrieval if the trawl becomes snagged. The footrope of a trawl should maintain contact with the substrate during conditions of heavy current, fast tow speeds, or undulating bottom surfaces (e.g., sand waves). The trawl should be operated attached to the boat with 100 to 200 foot towlines, the length dependent on water depth (i.e., deeper water required longer towlines as reported in Brabant and Nedelec 1979). The trawl should be manually deployed and retrieved by powering the boat in reverse (bow upstream) with continued movement downstream. A standard haul should be approximately 300 to 500 feet, lasting approximately 10 minutes, and towed at a range of three to five knots (Gutreuter et al. 1995). Areas successful for trawling are characterized by a variety of habitat substrate including fine and course sands with mobile bedforms (sand dunes) and mudflats. Particularly productive areas are located at the mouths of tributaries entering a larger river. However, any large, straight river segment, devoid of benthic material that may entangle nets, can be successfully trawled. D -Nets When targeting eggs and early life stage (ELS) sturgeon, the two commonly used sampling methods are D -nets and artificial substrates. Both techniques can be non - lethal, but due to the risk of mortality, no more eggs and ELS sturgeon should be captured than are absolutely necessary. While not mandatory, in rivers with unknown spawning populations, adults can be tagged and tracked to document possible spawning runs and spawning areas prior to sampling for eggs (Kieffer and Kynard 1996). Otherwise, D -nets should be deployed well before the earliest time spawning would be expected. Due to the risks associated with capturing and impinging ELS sturgeon in the D -Nets, however, they should be checked at least every three hours to minimize incidental mortality (Boyd Kynard, USGS, pers. comm.). D -nets should also be equipped with flow meters to calculate filtered water volume when developing an index of abundance and spawning success (# ELS/ volume of water sampled) (Taubert 1980). If the purpose of the research is to verify the occurrence of spawning, nets should be checked every hour. As soon as X ELS are captured, sampling should be discontinued. If the purpose of the research is to verify duration of the spawning period, then additional samples may need to be taken, but the acceptable number of ELS fish to be captured would depend on the status of the sturgeon populations in the river. Egg Mats Artificial substrates consist of floor buffing pads or similar materials, approximately two feet in diameter (described in Fox et al. 2000) for the purpose of collecting eggs as they are deposited in the water column. These pads should be anchored to the river bottom in suspected spawning areas. No more pads should be fished than is necessary. If the researcher is unsure of the number of pads required to identify spawning areas and success, no more than 100 to 150 pads should be fished at once across several sites. Pads should be checked at least twice a week or more frequently if circumstances allow. The artificial substrates should be examined in the field for sturgeon eggs and only returned to the river if more samples are needed. If it is not necessary to remove the eggs from the mat, the mat can be returned to the river bottom allowing the eggs to incubate and hatch before being removed. For every artificial substrate that collects an egg, environmental conditions such as latitude, longitude, velocity, substrate type, depth, dissolved oxygen, etc. should be collected. Other Methods of Egg Collection There are other methods of sampling eggs and ELS, such as epibethic sleds, ichthyoplankton nets, and pump sampling. These methods are not considered as effective as the other described methods, though they are acceptable sampling methods. Recommendations General • NMFS recommends capturing adult sturgeon while they are still in their winter staging areas, but does not recommend targeting sturgeon during their upstream spawning migration due to the risks of aborted spawning runs. Water Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, and Salinity • When air temperatures are below freezing, handling procedures should be limited to less than two minutes to prevent exposure of a sturgeon's skin to freezing temperatures. • NMFS recommends Gulf, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon are not captured or handled when DO concentrations are below 4.5 mg /L. Green sturgeon should not be captured or handled when DO concentrations are below 5 mg/L. • NMFS recommends not sampling for Gulf, shortnose, or Atlantic sturgeon occur when temperatures exceed 28 °C; while sampling for green sturgeon should not occur when temperatures exceed 25 °C. • NMFS recommends not sampling for Gulf, Atlantic, or shortnose sturgeon when the oxygen saturation is below 55% and not sampling green sturgeon when the oxygen saturation is below 58 %. 10 Gillnets and Trammel Nets • Due to disproportionately high reports of mortality using ten inch stretch mesh with Atlantic sturgeon, this size mesh should not be used to sample adult Atlantic or Gulf sturgeon. • NMFS recommends no gill net fishing be conducted in the Sacramento River, California all year round to prevent interactions with listed salmonids and also to protect green sturgeon during their upstream migrations. • NMFS also recommends that no gillnetting or trammel netting take place in the Feather River, California between October 31St and March 1St of each year to protect spawning salmonids. • NMFS recommends net soak times should not exceed four hours in water temperature up to 19 °C, should not exceed two hours between 19° and 23 °C, and one hour for water temperature between 23° and 25 °C. • Gillnets should be used sparingly and carefully in waters where other listed species may be encountered. The researcher must contact NMFS or the USFWS when other listed species may be incidentally affected. Electrofishing • NMFS prohibits electrofishing to capture Gulf, green, Atlantic, or shortnose sturgeon. Other Non - Lethal Sampling Gear • Fyke, hoop, and pound nets are an acceptable alternative to gillnets for Gulf, green, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon. • Set lines are approved options for sampling Gulf, green, and Atlantic sturgeon. Trawling • NMFS recommends trawling as safe, efficient sampling gear to target small juvenile Gulf, Atlantic, shortnose, and green sturgeon; however, small mesh gillnets and trammel nets are also acceptable. D -Nets • NMFS recommends D -nets and egg mats to sample rivers for eggs or ELS of Gulf, Atlantic, shortnose, or green sturgeon. • Due to risks associated with capturing and impinging ELS sturgeon in D -Nets, they should be checked at least every three hours to minimize incidental mortality. Egg Mats • No more egg mats should be fished than is necessary. If the researcher is unsure of the number of pads required to identify spawning areas and success, no more than 100 to 150 pads should be fished at once. 11 Handling and Holding Handling of sturgeon refers to the time period actual research activities are conducted on live fish and does not refer to the time a fish is held in live cars before and after research activities. Holding is the period of time a sturgeon is in possession but kept in live cars either waiting to be handled or recovered from handling prior to being released. Proper Handling of Sturgeon Improper handling can result in lethal or sub - lethal impacts to sturgeon. In some cases, sturgeon may display altered behavior after being released, for example, swimming towards the ocean rather than remaining in the river, or, in some instances, aborting spawning runs completely (Moser and Ross 1995, Schaffter 1997, Kelly et al. 2007, Benson et al. 2007, Moser and Lindley 2007). There are no other alternatives to handling sturgeon during research; however, the researcher's primary focus should be the well- being of the sturgeon. NMFS strongly recommends standard handling procedures performed on all sturgeon captured including measuring, weighing, PIT tagging, and tissue sampling. The total time required to complete routine research procedures should not exceed 15 minutes. Additional procedures such as internal tagging, lavage, boroscoping, etc. will take more time for handling and recovery. However, only one additional discretionary procedure to the standard handling procedures should be performed on each sturgeon, thus minimizing handling time prior to release. For example, if a sturgeon is fitted with a telemetry tag, it should not also undergo gastric lavage. And when water temperatures are above 23 °C for green sturgeon or 25 °C for Gulf, shortnose, or Atlantic sturgeon, the extent of research should be limited to the standard handling procedures of measuring, weighing, PIT tagging, and tissue sampling. Fish should be handled rapidly, but with care and kept in water to the maximum extent possible during handling. During handling procedures, each fish should be immersed in a continuous stream of ambient water passing over the sturgeon's gills. Many sturgeon researchers provide sturgeon with supplemental compressed oxygen, thereby reducing stress and ensuring DO does not fall below acceptable saturation levels. Researchers should also attempt to support larger sturgeon in slings preventing struggle during transfer. Sturgeon should be weighed using hand held sling scales or a platform scale for larger sturgeon. Also, because sturgeon are sensitive to direct sunlight, they should be covered and kept moist. Short -Term Holding All captured sturgeon should be removed from the capture gear and immediately transferred to short-term holding. When multiple fish are captured, those not processed immediately should be held in a net pen or live car while waiting to be transferred by hand or sling to a processing station on board. Net pens measuring three feet wide, six feet long, and three feet deep can safely hold about 20 adult shortnose sturgeon or comparably sized juvenile Atlantic, Gulf or green sturgeon when temperatures are below 12 15 °C (Doug Peterson, University of Georgia, pers. comm.). Larger net pens (8 feet long) are required for holding adult Atlantic, green, and Gulf sturgeon or they should be processed as quickly as possible (or scheduled first) instead of subjected to confined holding conditions. When water temperature is between 15° and 25 °C, fewer fish should be held in the same enclosure because overcrowding animals amplifies short term stress, particularly at higher temperatures (Safi et al. 2006). If the fish are being held on -board a vessel in a holding tank, compressed oxygen should be added to increase DO in the water. If the researcher observes a visually stressed sturgeon, efforts should be made to revive the fish and release it in a healthy condition. In some cases, recovery can be achieved by allowing a sturgeon to rest in an appropriately sized net pen for several hours prior to release. Sturgeon should never be held in gillnets if there isn't enough room to safely hold them in net pens. In some rivers with large populations of sturgeon, catches can exceed the number of fish that can possibly be held safely in live cars or net pens. In such cases, researchers should have multiple holding bins at their disposal. If more fish are captured than can be processed and released within two hours, those excess fish may need to be released to minimize stress or lethal injury. When sturgeon are held on -board research vessels, they should be placed in flow through tanks where the total volume of water is replaced every 15 to 20 minutes. Traditionally, some species of sturgeon have been held for research purposes by tethering with ropes looped around tails to the sides of research vessels until they can be handled. In a study of lake sturgeon (Axelsen and Mauger 1993 cited in Dick et al. 2006), tethered fish experienced greater stress and higher mortality than sturgeon kept in uncrowded cages. Therefore, NMFS recommends only using on -board holding tanks or net pens large enough to hold a large sturgeon. NMFS does not recommend holding any sturgeon by tethering its caudal peduncle to the research vessel. However, while a rope should never be tied around the caudal peduncle, it may be necessary to use a rope placed under the sturgeon immediately posterior to the pectoral fins when moving large sturgeon from net pens onto the boat. Following handling procedures, fish should be returned to the net pen for observation and to ensure full recovery prior to release. Total holding time in the net pens would be variable depending on water temperature and the condition of each fish, however, the maximum amount of time a fish should be held after removal from capture gear is approximately two hours, unless more time is needed to recover from the effects of an anesthetic or because prolonged holding would benefit a sturgeon. When water temperature is above 25 °C for Gulf, shortnose, and Atlantic sturgeon, or 23 °C for green sturgeon, they should be held for as little time as possible. Holding time includes the time to remove any other captured sturgeon, time to process other fish, and time necessary for recovery ensuring the safety of the fish. Prior to release, sturgeon should be examined and, if necessary, recovered by holding fish upright and immersed in river water, gently moving the fish front to back, aiding freshwater passage over the gills to stimulate it. The fish should be released when 13 showing signs of vigor and able to swim away under its own power. A spotter should watch the fish, making sure it stays submerged and does not need additional recovery. Recommendations Proper Handling of Sturgeon • NMFS strongly recommends standard handling procedures performed on all sturgeon captured including measuring, weighing, PIT tagging, and tissue sampling. • Only one additional discretionary procedure to the standard handling procedures should be performed on each sturgeon, thus minimizing handling time prior to release. • When water temperatures are above 23 °C for green sturgeon or 25 °C for Gulf, shortnose, or Atlantic sturgeon, the extent of research should be limited to the standard handling procedures of measuring, weighing, PIT tagging, and tissue sampling. • During handling procedures, each fish should be immersed in a continuous stream of ambient water passing over the sturgeon's gills. • Researchers should attempt to support larger sturgeon in slings preventing struggle during transfer. • If the researcher observes a severely stressed sturgeon, efforts should be made to revive the fish and release it in a healthy condition. Short -Term Holding • Sturgeon should never be held in gillnets while waiting to be handled, but should instead be transferred to a net pen for holding. • NMFS recommends only using on -board holding tanks or net pens large enough to hold a large sturgeon. NMFS does not recommend tethering sturgeon to the boat by its caudal peduncle. • The maximum amount of time a fish should be held after removal from capture gear is approximately two hours, unless more time is needed to recover from the effects of an anesthetic or because prolonged holding would benefit a sturgeon. • Adult Atlantic, green, and Gulf sturgeon over six feet in length should be processed as quickly as possible (or scheduled first) instead of subjected to confined holding conditions. 14 Standard Research Methods Upon capturing a green, Gulf, shortnose, or Atlantic sturgeon, there are several research procedures strongly recommended on all sturgeon. First, the captured fish is to be measured. The sturgeon should also be weighed if possible. It can also be photographed, if possible. Then, their entire bodies should be scanned for previously inserted PIT tags; and, if none are found, one should be properly inserted. Finally, a small sample of the soft tissue of the pelvic fin should be removed for genetic identification. Measuring Standardized length measurements for all sturgeon should be taken from the snout to the fork in the tail (i.e., fork length — FL). The measuring device should be a solid ruler or board, so the measurement does not measure the curvature of the body. Additional length measurements should be taken at the researcher's discretion for total length (TL) or head length (Figure 1). While the heterocercal tail of larger fish may be damaged or shortened, the total length can still be obtained by pressing down the tail at the caudal peduncle and measuring to the tip of the tail. Girth measurements should also be taken at the widest part of the body. While not mandatory, measurements of the ratio of mouth width to interorbital width can also be obtained to differentiate between shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon (Dadswell et al. 1984). Interorbital width is measured as the distance between the lateral margins of the bony skull at the midpoint of the orbit and mouth width is measured as the distance between the left and right inside corners of the closed mouth (i.e., excluding the lips) (Figure 1). Figure 1. Diagram of different types of measurements for sturgeons. Drawings by Eric Hilton, Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Total length Interorbital width 15 Weighing All captured sturgeon should be weighed if possible. Weights allow a better understanding of the conditioning of captured sturgeon during various seasons of the year or life span of the fish. For weighing sturgeon, animals should be supported with a sling or net and handling should be minimized throughout the procedure. Boats used for researching green, Gulf, and Atlantic sturgeon should accommodate larger fish with scales available to safely weigh a 200 pound fish. When targeting shortnose sturgeon (or juvenile green, Gulf, or Atlantic sturgeon), hand -held sling scales are acceptable. When using a bench scale or platform scale to weigh large sturgeon, a five to six foot flat platform will be necessary to support the fish. Photographing When handling sturgeon, optional photography is often used to document the health of fish, research methods, and any identifying marks on the sturgeon potentially useful in the future. Although it is recommended to take as many pictures as needed, researchers should do so without interfering with other research activities. PIT Tags Every sturgeon should be scanned for PIT tags along its entire body surface ensuring it has not been previously tagged. Untagged sturgeon should then be appropriately PIT tagged (Figure 2) and the identifying number recorded. Each PIT tag consists of integrated circuitry and an antenna encapsulated in glass. PIT tags are "passive" because they contain no batteries; their internal code is activated and transmitted to the receiver when exposed to the transceiver's electromagnetic signal. The newest PIT tags, and those recommended by NMFS, use a frequency of 134.2 kHz. Standardized PIT tag placement for Gulf, green, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon would enable subsequent researchers to locate prior PIT tags quickly and consistently. Sturgeon, are large fish growing a considerable amount from the time they're first PIT - tagged until they reach their adult size. If muscles grow over the PIT tag as they mature, the tag can become increasingly more difficult to read. For this reason, NMFS strongly recommends PIT tag placement in all four sturgeon species to be located to the left of the spine, immediately anterior to the dorsal fin, and posterior to the dorsal scutes (Figure 2). This positioning would optimize PIT tag readability over the animal's lifetime as sturgeon experience the least new muscle growth in this location during their lifetimes (Berg 2004, Simpson and Fox 2006). After the tag is inserted, it should be scanned to ensure it is readable before the fish is released. If necessary, to ensure tag retention and prevent harm or mortality to small juvenile sturgeon of all species, the PIT tag can also be inserted at the widest dorsal position just to the left of the 4th dorsal scute. 