31834 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b) 

of the Commission’s rules. In 

proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) of the 

rules or for which the Commission has 

made available a method of electronic 

filing, written ex parte presentations 

and memoranda summarizing oral ex 

parte presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml., .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

Synopsis 

On May 13, 2022, the Competitive 

Carriers Association (CCA) filed a 

Petition for Declaratory Ruling or 

Limited Waiver asking the Commission 

to clarify that Broadband Data 

Collection (BDC) filings may be certified 

by a qualified professional engineer or 

an otherwise-qualified engineer that is 

not a licensed professional engineer 

accredited by a state licensure board. 

The Commission’s rules require that an 

engineer review and certify the accuracy 

of the broadband availability data 

submitted by mobile and fixed 

providers as part of the BDC. In 

particular, the Commission requires 

each mobile and fixed service provider 

to include certifications as to the 

accuracy of its data submissions by a 

certified professional engineer or 

corporate engineering officer, in which 

the engineer certifies ‘‘that he or she has 

examined the information contained in 

the submission and that, to the best of 

the engineer’s actual knowledge, 

information, and belief, all statements of 

fact contained in the submission are 

true and correct and in accordance with 

the service provider’s ordinary course of 

network design and engineering.’’ This 

certification is in addition to the 

corporate officer certification required 

by the Broadband DATA Act. For 

government and other third-party 

entities that submit verified broadband 

availability data, the engineering 

certification must also include a 

certification by a certified professional 

engineer that he or she is employed by 

the government or other third-party 

entity submitting the verified broadband 

availability data and has direct 

knowledge of, or responsibility for, the 

generation of the government or other 

entity’s Broadband Data Collection 

coverage maps. 

In its petition, CCA asserts that the 

‘‘experience and expertise developed by 

[Radio Frequency (RF)] engineers 

through their work provides 

comprehensive skills relevant to 

broadband deployment [and] provides 

skills comparable to, and perhaps more 

relevant than, general licensure through 

the PE . . . exam process.’’ CCA 

therefore requests that the Commission 

clarify that the requirement in 47 CFR 

1.7004(d) that all providers must 

include as part of their BDC filing a 

certification of the accuracy of its 

submissions by a certified professional 

engineer may be completed by either a 

licensed professional engineer or an 

otherwise qualified engineer who 

possesses the appropriate engineering 

expertise but does not hold a 

professional engineer license. 

Additionally, CCA requests that the 

Commission clarify that the term 

‘‘corporate engineering officer’’ may be 

any employee who has ‘‘direct 

knowledge’’ and is ‘‘responsible for’’ the 

carrier’s network design and 

construction and who possesses a 

Bachelor of Science degree in 

Engineering. Alternatively, CCA 

requests a limited waiver of the 

requirement that BDC data be certified 

by a licensed professional engineer, and 

instead allow mobile providers to certify 

their data with an RF engineering 

professional with specified 

qualifications that are directly relevant 

to broadband availability assessment. 

CCA recommends that if the 

Commission seeks to specify 

qualification standards or requirements 

for engineers to certify broadband 

availability, it should adopt standards 

that specifically relate to broadband 

availability assessment, such as 

academic and employment experience, 

RF and propagation modeling 

experience, and knowledge relevant to 

wireless carriers’ networks. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Amy Brett, 

Acting Chief of Staff, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11193 Filed 5–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

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, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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-ofcontact 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 ‘‘PontoCaspian 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31836 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 PontoCaspian 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 Caspian Sea 

basins.

More common historically in 

Caspian and Aral than Black 

and Azov Sea basins.

Caspian basin, esp. 

its southern extent.

Azov, Black, and Caspian Sea 

basins. 

Countries inhabited 

(countries with extirpated wild populations in italics; the 

country with introduced and established wild populations is CAPITALIZED).

Armenia; Austria; Azerbaijan; 

Belarus; Bosnia & 

Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; Hungary; Georgia; Germany; Iran (Islamic Republic 

of); Kazakhstan (Republic 

of); Moldova; Romania; Russian Federation (Russia); 

Serbia; Slovakia; Turkey; 

Turkmenistan; Ukraine.

Armenia; Azerbaijan; Bosnia & 

Herzegovina; Bulgaria; 

CHINA; Croatia; Georgia; 

Hungary; Iran, Kazakhstan 

(Republic of); Moldova; Russian Federation (Russia); 

Romania; Serbia; Turkey; 

Ukraine; Uzbekistan; 

Turkmenistan.

Armenia; Azerbaijan; Iran (Islamic Republic 

of); Kazakhstan 

(Republic of); 

Russian Federation (Russia); 

Turkmenistan.

