Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 47457

hypothecate, assign, transfer or encumber EXHIBIT A DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR funds or assets in the Escrow Account except ESCROW AGREEMENT, dated ll by and in accordance with the terms of this Fish and Wildlife Service between (Customer) and (Escrow Agent). Agreement. 20. This Agreement is for the benefit of the Passenger Vessels Owned or Chartered 50 CFR Part 17 parties hereto and, accordingly, each and ANNEX 1 [Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2020–0100; every provision hereof shall be enforceable FF09E22000 FXES11180900000 212] by any or each or both of them. Additionally, RECOMPUTATION CERTIFICATE this Agreement shall be enforceable by the To: Federal Maritime Commission RIN 1018–BE92 Commission. However, this Agreement shall And To: (‘‘Bank’’) Endangered and Threatened Wildlife not be enforceable by any other party, person ll The undersigned, the Controller of and Plants; Endangered Species or entity whatsoever. hereby furnishes this Recomputation Status for Amur Sturgeon 21. (a) No amendments, modifications or Certificate pursuant to the terms of the other change in the terms of this Agreement Escrow Agreement dated ll, between the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, shall be effective for any purpose whatsoever Customer and (‘‘Bank’’). Terms herein shall Interior. unless agreed upon in writing by Escrow have the same definitions as those in such ACTION: Proposed rule. Agent and Customer and approved in writing Escrow Agreement and Federal Maritime by the Commission. Commission regulations. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and (b) No party hereto may assign its rights or I. Unearned Passenger Revenue as of (‘‘Date’’) Wildlife Service (Service), announce a obligations hereunder without the prior was: $ll 12-month finding on a petition to list written consent of the other, and unless a. Additions to unearned Passenger the Amur sturgeon (Acipenser approved in writing by the Commission. The Revenue since such date were: schrenckii), a fish species from the merger of Customer with another entity or 1. Passenger Receipts: $ll Amur River basin in Russia and China, the transfer of a controlling interest in the 2. Other (Specify) $ll as an endangered species under the stock of Customer shall constitute an 3. Total Additions: $ll assignment hereunder for which prior Endangered Species Act of 1973, as b. Reductions in Unearned Passenger written approval of the Commission is amended (Act). After a review of the required, which approval shall not be Revenue since such date were: best scientific and commercial ll unreasonably withheld. 1. Completed Cruises: $ information available, we find that ll 22. The foregoing provisions shall be 2. Refunds and Cancellations: $ listing the species is warranted. ll binding upon undersigned, their assigns, 3. Other (Specify) $ Accordingly, we propose to list the ll successors and personal representative. 4. Total Reductions: $ Amur sturgeon as an endangered 23. The Commission shall have the right to II. Unearned Passenger Revenue as of the species under the Act. If we finalize this inspect the books and records of the Escrow date of this Recomputation Certificate is: rule as proposed, it would add this ll Agent and those of Customer as related to the $ species to the List of Endangered and ll Escrow Account. In addition, the a. Excess Escrow Amount $ Threatened Wildlife and extend the Commission shall have the right to seek III. Plus the Required Fixed Amount: $ll Act’s protections to the species. IV. Total Required in Escrow: $ll copies of annual audited financial statements DATES: We will accept comments and other financial related information. V. Current Balance in Escrow Account: received or postmarked on or before ll 24. All investments, securities and assets $ October 25, 2021. Comments submitted VI. Amount to be Deposited in Escrow maintained under the Escrow Agreement will electronically using the Federal Account: $ll be physically located in the United States. eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, VII. Amount of Escrow Account available to 25. Notices relating to this Agreement shall below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Operator: $ll be sent to Customer at (address) and to Eastern Time on the closing date. We Escrow Agent at (address) or to such other VIII. I declare under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct. must receive requests for a public address as any party hereto may hereafter hearing, in writing, at the address designate in writing. Any communication Dated: lllllllllllllllll shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION sent to the Commission or its successor (Signature) lllllllllllllll CONTACT by October 12, 2021. organization shall be sent to the following Name: lllllllllllllllll ADDRESSES: You may submit comments address: Bureau of Certification and Title: llllllllllllllllll Licensing, Federal Maritime Commission, by one of the following methods: (Signature) lllllllllllllll 800 North Capitol NW, Washington, DC (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal Name: lllllllllllllllll 20573–0001. eRulemaking Portal: http:// Title: llllllllllllllllll 26. This agreement may be executed in any www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, number of counterparts, each of which shall By the Commission. enter FWS–HQ–ES–2020–0100, which be deemed to be an original and all of which Rachel Dickon, is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the Search when taken together shall constitute one and Secretary. the same instrument. button. On the resulting page, in the [FR Doc. 2021–18220 Filed 8–24–21; 8:45 am] 27. This Agreement is made and delivered Search panel on the left side of the in, and shall be construed in accordance with BILLING CODE 6730–02–P screen, under the Document Type the laws of the State ll of without regard heading, check the Proposed Rule box to to the choice of law rules. locate this document. You may submit In witness whereof, the undersigned have a comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment each caused this Agreement to be executed Now!’’ on their behalf as of the date first above (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail written. to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: By: lllllllllllllllllll FWS–HQ–ES–2020–0100, U.S. Fish and Title: llllllllllllllllll Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 By: lllllllllllllllllll Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– Title: llllllllllllllllll 3803.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Aug 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM 25AUP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 47458 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules

We request that you send comments threats (or lack thereof) to this species requested. Requests must be received by only by the methods described above. and existing regulations that may be the date specified in DATES. Such We will post all comments on http:// addressing those threats. requests must be sent to the address www.regulations.gov. This generally (4) Additional information concerning shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION means that we will post any personal the historical and current status, range, CONTACT. We will schedule a public information you provide us (see distribution, and population size of this hearing on this proposal, if requested, Information Requested, below, for more species, including the locations of any and announce the date, time, and place information). additional populations of this species. of the hearing, as well as how to obtain Document availability: This proposed Please include sufficient information reasonable accommodations, in the rule and supporting documents, with your submission (such as scientific Federal Register at least 15 days before including the species status assessment journal articles or other publications) to the hearing. For the immediate future, (SSA) report, are available at http:// allow us to verify any scientific or we will provide these public hearings www.regulations.gov under Docket No. commercial information you include. using webinars that will be announced FWS–HQ–ES–2020–0100. Please note that submissions merely on the Service’s website, in addition to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: stating support for, or opposition to, the the Federal Register. The use of these Elizabeth Maclin, Chief, Branch of action under consideration without virtual public hearings is consistent Delisting and Foreign Species, providing supporting information, with our regulations at 50 CFR Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and although noted, will not be considered 424.16(c)(3). in making a determination, as section Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Previous Federal Actions Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803; 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that telephone, 703–358–2171. Persons who determinations as to whether any On March 12, 2012, the National use a telecommunications device for the species is an endangered or a threatened Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay species must be made ‘‘solely on the received a petition dated March 8, 2012, Service at 800–877–8339. basis of the best scientific and from Friends of Animals and WildEarth commercial data available.’’ You may Guardians to list the Amur sturgeon and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: submit your comments and materials 14 related sturgeon species as Information Requested concerning this proposed rule by one of endangered or threatened species under We intend that any final action the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We the Act. NMFS acknowledged receipt of resulting from this proposed rule will be request that you send comments only by this petition in a letter dated April 14, based on the best scientific and the methods described in ADDRESSES. 2012, and informed the petitioners that commercial data available and be as If you submit information via http:// NMFS would determine, under section accurate and as effective as possible. www.regulations.gov, your entire 4 of the Act, whether the petition Therefore, we request comments or submission—including any personal presents substantial scientific or information from other concerned identifying information—will be posted commercial information indicating that governmental agencies (including those on the website. If your submission is the petitioned action may be warranted. in the species’ range in Russia and made via a hardcopy that includes Although the petition was initially sent China), Native American Tribes, the personal identifying information, you to NMFS, as a result of subsequent scientific community, industry, or any may request at the top of your document discussions between NMFS and the other interested parties concerning this that we withhold this information from Service regarding the August 28, 1974, proposed rule. public review. However, we cannot memorandum of understanding We particularly seek comments guarantee that we will be able to do so. pertaining to ‘‘Jurisdictional concerning: We will post all hardcopy submissions Responsibilities and Listing Procedures (1) The species’ biology, range, and on http://www.regulations.gov. Under the Endangered Species Act of population trends, including: Comments and materials we receive, 1973,’’ we have determined that 10 of (a) Biological or ecological as well as supporting documentation we the 15 petitioned sturgeon species— requirements of the species, including used in preparing this proposed rule, including the Amur sturgeon—are habitat requirements for feeding, will be available for public inspection under the jurisdiction of the Service. In breeding, and sheltering; on http://www.regulations.gov. April 2012, the Service notified the (b) Genetics and taxonomy; Because we will consider all petitioners of this jurisdictional finding. (c) Historical and current range, comments and information we receive On September 24, 2013, we announced including distribution patterns; during the comment period, and base in the Federal Register (78 FR 58507) (d) Historical and current population our determination on the best scientific our 90-day finding that the petition levels, and current and projected trends; and commercial data available, our final presented substantial scientific and and determination may differ from this commercial information indicating that (e) Past and ongoing conservation proposal. Upon consideration of new the petitioned action may be warranted measures for the species, its habitat, or information we receive (and any for these 10 sturgeon species. both. comments on that new information), we This document constitutes our review (2) Factors that may affect the may conclude based on the best and determination of the status of the continued existence of the species, scientific and commercial data available Amur sturgeon, our 12-month finding which may include destruction, after considering all of the relevant on this species as required by the Act’s modification, or curtailment of habitat factors that the species is threatened section 4(b)(3)(B), and our proposed rule or range; overutilization for commercial, instead of endangered, or we may to list this species. recreational, scientific, or educational conclude that the species does not Supporting Documents purposes; disease; predation; the warrant listing as either an endangered inadequacy of existing regulatory species or a threatened species. We prepared a species status mechanisms; or other natural or assessment (SSA) report for the Amur manmade factors. Public Hearing sturgeon. The SSA analysis was led by (3) Biological, commercial trade, or Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a Service biologist, in consultation with other relevant data concerning any a public hearing on this proposal, if other Service staff and species experts.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Aug 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM 25AUP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 47459

The SSA report represents a sturgeon are rare in areas of the estuary Females can lay upwards of 1.3 compilation of the best scientific and with salinity over 7.5 parts per thousand million eggs in a single spawning, commercial data available concerning (ppt) (Koshelev et al. 2014a, p. 1314). although the norm is between 190,000 the status of the species, including the The species occurs at low densities in and 300,000 eggs (Koshelev et al. 2014b, impacts of past, present, and future the southern (and possibly northern) p. 1127; Zhang 1985 cited in Zhuang et factors (both negative and beneficial) Sea of Okhotsk. Very rarely, Amur al. 2002, pp. 660–661). In related affecting the species. The Service sent sturgeon are found in the Sea of Japan sturgeon, only about 1 in 2,000 survive the SSA report to six independent peer (Koshelev et al. 2014a, p. 1313). The their first year post-hatching (Jaric and reviewers and received one response. species may also be present in very Gessner 2013, table 1; Jager et al. 2002, small numbers in Lake Khanka in Proposed Listing Determination table 1). Thereafter, 20 to 90 percent of extreme southeast Russia (Ruban and juvenile fish survive annually (Jaric and Background Qiwei 2010, not paginated), although Gessner 2013, table 1; Jager et al. 2002, A thorough review of the taxonomy, few authors confirm this. table 1). Although age-specific survival life history, ecology, and overall Life History data for Amur sturgeon in particular are viability of the Amur sturgeon is not available, the species very likely has presented in the SSA report (Service Amur sturgeon are slow to mature; similar patterns of survival by age 2020; available at http:// males require 7 to 12 years, and females (Kappenmann 2020, pers. comm.). 