16 Figure 2. Standardized location for PIT tagging all green, Gulf, S) PIT tags have the highest reported retention rate of all identification tags, though they are not visible to the researcher or fisherman upon capture. Clugston (1996) found PIT tags implanted in gulf sturgeon have approximately a 90% retention rate. Musick and Hager (2007) tagging 445 Atlantic sturgeon reported a 99% retention rate of PIT tags after 96 hours. Smith et al. (1990) noted 100% retention after 60 days in wild shortnose sturgeon. In the Penobscot River, retention rates for PIT tags in Atlantic sturgeon were 93% after as much as 8.8 years (Gayle Zydlewski, University of Maine, pers. comm.). Nelson et al. (2007) report approximately 100% retention of PIT tags in recaptured white sturgeon. Other researchers have had different results. Researchers with EDI Environmental Dynamics (2006) reported recapturing three white sturgeon, with 66% retention of PIT tags. DeHaan et al. (2008) recorded 51 to 95% retention when PIT - tagging juvenile pallid sturgeon, which is similar to rates observed by Henne et al. (unpublished). As with all research procedures, there is a risk of injury or mortality either directly or indirectly related to PIT tagging. When PIT tags are inserted into animals having large body sizes relative to tag size, empirical studies generally conclude they have no adverse effect on the growth, survival, reproductive success, or behavior of individual animals (Brannas et al. 1994, Elbin and Burger 1994, Keck 1994, Jemison et al. 1995, Clugston 1996, Skalski et al. 1998, Hockersmith et al. 2003). However, smaller sturgeon may experience mortality within the first 24 hours, usually as a result of inserting the tags too deeply or from pathogenic infection. When analyzing mortality of small sturgeon caused by PIT tags, Henne et al. (2008) found 11 and 14 mm tags inserted into shortnose sturgeon longer than 300 mm was safe. In this study, they found that when fish are under 300 mm, factors other than length, such as weight or condition, most influence the likelihood of mortality. Therefore, NMFS recommends only sturgeon over 300 mm should receive PIT tags. A negative aspect of using PIT tags in sturgeon research is the difficulty for NOAA observers or non - researchers to detect tags in recaptured sturgeon without the benefit of a PIT tag reader. Rien et al. (1994) and Nelson et al. (2004) recommend removal of the second left lateral scute indicating the presence of a PIT tag in white sturgeon. This methodology has been subsequently used for green sturgeon as well. While removal of 17 scutes rarely results in bleeding, and is not considered deleterious, there are other, safer means for externally marking sturgeon. NMFS believes a standardized PIT tag location is less stressful to animals and is easily located. If an external mark is necessary, NMFS recommends using other external tags identified in this document. Those external tags are not only obvious to other researchers, but also to the general public for identifying recaptured animals to alert researchers of their recapture. NMFS therefore recommends using external tags to identify the presence of a PIT tag, if necessary, but researchers should not remove scutes from sturgeon for any reason. Genetic Tissue Sampling Tissue sampling is a common practice in fisheries science characterizing the genetic "uniqueness" and quantifying the level of genetic diversity within a population. NMFS strongly recommends genetic tissue samples be taken from every sturgeon captured unless, due to marks or tags, the researcher knows a genetic sample has already been obtained. Tissue samples should be a small (1.0 cm2) fin -clip collected from soft pelvic fin tissues using a pair of sharp scissors. Tissue samples should be preserved in individually labeled vials containing 95% ethanol. There is no evidence that this procedure harms any species of sturgeon. Recommendations Strongly Recommended • Researchers should measure all captured green, Gulf, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon. The sturgeon should also be weighed, if possible. • Researchers should scan captured sturgeon for previously inserted PIT tags; and, if none are found, one should be properly inserted. • Researchers should remove a small tissue sample by clipping the soft tissue of the pelvic fin. Measuring • Standardized length measurements for all sturgeon should be taken from the snout to the fork in the tail. • NMFS recommends measuring the ratio of mouth width to interorbital width to differentiate shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. PIT Tags • NMFS recommends PIT tag placement in all four sturgeon species to be located to the left of the spine, immediately anterior to the dorsal fin, and posterior to the dorsal scutes. • NMFS recommends using 134.2 kHz PIT tags. • If necessary, to ensure tag retention and prevent harm or mortality to small juvenile sturgeon of all species, the PIT tag can also be inserted at the widest dorsal position just to the left of the 4th dorsal scute. • NMFS recommends only sturgeon over 300 mm should receive PIT tags. • NMFS recommends using external tags to identify the presence of a PIT tag, if necessary, but researchers should not remove scutes from sturgeon for any reason. : Genetic Tissue Sampling • NMFS strongly recommends genetic tissue samples be taken from every sturgeon captured unless, due to marks or tags, the researcher knows a genetic sample has already been obtained. • Tissue samples from Gulf, green, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon should be archived at the NOAA/NOS Tissue Archive in Charleston, South Carolina. Proper certification, identity, and chain of custody of samples should be maintained during transfer of tissue samples. 19 Anesthetization Anesthetics are physical or chemical agents preventing the initiation and conduction of nerve impulses ( Summerfelt and Smith 1990). Therefore, the primary functions of anesthetics on ESA listed sturgeon are to immobilize the animal allowing precise, autorized procedures to be performed while blocking nerve impulses which might otherwise adversely affect the fish. This section, therefore, attempts to balance the risk of stress from invasive procedures with the risk posed by using an anesthetic, while also considering the risk of an unanesthetized sturgeon moving suddenly during a procedure resulting in trauma or hemorrhaging. Invasive research activities can be stressful to fish, even if immobilized. The use of an anesthetic reduces the potential for short term stress response and risk of mortality during those procedures (Iwama et al. 1989, Small 2003, Wagner et al. 2003, Coyle et al. 2004, Roubach et al. 2005, Wanner et al. 2007). However, the use of some anesthetics have also proven to be stressors to fish (Iwama et al. 1989) as evidenced by the buildup of the cortisol hormone. NMFS recommends that noticeably stressed sturgeon should not be anesthetized. Documented lethal or sub - lethal effects caused by improper dosage or exposure of anesthetics (Iwama et al. 1989, Summerfelt and Smith 1990) raises concerns whether it is acceptable to use anesthetic when handling listed Gulf, green, shortnose, or Atlantic sturgeon. In tests where anesthetics were not used during invasive procedures, cortisol levels were found significantly higher than when fish were anesthetized with tricaine methanesulfonate (MS -222) or clove oil (Wagner et al. 2003). Conversely, Wagner et al. (2003) found unanesthetized fish had lower cortisol levels than either of two anesthetized groups after one hour, demonstrating recovery of fish is more rapid without anesthetization. Nevertheless, in controlled studies when prolonged handling took place (30 minutes or more), Strange and Schreck (1978) documented fish had a higher survival rate when anesthetized. Summerfelt and Smith (1990) and Bowser (200 1) note a normal condition and six stages of anesthesia: light sedation, deep sedation, partial loss of equilibrium, total loss of equilibrium, loss of reflex reactivity, and asphyxia (Table 4). Light sedation occurs when there is a slight loss of reactivity, while deep sedation occurs when only the strongest external stimuli will elicit a response, but in both cases, the fish is able to maintain equilibrium. Partial loss of equilibrium is also characterized by partial loss of muscle tone and an increase in opercular movement, while total loss of equilibrium is characterized by total loss of muscle tone, the loss of spinal reflexes, and slow and steady opercular rate. The loss of reflex reactivity is when the fish losses all reflex response, but also when the heart rate becomes very slow and the opercular movements become slow and irregular. The final stage of anesthesia is a complete medullary collapse, when opercular movement ceases. Death is typically caused by an overdose or overexposure leading to eventual mortality. 20 Table 4. Stages of anesthesia (Summerfelt and Smith 1990). Stage Descriptor Behavioral Response of Fish 0 Normal Reactive to external stimuli; opercular rate and muscle tone normal I Light sedation Slight loss of reactivity to external stimuli; opercular rate slightly decreased; equilibrium normal II Deep sedation Total loss of reactivity to all but strong external stimuli; slight decrease in opercular rate; equilibrium normal III Partial loss of equilibrium Partial loss of muscle tone; swimming erratic; increased opercular rate; reactivity only to strong tactile and vibration stimuli IV Total loss of equilibrium Total loss of muscle tone and equilibrium; slow but regular opercular rate; loss of spinal reflexes V Loss of reflex reactivity Total loss of reactivity; opercular movements slow and irregular; heart rate very slow; loss of all reflexes VI Medullary collapse (asphyxia) Opercular movements cease; cardiac arrest usually follows quickly The primary risks associated with anesthetizing sturgeon are overexposure and overdosing. Overexposure can occur when sturgeon are left in an anesthetic bath longer than necessary to achieve narcosis. Fish often have difficulty recovering with normal response time when overexposed, and sometimes will not respond for extended periods requiring continuous respiration to revive them. Overdosing can take place when the concentration of anesthetic is higher or more toxic than fish can tolerate. Both conditions often result in immediate or delayed mortality. As an anesthetic is applied, the sturgeon's opercular movement should be monitored closely. It should not be allowed to stop as this condition could result in blood hypoxia and high stress response, or even mortality of the anesthetized animal (Iwama et al. 1989). There are various research activities commonly performed on sturgeon that present enough risk to the fish that they should only be done using anesthesia (Table 5). However, the same level of narcosis is not needed for each activity and therefore the researcher would not use the same concentrations of anesthetic. Physical restraint is not an appropriate substitute for anesthetization. The rate at which anesthesia is induced in a fish is also important at minimizing stress. Prolonged induction generally leads to increased stress responses (e.g. prolonged thrashing during excited phase), while excessively rapid induction times ( <1 minute) risks taking the fish beyond the surgical anesthesia plane because animals may skip typical behavioral signs characterizing stages of anesthesia. NMFS recommends initiating anesthesia gradually to reduce the risks of overdosing. NMFS also recommends monitoring the sturgeon during induction to avoid overexposure. If the desired stage of narcosis cannot be reached within 15 minutes (Summerfelt and Smith 1990), the sturgeon should be placed in freshwater to recover before being released. 21 Table 5: Procedures and stages of anesthesia. Procedure Stage of Anesthesia (see Table 4) Internal tagging III Biopsy III La paroscopy IV Gastric lava e I Borosco e 0 or I Fin ray sectioning II Genetic fin clip 0 Blood sample 0 PIT tag 0 External tagging 0 but I is acceptable if necessary Cold water species respond more rapidly and at lower doses to chemical anesthetics than do warm water species (Bowman et al. 2003, Coyle et al. 2004). Currently, it has not been demonstrated if shortnose, Atlantic, Gulf, or green sturgeon exhibit variable inter - or intra- species responses to chemical anesthetics with respect to temperature. As identified previously, however, larger green sturgeon grow more optimally at cooler temperatures than do shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon. This suggests green sturgeon are better adapted to cooler waters, may also be more likely to respond to lower levels of anesthetic than shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon. Correspondingly, Gulf sturgeon may need higher doses than the other species at cooler temperatures. Likewise, northern populations of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon may be better adapted to cooler waters and respond differently to anesthesia. Chemical Anesthetic MS -222 A wide variety of chemical compounds have been utilized to anesthetize fish in fisheries research. However, tricaine methanesulfonate (MS -222) is the only anesthetic with a label for use with fish granted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and as such, is the only chemical anesthetic recommended by NMFS for use on green, Gulf, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon. MS -222 is absorbed rapidly through the gills and it prevents the generation and conduction of nerve impulses, with direct actions on the central nervous system and cardiovascular system. MS -222 is excreted in fish urine within 24 hours and tissue levels decline to near zero in the same amount of time (Coyle et al. 2004). Proper dosing depends on the degree of anesthetization desired, the species and size of fish, water temperature and water hardness. In general, levels of MS -222 recommended do not typically exceed 100mg /L for salmonids or 250 mg /L for warm water fish (Coyle et al. 2004). To euthanize fish using MS -222, the recommended dosage varies from 150 to 500 mg /L for one minute or more depending on the species (DeTolla et al. 1995, Cho and Heath 2000, Callahan and Noga 2002, Borski and Hodson 2003). 