Fe&ra& Registm / Vol. 57. ML 184 / Tuesday, September 22 1992 1 Prapoeed Roles 

__ 

SOCPRprtl? 

*qiypEFiiamdWikdMe!3emhk 

Interim 

A- btitx of It-Month petition 

finding, 

SUM- The U.S. FSsh and WMffe 

Service @mfke] anaouucea a 1243onth 

findiqforapetitamtoamendtheiist 

of Endangered and Threatened Wikllife 

andHan~The!3esvicrhanfoundthat 

Ming of the p&dhsflsb (PO&r&on 

spathuh) a8 “threetene&’ io not 

warranted. Beceuse of the uncertainty of 

the specie+ status in several portions of 

its range. the Service intends to 

reclassify the paddlefish from a category 

3C to a category 2 specier under the 

authority of the Endrngared Speck Act 

of 1973, ar OSMIUM The Serviu3 

believes that this classification change 

will encourage further investigation and 

bioI+ ressueh of the speci& status 

thraqhoti ltr ranga. 

Paddlefiih 0c~u.r in 22 States and are 

primady inhabitants of large rivers Iike 

the Mkouri, Mbriseippk and Ohlo, but 

they are also found in ssreral of the 

large river tributaries end in eeveral 

Gulf Coast streams. Threeb to the 

species include habitat mod&atior~ an 

apparent lack of natura1 reproduction in 

some areas, and overexp)oitation d 

their eggs as a source of caviar in 

national end fntemetionaf merkets. 

Althou& tbs etatus review is coa&&e 

and the p&od for receiving off%112 

comment9 her expired. the SeMoe 

remeinr htereated in ncei* 

comments, ouggertkmr. and current 

scientific information appticabbe to the 

stab of lbeae spociea a8 it becomes 

avaihbla 

DA= Comments my be r&unit&d until 

further notice. 

ADDRCSStSi Queationa ox commenta axf 

materials concerning this notice should 

be sent to the F’feldSupetior. U.S. Fish 

and Wildtife Service. Fish and Wildlife 

Enhancement 1500 Capitol Avenue, 

Bismarck, North Dakota S~SUI. 

The petition findfng, and support@ 

documenta are available for public 

inspection, by appointment during 

normal business hours at the above 

address and at the Sendcu’a Denver 

Regional OfRce, 1% Union Boulevard. 

Lakewood Colorado. 

foafuRmERwfaRMAnmcQMrAcTt 

Mr. DaYC Allardyca us. Fl and 

- 4(b)@HA] of the Epw 

SfKciMAot[&t)0f1sB3rBIapeedea 

(18u.!3.&1531etMl4+).mq&Mthettbe 

Servlceadea lhlitqmn3hether8 

petilimtokist.&?i@aredmasya 

species preaente eu~lppti8~8o&Mlc m 

commercial information b demoantrati 

that the petitionedgction may be 

warranted. Ta the mmdmnm extent 

practiabk. this $nd@ is to be mada 

within90dayud~tofthnpetitioo. 

andthcfmdingbtabepubbsl& 

prompdy in ~WJ Fsderd. RagbbL H tha 

fmdingit po?litiYQtb.0-iaabo 

required ttrpmmptiy c- aastahss 

review of the ape&s. 

Petition: The SfJrYice hm realved ad 

madeagOdag~onthefaRow@ 

petitions 

A petition dated JWJ 29. w wan 

received from Mr. Steven G. blaore ou 

July e, SQm T-ha petition nzqn3ati that 

thefiendceackktbepaddlefishtotba 

List of ThrBat0ucd Rlld f3mhqpd 

Specie8 under prov&fom of the 

EnhgexedSpeGiarActofW3.aa 

amended A 90&y Er&ing &&rbrct in 

the April 25 lm Fadacnl E&is& 

indicated that the petitfonar had ’ 

provkled &Cent atA aub8tnnW 

informatiaat indka*that listimg of the 

species may be warranted over po&arn 

of itm range. The p&tiormr indknted 

thatthereieasign&cantlonaofhistnrin 

rarrgc of the paddkfinh inndc~t#t 

coutmi of co-hat harPcrt 

inadequate Stata pm for 

protectioa aad co&imml habitat ion 

and degradation. Wild papnMcxm m 

being supplemented with hatchery 

raised flair. Concurrent with publishing 

the~ayfin&ngintheFsderd 

Regirtar, the Service initiated 8 status 

review. 

The period of the %-vice’s status 

review was extended because of the 

complexities of determining the slalre o

the paddlefiah The range of the 

pddlefi urrredy spans zz states ad 

overlaps 5 of the Service’s Regions 

which has complicated coordination and 

respontre time. In additfon. initial 

reaponse to the Service’s 30-day fmdhq 

and requeaf for speciffc nfatua 

information wa8 limited. In most cases. 

additional requests were required for 

clarifYcation of current 8fafus 

information oa paddlefish from Federal 

and State agencies. necessifating a 

further exlenu’on of the review period. 

The proposed actton in this notice and 

the foF.tOwfng aupportfng &formation 

constituh the l-year finding on the 

pefftfon to List the paddlefish. 

In 17&L Watbaum &e&bed the 

American pa&&fish am a new shark 

species, and in S&X, RaRneoquti wrote 

an extensive desorfption of it aa an 

“eatirely new &a& genur.’ Sharks. 

however, are cartifaginam ffih 

(ChondrichthyeaJ, while the paddlefisb 

belongs to that group of fish known as 

the bony fish (Osteichthyes]. Tht 

paddlefiah is a smooth-skinned, bizarrelookingaxehxawithabngpaddfc-hkn 

enout and a ti3iI with an elongeld 

dorsal lobe. Only one other species ia 

known from tkfs ferni& The Chinese 

stmgevn. Psephmm ghdius, which 

inhabita the Yangtze-Kiang River in the 

Chinese ~owhtnds and feeds on other 

Esh, whereas the American paddfefish 

feeds on phmkton (Becker 1983). 