9 to 14 years, before reproducing www.regulations.gov). The following Larvae hatch faster in warmer discussion is a summary of the (Novomodny et al. 2004, p. 19; Zhuang et al. 2002, p. 659). This long time to compared to colder water, emerging in biological background on the species 3 to 14 days (Krykhtin and Svirskii from the SSA report. maturity can slow the species’ recovery from disturbance, relative to that of 1997, p. 237), then likely drift Taxonomy species with shorter generation times. downstream. They begin feeding around 9 days post-hatching (Zhuang et al. The Amur sturgeon (Acipenser On reaching maturity, fish are between 2003, figure 5; Krykhtin and Svirskii schrenckii) is one of 27 species of 1.1 and 1.3m (43 to 51 in) long and 1997, p. 237). After about 30 days, they sturgeon in the family Acipenseridae weigh 6 to 19 kg (13 to 42 pounds; metamorphose into juvenile fish of (Fricke et al. 2019, not paginated). The Zhuang et al. 2002, p. 660). Individuals about 4 centimeters (cm) (2 inches) in synonyms Acipenser schrenki and can live up to 60 years (Krykhtin and length and 3 grams (0.1 ounces) in Acipenser schrenkii are sometimes Svirskii 1997, p. 236) and reproduce used, but are now considered invalid every 3 to 4 years (Ruban and Qiwei weight (Zhuang et al. 1999a and Liu et (Fricke et al. 2019, not paginated; ITIS 2010, not paginated; Vaisman and al. 2000 cited in Zhuang et al. 2002, p. 2019, not paginated). We are not aware Fomenko 2006, p. 5; Krykhtin and 661). Juveniles feed in shallow of any taxonomic disputes regarding the Svirskii 1997 p. 236). shorelines and smaller tributaries and validity of the Amur sturgeon as a Spawning adults migrate upstream, lakes (Zhuang et al. 2002, p. 659). species. Thus, we determined that the mostly in spring (Koshelev et al. 2014b, By 1 year of age, fish average Amur sturgeon is a valid species for p. 1126; Zhuang et al. 2002, p. 659; approximately 30 cm (12 inches; listing under the Act. Krykhtin and Svirskii 1997, p. 237; Wei Nikolskii 1960 cited in Zhuang et al. et al. 1997, p. 245). A smaller number 2002, p. 660). Six-year-old individuals Physical Description of reproductive fish migrate the may be 90 cm (35 inches), 25-year-old Amur sturgeon are large fish reaching previous fall (mid-August to late fish 2 m (7 feet), and large 40-year-old up to 3 meters (m) (10 feet) in length September) and overwinter on the fish can approach 2.5 m (8 feet; Zhang and 190 kilograms (420 pounds) in spawning grounds (Ruban 2020, pers. 1985 cited in Zhuang et al. 2002, p. weight (Zhuang et al. 2002, p. 659). comm.). 660). They have a downward-facing mouth, The exact distance that fish move Amur sturgeon prey on larval insects, cartilaginous skeleton, and a series of upstream is unclear, although fish small mollusks, crustaceans, and fish bony plates in rows along their back appear to spawn within the same river (Novomody et al. 2004, p. 19; Nikolskii (Billard and Lecointre 2001, p. 363). regions (lower, middle, upper) as those 1960 and Sun et al. 2000 cited in Tactile barbels hang from the mouth in which they spend the rest of the year (Billard and Lecointre 2001, p. 359). A (Ruban and Qiwei 2010, not paginated; Zhuang et al. 2002, p. 660), with rare brown morph of Amur sturgeon Novomodny et al. 2004, p. 18). Few geographic and age-based variation in grows more slowly than the more migrations are greater than 500 preferred food items (Kolybov and common gray morph (Zhuang et al. kilometers (km) (about 300 miles) in Koshelev 2014, p. 489; Sun et al. 2000 2002, p. 660). The presence of two color length, although some estuary fish travel and Nikolskii 1960 cited in Zhuang et morphs (Zhuang et al. 2002, p. 660; 1,000 km (600 miles) or more up the al. 2000, p. 660; Krykhtin and Svirskii Krykhtin and Svirskii 1997, p. 236) river (Novomodny et al. 2004, p. 18) and 1997, p. 236). indicates some level of ecological or may spend up to 2 years there prior to Population Biology genetic diversity in the Amur sturgeon. reproducing (Krykhtin and Svirskii 1997, p. 237). Amur sturgeon are thought to spawn Range Spawning occurs following migration, primarily within the same larger river Amur sturgeon live in the Amur River between May and September. Known regions as those in which they feed basin along the far eastern border spawning sites are primarily in the throughout the year (Ruban and Qiwei between China and Russia. The species’ middle Amur River, including several 2010, not paginated; Novomodny et al. range includes the main river, its major grounds in Luobei, Xunke, and 2004, p. 18). Therefore, we followed the tributaries, and the Amur Estuary. The Tongjiang counties (Wei et al. 1997, p. limited literature (e.g., Koshelev et al. species was historically found as far 245). This evidence is consistent with 2014a, entire; Krykhtin and Svirskii west as Nerschinsk, Russia, in the upper findings that the population of Amur 1997, pp. 236–238) and considered fish Shilka River (Georgi 1775 cited in sturgeon was historically greatest in this in four river regions to be the analysis Vaisman and Fomenko, p. 4) and in all stretch of the river (Krykhtin and units for our assessment of the species’ major tributaries of the Amur. Amur Svirskii 1997, p. 237). status. These units are:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Aug 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM 25AUP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 47460 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules

• Amur Estuary, inclusive of the few levels of interbreeding among fish from Population Size and Demography individuals found in the Sea of Japan these regions are not known, there are A series of Amur sturgeon surveys and Sea of Okhotsk; clearly different breeding stocks, • Lower Amur, from Khaborovsk, conducted between 2005 and 2011 separated by time and location. For (Koshelev et al. 2014a, pp. 1310–1314) Russia, to the mouth of the river where instance, fish from the Zeya and Bureya it meets the estuary; are the most comprehensive, • breed in the Upper and upper Middle quantitative appraisal of the species we Middle Amur, from Heihe, China, Amur (Krykhtin and Svirskii 1997, pp. to Khaborovsk, Russia, inclusive of the are aware of, for either contemporary or 235–236), whereas fish from the estuary Zeya and Bureya Rivers, both northern historical population estimates. A tributaries of the Amur; and and lower river migrate upstream to greater than 95 percent decline in the • Upper Amur, upstream of Heihe, breed between Luobei, Xunke, and species’ abundance was estimated China, inclusive of the Shilka and Tongjiang counties along the lower between 1960 and 2010 (Ruban and Argun Rivers whose confluence form Middle Amur (Wei et al. 1997, pp. 245). Qiwei, 2010, not paginated), and the Amur headwaters. Fish that do not reproduce in a given sizeable populations now exist only in Some fish from the Lower, Middle, year do not migrate (e.g., Koshelev et al. the Amur Estuary and Lower Amur and Upper Amur may enter the estuary 2014a, entire; Krykhtin and Svirskii analysis units (see table 1, below). The to forage, but this is likely rare (Zhuang 1997, pp. 236–238). All estuary fish that species is extirpated from the Upper Amur and largely so from the Middle et al. 2003, p. 38). reproduce do so only after having We use the analysis units to describe Amur (Koshelev et al. 2014a, pp. 1313– migrated upstream into the river. what we determine to be regions where 1316). The remaining population Offspring from the estuary population Amur sturgeon likely have reproduced exhibits a skewed sex ratio of 1 female in at least partially distinct populations, may spend up to 2 years in the river per 2 males, very likely due to where they may face different before reproducing and returning to the preferential poaching of females for conservation threats, and where their estuary to mature (Krykhtin and Svirskii caviar and use in aquaculture (Koshelev status may be different. Although the 1997, p. 237). et al. 2014b, pp. 1127, 1129, and chapter exact migration routes, spawning 3 of the SSA for a detailed discussion locations, delineations between, and of sturgeon harvesting).

