[Federal Register: April 21, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 77)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21425-21438]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21ap04-9]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AI11
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final
Determination of Threatened Status for the Beluga Sturgeon (Huso huso)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
threatened status for the beluga sturgeon (Huso huso) under the
authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.). The beluga sturgeon is a large fish from which highly valued
beluga caviar is produced. The species' range was reduced during the
20th century, and is now limited to the Caspian and Black Sea Basins.
The species is threatened through habitat modification and degradation,
over-exploitation for trade, limited natural reproduction, and
agricultural and industrial pollution. A number of positive
conservation measures have been taken for all sturgeon species since
all previously unlisted Acipenseriformes species (sturgeons and
paddlefishes) were added to Appendix II of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) in 1998. The regulatory mechanisms and consequent actions that
have been implemented by CITES Parties, including the range countries
for these species, have improved the status of the species and will be
discussed later in this notice. We believe that additional conservation
measures for sturgeon species that have been adopted by the CITES
Standing Committee will afford further benefits to beluga sturgeon, and
other sturgeon species, provided the measures are fully implemented and
continue to be supported by the CITES community. This rule identifies
the beluga sturgeon as a species in need of conservation; implements
protective measures by extending the full protection of the Act to the
species throughout its range; and complements current and future
conservation measures to be undertaken by the species' range countries,
as recommended by the CITES Standing Committee.
DATES: This rule is effective October 21, 2004.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,
by appointment, during normal business hours in the office of the
Division of Scientific Authority; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401
North Fairfax Drive; Room 750; Arlington, Virginia 22203.
Requests for copies of the regulations regarding listed wildlife
and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed to:
Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401
North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203, (telephone:
(703) 358-2104; facsimile: (703) 358-2281).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert R. Gabel, Chief, Division of
Scientific Authority, at the above address (phone: 703-358-1708). For
permitting information, contact: Tim Van Norman, Chief; Branch of
Permits-International; Division of Management Authority; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax Drive; Room 700; Arlington,
Virginia 22203 (phone: 703-358-2104).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The beluga sturgeon is the largest of all sturgeon species.
Historic reports indicate that individual fish can reach 6 meters in
length and more than one ton in weight. It is also considered the most
economically valuable fish in the world, because the female beluga
sturgeon is harvested to produce beluga caviar.
Beluga sturgeon are highly vulnerable to depletion, due to their
unique life-history characteristics, and because the fishery for them
targets the reproductive segment of the population. The species is
long-lived and slow to mature.
[[Page 21426]]
Although estimates indicate that the oldest fish currently harvested
are 50-55 years of age, with an average age of less than 35 years,
during the early 20th century 100-year-old beluga sturgeon were
commonly taken in the northern Caspian Sea (Khodorevskaya et al. 2000).
On average, beluga sturgeon mature between 10 and 16 years of age for
males, and between 14 and 20 years for females (Hochleithner and
Gessner 1999). Male beluga sturgeon spawn only once every 4-7 years,
whereas females reproduce once every 4-8 years (Raspopov 1993).
Fecundity in adult female beluga sturgeon increases with age;
individual fish will produce a greater number of eggs during each
subsequent spawning run. On average, adult female H. huso can produce
up to 12 percent of their body weight in roe (DeMeulenaer and Raymakers
1996).
The historic range of the beluga sturgeon formerly encompassed the
Caspian Sea, Black Sea, Adriatic Sea, Sea of Azov, and all rivers
within their watersheds (Khodorevskaya et al. 2000). Range countries
currently include: Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic,
Georgia, Hungary, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, the
Republic of Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Yugoslavia. The Adriatic Sea population is
considered extirpated, and the last record of a wild-caught specimen in
the Sea of Azov is from the mid-1980s (TRAFFIC/Europe 1999). The
species' current range is limited to the Caspian and Black Sea Basins.
Loss of spawning habitat has had the greatest impact on the
survival of beluga sturgeon populations. Hydrographic modifications to
major spawning rivers caused changes in river flow regimes that have
had a negative impact on beluga sturgeon spawning behavior. Dam
construction, for hydroelectric power generation and flood control,
produced impassable barriers to migration. Spawning grounds have been
flooded, and a large portion of the remaining rocky substrate that was
previously utilized by the species for spawning has been blanketed by
siltation. Observations during the 19th century indicated that the
Black Sea H. huso population over-wintered and spawned as far north as
the Austrian and Bavarian portions of the Danube River. Beluga sturgeon
were once abundant in the Danube River. Harvest rates during the mid-
1970s averaged 23 metric tons annually. After the construction of the
Djerdap I and II dams during the 1980s, annual harvest assessments
indicated that the Danube River populations were rapidly decreasing
(Hensel and Holcik 1997). Within one decade, annual Danube River beluga
sturgeon harvest declined to12.7 tons, indicative of the dams' effect
on spawning sturgeon populations (Bacalbasa-Dobrovici 1997b).
The eradication of centralized control of the fishery in the
northern Caspian Sea after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and
persistent high demand for beluga caviar, led to expansion of illegal
harvest of the species and the growth of an illicit worldwide trade
network to supply the demand. Enforcement has been difficult due to a
lack of financial resources to supply adequate boats, equipment, and
salaries for conservation officers.
On December 18, 2000, we received a petition to list the beluga
sturgeon as endangered under the Act. On June 20, 2002, we published
concurrent 90-day and 12-month findings on the petition (67 FR 41918).
The 90-day finding stated that the petition presented substantial
information indicating that the requested action may be warranted. The
12-month finding stated that the petitioned action is warranted.
Subsequently, on July 31, 2002, we announced a proposal to list the
beluga sturgeon (Huso huso) as endangered under the Act (67 FR 49657).
The notice requested public comments and information by October 29,
2002. Requests for a public hearing were to be received by September
16, 2002. The Division of Scientific Authority (DSA) received four
requests for a public hearing. To accommodate the requests, on November
6, 2002 (67 FR 67856), we gave notice of a public hearing to take place
on December 5, 2002. With that notice, the public comment period was
extended through December 28, 2002, to allow for submission of comments
through, and 15 days after, the public hearing.
On March 11, 2003, we received a ``Report on Results of Complex
Interstate All-Caspian Sea Expedition on the Assess[ment] of Sturgeon
Species Stocks'' from the CITES Secretariat. This report summarized the
2002 sturgeon stock-assessment survey for the Caspian Sea and provided
new data that would enhance the accuracy of previous population data,
while providing sufficient new data that detailed the current status of
the Caspian Sea beluga sturgeon population. We believed the information
contained in the report would address substantial disagreements
regarding the status of the species, and would be relevant to our final
determination. Therefore, on July 2, 2003, we published a notice to re-
open the comment period on our proposal to list the species for 60
days, and we also extended the period to produce a final determination
by 6 months, to January 31, 2004 (68 FR 39507). This extension was made
for the purpose of soliciting additional population data and comments
regarding the stock-assessment survey, as specified under section
4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. We also submitted the report for independent
peer review. The public comment period closed on September 2, 2003. All
comments and information received during this and the previous two
comment periods were considered in our final listing determination and
are included in the administrative record.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
On July 31, 2002, we announced a proposal to list beluga sturgeon
(Huso huso) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (67 FR
49657). All interested parties were requested to submit factual reports
or information by October 29, 2002, so we could consider the
information in the development of a final rule. Beluga sturgeon range
countries, the CITES Secretariat, Federal and State agriculture and
wildlife agencies, scientific organizations, the caviar and aquaculture
industries, and other interested parties were contacted and supplied
with a copy of the proposal. We received 31 substantive comments during
the comment period, as well as 4,226 e-mail messages, postcards, and
letters that were submitted as part of a letter-writing campaign. Four
individuals submitted comments, but maintained a neutral position
regarding listing. We received 14 written comments in opposition to
listing the species as endangered. The opponents included members of
the aquaculture, caviar, and fishing industries, State wildlife
conservation and agriculture agencies, fisheries agencies representing
three Caspian Sea range countries (the Islamic Republic of Iran,
Kazakhstan, and the Russian Federation) and one Black Sea range country
(Romania), two conservation organizations, and several private
individuals. The proposal was not supported by the National Aquaculture
Association; the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, Division of Aquaculture; the World Conservation Union (IUCN)
Sturgeon Specialist Group; and IWMC-World Conservation Trust.
We received 10 written comments in support of an endangered
listing. Supporters included the original petitioners, Caviar Emptor, a
consortium of non-government organizations that includes SeaWeb, the
Wildlife
[[Page 21427]]
Conservation Society, and the Natural Resources Defense Council;
Azerbaijan, a range country; a member of the caviar industry; and
several private individuals. We also received a letter of support
signed by 69 chefs and/or restaurant owners and another, similar letter
signed by 57 members of academia and representatives of conservation
organizations. A letter-writing campaign sponsored by Caviar Emptor
produced an additional 4,226 comments in support of an endangered
listing. Two letters were received from members of the caviar industry
who supported an endangered listing, provided we would allow an
exemption for beluga sturgeon products produced by commercial
aquaculture.
Prior to the end of the comment period, we received four requests
for a public hearing. Therefore, notice of a public hearing and
extension of the comment period to accommodate comments received
during, and 15 days after, the public hearing was published on November
6, 2002 (67 FR 67586). The public hearing took place December 5, 2002,
and the public comment period was extended through December 28, 2002.