Pad&fish are one of the largest 

freshwater fish. attaining lengths of 

more than L8 m (6 ft) and weights of 

moTe &an 45 kg (100 !&I). They may 

attain an age of over 30 years. 

PaddleBsh were historically abundant 

in most of the large rivers of the 

hfissiaeippi River drainage: specificafly 

noted were sltch rivers a8 the Missouri. 

ohie, Tennessee. Cumbedand White, 

Mensea Red, end the Mimhippi 

itsdt They ah were coticfered 

abundant in many of the Gtdf Coast 

river drainages in Texas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Alabama. Before the 

turn of the century, relict popuh3tione 

occurred iu mnue of the Great Lake and 

in Ontstia Canada. They have been 

extirpated born that Great Lelres and 

Canada and Born 8ofna of the peripbentl 

range Stam such es Pcnnsyhrenia. New 

York Marylend, and North Cardine. 

Pad&fish am known a8 filter feedem

are generelty assocfuted with large t+vW 

systems, and frequendy occur in large 

groups. l%ep an be found in e variety 

of hebitatr but prefer to spend much of 

their time feed@ in quiet backweter 

areas or other slow-moving water sites 
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 184 / Tuesday. September 22. 1~2 / Proposed Rules 4387

such as the downstream end of large 

sandbars. The natural. unaltered, freeflowing conditions that existed on the 

big rivers in the late 1800’8 and early 

1900’s (with their braided channels, 

extensive backwater areas, and oxbow 

lakes) provided ideal habitat and 

supported large paddlefish populations 

(Russell N&3). Populations or segments 

of populations have developed in 8ome 

large. man-made impoundments which 

provided greatly improved and 

expanded feeding areas, but paddlefish 

must have access to free-flowing river9 

to spawn. 

The following information is a 

summary and discussion of the five 

factors or listing criteria as set forth in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered 

Species Act (16 USC. 1531 et seq.) and 

regulation8 (SO CFR part 424) 

promulgated to implement the Dieting 

provisions of the Act and their 

applicability to the current status of the 

paddlefish and threat9 to their habitat. 

A. The &sent or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification. or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range. 

Thomas W. Gengerke (1980) noted 

that paddlefish atill occur over most of 

their historic range am& in some 

instancea appear to be reinvading 

previously lost habitat He also noted 

that. with few exceptiona the reduction 

in range has been confined to peripheral 

reaches of the historical distribution. 

Generally, the same analysis on range 

can be made today. However, 

interpretation of the available biological 

information (empirical, commercial, and 

statistical) applicable to the assessment 

of the viability of those paddlefish 

remaining within this historical range 

raises very serious question9 about the 

future ability of these big-river 

inhabitants to maintain viable 

populations throughout a significant 

portion of the species’ range. North 

Dakota. South Dakota. Nebraska, 

Missouri. Kentucky, and Tennessee reIy 

to some degree on supplemental 

stocking effort8 to maintain either sport 

and/or commercial fisheries within their 

boundaries. Texas has proposed a 

restoration plan that will be entirely 

dependent on a stoking 

Initial decline8 in pad dp 

mgran~ 

efieh 

population8 after the turn of the century 

were a result of the impact of water 

resource projects. primarily reservoir 

construction. on paddlefish habitat. Dam 

and reservoir cor~truction has altered 

most of the original paddlefish habitat III 

the United State8 by modifying 

temperature and flow regimes, 

eliminating spawning sitea disnrptfng 

epawning behavior and migration, and 

eliminating feeding and nursery areas 

(Spanowe 1986). This problem ha8 not 

been resolved. It continues to be a 

serious factor directly impacting the 

status and overall viability of paddlefish 

population8 throughout all the major 

river habitats of the species. Several 

snag fisheries that had developed in the 

tailwaters of reservoirs after initial 

cloeure of dam8 on the upper Missouri 

River in North Dakota and South Dakota 

and in other major rivers in Missouri, 

Texae, Kansas, and Oklahoma and 

along the Tennessee River System have 

disappeared in the last 10 to 12 yeam 

because of a lack of recruitment (Pas& 

and Alexander 1986 and Unkenholz 

1980). The very specific epawning 

requirement9 needed at critical times to 

ensure successfuI spawning and fry 

diapersal are no longer available above 

or below many major dams. 

Several newly authorized dam 

constn~ction sites both in Texas ami. 

Oklabma will be located on watemap 

within the historic range of the 

paddlefish and can be expected to cause 

problem for proposed restoration plans 

by the State of Texas. Paddlefish warn 

listed by Texas as ‘endangered” prior to 

1983. PaddI&sh populations in fwr 

major Gulf Coast drainages tn Texas 

have been so reduced because of 

reeervoir conalznctiod that they are 

eeldom seen by biologist9 or commercial 

and eport fishermen. PaddIeBsh ara 

believed to be extirpated from the 

Texas’ San jacinto drainage. 

Oklahoma’9 paddlefish popuiations 

have been so decimated by the 

impounding of its waterways by 48 

major reeervoirs since the early 1%50’s 

that the anticipated construction of 8 

new reservoirs in the State (7 of which 

will be on historic paddlefish waters) Is 

now expected to have minor Impacts on 

this epecies, according to biologists in 

that Region. 

The Service’9 recent status review 

also revealed that a number of 

additional threats may also pose serious 

problems for paddlefish habitat and 

range. Some of these threats may be 

more regional in nature, and others,, like 

declining water quality, appear to be 

more ubiquitous. Proposed irrigation 

projects for the Arkansas River and 

future water allocation issues are 

presently a significant concern in 

Arkansas. Aluso. future expansion of 

navigation pr+cts that will invoice 

significant dredging and channelization 

activities can be expected to further 

degrade paddlefish habitat in Texas, 

Arkansas, and possibly other southern 

States. 

Sand and gravel mining operation9 in 

Oklahoma waters and along certain 

section9 of the Mississippi River are a 

concern, a9 these activities undoubtedly 

have impact not only on spawning and 

nursery activities but also on water 

quality. The significance of these 

activities on paddlefish reproductive 

success ie presently unknown. as few 

States have been able to either 

positively identify specific spawning 

sites for protection or have been unable 

to commit resources for adequate 

management programs neceseary to 

more accurately verify population statu

and trends. 