22 There are two methods commonly used by sturgeon researchers to anesthetize sturgeon. The first method incorporates a "knockout" initiation dose of MS -222 followed by a safer maintenance concentration (DeTolla et al. 1995, Callahan and Noga 2002, Thorsteinsson 2002, Borski and Hodson 2003). Alternately, researchers anesthetize sturgeon using the lowest possible dose of MS -222, raising it to achieve the desired stage of narcosis based on the procedure (Table 5). Neither method, when performed correctly, is safer than the other. However, more risk is associated with overdosing fish exposed to higher induction rates. For most procedures, sturgeon should initially be lightly anesthetized with MS -222, and if needed, more should be added only to the level considered necessary to perform the appropriate procedures. MS -222 solutions are highly acidic, therefore the pH of the solution should be buffered to a neutral pH with equal amounts of sodium bicarbonate prior to use. In cooler water temperatures, either higher doses or longer exposure times may be necessary to achieve the proper narcosis because the absorption rate is lower at lower temperatures (Coyle et al. 2004). Additionally, because MS -222 is a hypoxic agent, the anesthetic container should be vigorously aerated to maintain DO levels equivalent to ambient river water. Total loss of equilibrium (Stage IV) is the deepest level of narcosis acceptable for anesthetizing listed sturgeon. It may not be possible to reach this stage of narcosis by gradually increasing the dosage and instead, the researcher would need to begin with a high induction dose and then drop back to a maintenance dose. Because of the risks associated with this type of anesthetization, NMFS recommends inexperienced researchers first conduct this type of anesthesia in a laboratory using a heart rate monitor to prevent overdose. Only once a researcher has demonstrated the ability to consistently perform this type of anesthetization safely should they do this in the field. When immersed in MS -222, sturgeon will initially experience rapid gill movement followed by marked reduced gill movement as the agent begins to have an effect. As gill movement slows, sturgeon will lose equilibrium and eventually turn upside down or float to the surface. At this stage, sturgeon should be watched closely to confirm continuous involuntary gill movement. If the procedure is brief, once the desired stage of anesthesia has been reached, sturgeon may be placed on a surgical cradle and the gills irrigated with fresh water to ensure respiration and to begin recovery as the procedure is quickly completed. After completing the procedure, the fish should be placed in a clean, anesthetic free recovery tank and observed until fully recovered. Once recovered, the sturgeon can be released. Following is a review of the various concentrations and induction methods of MS -222 when anesthetizing Gulf, Atlantic, shortnose, and green sturgeon. Fleming et al. (2003a) suggested concentrations of MS -222 of up to 400 mg /L failed to adequately anesthetize Gulf sturgeon. These researchers concluded the anesthetic was potentially dangerous to the sturgeon. However, Hernandez - Divers et al. (2004) successfully anesthetized Gulf sturgeon submerging them in an initiating dose of 250 mg /L followed by a maintenance bath of 87.5 mg /L. Harris et al. (2005) anesthetized Gulf sturgeon using 160 mg /L MS- 23 222. Parkyn et al. (2006) anesthetized Gulf sturgeon using a single phase induction of 150 mg /L MS -222. Lankford et al. (2005) anesthetized green sturgeon placing them in concentrated baths of 350 mg /L of MS -222 followed by less concentrated doses of 150 mg /L. Kaufman et al. (2007) anesthetized green sturgeon using 350 mg /L removing them from the solution when anesthetized. However, Serge Doroshov, (University of California Davis, pers. comm.) regularly uses 100 mg /L when working on green sturgeon. Joe Cech (University of California Davis, pers. comm.) starts green sturgeon anesthesia in baths of 150 mg /L and then when respiration stops, places them in a second, less concentrated bath of 75 mg /L. The majority of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon researchers interviewed for this document reported concentrations of MS -222 from 50 to 100 mg/L were sufficient to induce anesthesia for most invasive procedures (Boyd Kynard Permit #1549, Mark Collins Permit #1447, Michael Kennison Permit #1595, Doug Peterson Permit #10037, Haley 1998, Oakley and Hightower 2007, Savoy 2007). The USFWS' Biological Procedures and Protocols for Researchers and Managers Handling Pallid Sturgeon recommends using MS -222 at doses between 50 and 150 mg /L (USFWS 2008). Induction and recovery times for chemical anesthetics vary based on the dosage level and duration the fish is under anesthesia. For rainbow trout in MS -222, Wagner et al. (2003) found induction takes two to three minutes at 60 mg /L with recovery taking 5 to 6 minutes. For Gulf sturgeon in MS -222, Hernandez - Divers et al. (2004), when initiating anesthesia at 250 mg /L, induction took 5 to 11 minutes before lowering the dosage to 87.5 mg /L, after which recovery took 3 to 13 minutes. For green sturgeon at 50 to 100 mg /L MS -222, induction and recovery both required 10 to 15 minutes at 18° to 21 °C, but at cooler temperatures it took longer (Joel Van Eenannaam, University of California Davis, pers. comm.). Sturgeon face several risks posed by MS -222, such as overdose, increased stress, or being released prior to recovering. Weakened fish are more susceptible to anesthetic shock and thus are more likely to be accidentally overdosed (Coyle et al. 2004). Even when anesthetized with MS -222, fish still experience elevated levels of plasma cortisol, indicating they are stressed either by handling or by additive stress of MS -222 (Coyle et al. 2004). After being handled under anesthesia, plasma cortisol levels increased 8 times over base in channel catfish (Small 2003) and nine times over base in rainbow trout (Wagner et al. 2003). Studies by Pirhonen and Schreck (2003) found fish anesthetized with MS -222 ate significantly less (15 -20 %) than control fish. If the dose of MS -222 is too high or the exposure is too long, recovery is longer if it occurs at all. Therefore, NMFS recommends monitoring sturgeon closely during recovery and taking protective measures if fish appear stressed and not recovering normally (e.g., providing supplementary DO and moving water across the gills until fully recovered). Recovery is also influenced by the size and sexual condition of fish. Because MS -222 is fat soluble (Coyle et al. 2004) longer recovery times are experienced by larger sturgeon and gravid females. Holcomb et al. (2004) showed doses of 225 mg/L MS -222 had no effect to eggs or sperm of white sturgeon and could be used to harvest gametes. However, doses of 2,250 mg/L resulted in lower hatching success and doses of 22,500 24 mg/L resulted in complete loss of fertility. At the dosages typically used by researchers to anesthetize sturgeon, however, no impact to their eggs is expected. Although the FDA permits the use of MS -222, it also requires a 21 day withdrawal period before an anesthetized fish can be consumed. This poses concerns for humans when non listed fish are released into the wild where they may be consumed. However, a 21 day withdrawal is not a consideration for threatened or endangered sturgeon, as taking or possessing them is prohibited by the ESA. Therefore, no external marks or tags are required for Gulf, green, Atlantic, or shortnose sturgeon following anesthetization with MS -222. ClnVP (lil Clove oil is approximately 90 to 95% eugenol with smaller portions of methyleugenol and isoeugenol and was initially experimented with as a substitute for MS -222 (Bowman et al. 2003). Showing promise as an anesthetic, it was marketed as AQUI -S (isoeugenol , 2- methoxy -4- propenylphenol) in an attempt to gain FDA approval. However, in 2007, the National Toxicology Program concluded exposure of male mice to isoeugenol resulted in clear evidence of cancer. As a result of its concern that isoeugenol's carcinogenic properties could be transmitted through the food web, the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine officially rescinded authorization for the "investigational food use" of AQUI -S under INAD 10 -541 (AADAP 2008). Consequently, both NMFS and the FDA (2007) are concerned isoeugenol could have direct adverse effects to threatened and endangered aquatic species. NMFS does not authorize the use of clove oil or AQUI -S on Atlantic, green, Gulf, or shortnose sturgeon. Physical Anesthetic Electronarcosis Electronarcosis (also referred to as electroanesthesia and galvanonarcosis) is a non- chemical method of anesthetization and, as such, does not require FDA approval. Researchers investigating the use of electricity to immobilize fish have used various methods and species of fishes. Alternating current (AC), rectified AC, constant direct current (CDC), and pulsed direct current (PDC) have all been tested (Hartley 1967, Walker et al. 1994, Barton and Dwyer 1997, Henyey et al. 2002). Some researchers leave the electricity on for the entire time the fish is immobilized (Gunstrom and Bethers 1985) while others apply a short burst of relatively high voltage resulting in immobization of the fish for several minutes after the electric current is discontinued (Sterritt et al. 1994). Much of what has been learned about electronarcosis is based on the same principles applied during electrofishing. Fish exposed to electric current may show electrotaxis (forced swimming), electrotetanus (muscle contractions), or electronarcosis (muscle relaxation). AC causes tetanus ( Henyey et al. 2002) and at higher voltages pulsed direct current causes tetanus, whereas constant direct current causes narcosis first, and then will eventually cause tetanus as the voltage is increased (Summerfelt and Smith, 1990). Typically, when researchers have studied electronarcosis, the electricity used was either AC or PDC, or was CDC of a sufficiently 25 high voltage that the fish were immobilized by electrotetanus. Further, most studies using AC and PDC reported adverse effects including some bruising, burning, hemorrhaging, and mortality (Tipping and Gilhuly 1996, Redman et al. 1998, Holliman and Reynolds 2002). Consequently, NMFS does not recommend using AC or PDC currents for inducing anesthesia in listed sturgeon. When using CDC, the risks to sturgeon are over - applying the direct current resulting in either tetany or cessation of opercular movement. These adverse affects can be avoided by monitoring the sturgeon and reducing the voltage depending on the fish's behavior. Henyey et al. (2002) describe using low voltage CDC to induce electronarcosis (muscle relaxation) in shortnose sturgeon without any changes in swimming or feeding behavior, burns, bruising, or mortality after monitoring the fish for six weeks (Boyd Kynard, USGS, pers. comm.). All evidence indicates electronarcosis induced by the method described is similar to the condition induced by chemical anesthetics; nevertheless, more research is needed on the physiological mechanisms by which it works. NMFS recommends low voltage direct current electronarcosis as described by Henyey et al. (2002) as a viable alternative to chemical anesthesia. Electronarcosis has been used successfully by Boyd Kynard (USGS, pers. comm.) to anesthtize shortnose sturgeon since the 1980s. Since 2004, USFWS researchers in Maryland have also followed the Henyey et al. (2002) protocol to anesthetize Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon on the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay with no adverse affects reported (Mike Mangold, USFWS, pers. comm.). Researchers in South America have also followed these methods reporting similar success (Alves et al. 2007). As described in Henyey et al. (2002), a tank is prepared by positioning positive cathode and negative anode plates at opposite ends. With the sturgeon oriented head towards the cathode, a CDC is applied quickly so the fish loses equilibrium and then the voltage is adjusted downward until the fish is relaxed and exhibiting strong opercula movement. In practice, when inducing electronarcosis, if gill ventilation becomes irregular or stops, the electric current should be decreased and the fish will recover steady ventilation immediately (Boyd Kynard, USGS, pers. comm.). The amperes should be set to the minimal level (0.01A). Depending on the individual sturgeon and water chemistry, about 0.3 to 0.5 volts per centimeter is recommended to immobilize sturgeon. Typically, sturgeon should be supported by a net so only half of the body either dorsal or ventral depending on the work being conducted, is out of the water. Under these conditions, the researcher will feel nothing while working in the water (Hartley 1967, Boyd Kynard, USGS, pers. comm.) but researchers with sensitive skin or hand abrasions are also encouraged to wear rubber gloves during the procedure. Induction and recovery from electronarcosis both require less than 10 seconds because as soon as fish are placed in or removed from the electrical current, it is no longer anesthetized (Gunstrom and Bethers 1985, Summerfelt and Smith 1990, Henyey et al. 2002). Henyey et al. (2002) state electronarcosis is ideal for non - invasive research. The methods in Henyey et al. (2002) elicited narcosis, not tetany; and Boyd Kynard (USGS, pers. comm.) states narcosis is induced by blocking nerve impulses at the medulla 26 oblongata. Kynard and Lonsdale (1975) demonstrated electronarcosis and MS -222 yielded similar states of muscle relaxation and immobility. Recommendations General • NMFS recommends that noticeably stressed sturgeon should not be anesthetized. • Physical restraint is not an appropriate substitute for anesthetization in procedures requiring anesthesia. • NMFS recommends initiating both chemical and physical anesthesia gradually to reduce the risks of overdosing. Chemical Anesthetic • Because of the risks associated with high initial induction doses followed by a lower maintenance dose of MS -222, NMFS recommends using this technique in a controlled environment such as a laboratory and also using a heart rate monitor to prevent overdosing. • NMFS also recommends monitoring the sturgeon during induction to avoid overexposure and if the desired stage of narcosis cannot be reached within 15 minutes, the sturgeon should be placed in freshwater to recover before being released. • Tricaine methanesulfonate (MS -222) is the only chemical anesthetic with a label for use on fish granted by the FDA and as such, is the only chemical anesthetic recommended by NMFS for use on green, Gulf, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon. Dosages of MS -222 should be between 50 and 150 mg /L as identified in the pallid sturgeon protocols (USFWS 2008) and by green, Gulf, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon researchers. • NMFS recommends monitoring sturgeon closely during recovery and taking protective measures if fish appear stressed and not recovering normally (e.g., providing supplementary DO and moving water across the gills until fully recovered). • A 21 day withdrawal, normally associated with the use of MS -222 on food fish, is not a consideration for threatened or endangered sturgeon, as taking or possessing them is prohibited by the ESA. • NMFS does not authorize the use of clove oil and AQUI -S on Atlantic, green Gulf, or shortnose sturgeon. Physical Anesthetic • NMFS recommends low voltage direct current electronarcosis as described by Henyey et al. (2002) as a viable alternative to chemical anesthesia but does not recommend using AC or PDC currents for inducing anesthesia in listed sturgeon. 27 Tagging Tagging is an essential function of sturgeon research, serving to identify unique information about a captured or recaptured animal. PIT tags, as discussed earlier, should be inserted in all Gulf, green, shortnose, and Atlantic sturgeon without a PIT tag. Determining the life history, morphology, behavior, movement, and physiology of sturgeons are all highly dependent on proper tagging methods. Because sturgeon can live for decades, it is essential tags be retained for extended periods. In addition, because sturgeon exhibit very rapid juvenile growth rates and can achieve very large sizes, tags must be retained even as the tag placement area changes size and shape. Moreover, sturgeon are adept at shedding external tags and can also extrude internal tags through the body wall (Kieffer and Kynard 1993). Consequently, sturgeon researchers should keep well informed on the effectiveness of tagging methods and the technology best suited for local conditions. Tagging varies based on tag function, location, method, technology, retention rates, and size. Internal tags (acoustic or radio) are surgically implanted in sturgeon for tracking movements, whereas externally mounted tags can be used for tracking or identification. Despite lower retention rates for some external tags, there are situations where external tags are the only option, such as tracking pre- spawning females. External archival tags and satellite tags can also passively record water quality information or geographic position without arrays. Other types of external - identifier tags are useful when non - researchers are involved in research activities, such as studies relying on fishermen to return data from tags on marked fish. Telemetry Tags Acoustic tags outperform radio tags in deeper water (or saline water) where sturgeon spend a majority of their lives; however, acoustic tags have disadvantages associated with limited range and ineffectiveness in turbulent or turbid waters. Acoustic signals can be monitored by field crews using either mobile hydrophones or, more commonly, stationary hydrophone arrays. Because the stationary arrays are designed to passively capture the location of transmitted signals from near -by fish, many researchers are converting to acoustic tag technology, collecting data over a longer period of time and downloading it at later intervals (Refine 2005). Radio transponders emit radio signals from transmitter antennae to the atmosphere where they can then be monitored by researchers with a receiving antenna. For highly migratory species such as sturgeon, researchers can locate and track fish at distances up to three kilometers via airplane. Radio signals are also effective in environments having more physical disruptions such as turbidity (Thorsteinsson 2002). Combined acoustic and radio transmitter (CART) tags provide the researcher the advantages of each transmitter type. Implanting internal telemetry tags is stressful to sturgeon and should be done using anesthesia. To gain access to the abdominal cavity, a two to four centimeter incision is made between the 3rd and 4th ventral scute between the anal and pelvic fin slightly left or right of the mid - ventral line. Internal tags should be coated with a biologically inert substance, soaked in alcohol and allowed to dry, and then pushed deeply into the abdominal cavity to prevent tags from rubbing against the incision (Kynard and Kieffer 1991). In studies by Kynard and Kieffer (1997) no tags were rejected from shortnose sturgeon when they were coated in biologically inert material but when uncoated tags were used, they were rejected 33% of the time. Of those rejected, sonic tags were expelled within two weeks, while the radio tags were rejected within 14 weeks (Kynard and Kieffer 1997). Collins et al. (2002) recorded no mortality using completely internal tags during a three month study on tagging methods. Due to slower recovery time at lower temperatures, internal tags should not be implanted when water temperatures are below 8 °C (Moser et al. 2000a, Ream et al. 2003, Kieffer and Kynard in press). Also, due to increased stress at higher temperatures, incisions should not be made in sturgeon when water temperatures exceed 27 °C (Moser et al. 2000a, Kieffer and Kynard in press). Some researchers have experimented with an internal tag having external trailing antennae threaded through a permanent hole in the lateral wall of sturgeon. These tags, allowing for better transmission of radio frequencies, are known as Internal/External tags (I /E tag). However, depending on the surgical procedure used to anchor the trailing antennae at the exit point, certain harmful effects