During the public hearing, oral testimony was given by four individuals
representing industry; the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, Division of Aquaculture, and the Florida Sturgeon
Production Working Group; Caviar Emptor; and The Seafood Choices
Alliance. The representatives for industry and the State of Florida
expressed their opposition to listing the species as endangered. Caviar
Emptor and The Seafood Choices Alliance voiced their support for
listing. In addition to the verbal testimony given during the public
hearing, six additional written comments in support of the listing were
received during the extended comment period. These comments were
received from private individuals; The Seafood Choices Alliance (a
letter signed by 191 chefs and other representatives of the seafood
industry); academia; and the Management Authority of Bulgaria. We also
received seven written comments, in addition to the verbal testimony
given during the public hearing in opposition to listing the species as
endangered. These comments were from a private individual, a member of
the aquaculture industry, the IWMC-World Conservation Trust, and the
Ministry of Waters and Environmental Protection of Romania. We received
a total of 17 comments during the public hearing and extended comment
period.
After receiving significant new information, which summarized the
2002 sturgeon stock-assessment survey for the Caspian Sea in the
``Report on Results of Complex Interstate All-Caspian Sea Expedition on
the Assess[ment] of Sturgeon Species Stocks,'' from the Secretariat of
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES), we re-opened a final comment period on July 3,
2003 (68 FR 39507). We notified the public that we would accept
comments through September 2, 2003. The notice also extended the
deadline for publication of our final decision by 6 months, from the
original date of July 31, 2003, to January 31, 2004. During the final
comment period, we received three comments. A detailed set of documents
submitted by the CITES Secretariat, on behalf of the beluga sturgeon
range countries, included new information about the status of beluga
sturgeon stocks in the Caspian and Black Seas. We also received a
letter from the petitioners, Caviar Emptor, in which they presented an
analysis of the survey methodology used during the 2002 Caspian Sea
sturgeon stock-assessment, and they also provided numerous articles
about the status of beluga sturgeon collected from national and
international grey literature.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we have sought expert opinions of at least three appropriate
independent specialists for our proposed rule and documents regarding
Caspian Sea stock-assessment surveys that were considered as part of
this final listing decision. The purpose of such review is to ensure
listing decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions,
and analysis. We considered and incorporated comments and information
from the peer reviewers into this final rule.
Comments or questions about the rule, and our responses, are
grouped into a number of general issues, depending on content, and are
combined in the following discussion.
Issue 1: A number of commentors stated their belief that the beluga
sturgeon is on the brink of extinction, and therefore, urgent action is
necessary.
Response: We note that wild beluga sturgeon stocks have declined
throughout the species' range during the past 40 years, particularly
during the post-Soviet era in the Caspian Sea region. Population
declines of several Caspian Sea sturgeon species were so severe during
the 1990s that scientists and concerned nations supported the listing
of all previously unlisted sturgeon species in Appendix II of CITES,
effective April 1, 1998. The listing required all exports and re-
exports of Appendix II sturgeons in international trade to be
accompanied by a CITES export permit or re-export certificate. The
permitting system has helped to deter illegal international trade by
focusing enforcement attention on document forgery, misidentification
of species in trade, and illegal trade routes and networks. Since the
listing, conservation of sturgeons (including paddlefishes) has
continued to be a prominent issue at meetings of the CITES Standing
Committee, Animals Committee, and Conference of the Parties. Many
resolutions, recommendations, and decisions have been adopted by the
CITES Parties to address issues ranging from annual quotas to stock
surveys and management plans, further indicating the continuing
conservation needs of sturgeon species (for further information, see
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.cites.org). Although all of the recommendations made by the CITES
Parties have not been implemented, actions taken to date have made
significant contributions to the conservation of sturgeon species, and
will continue to address conservation and management needs in the
future. A threatened listing will reinforce the need to continue the
positive actions taken since the listing, and encourage range countries
to further develop and implement conservation measures for all wild
sturgeon populations, including the beluga sturgeon.
In 2001, based on recommendations from the CITES Animals Committee,
the so-called ``Paris Agreement'' was developed during the 45th meeting
of the CITES Standing Committee (SC 45 Doc. 12.2). By accepting the
conditions of the Paris Agreement, the Caspian Sea range countries of
Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and the Russian Federation made commitments to
further the conservation of Caspian Sea sturgeon stocks. All sturgeon
harvest was suspended during the fall fishing season of 2001,
proscribed under Stage 1 of the agreement. Further actions under Stage
1, to be completed before July 20, 2001, included declaration of all
stocks of specimens intended for export, and restriction of exports in
2001 to the amounts of declared stocks, provided the 2001 export quotas
were not exceeded. Under Stage 2 of the agreement, the range countries
were required to undertake a comprehensive survey of sturgeon stocks,
develop science-based catch and export quotas,
[[Page 21428]]
and assess illegal trade and fisheries enforcement needs in the region.
Stage 2 was to be implemented prior to December 31, 2001. Stage 3
actions, to be implemented prior to June 20, 2002, included:
Establishment of a long-term stock-assessment
survey program to be used as the basis for future management of
sturgeon stocks;
A request to the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) for advice concerning
operations of regional fisheries management organizations, management
of shared fish resources, and dealing with unregulated fisheries;
Adoption of a collaborative basin-level
fisheries management plan for Caspian Sea sturgeon, as the basis for
sustainable harvest for commercial exports;
Significantly increased efforts to combat
illegal harvest and trade;
Regulation of domestic trade;
Establishment of further research priorities;
Making sturgeon samples available for DNA
testing;
Implementation of the caviar labeling system
(Resolution Conf. 11.13, now repealed and replaced by Resolution Conf.
12.7); and
Submission of a funding proposal to the Global
Environmental Fund (GEF) or other donors for rehabilitation of sturgeon
stocks, hatcheries, and restocking programs, including support for
stock assessments, marking systems, identification of specimens in
trade, public awareness, and enforcement.
Several significant goals of Stage 3 have yet to be achieved.
Conservation actions taken under CITES to date, however, have focused
needed attention on the problems facing sturgeon stocks, improved
export documentation, helped to increase beluga sturgeon populations,
concentrated attention on the need for sound hatchery and release
programs in the range countries, and initiated the lengthy process
necessary to improve the status of all sturgeon species, including the
beluga sturgeon.
Stock-assessment surveys undertaken from 2001 through the present
continue to indicate an increase in beluga sturgeon stocks in the
Caspian Sea Basin since the 1990s. U.S. scientists have been unable to
replicate the survey results given the data presented in the survey
reports. It is uncertain whether this is the result of incomplete data,
translation problems, or differences in the stock-assessment and
analytical methodologies used by the Russian scientists. However, we
have considered that the same survey methods that originally alerted
the scientific community to the decline of sturgeon stocks are being
used today to document increases in Caspian Sea sturgeon populations.
According to the 2002 stock-assessment survey, the beluga sturgeon
population in the Caspian Sea has increased from 7.6 million fish in
1998 to 11.6 million fish (Russian Federation et al. 2002). By
comparison, the gulf sturgeon (A. oxyrinchus desotoi), a sturgeon
species native to the United States, is listed as a threatened species
under the Act, and population numbers for the gulf sturgeon are
estimated in the tens of thousands, a much lower population threshold.
The share of the annual spawning segment of the Caspian Sea beluga
sturgeon population has increased from 14.8 percent in 2001 to 20.6
percent in 2002 (Armstrong and Karpyuk 2003).
Based on the best available scientific information, we do not
believe the species is on the brink of extinction at this time and does
not meet the definition of endangered under the Act. Many of the
threats to the species remain, however, and will remain into the
foreseeable future. Therefore, our final determination is to list the
species as threatened under the Act. Under section 4(d) of the Act,
regulations may be issued when necessary and advisable for the
conservation of a threatened species. We intend to imminently publish a
proposed 4(d) rule for beluga sturgeon, with conditions to further
address the most significant threats to the species.
Issue 2: Nine commentors expressed the view that aquaculture
promotes beluga sturgeon conservation, by reducing the pressure on wild
stocks. However, one individual from the caviar industry stated that he
did not believe aquaculture could ever replace harvest of beluga
sturgeon from the wild, and ``at best [aquaculture is] only a
complement to wild harvest.'' Several members of the aquaculture
industry and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, Division of Aquaculture, also suggested beluga sturgeon
reared in aquaculture conditions should be exempt from our final
listing determination.
Response: We cannot simply exempt captive specimens from the actual
listing of a species, although we could consider such specimens as
exempt under the provisions of a special rule under section 4(d) of the
Act if the remaining protections afforded the species would be
necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species. However,
because demand for beluga caviar currently exceeds the amount available
from legal sources, and this demand has resulted in over-exploitation
of this resource, it is not clear that the limited amount of beluga
caviar available from aquaculture sources would sufficiently reduce the
demand on wild stocks to cause a direct conservation benefit to the
species. It is also unclear as to whether the demand for broodstock to
establish aquaculture operations would itself constitute a threat to
the species. For American alligator (Alligator mississipiensis), we
have determined that allowing the export of live alligators for the
establishment of breeding facilities outside the United States could
actually undermine conservation efforts for alligators in this country.
We have taken similar approaches, in concert with the range countries
and CITES, in disallowing imports of live animals, eggs, and gametes of
yacare caiman (Caiman yacare) and vicu[ntilde]a (Vicugna vicugna).
Therefore, we intend to evaluate aquaculture programs on a case-by-case
basis through the permitting procedures of 50 CFR 17.32, to determine
whether any aquaculture program contributes to the conservation of
beluga sturgeon.