Contaminant9 appear to be an 

increasing concern for many States. 

Kentucky has indicated. for example, 

that they believe paddlefish populations 

may be increasing in the Ohio River 

because of a general improvement in 

water quality in recent years. However

they am now considering closing 

Commercial fishing for paddlefish in 

their portion of the Ohio River ticanse 

of high IeveIs of chlordane and 

polychorinated biphenols [PCS] that 

exceed the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (Agency) standards for huma

consumption (Ted CrowelI. Kentmcky 

Department of Fish and WiIdlifa _ 

Resources, 1980, personal 

commrmication). Missouri has iseued 

consumption sctvisories for paddlefish 

from Table Rock Lake Reservoir (uppe

White River] because chlordane levels 

in both eggs and fIIIets from paddlefish 

were also found to exceed the Agency’

etandards. SimiIarIy, Arkansas has 

issued consumption advisories for 

portions of sev’eral major rivers becanse 

of high levels of dioxin and chlordane, 

and closures are a190 currently being 

considered. Texas has also indicated 

concern about the presence of dioxin. 

PCB, heavy metal, and a number of 

other pollutant8 in former paddlefish 

waters like the Trinity, the Nechea and 

the Sabine Rivers now proposed for 

restoration. Many of the contaminants 

of concern are highIy persistent 

oganochlorine9 that are known to cau

severe probIems for 5sh and 

invertebrate organisma making up the 

aquatic food chain. 

Deepite the ubiquitous habitat 

deetmction and modification probIem9 

associated with hydropower, irrigation

navigation, contaminants, and other 

industrial activities discussed above, 

there is a cause for some optimism. 

Researcher9 and field bioIo$sts from 

several States have reported the 

presence of what are believed to be 

stable and eelf-sustaining paddlefish 

populations; or, in some ca8es. 

paddlefish are now being 8een or 

collected in rivers where they have be

seen for several years. 
43678 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 1134 / Tuesday, September 22, 1992 / Proposed Rules 

In a 84 km (40 ml) stretch of the 

Tallapoosa River below Thurlow Dam in 

Alabama, researchers at Auburn 

University were able to collect “large 

numbers” of subadult paddlefish during 

a 1989 electrofishing swey. Paddlefish 

had not been taken in this area for 

several seasons. Paddlefish larval 

collections also have been made in the 

Tallapossa River above Montgomery, 

Alabama, in recent years. On the lower 

Alabama/Mobile River system, a 

District State biologist has described 

paddlefish as being “very abundant” in 

oxbows. A Missouri biologist reported 

taking paddlefish larve from the Lamine 

River (tributary of the Missouri River 

just below Omaha, Nebraska) and from 

two or three other locations on the 

Missouri River near the Osage River 

during 1988 and 1987 larval studies. 

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 

research biologist, Steve Filipek (1990 

personnel communication), reported 

that. despite growing problems, 

paddlefieh populations in the major river 

systems are regarded as self-sustaining. 

In Louieiana, there are uncertainties 

about the status of populations in some 

of the western drainages, but 

populations in Lake Pontchartrain and 

in other lakes and drainages in eastern 

Louisiana are regarded as being stable. 

There IS no further indication of habitat 

destruction or modification activities 

occurring in Mississippi, and biologists 

in that State regard paddlefish 

populations in the upper Pearl River as 

being abundant in oxbows. Also, recenf 

larval and young-of-the-year collection 

of paddlefish from the Homochitto, Big 

Black. arid Mississippi Rivera are 

indications of the existence of 

reproducing populations within the State 

of Mississippi. Even in Oklahoma, 

where populations have been severely 

impacted by reservoir constructioa 

there are recent reports by biologists of 

paddlefish snag fisheries that recently 

have developed on tributaries of the 

Eufaula Reservoir where no fish have 

been collected for several years. 

Illinois biologists believe that their 

paddlefish populations are stable based 

on the fact that the reported commercial 

harvest (primarily from the Mississippi 

River) between 1980 and 1987 remained 

at 24.000 to ~9,500 ~JJ (SSJIOO to 85,000 lbs 

per year). The paddlefish is fully 

protected in Wisconsin, but the State 

has reported the existence of what is 

believed to be a fairly stable population 

of 3,000 to 4.000 fish in the Wisconsin 

River below Prairie du Sac Dam. Also, 

more paddlefish ara being seen [both 

live and dead as a consequence of boat 

strikes) in Lake Pepin (Mississippi 

River) in recent years. Both Ohio and 

Kentucky believe they are seeing more 

paddlefish. in relative terms, in the Ohio 

River in recent years as a consequence 

of impmved water quality in that river. 

Paddlefish larval stages recently have 

been collected during lock and dam 

studies in those hvo States, and Ohio 

has recovered subadult paddlefish from 

a tributary in south central Ohio in 1969 

or 1990. Montana has reported that all 

its paddlefish populations in the upper 

Missouri River and the lower Missouri/ 

Yellowstone River segments are 

considered to be in good condition. This 

assessment was based on several years 

of data collection in research from 1973 

through 1989. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Education 

Puquwes 

Commercial exploitation has been and 

contipues to be a major factor affecting 

the viability of paddlefish populations 

throughout their range, but it has been 

particularly prevalent in southern 

reservoirs since the 1970’s when the 

price of me increased to over $44 a kg 

($20 a lb) (Pasch and Alexander 1986). 

The incentive for illegal harvest has 

increased tremendously in recent yeare. 