TABLE 1—POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR AMUR STURGEON ANALYSIS UNITS, 2005–2011

Population Most recent condition

Amur Estuary ...... Extant; ∼264,000 fish >1 year old; surveys 2005–2011. Lower Amur ...... Extant; ∼25,000 fish >1 year old; higher density closer to the estuary. Middle Amur ...... Extirpated from the Songhua, Nen, Zeya, and Bureya Rivers and nearly so from the entire unit. Upper Amur ...... Very likely extirpated, including from the Argun and Shilka Rivers. Note: Sources for the information in this table are Koshelev et al. 2014a, pp. 1312–1316; Cai et al. 2013, p. 150; Simonov and Dahmer 2008, p. 129; and Novomodny et al. 2004, p. 18.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework (E) Other natural or manmade factors definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or affecting its continued existence. a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining Regulatory Framework These factors represent broad whether a species meets either Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) categories of natural or human-caused definition, we must evaluate all and its implementing regulations (50 actions or conditions that could have an identified threats by considering the CFR part 424) set forth the procedures effect on a species’ continued existence. species’ expected response and the for determining whether a species is an In evaluating these actions and effects of the threats—in light of those ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened conditions, we look for those that may actions and conditions that will species.’’ The Act defines an have a negative effect on individuals of ameliorate the threats—on an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species that the species, as well as other actions or individual, population, and species is in danger of extinction throughout all conditions that may ameliorate any or a significant portion of its range, and negative effects or may have positive level. We evaluate each threat and its a ‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that effects. expected effects on the species, then is likely to become an endangered We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in analyze the cumulative effect of all of species within the foreseeable future general to actions or conditions that are the threats on the species as a whole. throughout all or a significant portion of known to or are reasonably likely to We also consider the cumulative effect its range. The Act requires that we negatively affect individuals of a of the threats in light of those actions determine whether any species is an species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes and conditions that will have positive ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened actions or conditions that have a direct effects on the species, such as any species’’ because of any of the following impact on individuals (direct impacts), existing regulatory mechanisms or factors: as well as those that affect individuals conservation efforts. The Secretary (A) The present or threatened through alteration of their habitat or determines whether the species meets destruction, modification, or required resources (stressors). The term the definition of an ‘‘endangered curtailment of its habitat or range; ‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only (B) Overutilization for commercial, together or separately—the source of the after conducting this cumulative recreational, scientific, or educational action or condition or the action or analysis and describing the expected purposes; condition itself. effect on the species now and in the However, the mere identification of (C) Disease or predation; foreseeable future. (D) The inadequacy of existing any threat(s) does not necessarily mean regulatory mechanisms; or that the species meets the statutory

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Aug 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM 25AUP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 47461

Analytical Framework ability of a species to sustain Prior to the current set of fisheries The SSA report documents the results populations in the wild over time. We regulations, legal overharvest caused a of our comprehensive biological review use this information to inform our greater than 99 percent decline in the of the best scientific and commercial regulatory decision. volume of Amur sturgeon caught in Russia between 1891 and 1948 (Kryukov data available regarding the status of the Summary of Biological Status and 1894 cited in Krykhtin and Svirskii species, including an assessment of the Threats 1997, pp. 231–232). Fishing records potential threats to the species. The SSA In this discussion, we review the report does not represent a decision by from China similarly indicate that biological condition of the species and overfishing has caused massive the Service on whether the species its resources, and the threats that should be proposed for listing as an population declines in the Amur influence the species’ current and future sturgeon (Wang and Chang 2006, p. 45). endangered or threatened species under condition, in order to assess the species’ the Act. It does, however, provide the After a peak of 461 mt (508 t) in 1981, overall viability and the risks to that the Chinese catch declined scientific basis that informs our viability. precipitously to an average of just less regulatory decisions, which involve the than 120 mt (130 t) between 1996 and further application of standards within Overfishing and the Trade in Amur 2002, with just 50 and 25 mt (55 and 28 the Act and its implementing Sturgeon Caviar and Meat t) caught in the final 2 years (Vaisman regulations and policies. The following Unsustainable harvest for caviar and and Fomenko 2006, table 6). Overall, the is a summary of the key results and meat consumption is the foremost threat species’ population declined by greater conclusions from the SSA report; the to the Amur sturgeon (Vaisman and than 95% between 1960 and 2010 full SSA report can be found at Docket Fomenko 2006, entire; Zhuang et al. (Ruban and Qiwei 2010, not paginated). No. FWS–HQ–ES–2020–0100 on http:// 2002, p. 659). Both domestic and In the 1990s and early 2000s, the www.regulations.gov. international demand fuel the market Amur sturgeon was by far the most To assess the Amur sturgeon’s for these products and are a primary commonly traded sturgeon species in viability, we used the three reason that 85 percent of sturgeon China (Zhu et al. 2008, p. 31). Although conservation-biology principles of species are listed as critically this demand was largely fulfilled with resiliency, redundancy, and endangered or extinct in the wild on the captive-bred fish, the large-scale use of representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, International Union for the wild-caught Amur sturgeon as pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency Conservation of Nature’s Red List (note broodstock in aquaculture contributed supports the ability of the species to that while informative