[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 25, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31834-31854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10708]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2021-0073; FF09E22000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BF34
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Russian, Ship, Persian, and Stellate Sturgeon
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list four species of Eurasian sturgeon as endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Specifically, we are
proposing to list the Russian sturgeon (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii),
ship sturgeon (A. nudiventris), Persian sturgeon (A. persicus), and
stellate sturgeon (A. stellatus), all large fish native to the Black,
Azov, Aral, Caspian, and northern Aegean Sea basins and their rivers in
Europe and western Asia. This determination also serves as our 12-month
finding on a petition to list these four species. After a review of the
best scientific and commercial information available, we find that
listing all four species is warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list
the Russian, ship, Persian, and stellate sturgeon as endangered species
under the Act. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would add these
species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and extend
the Act's protections to the four species.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before July
25, 2022. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by July 11, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-HQ-ES-2021-0073,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of
the screen, under the Document Type heading,
[[Page 31835]]
check the Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a
comment by clicking on ``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-ES-2021-0073, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: This proposed rule and
supporting documents, including the species status assessment (SSA)
report, are available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS-HQ-ES-2021-0073.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Maclin, Chief, Branch of
Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-
3803; telephone, 703-358-2171. Individuals in the United States who are
deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial
711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay
services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay
services offered within their country to make international calls to
the point-of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rulemaking. Under the Act, if we determine
that a species is warranted for listing, we are required to promptly
publish a proposal in the Federal Register, unless doing so is
precluded by higher priority actions and expeditious progress is being
made to add and remove qualified species to or from the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Service will make a
determination on our proposal within 1 year. If there is substantial
disagreement regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of the available
data relevant to the proposed listing, we may extend the final
determination for not more than 6 months. Listing a species as an
endangered or threatened species can only be completed by issuing a
rule.
What this document does. We propose to list four species of
sturgeon--the Russian, ship, Persian, and stellate sturgeon--as
endangered species under the Act. Together, we refer to the species as
the ``Ponto-Caspian sturgeon,'' using the adjective that refers to the
Black and Caspian Sea regions in which all four species are found. If
finalized, the Act and our implementing regulations would prohibit with
respect to listed endangered species of fish or wildlife: Import;
export; take; possession and other acts with unlawfully taken
specimens; delivery, receipt, carriage, transport, or shipment in
interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the
course of a commercial activity; and sale or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce of the species and their parts and
products. It would also be unlawful to attempt to commit, to solicit
another to commit, or to cause to be committed any such conduct.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that habitat destruction and
loss due to construction of dams (Factor A), and to a lesser extent due
to pollution (Factor A), decades of overharvest for the caviar and
sturgeon meat trade (Factor B), ineffective fisheries regulation and
enforcement (Factor D), invasive species' impacts on sturgeon prey
(Factor E), and hybridization (Factor E) all put the four species at
risk of extinction.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other governmental agencies (including
those in the species' range countries), Native American Tribes, the
scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties
concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The biology, range, and population trends of the species,
including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends;
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, their
habitat, or both;
(f) Genetics and evolutionary capacity to adapt to changing
environments.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species,
which may include destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat
or range, overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations
that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species,
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
(5) The impacts (positive or negative) of commercial sturgeon
farming on conservation and restoration of the species, including:
(a) Ongoing efforts to restock wild populations using aquacultured
fish and the success or lack of success of these activities for
establishing self-sustaining wild populations;
(b) The degree to which commercial production of the species' meat
and caviar contributes to or relieves wild stocks from harvest
pressure;
(c) Whether and under what circumstances the production of the
species in commercial aquaculture continues to use wild-caught fish as
broodstock; and
(d) How the production and trade of interspecific hybrids with
parentage from the species affects conservation of the pure species in
the wild.
(6) Whether hybrid offspring produced from interspecific mating of
a Ponto-Caspian sturgeon species with a non-listed species should be
included in the listed (and therefore regulated) entity (see
``Hybridization'' under Summary of Biological Status and Threats
below).
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered
[[Page 31836]]
in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs
that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any
comments on that new information), we may conclude that any of the four
species is threatened instead of endangered, or we may conclude that
any of the four species does not warrant listing as either an
endangered species or a threatened species.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register at least 15 days before the hearing. For the immediate
future, we will provide these public hearings using webinars that will
be announced on the Service's website, in addition to the Federal
Register. The use of these virtual public hearings is consistent with
our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
On March 12, 2012, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
received a petition dated March 8, 2012, from Friends of Animals and
WildEarth Guardians to list the Russian, ship, Persian, and stellate
sturgeon and 11 related sturgeon species as endangered or threatened
species under the Act. Although the petition was initially sent to
NMFS, 10 of the 15 petitioned sturgeon species--including the Russian,
ship, Persian, and stellate sturgeon species--are under the
jurisdiction of the Service pursuant to an August 28, 1974, memorandum
of understanding between the Service and NMFS outlining our respective
jurisdictional responsibilities under the Act. On September 24, 2013,
we announced in the Federal Register (78 FR 58507) our 90-day finding
that the petition presented substantial scientific and commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for
these 10 sturgeon species.
This document constitutes our review and determination of the
status of the Russian, ship, Persian, and stellate sturgeon, our 12-
month finding on each of these species as required by the Act's section
4(b)(3)(B), and our proposed rule to list these species.
Supporting Documents
We prepared a species status assessment (SSA) report for the four
Ponto-Caspian sturgeon. The SSA analysis was led by a Service biologist
in consultation with other Service staff and species experts. The SSA
report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial
data available concerning the status of the species, including the
impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and
beneficial) affecting the species. In accordance with our joint policy
on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the
role of peer review of listing actions under the Act, we sought the
expert opinions of four appropriate specialists regarding the SSA and
received three responses.
I. Proposed Listing Determination
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
Ponto-Caspian sturgeon is presented in the SSA report (Service 2021,
pp. 11-23, available at https://www.regulations.gov). The following
discussion is a summary of the biological background on the species
from the SSA report.
Taxonomy
The Ponto-Caspian sturgeon are 4 of 27 species of sturgeon in the
family Acipenseridae (Fricke et al. 2019, not paginated). Based on a
review of the best available scientific information concerning current
taxonomic classification, we determined that all four Ponto-Caspian
sturgeon are valid entities for listing under the Act. Russian
(Acipenser gueldenstaedtii), ship (A. nudiventris), and stellate (A.
stellatus) sturgeon are all full species (Integrated Taxonomic
Information System (ITIS) 2020, not paginated; Fricke et al. 2019, not
paginated). As of 2021, ichthyological and general taxonomic
authorities continue to consider Persian sturgeon endemic to the
Caspian basin as a separate species (ITIS 2021, not paginated; Fricke
et al. 2019, not paginated; Esmaeli et al. 2018, p. 7), although it was
formerly considered a subspecies of Russian sturgeon until 1973
(Lukyanenko and Korotaeva 1973 cited in Gessner et al. 2010c, not
paginated).
Many sturgeon species can produce offspring from interspecific
mating events (Sergeev et al. 2019, p. 2; Havelka et al. 2011, entire;
Saber et al. 2015, entire), and Russian sturgeon can even breed with
fish of related families (Kaldy et al. 2020, entire). Such matings
occur in the wild and in captivity (e.g., Bronzi et al. 2019, pp. 259-
264; Billard and Lecointre 2000, p. 363).
Physical Description
All sturgeon have an elongate body form with a flattened underside
and downward-facing mouth. As adults, their bodies are at least
partially covered with bony plates and they have tactile barbels
hanging beneath the snout (Billard and Lecointre 2000, p. 363).
Sturgeon have small eyes--characteristic of species that live in their
low-light river- and lake-bottom habitats--and a cartilaginous skeleton
(Billard and Lecointre 2000, p. 363). Specific morphological
differences among Acipenseridae species are described in Billard and
Lecointre (2000, entire) and in the references within the sturgeon
family account in Fricke et al. 2019. Ponto-Caspian sturgeon attain
sexual maturity at around 1 meter (m) (3 feet (ft)) in length but can
grow to be 2-2.4 m (6-8 ft) long and to weigh 70-120 kilograms (kg)
(150-260 pounds (lb); table 1; Gessner et al. 2010a-c, not paginated;
Qiwei 2010, not paginated).
Range
The Ponto-Caspian sturgeon are native to rivers of more than 20
[[Page 31837]]
countries in the Black, Azov, Caspian, and Aral Sea basins (fig. 1-3;
table 1; Gessner et al. 2010a-c, not paginated; Qiwei 2010, not
paginated). Among the world's largest inland waterbodies (Kostianoy et
al. 2005, p. 1; Kideys 2002, p. 1482), the Black and Caspian Seas are
fed by rivers including Europe's two longest: The Danube, which flows
from Germany to Romania and into the Black Sea, and the Volga, which
runs 3,500 kilometers (km) (2,200 miles (mi)) through western Russia
into the Caspian. The Volga is the largest in the Caspian basin,
contributes 82 percent of freshwater discharge to the Caspian (Dumont
1995, p. 674), and formerly accounted for 75 percent of sturgeon
harvest in the Caspian Sea, primarily Russian and stellate sturgeon,
but also some ship and Persian sturgeon (Ruban and Khodorevskaya 2011,
p. 202; Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, p. 201). Together, discharge from the
Danube, Dnieper, and Dniester Rivers accounts for about 85 percent of
water entering the Black Sea (Sorokin 2002 cited in Kideys 2002, p.
1482).
Table 1--Geographic Range and Key Life-History Characteristics of Four Ponto-Caspian Sturgeon Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russian sturgeon Ship sturgeon Persian sturgeon Stellate sturgeon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Native sea basins............... Azov, Black, and More common Caspian basin, Azov, Black, and
Caspian Sea historically in esp. its southern Caspian Sea
basins. Caspian and Aral extent. basins.
than Black and
Azov Sea basins.
Countries inhabited (countries Armenia; Austria; Armenia; Armenia; Armenia; Austria;
with extirpated wild Azerbaijan; Azerbaijan; Azerbaijan; Iran Azerbaijan;
populations in italics; the Belarus; Bosnia & Bosnia & (Islamic Republic Belarus; Bosnia &
country with introduced and Herzegovina; Herzegovina; of); Kazakhstan Herzegovina;
established wild populations is Bulgaria; Bulgaria; CHINA; (Republic of); Bulgaria;
CAPITALIZED). Croatia; Hungary; Croatia; Georgia; Russian Croatia; Hungary;
Georgia; Germany; Hungary; Iran, Federation Georgia; Germany;
Iran (Islamic Kazakhstan (Russia); Iran (Islamic
Republic of); (Republic of); Turkmenistan. Republic of);
Kazakhstan Moldova; Russian Kazakhstan
(Republic of); Federation (Republic of);
Moldova; Romania; (Russia); Moldova; Romania;
Russian Romania; Serbia; Russian
Federation Turkey; Ukraine; Federation
(Russia); Serbia; Uzbekistan; (Russia); Serbia;
Slovakia; Turkey; Turkmenistan. Slovakia; Turkey;
Turkmenistan; Turkmenistan;
Ukraine. Ukraine.
Age at maturity, years (male/ 8-13/10-16........ 9/12-18........... 8-15/12-18........ 6-12/7-14.
female).
Reproductive frequency, years 2-3/4-6........... 1-2/2-3........... 2-4/2-4........... 2-3/3-4.
(male/female).
Maximum longevity (male/female). >50; now rarely 32................ 60-70; now rarely 41; now rarely
reaches 40, due reaches 40, due reaches 30, due
to harvest. to harvest. to harvest.
Female fecundity (mean # of 350,000........... 400,000-850,000; 320,000........... Up to 1.5 million.
eggs, varies with female body 10-22% of body
size). mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes on Table 1: Sources for information in the table are: Gessner, 2021, in litt.; World Sturgeon Conservation
Society (WSCS) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) 2018, p. 41; WWF 2012, not paginated; Gessner et al. 2010a-c, not
paginated; Qiwei 2010, not paginated; Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, p. 200; Billard and Lecointre 2000, pp. 357-
360; Putilina and Artyukhin 1985 cited in Khoshkholgh et al. 2013.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 31838]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25MY22.000
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Life History
All four Ponto-Caspian sturgeon species use both rivers and seas
(Billard and Lecointre 2000, pp. 371-374). Adults generally live and
feed in saline seas but migrate several hundred kilometers (and up to
2,000 km (1,200 mi) in the Volga River) upstream into freshwater
rivers--specifically the river in which they were born (Lagutov and
Lagutov 2008, p. 197)--to spawn. A small number of populations,
especially of ship sturgeon, live only in freshwater (WSCS and WWF
2018, p. 35; Billard and Lecointre 2000, p. 371).
Adult Ponto-Caspian sturgeon migrate into rivers in the spring or
fall, then spawn in late spring (Gessner et al. 2010a-c, not paginated;
Qiwei 2010, not paginated). Spawners that migrate in fall overwinter in
their river before spawning. After spawning, adults return to the sea
(Qiwei 2010c, not paginated).
If water temperature, flow, depth, turbidity, and cleanliness are
not appropriate, females will fail to lay eggs (Ruban et al. 2019, p.
389; Chebanov et al. 2011 cited in Friedrich et al. 2019, p. 1060).