resulted from the chaffing and cutting of the trailing antenna. In one lake sturgeon I/E tagging study, Peterson and Bezold (2008) tagged both wild and hatchery raised fish, allowing them to recover for 14 to 21 days prior to release. In this study, wild fish experienced 9% mortality but hatchery - reared sturgeon experienced 90% mortality. In an I/E tagging study by Collins et al. (2002), laboratory sturgeon tagged in this manner endured large exit wounds resulting from the trailing antenna and eventually suffered 100% mortality. In the same study, internal telemetry tagging techniques and two methods of external tagging resulted in only one mortality. More recent results documented by Kieffer and Kynard (in press) found trailing antennae did not appear deleterious to the health of shortnose sturgeon when designed to exit the body wall through holes drilled in lateral scutes. Five wild fish tagged in the Connecticut River with I/E tags exiting through the scute were tracked for a year. All fish were recaptured, but the exit holes in all scutes had become larger. Until these techniques are better documented, NMFS recommends I/E tagging should not be done on green, Gulf, shortnose, or Atlantic sturgeons. Historically, external tags were easily shed. Collins et al. (2002) showed hatchery shortnose sturgeon were able to shed 100% of their external transmitters (9 cm long, 1.7 cm diameter) when attached with a wire through the dorsal En. However, the same researcher reported no external transmitter tags lost when attached to a dart tag using heat shrunk plastic wrap. Counihan and Frost (1999) found no external tags were shed by juvenile white sturgeon after one to three weeks. Sutton and Benson (2003) reported a 14.4% shedding rate for external tags (2.1 — 4.0 cm), with 27% of the larger tags (3.4 - 4.0 cm) shed. 29 More recently, researchers have documented higher retention rates with the advent of newer, smaller external tags and better methods of attachment (Figure 3). These external tags range in size between 18 and 46 mm long and only 7 to 9 mm in diameter. Using 70 to 100 lb test monofilament line, Mike Randall and Ken Sulak (USGS, pers. comm.) described a method for attaching such tags bound externally to the dorsal fin using lightweight heat shrink electrical splice tubing and five minute, two -part epoxy. These researchers documented over 96% retention rates on Gulf sturgeon during 2005 to 2008 using the following method. Their method (Mike Randall and Ken Sulak, USGS, pers. comm.) is described as: About 25 cm of monofilament is centered in approximately 20 mm length of heat shrink. A small quantity of epoxy is added to the tag which is then seated into the heat shrink tubing. The tubing is then shrunk with a heat gun until snug. This also warms up the mono line enough to make right angle bends at the ends of the heat shrink tubing. A small amount of epoxy should extrude from each end of the heat shrink tubing making a smooth union. Once the attachment is cooled and the epoxy hardened, the tag should be re- checked and the tag's magnet affixed to the tag. A tape label with the identifying tag number is also wrapped around the monofilament. A hole is then made through the base of the sturgeon's dorsal fin with a PIT tag needle which is also used as a guide to thread the mono line through the dorsal fin. Similarly another hole is made through the dorsal fin anterior to the first hole and the aft monofilament line is passed through. As the transmitter tag is pulled snugly to fit within the crease at the base of the dorsal fin and the body, the two monofilaments ends are joined on the opposite side of the dorsal fin by a short length of steel leader. The external tag is then secured by threading the monofilament through crimps pre - fastened on the ends of the steel leader. As the monofilament lines are pulled with opposite pressure, the leader line crimps are compressed. Finally any trailing ends of the monofilament or leader are cut. The leader will eventually corrode freeing the external tag from the fish. Figure 3: Location of external telemetry tag (USGS Southeast Ecological Science Center). 30 NMFS recommends acoustic telemetry tags for tracking the movements of Gulf, green, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon. NMFS would suggest tagging sturgeon externally, though both methods are acceptable. External Identifier Tags NMFS has authorized a variety of external - identifier tag designs and placement sites on shortnose sturgeon over the past 10 years. Some examples of external - identifier tags are: Carlin (Peterson) tags, coded wire tags, dart tags, disk anchors, double barb tag, elastomer, and Floy T -bar tags. Minimal research has been conducted on the effects of these types of tags on sturgeon species. The need for researchers to identify sturgeon with external - identifier tags has been called into question by Bergman et al. (1992) as sturgeon can be uniquely recognized by PIT tags. Additionally, the effectiveness and retention of these external - identifier tags is uncertain (Bergman et al. 1992). However, using external identifier tags can be helpful for identifying wide ranging sturgeon, like the Gulf, Atlantic, and green sturgeons that can be captured in distant locations by other researchers or commercial fishermen. Shortnose sturgeon are less likely to travel great distances through the ocean and into different rivers; therefore, external identifier tags are not as beneficial for them. Consequently, NMFS recommends the use of external tags to assist with the identification of migratory sturgeon when that information will contribute to the species' recovery. Smith et al. (1990) compared the effectiveness of dart tags with nylon T -bars, anchor tags, and Carlin tags in shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. Carlin tags applied to scutes had low retention rates as did dart tags; however, they also noted the dart tags caused some tissue damage. Carlin tags applied at the dorsal fin and anchor tags inserted in the abdomen showed the best retention. Although anchor tags resulted in lesions and eventual breakdown of the body wall if fish entered brackish water prior to their wounds healing, Collins et al. (1994) found no significant difference in healing rates between fish tagged in freshwater or brackish water. Clugston (1996) also looked at T -bar anchor tags placed at the base of the pectoral fins, finding beyond two years, retention rates were about 60 %. Collins et al. (1994) compared T -bar tags inserted near the dorsal fin, T- anchor tags implanted abdominally, dart tags attached near the dorsal fin, and disk anchor tags implanted abdominally. He found that T- anchor tags were most effective long -term (92 %), but also noted that all of the insertion points healed slowly or not at all and, in many cases, lesions developed. Collins et al. (1994) also inserted coded wire tags into the sturgeons' snout and found a 100% retention after 62 days, but only 74% after two years, though the tags may not have been inserted deeply enough. Bordner et al. (1990) inserted coded wire tags deeply into the snouts of white sturgeon and found 100% retention after 180 days; and Isely and Fontenot (2000) also found that coded wire tags inserted near the dorsal fin have a 98% retention rate after 120 days. Winter (1983) suggested the appropriate tag weight to body weight ratio for fish was 2% for the tag weight in air and 1.25% for the tag weight in water. Generally, heavier tags 31 reduce growth or affect the swimming ability of tagged fish. But, as noted by Brown et al. (1999), different species of fish are better able to respond to tag weight, handling higher ratios of tag weight to body weight. In a tag to body weight ratio study conducted on lake sturgeon, Sutton and Benson (2003) recommended tag weight in air not to exceed 1.25% of body weight. In a separate study by Counihan and Frost (1999), using the ratio of wet tag weight to sturgeon weight of less than 1.25 %, they found the swimming performance of white sturgeon was affected. However, this effect was more attributed to the tag placement rather than the weight itself as external tags attached to the rear dorsal fin resulted in increased drag and unbalanced weight. Currently, NMFS is sponsoring directed research on a variety of sturgeon species to determine the appropriate tag to body weight ratio. However, until resolved, NMFS recommends not exceeding a tag to body weight ratio of 1.25% in water and 2% weight in air for all tags cumulatively. Recommendations General • PIT tags are strongly recommended to be inserted in all Gulf, green, shortnose, and Atlantic sturgeon without a PIT tag. • NMFS recommends not exceeding a tag to body weight ratio of 1.25% in water and 2% weight in air. Telemetry Tags • NMFS recommends I/E tagging should not be done on green, Gulf, shortnose, or Atlantic sturgeons. • NMFS recommends acoustic telemetry tags for tracking the movements of Gulf, green, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon. NMFS would suggest tagging sturgeon externally, though both methods are acceptable. External Identifier Tags • When appropriate, NMFS recommends the use of external tags to assist with the identification of migratory sturgeon. 32 Gastric Lavage The pulsed gastric lavage technique, demonstrated by Foster (1977) to sample diets of pickerel and largemouth bass, has not worked well for sturgeon species. This is largely due to the difficulty in navigating the lavage tube past the U- shaped bend of the alimentary canal in sturgeon, which begins after the pneumatic duct of the swim bladder joins the anterior end of the stomach (Figure 4, also see Haley 1998 and Brosse et al. 2002). Serious injury and mortality has occurred when lavaging sturgeon. Sprague et al. (1993), showed gastric lavage tubes positioned prior to the pneumatic duct filled and burst the swim bladder and when passed beyond the bend of the alimentary canal, those tubes were capable of puncturing the canal and stomach lining of an unrelaxed gut. Haley (1998) modified the Foster (1977) protocols for gastric lavage to create a lavage technique appropriately safe and effective for use on sturgeon (Figure 4). Haley's (1998) technique has been modified a few times with different methods created for water delivery into the stomach through intramedic tubing. Murie and Parkyn (2000), Savoy and Benway (2004), and Collins et al. (2008) each used slight variations of the water delivery system, but essentially used the procedures described in Haley (1998) to safely lavage sturgeon. NMFS recommends researchers follow these methods, as described below, when conducting gastric lavage of Gulf, green Atlantic, or shortnose sturgeon. IMrannedic Pyloric coca tubing h Figure 4: Depiction of the gastric lavage technique used by Haley et al. (1998). First the sturgeon is anesthetized to the appropriate stage (Table 5, Stage I) causing the sturgeon's esophageal and gastric muscles to relax. The sturgeon is then placed ventrally head down on a stretcher or sling with an irrigation tube in its mouth to irrigate the gills during the procedure to ensure respiration. With water running over the gills, a fine mesh strainer is positioned under the sturgeon's mouth to capture the regurgitated contents of the stomach as it is lavaged. With the sturgeon correctly positioned, a soft, flexible intramedic tubing (typically polyethylene) is inserted into the mouth of the sturgeon and carefully directed down the alimentary canal past the pneumatic duct into the stomach region. At the point of resistance reached at the U- shaped bend of the stomach, the flexible tube is twisted ventrally and gently pushed further down the alimentary canal until the tube can be felt on the ventral surface of the fish. If the researcher is more conservative, the lavage procedure can begin once the tube reaches the point of resistance at the U- shaped bend in the stomach, as this method has been shown to be equally effective. 33 Once the tube is correctly positioned, the stomach contents are evacuated with injected pulses of water. Haley used a syringe to inject water into the stomach, flushing the contents into a strainer. Variations of Haley's technique have been used by other researchers to inject water using a garden sprayer holding a larger reservoir of water to administer the flushing, either timed (Savoy and Benway 2004) or manually (Collins et al. 2008). The contents are collected into an appropriately small meshed sieve, preserved in an alcohol filled container and the contents later identified in the laboratory. In order to conduct gastric lavage procedures, researchers should have the following items: • Garden sprayer or another appropriately sized water delivery device • Intramedic tubing • Means of anesthetization • 500 micrometer sieve • A sling or stretcher for holding the fish in the head down position • Jars filled with alcohol for preserving gut content samples Kamler and Pope (200 1) and Shuman and Peters (2007) report Haley's (1998) protocols are more effective for smaller fish because the syringe can only deliver a small volume of water. Brosse et al. (2002), Nilo et al. (2006), Savoy (2007), and Collins et al. (2008) developed their methods to deliver larger volumes of water to effectively lavage larger Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon. These researchers used varying diameter tubes and depending on the size of the fish, flushing slightly less than a gallon of water into the sturgeon's stomach to completely evacuate its contents. When gastric lavage was first used with sturgeon, there were serious perceived risks to the individual fish. Sprague et al. (1993) reported 33% mortality (4 of 12) of white sturgeon they attempted to lavage. Farr et al. (200 1) practiced their technique on three dead green sturgeon but were unable to maneuver the tubing around the bend of the alimentary canal. In both methods, the swim bladder filled with water resulting in damage to the alimentary canal and stomach. Both of these studies however used a less flexible aquarium tubing, a factor which potentially prevented the tubing from bending with the stomach and reaching the ventral portion of the stomach near the pyloric caeca. To avoid adverse affects in future research, NMFS recommends practicing on non - listed or hatchery- reared sturgeon before attempting the procedure in the wild. Several sturgeon researchers have also expressed concerns that delayed mortality and other risks associated with gastric lavage remains unknown and may not be worth the risks of data collection. The only way to adequately measure adverse affects is conducting gastric lavage on sturgeon in a laboratory setting and subsequently monitoring post - lavage survival, growth, and behavior. Brosse et al. (2002), Wanner (2006), and Mark Collins (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, pers. comm.) practiced gastric lavage on captive fish with no delayed mortality prior to conducting lavage in the field. And in Collins et al. (2008), three Atlantic sturgeon were sacrificed to monitor adverse effects from lavage on wild fish. No adverse effects were 34 discovered. Brosse et al. (2002) reported all lavaged sturgeon were in poorer condition than control fish after 60 days due to weight loss. However, Collins et al. (2008) recaptured fish (over 70 days apart) and documented normal weight gains in the intervals between capture and re- lavage. Other researchers have reported successful gastric lavage work in the field with no immediate mortalities (Haley 1998, Brosse et al. 2002, Savoy and Benway 2004, Nilo et al. 2006, Guilbard et al. 2007, Nellis et al. 2007, Savoy 2007, Collins et al. 2008). Even if mortality is prevented by using appropriate lavage techniques on sturgeon, NMFS recognizes the potential risks to individual sturgeon from anesthesia, improper lavage technique, and individual sturgeon reacting negatively to the procedure. Recommendations • NMFS recommends researchers follow the methods presented in this document and Haley (1998) when conducting gastric lavage on Gulf, green, Atlantic, or shortnose sturgeon. Other documents detail acceptable ways to deliver larger volumes of water for adult Atlantic, Gulf, and green sturgeon. • NMFS recommends using soft, flexible tubing (polyethylene tubing such as is used in hospitals) to maneuver the bend in the alimentary canal during gastric lavage procedures. • NMFS recommends practicing on non - listed or hatchery- reared sturgeon before attempting the procedure in the wild. • Sturgeon must be anesthetized to ensure relaxation of the gut walls to properly position gastric tubes during the procedure. 