the Red List has to a crash in Amur sturgeon populations withstand environmental and no legal effect and uses different (Simonov and Dahmer 2008, p. 129 and demographic stochasticity (for example, standards for inclusion than does the figure 3.4; Wei no date, p. 1). By 2017, wet or dry, warm or cold years), Act; Rachler and Reinartz 2017, p. 1). some residents of the Amur region redundancy supports the ability of the The threat posed by overfishing is within China reported that the fish’s species to withstand catastrophic events despite both Russian and Chinese population was so low that it could not (for example, droughts, large pollution prohibition of open commercial fishing support a profitable fishery (Harris and events), and representation supports the and trade of the Amur sturgeon. In Shiraishi 2018, p. 46). ability of the species to adapt over time China, permits have been required since The Amur sturgeon was included in to long-term changes in the environment 2001 (Harris and Shiraishi 2018, pp. 46– Appendix II of the Convention on (for example, climate changes). In 47; Wang and Chang 2006, p. 48) and International Trade in Endangered general, the more resilient and the country’s law enforcement efforts Species of Wild Fauna and Flora redundant a species is and the more limit poaching in Chinese territory (CITES) in 1998, along with all other representation it has, the more likely it (Simonov and Dahmer 2008, p. 130; species in the order Acipenseriformes is to sustain populations over time, even Novomodny et al. 2004, p. 24). In not previously listed under Appendix I under changing environmental Russia, the commercial Amur sturgeon (CITES 1997a, pp. 80–84; CITES 1997b, conditions. Using these principles, we fishery has been banned since 1984 and pp. 171; Ruban and Qiwei 2010, not identified the species’ ecological was previously limited or closed by a paginated; Wang and Chang 2006, requirements for survival and series of temporary regulations as early p. 48). Both range countries, Russia and reproduction at the individual, as the 1920s (Harris and Shiraishi 2018, China, are Parties to CITES, as is the population, and species levels, and p. 9). However, since 1991 Russian United States. CITES Parties adopted a described the beneficial and risk factors state-sanctioned harvests (so-called ‘‘test series of recommendations to improve influencing the species’ viability. fishing’’ or ‘‘controlled catches’’), regulation of the international sturgeon The SSA process can be categorized purportedly for population monitoring, trade (Harris and Shirashi 2018, pp. 19– into three sequential stages. During the have likely been used as cover for 22), including reporting of scientifically first stage, we evaluated the individual continued fishing and commercial sale based quotas for any legal wild-caught species’ life-history needs. The next (Vaisman and Fomenko 2006, pp. v, 9– sturgeon (CITES 2015, entire; CITES stage involved an assessment of the 18; CITES 2001, p. 35). There is no 2010, entire) and a caviar-labeling historical and current condition of the restriction on the sale of caviar system to verify its legal origin (CITES species’ demographics and habitat produced from fish caught in test 2015; 50 CFR 23.71; USFWS OLE 2008). characteristics, including an fishing and it is likely that test fishing Since the inclusion of all sturgeon explanation of how the species arrived quotas are regularly exceeded (Vaisman species in the CITES Appendices in at its current condition. The final stage and Fomenko 2006, p. 10). Overall, 1998, the proportion of caviar in of the SSA involved making predictions fishing bans (Wang and Chang 2006, international trade reported to be of about the species’ responses to positive p. 51; Xinhuanet, June 11, 2002) have captive-bred origin has climbed from and negative environmental and not been successful at protecting or near zero to near 100 percent (CITES anthropogenic influences. Throughout restoring the species, given the long Trade database cited in Harris and all of these stages, we used the best history of overexploitation and ongoing Shiraishi 2018, p. 25; UNEP–WCMC scientific and commercial information harvests, both illegal (see below) and 2008 p. 31). Since 2011, no quotas for available to characterize viability as the state-sanctioned. wild-caught Amur sturgeon have been

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Aug 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM 25AUP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 47462 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules

reported to CITES, indicating that no less common in the early 2000s 2015, Belgium alone imported almost 3 wild-caught Amur sturgeon can be (Vaisman and Fomenko, 2006, p. 16). mt (3.3 t) of Amur sturgeon—mostly as legally traded internationally until Although the caviar resulting from caviar—and over 14.5 mt (15.9 t) of quotas are reestablished. This is in line test fishing was legal for sale in Russia, kaluga-Amur sturgeon hybrid products with the existing bans on commercial between 90 and 100 percent of (Musing et al. 2018, p. 37). Most French fishing in Russia and China. Still, some domestically sold Amur sturgeon was vendors said that wild-sourced caviar is wild-sourced caviar is very likely traded believed to be illegally caught in recent no longer available, although one said it internationally using fraudulent labels years (Harris and Shiraishi 2018 p. 33; could be obtained on the black market or without reporting (UNEP–WCMC Vaisman and Fomenko 2006, p. 22). (Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p. 45). 2012, pp. 22). The sale of caviar and Nearly every market stall in the city of A growing trade in sturgeon- meat with mislabeled origin, species, or Khaborosk sold illegally sourced caviar, containing cosmetics has opened newer both makes enforcement difficult (Harris and one could place an advance order markets, especially in Japan (Harris and and Shiraishi 2018, Table 9) and it is for up to several metric tons of sturgeon Shiraish 2018, p. 68), where poached very challenging for enforcement meat (potentially several hundred Amur sturgeon products were reported officials to confidently differentiate wild smaller fish) (Vaisman and Fomenko to be continuously available in the mid- from captive-bred caviar (e.g., DePeters 2006, p. 20). In 2018, Khabarovsk 2000s (Vaisman and Fomenko 2006, et al. 2013, pp. 130–131; Czesny et al. residents indicated that sturgeon p. 23) and where illegal sturgeon- 2000, pp. 147–148). Domestic sale of products remained easy to find on the containing cosmetics were seized in caviar (including in the United States, black market (Harris and Shiraishi 2018, large volumes in 2016 (Harris and China, and Russia) is not subject to p. 40). Russian law does not provide for Shiraishi 2018, p. 59). CITES labeling requirements, likely punishments strong enough to deter In summary, there is abundant facilitating trade in wild-sourced poaching (Musing et al. 2019, p. 20; evidence that heavy fishing pressure has products (Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p. Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p. 40; for several decades put severe strain on Erickson et al. 2007, p. 30; Vaisman and 54; Vaisman & Fomenko 2006, p. 20). In Amur sturgeon populations. The black- Fomenko 2006, p. 18), most arrests led addition, legitimate CITES labels and market trade and the laundering of wild- to dismissal of the case before containers are resold for use in caught fish and caviar into the legal prosecution due to a pardon or the concealing transport of illegal caviar market for captive-bred products has expression of remorse by defendants (van Uhm and Siegel 2016, p. 81). continued to negatively affect the (Vaisman and Fomenko 2006, p. 17), Following the inclusion of the Amur species in the wild despite the CITES and Russia remains the largest sturgeon in CITES Appendix II in 1998, requirements for international trade in consumer of Amur sturgeon (Vaisman there was a notable increase in illegal Amur sturgeon. More detail on the and Fomenko 2006, pp. iv–vii). Russia-to-China transport of caviar and Illegal international trade in Amur harvest and trade of the Amur sturgeon meat (Vaisman and Fomenko 2006, sturgeon products adds to the threat is available in the SSA report. p. 24). Fertilized eggs were also faced by the species. About 8 percent of Dams confiscated in transit from Russia to 17 mt (19 t) of Amur sturgeon caviar China and very likely destined for use arriving in the United States between The main stem of the Amur River in aquaculture (Harris and Shiraishi 2000 and 2019 was determined to be remains one of the largest undammed 2018, p. 40; Vaisman and Fomenko illegal and was seized before import rivers in the world (GRanD 2019, not 2006, p. 24). (CARS 2020, not paginated; CITES and paginated; Lehner et al. 2011, pp. 494– The Amur River was identified in UNEP–WCMC 2019). However, because 502; Simonov and Dahmer 2008, p. 2018 as one of the most concerning of the very nature of illegal trade, its 185), but repeated proposals to build regions for sturgeon poaching globally volume cannot be fully captured by the dams there have occurred for at least 70 (Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p. 12) and an available data. Nonetheless, the United years (Simonov and Markina 2010, not estimated 95 percent of spawning Amur States has been the largest importer of paginated). The construction of dams sturgeon are harvested annually sturgeon and sturgeon products (all blocks migration routes between Amur (Simonov and Dahmer 2008, p. 47; note: Acipenser species) since 1998 (Harris sturgeon feeding grounds (downstream) This is 95 percent of the approximately and Shiraishi 2018, p. 26; UNEP–WCMC and spawning grounds (upstream); in one quarter of all adults that spawn 2012, p. 22). At least through the mid- several major tributaries of the Amur, annually, not of all adults in the 2000s, illegal import of sturgeon this has stopped reproduction (Zhuang population). Illegal sturgeon harvesting products to the United States was et al. 2016, p. 66; Wu et al. 2015, pp. has been widespread, intense, and common among major caviar retailers 839–842; Gessner et al. 2010, not sometimes sophisticated, with up to 750 (Wyler and Sheikh 2013, p. 10; Service paginated). Dams can also increase metric tons (mt) (830 U.S. tons (t)) of 2005, p. 7). Most seized caviar was sediment and pollution concentrations, Amur sturgeon harvested illegally confiscated because of violations of limiting sunlight that benefits egg (Erickson et al. 2007, p. 31) and up to CITES requirements (e.g., incorrect label development and reducing the adhesion 1,000 poachers detained in Russia design, missing information, or of eggs to the substrate (Li et al. 2012, annually (all sturgeon species, not just misidentified species), and some p. 557). Amur sturgeon; Vladivostok News, June purportedly captive-sourced caviar is The Russian state hydrological plan 24, 2003). Organized and sometimes likely wild-sourced product for the Amur region does not include violent crime units control the harvest misrepresented as of farmed origin development of hydropower dams on of Amur sturgeon in Russia, especially (Irving 2021, pers. comm.). the river’s main stem, and little regional in the vicinity of Khabarovsk (Vaisman Nearly 3.8 mt (4.2 t) of Amur sturgeon demand exists for additional electrical and Fomenko 2006, p. 19; Krykhtin and caviar were imported into the European capacity on the Russian side of the river Svirskii 1997, p. 237), and fishing Union between 1998 and 2006 (UNEP– (Simonov 2016, not paginated). impacts have been especially intense on WCMC 2008, p. 31), representing 19 However, proposals still exist for as the Middle Amur spawning grounds percent of the total reported exports many as 13 dams on the Amur River or (Krykhtin and Svirskii 1997, p. 237). As from China and Russia (Engler and the Shilka River, its source (Simonov et a result, the species became markedly Knapp 2008, table 3). Between 2007 and al. 2019, figure 2).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Aug 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM 25AUP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 47463

Some Russian water-management sturgeon migrations and destroyed (Erickson 2007, p. 30; Jen 2003, p. 3). agencies are now promoting flood downstream wetlands (Simonov and Sewage, domestic animal feces, control for property protection in the Egivdarev 2008, p. 192), contributing pesticides, petrochemicals, heavy Amur floodplain, and Chinese substantially to the extirpation of the metals, and industrial pollutants institutions remain interested in future species from these rivers (Koshelev et al. including PCBs (Jiang et al. 2016, p. 537; hydropower development as the much 2014a, pp. 1313, 1316; Krykhtin and Meng et al. 2016, pp. 1–5; Kondratyeva larger human population on their side of Svirskii 1997, p. 237). Another dam et al. 2012, p. 186), as well as the river demands electricity (Simonov downstream of the existing Bureya eutrophication (the process by which 2016, not paginated). Construction of impoundment began operating in 2017 waters lose oxygen following extreme any dam on the Lower or lower Middle (Simonov et al. 2019, p. 4) and its plant growth triggered by excessive Amur main stem would be catastrophic presence and effect on the river further nutrient inputs) due to fertilizer runoff, for Amur sturgeon by hindering or limits the potential to restore sturgeon all damaged the river basin’s ecosystems preventing connectivity (Simonov and to the Bureya River by making yet a (Erickson 2007, p. 30; Jen 2003, pp. 2– Dahmer 2008, pp. 193–196). The longer stretch of river inaccessible to 3). Khingansky-Taipinggou Dam, proposed Amur sturgeon. In the Middle Amur analysis unit, the for the Middle Amur, would have severe Sturgeon are slower swimmers with Zeya and Bureya catchments were hydrological impacts on the river, large bodies; therefore, both fish substantially polluted with mercury, creating a complete barrier to migrating elevators and fish ladders have been cadmium, and lead as of 2005 fish (Simonov and Egidarev 2018, pp. 9– relatively ineffective at allowing (Kondrat’eva