Water temperatures are especially key to spawning success. Russian,
ship, and stellate sturgeon all prefer water of 8-16 [deg]C (Gessner et
al. 2010a, not paginated; Gessner et al. 2010b, not paginated, Qiwei
2010, not paginated), whereas Persian sturgeon breed beginning at 16
[deg]C and stop at 25 [deg]C (Gessner et al. 2010c, not paginated).
Eggs between 2 and 4 millimeters (0.1-0.2 inches) in diameter are
deposited in gravelly or sometimes sandy river bottoms (Billard and
Lecointre 2000, p. 360). Cool, flowing water is necessary to oxygenate
the eggs and avoid sediment accumulation (Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, p.
232). Depending on the species, a 50-kg (110-lb) female will lay from a
few hundred thousand to 1.5 million eggs (table 1).
Once eggs hatch (approximately 8-11 days post-spawning, dependent
on the species and the water temperature; Billard and Lecointre 2000 p.
360), larva drift downstream before settling among sediments while
using the energy reserves of their yolk sack (2-8 days depending on the
species; Billard and Lecointre 2000, p. 360). Fry then begin feeding;
they and juvenile sturgeon tend to use shallower areas than adults
(Gessner et al. 2010b, not paginated). Juvenile Russian sturgeon can
remain in their natal river for as long as 4 years before reaching the
sea (Khodorevskaya et al. 2009 cited in Ruban et al. 2019,
[[Page 31839]]
p. 389). Ship sturgeon also have a long period spent in freshwater as
juveniles (Gessner 2021, in litt.), but some Ponto-Caspian sturgeon may
spend only their first year in the river (Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, p.
199).
Ponto-Caspian sturgeons' high fecundity is balanced by very high
mortality of early life stages. Based on values for related species, it
is reasonable to expect that no more than 1 in 2,000 fish survive their
first year (Jaric and Gessner 2013, pp. 485-486; Jager et al. 2001, p.
351). Juvenile and adult sturgeon have much higher natural survival
rates (20-90 percent per year for several Acipenser spp.; Jaric and
Gessner 2013, pp. 485-486; Jager et al. 2001, p. 351), although mature
fish are heavily harvested for their roe, which is sold as caviar (see
Summary of Biological Status and Threats; Van Eenennaam et al. 2004, p.
302).
Ponto-Caspian sturgeon continue to grow and reach sexual maturity
after 6 to 22 years (table 1) with males reproducing one to a few years
earlier than females (Gessner et al. 2010a-c, not paginated; Qiwei
2010, not paginated). Most female sturgeon spawn every 2-4 years,
although Russian sturgeon females may wait up to 6 years between
spawning bouts (Gessner et al. 2010a-c, not paginated; Qiwei 2010, not
paginated). Sturgeons' long times to maturity and intervals between
reproductive bouts limit their capacities to rebound from population
declines.
Diet
Adult Ponto-Caspian sturgeon diets vary between species and
locations but generally include small fish, mollusks, worms, and
crustaceans (Billard and Lecointre 2000, p. 373; Polyaninova and
Molodtseva 1995 cited in Billard and Lecointre 2000, p. 374). In the
Caspian and Black Sea regions, this includes herring (Clupeidae),
gobies (Gobiidae), crabs (Brachyura), mysids (Mysidae), annelids, and
other taxa (Gessner et al. 2010a-c, not paginated; Qiwei 2010, not
paginated).
Population Biology
The viability of Ponto-Caspian sturgeon populations is highly
sensitive to:
Abundance of adult females in a population;
Adult sex ratio in the population;
Age of females at first reproduction;
Female fecundity (number of eggs laid);
Natural mortality rate of the youngest age classes;
Female spawning frequency; and
Adult mortality rate (Jaric et al. 2010, pp. 219-227).
Ponto-Caspian sturgeon likely have separate populations that travel
up and spawn within different rivers (Norouzi and Pourkazemi 2016, pp.
691-696; Norouzi et al. 2015, pp. 96-99; Khoshkholgh et al. 2013, pp.
33-35). This conclusion is reasonable because sturgeon return to breed
in their natal river (Gessner and Ludwig 2020, pers. comm.; Pikitch et
al. 2005, p. 243). Therefore, we assess the status of the four Ponto-
Caspian sturgeon species within each of the major rivers that they
presently inhabit or historically inhabited and consider each river to
hold a separate population of each inhabiting species.
Nonetheless, some data (e.g., some fisheries landing records) are
recorded for entire sea basins. In the absence of finer scale data, we
use these coarser records. Similarly, some authors indicate distinct
populations within rivers, delineated by their winter or spring
migration (Friedrich et al. 2019, p. 1060), but the strength of this
separation and its frequency across rivers is uncertain.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species. The
Act defines an endangered species as a species that is ``in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range'' and a
threatened species as a species that is ``likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we determine
whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species
because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species''
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in
the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the
Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to
depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a
[[Page 31840]]
particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future uses the
best scientific and commercial data available and should consider the
timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the species'
likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent a decision by
the Service on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act. However, it does
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions,
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and
its implementing regulations and policies. The following is a summary
of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA
report can be found at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2021-0073 on https://www.regulations.gov.
To assess Ponto-Caspian sturgeon viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry,
warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example,
climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a
species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to
sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental
conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species'
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the
individual, population, and species levels, and described the
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these
stages, we used the best available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory
decision.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and their resources, and the threats that influence the
species' current and future conditions to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to their viability.
Individual Ponto-Caspian sturgeon require well-oxygenated, low-
turbidity, unpolluted water for respiration (Ruban et al. 2019, p.
389). The species feed on larval insects, small mollusks, crustaceans,
and fish (Gessner et al. 2010a-c, not paginated; Qiwei 2010, not
paginated; Billard and Lecointre 2000, pp. 373-374). At the population
level, all four species rely on connectivity of feeding and spawning
grounds, usually several hundred kilometers (several hundred miles) or
more up the natal river (Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, p. 197; Billard and
Lecointre 2000, pp. 371-374). Successful spawning and reproduction is
dependent on having large areas of loose gravel substrate 2-25 m (6.6-
82 ft) below the surface to shelter eggs and embryos and with
sufficient interstitial flow for eggs to be oxygenated (Lagutov and
Lagutov 2008, p. 232; Billard and Lecointre 2000, pp. 360-361). The
viability of the species depends on having adaptive capacity to respond
ecologically and/or evolutionarily to changing environments. This is
partially related to population size and to the persistence of multiple
distinct, wide-ranging populations to reduce susceptibility to
catastrophes (Smith et al. 2018, pp. 304-305).
Dams and Other Hydrological Engineering
All major rivers in the Ponto-Caspian region are dammed. Nearly 100
dams at least 8 m (26 ft) tall are present in the Caspian and Aral Sea
Basins, and approximately 300 such dams dot the Black and Azov Sea
basins (Service 2021, pp. 22-28; GRanD 2019, not paginated; Lehner et
al. 2011, pp. 494-502). These dams are effectively impassable for
sturgeon, eliminating the fishes' ability to migrate to and from
spawning grounds upstream of such barriers (WSCS and WWF 2018, p. 48;
He et al. 2017, p. 12 and references therein; WWF 2016, p. 19;
Fashchevsky 2004, p. 185). Among the many impacts of large dams are
that fish that cannot reach their historical spawning grounds may not
reproduce successfully at downstream locations, and reduced water flow
may hinder proper navigation during migration (Gessner 2021, in litt.;
WSCS and WWF 2018, p. 48; He et al. 2017, p. 12 and references therein;
WWF 2016, p. 19; Fashchevsky 2004, p. 185).
As the foremost example, the Volgograd Dam was built on the Volga
River between 1958 and 1961, destroying access to 60-80 percent of the
river's Russian sturgeon spawning grounds and 40-60 percent of those
for stellate sturgeon (Vlasenko 1982 cited in Ruban et al. 2019, p.
389; Ruban and Khodorevskaya 2011, pp. 199-204; Fashchevsky 2004, p.
195). It is now the final dam of about 10 that impede the flow of the
Volga and its tributaries to the Caspian Sea (GRanD 2019, not
paginated; Lehner et al. 2011, pp. 494-502). As mentioned above, the
Volga River is the primary input to the Caspian Sea, historically
accounting for more than 80 percent of freshwater discharge (Dumont
1995, p. 674) and 75 percent of sturgeons harvested from the Caspian
Sea (Ruban and Khodorevskaya 2011, p. 202). Following the Volgograd's
completion, areas downstream of the dam became overcrowded, as fish
that once migrated farther upstream were forced to stop here (Slivka
and Pavlov 1982 cited in Ruban and Khodorevskaya 2011, p. 203). Up to
70 percent of eggs laid in these spawning grounds did not hatch
(Khoroshko 1972 and Novikova 1989 cited in Ruban and Khodorevskaya
2011, p. 203).
In the Volga's remaining spawning grounds downstream of the dam,
the annual sturgeon reproductive output now depends heavily on the
volume and timing of water released from the upstream reservoir
(Veshchev et al. 2012, entire). In the first 40 years of dam operation,
only 13 years saw the downstream spawning grounds flooded. In
relatively dry years, sturgeon numbers recruited into the population
can be six to seven times lower than in relatively wet years, although
productivity is greatly depleted in all years compared to before dam
construction (Khodorevskaya and Kalmykov 2014, p. 578).
The spring peak water levels in the Volga used to follow snowmelt
but now
[[Page 31841]]
follow the water release schedule of dam operators, creating a
compressed spring high-flow period (Fashchevsky 2004, p. 192). This
change forces juvenile sturgeon to migrate away from shallow spawning
grounds earlier than they naturally would and those that survive arrive
in the Caspian Sea at smaller size (Khodorevskaya et al. 2009 cited in
Ruban et al. 2019, p. 389), likely more susceptible to predation and
other threats. A lower volume spring flood also reduces the initial
size of spawning grounds and migration intensity, decreasing egg and
larval survival (Ruban et al. 2019, p. 389).
Managed water releases from the Volgograd dam for electricity
generation homogenize flows across the year, limiting flow relative to
natural spring peaks and increasing winter flow rates compared to the
pre-dam baseline. Up to 30 percent of Russian sturgeon that overwinter
below the dam fail to spawn after exhausting their energy reserves
fighting the high velocity of dam outflows (Altufiev et al. 1984 cited
in Ruban et al. 2019, p. 389).
Similar impacts of other dams are prevalent across the Ponto-
Caspian sturgeons' ranges. In the Caspian basin, fewer than 2,000
hectares (5000 acres) of spawning habitat remained in the Caspian's
major rivers as of 2008, with about 75 percent of what was left in the
Volga and Ural (Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, p. 230). Of the remaining 25
percent, two-thirds is in rivers where sturgeon failed to spawn for at
least 25 years (Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, p. 230). As another example
from the Black Sea basin, the Kakhov Dam was constructed on the Black
Sea's Dnieper River in Ukraine in the early 1950s; immediately
following its completion, the catch of migratory fish including Russian
and stellate sturgeon as well as beluga sturgeon (Huso huso) and
herring (Clupeida) fell by 80 percent (Fashchevsky 2004, p. 195).
The Danube River, responsible for over 50 percent of discharge to
the Black Sea, is another representative case of the extent and impacts
of damming in the Ponto-Caspian region. No fewer than 31 dams cross the
Danube (Friedrich et al. 2019, p. 1061; Bacalbasa-Dobrovici 1997, p.
201). The Iron Gates Dams built in 1970 and 1984 (Bacalbasa-Dobrovici
1997, p. 201) created an isolated and now extirpated population of
Russian sturgeon in the middle Danube (Billard and Lecointre 2000, p.
373). Danube Russian sturgeon fishery landings declined by 90 percent
in 1985, the year after the second of two Iron Gates Dams went into
place (Gessner et al. 2010a, not paginated).
To date, most fish passage structures built or retrofitted into
dams to aid fish movement past the barrier have been unsuccessful at
facilitating passage of sturgeon; slow-moving sturgeon rarely move
through fast-flowing spillways (Fashchevsky 2004, p. 185; Billard and
Lecointre 2000, p. 380). Such structures require low-flow resting pools
and wide berths, if they are to aid sturgeon migration (Cai et al.
2013, p. 153). In addition, long-stagnant reservoirs behind dams may be
low in oxygen and/or high in pollutants, either of which can confuse
migratory navigation (Gessner 2021, in litt.). Few concrete plans exist
to mitigate dam impacts, although planning for improved passage
opportunities at the Iron Gates Dam is underway (International
Commission for the Protection of the Danube River 2018, p. 9) and
regional action plans call for increased investment in research and
implementation of measures to improve river connectivity (e.g., WSCS
and WWF 2018, pp. 13-14, 21-22).
Dams are far from the only water-control structures engineered into
Ponto-Caspian rivers, and all of irrigation and pumping stations,
dredging, watercourse straightening, and water transfers between
waterbodies affect sturgeon. For instance, since the mid-1980s, 85
percent of floodplains in the lower Danube have been diked (Botzan 1984
cited in Bacalbasa-Dobrovici 1997, p. 203). Dikes increase water depths
and flow rates, which causes both migrating and recently hatched
sturgeon to struggle, and prevent water from entering the natural
floodplain, greatly reducing the availability of invertebrate prey for
sturgeon (WSCS and WWF 2018, p. 49).