Issue 3: Five individuals expressed concern about potential
economic effects of the listing, particularly with regard to hindering
commercial aquaculture.
Response: Section 4(b)(1) of the Act does not allow the Service to
consider economic effects when making decisions on the listing of
species as endangered or threatened.
Issue 4: Six individuals were concerned that listing the species as
endangered would have a negative impact on their ability to import
beluga caviar, and therefore would have an adverse impact on their
business.
Response: As noted for Issue 3, section 4(b) of the Act requires
listing decisions to be made solely on the basis of the best available
scientific and commercial data. Economic factors may not be considered.
Therefore, we were prohibited from considering economic factors when
making our final listing determination.
Issue 5: Three individuals suggested that they will be unable to
conduct research on life-history parameters and improvements of
sturgeon aquaculture techniques if commercial aquaculture of beluga
sturgeon and trade in beluga sturgeon products derived from aquaculture
become prohibited.
Response: Under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, permits may be
issued for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or
survival of listed species. For information about permit issuance
criteria, see 50 CFR 17.22. Listing the species as threatened does not
negate
[[Page 21429]]
the ability to conduct scientific research, provided the permit
issuance criteria are met. Furthermore, numerous research studies have
been and continue to be conducted regarding sturgeon life-history
parameters and sturgeon culture methodology and techniques.
Optimization of growth and survival of sturgeons reared in culture
conditions for release have been studied for years, particularly in the
Caspian Sea region. Information and data from these studies are readily
available in the scientific literature. Therefore, because permits may
be issued provided the issuance criteria are met, we do not believe
that listing beluga sturgeon under the Act will negatively affect the
ability to conduct scientific investigation of beluga sturgeon life-
history characteristics or methods to optimize captive culture of the
species.
Issue 6: Several individuals expressed concerns about the problems
associated with enforcing the provisions of the Act if the species were
to be listed. One individual commented that it is impossible to
visually distinguish between a farm-raised fish and a wild-caught fish.
Another individual observed that it is impossible to determine the
species composition and origin of caviar by visual inspection. Two
commentors suggested a ban on sales of farm-raised beluga sturgeon
products because of the potential to launder wild-caught sturgeon as
farm-raised fish in trade. One individual commented that any controls
the Service might institute will likely be easy to circumvent.
Response: We acknowledge that it is generally not possible to
distinguish between a wild-caught sturgeon and a sturgeon that is
produced in aquaculture by physical examination alone. Determining the
species composition and origin of caviar in trade has long been
recognized as a serious and confounding enforcement issue. Species
identification of caviar and other products requires laboratory
analysis of the specimen(s) in question. However, the Service, through
the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory has the capability
to identify the species composition of caviar for enforcement purposes.
Since the inclusion of all previously unlisted sturgeons and
paddlefishes in the CITES Appendices, the Parties have been concerned
about the need to regulate and identify legal caviar in trade. In 2000,
at the 11th CITES Conference of the Parties (COP 11), CITES Resolution
Conf. 11.13, Universal labeling system for the identification of
caviar, was adopted to address this concern. The Resolution required
range countries to implement a standardized caviar marking system, with
particular specifications for the design of labels that would be
applied consistently by all Party range countries. Resolution Conf.
11.13 was subsequently amended and superseded by Resolution Conf. 12.7,
Conservation of and trade in sturgeons and paddlefish, at COP 12 in
2002. As a result of these resolutions, most caviar-exporting countries
now label caviar tins destined for international trade. Each sturgeon-
processing facility in each exporting country that is a CITES Party
uses a label that is unique to each specific facility. Including the
origin of caviar on tin labels could be used to identify the origin of
legal caviar in trade. Periodically, the CITES Secretariat issues a
Notification to the Parties to advise the Parties when a caviar-
exporting country has issued a standardized label for caviar. The
Notification includes a depiction of the label. Copies of caviar labels
are kept on file by the Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) and are used to
verify the product in a shipment upon export. Shipments that are found
to be out of compliance with CITES documentation and labeling
requirements are refused or seized at the port of entry.
The Service's OLE uses several methods to identify and track
imports and exports of CITES-listed species and species listed under
the Act. These methods, detailed below, are currently being used for
shipments of beluga sturgeon because of its listing in Appendix II of
CITES. These methods will continue to be used for beluga sturgeon as a
threatened species under the Act.
The OLE uses a system of permits, declarations, and inspections to
ensure compliance with regulations under CITES and the Act for imports
and exports of listed wildlife and wildlife products. Shipments of
sturgeon and paddlefish products entering or leaving the United States
cannot be cleared by OLE unless they are accompanied by the appropriate
CITES documentation. All wildlife shipments must be declared to OLE
upon exit or entry by filing a ``Declaration for Importation or
Exportation of Fish or Wildlife'' (Form 3-177). This form is used to
track and monitor all shipments of fish or wildlife arriving or
departing from the United States. All shipments are subject to
inspection at the port and must be cleared to ensure compliance with
all applicable regulations. All wildlife products must be shipped from
a designated port for wildlife, unless prior authorization has been
granted to export from a non-authorized port.
Issue 7: Two members of the U.S. aquaculture industry suggested
that we require that a portion of profits from commercial aquaculture
sales be designated for hatchery upgrades in beluga sturgeon range
countries. Four representatives from beluga sturgeon range countries
also recommended using a portion of profits from the international
trade in beluga sturgeon to rebuild aging hatcheries and construct new
facilities. Several range countries already depend on the international
sturgeon trade to fund hatchery programs, and the commentors consider
it vital that additional funding be obtained to improve and rebuild the
existing hatchery infrastructure for the conservation of beluga
sturgeon populations. The Bulgarian Management Authority suggested that
aquaculture should be used to return beluga sturgeon populations to
historic population abundance levels. Specifically, they suggested a 7-
year moratorium on harvest of beluga sturgeon to allow for development
of aquaculture. The moratorium would be followed by an introduction of
gradually declining catch quotas from the wild. Other measures
suggested by the Bulgarian Management Authority included: investments
for hatchery upgrades and establishment of new facilities, restocking
of natural populations, development of improved artificial culture
techniques, and more effective enforcement measures to protect wild
populations.
Response: We cannot require members of the commercial aquaculture
industry to invest or contribute funds for hatchery system upgrades and
new construction in beluga sturgeon range countries. However, through
the permitting system and under the 4(d) rule, we hope to encourage
conservation actions for the species, by means of economic incentives,
including hatchery production of fingerlings for restocking purposes.
Artificial sturgeon culture has been used to supplement wild
sturgeon stocks in the former Soviet Union since 1959. The Soviet
hatchery program successfully reared and released millions of sturgeon
fingerlings using artificial culture techniques. Hatchery programs and
restocking efforts were curbed during the early 1990s, however, due to
changes in the region's political structure following the dissolution
of the Soviet Union. The importance of hatchery programs to supplement
Caspian Sea sturgeon stocks was quickly recognized, and some hatcheries
are operating once again. An average of 11.7 million beluga sturgeon
fingerlings have been released into the Caspian Sea
[[Page 21430]]
annually since 1996 (Armstrong and Karpyuk 2003). Secor et al. (2000)
estimate that more than 90 percent of the current beluga sturgeon
population in the Caspian Sea is of hatchery origin, whereas Armstrong
and Karpyuk (2003) estimate a figure closer to 97 percent for the
northern Caspian Sea. Armstrong (2003) notes that revenues for
hatcheries and re-introduction programs are largely derived from the
legal trade in sturgeons; therefore, maintenance of Caspian Sea
sturgeon stocks is dependent on the existence of that trade.
Issue 8: Four individuals expressed the opinion that conservation
measures undertaken under CITES and by the range countries should be
sufficient to conserve Caspian Sea sturgeon populations.
Response: The response to Issue 1 provides a lengthy discussion of
the actions taken under CITES since the Appendix II listing of beluga
sturgeon became effective in 1998. The CITES listing has proven
important as a deterrent to illegal international trade and has focused
law enforcement attention on illegal trade routes and networks.
Conservation of sturgeons remains a prominent issue within the CITES
community, and many resolutions, recommendations, and decisions have
been developed to address wide-ranging conservation issues. Actions
taken to date have made significant contributions to the conservation
of sturgeon species, and will continue to address conservation and
management needs in the future.
While we recognize the important role CITES has played in the
improvement of trade controls and other conservation measures for
sturgeon conservation, a number of unresolved issues remain. As
previously noted, the conditions of the Paris Agreement encouraged
commitments between most of the Caspian Sea range countries to further
the conservation of Caspian Sea sturgeon stocks. Stage 1 measures were
completed by July 20, 2001, as required. Primary measures undertaken
for the completion of Stage 2 were to be finished prior to December 31,
2001, and Stage 3 actions were to be implemented prior to June 20,
2002. Several significant goals of Stage 3 have not been accomplished,
as of publication of this notice. Our listing determination will
strengthen and promote complete implementation of the Paris Agreement
recommendations, for the conservation of all Caspian Sea sturgeon
species. As the largest importer of beluga sturgeon caviar, the United
States can reinforce and increase the focus on conservation measures
currently under way and influence the implementation of future
management actions for the species.
Issue 9: Several individuals expressed concern regarding the high
level of illegal harvest of and trade in beluga sturgeon within the
Caspian Sea region.
Response: Actions taken by the CITES Parties to reduce illegal
trade in sturgeon products have proven relatively successful to date.
In the United States alone, over 135 shipments of beluga caviar have
been refused since 1998, due to false documentation and other factors.