et al. 2013, p. 131). In 10). Until recently, prevailing economic sturgeon to transit around dams (Billard addition, these two river basins are and social conditions made it unlikely and Lecointre 2001, p. 380). For the home to more than 30 reservoirs storing that Chinese and Russian counterparts Amur sturgeon, fish passageways made heavily polluted wastewater and mining would agree to advance such a project to allow travel through or around dams residues. The potential for future failure in the next several years (Simonov and must include resting pools between fast of the smaller dams that contain these Egidarev 2018, p. 10); however, recently velocity runs and must be wider than reservoirs and the consequent release of thawing China-Russia relations (Chen the maximum tail-beat width during toxic pollutants into the river system 2019, pp. 62–64) could now lead to swimming (Cai et al. 2013, p. 153). poses a high risk to remaining habitats further discussion and construction of a However, we have no information suitable for Amur sturgeon (Simonov main stem dam. indicating that such structures are built and Dahmer 2008, p. 191). While the Amur itself remains free- into dams in the Amur basin, and the In 2001, 100 million mt (110 million flowing, approximately 100 dams dot its best scientific and commercial t) of wastewater containing 2,500 mt tributaries (Simonov et al. 2019, p. 4). information available shows that the (2,800 t) of organic chemicals, 80 mt (88 Many of these are small and the impacts Amur sturgeon is unable to traverse the t) of oil products, more than 1,000 mt of smaller dams on Amur sturgeon are larger existing dams constructed in the (1,100 t) of nitrogenous waste, and 2.5 uncertain, but they more likely than not Amur basin, limiting its range to mt (2.8 t) of phenols were discharged prevent connectivity along stretches of stretches of river below existing large into the Amur from Blagoveschensk, several tributaries and have likely dams and contributing to its decline. Russia at the boundary of the Middle contributed to the species’ decline. Remaining available spawning grounds and Upper Amur (Simonov and Dahmer Several tributaries also have larger are substantially reduced compared to 2008, p. 2016). In the Upper Amur, dams; in all such cases, Amur sturgeon their historical extent. including the Shilka, Amgun, and have been extirpated from these rivers Argun Rivers, illegal gold mining causes due in large part to the inability of Pollution sedimentation and turbidity, hampering Amur sturgeon to pass over or around Pollution of the Amur basin has likely sturgeon reproductive success (Pacific the dams. The Songhua River, a major contributed to the decline of the Amur Environment 2016, not paginated; tributary in the lower section of the sturgeon, given the volume and extent Egidarev and Simonov 2015, pp. 900, Middle Amur, is interrupted by the of pollution in the Amur basin, the 906–907). Baishan, Hongshi, and Xiao Fengman susceptibility of the species to Historically, the Songhua River in the dams (GRanD 2019, not paginated; pollutants, and reports of large-scale Middle Amur has been the most Lehner et al. 2011, pp. 494–502), which fish kills in polluted river reaches contaminated tributary (Kondratyeva et are approximately 150, 50, and 150 m (Simonov and Dahmer 2008, pp. 47, al. 2012, p. 185); the Amur sturgeon is tall, respectively. The Nierji Dam on the 212–236; Zhang 1985 cited in Zhuang et extirpated from this river, very likely in Nen River was built in 2006, after the al. 2003, p. 38). Extensive human part due to pollution (Cai et al. 2013, Amur sturgeon was extirpated from this settlements, agriculture, and industry— p. 150; Simonov and Dahmer 2008, p. tributary (Lehner et al. 2011; GRanD especially but not exclusively in 129; Novomodny et al. 2004, p. 18). Two 2019, not paginated), but because it China—all pollute the Amur River and industrial accidents at Jilin City, China, blocks the route taken by Nen River its tributaries with petrochemicals, contaminated the Songhua (and spawners, its presence would make any heavy metals, and persistent organic eventually the Amur River, 1,000 km restoration efforts there difficult. pollutants such as polychlorinated (600 miles) downstream) in 2005 and Farther upstream, the Zeya and biphenyls (PCBs) (Jiang et al. 2016, 2010. They released a combined 600 mt Bureya Rivers are interrupted by dams p. 537; Meng et al. 2016, pp. 1–5). Many (660 t) of methyl chloride, trimethyl built in 1975 and 2003, respectively Amur River fish, including the single chloride, nitrobenzene, benzene, (GRanD 2019, not paginated; Simonov et Amur sturgeon sampled, contained aniline, chloroform, chlorobenzene, and al. 2019, p. 4; Lehner et al. 2011, pp. copper, chromium, arsenic, and other chemicals into the Songhua 494–502). These two large hydroelectric mercury (Jiang et al. 2016, p. 540, table (Kondratyeva et al. 2012, p. 186; The dams are 115 and 140 m high (Lehner 2). Guardian, November 25, 2005). et al. 2011, pp. 494–502), and have the In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Concentrations of these chemicals were greatest ecological impacts of any of the pollution in the Lower Amur was as high as 600 times the government- dams in the Amur basin (Simonov and considered at an emergency level, and accepted levels (Kondratyeva et al. Dahmer 2008, p. 191). They block Amur mass fish kills were not uncommon 2012, p. 186) and were later detected in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Aug 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM 25AUP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 47464 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules

fish tissues, including those of Amur declines (Duhalde et al. 2019, not of hybrid fish created in aquaculture sturgeon (Kondratyeva et al. 2012, pp. paginated). suggests it is likely to occur soon, if it 187–189; Levshina et al. 2009, table 1, has not already (Boscari et al. 2017, pp. Climate Change p. 779). Also in the Songhua, heavy 250). The best scientific and commercial metals leach into the river from nearby When and how progressing climate information available shows that disease mines (Jen 2003, p. 4), and fish tissues change will affect the species is and predation do not presently pose a have PCB concentrations up to 10,000 uncertain. Air temperatures in the threat to the viability of the Amur times those in the sediment (Li et al. region are rising (see the SSA report for sturgeon. 