Demand and price for paddlefish me 

have continued to in&ease through the 

1960’s, and Federal law enforcement 

agents have indicated that it is not 

unusual for premium quality eggs within 

the United States to now retail at $llO to 

$154 per kg ($50 to $70 per lb). Demand 

for caviar in the United States hao 

increased from about 5,450 kg (12,mO 

lba) to 10,000 kg (22.0Cml lbs) per year. On 

the international market. processed 

paddlefish caviar is now selling for 

%I,100 per kg ($500 per lb) (Terry L 

Gmsz, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990, 

personal communication). Another 

indication of the demand for paddlefish 

caviar in this country was recently 

noted by Service agents at the San 

Francisco airport where 28 g (1 ozj tina 

of paddlefish caviar were selling for $56 

plus tax This amounts to about $l,990 

per kg [%eoo per lb). 

The vulnerability of paddlefish to’ 

commercial (legal and illegal) operations 

because of certain behavioral 

characteristics and their low recruitment 

rate (slow maturation) is wetI 

documented in Pasch and AIexander 

(ls88). They noted that. during their 

studies in the early 1980’s on southern 

reservoirs, it was possible to decimate 

adult paddlefish sto&a in three seasona. 

Even when mature fish are abundant. 

paddlefish reproductive success can be 

highly variable and dependent on river 

discharge and temperature during the 

spawning season (Alexander and 

McDonough 1983). When a popdation is 

depleted, adverse environmental 

conditions can increase both the tii:a 

required for recovery and the 

probability that the remaining stock will 

die without successfully reproducing. 

The Service regards the illegal harvest 

of paddlefish and their eggs as a serious 

threat to the survival and recovery of 

this species across most of its range. 

Fortunately, the majority of the States 

have also begun to recognize the 

magnitude and seriousness of the 

problem and have made a number of 

classification and/or regulatory changes 

since 1983. 

Six of the seven States sharing 

management responsibilities on the 

Missouri River no longer have a 

commercial season on paddlefish. North 

Dakota, Iowa, Missouri. and Kansas 

closed their commercial seasons after 

1983. South Dakota and Nebraska have 

not had a commercial season cil 

paddlefish. only Montana. where 

paddlefish populations are believed to 

be maintaining good age class structure 

and growth, has allowed commercial 

handling of roe. 

Commercial markeb for the handling 

of paddlefish me and meat exist in 

several southern States. Within the last 

3 years, two additional States (Louisiana 

and Alabama) have moved to fully 

protect the paddlefish because of 

indications of overexploitation. 

Minnesota. Wisconsin, Texas, and Ohio 

(hook and line fishing only) also classify 

the paddlefish as “pmtected.” 

Commercial fishing had been 

unrestricted in Arkansas and 

Mississippi. Both of these States, within 

the past 2 to 3 years. have placed 

seasonal restrictions on commercial 

paddlefish fishing; they have closed 

their border waters (Mississippi River) 

in a cooperative effort with adjacent 

States where the paddlefish is fully 

protected. Iowa closed its commercial 

season for paddlefish on the Mississippi 

River in 1987. Kentucky and Tennessee 

still maintain a commercial paddlefish 

season on the Mississippi River. but it is 

a small percentage of the States’ overall 

harvest lJ’ennessee--3 percent in 1989)

Both of these States have implemented 

gear restrictions, and Tennessee has 

indicated that a higher priority on 

enforcement has been initiated 6n 

commercial activities. West Virginia 

classifies the species as “threatened” 

but also lists the paddlefish as a “sport” 

fish; only hook and line fishing is 

allowed. Virginia does not regulate the 

paddlefish but is now considering 

classifying the species as “endangered.” 

Oklahoma has been considering 

additional protection of its only 

remaining viable paddlefish population 
Fedaral R@iar 1 VoL 57, No. 1g4 / Tuesday, September 22.1992 / Proposed Rules 

in the Grand River (Neosho River in 

Kansas), but no action her been taken. 

The Service klieves that the 

classification and regulatory changes 

discussed above have decreased 

overutilfzation of the peddlefish To 

further decrease the possibiiity of 

overutilization of the speciea the 

paddlefish was added to Appendix II of 

the Convention on International Trade 

in Endangered Specie8 of Wild Faun8 

and Flora (CITES; ‘eee discussion under 

Factor D) in March 1982. This will help 

to eliminate any i&gal international. 

trade. 

C. Disease or predarian 

Diseases and parasites of wild 

paddlefish populatlons heve not been 

studied to any greet extent. within the 

past couplti of yeam, Dr. H8rry 

Hallaway, Jr., of the University of North 

Dakota has identified the presence of 

various external and internal parasites 

in paddlefish taken &MI tha 

Yellowetone River in Montana [a 

population shared wftb North Dakota). 

He is presently trying to deztiaT 

significance of the occurren 

parasites on the overall condition end 

well-being of the upedes. 

Dr. Halloway’s studies showed heavy 

infestation of the giIh3 by 8 monogenetic 

trematode and heavy infestation of the 

intestinal tract with a nematode 

encysted in the walls and kee in the 

intestinal tract. Also of interest was 8 

discovery that the egg masses of 

paddlefish examined were parasitized 

by a coelenterate. Polypodium 

hydriforme. This parasite was found to 

diminish the number of viable eggs: 

however, further examination and 

counts indicated that only about 1 

percent of the eggs were affected 

The conclusion by Dr. Halloway and 

the Service is that parasite infestations 

in wild populations are a normal 

occurrence and by themselves do not 

constitute a significant tbmat to the 

paddlefish. Various types of stress 

factors, such a3 poar weter quality, 

rapid temperature changw, 

contaminanta poor conditi0n factors 

(from an inadequate food supply). or 

overcrowdfug in a hatchery situ&ion, 

are known to predispose fish to a 

variety of parasitea diseasea and 

secondary infection& The sign&ance of 

parasitic infestations may,be depends& 

upon the presence or interaction of the 

paddlefish with other envimnmentaI 

factors. 