Law enforcement agencies of the CITES Parties continue to detect and
seize illegal shipments of caviar upon import. Adoption of the caviar
labeling requirement in Resolution Conf. 12.7 instituted a method for
tracking sturgeon products from the country of origin and the processor
to ensure legal international trade in sturgeon products. The
Resolution has been implemented by most beluga sturgeon range
countries.
However, a report from an Environmental Prosecutor in Kazakhstan
reveals the problems associated with illegal harvest in the region and
notes that illegal harvest continues to be a serious problem in a
specific region of the Caspian Sea. It is our understanding that
illegal harvest and bycatch of sturgeon in other fisheries remains a
significant problem for enforcement agencies. Provisions of our
proposed 4(d) rule further address illegal harvest of beluga sturgeon.
Issue 10: One individual expressed concern that listing beluga
sturgeon under the Act will not give the United States the authority
required to address habitat loss, the most serious threat to beluga
sturgeon populations, nor will we have the authority to remediate
pollution problems.
Response: We agree that listing a species with a home range outside
of U.S. borders does not provide some of the protections afforded a
species by the Act. We are unable to designate critical habitat, nor do
we have the authority to impose U.S. law within another sovereign
nation. However, listing beluga sturgeon as threatened under the Act
can positively affect international trade and management of the species
by reinforcing conservation measures already in place. In a proposed
4(d) rule, which we intend to publish as soon as possible, we will
attempt to address further actions that are appropriate and necessary
to manage the species on a collaborative basin-wide level, enhance
stock abundance, target illegal harvest and trade, and encourage the
range countries to address problems with the hatchery infrastructure
throughout the Caspian Sea region.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Beluga Sturgeon
Section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations
promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for determining whether any species is an
endangered or threatened species. A species may be determined to be an
endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. These factors and their
application to beluga sturgeon (Huso huso) are as follows:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Beluga Sturgeon Habitat or Range
Natural reproduction of beluga sturgeon is extremely limited and
occurs in less than 15 percent of the species' historic spawning
habitat. Approximately 85 percent (Secor et al. 2000) to 90 percent
(Barannikova et al. 1995) of the species' former spawning grounds have
been damaged by pollution or are no longer accessible to spawning
sturgeon. Dams, river channelization, and other man-made alterations of
flow regimes have significantly reduced the amount of available
sturgeon spawning habitat throughout the species' range. Messier (1998)
noted that the surface area of the Caspian Sea is some 169,000 square
miles, yet all sturgeon species that spawn in the Volga River utilize
an area no larger than 1,000 acres (405 hectares) near the mouth of the
river.
Although the Volga River historically accounted for the largest
number of spawning sturgeon in the Caspian Sea Basin, the Ural River in
Kazakhstan now is believed to contain the most suitable spawning
habitat for sturgeons (Semyon Khvan, pers. comm.). The Ural River is
the only major river within the Caspian Sea Basin that has not been
dammed or otherwise modified (Khodorevskaya et al. 1997). Recent
reports indicate that habitat utilized by sturgeons for migration and
spawning in this river system is threatened by siltation and river
mouth occlusion. Armstrong (2003) notes that siltation and occlusion
problems are natural phenomena resulting from sea-level fluctuations in
the Caspian Sea Basin. The availability of sturgeon spawning habitat
has ebbed and flowed throughout historic time as a result of these
naturally occurring sea-level fluctuations (Armstrong 2003).
Spawning runs in the Kura River in Azerbaijan have also been
limited by
[[Page 21431]]
siltation and occlusion of the river mouth. River mouth and channel
dredging is under way in the Kura River, with the goal of increasing
available spawning habitat (Armstrong 2003), and with the expectation
that beluga sturgeon will once again reproduce in the Kura River
system.
The Volga River represents the most extensive spawning habitat in
the Russian Federation. It is believed that beluga sturgeon no longer
spawn in the Terek River (Khodorevskaya et al. 1997). Extirpation of
the species from the Sea of Azov resulted, in part, from dam
construction on the Don and Kuban Rivers, which has blocked spawning
migrations to historic spawning grounds (TRAFFIC 1998). In Iran, the
Tajen and Gorganrud Rivers are available for spawning runs in the
southern Caspian Sea. However, the Mangil Dam on the Sefidrud River
blocks passage, and all spawning habitat has been destroyed because of
pollution and water extraction (TRAFFIC 1998).
Previous studies have noted that some 85 percent of the Black Sea's
Danube River delta has been diked and dammed, resulting in substantial
losses of sturgeon spawning habitat (Bacalbasa-Dobrovici 1997b).
Harvest rates of beluga sturgeon decreased substantially after
construction of the Djerdap Dams I and II during the mid-1980s (Hensel
and Holcik 1997). Annual estimates of Danube River beluga sturgeon
harvest declined from an average of 23 tons during the mid-1970s to12.7
tons in 1994, indicative of the dams' effects on spawning sturgeon
populations (Bacalbasa-Dobrovici 1997b).
A recent study, however, suggests that previous estimates of
decline in the Black Sea Basin were inaccurate because ``poor''
fisheries statistics were maintained by the Romanian fisheries
administration (Suciu 2002). As part of a research program funded by
the Global Environment Fund (GEF) and the World Bank, a Rapid Rural
Assessment (RRA) was conducted to evaluate sturgeon harvest. The RRA
discovered that estimates of previous beluga sturgeon harvest were much
higher than originally reported, after determining that much of the
catch was under-reported by local fishers. For instance, in 1997,
nearly 106 tons of beluga sturgeon were harvested (Suciu 2002). The
study also located five potentially intact spawning sites. While
additional studies should be undertaken to confirm the findings of the
RRA, the results are promising and indicate that a larger population of
beluga sturgeon may exist in the Danube River and Black Sea Basin than
was previously believed. Furthermore, whereas spawning habitat in the
Danube River system has been compromised by man-made river alterations,
suitable habitat remains for the species' spawning requirements.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The international demand for caviar is the primary factor driving
overexploitation of beluga sturgeon. In 1995, the retail price for one
pound of beluga caviar in the United States was US$1,000 (DeMeulenaer
and Raymakers 1996); today beluga caviar sells for around US$1,500 per
pound on the U.S. retail market (Petrossian 2003).
The beluga sturgeon was first listed as endangered by the IUCN in
1996 (IUCN 2000). In an assessment by TRAFFIC (1999), the state of all
Russian sturgeon populations was considered ``catastrophic.''
Information provided by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the
Wildlife Conservation Society, and SeaWeb (Petitioners) in the original
petition to list beluga sturgeon as endangered (Petitioners 2000), and
in subsequent communications (Petitioners, in litt. July 9, 2003;
September 1, 2003), indicates their belief that the species is on the
brink of extinction. Overutilization, coupled with loss of spawning
habitat, is considered one of the most significant factors
precipitating the decline of beluga sturgeon populations (Petitioners
2000). Rapid expansion of legal and illegal sturgeon fisheries during
the upheaval caused by the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991
(Secor et al. 2000) succeeded in further reducing beluga sturgeon
populations. The absence of a central regulatory authority and
persistent unrestricted harvest had swiftly placed beluga sturgeon
stocks in imminent danger of collapse within a decade.
Formerly, Caspian Sea sturgeon populations were closely regulated
and monitored by the Soviet Union and Iran, to ensure sustainable
commercial sturgeon fisheries for the future. Caspian Sea management
provisions included basin-specific harvest regulations and quotas,
strict trade quotas, and stocking programs that have been in operation
in the former Soviet republics continually since the late 1950s, albeit
in much-reduced circumstances from the late 1980s to the present (Secor
et al. 2000). In 1967, the Soviet Union banned open-sea harvest of all
anadromous fish species in the Caspian Sea to eliminate bycatch
mortality of juvenile sturgeons (Secor et al., 2000). However, with the
loss of the Soviet state sturgeon monopoly, bycatch of beluga sturgeon
again increased with the resumption of open-sea Caspian Sea fisheries,
particularly the anchovy fishery (TRAFFIC/Europe 1999). Open-sea
harvest heightened the risk of injury and mortality of juvenile beluga
sturgeon, significantly impacting future stock recruitment by adversely
affecting entire year classes. In 1996, the Caspian Sea range countries
signed an agreement prohibiting open-sea fishing, thereby protecting
remaining and future immature sturgeon stocks.
Detrimental effects of the legal harvest were additionally
compounded by the ever-increasing illegal harvest of the species (CITES
1997). Illegal harvest and trade quickly escalated during the 1990s,
again a result of the turbulence that took place during the emergence
of market economies in the former Soviet bloc nations. The disorder of
the early and mid-1990s was also responsible for the lack of effective
enforcement measures available in the newly emerging nations.
DeMeulenaer and Raymakers (1996) originally estimated that the illegal
harvest of Caspian Sea sturgeons was 6-10 times higher than legal
harvest. More recent assessments, however, suggest the illegal trade
may be some 11 times greater than the legal market (Volkov 2001).
International and domestic demand for sturgeon caviar and meat
ensures traffickers of an extremely lucrative market for the illegal
trade in sturgeon products. Processed caviar generates maximum prices
and is packaged in small, easily smuggled containers. Organized teams
of poachers use the most up-to-date equipment to efficiently harvest
sturgeons. The British Broadcasting Company (BBC) has reported that
poaching teams utilize modern satellite navigation equipment and
regularly fish in prohibited open-sea waters. Detection of the fishing
crews is difficult, and encounters between border guards and violators
often end violently (BBC 2003).