Massive withdrawals for irrigation or drinking water can dry out or
alter the timing of flooding on spawning grounds; for instance, 40-60
percent of the Ural's discharge was diverted in the early 2000s,
although this river is actually better off than most in the region
because the lower 1,800 km (1,100 mi) has not been dammed (Lagutov and
Lagutov 2008, p. 197; Fashchevsky 2004, pp. 194-196). Still, water
levels have continued to drop in the Ural, due to intensive water use
for irrigation, industry, and drinking water (Trotsenko and Melnikova
2019, not paginated).
Water withdrawals from the inlets to the Aral Sea, where ship
sturgeon was native, have had particularly devastating impacts.
Beginning in the 1960s, diversion of water from the Syr-Darya and Amu-
Darya Rivers in what is now Kazakhstahn and Uzbekistan greatly limited
the volume of water entering the Aral Sea (Micklin 2007, entire). The
sea shrank from over 67,000 km\2\ (26,000 mi\2\) in 1960 to just over
14,000 km\2\ (5,400 mi\2\; nearly an 80 percent decline) by 2006
(Micklin 2007, p. 53). For at least 13 years (1974-1986), the Syr-Darya
dried up before reaching the Aral Sea, and the same was true of the
Amu-Darya for 5 years in the 1980s (Micklin 2007, p. 51). Extensive
restoration is unlikely given the value of continued water withdrawals
for agriculture (Micklin 2007, pp. 60-61). Moreover, dams in both the
Syr-Darya (just 20 km (12 mi) from its mouth) and the Amu-Darya block
the migration path to most former spawning sites (Ermakhanov et al.
2012, p. 6; Zholdasova 1997, p. 374).
Canals built for shipping access connect previously separate
waterways, shifting the composition of ecological communities of which
sturgeon are members. In the case of the Volga-Don navigational canal,
connection of these two rivers spread an invasive species, the western
Atlantic comb jelly Mnemiopsis leidyi, with grave environmental impact
(see Invasive species below; Ivanov et al. 2000, p. 255). Ship noise
and collisions in canals and elsewhere can also injure or kill sturgeon
and interrupt their migration and other behavior (WSCS and WWF 2018, p.
49; He et al. 2017, p. 9).
Overfishing and the Trade in Ponto-Caspian Sturgeon Caviar and Meat
Heavy fishing pressure has for several decades or even centuries
severely strained Ponto-Caspian sturgeon populations. Most data
supporting the historical impact of overfishing come from fisheries
landing records, and declines in commercial catch volume are widely
believed to reflect population size in sturgeon (Qiwei 2010, not
paginated). The black-market trade continues to negatively affect the
species in the wild, despite existing Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) regulations and
national and regional conservation agreements. Today, the primary
threat from trade is due to domestic trade in the species' range
states, although some international illegal trade likely still occurs.
History of Caspian Sea Sturgeon Fisheries
Commercial fisheries have long threatened the Ponto-Caspian
sturgeon (Khodorevskaya and Kalmykov 2014, p. 577; Ruban and
Khodorevskaya 2011, p. 199), and the threat stems primarily from lethal
harvest to meet consumer demand for caviar, as well as sturgeon
[[Page 31842]]
meat. Recent global caviar demand (from all sturgeon species) requires
production from well over 1.5 million fish annually (Service 2021, p.
28; Gessner 2021, in litt.; Gessner et al. 2002, p. 665), and sturgeon
overfishing is considered worst in the Ponto-Caspian (Reinartz and
Slavcheva 2016, p. 16).
Russian sturgeon--sometimes combined with Persian sturgeon due to
the historical taxonomic uncertainty--has been the most abundant
species in Caspian basin catches (around 50 percent of the fishery for
the four species assessed here plus beluga (Huso huso) and sterlet
(Acipenser ruthenus) in most years since at least 1930, primarily in
Russian waters; Ruban et al. 2011 entire; Ruban and Khodorevskaya 2011,
pp. 200-202), with stellate sturgeon the next most common (mostly from
Kazakh territory; Ruban and Khodorevskaya 2011, pp. 200-203). Ship
sturgeon has long accounted for minimal catch volume in the Caspian.
Overfishing led to a decline in sturgeon abundance and catch in the
Caspian as early as 1914 (Khodorevskaya and Kalmykov 2014, p. 577;
Korobochkina 1964 cited in Ruban and Khodorevskaya 2011, p. 199).
Although a reduction in fishing pressure during World War I and during
the Soviet revolution immediately thereafter allowed some stocks to
rebound, by the late 1930s, the average size of Russian sturgeon caught
had fallen by 50 percent from the period 1928-1930 (Ruban and
Khodorevskaya 2011, p. 199), an indicator of an over-exploited fishery
(Koshelev et al. 2014, pp. 1129-1130; Shackell et al. 2010, p. 1357;
McClenachan 2009a pp. 636-643; McClenachan 2009b, pp. 175-181). Smaller
females lay fewer eggs (Gessner 2021 in litt.), meaning a greater
number of fish were likely required to satisfy demand for wild-caught
caviar, and that the ability of wild populations to withstand harvest
was likely reduced. Quotas and minimum fish size limits imposed on
southern and central Caspian Sea sturgeon harvesting in 1938 combined
with a strong downturn in fishing during World War II (Service 2021,
figs. 3.5, 3.6) to allow limited recovery of sturgeon stocks (Ruban and
Khodorevskaya 2011, p. 199).
Over the ensuing three decades, sturgeon landings in the Caspian
generally rebounded to approximately 30,000 metric tons (33,000 U.S.
tons) annually in 1977, similar to the catch in 1914-1915 (but 40
percent less than the annual Volga River catch alone in the 1600s;
Korobochkina 1964 cited in Khodorevskaya and Kalmykov 2014, p. 577;
Ruban and Khodorevskaya 2011, p. 199). This recovery may have been
aided by a near-complete ban on sturgeon fishing in the Caspian Sea
that was in place during 1962-1965 (Ruban and Khodorevskaya 2011, p.
199; Abdolhay 2004, p. 137) . The increased catch may also have been
due to increased efficiency of fishing operations (Lagutov and Lagutov
2008, p. 212).
From the 1960s until the early 1980s, the Caspian fishery focused
intensely on harvesting spring migrants moving into rivers (Ruban and
Khodorevskaya 2011, p. 204). Despite the Volgograd Dam's impacts, the
Volga River remained the primary fishery location, accounting for 90
percent of all Soviet sturgeon harvest, with 80 to 95 percent of Volga
River spawners captured yearly (note that not all adults spawn each
year, so this is not 80-95 percent of all adults; Ruban and
Khodorevskaya 2011, p. 204).
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the economic hardships that
followed encouraged sturgeon poaching in the former Soviet territories
(Ruban and Khodorevskaya 2011, p. 204). By the late 1990s, the illegal
catch of all sturgeon species was estimated to be 6 to 10 times the
permitted fishery (CITES Animals Committee 2000, p. 47; Fashchevsky
2004, p. 186). Others estimate that the illicit catch may have been as
much as 35 times greater than the total legal catch (Bobyrev et al.
cited in Ruban et al. 2019, p. 389).
The fishery history in the Ural River parallels those of the Volga
and of the Caspian as a whole. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the
Ural River fishery was strictly controlled by the Cossack military
government (Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, p. 209). However, by the 1950s,
the Ural was heavily overfished (Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, p. 209) and
the 1962 Soviet ban on sturgeon fishing in the sea increased pressure
on the Ural River fishery (Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, p. 212), which was
dominated by stellate sturgeon (Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, p. 220).
The Ural River sturgeon catch (all species) peaked in the late
1970s at about 10,000 metric tons (11,000 U.S. tons), 30 percent of the
Caspian harvest (Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, p. 213). Thereafter, the
catch continuously declined to near-zero by the early 2000s (Lagutov
and Lagutov 2008, p. 213). In the late 1990s, as the Soviet collapse
encouraged increased poaching, up to 60 percent of spawning ship
sturgeon plus beluga sturgeon were caught in the Ural annually (Lagutov
and Lagutov 2008, p. 219). From 1993 through 2007, ever-shrinking
Kazakh quotas for sturgeon harvest in the Ural basin were generally not
met because too few fish remained (Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, p. 213).
Although 4-5 tons of ship sturgeon were caught per year in the Kura
River in the 1980s (Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, p. 227), the Terek, Kura,
and Sefid-Rud Rivers' fishery volumes never approached those of the
Volga and Ural (Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, p. 198). These rivers' fish
populations have similarly been fished to near-extirpation (Lagutov and
Lagutov 2008, p. 223).
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, sturgeon catches in the Caspian
began to collapse. From their peak of around 30,000 metric tons (33,000
U.S. tons) in the mid-1970s, landings of Russian, Persian, and stellate
sturgeon fell to 1,000-2,000 metric tons (1,100-2,200 U.S. tons) per
year by the early 2000s (Service 2021, figs. 3.5, 3.6). Although these
catch declines appear to mirror those in the 1930s and 1940s from which
sturgeon fisheries rebounded, there are important distinctions. The
drop in fisheries landings during the 1930s to 1940s were largely the
result of a strong downturn in fishing effort during World War II
(Service 2021, figs. 3.5, 3.6; Ruban and Khodorevskaya 2011, p. 199).
No analogous event occurred during the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Additionally, by the 1970s sturgeon populations were also heavily
impacted by dams constructed between World War II and the 1970s (see
Dams and other hydrological engineering), rendering a potential
recovery in numbers even less likely.
In response to declining landings, some types of fishing equipment
were banned seasonally n 1981 by Soviet authorities in portions of the
Volga, including upstream of Astrakhan and on Glavnyi Bank (Ruban and
Khodorevskaya 2011, p. 204). Still-stricter regulations began in 1986
(Ruban and Khodorevskaya 2011, p. 204), but the Caspian basin catch
continued crashing fast, largely due to increased poaching and
overfishing in both the sea itself and in rivers (Ruban and
Khodorevskaya 2011, pp. 200-201, 204).
Overall, Caspian Sea sturgeon landings declined by more than 95
percent from their 1977 peak to 2003, when only about 1,000-2,000
metric tons (1,100-2,200 U.S. tons) were captured in the Caspian basin
(Ruban and Khodorevskaya 2011, p. 200). This amount is 2 percent of the
volume caught in just the Volga River in the 1600s and just over 3
percent of that caught a little over a century ago (Khodorevskaya and
Kalmykov 2014, p. 577; Korobochkina 1964 cited in Ruban
[[Page 31843]]
and Khodorevskaya 2011, p. 199; Ruban and Khodorevskaya 2011, p. 199).
History of Aral Sea Sturgeon Fisheries
From 1928 through 1935, 3,000-4,000 metric tons (3,300-4,400 U.S.
tons) of ship sturgeon were harvested from the Aral Sea basin annually
(Zholdasova 1997, p. 379). Following decimation of the region's ship
sturgeon stock by the introduced parasite Nitzschia (see Disease
below), the fishery was closed from 1940 until at least 1960, and
resumed only at very low levels (0.7-9 metric tons (0.8-1.0 U.S. tons)
per year; Zholdasova 1997, p. 379). From the 1970s on, intensive
illegal fishing caused the extirpation of the population, and by 1984
no Aral basin fishery remained (Zholdasova et al. 1997, pp. 376-379).
History of Black and Azov Sea Sturgeon Fisheries
As in the Caspian Basin's Volga River, sturgeon catch records
indicate prodigious volumes of the fish were caught in the Black Sea
basin several centuries ago. Remarkably, in 1548, the Vienna, Austria,
fish market once sold 50,000 metric tons (55,000 U.S. tons) of sturgeon
from the Danube River (including the four species assessed here plus
sterlet, beluga, and European sturgeon) in just a few days (Krisch 1900
cited in Friedrich et al. 2019, p. 1060). However, large sturgeon were
already rare in the middle and upstream portions of the Danube by the
1800s (Heckel and Kner 1858 and Schmall and Friedrich 2014 cited in
Friedrich 2019, p. 1060) with population declines due to overfishing
underway (Bacalbasa-Dobrovici 1997, p. 202).
Sturgeon fishing on Romania's portion of the lower Danube was
tightly controlled beginning with Communist rule in 1947, but even so,
the catch declined precipitously during the second half of the 20th
century. Whereas nearly 300 metric tons (330 U.S. tons) of sturgeon
(all species) were caught in 1960 and 1965, this amount fell to less
than 25 metric tons (28 U.S. tons) by 1990 (Bacalbasa-Dobrovici 1997,
p. 203). Similar catastrophic declines in catch volume occurred on the
Ukranian Danube, with almost no fish caught by 2000 (Reinartz et al.
2020a, p. 8).
The abundances of Russian, ship, and stellate sturgeon have all
declined greatly in the lower Danube (Bacalbasa-Dobrovici 1997, p.
203). Historically, fishing was done with hooklines, but the
introduction of large nets was a game-changer; one fisherman called
them ``endless fences in the Black Sea'' (Luca et al. 2020, not
paginated). Despite the much-decreased catch, by 2000, over 80 fishing
sites remained along many hundreds of kilometers (hundreds of miles) of
the Romanian Danube (Suciu 2008, p. 11). However, by 2006, no
commercial fishing of sturgeon was permitted in the country (Suciu
2008, p. 17).
Trawl nets in the Danube estuary and surrounding seabed destroyed
bottom habitats (Bacalbasa-Dobrovici 1997, pp. 205-206). Compared to
the 1930s, by the 1980s, over two-thirds of river-bottom species and
about 60 percent of their abundance had been lost; many of these are
sturgeon prey items (Bacalbasa-Dobrovici 1997, pp. 205-206).