D. The Inadequacy of tiding 

Regulatary Mechanisms 

There is a sign&ant need for a 

coordinated, joint Federal/State 

interagency management plan across 

the range of the paddlefish because of 

tbe complexity of the iesues and the 

difficulty in obtain&~ speciBc 

population status information on the 

epecies due to its mobility, Iarge size, 

and tendency to live in large rivers 

Management problems ars compounded 

along the Missopri Miasisaippk and 

Ohio Rivers wkm many States often 

share a paddleflab popuiation. Within 

the last 3 to 5 ycrara several States * 

the Mfssaurl and Mirrirsippi Rivers 

have attempted to coc&natst reg&tosy 

actionsbyelindn8tingorresMcGng 

;gd&y=id ,5wf for - 

I4nmiaMand- _ 

have clasd’ti B 

fiShiIqfo@&5&ik~~~ 

~aol$n!lwi&ctedte~ 

Ths!mi8evid0ncsthetaes 

consequence of tk very high demand 

for paddlefish caviar both on tlm 

national 8nd intamationaI market old 

th8currentpric8perpoundbcing 

received for processed em th8 thm8t 

of 0verexpIoitation of pad&&h fm 

t.heirrwksincmawd edwiulfkaky 

contiiul0toincrseMintk~ 

The Service fs enoDumged by the fact 

thaf many Statea within the past 3 to 6 

years, have responded to &is threat and 

have deveIoped needed reguletory 

actions that should help to reduce ilIeg8l 

harvest impacts. Despite the best of 

intentiona th8 combinatinn of 1egaI 

marketing operations within the United 

States end the denmnds for premium 

caviar by the tifernational trade markd 

will continue to exert tremendous 

pressure on Federal and State kw 

enforcement authorities to be able to 

distinguish illegally taken paddleAsh me 

from legal sources. It is too goon to tell. 

whether tkse more recent regulatory 

changes have had any impact on 

quelling the itlegal trade issue. In the 

judgment of the service, it is unrealistic 

to expect that regdstory actions within 

the United States alone will k abIe to 

adequately protect the paddlefish fmm 

this type of pressure. The history of the 

illegal harvest problem has been that 

bigbly orgmfzed, illegal operations have 

been at least 2 to 3 yeam ahead of Ial* 

enforce-t authorities and have 

decimated paddlefi sh populations weil 

before a problem was detected 

To help stop tbs illegd harvest the 

Service vended that the 

paddlefish k added to, appendix II of 

the Convention on Internation Trade 

in Endsngemd Sped& of Wild Fauna 

and Flora at the Conference of Parties 

meeting held in Kyota, Japan. on March 

Z-Z 19%~ Tk addition of the paddlefisb 

to appe&x II wes approved at that 

meeting. Aa an appendix II speden it 

will be necessary that an export permit 

be issued for any export of paddlefish, 

thetr parts, or derivatives (which 

includes w). A reexport certiffcate 

will have to accompany any subseqoc

shipment from the impomng cTmmt?y. 

Exportpermitswilloniykissuedwbso 

the action is not detrimental to the 

3urvtvaIoftksp0deaThfswntd0f 

exparta will make it eerier to curtail t

illegal esp0cts of tbo caviar mark& 

E. Other Natumi ar Mb-Made Factau 

Affecting Its CantiuedBisLenca 

Thsp;addkfIahbvlllnembI0to~ 

harvestbsomsseofcert8inkhavhrrrl 

charecteristicu Redictable sp8w 

llmaendsckoungtandendes~~ 

thek3pringaduintermmtb8atreadi& 

. . cIleaabchspwet0?-withIo 

5eS0?V0ItSlUSkS~~Sy 

toloc8t88ndcaptumandkvlB 

contribuf0citoth0deplttimofmany 

comma exploited populations 

(Pas& and Ahaader 1-k 

Alea the mlstively low reproductive 

po~0tha~dtfpil In 

-=tPd 

condinoeu lwowwrytoensum~ 

succwdid spewu @Ilcmdy lawnumks8oflvturallyrsprod~- 

populations+ and relatively small. 

numbers of individuals comprtstng sca

popnlstions m&car the species’ abilit

to maintein viable populations (without 

3upplementeI SW. 

When these factors am combined 

with the camuietive impact of the othe

factors affecting paddIe5sh rangs and 

via- (discussed under factor A), t

probability that remaining, segmented 

populations wiil recover is greatly 

reduced. Nevertheless. if overharvest 

can be controlled and other 

environmental problem3 mitigated or 

reaohmd the information received fro

the individual States during tk status 

revifm fndicates that the viabiMy of 

3ome peddle&h populations can be 

recovered Missourh reservoir Stodring 

program has proven to be sllcceSsfuL 

and eeverel other States (as discussed 

above under factor A) like Alabama 

Oklahoma Obfa Kentucky, Axkansaa 

and Miasissippk h8ve reported either 

increased sightings or catcks of eithe

larv8l stager, gOung-Of-tk-y~, 01 

~~badtdt fish from waters where 

populations have been considered to 

greatly reduced 

Tk p8tliionef referred to seven Sta

where tk st8tus of tk peddle5h wa

listed ar declinbq in the 1983 Cen&e 

repart. Tkss Statss are Alabama. 

Illinois, Ksnsea Ok South Dakota 

Texas, and West Virginis. Tbe status 

paddIe5h tn one State, Oklahoma, w

listed as t&mown. Since 1983. there 

have been some important changes. 
436mJ Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 104 1 Tuesday, September 22, 1992 1 Proposed Ruies 

These States, including several others 

bordering the upper Missouri and upper 

Mississippi River drainages. have taken 

regulatory actions on their own to 

protect populations. Based on primarily 

empirical information from these States 

and/or our Service Regions, there is an 

apparent improvement in the status of 

seven of the above eight States. These 

States believe their population9 to be 

stable or expanding, except for Texas 

where there is an apparent continued 

decline despite full protection. 

Alabama has closed both commercial 

and eport fishing. State biologists are 

now reporting large numbers of 

paddlefish in the lower Alabama River/ 

Mobile River delta complex and 

increased numbers of mbadults below 

Thurlow Dam in the Tallapooea River, 

including paddlefish larval collections 

near the Tombigbee River. The States of 

Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia 

believe that paddlefish may be 

increasing in the Ohio River and some of 

its tributaries because of a general 

improvement in water quality and the 

fact that more paddlefish juvenile9 and 

young-of-the-year are being taken on the 

Ohio River during lock and dam studies. 