As an example of the widespread nature of poaching networks in the
region and the large volume of illegal harvest that has been detected,
this year alone a Russian poaching investigation, dubbed Putina-2003,
has been responsible for detaining more than 1,500 people for violating
fishing regulations. However, many poachers continue to elude this
poaching investigation and other enforcement actions under way daily in
the region. During a recent broadcast of Moscow's Channel One TV,
Vladimir Streltsov, Deputy of the Federal Security Service's North
Caucasus Regional Border Directorate, stated that these arrests
indicate a three-fold increase in Caspian
[[Page 21432]]
Sea poaching (BBC 2003). Over 500 km of sturgeon fishing nets have been
confiscated during the Putina-2003 operation and were officially
destroyed recently.
Hatchery programs were also impacted by the upheaval in the region
during the last decade. Overharvest has reduced the availability of
wild broodstock, which has consequently caused a decrease in hatchery
production and restocking programs. Hatchery infrastructure has
deteriorated in all countries except Iran, and most facilities do not
have sufficient capability to over-winter sturgeon broodstock. As a
result, after the broodstock is used for reproductive purposes, it may
be released or, more commonly, sold for meat to obtain funds for
hatchery operating costs.
The Caspian Sea range countries maintain that the historic decline
in Caspian Sea beluga sturgeon populations has been arrested, and in
fact, the population has increased. They further assert that the
proportion of reproductively mature individuals has likewise increased
(Armstrong and Karpyuk 2003). The data used to determine the status of
sturgeon populations in the Caspian Sea are derived from annual stock
monitoring, which involves collaborative trawl surveys and assessment
of abundance and biomass of spawning stocks migrating into the Volga
and Ural Rivers (Armstrong and Karpyuk 2003). According to the CITES
Secretariat, this research has been continuously conducted in the
Caspian Sea since 1962 (Armstrong and Karpyuk 2003).
The estimated number of beluga sturgeon in the Caspian Sea has
exhibited a gradual increase since 1998, the year the beluga sturgeon
was listed in Appendix II of CITES. The percentage of adults, based on
summer trawl surveys, has likewise increased. Data obtained during
summer trawl surveys are considered the most reliable indicators of
population size because beluga sturgeon do not actively migrate during
the summer. The population estimates in Table 1 (below) are viewed as
conservative; they do not accurately reflect the number of beluga
sturgeon present in shallow coastal waters. It is impossible to survey
shallow depths using the trawl methods employed for the survey.
Table 1.--Estimated Caspian Sea Beluga Sturgeon Population and Percentage of Adults
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.................. 7.6 million.......... 9.3 million.......... 5 million*........... 9.3 million.......... 11.6 million.
Percentage of adults in the 0%................... 8.7%................. 5.5%*................ 14.8%................ 20.6%
northern Caspian Sea.
Percentage of adults in the middle 17.4%................ 10.0%................ No data collected.... 22.0%................ 42.9%
and southern Caspian Sea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Armstrong and Karpyuk 2003.
* Adult estimate data collected for the northern Caspian Sea population only in 2000.
The CITES Secretariat also reports that the summer index of beluga
catch per unit effort (CPUE) has increased from 10 specimens per 100
trawls in 1994 to 18 specimens per 100 trawls in 2001, the highest
value recorded in the past 7 years (Armstrong and Karpyuk 2003). The
trend data indicate that the beluga sturgeon fishery is recovering
under CITES regulation, according to the CITES Secretariat. Armstrong
and Karpyuk (2003) make an emphatic distinction between the status of
beluga sturgeon populations prior to CITES regulation and the same
populations post-listing. They state that current data illustrate a
population that ``has been/was severely overfished'' rather than a
population that ``is currently severely overfished.''
Levels of beluga sturgeon harvest in tributary rivers since 1998
range from one-third to one-fifth of the total spawning fish entering
the river system (see Table 2). Although Armstrong and Karpyuk (2003)
contend that recent numbers of spawning beluga sturgeon are higher than
those in the past, the historic data used for comparison are from the
period from 1961 to 1965. The use of more recent data would be more
meaningful. Significantly, the number of harvested specimens held for
hatchery use is greater than 50 percent of the total harvest in 3 of
the 5 years from which data are available. Transferring live beluga
sturgeon that were captured as part of the annual harvest quotas
allocated in 1999, 2001, and 2002 to hatcheries for fingerling
production effectively reduced the number of adult fish that were being
killed for caviar and meat production by more than 50 percent. Use of
adult broodstock for hatchery production rather than caviar production
further contributes to the future status of the species through the
annual production and release of fingerlings to augment current
population numbers in the Caspian Sea.
Table 2.--Total Harvest Levels in Caspian Sea Tributary Rivers and Percent Allocated for Hatchery Use
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Percent of
Number of adults Number of harvest held
Year adults* entering adults for hatchery
rivers harvested use
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998............................................ 0 6,090 2,118 41.1
1999............................................ 809,000 5,272 1,454 72.3
2000............................................ **275,000 5,355 1,182 48.4
2001............................................ 1,376,400 5,695 1,059 69.1
2002............................................ 2,389,600 5,524 1,121 61.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Armstrong and Karpyuk 2003.
*Numbers based on Table 1.
**Northern Caspian Sea only.
Analyses of long-term tributary monitoring data in the Volga River
indicate that natural spawning still occurs and is on the increase,
similar to the other population parameters presented by the Secretariat
and the
[[Page 21433]]
Caspian Sea range nations (Armstrong et al. 2003). Annual larval
sampling has revealed that, within the sampling sites of the lower
Volga River, wild beluga sturgeon larval abundance has increased from
130,000 specimens in 1997 to 2 million specimens in 2002 (Armstrong and
Karpyuk 2003).
The data presented by the Secretariat and the Caspian Sea range
nations indicate an improvement in the status of beluga sturgeon
populations. While concerns have been raised about the accuracy of the
most recent population estimates (Petitioners, Secor, in litt. 2003),
the same survey methods that originally alerted the scientific
community to the decline of sturgeon stocks are currently being used to
document increases in Caspian Sea sturgeon populations. The protections
and improvements in management afforded the species since the CITES
listing in 1998 have contributed to these improvements.
C. Disease or Predation
Decades of industrial pollution and centuries of sewage effluent
have degraded water quality in the Caspian Sea region. The Volga River,
formerly responsible for the largest amount of sturgeon production
annually, is the single major source of pollutants draining into the
Caspian Sea. Sewage produced by half the Russian population and most of
the country's heavy industrial waste flow through the Volga River
system (Anon. 2002). Disease and reproductive abnormalities associated
with pollution have been observed in beluga sturgeon throughout their
range. A contaminant study of the Volga River conducted in 1990 found
abnormalities in 100 percent of the sturgeon eggs that were sampled
(all sturgeon species sampled), and 100 percent of the embryos examined
were found to be non-viable (Khodorevskaya et al. 1997). In a 3-year
study (1999-2002) funded by the World Bank, organochlorines and heavy
metals were identified as the predominant environmental contaminants in
the Caspian Sea. The contaminants reside in sediments and are also
found in living organisms, such as seals, bony fish, and sturgeons
(Padeco 2002). The northeast section of the Caspian Sea, in and around
Kazakhstan, has the lowest levels of contaminants in the basin. Beluga
sturgeon were found to have the highest organochlorine levels of all
sturgeon species, likely attributable to the species' longevity (Padeco
2002). Organochlorine contamination in sturgeons is at a level where
reproductive effects may be expected (Padeco 2002). The study revealed
that the major hotspot for contamination is Baku Bay in Azerbaijan.
Analysis of the contaminant data provided in the 2002 Sturgeon
Stock Assessment Survey suggests that several of the Caspian Sea
sturgeon sampled during the survey had mercury concentrations that
approached or exceeded U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
criteria for human health protection (USFWS in litt. 2003). Although
existing contaminant research indicates that pollution is a threat to
all sturgeon species, and most particularly beluga sturgeon, we note
that this threat is not uniform throughout its range. In addition, the
actual impact of some contaminants on these fish is indeterminate, and
although they are present, it is not clear what, if any, effect they
are having or may have on beluga sturgeon. We are also aware that
positive steps have been taken in the development and adoption of a new
environmental treaty to protect the Caspian Sea. The Framework
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian
Sea is the first legally binding treaty ever developed by the Caspian
Sea nations. The treaty provides a basis for regional coordination to
promote conservation of the Caspian Sea and its bio-resources, and
address problems with habitat destruction, pollution, and over-
exploitation of fish and other marine life (UNEP 2003). The treaty must
be ratified by all of the basin nations before it enters into force and
becomes legally binding.
A ctenophore, the American comb jellyfish (Mnemiopsis leidyi), was
introduced into the Black Sea in 1982 from the discharge of ship
ballast water. There are no known Black Sea predators of the comb
jellyfish, and the species' growth has been explosive. Within 7 years,
the biomass of M. leidyi in the Black Sea grew to 800 million metric
tons (Bacalbasa-Dobrovici N. 1997a). Comb jellyfish feed on zooplankton
and pelagic fish eggs, embryos, and larvae, prey that are utilized by
small marine fishes, such as anchovies. The small marine fishes are fed
upon by the piscivorous beluga sturgeon. The feeding habits of the comb
jellyfish resulted in the complete collapse of the Sea of Azov anchovy
fishery in 1989. Changes in invertebrate distribution and faunal
structure caused by M. leidyi have altered the prey base of Black Sea
sturgeon populations (Kovalev et al. 1994, as cited in Bacalbasa-
Dobrovici 1997a). The comb jellyfish has expanded its range and is
believed to have infiltrated the Caspian Sea through the Lenin Canal
that links the Don and Volga Rivers. The first certified record of M.
leidyi was made in 1999 along the coast of Kazakhstan (UNISCI 2000).