35 Sex Identification The validation of techniques to accurately identify the sex and stage of maturation of sturgeon that leads to the conservation of Gulf, green, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon should be a priority. All sturgeon biologists should use safe and effective methods of sexual identification and maturity with the fewest adverse effects to the fish's health. Ideally, the sex of a sturgeon could be identified externally. A study by Vecsei et al. (2003) examined the urogenital openings of a variety of species of male and female sturgeon and was able to determine the sex correctly 82% of the time. However to date, the sample size is too small to be confident in the methods described. Methods commonly used by sturgeon researchers to identify the sex and stage of gametogenesis of sturgeon include borescope (endoscope in the gonoduct), laparoscopy (endoscope through an incision in the ventral body wall), surgery and gonadal biopsy, ultrasound, and blood plasma. These techniques collect different information and have different success rates posing different risks to sturgeon. The safest forms of sexual identification are methods not requiring anesthetic, like ultrasound (Moghim et al. 2002, Colombo et al. 2004, Wildhaber et al. 2006), borescoping (Kynard and Kieffer 2002), plasma lipophosphoprotein analysis (Craik and Harvey 1984), and plasma vitellogenin analysis (Wildhaber et al. 2006). However these methods are time or labor intensive, as with blood and plasma analyses where researchers may not receive the results of their analysis until weeks later. Endoscopy Borescope Borescopic examination has proven an effective method for sexing sturgeon using fiber optic technology. Kynard and Kieffer (2002), Wildhaber and Bryan (2006), and Wildhaber et al. (2006) described the technique using a flexible borescope on shortnose, pallid, and shovelnose sturgeon where the head and body of the fish is examined under a lightly anesthetized condition. This procedure, lasting one to two minutes, is conducted with a flexible fiber optic endoscope (16cm long x 4mm diameter) inserted carefully through the urogenital opening and into place within the urogenital canal (Kynard and Kieffer 2002). Sampled females are verified by positively identifying eggs through the urogenital wall. Developed eggs are staged as either "early stage" or "late stage" individuals to identify potential spawners for the coming spring. This is done by carefully comparing the coloration and separation of oocytes viewed through the urogenital wall. Undeveloped eggs are often almond or cream - colored and sometimes indistinguishable from male testes, while mature eggs appear darker, separated, and well formed. It is noted that there are variations of this technique using a trocar to first pierce the genital canal to view and /or biopsy the gonads with an inserted fiber optic borescope; however, NMFS does not recommend this procedure on listed sturgeon. The above borescope is easily passed through the urogenital opening (average 7.6mm) of adult shortnose, juvenile Atlantic, and other sturgeon species, although there are no 36 similar morphological data for green sturgeon reported. Van Eenennaam et al. (2008) have suggested that the diameter of the urogenital canal of green sturgeon is smaller than other sturgeon species. The greatest potential for injury with this procedure, according to Kynard and Kieffer (2002), is internally at the juncture of the oviduct and urogenital canal, located approximately 9 to 20% of a sturgeon's body length from the vent, regardless of species. The borescope must be maneuvered carefully beyond the oviduct to clearly see and stage eggs. However, when using a 16 -cm long borescope, the probe tip will reach beyond the oviduct in most sturgeon of one meter length or less. Further, Kynard and Kieffer (2002) reported repeated probing of the oviduct valve by 4 -mm and smaller diameter probes did not penetrate the oviduct valve or damage the urogenital canal regardless of species or fish length. They concluded that careful use of a properly sized borescope would not harm reproductive structures and would be suitable for most sturgeon species. Kynard and Kieffer (2002) examined 443 adults using a boroscope over six years. Of those viewed, 173 were identified as female and 270 were unidentified either as females with immature eggs or identified as males. However, Wildhaber et al. (2006) was able to correctly identify 85% (93% accurate for males, 63% for females) of shovelnose and pallid sturgeon examined using a similar borescope. During their work, Wildhaber and Bryan (2006) and Wildhaber et al. (2006) did not document any injuries or mortalities associated with their borescope activities. Borescopy requires less time than more invasive surgery, making it a safer alternative to laparoscopy (described below) for field use when handling large numbers of sturgeon under adverse conditions. However, the borescope has limited ability to distinguish between females with immature eggs and male fish as compared to laparoscopy or biopsy. Laparoscope Several sturgeon researchers have described using laparoscopic procedures in the lab and field to identify the sex and egg maturity of individual sturgeon. The method for laboratory laparoscopy is described thoroughly by Mohler (2003), Hernandez - Divers et al. (2004), and Matsche and Bakal (2008). As with borescopy, the sturgeon should be anesthetized and held in water as much as possible. An incision (approximately 4 mm) is made on the ventral (Hernandez- Divers et al. 2004, Wildhaber et al. 2006) side or between the lateral scutes (Conte et al. 1988) of the sturgeon and the endoscope is inserted through the incision and maneuvered internally to allow the researcher to view the gonads. In Hernandez - Divers et al. (2004), the body cavities were insufflated and the swim bladders collapsed, but NMFS recommends avoiding either of these procedures when conducting laparoscopy on Gulf, shortnose, Atlantics, or green sturgeon. Although NMFS considers laparoscopy a more invasive endoscopic procedure than boroscopy, it is a more reliable method for determining the sex and stage of maturity of sturgeons ( Wildhaber et al. 2006) and therefore recommends laparoscopy as the endoscopic procedure of choice. 37 Hernandez - Divers et al. (2004) laparoscoped 17 Gulf sturgeon. During these procedures, seven fish were positively identified by endoscopy alone and the other 10 were identified by biopsy samples of the gonad tissue. Wildhaber and Bryan (2006) examining 34 pallid sturgeon with both ultrasound and endoscope, positively identified the sex of 100% of the fish. Wildhaber et al. (2006) found that laparoscopy could positively identify the sex of shovelnose sturgeon 93% of the time (93% for males, 92% for females). Adverse effects were not reported in any of the papers discussing laparoscopy. Hernandez - Divers et al. (2004) reported 100% survival after extensive surgeries (45 minutes to an hour) for their 17 Gulf sturgeon. Unfortunately this work was conducted in a controlled laboratory setting by three surgeons and does not represent typical field research conditions. Additional research determining adverse effects associated with laparoscopic procedure still need to be documented, particularly on gravid females captured prior to initiating a spawning run. Several researchers have reported capturing sturgeon can may be related to abandoned spawning runs (Moser and Ross 1995, Kynard et al. 2007), but there have been no studies addressing the effects of anesthesia or laparoscopy on mature, late stage females still occupying their winter staging habitat prior to spawning. Surgical Biopsy Surgical biopsy and histological examination of a sturgeon's gonadal tissue is the most accurate while also the most invasive way to identify the sex and stage of maturity of a sturgeon (Van Eenennaam et al. 1996, Van Eenennaam and Doroshov 1998, Fox et al. 2000, Webb and Erickson 2007, Flynn and Benfey 2007). Chapman and Park (2005) conducted gonad biopsies on Gulf sturgeon by anesthetizing them and placing them in a sling on their backs. A two to four cm ventral incision was made, after which, a small gonadal biopsy was removed (Chapman and Park 2005, Webb and Erickson 2007). Surgical biopsy, usually removing about 1 cm of tissue (Fox et al. 2000, Webb and Erickson 2007), lasts two to three minutes (Chapman and Park 2005). After biopsies are completed, the gonadal tissue is microscopically examined to verify the sex as well as the precise stage of maturation of sturgeon (Van Eenennaam et al. 1996, Van Eenennaam and Doroshov 1998). As with other forms of surgery, the risks are minimized when performed in the laboratory but there is little to no information available on the extent of infection or delayed mortality. Although there is documentation of surgically sterilized sturgeon regenerating gonadal tissue, there is little information regarding the loss of reproductive potential due to the removal of small samples of gonadal tissue (Kersten et al. 2001, Hernandez - Divers et al. 2004). And, while it is known that the gonads deliver hormones to the fish that influence behavior (Hernandez- Divers et al. 2004), there have been no studies dealing with potential changes in behavior from small losses of gonadal tissue. Chapman and Park (2005) monitored Gulf sturgeon for 30 days following biopsy and reported no mortality. In situations when knowing the stage of gametogenesis could lead to recovery of the listed species, laparoscopy or biopsy would be appropriate, but due to the increased risk of these procedures, NMFS only recommends using these procedures in a laboratory setting. If there are situations when these methods would be more likely to contribute to the recovery of these species than other available methods, NMFS would recommend their use under limited circumstances. Gonadal biopsy should only be performed in the field opportunistically while a researcher is implanting an acoustic tag. Ultrasound One of the safest and least invasive methods of sexual identification is the use of ultrasound. These devices, although costly, allow researchers to observe the sex organs of sturgeon without surgical incision or sedation. Ultrasound is the technique with the most potential and is becoming more accurate as both technologies improve and readers become more experienced (Joel Van Eenennaam, University of California Davis, pers. comm.). When conducting ultrasound analyses, the procedures described by Wildhaber et al. (2006), or slight variation of these techniques, appear to be the safest described in the literature. Sturgeon are placed in a prone position in a tank of water with their ventral surfaces exposed to air. The ultrasound transducer is coated with ultrasound gel and then covered in a protective plastic sheath to prevent any scratches to the ultrasound from the sturgeon's scutes. During scanning, output power, focus depth, and frame rate are kept constant. The transducer is maneuvered along the abdomen between the gills and the anus, keeping the wide end of the transducer facing the head and tail. The ultrasound cannot penetrate the hard calcium of the scutes, so there is no reason to attempt to ultrasound the sides or back of the sturgeon (Wildhaber et al. 2006). Moghim et al. (2002) examined 249 anesthetized stellate sturgeon with ultrasound and then performed necropsies to verify the accuracy of the ultrasound. Overall, ultrasound was 97.2% accurate in determining sex with the procedure taking only 30 seconds to complete. Mature females were the easiest to identify (100 %), followed by immature females (99.3 %), mature males (96.5 %), and then immature males (76.2 %). Colombo et al. (2004) examined 51 euthanized shovelnose sturgeon and determined ultrasound was a viable method of sex identification. They were able to correctly identify the sex of sturgeon 88% of the time, though only 40% of post - spawned females were accurately identified. Excluding post- spawned female sturgeon, the ultrasound correctly identified the sex of sturgeon 94% of the time. Additionally, Wildhaber and Bryan (2006) accurately identified the sex of 100% of pallid and shovelnose sturgeon using ultrasound coupled with borescope. In another study, Wildhaber et al. (2006) correctly identified only 68% of fish in the field and 70% of fish in the laboratory. In both of these cases, males were more often correctly identified, which is similar to the results from Colombo et al. (2004) but opposite the findings from Moghim et al. (2002). When performed without anesthesia, there are no risks associated with ultrasound examination of sturgeon. However, while ultrasound is able to identify gender, it is not a promising method for determining the stage of eggs. When working with listed Gulf, shortnose, Atlantic, and green sturgeon, NMFS generally recommends using ultrasound for instant sexual identification of fish in the field. This method is the least stressful and 39 comparably accurate to other available methods that provide immediate identification. Due to the expense of ultrasound technology, boroscoping shortnose, Gulf, and Atlantic sturgeon is an acceptable alternative. More research is needed to determine if boroscoping is safe for green sturgeon. Blood Plasma Potentially one of the most promising, most accurate, and least stressful procedures used to sex sturgeon is an analysis of blood plasma. Researchers have used vitellogenin or sex steroids such as testosterone, 11- ketotestosterone, and estradiol to assess the sex and stage of maturity for pallid, shovelnose, hybrid bester, and white sturgeon (Amiri et al. 1996, Webb et al. 2002, Wildhaber et al. 2006). Blood samples are obtained from the caudal vein (Figure 5) and centrifuged to isolate the plasma where it is then analyzed by radioimmunoassay or frozen for later analysis. In initial studies, testosterone was used to discern sexual maturation (79% accuracy for males, 85% for females), as it is significantly elevated in mature male and female sturgeon (Webb et al. 2002). If testosterone indicates the sturgeon is maturing, estradiol levels of female white sturgeon exceed 2 ng /m193% of the time, while males and immature white sturgeon estradiol levels never exceed 2 ng /ml (Webb et al. 2002), resulting in reasonably accurate identification of immature males (72 %), immature females (88 %), mature males (96 %), and mature females (98 %). Later, researchers studied vitellogenin along with the sex steroids testosterone and estradiol ( Wildhaber et al. 2006). At all stages of development, vitellogenin was significantly elevated in females when compared to males, predicting the sex of the sturgeon with over 99% accuracy. After sex determination, the same steps taken by Webb et al. (2002) can determine whether each gender of fish is sexually mature, as estradiol is significantly higher in maturing females and ketotestosterone is significantly higher in maturing males. Figure 5: Blood collection from a shortnose sturgeon. Photograph by J. Gibbons, SCDNR Techniques for blood plasma analysis show promise in identifying sex and egg maturation of sturgeon, and should continue to be evaluated for use on Gulf, shortnose, Atlantic, and green sturgeon. However, this technique can only identify the sex and stage of maturity of a sturgeon after the sturgeon has been captured and released. Therefore .O this technique is not useful if researchers only need to know the sex of a sturgeon to identify optimal fish for an acoustic tag. If the sex of the fish is not needed immediately, but rather for later population analyses, blood samples are the preferred method. Ultrasound would also be an acceptable method even if the results are not needed immediately. These methods are least stressful and highly accurate in this situation. Recommendations Endoscopy • During borescope procedures, NMFS does not recommend using a trocar to first pierce the genital canal to view and/or biopsy the gonads. • Althought NMFS considers laparoscopy a more invasive endoscopic procedure than boroscopy, it is a more reliable method for determining the sex and stage of maturity of sturgeons (Wildhaber et al. 2006) and therefore recommends laparoscopy as the endoscopic procedure of choice. Gonadal Biopsy • NMFS does not recommend the use of laparoscopy or biopsy on wild Gulf, green, Atlantic, or shortnose sturgeon, but does recommend their use on hatchery and laboratory sturgeon. However, if there are situations when these methods would be more likely to contribute to the recovery of these species than other available methods, NMFS would recommend their use under limited circumstances. • Gonadal biopsy should only be performed in the field opportunistically while a researcher is implanting an acoustic tag. Ultrasound • NMFS generally recommends using ultrasound for instant sexual identification of fish in the field. Blood Plasma • Blood samples are the preferred method for determining the sex and stage of maturity of sturgeon when that information is not needed at the time of sampling. 41 Age Estimation Age estimates of sturgeon populations help researchers and managers understand sturgeon growth rates, ages at maturity, mortality rates, productivity, longevity, and year class strength (Campana 2001, Paragamian and Beamesderfer 2003). Such knowledge is critical for designing appropriate fisheries management policies. Bony structures form opaque and transparent age rings each year in most fish species in response to changes in temperature or other annual cycles. These rings, or annuli, are roughly correlated to sturgeon age. Unfortunately, most bony structures, such as clavicles, cleithra, opercles, and medial nuchals are not options for listed species of sturgeon because such sampling is lethal (Brennan and Cailliet 1989, Stevenson and Secor 1999, Jackson et al. 2007). Other structures such as dorsal scutes and pectoral fin spines, so named because of a dermal bone sheath (Feindeis 1997), are more viable options, but scutes are more difficult to read than fin spines (Huff 1975, Brennan and Cailliet 1989, Stevenson and Secor 1999, Jackson et al. 2007). Pectoral fin spines are sampled by researchers similarly across the United States. The following methodology is therefore recommended for sampling pectoral fin spines of Gulf, green, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon (Figure 6). Using a hacksaw or bonesaw, two parallel cuts are made across the leading pectoral fin spine approximately 1 -cm deep. The blade of the first cut is positioned no closer than 0.5 -cm from the point of articulation of the flexible pectoral base to avoid an artery at this location (Rien and Beamesderfer 1994, Rossiter et al. 1995, Collins and Smith 1996). The second cut is made approximately 1 -cm distally (Everett et al. 2003, Fleming et al. 2003b, Hurley et al. 2004, Hughes et al. 2005), where a pair of pliers can be used to remove the resulting fin spine section. The section is then placed in an envelope and air -dried for several days or weeks. Later it is cut into thin slices (usually about 0.5 to 2 mm thickness) typically using a jeweler's saw or a double bladed saw (Stevenson and Secor 1999, Everett et al. 2003, Fleming et al. 2003b, Hurley et al. 2004, Hughes et al. 2005, Johnson et al. 2005, Collins et al. 2008). The sections are then mounted onto the substrate of choice including clear glue, fingernail polish, cytosel, or thermoplastic cement. The cross - section detail of the fin spine annuli are then studied using stereoscopic readers. 