In the Kizilirmak and other Turkish Rivers, overfishing coupled
with dams led to a collapse of the fishery in the 1970s (Memis 2014, p.
1552). Whereas legal Turkish sturgeon landings (all sturgeon species)
were as high as 300 metric tons (330 U.S. tons) in the early 1960s,
this volume dropped to just 4 metric tons (4.4 U.S. tons) in 1979
(Memis 2014, p. 1555). Despite a ban since 1980 on catching Ponto-
Caspian sturgeon above 140 centimeters (4 ft 7 in) in length, illegal
fishing continued to reap up to 15 metric tons (17 U.S. tons) of all
sturgeon species from nearby coastal fisheries annually in the 1990s
(Memis 2014, p. 1555). Illegal fishing is said to have slowed, then
ceased in 2005 (Memis 2014, p. 1555), although it is not clear whether
this is because of better enforcement or the exhaustion of the sturgeon
population. By the late 1990s, as in the Caspian Sea, the illegal catch
of all sturgeon species in the Black and Azov Sea basins was estimated
to be 6 to 10 times greater than the legal fishery (CITES Animals
Committee 2000, p. 47; Fashchevsky 2004, p. 186).
Few historical sturgeon data specific to the Dnieper, Southern Bug,
Dniester, and Rioni Rivers are available. However, the Ponto-Caspian
sturgeon populations are much reduced in these rivers, where they also
were not as abundant to begin with (Vecsei 2001, p. 362; Fauna and
Flora International 2019a, entire).
Invasive Species
The warty comb jelly (Mnemiopsis leadyi) is a western Atlantic
ctenophore (a comb jelly) and is by far the invasive species with the
greatest impacts on the Ponto-Caspian sturgeon and their habitats.
First documented in the Black Sea (Pereladov 1983 cited in Ivanov et
al. 2000, p. 255) in 1982, the warty comb jelly was widespread and
native in western hemisphere estuaries, but has had vast impacts on
Ponto-Caspian food webs, including on sturgeon by reducing prey
abundance (Shiganova et al. 2019, entire; Kamakin and Khodorevskaya
2018, entire; Ivanov 2000, entire). The warty comb jelly was very
likely introduced to the Black Sea in ship ballast water and then
spread and multiplied prolifically (Ivanov et al. 2000, p. 255).
By 1988, the biomass of the warty comb jelly in the Black Sea
ballooned to 1.1 billion metric tons (1.2 billion U.S. tons), greater
than all the fish caught worldwide that year (Sorokin et al. 2001 cited
in Ivanov et al. 2000, p. 255). It spread through the Black Sea where
it flourished and was found at densities as high as 21,000 individuals
per m\2\ (2,000 per ft\2\; Mirsoyan et al. 2006 cited in Shiganova and
Shirshov 2011, p. 35).
The warty comb jelly feeds on zooplankton, floating fish eggs (not
those of sturgeon, which adhere to the benthos), and fish larva
(Tzikhon-Lukanina et al. 1993 cited in Ivanov et al. 2000, p. 256). In
a single day, warty comb jelly individuals may ingest over 10 times
their own body mass (Kremer 1979 cited in Ivanov et al. 2000, p. 256).
The warty comb jelly blooms in both the Black and Azov Seas caused
zooplankton abundance to decrease dramatically and pelagic fish stocks
to crash because of both direct predation and the loss of their
zooplankton prey (Shiganova and Bulgakova 2000 cited in Ivanov et al.
2000, p. 256). The pelagic fish impacted include mackerel, anchovy, and
kilka, several species of which are favored sturgeon prey (Gessner et
al. 2010a-c, not paginated; Qiwei 2010, not paginated).
In 1997, another jelly species, Beroe ovata, was deliberately
introduced to the Black Sea as a biocontrol for the warty comb jelly.
B. ovata is a predator of the warty comb jelly in their native range
and has considerably reduced the abundance of the warty comb jelly in
the Black Sea (Shiganova et al. 2019, p. 434). Although B. ovata
depresses the abundance of the warty comb jelly, there is an annual lag
in the abundance of B. ovata, so there remains a short 1-2-month period
each year in which the warty comb jelly has pronounced effects on the
Black Sea food web, reducing sturgeon prey availability (Shiganova and
Shirshov 2011, p. 89).
By 1999, the warty comb jelly was also confirmed from the Caspian
Sea (Ivanov et al. 2000, pp. 255-256). The species likely moved from
the Sea of Azov through the human-made Volga-Don canal into the Caspian
basin (Ivanov et al. 2000, p. 255). The abundance of the warty comb
jelly grew more than 200-fold from 1999 to 2009, peaking near 300
individuals per m\2\ (28 per ft\2\) in the middle and southeastern
portions of the Caspian (Kamakin and
[[Page 31844]]
Khodorevskaya 2018, p. 174), although some authors report as many as
8,085 warty comb jellies per m\2\ (751 per ft\2\) in the same region
(Shiganova and Shirshov 2011, p. 36). The warty comb jelly tended to be
least abundant in the cooler areas of the Caspian, including the north
in winter and the central east (Shiganova and Shirshov 2011, p. 40).
The eastern region was first invaded to a considerable degree only in
2008 (Shiganova and Shirshov 2011, p. 41).
The warty comb jelly impacts on the Caspian ecosystem have been
greater than those in the Black Sea (Shiganova and Shirshov 2011, p.
44). Caspian zooplankton abundance crashed by up to 90 percent, and
mollusk larva--which grow into important sturgeon prey--disappeared
from major sturgeon feeding grounds (Kamakin and Khodorevskaya 2018, p.
173; Shiganova and Shirshov 2011, p. 51). In the northern Caspian,
crustacean biomass was halved as warty comb jellies ate their
planktonic larvae (Shiganova and Shirshov 2011, p. 52); in the south,
crustaceans were nearly eliminated after having once been the dominant
benthic taxa and sturgeon food item (Shiganova and Shirshov 2011, p.
53).
As in the Black and Azov Seas, Caspian Sea planktivorous fish
declined heavily, due to both direct predation of eggs by the warty
comb jelly and the loss of their zooplankton prey (Kamakin and
Kohodoreskaya 2018, p. 175). In particular, several herring species
(Clupeonella spp.) that previously formed a major component of sturgeon
diets became rare, likely declining by 90 percent or more (Shiganova
and Shirshov 2011, pp. 53-59).
As in the Black Sea, releasing B. ovata in the Caspian would likely
help ameliorate warty comb jelly impacts on sturgeon and the broader
food web (Shiganova and Shirsov 2011, pp. 105-113), although B. ovata
may be limited to the southern edge of the northern Caspian because
salinity is too low farther north (Shiganova and Shirshov 2011, p.
104). No release of B. ovata has yet occurred in the Caspian, to our
knowledge.
Approximately 60 other nonnative species are present in the Caspian
Basin (Shiganova and Shirshov 2011, p. 31). For instance, sturgeon
feeding grounds are periodically colonized by invasive shellfish and
polychaete worms (Ruban et al. 2019, p. 390). Whether sturgeon consume
these as readily as they do native invertebrates is not known.
Regardless, no nonnative species are considered nearly as consequential
for sturgeon as is the warty comb jelly.
Pollution
Most Ponto-Caspian rivers and all four sea basins discussed here
have been polluted to a considerable degree. While the vast range of
impacts of the many different contaminants and their range of
concentrations are not completely known, pollution most strongly
affects eggs, embryos, young juveniles, and maturing and reproducing
adults (WSCS and WWF 2018, p. 50); adults feeding in seas between
reproductive bouts may be somewhat less susceptible. Because sturgeon
live near sea and river bottoms, they are exposed to organic pollutants
(e.g., polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs)) and heavy metals that
accumulate in sediments and in the bottom-dwelling animals that
sturgeon feed on (Kasymov 1994 cited in He et al. 2017, p. 10; Billard
and Lecointre 2000, p. 366; Kocan et al. 1996, p. 161). Heavy metals,
organochlorine compounds, and hydrocarbons can all accumulate in
sturgeon tissues where they can cause disorders including but not
limited to organ and reproductive failure (Jaric et al., 2011,
Luk'yanenko and Khabarov 2005, and Poleksic et al. 2010 cited in
Friedrich et al. 2019, pp. 1061-1062; WSCS and WWF 2018, p. 50; Gessner
et al. 2010a, not paginated).
The Volga River has been heavily polluted since the 1980s and 1990s
when 500-1,100 percent increases in the concentration of several heavy
metals, some of which vastly exceeded Soviet and Russian maximum
allowable concentrations (MACs; Makarova 2000 and Andreev et al. 1989
cited in Ruban et al. 2019, p. 389). River water quality was said to be
``unsatisfactory'' for aquatic species (Moiseenko et al. 2011, p. 21).
Petroleum compounds accumulated in the river's sediments, surpassing
MACs by 300-700 percent on Russian sturgeon spawning grounds (Andreev
et al. 1989 and Khoroshko et al. 1997 cited in Ruban et al. 2019, p.
389). Heavy metals passed into sturgeon livers, kidneys, and spleens
(Ruban et al. 2019, p. 389) and caused measurable physiological,
reproductive, and morphological pathologies in bream (Abramis brama), a
fish species used as an indicator of pollution impacts (Moiseenko et
al. 2011, pp. 13-20). In sturgeon, eggshells were weakened, and
muscular abnormalities were observed (Moiseenko et al. 2011, p. 2).
There is no indication of material improvement in Volga River water
quality since the 1980s.
In contrast, pollution is a relatively limited problem in the Ural
River, because the human population in the region is relatively sparse
(Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, p. 246). Still, upstream portions of the
river (especially within Cheliabinsk Oblast, Russia) may be highly
polluted by industrial and agricultural inputs (Lagutov 2008, p. 148),
which could potentially affect sturgeon or their food resources
downstream.
Pollution in the Kura River is not well studied but is due to
poorly treated municipal and industrial wastewater, agricultural and
urban runoff, and mining residue (Bakradze et al. 2017, entire).
Eutrophication (the process by which waters lose oxygen following
extreme plant growth triggered by excessive nutrient inputs) appears
not to be at emergency levels (Bakradze et al. 2017, p. 369). Heavy
metal concentrations are elevated in upstream portions of the Kura,
relative to other regional rivers; however, the Mingachevir dam and
reservoir prevent most such pollution from entering the lower 200-plus
km (120-plus mi) of river (Suleymanov et al. 2010, pp. 306-311). The
Terek and Sefid-Rud Rivers may not have problematic levels of pollution
(Askhabova et al. 2019, p. 557; Askhabova et al. 2018, p. 213), but the
evidence base is not as complete for these rivers.
In the Azov Basin, the Don River receives considerable volumes of
heavy metals and petroleum byproducts (e.g., Dotsenko et al. 2018,
entire; Sazykin et al. 2015, pp. 6-10), as do parts of the Kuban (Qdais
et al. 2018, pp. 821-823). Since the 1970s, river inputs of nitrogen
and phosphorus to the Azov have led to eutrophication in both rivers
(Strokal and Kroeze 2013, p. 190). However, the degree to which
pollution and eutrophication are affecting sturgeon health in the Azov
basin is poorly characterized. That said, in 1990, 55,000 sturgeon of
unspecified species composition were found dead along the shores of the
Azov Sea, apparently due to pollution (Gessner et al. 2010a, not
paginated). The event very likely killed even more fish that did not
wash ashore.
The Dniester, Dnieper, and especially Danube Rivers in the northern
Black Sea basin were all subject to large increases (300-700 percent)
in nutrient and organic matter loading between the 1950s and 2000
(Bacalbasa-Dobrovici 1997, p. 205; Strokal and Kroeze 2013, p. 188).
These increases typically resulted from fertilizer runoff and
wastewater discharge and caused eutrophication that increased turbidity
and decreased the availability of sturgeon prey (Zaitzev 1992 and 1993
cited in Bacalbasa-Dobrovici 1997, p. 205). Oxygen concentrations
crashed, making several thousand square kilometers (over 1,000 square
miles)
[[Page 31845]]
between the Danube and Dniester deltas unable to support fish between
1973 and 1990 (Bacalbasa-Dobrovici 1997, p. 206). The so-called ``dead
zones'' killed many of the benthic mollusks that sturgeon prey on
(Strokal and Kroeze 2013, p. 179). In 2000, 14,000 km\2\ (5,400 mi\2\)
in the northern Black Sea (approximately 3 percent of the sea) was
hypoxic, although nutrient inputs to the region have decreased since
the 1970s and are forecast to continue decreasing (Strokal and Kroeze
2013, pp. 179, 190). Clear data on more recent trends in Dnieper water
quality are not available, to our knowledge.
Overall, pollution impacts on sturgeon in the Danube are considered
severe (Banaduc et al. 2016, p. 144). Along the lower Danube River in
Romania, a centuries-long history of deforestation has eroded
riverbanks; consequently, water turbidity and sedimentation of
sturgeons' gravel spawning grounds has increased (Bacalbasa-Dobrovici
1997, p. 203). In other sturgeon species, high sediment loads limit egg
development (Li et al. 2012, p. 557); very likely the Ponto-Caspian
sturgeon experience similar effects of sedimentation. Heavy metals
accumulate in muscle and liver tissues of Danube River stellate and
Russian sturgeon over time, and migrants that overwinter in the river
for several months are likely exposed to heavily polluted fine
sediments (Wachs 2000; Onara et al. 2013, p. 93).