Expansion of the species was faster than that in the Black Sea; within
one year the population exploded and M. leidyi was found throughout the
Caspian Sea Basin. Introduction of the comb jellyfish has resulted in
declines of kilka, a suite of sardine-like pelagic fishes. Declines in
kilka populations have had a direct, negative impact on the species
that feed upon them, including beluga sturgeon (UNISCI 2000).
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Under previous management regimes to protect immature sturgeon
stocks in the Caspian Sea, open-sea fishing was prohibited from the
1950s through the early 1990s. After the collapse of the Soviet Union
in 1991 and the subsequent absence of controls on commercial fisheries,
a period of open-sea fishing was resumed during the mid-1990s. Impacts
from harvest and bycatch of the mixed-stock sturgeon populations that
occupy the open waters of the Caspian Sea were considered detrimental
to the survival of sturgeon species. If the open-sea fishery was
allowed to continue unregulated, extirpation of local stocks was a very
real probability, because it was impossible to determine from which
specific population individual fish were harvested. Additionally,
harvest might have disproportionately affected specific populations
that were already vulnerable to over-exploitation (D. Secor, personal
communication). This period of unregulated harvest, with the bycatch of
immature sturgeons, may have destroyed a major component of future
sturgeon stocks (CITES 1997). In 1996, the Caspian Sea range countries
signed an agreement prohibiting open-sea fishing, thereby protecting
remaining and future immature sturgeon stocks.
Iran continued to apply strict management and enforcement measures
to conserve beluga sturgeon, and persisted with a successful annual
beluga sturgeon stocking program, while many profound changes were
occurring in the former Soviet States. Despite decreases in harvest
from Iranian waters from 1995 through 2001, the Iranian Government's
fisheries management agency, SHILAT, maintains that harvest was not
detrimental because of the large number of fingerlings that were
stocked during those years (SHILAT, in litt. 2002). A total of
5,713,269 beluga sturgeon fingerlings were released into the Caspian
Sea from 1995 to 2001 (SHILAT, in litt. 2002). On average, fingerlings
released during that time
[[Page 21434]]
weighed 3-5 grams. Currently, however, fingerlings are given a ``head
start'' by increasing the age and weight at the time of stocking to 30
grams each. SHILAT estimates the total number of adult beluga sturgeon
harvested in the Caspian Sea during 2001 was fewer than 3,000 specimens
from an estimated total population of 9.35 million beluga sturgeon, and
an estimated commercial stock (adult fish) of 1.383 million fish
(SHILAT, in litt. 2002).
Khodorevskaya (2000) and TRAFFIC Europe-Russia (1999) have
suggested that the failure of regulatory oversight in the Caspian Sea
region since the dissolution of the Soviet Union has been an important
factor contributing to the rapid decline of beluga sturgeon
populations. Recognition of the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms prompted conservation actions from the CITES community to
address the regulatory deficiencies. A synopsis of significant actions
taken by the CITES community follows.
To curtail trade in illegally obtained caviar, and to ensure
sustainable use, conservation, and management of wild sturgeon
populations, the first significant international regulatory action was
undertaken during COP 10 in 1997. At that time, all previously unlisted
species of Acipenseriformes (sturgeons and paddlefishes) were listed in
Appendix II of CITES, effective April 1, 1998. Appendix II includes
species that may become threatened with extinction if trade is not
regulated. Occasionally, species that are not threatened by unregulated
trade are listed in Appendix II because trade in these species may
impact other species that were listed because they were likely to
become threatened with extinction if trade was not regulated. As an
example, species that are similar in appearance to a listed species may
also be listed to ensure complete regulation of the species of concern.
All specimens of Appendix II species in international trade, including
parts and products, require an export permit from the country of
origin. Permits are issued only when a positive finding can be made
that the proposed export will not be detrimental to the survival of the
species, and the specimens were legally acquired.
Under CITES, trade is regulated through a system of permits that
requires wildlife inspections at ports of entry. The inspection process
has been influential in the discovery of falsified documentation
accompanying illegal shipments of sturgeon products. Through the
inspection process, carried out by OLE, numerous illegal shipments of
sturgeon products have been detected. Between June 1998 and June 2003,
OLE refused clearance of more than 135 shipments of beluga sturgeon
products into the United States. The shipments that were refused
clearance by OLE were seized, re-exported, or destroyed. Recognition of
falsified documentation, and other investigatory information gathered
by enforcement agencies of the CITES Parties, was instrumental in the
discovery of illicit trade networks that moved illegal caviar through
several countries. As a result of the law enforcement investigations,
CITES imposed trade sanctions against the countries involved.
The CITES listing also served to further engage and integrate
international scientific attention on sturgeon conservation issues.
Since the listing, a suite of sturgeon conservation measures have been
recommended and undertaken by the CITES community. Sturgeons were
included in the Review of Significant Trade shortly after the listing
became effective and provided scientists and management authorities
with recommendations to improve the basis for trade. If Appendix II
species are being traded at significant levels, the Significant Trade
Review process is the Convention's mechanism for evaluating if the
provisions of CITES are being adequately implemented and non-detriment
findings are being properly made. Remedial action can be taken, if
deemed necessary. The review of all Acipenseriformes commenced in 2000,
and the results showed a clear pattern of declining yields from Caspian
and Black Sea sturgeon populations, necessitating prompt conservation
action (Armstrong and Karpyuk 2003). The Significant Trade Review
process was a catalyst for the development of numerous critical
conservation actions for sturgeons. To address and implement the
conservation requirements of all sturgeon species, intergovernmental
sturgeon management commissions were established for the Amur River and
Sea of Azov (Armstrong and Karpyuk 2003). The Black Sea sturgeon range
countries established the Black Sea Sturgeon Action Group (BSSAG) in
2001, and in 2002, the Caspian Sea range countries created the
Commission on Aquatic Bioresources of the Caspian Sea, also known as
the Caspian Bioresources Commission (Armstrong and Karpyuk 2003).
The Caspian Bioresources Commission is composed of representatives
of the Caspian Sea nations and is currently responsible for the
allocation of sturgeon quotas to regulate and control harvest of and
trade in sturgeons (Armstrong and Karpyuk 2003). CITES Decision 11.58,
for the establishment of annual harvest and export quotas for shared
sturgeon stocks, was adopted at the 11th meeting of the Conference of
the Parties (COP 11; Nairobi 2000). This Decision was later rescinded
and the recommendations previously found in the Decision became part of
CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7, Conservation of and trade in sturgeons and
paddlefish. Prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and before
the CITES listing, the Soviet Union and Iran set annual quotas for
Caspian Sea sturgeon products and specimens. After 1991, the former
Soviet Republics and Iran continued to set annual quotas for Caspian
Sea sturgeon outside the bounds of a formal agreement. Since 1993, the
annual share of sturgeon catch for each former Soviet republic has been
allocated as a percentage of total harvest. The Russian Federation is
allowed 70 percent of the total catch; Kazakhstan 17.6 percent;
Turkmenistan 6.3 percent; and Azerbaijan 6.1 percent (TRAFFIC 2000).
The CITES community recognized that illegal trade was one of the
major threats to the survival of certain sturgeon populations and
continued to undermine range countries' efforts to manage their
sturgeon resources on a sustainable basis. Therefore, Resolution Conf.
10.12 (Rev.), adopted at COP 10, directed the Secretariat, in
consultation with the Animals Committee, to explore development of a
uniform marking system for sturgeons to assist in identification of
legal caviar in trade. The Resolution stated that a marking system
should be standardized and specifications for label design were to be
generally applied. CITES Resolution Conf. 11.13, a Universal labeling
system for the identification of caviar, was adopted at COP 11
(Resolution Conf. 11.13 has been repealed and replaced with Resolution
Conf. 12.7: Conservation of and trade in sturgeon and paddlefish).
Resolution Conf. 12.7 recommended harmonization of each country's
national legislation so that the personal-effects exemption, provided
for in Article VII of CITES, would be limited to no more than 250 grams
of caviar.
The original Resolution, and subsequent Notifications (No. 2001/075
and No. 2001/089) to clarify implementation of the Resolution, specify
labeling requirements and details for primary and secondary containers.
A non-reusable label is to be affixed to all primary containers and
should contain, at a minimum, the following information, in the order
presented: the standard three-letter CITES species code; the source
code of
[[Page 21435]]
the caviar; the ISO two-letter code for the country of origin; the
four-digit year of harvest; the caviar processing plant's unique code
(assigned by each range country and/or processing company); and the lot
identification number. CITES Notification 2001/089 noted that
sufficient time had passed for range countries to implement the caviar
labeling system, and recommended that importing countries should not
accept caviar shipments from exporting countries after December 31,
2001, unless they were labeled in compliance with Resolution Conf.
11.13. The universal labeling system protects legal exporters, assists
wildlife inspectors and customs officers globally in verifying the
contents of caviar shipments, and aids in the detection of illegal
trade.