Armenia; Austria; Azerbaijan; 

Belarus; Bosnia & 

Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; Hungary; Georgia; Germany; Iran (Islamic Republic 

of); Kazakhstan (Republic 

of); Moldova; Romania; Russian Federation (Russia); 

Serbia; Slovakia; Turkey; 

Turkmenistan; Ukraine. 

Age at maturity, years 

(male/female).

8–13/10–16 ............................. 9/12–18 ................................... 8–15/12–18 ............. 6–12/7–14. 

Reproductive frequency, years 

(male/female).

2–3/4–6 ................................... 1–2/2–3 ................................... 2–4/2–4 ................... 2–3/3–4. 

Maximum longevity 

(male/female).

>50; now rarely reaches 40, 

due to harvest.

32 ............................................ 60–70; now rarely 

reaches 40, due 

to harvest.

41; now rarely reaches 30, 

due to harvest. 

Female fecundity 

(mean # of eggs, 

varies with female 

body size).

350,000 ................................... 400,000–850,000; 10–22% of 

body mass.

320,000 ................... Up to 1.5 million. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31838 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 °C (Gessner et al. 

2010a, not paginated; Gessner et al. 

2010b, not paginated, Qiwei 2010, not 

paginated), whereas Persian sturgeon 

breed beginning at 16 °C and stop at 

25 °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, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP25MY22.000</GPH>

Figure 1-The Black (southern) and Azov 

(northern) Seas and their major rivers. 

Figure 2-The Caspian Sea and its 

major rivers. 

Figure 3-The Aral Sea and its major 

rivers. 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31839 

p. 389). Ship sturgeon also have a long 

period spent in freshwater as juveniles 

(Gessner 2021, in litt.), but some PontoCaspian 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31840 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 speciesspecific 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 watercontrol 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 SyrDarya 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 km2 (26,000 mi2) in 1960 to just 

over 14,000 km2 (5,400 mi2; 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 PontoCaspian 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31842 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 PontoCaspian (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). Stillstricter 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 (BacalbasaDobrovici 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 (BacalbasaDobrovici 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 riverbottom 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 m2 (2,000 

per ft2; 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 (TzikhonLukanina 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 VolgaDon 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 m2 (28 

per ft2) in the middle and southeastern 

portions of the Caspian (Kamakin and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31844 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Khodorevskaya 2018, p. 174), although 

some authors report as many as 8,085 

warty comb jellies per m2 (751 per ft2) 

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) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 km2

(5,400 mi2) 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 PontoCaspian 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, fastincreasing 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 AmuDarya 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 °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 °C per decade since 1971 (Bui et 

al. 2018, p. 499). The lower Danube 

River is projected to warm by up to 1 °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 °C, whereas Persian 

sturgeon prefer warmer water of 16–25 

°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 °C (WSCS and WWF 

2018, p. 51). For the most northerly 

Ponto-Caspian rivers including the 

Volga, daily mean temperatures rarely 

exceed 17 °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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31846 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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-toyear 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 SyrDarya, 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 (Sko ́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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31847 

TABLE 2—HIGHLIGHTS OF CURRENT PONTO-CASPIAN STURGEON RESILIENCY, REDUNDANCY, AND REPRESENTATION

RESILIENCY (large, connected populations; reproducing and 

able to withstand demographic stochasticity).

• Few, if any, populations breed at self-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 populations to 

withstand catastrophic events).

• RUSSIAN: 9–10 extant populations, all with low or 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 diversity; maintenance of adaptive potential).• RUSSIAN: High intrapopulation genetic 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; lowresiliency 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 AmuDarya 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 PontoCaspian 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). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31848 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Persian Sturgeon 

The Persian sturgeon, the most 

geographically restricted of the PontoCaspian 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 SefidRud 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 (BacalbasaDobrovici 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 nonbinding, 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 PontoVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 May 24, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM 25MYP1

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 PontoCaspian 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 abovecited 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 PontoCaspian 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 wildsourced 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 PontoCaspian 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31850 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 (KecseNagy 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 wildcaught 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 PontoCaspian 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). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 selfsustaining 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 selfsustaining 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31852 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 selfsustaining 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 PontoCaspian 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 PontoCaspian 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 PontoCaspian sturgeon species with a nonlisted 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 CITESlisted 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 (mary_cogliano@fws.gov; 703– 

358–2104). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31854 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 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: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules 

*******

FISHES

*******

Sturgeon, Persian ................... Acipenser persicus ................ Wherever found ..................... E [Federal Register citation 

when published as a final 

rule]. 

Sturgeon, Russian .................. Acipenser gueldenstaedtii ...... Wherever found ..................... E [Federal Register citation 

when published as a final 

rule]. 

*******

Sturgeon, ship ......................... Acipenser nudiventris ............ Wherever found ..................... E [Federal Register 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1