Heavy metals from industry and the removal of gravel for sand
mining have degraded spawning grounds in the Kizilirmak and Sakarya
Rivers (Memis et al. 2019, pp. 53-59). Moreover, fast-increasing human
population density, fertilizer use, and sewage outflows mean the
southern Black Sea rivers are experiencing moderate pollution (Tiril
and Memis 2018, pp. 142-143; Jin et al. 2013, p. 104) and are likely to
see increasing nutrient inputs and eutrophication in the near future
(Strokal and Kroeze 2013, pp. 186-187). Half the length of Turkey's
Yesilirmak River was classified in 2008 as ``polluted'' or ``highly
polluted'' with no clear trend since 1995 (Jin et al. 2013, pp. 111-
114).
In Turkey's Coruh River, it is unclear the extent to which sturgeon
are imperiled by pollution, but there is significant impairment of
water quality due to heavy metals that leach from copper and gold mines
and nutrient pollution from sewage and agriculture (Bayram 2017,
entire; Secrieru et al. 2004, entire).
In the eastern part of the Black Sea basin, the Rioni River,
especially its lower and middle reaches, is impacted by wastewater,
persistent industrial organochlorine compounds, and mining residues
(Global Water for Sustainability Program, Florida International
University 2011, pp. 22-25), although the degree of the pollution and
its effects on sturgeon are not well known.
In the northern Aegean Basin, the sediments of the Evros River are
moderately to heavily polluted with heavy metals (Karaouzas et al.
2021, entire), and several industrial centers are likely discharging
other pollutants in the river's upstream catchment (Nikolaou et al.
2008, pp. 309-310). However, it is unclear the extent to which this
pollution contributed to the extirpation of stellate sturgeon from the
river. The Struma receives organohaline and petrochemical pollutants in
volumes sufficient to consider the river to have poor water quality
(Litskas et al. 2012, entire), but the specific impacts on sturgeon are
uncertain.
The Amu-Darya and Syr-Darya Rivers, which formerly entered the Aral
Sea, were heavily polluted with agricultural and industrial chemicals
from the 1970s to 1990s (Zholdasova 1997, pp. 374-375), as the ship
sturgeon population was extirpated (Aladin et al. 2018, p. 2077;
Ermakhanov et al. 2012, p. 4). Concentrations of phenols, nitrates, and
heavy metals were all above Soviet MACs in the lower and middle Amu-
Darya in 1989-1990, with especially polluted conditions at downstream
locations. There, several such contaminants were present at dozens of
times their MACs (Zholdasova 1997, p. 375). The massive evaporation
that occurred in the Aral Sea and its inlets greatly increased
dissolved mineral contents and salinity (up from 10 to 38 parts per
thousand in 1961) to levels avoided by and even intolerable to
sturgeon.
The Syr-Darya remains heavily polluted today. Intensive use of
fertilizer and pesticides in the basin, especially for cotton farming,
have made the water unsafe for fisheries (Taltakov 2015, pp. 137-138).
Water withdrawals for irrigation have caused increased salinity of the
remaining river water (Taltakov 2015, p. 137). Some warn that it will
take over a decade to have safe water in the river, if and when
cleaning begins (Taltakov 2015, pp. 135-138).
Climate Change
When and how progressing climate change will affect the species is
uncertain. Global climate models (Karger et al. 2018, not paginated;
Karger et al. 2017, entire) indicate that by 2041-2060 mean annual air
temperature in the Caspian, Black, and Aral Sea basins will increase by
2-3 [deg]C relative to the mean for the period 1979-2013 (Service 2021,
pp. 50-52, 101-102). Precipitation projections over the same time
period are less certain. The eastern Aral Sea basin may see slightly
more precipitation, and the region between the Black and Caspian Seas
is expected to become drier, as is that south of the Black Sea (Service
2021, pp. 50-52, 101-102). However, projections for most of the region
indicate little directional change (Service 2021, pp. 50-52, 101-102).
Water in the remaining accessible spawning grounds will also become
warmer, with potentially positive or negative effects on sturgeon
reproduction. Surface waters (0-2-m depth) warm quickly in response to
air temperature (McCombie 1959, pp. 254-258), and air temperatures in
upstream regions of the Volga have warmed by up to 0.5 [deg]C per
decade since 1971 (Bui et al. 2018, p. 499). The lower Danube River is
projected to warm by up to 1 [deg]C by the year 2100 relative to 1961-
1990 (van Vliet et al. 2013, p. 5). For deeper waters where sturgeon
breed and feed, the exact concurrence between regional warming of air
temperatures and local warming of water is uncertain, at least in
calmer water where turbulence does not create mixing.
Increased water temperatures could eventually halt reproduction
because Russian, ship, and stellate sturgeon spawn at 8-16 [deg]C,
whereas Persian sturgeon prefer warmer water of 16-25 [deg]C (Gessner
et al. 2010a, not paginated; Gessner et al. 2010b, not paginated,
Gessner et al. 2010c, not paginated; Qiwei 2010, not paginated).
Juvenile sturgeon may also struggle to survive in water above 25 [deg]C
(WSCS and WWF 2018, p. 51). For the most northerly Ponto-Caspian rivers
including the Volga, daily mean temperatures rarely exceed 17 [deg]C as
of 2015 (Bui et al. 2018, p. 499), but the central and southern rivers
are warmer (e.g., Danube and Sefid-Rud: Gessner et al. 2010c, not
paginated; Bonacci et al. 2008, p. 1016). It is unclear whether Ponto-
Caspian sturgeon have the adaptive potential to shift their breeding
phenology to match shifting temperatures, but temperature cues
influence timing of spawning in other sturgeon (Bruch and Binkowski
2002, entire) and anadromous fish (Lombardo et al. 2019, entire).
In contrast, warming might speed Ponto-Caspian sturgeon growth and
maturation, as it does for other sturgeon species (Krykhtin and
Svirskii 1997, pp. 234-237; Nilo et al. 1997, p. 778). Any such
benefits are likely to be of minimal impact to populations, given the
ongoing and much greater negative impacts of dams and overfishing.
[[Page 31846]]
It is also uncertain whether increasing temperatures are the aspect
of climate change to which Ponto-Caspian sturgeon are most sensitive.
For instance, in the Caspian basin, increased evaporation is expected
to continue causing a decrease in sea level, with consequent loss of
shallow feeding areas (Chen et al. 2017, p. 6999), although increased
rainfall may partially counterbalance this net decline in some years
(Chen et al. 2017, p. 6999). Warmer water also holds less oxygen, and
other sturgeon species outside the Ponto-Caspian region are projected
to experience high enough water temperatures, and consequently low
enough oxygen concentrations, to limit habitat availability as climate
change progresses (Lyons et al. 2015, p. 1508; Hupfeld et al. 2015, pp.
1197-1200). We are not aware of studies assessing this possibility for
Ponto-Caspian sturgeon, specifically.
Several rivers in the Ponto-Caspian sturgeons' ranges are fed by
either snowmelt or glaciers. In the case of the Amu-Darya River,
climate change progression is expected to speed glacier melting,
creating an increase in year-to-year variability of river flow over the
next few decades, followed by a decrease in flow when the glaciers are
exhausted and snow is less abundant, possibly by the end of this
century (White et al. 2014, p. 5274; Savitskiy et al. 2008, pp. 337-
338). For the Syr-Darya, which is primarily snow-fed, increased
temperatures are projected to limit snowfall and speed snowmelt,
leading to reduced river flow and an earlier spring peak in flow
(Savitskiy et al. 2008, pp. 337-338). Still, dams and irrigation are by
far the main causes of flow decrease in the Aral Sea basin (White et
al. 2014, p. 5268).
Disease
Although historically important to some populations, disease and
parasites do not currently present Ponto-Caspian sturgeon with nearly
the magnitude of threats posed by overfishing and dams (WSCS and WWF
2018, entire; Reinartz and Slavcheva 2016, entire; Gessner et al.
2010a-c, Qiwei 2010, not paginated). In 1934, 90 stellate sturgeon were
transplanted into the Aral Sea, where only the ship sturgeon among the
four Ponto-Caspian sturgeon taxa was native (Bauer et al. 2002, p.
422). The stellate sturgeon brought with them the monogeneid parasite
Nitzschia sturionis, to which ship sturgeon lacked immune defenses
(Bauer et al. 2002, pp. 422-423). The ship sturgeon population was
decimated; people reported fish jumping out of the water and dying on
the adjacent beaches (Bauer et al. 2002, p. 422). We are not aware of
any additional N. sturionis outbreaks since 1934, and the ship sturgeon
was extirpated from the Aral Sea basin in the 1980s. The SSA report has
information on additional diseases and parasites affecting Ponto-
Caspian sturgeon, although we do not determine any to be a current
threat of even moderate magnitude for any of the four species (Service
2021, pp. 49-50).
Hybridization
Two processes can lead to hybridization among sturgeon species,
which hinders the maintenance of species' distinct genetic character
and potentially dilutes locally adapted evolutionary capacity. First,
natural matings produce interspecific sturgeon hybrids that compose up
to 3 percent of juveniles in the Volga River between 1965 and 1995;
whether these hybrids mature and reproduce is unclear (Billard and
Lecointre 2000, p. 363), but even the production of sterile individuals
is wasted reproductive output by the parental fish (Allendorf et al.
2001, p. 616).
Second, sturgeon and their close relatives produced in commercial
aquaculture sometimes escape aquaculture facilities and colonize wild
Ponto-Caspian sturgeon habitats where interspecific hybridization can
occur. For example, nonnative sturgeon and American paddlefish
(Polyodonta spathula) may occasionally hybridize with Russian sturgeon
as they escape from aquaculture facilities along the Danube (Kaldy et
al. 2020, entire; Banaduc et al. 2016, p. 146). Neither mechanism of
hybridization presents a threat that rises to the level posed by
fishing and dams. Natural hybridization has presumably continued at a
low rate over a long period of time as the species have evolved in
sympatry. Its frequency relative to intraspecific matings could have
increased as the fish become rare and mates are harder to find, but
such data are not available. Hybridization in aquaculture facilities is
problematic to the extent that such offspring escape into wild
habitats.
Extra-Territorial Introductions
In the 1960s, ship sturgeon were introduced to China and
Kazakhstan's Lake Balkhash and are now present in its tributary, the
Ile River (Gessner et al. 2010b, not paginated). The species is now
listed as a class II species under China's Wild Animal Protection Law,
which restricts use to those cases permitted by regional, provincial,
or local government (Harrish and Shiraishi 2018, pp. 46-47). Most
approved fishing is for research or monitoring (Harris and Shiraishi
2018, p. 47). Fines for violating the regulations are 2 to 10 times the
catch value (Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p. 47). Because the Ile River
population has no hydrological connection to any water bodies in the
ship sturgeon's native range, we place relatively little conservation
value on this introduced population.
Russian sturgeon are aquacultured in Uruguay, and sporadic escapes
followed by dispersal have led to a small number of observations of the
species in the rivers of Uruguay, Argentina, and Brazil (Chuctaya et
al. 2018, p. 397; Demonte et al. 2017, p. 1). Similarly, a very small
number of Russian sturgeon have been caught in the Polish Baltic Sea
basin since first being documented there in 1968 following
introductions in the Soviet part of the Baltic Sea (Sk[oacute]ra and
Arciszewski 2013, p. 365). Introductions also have occurred in Florida,
Chile, China, Vietnam, The Arab Emirates, Italy, Germany, Spain, Czech
Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Greece, Madagascar, and elsewhere
(Gessner 2021, in litt.), although there is no indication that the
species is reproducing in these areas. We conclude that these
introductions have low conservation value, but they also do not pose
any threat to the species.
Current Condition
We determined the resilience of Ponto-Caspian sturgeon populations
based on three characteristics, derived from the species' biological
needs: (1) Its reproductive success (i.e., likelihood of producing at
least enough offspring to maintain a stable population size), (2) the
connectivity for migration between seas and river spawning grounds, and
(3) the habitat quality, based on water quality and prey abundance. No
populations in the native range of the Ponto-Caspian sturgeon are
considered to have better than low resilience presently, and we have
determined that none of the populations have greater than a 50 percent
chance of reproducing at a self-sustaining level, based on the best
available science. Details of how we scored resilience based on these
three criteria can be found in the SSA report (Service 2021, pp. 19-
22).
More redundant species are those with a higher number of
populations, especially those with moderate or high levels of
resilience. Having populations spread among multiple sea basins and/or
evidence of adaptive genetic capacity within the species was considered
evidence for higher representation. Table 2 summarizes the current
condition of the four Ponto-Caspian species.
[[Page 31847]]
Table 2--Highlights of Current Ponto-Caspian Sturgeon Resiliency,
Redundancy, and Representation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESILIENCY (large, connected Few, if any,
populations; reproducing and able to populations breed at self-
withstand demographic stochasticity). sustaining levels.
All four taxa are
extirpated from upstream
segments of most rivers due to
river blockage by dams.
RUSSIAN: >90% decline
in the abundance of wild
Russian sturgeon between 1964
and 2009; females--harvested
for their roe--comprise only
10% of mature fish in major
populations.
SHIP: >80% decline
over the last three
generations (24-66 years).