A sturgeon conservation action plan approved during the 45th
meeting of the CITES Standing Committee (SC 45 Doc. 12.2), the so-
called Paris Agreement, included the most significant sturgeon
conservation actions recommended to date. The agreement listed specific
conservation measures that were to be implemented by each range country
in three stages. Completion of each stage was to take place by a
particular deadline. Stage 1 required declaration of stocks of
specimens intended for export that were harvested in spring 2001 by the
northern Caspian Sea range nations. The countries agreed to limit
exports in 2001 to the declared stocks only, provided they did not
exceed the existing quotas, and further agreed to suspend all
commercial harvest for the remainder of the year. Declarations of
stocks were submitted prior to the deadline of July 20, 2001, and the
CITES Secretariat was satisfied with the declarations after completing
missions to verify each country's stock declaration. The agreements
under Stage 2 required completion of a comprehensive survey of sturgeon
stocks; a request to Interpol to analyze the illegal sturgeon trade; a
study of enforcement needs to combat illegal harvest and trade, in
collaboration with Interpol, the World Customs Organization, and the
CITES Secretariat; and on-site inspections of each country's sturgeon
management activities. Preliminary to Stage 3 was the final condition:
agreement on coordinated management of Caspian Sea resources, including
the joint allocation of harvest and export quotas for 2002. Stage 2
requirements were to be completed by December 31, 2002; failure to
implement the agreement was to result in zero quotas for 2002. It is
not clear if all Stage 2 requirements were met prior to the deadline;
however, 2002 harvest and export quotas were allocated for the range
countries.
The final phase, Stage 3, imposed actions necessitating the highest
level of cooperation between the range nations of all previous stages
of the Paris Agreement. The Caspian Sea range countries (excepting
Iran) were to establish a long-term survey program for sturgeons,
incorporating up-to-date technology and techniques; request advice from
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) on
managing regional fisheries; adopt a collaborative management system
for Caspian Sea sturgeon fisheries; significantly increase efforts to
combat illegal trade and regulate domestic trade; submit funding
proposals to the Global Environment Fund (GEF) and other donors for
rehabilitation of sturgeon stocks; and implement the caviar labeling
system required by Resolution Conf. 11.13. The deadline for Stage 3
actions was June 20, 2002. Several actions of the final stage have not
been completed. In particular, completion of what may be the most
important action of the entire agreement, development and adoption of
an inter-jurisdictional fisheries management plan for Caspian Sea
sturgeons, has yet to occur.
The long-term stock survey plan to be used ``as the basis for
future management of sturgeon stocks'' has been established and
undertaken, as recommended in SC 45 Doc. 12.2.1(e)(i). Unfortunately,
the stock survey methodology and subsequent techniques utilized for
analysis of the survey data have not been submitted for review by
independent scientists. The annual surveys conducted since 2001 have
shown increases in the Caspian Sea beluga sturgeon stock. However, when
the survey results were reviewed by three U.S. scientists, they were
unable to replicate the results using the data supplied in the 2002
sturgeon stock-assessment survey report. Questions regarding the
accuracy and precision of the survey results could be allayed by
subjecting the survey and analysis methodologies to independent
scientific review, and applying rigorous statistical analysis to the
process. The CITES Secretariat has informed us that FAO is currently
reviewing the methodology used for the annual stock-assessment surveys,
and recommendations to improve the techniques and methodology will be
incorporated into subsequent surveys (Armstrong 2003). A completion
date for the analysis by FAO is unknown at this time.
As previously noted, the first legally binding environmental treaty
ever adopted by the Caspian Sea nations, the Framework Convention for
the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea (CPMECS),
was recently agreed to and finalized by the range nations. The treaty
will provide a basis for regional coordination on the conservation of
the Caspian Sea and its biological resources. The intent of the framers
is to reverse and mitigate the environmental damage brought about by
habitat destruction, pollution, and over-exploitation of commercial
fisheries (UNEP 2003). The treaty must first be ratified by all Caspian
Sea range nations before its entry into force, thereby ensuring that
the treaty becomes legally binding.
In our proposed rule of July 31, 2002 (67 FR 49657), we expressed
concern that the regulatory mechanisms in place at the time were not
sufficient to protect and conserve the species. Currently, the
execution of conservation recommendations, decisions, and resolutions
adopted by the CITES community as a result of the 1998 listing and the
Significant Trade Review are beginning to yield practical results.
According to the data collected and analyzed during the sturgeon stock-
assessment surveys, populations are slowly beginning to increase, and
the number of spawning adults has likewise improved. Stock-assessment
surveys are conducted each year, adding to the pool of data available
to make sound management decisions, such as the allocation of harvest
and export quotas. Finally, the CPMECS has been finalized and is
awaiting ratification by the Caspian Sea range nations, so that
additional sturgeon conservation measures can be undertaken on a basin-
wide level.
E. Other Natural or Man-Made Factors Affecting the Continued Existence
of Beluga Sturgeon
Cyclic changes in sea level within the Caspian Sea have been common
throughout geologic time (Ivanov, 2000). Reductions in sea level from
1970 through 1977 adversely affected sturgeon populations because of
changes to biochemical regimes and faunal communities (Ivanov, 2000;
DeMeulenaer and Raymakers, 1996).
Genetic alteration and hybridization of sturgeon stocks is also a
serious concern. It is postulated that the Volga-Don Canal, linking the
Black and Caspian Seas, allowed for an ``avalanche'' of genetic
alteration and hybridization between these sturgeon populations
(DeMeulenaer and Raymakers, 1996). Although hybridization occurs
naturally, when artificial connections are made between
[[Page 21436]]
previously isolated water bodies, the rapidity with which hybridization
occurs is accelerated. This process can impact the homogeneity of
populations and further hamper recovery efforts.
In developing this rule, we have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information available regarding the past,
present, and future threats faced by beluga sturgeon. Based on this
evaluation, the preferred action is to list the beluga sturgeon as a
threatened species. Although documentation has revealed that the
species has been in decline for several decades, conservation actions
taken since the species' CITES Appendix-II listing have resulted in
increases of total population numbers. Loss of habitat continues to be
a threat to the species; however, actions are being taken in Azerbaijan
and Kazakhstan to dredge waterways, thereby improving access to former
spawning grounds during migration runs. Although pollution and other
factors are impacting beluga sturgeon populations, the Ural River
continues to support a population that is not impacted by dams and has
free access to remaining spawning habitat. Important and beneficial
results of the CITES listing that have had a major impact on the
illegal trade of beluga sturgeon include the allocation of annual
quotas for harvest and trade, issuance of CITES export permits and re-
export certificates, caviar labeling requirements, and inspections of
shipments by law enforcement agencies upon importation. However,
illegal harvest persists and remains a serious threat to all sturgeon
species. By its nature, it is impossible to accurately estimate the
annual volume of illegal harvest. However, any reduction in this
portion of the harvest will yield a positive impact to beluga sturgeon
populations. Attention to this specific threat is vital and we intend
to address it in the proposed 4(d) rule that we intend to publish as
soon as possible following publication of this determination.
Finally, the conservation actions taken by the CITES Parties since
the Appendix-II listing in 1998 have proven beneficial to the status of
the species. Nevertheless, actions recommended under the Paris
Agreement have not been completed, and other conservation measures,
while in progress, also remain incomplete. Benefits to beluga sturgeon
from current and future conservation actions may not be realized or
quantifiable for years. At this time the beluga sturgeon is not in
immediate danger of extinction because of ongoing conservation actions;
however, listing the species as threatened is consistent with the
intent of the Act. The listing also strengthens the measures taken by
the CITES Parties to date, and affords the species the protections of
the Act.
We will soon publish in the Proposed Rules section of the Federal
Register a proposal outlining regulations we deem necessary and
advisable to provide for the conservation of the species, as provided
by section 4(d) of the Act. Our final determination to list the beluga
sturgeon as threatened will become effective in 6 months. We are
delaying the effective date of our final determination to allow for
development of a final 4(d) rule, with specific conservation measures
for beluga sturgeon, as part of this listing decision. We intend to
publish a proposed 4(d) rule, as previously stated, as soon as possible
following publication of this rule. After a public comment period, we
will consider publishing a final 4(d) rule to implement the final
conservation measures developed for beluga sturgeon, thereby increasing
the effectiveness of the threatened listing.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act include recognition,
recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions
against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in
public awareness, and encourages and results in conservation actions by
Federal and State governments, private agencies and groups, and
individuals.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by
regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions within the United States or on the high seas with respect
to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened,
and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is being designated.
However, because the beluga sturgeon is not native to the United
States, no critical habitat is being proposed for designation with this
rule.
With respect to the beluga sturgeon, no Federal activities, other
than the issuance of CITES export permits or re-export certificates,
are known that would require conferral or consultation. According to
CITES, Appendix-II species need only a CITES export permit or re-export
certificate issued by the exporting country for their importation into
another country. However, because of its listing as threatened under
the Act, the importation and exportation of specimens of Huso huso
presently require an Endangered Species Act permit issued by the
Division of Management Authority. Consequently, a consultation with the
Division of Scientific Authority is currently required before the
Division of Management Authority can issue any import or export permit
for beluga sturgeon. Section 8(a) of the Act 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 species in foreign
countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to
encourage conservation programs for foreign endangered species, and to
provide assistance for such programs, in the form of personnel and the
training of personnel.