42 Section 8asalrecess Figure 6: Diagram of the appropriate method for removing a small section of fin spine for age analysis. Accuracy and Precision of Estimates Accuracy and precision of the fin spine age estimates are concerns of fishery biologists and management agencies. Precision is a measurement of the distance between two reader's interpretations of the same fin spine sample, while accuracy is a measurement between the reader estimate of a sturgeon's age and the actual age ( Beamish and MacFarlane 1983, Campana et al. 1995, Campana 2001, Hurley et al. 2004). To estimate precision, mark - recapture studies, oxytetracycline chemical marking studies, hatchery release studies, and in hatchery studies have been conducted to validate the age estimation process and also verify the assumption of one opaque and one translucent ring are formed each year (Clugston et al. 1990, Rien and Beamesderfer 1994, Campana et al. 1995, Rossiter et al. 1995, Stevenson and Secor 1999, Campana 2001, Paragamian and Beamesderfer 2003, LeBreton and Beamish 2004, Hurley et al. 2004, Jackson et al. 2007). Most studies of age estimates measure precision using at least two individual readings of the same slide. Subsequently, either the variability is recorded between readers, or the differences in reader's estimates are reconciled immediately after measurement. Most age estimation studies suggest the results obtained should be used with caution because, while fin spines may provide the safest and most accurate estimation of age, they also consistently underestimate the actual age. The typical sources of error reported have been: 1) the rings are too close together or not clearly differentiated; 2) the original ring is difficult to identify; 3) the rings are missing within deteriorating sections; or 4) secondary fin spines, split rings, false rings, or spawning bands tend to create more or fewer rings than the actual age (Nakamoto 1995, Rossiter et al. 1995, Lai et al. 1996, Stevenson and Secor 1999, Farr et al. 2001, LeBreton and Beamish 2004, Whiteman et al. 2004). Moreover, fin spines from hatchery fish are often shaped differently, resulting in a more difficult age comparison control. Accuracy of Estimates The accuracy of fin spine estimates has been measured for Atlantic, pallid, shovelnose, white, lake, and Gulf sturgeon. Rossiter et al. (1995) and Stevenson and Secor (1999) monitored fish after one to three years between capture and found for lake and Atlantic 43 sturgeon respectively, growth rings did develop once a year. But LeBreton and Beamish (2000) determined only five of seven populations of lake sturgeon exhibited a series of one opaque and one translucent ring formed per year. This was also seen by Morrow et al. (1998) who documented two bands forming annually in shovelnose sturgeon fin spines during warmer years. Van Eenennaam et al. (1996) showed reader error of one to two years underestimation for Atlantic sturgeon at true ages ranging between 15 and 30 years. For shovelnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon, age estimates underestimate actual age. The age underestimation was 1.6 years for fish under 15 years, 1.7 years for fish between 16 and 20 years, and 4.3 years for fish over 21 (Whiteman et al. 2004). A similar result was reported by Paragamian and Beamesderfer (2003) and also by Rien and Beamesderfer (1994) for white sturgeon, each finding age underestimation for white sturgeon under 60cm was over 70 %, while the accuracy fell to below 60% for fish above 100cm. Moreover, using length to estimate age of sturgeon has proven unreliable. Clugston et al. (1990) recorded lengths of Gulf sturgeon after one year in the laboratory and then noted the inconsistent growth of fish in the wild during all months of the year. They concluded fish of similar sizes captured in the wild yield variable growth rates, suggesting length at age charts are flawed because growth is not constant among individuals. Paragamian and Beamesderfer (2003) provided additional evidence of invalid length at age charts using wild sturgeon. However, Peterson et al. (2000) and Schueller and Peterson (in press) demonstrated that juvenile sturgeon younger than three can be aged using length at age charts. In the most extensive mark - recapture study to date, analyzing sturgeon at large over five years, Paragamian and Beamesderfer (2003) examined 760 marked (known age) white sturgeon recaptured up to 23 years later. They found ages were underestimated between 30 and 60 %, depending on the time spent at large, meaning that age estimates were 1.5 to 2 times below the actual age of the fish. For marked - recaptured shortnose sturgeon, there was 96% accuracy between the readers' age estimates and the time the sturgeon spent at large. However, when using known -age fish, only 34% of the readers' estimates were accurate within one year (Collins et al. 2008). Also, when using multiple slides from the same fin spines of known -age hatchery fish, Hurley et al. (2004) reported only 28% of the estimates were correct, while 56% were within one year and 89% were within two years. Precision of Estimates As discussed previously, when measuring the precision of fin spine aging estimates, multiple readers estimate the age of identical sturgeon fin spines and then their results are compared to determine the variance between readers' estimates. Fleming et al. (2003b) studied 88 shortnose sturgeon fin spines where multiple readers were able to reach an agreement after consultation 100% of the time. Everett et al. (2003) analyzed shovelnose sturgeon using multiple readers and found the readers could not reach agreement on 26 of 736 (3.5 %) of the samples when they attempted to reconcile measurements. Rossiter et al. (199 5) also showed agreement between reader measurements while analyzing 20 lake sturgeon. They found high precision between readers for fish under 15 years old; however, for fish over 18 years old, reader agreement dropped to 80 %. In the first two studies mentioned above, the readers reconciled measurements when there was a ., disagreement in age estimation, while the latter study was conducted on only 20 samples without reconciliation of estimates. While some studies have found general precision and agreement between readers, others were less successful. Van Eenennaam et al. (1996) showed multiple readers agreed on readings of Atlantic sturgeon fin spine samples approximately 33 to 40% of the time. Stevenson and Secor (1999) also evaluated reader agreement of Atlantic sturgeon fin spines and found no significant difference, but the disagreement error was approximately 1.2 years on average between readers. Nakamoto (1995) analyzed 154 green sturgeon fin spines and found readings from 34% differed by fewer than two years and 66% of the readings differed by fewer than five years. Rien and Beamesderfer (1994) measuring 935 white sturgeon fin spines twice, found only 37% agreement between readers and 68% agreement within one year. Jackson et al. (2007) found 80% of the time multiple readers estimated the age of shovelnose sturgeon within one year and 100% were estimated within two years. However Whiteman et al. (2004) found reader agreement on 234 shovelnose sturgeon samples of only 18% and within one year was still only 46 %. NMFS recommends all sturgeon age estimates derived from fin spine analysis should test for precision between readers. As discussed above, one major assumption for fin spine age estimation is each fin spine develops a ring each year; but there is evidence to suggest each fin spine may be different. Jackson et al. (2007) simultaneously removed both fin spines from shovelnose sturgeon and showed the spines from the same fish resulted in the same estimated age 36% of the time, within one year 66% of the time, and within two years 84% of the time. But this could be a result of how the fin spines are prepared, as measurements of 64 slides made from 16 pallid sturgeon fin spines resulted in only 25% agreement from the same spines (Hurley et al. 2004). Jackson et al. (2007) concluded the preparation of fin spines must be standardized so results can be reproducible. Age Validation Several researchers have suggested slow growth of adult and pre -spawn females may explain why some fin spine rings are closely spaced and become more closely spaced as fish get older (Beamish and MacFarlane 1983, Nakamoto 1995). It is thought the distance between rings is influenced by changes in food supply, metabolism, behavior, and environmental conditions as the sturgeon mature. Accordingly, sturgeon researchers have begun to develop age estimate correction factors to validate age estimates of populations of different species. Brach et al. (2009), while researching lake sturgeon, found growth increments on pectoral fin spine cross sections underestimated true age of fish older than 14 years and error increased with age, whereas otoliths accurately estimated true age up to at least 52 years. Increment formation in juvenile lake sturgeon pectoral fin spines was clearer and easier to interpret than otoliths. A power function developed by Brach et al. (2009) provided a means for correcting existing age estimates obtained from lake sturgeon pectoral fin spines. For that reason, NMFS recommends using salvage specimens of Gulf, green, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon to establish age estimation correction factors. 45 Deleterious Effects of Fin Spine Sampling Kohlhorst (1979) first reported potentially deleterious effects of fin spine removal from white sturgeon during a mark - recapture study where an incidence of mortality was recorded. The percentage mortality reported could have been magnified by a small sample size, but concern over this result triggered additional research in the laboratory. Collins et al. (1995) and Collins and Smith (1996) monitored the effects of fin spine removal of juvenile shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon in a laboratory. Removing the entire leading fin spine from the base, a method not currently recommended for sampling fin - rays, they found wounds healed rapidly and that the remaining secondary pectoral fin spine grew in circumference until appearing very similar to the original fin spine. There were no significant differences for growth or survival between treatment and control sturgeon. In other laboratory studies testing fin spine function, Wilga and Lauder (1999) found pectoral fins function by orienting the body vertically in the water column, but they are not used during locomotion. Following this study, Parsons et al. (2003) removed pectoral fin spines from shovelnose sturgeon placing them in tanks, where the current could then be increased to test their ability to hold position in a current. Without fin spines, treatment sturgeon were able to hold their position in a current as well as control sturgeon. Most recently, while conducting mark - recapture surveys of Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, Collins et al. (2008) discovered secondary fin spines had grown abnormally on older, mature Atlantic sturgeon after the leading fin spine had been taken months earlier. Concluding this regrowth could be due to slower growth of mature, adult fish and possibly become detrimental to the sturgeons' health, their team no longer samples fin spines from larger, adult sturgeon. Because of increased error in reading fin spines of older fish and evidence of abnormal regrowth, NMFS does not recommend taking fin spine samples from mature Gulf, shortnose, Atlantic, or green sturgeon. Alternative Methods for Age Estimation NMFS recommends developing newer, more accurate and precise methods of aging Gulf, green, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon. In recent years, Bruch et al. (2009) analyzed the use of radiocarbon bombing to estimate the ages of lake sturgeon using otolith cores. This is not a non - lethal technique, but if further testing indicates using other bony structures such as scutes for accurate and precise age estimates, this may become a useful method for age estimation. Likewise, telomeres have recently been used to estimate fish age. Hatakeyama et al. (2008), testing small teleost fish, found that telomere length shortens through the life of the fish and is inversely related to the length of the fish. However, no change in telomere length was noted for European sea bass between 12 and 94 months of age (Horn et al. 2009). Specific studies should be conducted on sturgeon to determine if telomere analysis could determine the age of sturgeon. .e Recommendations General • NMFS recommends removing a lcm portion of the pectoral fin spine from just above the point of articulation to estimate the age of Gulf, green, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon. Accuracy and Precision of Estimates • NMFS recommends fin spine derived age estimates be used with caution because they consistently underestimate the actual age. • NMFS recommends all sturgeon age estimates derived from fin spine analysis should test for precision between readers. • NMFS acknowledges the preparation of fin spines must be standardized so the results are reproducible and encourages future research to achieve this goal. Age Validation • NMFS does not recommend using lethal methods or length/age charts to estimate ages of Gulf, Atlantic, green, or shortnose sturgeon, except when working with juvenile sturgeon under three years of age. • NMFS recommends using salvage specimens of Gulf, green, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon to establish age estimation correction factors. Deleterious Effects of Fin Spine Sampling • Because of increased error in reading fin spines of older fish and evidence of abnormal regrowth, NMFS does not recommend taking fin spine samples from mature Gulf, shortnose, Atlantic, or green sturgeon. Alternative Methods for Age Estimation • NMFS recommends developing newer, more accurate and precise methods of aging Gulf, green, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon. 47 Salvage Specimens Dead or salvaged specimens can be invaluable for a number of basic and applied aspects of sturgeon biology and conservation. Scientific uses include, but are not limited to, morphology, genetics, histopathology, contaminants, age and growth, food habits, cryopreservation of sperm, and human impact /anthropogenic mortality. Educational uses of sturgeon collected include, but are not limited to, taxidermy, collection of hard parts (e.g., scutes, bones, and entire skeleton), necropsy, and development of sampling and necropsy procedures and manuals. Although it is important to maintain salvaged specimens and their derivative tissues, making them available for future researchers and educators, listed sturgeon are protected and transfer of specimens must still be carefully documented under the ESA. Persons /laboratories receiving specimens must be authorized to possess listed species. All sturgeon research permits issued by NMFS currently include provisions for preserving incidental mortality resulting from research or found opportunistically. If dead Gulf, green, shortnose, or Atlantic sturgeon are found or a researcher has a need for salvaged sturgeon or sturgeon parts, contact NMFS Headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland at (301) 713 -2289. Acknowledgements We thank all of the Gulf, green, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon researchers who provided data, information, and comments throughout the development of these protocols. We are specifically grateful to Boyd Kynard, Micah Kieffer, Doug Peterson, Mark Collins, Bill Post, Tom Savoy, Gayle Zydlewski, Steve Fernandez, Joe Hightower, Matt Balazik, Chris Hager, Mike Mangold, David Secor, Steve Minkkinen, Hal Brundage, Dewayne Fox, Matt Fisher, Jerre Mohler, Mark Bain, Gail Whippelhauser, Jeff Wilcox, Ken Sulak, Mike Randall, Frank Parauka, Marty Gingras, Ryan Mayfield, Jason DuBois, Joel Van Eenennaam, Tom Rien, Dan Erickson, Mary Moser, Olaf Langness, Peter Allen, Mike Parsely, and Tim King. We are also grateful for the assistance provided by Stephania Bolden, Kelly Shotts, Russell Bohl, Lynn Lankshear, Kim Damon - Randall, Jessica Pruden, Melissa Neuman, Susan Wang, and David Woodbury. . • References AADAP (Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership Program). 2008. AQUI -S use on food fish under IDAD 10 -541 strictly prohibited. AADAP Newsletter 4 -2:1. Allen, P.J. and J.J. Cech, Jr. 2007. Age /size effects on juvenile green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris , oxygen consumption, growth, and osmoregulation in saline environments. Environmental Biology of Fishes 79(3- 4):211 -229. Allen, P.J., M. Nicholl, S. Cole, A. Vlazny, and J.J. Cech Jr. 2006. Growth of larval to juvenile green sturgeon in elevated temperature regimes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:89 -96. Altinok, I., S.M. Galli, and F.A. Chapman. 1998. Ionic and osmotic regulation capabilities in Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus de sotoi. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A 120:609 -616. Alves, C.B.M., L.G.M. da Silva, and A.L. Godinho. 2007. Radiotelemetry of a female jau, Zungaro jahu (Ihering, 1898) (Siluriformes: Pimelodidae), passed upstream of Funil Dam, Rio Grande, Brazil. Neotropical Ichthyology 5(2):229 -232. Amiri, B.K., M. Maebayashi, A. Hara, S. Adachi, and K. Yamauchi. 1996. Ovarian development and serum sex steroid and vitellogenin profiles in the female hybrid sturgeon, the bester. Journal of Fish Biology 48:1164 -1178. Axelsen, F., and Mauger, A. 1993. Sturgeon holding cage trials on Lake Opawica and Lake Lichen. Ministere de 1'agriculture, des pecheries et de 1'alimentation du Qu6bec. Direction de la recherche scientifique et technique Doc. rech. 93/06: iv + 42 p. Balazik, M., S. Cameron, D. Clarke, C. Frederickson, S. Giordano, C. Hager, J. Lazar, S. McIninch, K. Reine, C. Dickerson, W. Shuart, A. Spells. 2009. Movements and habitat associations of Atlantic sturgeon in the James River estuary, Virginia. Oral Presentation Abstract, 139th Meeting of the American Fisheries Society, Nashville, Tennessee. Barton, B.A. and W.P. Dwyer. 1997. Physiological stress effects of continuous- and pulsed -DC on electroshock on juvenile bull trout. Journal of Fish Biology 51:998- 1008. Beamish, R.J. and G.A. MacFarlane. 1983. The forgotten requirement for age validation in fisheries biolgy. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112(6):735 -743. Benson, R.L., S. Turo, and B.W. McCovey, Jr. 2007. Migration and movement patterns of green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) in the Klamath and Trinity Rivers, California, USA. Environmental Biology of Fishes 79:269 -279. Berg, J.J. 2004. Population assessment of the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon in the Yellow River, Florida. Thesis for a Masters of Science, University of Florida. 86p. Bergman, P.K., F. Haw, H.L. Blankenship, and R.M. Buckley. 1992. Perspectives on design, use, and misuse of fish tags. Fisheries 17(4):20 -25. Bordner, C.E., S.I. Doroshov, D.E. Hinton, R.E. Pipkin, R.B. Fridley, and F. Haw. 1990. Evaluation of marking techniques for juvenile and adult white sturgeons reared in captivity. American Fisheries Society Symposium 7:293 -303. Borski, R.J. and R.G. Hodson. 2003. Fish research and the institutional animal care and use committee. ILAR Journal 44(4):286 -294. 50 Bowman, M., J. Bowker, D. Carty, B. Johnson, and D. Erdahl. 2003. The efficacy and safety of AQUI -S as an anesthetic on freshwater fish. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership Program, Bozeman, Montana. 3p. Bowser, P.R. 2001. Anesthetic options for fish. In Gleed, R.D. and J.W. Ludders (Eds.), Recent Advances in Veterinary Anesthesia and Analgesia: Companion Animals. International Veterinary Information Service, Ithaca, New York. Brabant, J. C. and C. Nedelec. 1979. Bottom trawls for small -scale fishing. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Fisheries Technical Paper 189. Brannas, E., H. Lundqvist, E. Prentice, M. Schmitz, K. Brannas, and B. Wiklund. 1994. Use of the passive integrated transponder (PIT) in a fish identification and monitoring system for fish behavioral studies. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Symposium 123:395 -401. Brennan, J.S. and G.M. Cailliet. 1989. Comparative age - determination techniques for white sturgeon in California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118:296 -310. Brosse, L., P. Dumont, M. Lepage, and E. Rochard. 2002. Evaluation of a gastric lavage method for sturgeons. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22(3); 955- 960. Brown, R.S., S.J. Cooke, W.G. Anderson, and R.S. McKinley. 1999. Evidence to challenge the "2% rule" for biotelemetry. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:867 -871. Bruch, R.M., S.E. Campana, S.L. Davis - Foust, M.J. Hansen, J. Janssen. 2009. Lake sturgeon age validation using bomb radiocarbon and known -age fish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138:361 -372. Callahan, H.A. and E.J. Noga. 2002. Tricaine dramatically reduces the ability to diagnose protozoa ectoparasite (Ichthyobodo necator) infections. Journal of Fish Diseases 25:433 -437. Campana, S.E. 2001. Review paper: accuracy, precision and quality control in age determination, including a review of the use and abuse of age validation methods. Journal of Fish Biolgy 59:197 -242. Campana, S.E., M.C. Annand, and J.I. McMillan. 1995. Graphical and statistical methods for determining the consistency of age determinations. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:131 -138. Campbell, J.G. and Goodman, L.R. 2004. Acute sensitivity of juvenile shortnose sturgeon to low dissolved oxygen concentrations. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:772 -776. Cech, J.J., S.J. Mitchell, and T.E. Wragg. 1984. Comparative growth of juvenile white sturgeon and striped bass: effects of temperature and hypoxia. Estuaries 7:12 -18. Cech J.J., Jr., and C.E. Crocker. 2002. Physiology of sturgeon: effects of hypoxia and hypercapnia. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18:320 -324. Cech, J.J., Jr. and S.I. Doroshov. 2004. Chapter 3: Environmental requirements, preferences, and tolerance limits of North American sturgeons. Pages 73 -86 in G.T.O. Lebreton, F.W.H. Beamish, and R.S. McKinley (eds), Sturgeons and Paddlefish of North America. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 51 Chapman, F.A. and C. Park. 2005. Comparison of sutures used for wound closure in sturgeon following a gonadal biopsy. North American Journal of Aquaculture 67:98- 101. Cho, G.K. and D.D. Heath. 2000. Comparison of tricaine methanesulphonate (MS222) and clove oil anaesthesia effects on the physiology of juvenile Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum). Aquaculture Research 31:537 -546. Clugston, J.P. 1996. Retention of T -bar anchor tags and passive integrated transponder tags by Gulf sturgeons. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:682- 685. Clugston, J.P., W.T. Mason, and A.M. Foster. 1990. Laboratory reared Gulf of Mexico sturgeon give clue to age of wild stock. Information Bulletin, U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2p. Collins, M.R., C. Norwood, and A. Rourk. 2008. Shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon age - growth, status, diet, and genetics. Final Report to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Charleston, South Carolina, 2006 - 0087 -009. 41p. Collins, M.R., D.W. Cooke, T.I.J. Smith, W.C. Post, D.C. Russ, and D.C. Walling. 2002. Evaluation of four methods of transmitter attachment on shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18(2002):491 -494. Collins, M.R. and T.I.J. Smith. 1996. Sturgeon fin ray removal is nondeleterious. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:939 -941. Collins, M.R. 1995. Report to the USFWS: Evaluation of the effects of pectoral spine removal on shortnose sturgeon. Final Report, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Charleston, South Carolina. Collins, M.R., T.I.J. Smith, and L.D. Heyward. 1994. Effectiveness of six methods for marking juvenile shortnose sturgeon. Progressive Fish Culturist 56:250 -254. Colombo, R.E., P.S. Wills, and J.E. Garvey. 2004. Use of ultrasound imagery to determine sex of shovelnose sturgeon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:322 -326. Conte, F.S., S.I. Doroshov, P.B. Lutes, and E.M. Strange. 1988. Hatchery manual for the white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus). University of California Press, Publication 322, Oakland. Counihan, T.D., and C.N. Frost. 1999. Influence of externally attached transmitters on the swimming performance of juvenile white sturgeon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:965 -970. Coyle, S.D., R.M. Durborow, and J.H. Tidwell. 2004. Anesthetics in aquaculture. Southeastern Regional Aquaculture Center. SRAC Publication Number 3900, November 2004. 6p. Craik, J.C.A. and S. M. Harvey. 1984. A biochemical method for distinguishing between the sexes of fishes by the presence of yolk protein in the blood. Journal of Fish Biology 25:293 -303. Dadswell, M.J., B.D. Taubert, T.S. Squiers, D. Marchette, and J. Buckley. 1984. Synopsis of biological data on shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur, 1818. NOAA Technical Report-14. 53pp. 52 DeHaan, P.W., G.R. Jordan, and W.R. Ardren. 2008. Use of genetic tags to identify captive -bred pallid sturgeon ( Scaphirhynchus albus ) in the wild: improving abundance estimates for an endangered species. Conservation Genetics 9(3):691 -697. DeTolla, L.J., S. Srinivas, B.R. Whitaker, C. Andrews, B. Hecker, A.S. Kane, and R. Reimschuessel. 1995. Guidelines for the care and use of fish in research. ILAR Journal 37(4):159-173. DeVries, R.J. 2006. Population dynamics, movements, and spawning habitat of the shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in the Altamaha River. Master's Thesis, University of Georgia. 103 p. Dick, T.A., S.R. Jarvis, C.D. Sawatzky, and D.B. Stewart. 2006. The lake sturgeon, Acipenser fluvescens (Chondrostei: Ascipenseridae): an annotated bibliography. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2671, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 257p. EDI Environmental Dynamics. 2006. 2005 assessment of juvenile white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) abundance and distribution in the Nechako River; development of an index of juvenile recruitment. Prince George, British Columbia. 33p. Elbin, S.B. and J. Burger. 1994. Implantable microchips for individual identification in wild and captive populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22:677 -683. Everett, S.R., D.L. Scamecchia, G.J. Power, and C.J. Williams. 2003. Comparison of age and growth of shovelnose sturgeons in the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:230 -240 Farr, R.A., M.L. Hughes, and T.A. Rien. 2001. Green sturgeon population characteristics in Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Annual Progress Report, Project Number F- 178 -R. 31p. Feindeis, E.K. 1997. Osteology and phylogenetic interrelationships of sturgeons ( Acipenseridae). Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:73 -126. Fernandez, S.J. 2008. Population demography, distribution, and movement patterns of Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons in the Penobscot River estuary, Maine. Master's Thesis, University of Maine. 100p. Fleming, G.J., D.J. Heard, R.F. Floyd, and A. Riggs. 2003a. Evaluation of propofol and medetomidine - ketamine for short term immobilization of Gulf of Mexico sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus De Soti). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 34(2):153- 158. Fleming, J.E., T.D. Bryce, and J.P. Kirk. 2003b. Age, growth, and status of shortnose sturgeon in the lower Ogeechee River, Georgia. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 57:80 -91. Flynn, S.R. and T.J. Benfey. 2007. Sex differentiation and aspects of gametogenesis in shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Lineaus. Journal of Fish Biology 70(4):1027 -1044. Food and Drug Administration. 2007. Guidance for industry: concerns related to the use of clove oil as an anesthetic for fish. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Veterinary Medicine. 3p. Foster, J.R. 1977. Pulsed gastric lavage: An efficient method of removing stomach contents of live fish. The Progressive Fish Culturalist 39(4): 166 -169. 53 Fox, D.A., J.E. Hightower, and F.M. Parauka. 2000. Gulf sturgeon spawning migration and habitat in the Choctawhatchee River System, Alabama - Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129:811 -826. Guilbard, F., J. Munro, P. Dumont, D. Hatin, and R. Fortin. 2007. Feeding ecology of Atlantic sturgeon and lake sturgeon co- occurring in the St. Lawrence estuarine transition zone. American Fisheries Society Symposium 56: 85 -104. Gunstrom, G. K. and M. Bethers. 1985. Electrical anesthesia for handling large salmonids. Progressive Fish - Culturist 47:67 -69. Gutreuter S., R.W. Burkhardt, and K. Lubinski. 1995. Long Term Resource Monitoring Program Procedures: Fish Monitoring. LTRMP Technical Report 95- P002 -1. National Biological Service, Environmental Management Technical Center, Onalaska, Wisconsin. Haley, N. 1998. A gastric lavage technique for characterizing diets of sturgeons. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18: 978 -981. Harris, J.E., D.C. Parkyn, and D.J. Murie. 2005. Distribution of Gulf of Mexico sturgeon in relation to benthic invertebrate prey resources and environmental parameters in the Suwannee River estuary, Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134:975 -990. Hartley, W.G. 1967. Electronarcosis of fish for handling. Pages 251 -255 in R. Vibert (Ed.), Fishing with Electricity: its application to biology and management. Hatakeyama, H., K.I. Nakamura, N. Izumiyama - Shimomura, A. Ishii, S. Tsuchida, K. Takubo, and N. Ishikawa. 2008. The teleost Oryzias latipes shows telomere shortening with age despite considerable telomerase activity throughout life. Mechanisms of Aging and Development 129(9):550 -557. Henne, J.P. R.L. Crumpton, K.M. Ware, and J. Fleming. 2008. Guidelines for marking and tagging juvenile endangered shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum. Aquaculture America 2008, meeting abstract. Henyey, E., B. Kynard, and P. Zhuang. 2002. Use of electronarcosis to immobilize juvenile lake and shortnose sturgeons for handling and the effects on their behavior. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18:502 -504. Hernandez - Divers, S.J., R.S. Bakal, B.H. Hickson, C.A. Rawlings, H.G. Wilson, M. Radlinsky, S.M. Hernandez - Divers, and S.R. Dover. 2004. Endoscopic sex determination and gonadal manipulation of Gulf of Mexico sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus De Sotoi). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 35(4):459 -470. Herzog, D.P. V.A. Barko, J.S. Scheibe, R.A. Hrabik, and D.E. Ostendorf. 2005. Efficacy of a benthic trawl for sampling small bodied fishes in large river systems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:594 -603. Hockersmith, E.E., W.D. Muir, S.G. Smith, B.P. Sandford, R.W. Perry, N.S. Adams, and D.W. Rondorf. 2003. Comparison of migration rate and survival between radio - tagged and PIT - tagged migrating yearling chinook salmon in the Snake and Columbia rivers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:404 -413. Holcomb, M., J. Woolsey, J.G. Cloud, and R.L. Ingermann. 2004. Effects of clove oil, tricaine, and CO2 on gamete quality in steelhead and white sturgeon. North American Journal of Aquaculture 66:228 -233. Holliman, F.M. and J.B. Reynolds. 2002. Electroshock- induced injury in juvenile white sturgeon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:494 -499. 54 Horn, T., N.J. Gemmell, B.C. Robertson, and C.R. Bridges. 2009. Telomere length change in European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Australian Journal of Zoology 56(3):207 -210. Huff, J.A. 1975. Life history of Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrynchus desotoi, in Suwannee River, Florida. Florida Marine Research Publications Number 16. 37p. Hughes, T.C., C.E. Lowie, and J.M. Haynes. 2005. Age, growth, relative abundance, and SCUBA capture of a new or recovering spawning population of lake sturgeon in the lower Niagara River, New York. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:1263 -1272. Hurley, K.L., R.J. Sheehan, and R.C. Heidinger. 2004. Accuracy and precision of age estimates for pallid sturgeon from pectoral fin rays. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:715 -718. Isely, J.J. and Q.C. Fontenot. 2000. Retention of coded wire tags in juvenile shortnose sturgeon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:1040 -1043. Iwama, G.K., J.C. McGeer, and M.P. Pawluk. 1989. The effects of five fish anesthetics on acid -base balance, hematocrit, blood gases, cortisol, and adrenaline in rainbow trout. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67:2065 -2073. Jackson, N.D., J.E. Garvey, and R.E. Colombo. 2007. Comparing aging precision of calcified structures in shovelnose sturgeon. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 23(4):525 -528. Jemison, S.C., L.A. Bishop, P.G. May, and T.M. Farrell. 1995. The impact of PIT -tags on growth and movement of the rattlesnake, Sistrurus miliarus. Journal of Herpetology 29(l):129-132. Jenkins, W.E., T.I.J. Smith, L. Heyward, and D.M. Knott. 1993. Tolerance of shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, juveniles to different salinity and dissolved oxygen concentrations. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 47:476 -484. Johnson, J.H., J.E. McKenna, D.S. Dropkin, and W.D. Andrews. 2005. A novel approach to fitting the Von Bertalanffy relationship to a mixed stock of Atlantic sturgeon harvested off the New Jersey coast. Northeastern Naturalist 12(2):195 -202. Kamler, J.F. and K.L. Pope. 2001. Nonlethal methods of examining fish stomach contents. Reviews of Fisheries Science 9(1):1 -11. Kaufman, R.C., A.G. Houck, and J.J. Cech, Jr. 2007. Effects of temperature and dissolved oxygen on green sturgeon blood- oxygen equilibria. Environmental Biology of Fishes 79:201 -210. Keck, M.B. 1994. Test for detrimental effects of PIT tags in neonatal snakes. Copeia 1994:226 -228. Kelly, J.T., A.P. Klimley, and C.E. Crocker. 2007. Movements of green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris, in the San Francisco Bay estuary, California. Environmental Biology of Fishes 79:281 -295. Kersten, C.A., M. Krisfalusi, J.E. Parsons, and J.G. Cloud. 2001. Gonadal regeneration in masculinized female or steroid - treated rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Journal of Experimental Zoology 290:396 -401. Kieffer M. and B. Kynard. 1993. Annual movements of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons in the Merrimack River, Massachusetts. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:1088 -1103. 55 Kieffer, M.C. and B. Kynard. 1996. Spawning of the shortnose sturgeon in the Merrimack River, Massachusetts. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:179 -186. Kieffer, M. and B. Kynard. In Press. Long -term evaluation of external and internal telemetry tagged shortnose sturgeon. Chapter 11 in Life history and behavior of Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon and other sturgeons. Special Publication 4, World Sturgeon Conservation Society. Kohlhorst, D.W. 1979. Effect of first pectoral fin ray removal on survival and estimated harvest rate of while sturgeon in the Sacramento -San Joaquin estuary. California Fish and Game 65:173 -177. Kynard, B. and E. Lonsdale. 1975. Experimental study of galvanonarcosis for rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) immobilization. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32:300 -302. Kynard, B. and M. Kieffer. 1991. Protocol: techniques for implanting telemetry tags inside sturgeon. Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center, Turner Falls, Massachusetts. Kynard, B. 1997. Life history, latitudinal patterns and status of shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48(1- 4):319 -334. Kynard, B. and M. Kieffer. 1997. Rejection of internal telemetry transmitters by shortnose sturgeon. Page 54 in Boehlert, G.W. (ed.), Application of acoustic and archival tags to assess estuarine, nearshore, and offshore habitat utilization and movement by salmonids. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA- TM -NMFS- SWFSC -236. Kynard, B. and M. Kieffer. 2002. Use of a borescope to determine the sex and egg maturity stage of sturgeons and the effect of borescope use on reproductive structures. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18:505 -508. Kynard, B., M. Breece, M. Atcheson, M. Kieffer, and M. Mangold. 