In 1989. Ohio biologists captured 30 

subadult paddlefish from a tributary of 

the Scioto River several mile9 above theOhio River. Kentucky considers 9ome of 

its most significant populations to be in 

the Ohio River below Louisville, 

Kentucky. West Virginia also believe8 

that paddlefish number9 are increasing 

on the upper Ohio and Kanawha Rivers 

based on increased capturea. improving 

water quality, and an indication that 

some spawning may be occurring within 

80 km (50 mi) of its border on the Ohio 

River. 

Both the State9 of South Dakota and 

Nebraska share management 

responeibilities for the Missouri River 

population below Gavin8 Point Dam and 

its reservoir, Lewis and Clark Lake. 

Paddlefish larvae have been collected In 

Lewis and Clark Lake (from the freeflowing section below Fort Randall 

Dam) nearly every year for tha past 

several years and appear to be 

increaeing* The paddlefish population 

below Gavins Point Dam is regarded as 

having stabilized at approximately boo0 

fish. and the current annual harvest 

quota of 1.800 fish may be further 

reduced, A prohibition against enagging 

immediately below Gavin9 Point Dam, 

where meet fish are taken, was initiated 

in October 1981. Population sagments in 

South Dakota’s remaining Missourf 

River reservoirs are regarded as having 

declined since 1963. Adequate spawning 

habitat in tributaries of these reservoirs 

is not available. 

Kansas, which closed its portion of 

the Mi990u.b River to commercial 

paddlefish operations in January 1991, 

share9 its populations with Oklahoma 

(Grand River/Meosho River) and 

Missouri (the Marais de9 Cygnes/Osage 

River in Missouri), and paddleflsh were 

recently discovered in the Marmaton 

River (Little Osage River in Missouri). 

The State believes that these 

populations ara “healthy and 

sustainable.” Kansas also made an 

attempt in September 1991 to reestablish 

paddlefish in the uppar Arkansas River 

by stocking Kaw Reservoir in a 

cooperative agreement with OkIahoma. 

Adequate spawning habitat is available 

on the Walnut and Arkanaar Rivers 

above this reservoir. ’ 

Illinois has assessed the status of its 

population9 a9 stable based on the fact 

that commercial harvest has 

consistently been between 24,000 and 

29,500 kg (53,000 and 85,000 lbs) between 

1980 and 1987, although the 1986 harvest 

was slightly higher at 35,200 kg (77,500 

lba). The majority of this harvest is 

reported to be from the lock and dams 

on the Mississippi River, but paddlefish 

are also reported in other major rivem. 

like the Illinois, Little Wabash, 

Sangamon, Kaskaskia. and the Big 

Muddy. 

weakening of the gene pool and loss of 

identity from original stocka could 

become a problem. However, genetic 

inforplation on the paddlefish is 

presently quite limited and the 

propagation program technology Is still 

developing on a national baais. 

Consequently, the availability of 

hatchery rained paddlefish fingerling to 

those States that use this source to 

supplement existing stocks is quite 

limited 

Oklahoma believes that its 

populations are stable. The major 

fishery is in the Grand River system 

where commercial harvest is allowed 

only from Grand Lake. The State 

believes that downstream areas of the 

Grand River at Fort Gibson and 

Markham Ferry could sustain some 

commercial harvest tf illegal fishing 

could be eliminated. Young-of-the-year 

paddlefish have been collected from the 

Grand River and on the Arkansas River 

below Keystone Reservoir. There is now 

evidence that populations am present 

and increasing in Keystone Reservoir as 

a snag fishery was obeerved to have 

developed upstream of the reservoir 

during the spring high water period in 

1990. 

Although several State9 currently 

utilize a stocking program a9 a 

management tool, it would be inaccurate 

to characterize these program9 as being 

overreliant on hatchery produced 

fingerling. Generally, the degree of 

stocking om on a national basis is 

not at a level that could be expected to 

maintain population segments at viable 

levels. Nearly all States that atilile 

supplemental stocking receive 

fingeriings that have originated from 

wild broodstock taken from river 

systems geographically common to that 

State..Tha only known exception to this 

would be the Texas pmgram. Also, the 

Food and w Administration has 

recently cancelled the restricted 

Investigational New Animal Drug 

(INAD) permit at selected Federal and 

State hatcheries A number of chemicals 

essential to the success of hatchery 

production programs may no longer be 

available. Thir will have a major impact 

on the paddlefieh production programs 

and the availability of fingerlings in the 

immediate future. 

Paddlefish populations in Texan, 

although protected are apparently still 

in decline. Restoration efforts were 

initiated in 1989 above BA Steinhagen 

Reservoir (Neches River), and additional 

restoration reservoir construction and 

multipurpose navigation project9 in the 

State could jeopardize future restoration 

plans, however. 

The Act require8 the Service to make 

its determinations regarding listing 

solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available after 

conducting a review of the status of the 

species and after taking into account 

those effoa being made by States or 

others to protect the species. It is the 

opinion of the Service that although the 

empirical information reviewed suggests 

an apparent decline for 9ome population 

segments of the paddlefish, scientific 

and commercial evidence to list the 

species a9 threatened throughout its 

range is not available. 

The petitioner aleo identified the usa 

of hatchery raised fish as a potential 

threat to the genetic diversity of the 

species. Unless a management and 

propagation program for a particular 

species is closely monitored there is 

alwayr the potential threat that 

The primary difficulty encountered by 

the Service in attempting to a99es9 the 

current statun and/or trends war a 

nearly complete absence of any 

population data addressing population 

size, age structure, gmwtir data, or 

harvest rates across the range.of tha 

paddlefish. This war particularly true 

for those States bordering the upper 

Mississippi and Ohio Rivem where the 

only significant information available 

was commercial data from Illinois, 

Iowa, and Mi9sourl. Also, a paucity of 

current population data exists from most 
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No; 184 / Tuesday, September 22. 1%~ / Proposed Rules 43

of the States bordering the Missouri 

River end the Gulf Coast States. In 

many cases, State9 have had to make 

assessment9 based primarily on 

empirical data, sightings by biologists 

incidental to other fishery activities, and 

general information from commercial or 

sport fishermen. Generally, the 

biological and statistical evidence was 

not available to conclusively verify 

specific trends or to verify that the 

statur of paddlefish populations Is 

indeed stable or viable. Of concern is 

the fact that since the 1983 statu9 survey 

was completed by Gengerke f>g8@, 1S of 

2 State9 where paddlefish still occur 

have recognized indications of 

overharvest and continued habitat 

degradation problems; however, they 

have made changes in either the 

classification, status, and/or regulatory 

statue of their aport and/or commercial 

paddlefish fishery to overcome these 

problems. 