Sections 4(d) and 9 of the Act, and implementing regulations found
at 50 CFR 17.31, (which incorporate certain provisions of 50 CFR
17.21), set forth a series of prohibitions and exceptions that
generally apply to all threatened wildlife. These prohibitions, in
part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to take (within U.S. territory or on the high seas),
import or export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of a
commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell,
deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been
taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees or agents of the
Service, other Federal land management agencies, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, and State conservation agencies (50 CFR 17.21(c)(3)
and part 17.31(b)). Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise
prohibited activities involving threatened wildlife species under
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued
for the following purposes: scientific research, enhancement of
propagation or survival, zoological exhibition or education, incidental
taking, or special purposes consistent with the Act. All such permits
must also be consistent with the purposes and policy of the Act as
required by section 10(d). Such a permit will be governed by the
provisions of 50 CFR 17.32 unless a special rule applicable to the
wildlife (appearing in 50 CFR 17.40 to 50 CFR 17.48) provides
otherwise. Threatened species are generally covered by all prohibitions
applicable to endangered species, under 50 CFR 17.31. We may, however,
develop special rules if deemed necessary and
[[Page 21437]]
advisable to provide for the conservation of the species.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that Environmental Assessments and Environmental
Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice
outlining our reasons for this determination was published in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
Anon. 2002. Caspian Sea: State of the Environment. Http://
global/finland.fi/english/publications/discussion/envcaspi.html.
Armstrong, J.A. 2003. The current status of beluga sturgeon
(Huso huso) in the Ural River (Kazakhstan). A response to the Caviar
Emptor report dated November 21, 2002. (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.cites.org). 10 pp.
Armstrong, J.A. and M.I. Karpyuk. 2003. Beluga sturgeon (Huso
huso) in the Caspian Sea--a response to the proposal to list beluga
sturgeon as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. 31 pp.
Bacalbasa-Dobrovici, N. 1997a. Endangered migratory sturgeons of
the lower Danube River and its delta. Environmental Biology of
Fishes 48: 201-207.
Bacalbasa-Dobrovici, N. 1997b. Danube caviar in danger. Sturgeon
Quarterly 5:1-2.
Barannikova, I. A., I. A. Burtsev, A. D. Vlasenko, A. D.
Gershanovich, E. V. Markarov, and M. S. Chebanov. 1995. Sturgeon
fisheries in Russia, pages 124-130, in Proceedings of the Second
International Symposium on Sturgeons, September 6-11, 1993. Moscow-
Kosyroma-Moscow. VNIRO Publication.
British Broadcasting Company. 2003. Sturgeon Poaching in Caspian
Rising Despite Russian Patrols. Channel One TV, Moscow, October 25,
2003.
Birstein, V. J., W. E. Bemis, and J. R. Waldman. 1997. The
threatened status of Acipenseriformes species: A summary.
Environmental Biology of Fishes, 48:427.
Burros, M. 2002. American caviar comes into it's own. The New
York Times, November 13, 2002.
CITES. 1997. Document Doc. 10.89; Prop. 10.65. Proposal to list
all Acipenseriformes in Appendix II. Submitted by Germany and the
United States.
CITES Secretariat. 2001. Sturgeons, significant trade and the
``Paris Agreement.'' CITES World: Official Newsletter of the
Parties, 8:1-2.
Cortese, A. 2003. Move over beluga: American fish farms are
producing caviar so good it rivals the Caspian's best. BusinessWeek
online, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.businessweek.com. April 28, 2003.
DeMeulenaer, T., and C. Raymakers. 1996. Sturgeons of the
Caspian Sea and the international trade in caviar. TRAFFIC
International. 71 pp.
Djazbayev, B. 2002. Report by Batyr Djazbayev, Atyrau Oblast
Environmental Prosecutor. Submitted as an attachment to comments
received from the Petitioners, September 2, 2003. 6pp.
Edwards, D. and S. Doroshov. 1989. Appraisal of the sturgeon and
seatrout fisheries and proposals for a rehabilitation programme. FAO
Field Document I.TCP/TUR/8853. 38 pp.
Hensel, K. and J. Holcik. 1997. Past and current status of
sturgeons in the upper and middle Danube River. Environmental
Biology of Fishes, 48: 185-200.
Hochleithner, M. and Gessner, J. 1999. The Sturgeon and
Paddlefishes (Acipenserformes) of the World: Biology and
Aquaculture. AquaTech Publications. Kitzbuhl. 165 pp.
IUCN. 2000. 2000 IUCN Red list of threatened animals. IUCN.
Gland and Cambridge.
Ivanov, V. P. 2000. Biological Resources of the Caspian Sea.
KaspNIRKH, Astrakhan. 96 pp.
Jahncke, M. L., G.T. Seaborn, and T.I.J. Smith. 1992. Marine
Forensics Program: Development of a biochemical method to
distinguish wild from cultured fish: Final Report-National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Agency.
Joint Columbia River Management Staff. 2002. Joint Staff Report
Concerning Commercial Seasons for Sturgeon and Smelt in 2003.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife. December 3, 2002. 32 pp.
Khodorevskaya, R.P. et al. 2000. Formation of the stock of the
Caspian Acipenserids under present-day conditions. Journal of
Ichthyology, 40(8): 602-609.
Jahncke, M. L., G.T. Seaborn, and T.I.J. Smith. 1992. Marine
Forensics Program: Development of a biochemical method to
distinguish wild from cultured fish: Final Report. NOAA Tech. Mem.
NMFS-SEFSC-301, 40p. and 3 appendices.
Levin, A.V. 1995. The distribution and migration of sturgeons in
the Caspian Sea. In: Proceedings of the Sturgeon Stocks and Caviar
Trade Workshop. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature
Conservation and Nuclear Safety, and the Federal Agency for Nature
Conservation. Bonn, Germany.
Messier, M. 1998. The beluga sturgeon: caviar in danger? In TED
Case Studies: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/STURGEON.HTM
.
Moiseev, A. 2002. Total allowable catch (TAC) estimation for
sturgeon species in the Caspian Sea. Management Authority for
Sturgeon of the Russian Federation. 19pp.
Padeco Co. Ltd. 2002. Executive Summary of the Draft Final
Report--The World Bank Ecotoxicological Study: Investigation into
toxic contamination accumulation and related pathology in the
Caspian sturgeon, seal and bony fish (ECOTOX study). The World Bank.
7 pp.
Petitioners (Natural Resources Defense Council, Wildlife
Conservation Society, and SeaWeb). 2000. A petition to list beluga
sturgeon (Huso huso) as an endangered species. 29 pp.
Petrossian. 2003. Petrossian Paris: Exquisite food and gifts. 23
pp.
Petrossian. 2003. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.petrossian.com.
Pirogovskii, M. I., L. I. Sokolov, and V. P. Vasilev. 1989. Huso
huso (Linnaeus, 1758), pages 295-344, in Document Doc. 10.89; Prop.
10.65. 1997 Proposal to list all Acipenseriformes in Appendix II.
Submitted by Germany and the United States of America.
Raspopov, V. M. 1993. Growth rate of Caspian Sea beluga. Journal
of Ichthyology, 33(9) 72-84.
Russian Federation, Republic of Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan Republic,
Turkmenistan, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. 2002. Report on
Results of Complex Interstate All-Caspian Sea Expedition on the
Assess[ment] of Sturgeon Species Stocks. 85 pp.
Secor, D.H., V. Arefjev, A. Nikolaev, and A. Sharov. 2000.
Restoration of sturgeon: lessons from the Caspian Sea Sturgeon
Ranching Programme. Fish and Fisheries, 1:215-230.
Speer, L., L. Lauck, E. Pikitch, S. Boa, L. Dropkin, V. Spruill.
2000. Roe to ruin: The decline of sturgeons in the Caspian Sea and
the road to recovery. Natural Resources Defense Council, Wildlife
Conservation Society, SeaWeb. 26pp.
Todd, R. M. 1998. Sturgeon and Paddlefish Commercial Fishery in
North America. in: Proceedings of the Symposium on Harvest, Trade
and Conservation of North American Paddlefish and Sturgeon. May 7-8,
1998. Chattanooga, Tennessee. TRAFFIC North America/World Wildlife
Fund. Pp. 42-50. TRAFFIC. 2000. Huso huso: beluga sturgeon. CITES
Doc. AC.16.7.2. pp. 105-118
TRAFFIC/Europe.1999. Estimation of the stock and population
conditions of sturgeons in Russia and monitoring domestic trade in
sturgeon products. TRAFFIC Europe-Russia field investigations. 18pp.
UNEP. 2003. Draft Framework Convention for the Protection of the
Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.un.org.
UNISCI NEWS. 2000. Predator Destroys Black Sea Fishing, Moves to
Caspian.
Volkov, K. 2001. The Caviar Game Rules. Reuters-IUCN. 6 pp.
Author
The primary author of this final rule is Marie T. Maltese, Division
of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North
Fairfax Drive, Room 750, Arlington, Virginia 22203; telephone, (703-
358-1708).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 21438]]
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical order
under FISHES, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fishes .................... ................... ................... .............. ........... ........... NA
* * * * * * *
Sturgeon, beluga................. Huso huso........... Azerbaijan, Entire............. T ........... NA ...........
Bulgaria, Croatia,
Czech Republic,
Georgia, Hungary,
Islamic Republic
of Iran,
Kazakhstan,
Republic of
Moldova, Romania,
Russian
Federation,
Turkey,
Turkmenistan,
Ukraine,
Yugoslavia
(Caspian Sea,
Black Sea,
Adriatic Sea, Sea
of Azov, and all
rivers in their
watersheds).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: March 19, 2004.
Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 04-8934 Filed 4-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P