2007. Status of shortnose sturgeon in the Potomac River. Prepared for the National Park Service. Washington, D.C. 52p. Lai, H.L., V.F. Gallucci, D.R. Gunderson, and R.F. Donnelly. 1996. Age determination in fisheries: methods and applications to stock assessment. Pages 82 -178 in Gallucci, V.F., S.B. Saila, D.J. Gustafson, and B.J. Rothschild (eds.), Stock Assessment: Quantitative Methods and Applications for Small -Scale Fisheries. Lankford, S.E., T.E. Adams, R.A. Miller, and J.J. Cech, Jr. 2005. The cost of chronic stress: impacts of a nonhabituating stress response on metabolic variables and swimming performance in sturgeon. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 78(4):599 -609. LeBreton, G.T.O. and F.W.H. Beamish. 2004. Growth, bioenergetics and age. Pages 195 -216 in LeBreton, G.T.O., F.W.H. Beamish, and R.S. McKinley (eds.), Sturgeons and Paddlefish of North America. LeBreton, G.T.O. and F.W.H. Beamish. 2000. Suitability of lake sturgeon growth rings in chronology development. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129:1018 -1030. Mason Jr., W.T. and J.P. Clugston. 1993. Foods of the gulf sturgeon in the Suwannee River, Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:378 -385. 56 Matsche, M., and R. Bakal. 2008. General and reproductive health assessments of shortnose sturgeon with application to Atlantic sturgeon: anesthesia, phlebotomy, and laparoscopy. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Oxford, Maryland. 27 p. Mayfield, R.B. and J.J. Cech, Jr. 2004. Temperature effects on green sturgeon bioenergetics. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:961 -970. Moghim, M., A.R. Vajhi, A. Veshkini, and M. Masoudifard. 2002. Determination of sex and maturity in Acipenser stellatus by using ultrasonography. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18:325 -328. Mohler, J.W. 2003. Culture manual for the Atlantic sturgeon, Acipencer oxyrinchus oxyrinchus. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5, Hadley, Massachusetts. http: / /www. fws. gov/ northeast/ fisherycenter /pdfs /ASTCultureManual.pdf Morrow, J.V., J.P. Kirk, K.J. Killgore, and S.G. George. 1998. Age, growth, and mortality of shovelnose surgeon in the Lower Mississippi River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:725 -730. Moser, M.L. and S.T. Lindley. 2007. Use of Washington estuaries by subadult and adult green sturgeon. Environmental Biology of Fishes 79:243 -253. Moser, M.L., M. Bain, M.R. Collins, N. Haley, B. Kynard, J.C. O'Herron II, G. Rogers, and T.S. Squiers. 2000a. A protocol for use of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS- OPR -18. Moser, M.L., J. Conway, T. Thorpe, and J.R. Hall. 2000b. Effects of recreational electrofishing on sturgeon habitat in the Cape Fear River drainage. North Carolina Sea Grant 99- EP -06. 36p. Moser, M.L. and S.W. Ross. 1995. Habitat use and movements of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons in the lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:225 -234. Murie, D.J., and D.C. Parkyn. 2000. Development and implementation of a non - lethal method for collection of stomach contents from sturgeon related to diel feeding periodicity. Report to the Flordia Marine Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, St. Petersburg, FL. Musick, J.A. and C.H. Hager. 2007. Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus, restoration in Chesapeake Bay. Final Report to National Marine Fisheries Service. Grant Number NA06NMF4050068. 30p. Nakamoto, R.J., T.T. Kisanuki, and G.H. Goldsmith. 1995. Age and growth of Klamath River green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostrum). U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, funded by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Project Number 93- FP -13. 27p. Nellis, P., J. Munro, D. Hatin, G. Desrosiers, R.D. Simons, and F. Guilbard. 2007. Macrobenthos assemblages in the St. Lawrence estuarine transition zone and their potential as food for Atlantic sturgeon and lake sturgeon. American Fisheries Society Symposium 56: 105 -128. Nelson, T.C., W.J. Gazey, K.K. English, and N.L. Rosenau. 2004. Status of white sturgeon in the lower Frazier River: report on the findings of the lower Frazier River white sturgeon monitoring and assessment program, 1999 -2004. LGL, Limited, Environmental Research Associates. Vancouver, British Columbia. 97p. Nelson, T.C., W.J. Gazey, and K.K. English. 2007. Status of white sturgeon in the lower Frazier River: report on the findings of the lower Frazier River white sturgeon 57 monitoring and assessment program, 2006. Frasier River Sturgeon Conservation Society. Vancouver, British Columbia. 63p. Niklitshek, E.J. and D.H. Secor. 2009a. Dissolved oxygen, temperature and salinity effects on the ecophysiology and survival of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon in estuarine waters: I. Laboratory results. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology IN PRESS. Niklitshek, E.J. and D.H. Secor. 2009b. Dissolved oxygen, temperature and salinity effects on the ecophysiology and survival of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon in estuarine waters: II. model development and testing. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology IN PRESS. Niklitshek, E.J. and D.H. Secor. 2005. Modeling spatial and temporal variation of suitable nursery habitats for Atlantic sturgeon in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 64:135 -148. Niklitschek, E.J. 2001. Bioenergetics modeling and assessment of suitable habitat for juveniles Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon in the Chesapeake Bay. University of Maryland Ph.D. dissertation. 158p. Nilo, P., S. Tremblay, A Bolon, J. Dodson, P. Dumont, and R. Fortin. 2006. Feeding ecology of juvenile lake sturgeon in the St. Lawrence River system. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:1044 -1055. Paragamian, V.L. and R.C.P. Beamesderfer. 2003. Growth estimates from tagged white sturgeon suggest that ages from fin rays underestimate true age in the Kootenai River, USA and Canada. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:895 -903. Parkyn, D.C., D.J. Murie, D.E. Colle, and J.D. Holloway. 2006. Post - release survival and riverine movements of Gulf of Mexico sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Acipenseriformes) following induced spawning. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 22:1 -7. Parsons, G.R., J.J. Hoover, and K.J. Killgore. 2003. Effect of pectoral fin ray removal on station - holding ability of shovelnose sturgeon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:742 -747. Peterson, D.L. and J.D. Bezold. 2008. Comparing hatchery- reared (naive) and wild - caught (naturalized) juvenile lake sturgeon used in a radio telemetry study in the Coosa River system, Georgia - Alabama. Manuscript. Pirhonen, J. and C.B. Schreck. 2003. Effects of anesthesia with MS -222, clove oil, and CO2 on feed intack and plasma cortisol on steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture 220:507 -514. Ream, R.A., J.A. Theroit, and G.N. Somero. 2003. Influences of thermal acclimation and acute temperature change on the motility of epithelial wound - healing cells (keratocytes) of tropical, temperate and Antarctic fish. The Journal of Experimental Biology 206:4539 -4551. Redman, S.D., J.R. Meinertz, M.P. Gaikowski. 1998. Effects of immobilization by electricity and MS -222 on brown trout broodstock and their progeny. Progressive Fish Culturist 60:44 -49. Reine, K. 2005. An overview of tagging and tracking technologies for freshwater and marine fishes. DOER Technical Notes Collection, ERDC TN- DOER -E18, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Rien, T.A. and R.C. Beamesderfer. 1994. Accuracy and precision of white sturgeon age estimates from pectoral fin rays. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123:255 -265. Rien, T.A., R.C.P. Beamesderfer, and C.A. Foster. 1994. Retention, recognition, and effects on survival of several tags and marks for white sturgeon. California Fish and Game 80(4):161 -170. Rossiter, A., D.L.G. Noakes, and F.W.H. Beamish. 1995. Validation of age estimation for the lake sturgeon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:777 -781. Roubach, R. L.C. Gomes, F.A.L. Fonseca, and A.L. Val. 2005. Eugenol as an efficacious anaesthetic for tambaqui, Collosoma macropomum (Culvier). Aquaculture Research 36:1056 -1061. Safi, S., H.V. Roodsari, and M.R. Ahmadi. 2006. The effect of levamisole hydrochloride on survival of Persian sturgeon, Acipenser persicus, fry. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 22(suppl. 1):226 -230. Sardella, B.A., E. Sanmarti, and D. Kultz. 2008. The acute temperature tolerance of green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostrum) and the effect of environmental salinity. Journal of Experimental Zoology 309A:477 -483. Savoy, T.F. and J. Benway. 2004. Food habits of shortnose sturgeon collected in the lower Connecticut River from 2000 through 2002. American Fisheries Society Monograph 9:353 -360. Savoy, T. 2007. Prey eaten by Atlantic sturgeon in Connecticut waters. American Fisheries Society Symposium 56: 157 -165. Schaffter, R.G. 1997. White sturgeon spawning migrations and location of spawning habitat in the Sacramento River, California. California Fish Game 83:1 -20. Schueller, P. and D.L. Peterson. In Press. Abundance and recruitment of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon in the Altamaha River, Georgia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Secor, D.H. and T.E. Gunderson. 1998. Effects of hypoxia and temperature on survival, growth, and respiration of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus. Fishery Bulletin 96:603 -613. Secor, D.H. and E.J. Niklitschek. 2002. Sensitivity of sturgeons to environmental hypoxia: a review of physiological and ecological evidence. Pages 61 -78 in The Proceedings on the Sixth International Symposium on Fish Physiology, Toxicology, and Water Quality. La Paz, B.C.S. Mexico, January 22 -26, 2001. Shuman, D.A. and E.J. Peters. 2006. Evaluation of pulsed gastric levage on the survival of captive shovelnose sturgeon. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 23: 521 -524. Simpson, P.C. and D.A. Fox. 2006. Atlantic sturgeon in the Delaware River: contemporary population status and identification of spawning areas. Completion Report: Award NA05NMF4051093. 41p. Skalski, J., S. Smith, R. Iwamoto, J. Williams, and A. Hoffinann. 1998. Use of passive integrated transponder tags to estimate survival of migrant juvenile salmonids in the Snake and Columbia rivers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55:1484 -1493. Small, B.C. 2003. Anesthetic efficacy of metomidate and comparison of plasma cortisol responses to tricaine methanesulfonate, quinaldine and clove oil anesthetized channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). Aquaculture 218:177 -185. 59 Smith, T.I.J., S.D. Lamprecht, and J.W. Hall. 1990. Evaluation of tagging techniques for shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon. American Fisheries Society Symposium 7:134 -141. Sprague, C.R., L.G. Beckman, and S.D. Duke. 1993. Prey Selection by Juvenile White Sturgeon in Reservoirs of the Columbia River. Pages 229 -243 in R.C. Beamesderfer and A.A. Nigro (eds.), Status and Habitat Requirement of the White Sturgeon Populations in the Columbia River Downstream from McNary Dam, volume 2. Final Report of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Sterritt, D.A., S.T. Elliott, A.E. Schmidt. 1994. Electrical anesthesia for immobilizing adult coho salmon in freshwater. North American Journal of Fisheries Mangement 14:453 -456. Stevenson, J.T. and D.H. Secor. 1999. Age determination and growth of Hudson River Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus. Fisheries Bulletin 97:153 -166. Strange, R.J. and C.B. Schreck. 1978. Anesthetic and handling stress on survival and cortisol concentration in yearling Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tsha"tscha). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 35:345 -349. Sulak, K.J. and J.P. Clugston. 1999. Recent advances in life history of Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi, in the Suwannee River, Florida, USA: a synopsis. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 15:116 -128. Sulak, K.J. and J.P. Clugston. 1998. Early life history stages of Gulf sturgeon in the Suwannee River, Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:758- 771. Sulak, K.J. and M. Randall. 2002. Understanding sturgeon life history: enigmas, myths, and insights from scientific studies. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18:519 -528. Summerfelt, R.C. and L.S. Smith. 1990. Anesthesia, surgery, and related techniques. Pages 213 - 272 in C.B. Schreck and P.B. Moyle (eds.) Methods for fish biology. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Sutton, T.M. and A.C. Benson. 2003. Influence of external transmitter shape and size on tag retention and growth of juvenile lake sturgeon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:1257 -1263. Taubert, B.D. 1980. Reproduction of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in Holyoke Pool, Connecticut River, Massachusetts. Copeia 1980:114 -117. Thorsteinsson, V. 2002. Tagging methods for stock assessment and research in fisheries. Report of Concerted Action FAIR CT.96.1394 (CATAG), Reykjavik, Iceland. Marine Research Institute Technical Report (79). Tipping, J.M. and G.J. Gilhuly. 1996. Survival of electroanesthetized adult steelhead and eggs of fall chinook salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:469 -472. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Biological procedures and protocols for researchers and managers handling pallid sturgeon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Billings, Montana. Van Eenennaam, J.P., S.I. Doroshov, G.P. Moberg, J.G. Watson, D.S. Moore, and J. Linares. 1996. Reproductive conditions of the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) in the Hudson River. Estuaries 19(4):769 -777. 3111 Van Eenennaam, J.P. and S.I. Doroshov. 1998. Effects of age and body size on gonadal development of Atlantic sturgeon. Journal of Fish Biology 53:624 -637. Van Eenennaam, J.P., J. Linares - Casenave, X. Deng, and S.I. Doroshov. 2005. Effect of incubation temperature on green sturgeon embryos, Acipenser medirostris. Environmental Biology of Fishes 72:145 -154. Van Eenennaam, J.P., J. Linares - Casenave, J.B. Muguet, and S.I. Doroshov. 2008. Induced spawning, artificial fertilization, and egg incubation techniques for green sturgeon. North American Journal of Aquaculture 70:434 -445. Vecsei, P., M.K. Litvak, D.LG. Noakes, T. Rien, and M. Hochleithner. 2003. A noninvasive technique for determining sex of live North American sturgeon. Environmental Biology of Fishes 68:333 -338. Wagner, G.N., T.D. Singer, and R.S. McKinley. 2003. The ability of clove oil and MS- 222 to minimize handling stress in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum). Aquaculture Research 34:1139 -1146. Waldman, J.R., C. Grunwald, J. Stabile, and I. Wirgin. 2002. Impacts of life history and biogeography on the genetic stock structure of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus, Gulf sturgeon, A. oxyrinchus desotoi, and shortnose sturgeon, A. brevirostrum. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18:509 -518. Walker, M.K., E.A. Yanke, and W.H. Gingerich. 1994. Use of electronarcosis to immobilize juvenile and adult northern pike. The Progressive Fish - Culturist 56:237- 243. Wang, Y.L., F.P. Binkowski, and S.I. Doroshov. 1985. Effect of temperature on early development of white and lake sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus and A. fulvescens. Environmental Biology of Fishes 14(1):43 -50. Wanner, G.A., R.A. Klumb, W.J. Stancill, and G.R. Jordan. 2007. Habitat use and movement of adult pallid sturgeon in the Missouri River downstream of Fort Randall Dam, South Dakota and Nebraska. Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science 86(2007):21 -33. Wanner, G.A. 2006. Evaluation of a Gastric Lavage Method on Juvenile Pallid Sturgeon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26: 587 -591. Webb, M.A.H. and D.L. Erickson. 2007. Reproductive structure of the adult green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris, population in the Rogue River, Oregon. Environmental Biology of Fishes 79:305 -314. Webb, M.A.H., G.W. Feist, E.P. Foster, C.B. Schreck, and M.S. Fitzpatrick. 2002. Potential classification of sex and stage of gonadal maturity of wild white sturgeon using blood plasma indicators. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:132 -142. Wehrly, K.E. 1995. The effect of temperature on the growth of juvenile lake sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Research Report 2004, Lansing. Whiteman, K.W., V.H. Travnichek, M.L. Wildhaber, A. DeLonay, D. Papoulias, and D. Tillett. 2004. Age estimation for shovelnose sturgeon: a cautionary note based on annulus formation in pectoral fin rays. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:731 -734. Wildhaber, M.L., D.M. Papoulias, A.J. DeLonay, D.E. Tillitt, J.L. Bryan, and M.L. Annis. 2006. Development of methods to determine the reproductive status of pallid 61 sturgeon in the Missouri River. U.S. Geological Survey final report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 88p. Wildhaber, M.L. and J.L. Bryan. 2006. Ultrasonic and endoscopic examination of lower Missouri and lower Mississippi pallid sturgeon to determine sex and 2006 broodstock potential. U.S. Geological Survey report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 12p. Wilga, C.D. and G.V. Lauder. 1999. Locomotion in sturgeon: function of the pectoral fins. The Journal of Experimental Biology 202:2413 -2432. Winter. J.D. 1983. Underwater biotelemetry. Pages 371 -395 in L.A. Nielsen and D.L. Johnson (eds.) Fisheries techniques. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Ziegeweid, J.R., C.A. Jennings, D.L. Peterson. 2007. Thermal maxima for juvenile shortnose sturgeon acclimated to different temperatures. Environmental Biology of Fishes 82(3):299 -307. 62