The Service has concluded that, 

because of the apparent viability of 

some populations or population 

segments and apparent increases in ths 

species’ numbers in part9 of it9 range, 

listing the species acrosb its rang9 ir not 

warranted. In attempting to assess the 

species-wide threat9 or impacts on the 

paddleRsir, the Service considered both 

the limited amounts of empirical and 

biological data and relied very heavily 

on personal interview9 with many State 

and Federal field biologist9 who work 

closely with the resource. The 

overwhelming opinion of these 

professionals is that while they 

recognize that severe threats have 

caused significant population declines in 

parts of the species’ range, their 

observations. limited surveys, and 

conversations with commercial and 

sport fishermen also indicate that 9ome 

paddlefish populations appear to be , 

holding their own (also based on 

collections of both paddlefish larvae 

and fry from several systems) and may, 

be increasing 

Most of the southeastern States also 

believe that regulatory changes made 

within-the last 3 to 5 years along with 

increased enforcement activities may 

allow recovery of paddlefish 

populations in river systems where 

adequate habitat conditions still exist. 

Some field biologists also indicated that 

if adequate funding and manpower were 

available to expand survey effort9 to 

Borne of the more complex river system9 

and bayous where peddfe5sh have been 

seen on a regufar basis, a more accurate 

and possibly e more favorable 

accounting of the species’ status would 

be possible. 

The Service also had difficulty in 

attempting to define a distinct 

population segment for listing purposes. 

The Service has the authority to list a 

distinct population segment for any 

vertebrate fish or wildlife species which 

interbreeds when mature. However, 

congressional language indicates that 

the Service is “to us9 the ability to: list 

population9 sparingly and only when ths 

biological evidence indicates that such 

action ir warranted” (Sermte Report NG.. 

96-151,96thCongre9~lrtSe9sion 7, 

1979]. 

Genetic islblIloti~avtveil& en .lbeT 

peddlefish L also axtremaly li&& ” 

only two studier are hmwn to haw 

been dons on the species, one by 

Cerison (1983) using electrophorstic 

(prutsin analysis) techniques 9md tha 

other study by ths IllinoisNaturai~ 

History Survey (Epifanto, Nadbek smd 

Phihpp 1989) which uoed both protein _ 

electrophoresis and restric&n. 

endonucleaea fragment analysis of 

mitochondrisl DNA (mtDNA anolysir), 

Carl9on (1982) was the fir9t. 

a99es9naent d the genetie strnotnre oi--. 

paddle&h populatioPr and the randy 

found that thaspsctes w&ibitact,e lewes 

genetic v&&ility (9esmonly in a few..,- 

other enimd gmpn) than that nsportdfor ether vertebrate9 end other 

Osteichthyea Poesible explsnutions fos 

this low geneticvariability ds9u+bsd by 

the study were that the environmentalstability of the MississippiRiver rystem 

through geologic time may have led to 

the fixation of a highly adaptive 

genotype. Also, the paddlefish. which is 

regarded ea e primitive and genetically 

conservative organism and is a rather 

large, long-lived species with the 

capacity to travel great dlstsnces, may 

be responding to its environment in a 

much less fin+gra.ined fashion Tim 

smaller, short-lived lesr mobile speciea 

The lack of electrophoretic diff9r9nces 

does not necessarily imply a lack of 

genetic differences, but it do99 rugged 

that any such genetic differences that 

might be present would be present at 

only low levels. One paddleAsh taken 

from the Alabama River drainage was 

noted as being genetically distinct 

. because it war homozygous for one 

allele not found in the Missbsippl River 

drainage paddlefish 

The study by Epifanio. Nedbat and 

Phil&p (1983) showed slightfymors 

genetic variability during protein 

electrophorstris work but indicated that 

this variability was sttll low compared 

to other fishes “and that stock structure 

of the paddIefl9h is not exectiy clear.” 

The qualitative mtDNA analysti which 

is described as being mars useful than 

protein electrophoresis for monitoring 

paddlefish population genetic dynam

reflect9 e clonal mode of inheritance. 