PERSIAN: at least 80%
decline over the last three
generations (36-54 years).
STELLATE: 92% decline
from 1960s-2008.
REDUNDANCY (number and distribution of RUSSIAN: 9-10 extant
populations to withstand catastrophic populations, all with low or
events). very low resiliency.
SHIP: 7 extant
populations, all with low or
very low resiliency.
PERSIAN: 3-5 extant
populations, all with low or
very low resiliency.
STELLATE: 9 extant
populations, all likely with
low or very low resiliency.
REPRESENTATION (ecological and genetic RUSSIAN: High
diversity; maintenance of adaptive intrapopulation genetic
potential). variation, but low inter-
population diversity.
Extirpated from upstream
segments of most inhabited
rivers.
SHIP: Extirpated from
Aral Sea basin; freshwater
population extirpated from
Danube River; differentiated
stocks remain in Caspian.
PERSIAN:
Differentiated stocks remain
when comparing stocks in Sefid-
Rud and other, smaller south
Caspian rivers.
STELLATE:
Differentiated stocks remain
among Caspian rivers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russian Sturgeon
The Russian sturgeon is presently found in 9-10 river basins and is
extirpated from 7 or 8. Redundancy is interrelated with resiliency;
low-resiliency populations cannot be considered to contribute to
redundancy to the same degree, or with the same level of future
certainty, as more resilient ones (Service 2021, pp. 19-22). Although
at least 9 rivers retain populations of the species, all have low or
very low resiliency and we consider the redundancy of the species to be
low (Service 2021, pp. 59-62). All extant populations have low or very
low resiliency because of the limited level of natural reproduction and
the condition of connectivity and water quality in the species'
habitats.
In the Volga River at the north of the Caspian Sea, the species'
historical stronghold, Russian sturgeon biomass decreased by more than
80 percent between 1995 and 2010 (Lepelina et al. 2010 cited in
Khodorevskaya and Kalmykov 2014, p. 578). Due to heavy harvesting
pressure, as of 2011, females were only about 10 percent of mature fish
in the Volga (Safaraliev et al. 2012 and Konopleya et al. 2007 cited in
Khodorevskaya and Kalmykov 2014, p. 578), and females rarely live long
enough to spawn more than once (Ruban et al. 2019, p. 391).
Russian sturgeon no longer reproduce every year in either the Volga
or the other major north-Caspian River, the Ural (Sergeev et al. 2020,
pp. 3-4; Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, p. 204). This follows approximately
90 percent declines in the number of spawners arriving yearly between
1964 and 2009 (Gessner et al. 2010a, not paginated) and a greater than
99 percent decrease in annual recruitment of Russian sturgeon juveniles
from the Volga between 1966 and 2011 (Khodorevskaya and Kalmykov 2014,
p. 579).
Today, fewer than 1 percent of all Caspian basin sturgeon (all
species) are found outside the Volga and Caspian basins. In Azerbaijan,
Russian sturgeon may be extirpated from the Kura River (Ruban and
Khodorevskaya 2011, p. 202), and whether they have ever spawned there
or in the Terek River is uncertain (Gessner et al. 2010a; Lagutov and
Lagutov 2008, p. 223).
The Russian sturgeon is extirpated, or nearly so, from most of its
former range in the Black and Azov basins, reducing its representation
relative to past levels (WSCS and WWF 2018, pp. 10-12; fig. 3; Gessner
et al. 2010a, not paginated); reproduction of the species is extremely
rare in the Danube River--the largest entering the Black Sea--since at
least 2010 (Reinartz et al. 2020d, pp. 6, 10; WSCS and WWF 2018, pp.
10-12, 30-31). Any remaining population in Georgia's Rioni River is on
the brink of extirpation (Fauna and Flora International 2019a, p. 2),
and the species only persists in the Don, Kuban, and Dnieper Rivers due
to the continued release of aquacultured fish (WSCS and WWF 2018, pp.
10-12, 31).
Ship Sturgeon
Eight rivers retain populations of ship sturgeon, but the species
is extirpated from 11 river basins. Their redundancy is, therefore,
low, and resilience is low or very low in all extant native populations
(Service 2021, pp. 62-64). Only one introduced population in China has
moderate resilience; however, as stated previously, this population is
of low conservation value because it is outside the native range of the
species. Since the 1980s, the ship sturgeon has been extirpated from
the Aral Sea and both its major tributaries, the Amu-Darya and Syr-
Darya Rivers (Aladin et al. 2018, p. 2077; Ermakhanov et al. 2012, p.
4, Gessner et al. 2010b, not paginated). In the Caspian basin, ship
sturgeon reproduction is only confirmed in the Ural River and as for
all Ponto-Caspian sturgeon species, the ship sturgeon is extirpated, or
nearly so, from the south and central rivers of this sea (WSCS and WWF
2018, p. 36; Aladin et al. 2018, p. 2069; Gessner et al. 2010b, not
paginated).
Ship sturgeon are extirpated from several southern Black Sea rivers
(Turkey's Kizilirmak, Yesilirmak, and Sakarya Rivers; WSCS and WWF
2018, pp. 10-12), and, as of 2018, the species had not been recorded in
the Daube River for more than 10 years (WSCS and WWF 2018, p. 35). Loss
of this fully freshwater (i.e., not anadromous) population in the
Danube contributed to a reduction in the species' representation,
although there remains measurable genetic variation among extant
populations (Qasemi et al. 2006, p. 164). As of 2009 (the most recent
data available), the species was not found in Ukraine's Southern Bug,
Dniester, and Dnieper Rivers for approximately 30 years (Gessner et al.
2010b, not paginated). Recent discovery of juveniles of the species in
the Rioni River indicate reproduction is occurring there (Beridze et
al. 2021, entire). Only restocking efforts maintain ship sturgeon in
the Azov's two main rivers, the Don and the Kuban (Gessner 2021, in
litt; Scheele 2020, pers. comm; Gessner et al. 2010b).
[[Page 31848]]
Persian Sturgeon
The Persian sturgeon, the most geographically restricted of the
Ponto-Caspian sturgeon, remains present in the Ural, Kura, and Sefid-
Rud Rivers of the Caspian basin. The species may still breed in the
lower courses of the Sefid-Rud and Kura (Aladin et al. 2018, p. 2069),
but this has not been confirmed for at least several years (Gessner
2021, in litt.). It may be extirpated from the Volga and Terek, and
reproduction is less than likely in the Ural (Gessner et al. 2010c, not
paginated). There has likely been a steady decline in the proportional
abundance of females and their longevity, as for Russian sturgeon
(Safaraliev et al. 2012 and Konopleya et al. 2007 cited in
Khodorevskaya and Kalmykov 2014, p. 578). No extant population is
likely to have natural reproduction occurring at a rate sufficient to
allow population viability, and all extant populations have low or very
low resilience (Service 2021, pp. 64-65). The restricted historical
range of Persian sturgeon limits its potential redundancy severely.
Relatively little is known about Persian sturgeon representation, but
some level of genetic diversity remains in the species, as the Sefid-
Rud River population is genetically differentiated from the species in
other southern Caspian locations (Khoshkholgh et al. 2013, pp. 33-34;
Chakmehdouz Ghasemi et al. 2011, p. 602).
Stellate Sturgeon
The stellate sturgeon is present in 9 river basins but extirpated
from 10 others, giving the species' low redundancy. Because no extant
populations are likely to have natural reproduction occurring at a rate
sufficient for population viability, their resiliencies are all low or
very low (Service 2021, pp. 65-66). In the Caspian basin, it is now
rare for the stellate sturgeon to breed in the Volga River (Sergeev
2020, pp. 1-4; Reinartz and Slavcheva 2016, p. 48), and annual
recruitment of stellate sturgeon juveniles from this river fell by more
than 97 percent between 1966 and 2011 (Khodorevskaya and Kalmykov 2014,
p. 579; Veshchev et al. 2012, entire). Most females in the Volga only
live to spawn once due to heavy harvesting pressure, meaning average
age of female spawners in the river is now less than half what it was
30 years ago (Ruban et al. 2019, p. 392). Only about 10 percent of
mature stellate sturgeon in the Volga were female as of 2012 (Ruban et
al. 2019, p. 392). Spawning is also very uncommon in the Ural River now
(Reinartz and Slavcheva 2016, p. 48).
Small populations likely remain and breed in the Sefid-Rud and Kura
Rivers, although reproduction rates are very low (Norouzi and
Pourkazemi 2015, p. 95). Few recent data exist for the Terek River
population, but it was said to be very small even in 1997 and there is
no expectation that its situation has improved (Ruban and Khodorevskaya
2011, p. 202).
In the Black Sea basin, the stellate sturgeon was largely depleted
in the Danube by the mid-1990s (Bacalbasa-Dobrovici 1997, pp. 201-203),
and reproduction there is now minimal in most years (Reinartz et al.
2020d, p. 5). Ongoing reproduction was confirmed from the Rioni River
in Georgia and the Sakarya River in Turkey in 2018 (WSCS and WWF 2018,
p. 41), and the species still reproduces in the Azov basin's Kuban
River, although the population is augmented by release of aquacultured
stock (WSCS and WWF 2018, pp. 10-12). There is no indication that the
remaining level of reproduction is sufficient to sustain any of these
populations without such augmentation (Service 2021, pp. 66-68).
Despite the species' historical presence there, no records of
stellate sturgeon are available for at least 10 years from each of the
Don, Dnieper, Dniester, Southern Bug, Engui, Coruh, Yesilirmak, and
Kizilirmak Rivers in the Black and Azov Seas or from the Struma and
Evros Rivers that enter the Aegean Sea from Bulgaria and Greece (WSCS
and WWF 2018, p. 41).
Stellate sturgeon representation is likely moderate-to-high, but
with substantial uncertainty. As of 2005, there was considerable
genetic diversity remaining Caspian-wide (Norouzi & Pourkazemi 2015 pp.
98-99; Doukakis et al. 2005, pp. 458-459); however, hybridization with
related species may be diluting the species' genetic character in both
the Caspian and Black Sea basins (Sergeev 2020, pp. 1-4; Banaduc et al.
2016, p. 146).
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the
current and future condition of the species. To assess the current and
future condition of the species, we undertake an iterative analysis
that encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and then
accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may be
influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts.
Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the
factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
Fisheries and trade regulations targeting the harvest, farming, and
sale of the species have not effectively protected Ponto-Caspian
sturgeon (WSCS and WWF 2018, p. 6). Many international agreements are
non-binding, and economic interests, corruption, and the illegal trade
all lessen the effectiveness of legal measures (WSCS and WWF 2018, p.
6; Mammadov et al. 2014, section 2.1; Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, p.
239).
CITES and the International Sturgeon Trade
The Ponto-Caspian sturgeon were all added to Appendix II of the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES) in 1998, along with all other species in the order
Acipenseriformes not previously listed under Appendix I (CITES 1997).
Except for Turkmenistan, all range countries are Parties to CITES, as
is the United States. CITES Parties adopted a series of recommendations
to improve regulation of the international sturgeon trade (Harris and
Shirashi 2018, pp. 19-22), including reporting of scientifically based
quotas for any legal wild-caught sturgeon (CITES 2015, entire; CITES
2010, entire) and a caviar labeling system to verify its legal origin
(CITES 2015; 50 CFR 23.71; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law
Enforcement 2008).
Since the inclusion of all sturgeon species in the CITES Appendices
in 1998, the proportion of caviar in international trade reported to be
of captive-bred origin has climbed from near zero to near 100 percent
(CITES Trade database cited in Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p. 25; United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)--World Conservation Monitoring
Centre (WCMC) 2008 p. 31). Other than Iran, no country has reported a
quota greater than zero since at least 2011 for any of the four Ponto-
Caspian sturgeon (UNEP 2020, not paginated). In 2021, all quotas for
the Ponto-Caspian species were zero or were not reported to CITES,
except for a 50-kg quota for cultured caviar of ship sturgeon submitted
by Iran (CITES 2021). When a quota is not reported, it is effectively
set at zero (UNEP 2021, not paginated); thus, no wild-caught Ponto-
[[Page 31849]]
Caspian sturgeon can be legally traded internationally until relevant
quotas are reestablished.
Still, wild-sourced caviar is very likely traded internationally
using fraudulent labels or reporting (Irving 2021, pers. comm; Harris
and Shiraishi 2018, entire; UNEP-WCMC 2012, p. 22). The sale of caviar
and meat with mislabeled origin and/or species makes enforcement
difficult (Harris and Shiraishi 2018, table 9), and it is very
challenging for enforcement officials to confidently differentiate wild
from cultured caviar (produced from aquacultured sturgeon; DePeters et
al. 2013, pp. 130-131; Rehbein et al., 2008 entire; Czesny et al. 2000,
pp. 147-148). Domestic sale of caviar of all sturgeon species
(including in the United States and the many other sturgeon range
countries) is not subject to CITES labeling requirements, likely
facilitating trade in wild-sourced products within the range countries
(Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p. 54). In addition, legitimate CITES
labels and containers are resold for use in concealing transport of
illegal caviar (van Uhm and Siegel 2016, p. 81).
The legal international trade in Ponto-Caspian sturgeon is now
composed of aquacultured sturgeon caviar and meat (CITES Trade
Database, 2020; Service 2021, pp. 35-40). In 2018, this included over
40 metric tons (44 U.S. tons) of Russian sturgeon caviar (CITES Trade
Database, 2020). No ship sturgeon and only 353 kg (778 lb) of
aquacultured stellate sturgeon were reported in the CITES Trade
Database in 2018, the last year with complete data, as of the SSA
report's compilation. Nearly all reported international trade in meat
of the four Ponto-Caspian sturgeon since 2007 is also Russian sturgeon,
with approximately 550 metric tons (600 U.S. tons) recorded in 2018
(CITES Trade Database, 2020). Less than 1 percent of this was reported
as wild-sourced (CITES Trade Database, 2020). Three metric tons (3.3
U.S. tons) of aquacultured stellate sturgeon meat were traded
internationally in 2018, but no such trade in ship or Persian sturgeon
meat was reported (CITES Trade Database, 2020). Less than 10 kg (22 lb)
of international trade in live eggs of each species was reported in
2018 (CITES Trade Database, 2020).
Although interspecific hybrids of Ponto-Caspian sturgeon with each
other and with other sturgeon species are commonly produced in
aquaculture (Bronzi et al. 2019, pp. 257), the above-cited figures do
not include sturgeon hybrids. The CITES Trade Database does not specify
which sturgeon species are included in reported hybrids, so we cannot
determine which shipments include the species assessed here.
Beyond the caviar and meat trade, aquacultured Russian sturgeon are
exported in large numbers (250,000 annually) from Hungary (Gessner et
al. 2010a, not paginated) for the ornamental pet trade (Gessner 2021,
in litt.). The species' eggs are used as an ingredient in cosmetics and
pharmaceuticals, and their skin is used for leather. Russian sturgeon
cartilage is used in medicines, and their intestines for sauces and in
the production of gelatin (Gessner et al. 2010a, not paginated). Their
swim bladder can be used to make glue (Gessner et al. 2010a, not
paginated).
The United States has been the largest importer of sturgeon and
sturgeon products since 1998 (CITES Trade database 2020, not paginated;
Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p. 26; UNEP-WCMC 2012, p. 22). Between 2016
and 2018, the U.S. share of caviar imports (223,000 kg (492,000 lb);
all sturgeon species) was more than 80 percent higher than that of the
next-largest importing country, Denmark (CITES Trade Database 2020, not
paginated). China, Italy, Moldova, Armenia, and Uruguay were the
biggest importers of sturgeon meat over this period (Harris and
Shiraishi 2018, p. 28).
As is true at the global scale, U.S. imports of Ponto-Caspian
sturgeon products (caviar, meat, live eggs, and extracts, likely for
cosmetics) have been dominated by Russian sturgeon in recent years.
Meat, live eggs, and extracts from other Ponto-Caspian taxa are
imported to the United States in near-zero quantities (CITES Annual
Report database, 2020).
Domestic and Ongoing Illegal Sturgeon Trade
Across the 20-plus countries that comprise the ranges of Ponto-
Caspian sturgeons, various legal efforts are aimed at regulating the
harvest, farming, and trade of the species. The rules are many (WSCS
and WWF 2018, pp. 63-75; Mammadov et al. 2014, section 2.1), but they
have rarely been effective for protecting and recovering diminished
sturgeon populations (WSCS and WWF 2018, p. 6). Economic interests,
corruption, the large profits available from illegal trade, a failure
to act before sturgeon stocks crashed, unnecessary complexity, the
largely voluntary nature of agreements, and a lack of public awareness
all conspire to make most national and multilateral legislation
ineffective (WSCS and WWF 2018, p. 6; Mammadov et al. 2014, section
2.1; Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, p. 239). We provide some examples of
relevant legislation and their limitations in the SSA report (Service
2021, p. 43).
Although difficult to monitor (Harris and Shiraishi 2018, pp. 16-
17), the illegal trade in sturgeon products is generally thought to be
robust, potentially accounting worldwide and across sturgeon species
for 10 times the volume of caviar as in legal trade (Nelleman et al.
2014 cited in Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p. 14). In the Ponto-Caspian
region, illegal harvest continues (Reinartz et al. 2020c, entire; WSCS
and WWF 2018, p. 8; Reinartz and Slavcheva 2016, pp. 44-49; Jahrl 2013,
entire) and is estimated to yield over 100 metric tons (110 U.S. tons)
of sturgeon (all species) per year in the northern Caspian basin alone
(Ermolin and Svolkinas 2018, p. 17). Organized crime and extensive
corruption associated with sturgeon poaching on the Ural has even led
in exceptional cases to militant violence against enforcement officers
(Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, pp. 228, 239).
Most illegally caught sturgeon and their caviar are now likely sold
domestically, especially in Russia (Congiu 2021, in litt.; Gessner
2021, in litt.). Black-market sellers there and in the eastern Black
Sea region (Georgia, northeast Turkey, and far southwestern Russia) can
collect a premium price for wild-sourced products and do not have to
take the risk of laundering fish through a legitimate caviar factory
(Congiu 2021, in litt.; Fauna and Flora International 2019a, pp. 2-3).
Although some consumers accept aquacultured caviar as equivalent to
wild-sourced products (Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p. 39), most people
prefer caviar from rarer species (Gault et al. 2008, pp. 202-205). This
preference can help drive a continued market for illegal wild-sourced
caviar and could drive species to extinction in the wild (Gault et al.
2008, pp. 202-205). It is this domestic black market that is presently
the biggest fishery-based threat to the Ponto-Caspian species (Gessner
2021, in litt.), a market that CITES regulation of international trade
does not address.
Some international caviar smuggling occurs but is not thought to be
of nearly the same volume as domestic sales. Still, in 2013 and 2014,
Service investigations of the U.S. caviar trade revealed that each year
most major importers on the East Coast were illegally importing
millions of dollars' worth of caviar (Wyler and Sheikh 2013, p. 10;
Zabyelina, 2014 cited in Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p. 48). Between
2000 and 2016, U.S. authorities seized more than 18 metric tons (20
U.S. tons) of illegally traded caviar (CITES Trade Database, 2020).
Russian sturgeon was a
[[Page 31850]]
common species among those traded illegally to the United States
(Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p. 8). Generally, seizures were made for
improper CITES labeling or mislabeled species identity (Gessner 2021,
in litt.); however, an unknown volume is likely wild-sourced fish
(Irving 2021, pers. comm.).
Seizures of illegally traded caviar continue in the Black Sea basin
(Kecse-Nagy 2011, pp. 10-11 and tables 6, 7). Between 2014 and 2019,
Danube Delta Police confiscated 640 kg (1,400 lb) of poached sturgeon
(Luca et al. 2020, not paginated). Among three lower Danube countries--
Bulgaria, Romania, and Ukraine--175 sturgeon poaching incidents (all
species present, including beluga and sterlet) were reported by law
enforcement between 2016 and May 2020 (Reinartz et al. 2020b, p. 4).
Fishermen in the region also use relatively sophisticated methods
including sonar and explicitly banned techniques such as hooked lines
(Jahrl 2013, p. 3).
Some range country aquaculture facilities were believed to retain
wild-caught broodstock intended to be released after spawning and may
even have killed these fish to sell their caviar (Jahrl 2013, pp. 12-
16, 34-35). There is also speculation that some companies producing and
selling aquacultured caviar may participate in laundering of wild-
sourced illegal caviar into the legal market in Romania, Bulgaria, and
the Caspian basin (Jahrl 2013, p. 12). Neither of these practices is
likely common, because transport of live fish for spawning in captivity
is a difficult and high-risk undertaking and because some range states
have domestic black markets on which premium prices are paid for wild-
sourced caviar sold as such.
Law enforcement capacity is weak in the eastern Black Sea (Fauna
and Flora International 2019a, p. 4), and existing regulations may be
poorly communicated (Gessner 2021, in litt.). Nongovernmental
volunteers supplement official capabilities in this region but have not
stopped the trade (Fauna and Flora International 2019a, pp. 2-4). Fish
are likely smuggled from Georgian waters to Turkey (Fauna and Flora
International 2019a, p. 4). Over 50 Turkish and Georgian boats fishing
for anchovy are also suspected of collecting Black Sea sturgeon as
bycatch (harvest caught in the process of fishing for other species;
Fauna and Flora International 2019a, p. 7; Fauna and Flora
International 2019b, p. 6).
Where reported caviar imported from a given country is higher than
that country's reported exports, exporters may be skirting the
established CITES regulations (Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p. 22). Data
from several Ponto-Caspian range states (Iran, Azerbaijan, and Russia,
among others) all had such discrepancies for some years between 2000
and 2010 (Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p. 23). Indeed, Iran, Russia, and
Kazakhstan often did not report any caviar exports between 2006 and
2010, despite allowing sturgeon trade (Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p.
23).
Neither most Ponto-Caspian sturgeon range states nor the United
States (Harris and Shiraishi 2018, pp. 35, 50) require the CITES-style
labeling recommended for domestic caviar sales (Harris and Shiraishi
2018, p. 11). Without documentation of caviar origin, species, date of
packaging, and trade permissions as required on CITES labels (WSCS and
WWF 2018, p. 66; Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p. 9), fraudulent sale of
sturgeon products whose origin is undocumented or misstated as being
derived from aquaculture is facilitated (Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p.
48).
For additional details of ongoing illegal trade in the range
states, see the SSA report (Service 2021, pp. 40-43).
Restocking
Large-scale efforts have been made to recover Ponto-Caspian
sturgeon populations in some parts of the species' ranges by restocking
rivers with aquacultured fish. Approximately 3.3 billion sturgeon (all
species) were released into the Caspian basin between 1954 and 2011
(Khodorevskaya and Kalmykov 2014, p. 578). The four Ponto-Caspian
sturgeon were produced by a combined 20-plus aquaculture facilities in
the Caspian region as of 2014, with about half in Russia, one third in
Iran, and fewer in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan (Service 2021, p. 54;
Khodorevskaya and Kalmykov 2014, p. 578).
We are not aware of any large-scale assessment of stocking success.
Still, in 2018, three adult Russian sturgeon and one stellate sturgeon
(all males) were captured 126 km (78 mi) from the mouth of the Danube
(Iani et al. 2019, p. 35). These were the first adult sturgeons of
hatchery origin confirmed to return for spawning in the Danube after
being released into the river as early as 2005 (Iani et al. 2019, p.
35). However, although widely practiced and at least partially
responsible for preventing extinction of Ponto-Caspian sturgeon to
date, restocking is far from a perfect solution. In general, restocking
produces ``put-and-take'' fisheries, where fish are released and then
mostly caught before or just after reproducing for the first time
(Vecsei 2001, p. 362; WSCS and WWF 2018, pp. 18, 42). True population
recovery is unlikely without mitigating dam and fishing impacts (WSCS
and WWF 2018, p. 6; Gessner et al. 2010a-c, not paginated). Indeed, for
watercourses like the Danube, which have dozens of dams, some experts
believe it is futile to consider restoration of the species and their
migration to upstream reaches of such rivers (Friedrich et al. 2019, p.
1065). Restoration of downstream reaches through restocking and
facilitated dam passage is more feasible (Friedrich et al. 2019, p.
1065). Most fish released are fingerlings, 1 to several months old
(Gessner et al. 2010a, not paginated); these young fish naturally have
extremely low first-year survival rates (around 1 in 2,000; Jaric and
Gessner 2013, pp. 485-486; Jager et al. 2001, p. 351).
Another challenge is that releasing fish native to one region or
river into another can dilute locally adaptive traits when wild-born
native fish breed with these captive individuals (WSCS and WWF 2018, p.
50). This within-species hybridization can reduce the resiliency and
representation of local populations if introduced individuals are
maladapted to local conditions.
For example, translocation of fertilized eggs from the Caspian Sea
to the Azov Sea likely diluted the local stellate sturgeon gene pool in
the 1990s and early 2000s (Qiwei 2010, not paginated). For ship
sturgeon, captive stocks are available only from Caspian basin rivers
(WSCS and WWF 2018, p. 36). This lack of captive stock could make their
restoration in the Black, Azov, and Aral Seas more difficult, if local
adaptations and migration instincts limit the success in the wild of
captive-reared fish released in these parts of the range. Stocking of
the Don and Kuban Rivers with stellate sturgeon from Caspian stocks
that naturally have lower population growth rates than the Azov's
stellate sturgeon similarly reduces the species' representation
(Tsvetnenko 1993, p. 1). Moreover, aquacultured fish may not have the
navigational instincts to migrate to the ``correct'' river, if they are
not derived from a local stock (Lagutov and Lagutov 2008, p. 262).
Several Ponto-Caspian countries (Russia, Armenia, Iran, Bulgaria,
Azerbaijan, Hungary, and Germany) rank in the top 15 producers of
aquacultured sturgeon globally, but significant participation of
commercial aquaculture facilities in sturgeon conservation is presently
rare (Jahrl and Streibel-Greiter pers. comm. 2020; WSCS and WWF 2018,
pp. 31, 59).
[[Page 31851]]
Determination of Ponto-Caspian Sturgeon Status--Introduction
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an endangered species as a species
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,'' and a threatened species as a species ``likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we determine
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
In conducting our status assessment of the Ponto-Caspian sturgeon,
we evaluated all identified threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors
and assessed how the cumulative impact of all threats acts on the
viability of each of the four species. That is, all the anticipated
effects from both habitat-based and direct mortality-based threats were
examined in total and then evaluated in the context of what those
combined negative effects will mean to the future condition of each of
the species. In addition, we considered the effects of existing
conservation and regulatory measures on the current and future
condition of each of the species. We used the best available
information to gauge the magnitude of each individual threat on each of
the Ponto-Caspian sturgeon species, and then assessed how those effects
combined (and as may be ameliorated by any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts) impact a species' viability.