This work identi5ed a north-south 

distribution of three clone typea The 

“c” donea were observed primarily 

north of the mid-Missouri River; the 

clones were observed in the southern 

portion of the rangsz and the “A” don

was observed uniformly throughout 

range and probably indicates that 

multiple stock9 were sampled ovur t

species range. Additional work i9 

necessary to d&rmine if paddlefish 

some area8 are genetically dIeti& fr

peddls59h inother area 

In many portions of the specied r9

their i9 an apparent isolation (139 a 

result of dama ressrvoirs, and differe

drainage basins) from neighboring 

member9 of the same taxcm. The 

question remains unanswered as to 

whether thess isoletton factors have 

been rIgni5caut enough to produce 

genetically distinct populations 

However. the most recent population 

studies dons by.Reed [undated) did 

show that L~ui9ians paddlefish 

populations exhibited both ( 

morphdogkal diff9rsnc9s an* 

signi5cantly different fecundi@ 

estimatfm ffom otha paddlefbh 

popniatiorm found throughout river 

systems of the Mis9issippi River 

drainage. Many of the paddlefish 

cofl&sd by Reed were taken from G

Coast stre9m9 or other water bodies 

which either have no apparent 

connection with the Mississippi Rive

perhaps only ecasonal tie9 during flo

events. Sexual dimorphism between 

sexes in Louisiana paddlefish was 

considerably less pronounced (fema

and males being equally slender at 

sexual maMty), and fecundity 

estimates (number of eggs produced 

kilogram of body weight) for Lake 

Pontchartrain paddlefish wers found 

be considerably lower than fecunditi

reported in the literature. Also, there 

some evidence (bssed on conversatio

with 5eld biologist9 in several 

southeastern Statss) that paddleff sh 

the eouthem portion of their range m

matura slightly ear&r and are gene

smaller [in weight) than their 

counterparts in mars northern range

The scientific evidence is not 

conclustve that morphological, 

behavioral, and biochemical 

characteristics of ths ‘population 

segmentm” are distinctly different fro

other members of the taxon. Genetic 

variability of the species 18 regarded 

low, and thers is some documentatio

end evidence of populertion segment 

exchangem between reservoir ad lo

and dam systems across the species

range. On a national basis, the relia
Federal RegMsr 1 VoL S?, Na. 184 / Ttwciay. September 22, 1992 j Proposed RuIes 

of the States an a stocking program 

constitutea a very .sntd portion of thy 

specie8’ reproductive potential. 

Therefare. the Service doea n& belieye 

thst either the cumnt stocking m 

or future prograInr. givea the prodllcth 

pfugram cormtraints and cowicier@ the 

above dincuaalan, are likely b 

jeopardize the genetic variabiMy of the 

speciea 

Studier by Tennessee Valley 

Authority biologists in the late lWC?'s 

and eady lBB(l’s documented an 

exchange of puddleflab Id rbgar; 

between some Tennessee VaHey 

Authority reeervoim. Oklabana 

biologistn believe that there ir I! m 

poesibtity that peddlefbh mw 

ac~beiowKegstom~cm 

the Arkanti River orQin&ed from t&a 

Grand River/Grand Lake stock. A 

similar exchange of paddlefIst, 1-1 

stagea and fry may be Mirtg phsce 

within come upper Missouri River barfn 

reeevmfm. BfologiBts are pIt?sently 

engaged h studier to confirm the4 

possibility or extent of thh, exchange, 

particularly below Gaviur Point Dam on 

hvis and Clark Lake, South Dakota. 

Similarly, the apparent isolation of 

paddlefish population0 endemic to 

severd Gulf Coast streams in Texa6, 

Louisiana. and Alabama from the 

Mississippi River drainage is not 

conclmfve and can be questioned. These 

is the possibility of exchange between 

the Tenuessee River system and the 

Alabama River via the newly completed 

Tombigbee River CanaL Some biologietr 

believe that there is a strong possibility 

that there has been an exchange of 

several other Gulf Coast river paddlefish 

populations with the Mississippi River 

drainage via the Intercoastal Waterway, 

specificeIly in Louisiana. 

Althaugh paddIefi8h have very 

specific spawning requirement* then 

Service doee not beIieve that the 

information and data availah 

demonstrates that habitat utilized by 

several apparently isolated paddlefib 

population8 i8 “unique.” In tact the 

literature shows that paddle5ab have 

been able to adapt froar tha tiu 

river environment to a reservoir 

situation (at least for feeding w) 

and still be able ta maintain population 

viability if provided access to the 

riverine environment, if adequate 

apavAingcalditictwaremaintained 

and if harvest is adequately amtrolled. 

The sanice. after fully avaluat@ ati 

of the above information. hu cux&uH 

that then3 ir not eufficimt wti8c 

evidence to cand~&veAy &XIICAIU~~#D 

that any population regmxktr am b M 

“ClieW fmo! 0th memtms afthw 

taxon. Listing of the paddlefish by 

“population” h therefor not po8ai&. 

The statua review reveakl that them 

is I) were lack of papuhtion data and 

scientific inkumatkm an the specie8- 

whkb hinden m mxwate assessment 

OfthOStllttlUOfh~kr.ThenfOrs; 

the !hrviw inten& t0 re4Aeueify tJke 

pddf&dbtl~hgO~3C~a 

caay Z Thib da8sificstfoa fhsnge 

woorage further ilmmfgeti 

andbioJa@~rerearchofthespeeM 

statuu 

The reclassifidation from a cat3Cbeoategory2epecfwmtd*mcent 

addittaaoftkepeMefMtoAppen&x 

II Ofthecwv~eE ftwl¶tau 

Tradein&&ege&Spe&aofWd“ 

Fa-d-hwse ofdm-~amc8ln 

atatur ufh~IMh8~ 

TheBt8hslwkw 

therel~e Bemre lade of pepthtioa d8ta 

and scienti& information on tke 

specie!% withunt which an a-h 

aweauuentofthemagMudeandia~ 

implicationa of the many M 

did above cannot be accnmtdy 

Iigtgzaw2 

we will continue to mdkw the epedd 

8muB. rfappqrkfe dab - 

available ia the fWwe witch indkafu 

thatthe8p8&sme~quaMya,e 

thref?tewdareItde~~or 

that di~tinci &atiom no defined Ln 

theActCSlIlbOdfStirrgulshe&the~ 

will rutraee~~ the Btabm end pmqme 

listing as newwary. 

lzakacwclti 

AIuxelldur.cbt.dT.A.~logL 

Efkc~ of w&r conditiorvdtwi~~ 

apevdug 00 paddlelab yciuwlan 

stce!~ iuoIdHic&ry Rerervaic. 

fermunsuu. T~JUWBIW V&y Authority, 

Of&a of Natorat Reaaarces. Mvfsian Ot 

AbaadWatmRemuca~ 

Tm~o#.USARogre~Report16 

l3Blizz~ltm3Rslwdw-Pagn 

23l-aB. Tlw UBi~ of w- 

-wIwPas& RW, and CM. AlexalXier. Ue8. 

Effects d u) mmurcfak riehina on 

paddkfii papulations Pa&i 486311~ 

I.C. nillard. Lx. Gi-atmn end T.R 

Smrrowa R.D. um&Tbruata to tinddbSh