Russian Sturgeon--Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
determined that the distribution and abundance of Russian sturgeon has
been reduced across its range as demonstrated by both the number of
occupied rivers and the estimated abundance of the species where it
remains present. Historically, the species occurred within at least 16
river basins in the Caspian, Azov, Black, and Aegean Sea basins;
currently, the species occurs in no more than 10 river basins, reducing
the species' redundancy. The remaining extant populations are all
considered to have low or very low resiliency (i.e., it is more likely
than not that no self-sustaining populations remain; Service 2021, pp.
59-62). Overall, the species' abundance is estimated to have declined
by more than 80 percent in just the last three generations, with
additional declines before that. Representation is likely moderate--
multiple river and sea basins are occupied--but with considerable
uncertainty regarding adaptive evolutionary capacity.
Ongoing threats are from habitat degradation or loss due to both
the widespread presence of dams and pollution (Factor A), demographic
impacts from past harvest and ongoing overutilization of wild
populations (Factor B), existing national and international regulations
not adequately halting illegal trade in the species or recovering wild
populations (Factor D), and invasive, nonnative species that impact
Russian sturgeons' prey base (Factor E). These threats are current,
widespread across the species' range, and imperil the viability of the
species now. The species does not fit the statutory definition of a
threatened species because it is currently in danger of extinction,
whereas threatened species are those likely to become in danger of
extinction in the foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing the best
available information, we conclude that the Russian sturgeon is in
danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Ship Sturgeon--Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
determined that the distribution and abundance of ship sturgeon has
been reduced across its range as demonstrated by both the number of
occupied rivers and the estimated abundance of the species where it
remains present. Historically, the species occurred within at least 18
river basins in the Caspian, Azov, Black, and Aral Sea basins;
currently, the species occurs in 8 river basins, reducing the species'
redundancy, and it is extirpated from the Aral Sea basin. The remaining
extant populations are all considered to have low or very low
resiliency (i.e., it is more likely than not that no self-sustaining
populations remain), except for one population introduced outside the
historical range, which is considered to have moderate resiliency
(Service 2021, pp. 62-64). Overall, the species' abundance is estimated
to have declined by more than 80 percent in just the last three
generations, with additional declines before that. Representation is
uncertain in terms of adaptive evolutionary capacity but has been
lowered by the extirpation of the species' Aral Sea basin and fully
freshwater Danube River populations.
Ongoing threats are from habitat degradation or loss due to both
the widespread presence of dams and pollution and water abstraction for
irrigation (Factor A), demographic impacts from past harvest and
ongoing overutilization of wild populations (Factor B), existing
national and international regulations not adequately halting illegal
trade in the species or recovering wild populations (Factor D), and
invasive, nonnative species that impact the species' prey base (Factor
E). These threats are current, widespread across the species' range,
and imperil the viability of the species now. The species does not fit
the statutory definition of a threatened species because it is
currently in danger of extinction, whereas threatened species are those
likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that
the ship sturgeon is in danger of extinction throughout all of its
range.
Persian Sturgeon--Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
determined that the condition of Persian sturgeon has been reduced
across its range as demonstrated by both the number of occupied rivers
and the estimated abundance of the species where it remains present.
Historically, the species occurred in five river basins in the Caspian
Sea basin; currently, the species may occupy as few as three river
basins, reducing the species' redundancy. The remaining extant
populations are all considered to have low or very low resiliency
(i.e., it is more likely than not that no self-sustaining populations
remain; Service 2021, pp. 64-65). Overall, the species' abundance is
estimated to have declined by more than 80 percent in just the last
three generations, with additional declines before that. Relatively
little is known about Persian sturgeon representation The Sefid-Rud
River population is genetically differentiated from the species in
other southern Caspian locations (Khoshkholgh et al.
[[Page 31852]]
2013, pp. 33-34; Chakmehdouz Ghasemi et al. 2011, p. 602), indicating
some level of genetic diversity in the species. However, the extent of
diversity is unknown.
Ongoing threats are from habitat degradation or loss due to both
the widespread presence of dams and pollution (Factor A), demographic
impacts from past harvest and ongoing overutilization of wild
populations (Factor B), existing national and international regulations
not adequately halting illegal trade in the species or recovering wild
populations (Factor D), and invasive, nonnative species that impact
Persian sturgeons' prey base (Factor E). These threats are current,
widespread across the species' range, and imperil the viability of the
species now. The species does not fit the statutory definition of a
threatened species because it is currently in danger of extinction,
whereas threatened species are those likely to become in danger of
extinction in the foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing the best
available information, we conclude that the Persian sturgeon is in
danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Stellate Sturgeon--Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
determined that the distribution and abundance of stellate sturgeon has
been reduced across its range as demonstrated by both the number of
occupied rivers and the estimated abundance of the species where it
remains present. Historically, the species occurred in 19 river basins
in the Caspian, Azov, Black, and Aegean Sea basins; currently, the
species occurs in 9 river basins, reducing the species' redundancy, and
it is extirpated from the Aegean Sea basin. The remaining extant
populations are all considered to have low or very low resiliency
(i.e., it is more likely than not that no self-sustaining populations
remain; Service 2021, pp. 65-68). Overall, the species' abundance is
estimated to have declined by more than 80 percent in just the last
three generations, with additional declines before that. Representation
is moderate to high, with measurable genetic diversity among
populations, but is likely decreasing due to hybridization.
Ongoing threats are from habitat degradation or loss due to both
the widespread presence of dams and pollution (Factor A), demographic
impacts from past harvest and ongoing overutilization of wild
populations (Factor B), existing national and international regulations
not adequately halting illegal trade in the species or recovering wild
populations (Factor D), and invasive, nonnative species that impact
sturgeons' prey base (Factor E). These threats are current, widespread
across the species' range, and imperil the viability of the species
now. The species does not fit the statutory definition of a threatened
species because it is currently in danger of extinction, whereas
threatened species are those likely to become in danger of extinction
in the foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the stellate sturgeon is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of the Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. We have determined that all four Ponto-Caspian sturgeon
species are in danger of extinction throughout all of their ranges and
accordingly did not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of
the range for any of the four species. Because the Russian, ship,
Persian, and stellate sturgeons each warrant listing as endangered
throughout all of their ranges, our determinations are consistent with
the decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL
437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), in which the court vacated the aspect of
the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion
of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of
``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1,
2014) that provided the Service does not undertake an analysis of
significant portions of a species' range if the species warrants
listing as threatened throughout all of its range.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that each of the four Ponto-Caspian sturgeon
species--the Russian, ship, Persian, and stellate sturgeon species--
meet the definition of endangered species. Therefore, we propose to
list the Russian sturgeon, ship sturgeon, Persian sturgeon, and
stellate sturgeon as endangered species in accordance with sections
3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign
governments, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery
actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required
by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are
discussed, in part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the
Service.
An ``action'' that is subject to the consultation provisions of
section 7(a)(2) of the Act is defined in our implementing regulations
at 50 CFR 402.02 as ``all activities or programs of any kind
authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal
agencies in the United States or upon the high seas.'' In view of this
regulatory definition that clarifies that consultation requirements
under section 7(a)(2) do not have extraterritorial application, we
anticipate any ``actions'' involving the Ponto-Caspian sturgeon that
require section 7 consultations would be limited to the Service's
issuance of any section 10 permits under the Act. For example, in the
event a person applies for a permit to import Ponto-Caspian sturgeon
specimens into the United States for scientific purposes, or for
enhancing the propagation or survival of the species under section
10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, authorization of the proposed activity would be
a Federal action subject to consultation. Apart from
[[Page 31853]]
consultations on section 10 permits, however, the Ponto Caspian
sturgeon is unlikely to be the subject of section 7 consultations
because the entire life of the species occurs in freshwater and
nearshore marine areas outside of the United States. Additionally, no
critical habitat will be designated for this species Additionally, no
critical habitat will be designated for this species because, under 50
CFR 424.12(g), we will not designate critical habitat within foreign
countries or in other areas outside of the jurisdiction of the United
States.
Section 8(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1537(a)) authorizes the
provision of limited financial assistance for the development and
management of programs that the Secretary of the Interior determines to
be necessary or useful for the conservation of endangered or threatened
species in foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1537(b) and (c)) authorize the Secretary to encourage
conservation programs for foreign listed species and to provide
assistance for such programs in the form of personnel and the training
of personnel.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR
17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to import; export; deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means
whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer
for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any species listed as an
endangered species. In addition, it is unlawful to take (which includes
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect; or to attempt any of these) endangered wildlife within the
United States or on the high seas. It is also illegal to possess, sell,
deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever any such
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to
employees of the Service, NMFS, other Federal land management agencies,
and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. Regarding endangered
wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: For
scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful
activities. The Service may also register persons subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States through its captive-bred-wildlife
(CBW) program if certain established requirements are met under the CBW
regulations (50 CFR 17.21(g)). Through a CBW registration, the Service
may allow a registrant to conduct certain otherwise prohibited
activities with live wildlife specimens as part of conservation
breeding activities that enhance the propagation or survival of the
affected species: Take; export or re-import; deliver, receive, carry,
transport or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, in the course of a
commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce. A CBW registration may authorize interstate purchase and sale
only between entities that both hold a registration for the taxon
concerned. The CBW program is available for species having a natural
geographic distribution not including any part of the United States.
The individual living specimens must have been born in captivity in the
United States. The statute also contains certain exemptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9(a) of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the
species proposed for listing. Based on the best available information,
the following actions are unlikely to result in a violation of section
9(a), if these activities are carried out in accordance with existing
regulations and permit requirements; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Take of any Ponto-Caspian sturgeon in its native range.
(2) Trade in any Ponto-Caspian sturgeon and its products that is
both outside the United States and conducted by persons not subject to
U.S. jurisdiction (although this activity would still be subject to
CITES requirements).
(3) Activities with respect to hybrid fish or their products
produced from hybridization to the second or subsequent generations of
any Ponto-Caspian sturgeon and one or more other species not listed as
threatened or endangered under the Act (although international trade
would still be subject to CITES requirements). We do not consider
hybrid fish produced from interspecific mating one of the Ponto-Caspian
sturgeon species with a non-listed species to be part of the listing
entity, although hybrid offspring of two Ponto-Caspian parent species
or of one Ponto-Caspian sturgeon and another listed species, as well as
all first generation hybrids, would be protected from all activities
prohibited with endangered species of fish or wildlife under section
9(a)(1).
Based on the best available information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act if they
are not authorized in accordance with applicable law; this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Import into the United States of any Ponto-Caspian sturgeon and
its products, including fish derived from the wild or captive-bred, and
including hybrid offspring of two Ponto-Caspian parent species or of
one Ponto-Caspian sturgeon and another listed species or of one Ponto-
Caspian sturgeon and another species not listed as threatened or
endangered under the Act (first generation hybrids), see 16 U.S.C.
1532(8); 1538(a)(1), without obtaining permits required under section
10 of the Act or without following applicable CITES requirements at 50
CFR part 23.
(2) Export of the Ponto-Caspian sturgeon and its products, whether
derived from wild or captive-bred stock, and including hybrid offspring
of two Ponto-Caspian parent species or of one Ponto-Caspian sturgeon
and another listed species or of one Ponto-Caspian sturgeon and another
species not listed as threatened or endangered under the Act (first
generation hybrids), see 16 U.S.C. 1532(8); 1538(a)(1), from the United
States without obtaining permits required under section 10 of the Act
or without following applicable CITES requirements at 50 CFR part 23.
Separate from their proposed listing as endangered species, Ponto-
Caspian sturgeon are also regulated as CITES-listed species: All
international trade of these species by persons subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States must also comply with CITES
requirements pursuant to section 9(c) and (g) of the Act and 50 CFR
part 23. Applicable wildlife import/export requirements established
under section 9(d)(f) of the Act, the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16
U.S.C. 3371, et seq.), and 50 CFR part 14 must also be met for imports
and exports of any of the four Ponto-Caspian sturgeon species.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to Mary Cogliano,
Chief of the Branch of Permits ([email protected]; 703-358-2104).
[[Page 31854]]
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Proposed Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rulemaking, your comments should be as specific as possible.
For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or
paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful,
etc.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with regulations
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from
the Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Headquarters Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Branch
of Delisting and Foreign Species.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding entries for ``Sturgeon, Persian'',
``Sturgeon, Russian'', ``Sturgeon, ship'', and ``Sturgeon, stellate''
to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order
under Fishes to read as set forth below:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishes.........................................................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sturgeon, Persian................ Acipenser persicus. Wherever found..... E [Federal Register
citation when
published as a
final rule].
Sturgeon, Russian................ Acipenser Wherever found..... E [Federal Register
gueldenstaedtii. citation when
published as a
final rule].
* * * * * * *
Sturgeon, ship................... Acipenser Wherever found..... E [Federal Register
nudiventris. citation when
published as a
final rule].
* * * * * * *
Sturgeon, stellate............... Acipenser stellatus Wherever found..... E [Federal Register
citation when
published as a
final rule].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-10708 Filed 5-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P