1989 cited in Meng et al. 2016, p. 5). a detailed analysis), and all species have The primary conservation effort Some Amur River fish are even said to a thermal maximum; for example, the targeting recovery of the Amur sturgeon smell of chemicals (Simonov and closely related Yangtze sturgeon is the release of captive-bred fish into Dahmer 2008, p. 225). becomes stressed above 23 degrees wild habitats, but these activities are not The impacts of pollution on wild Celsius (°C) (Chang et al. 2017, p. 1449). sufficient to restore wild populations Amur sturgeon have not been well- On the other hand, warmer water can and must employ sound genetic studied, but their life history and some speed the maturation of Amur sturgeon management to avoid the potential laboratory studies indicate they are (Krykhtin and Svirskii 1997, p. 237) and impacts of hybridizing maladapted likely quite susceptible. Because the so may have short-term positive impacts captive-bred fish with wild ones. Amur sturgeon is a river bottom species, on the species, but we cannot currently Whereas some experts have suggested it is exposed to pollutants that estimate their magnitude or at what 10 to 11 million fish would need to be accumulate in sediments and in its point increasing water temperature released annually to successfully bottom-dwelling prey (Kasymov 1994 stops being beneficial. We also do not replenish the species (Krykhtin and cited in He et al. 2017, p. 10; have information on the water Gorbach 1994 cited in Koshelev et al. Kondrat’eva et al. 2013, p. 129; Kocan temperatures Amur sturgeon experience 2014a, p. 1316), no more than 10 et al. 1996, p. 161). Larvae and small at present or reliable projections of what percent of this volume has been juveniles may be especially sensitive to the water temperatures are likely to be released, on average, in years since petrochemicals polluting the Amur in the future. Indirect effects of warming restocking began in 1988 (Simonov and (Kondratyeva and Stukova 2009, p. 46; temperatures may impact the Amur Dahmer 2008, p. 130; Wei et al. 2004, Bickham et al. 1998, pp. 514–515; sturgeon as climate change progresses. p. 330; Zhuang et al. 2002, p. 361; Kocan et al. 1996, p. 163), although For example, between 1955 and 2014, Qiuzhi and Dajiang 1994, p. 67). As of extrapolating results from laboratory the average annual duration of ice cover the early 2000s, 99 percent of the Amur trials to impacts on wild fish is not in the Amur basin decreased by 7 days sturgeon produced by China’s straightforward (Tabak et al. 2002, table per decade, and the maximum ice aquaculture industry (approximately 15 3; Bickham 1998, pp. 514–515). thickness decreased by 17 cm (6.7 million fish per year) (Wei et al. 2011, Comprehensive toxin concentration inches; Vuglinsky and Valantin 2018, figure 2) were sold for meat or caviar data from around the basin and p. 83; Ohshima et al. 2016, pp. 10–11). (Simonov and Dahmer 2008, p. 131; Wei knowledge of the concentration This potentially exposes Amur sturgeon et al. 2004, p. 330). thresholds at which Amur sturgeon are to fishing pressure for a greater We are not aware of any studies that affected are unavailable, and field proportion of the year. have tracked the growth or reproductive studies definitively linking population success of Amur sturgeon released from Other Threats and Conservation declines to pollution also do not exist, captive-breeding operations. However, Measures to our knowledge. However, sturgeon when releases do occur, they almost are, at least at their early life stages, Hybridization, disease, and predation always use very young fish, 30 to 45 sensitive to polycyclic aromatic presently constitute lesser or negligible days old and weighing in the range of hydrocarbons (PAHs), one class of threats to the viability of the Amur 1 to 5 grams (0.1 ounces). In other petrochemicals polluting the Amur sturgeon and are addressed in more sturgeon species, no more than 1 in (Kondratyeva and Stukova 2009, p. 46; detail in the SSA report (Service 2020, 2,000 fish survive their first year, Tabak et al. 2002, table 3; Bickham et al. pp. 28–29). Although very little although survival rates are much higher 1998, pp. 514–515; Kocan et al. 1996, information is available on the genetic thereafter (Jaric and Gessner 2013, table p. 163;). Methyl mercury, another structure of wild Amur sturgeon 1; Jager et al. 2002, table 1). If hatcheries pollutant found in the Amur basin, populations, representation of the grew fish to a larger size before release, interferes with sturgeon growth and species would be diminished if its their survival and population recovery reproduction and can even cause direct genome were diluted by hybridization may improve (Koshelev et al. 2009 and mortality (Depew et al. 2012, table 2; with escaped captive-bred fish or other Mikhailova 2004 cited in Koshelev et al. Webb et al. 2006, pp. 447–450). sturgeon species. From a fitness 2014a, p. 1316, scenario 3 in chapter 5 The future trajectory of water quality perspective, hybridization can erase of the SSA, figures 5.2 and 5.3, tables in the Amur basin is uncertain, but locally adaptive features that evolved 5.3 and 5.4). possibly improving as wastewater and over evolutionary time, and from a industrial waste treatment capacity have conservation-management perspective, Current Condition been developed since the early 2000s muddled genomes make DNA-based We assessed the current status of the (Meng et al. 2016, pp. 4–5, table 1). identification of traded specimens more Amur sturgeon in light of the species’ Mercury concentrations in Amur River difficult (Ludwig 2006, pp. 6). That said, demographic and habitat requirements sediments have declined since the we are not aware that wild Amur for maintaining low-risk levels of 1990s, likely due to a Russian economic sturgeon have been documented resilience, redundancy, and slowdown that limited industrial hybridizing with fish escaped from representation. Resilience is a emissions (Kot et al. 2009, p. 133). In aquaculture facilities yet (Osipov 2020, population-level metric; therefore, we addition, human populations of most pers. comm.). However, the presence of only scored its present levels for the Chinese industrial cities in the region over 1,200 sturgeon farms across the three analysis units where Amur are shrinking, as cost-efficient raw whole of China (Bronzi et al. 2017, pp. sturgeon are extant (Amur Estuary, materials are exhausted and industry 260) and confirmed escapes and releases Lower Amur, and Middle Amur). The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Aug 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM 25AUP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 47465

species is extirpated from a large resilience units. Highly redundant The species has a skewed sex ratio of 1 portion of its range, including the entire species have a large number of female per 2 males, very likely due to Upper Amur unit and several major populations, which safeguards against preferential poaching of females for tributaries. rare, localized catastrophic events. caviar and use in aquaculture (Koshelev High-resilience units are those in a Representation is a measure of the et al. 2014b, pp. 1127, 1129), and the self-sustaining condition and species’ capacity to adapt to changing largest fish—which are also the most experiencing little, if any, risk of environments. reproductively valuable—have been extirpation; they have relatively higher The species as a whole is estimated to removed from the population (Koshelev abundance of adult females, have experienced a population decline et al. 2014a, table 5). connectivity between feeding and of greater than 95 percent between 1960 spawning grounds, high water quality, and 2010 (Ruban and Qiwei 2010, not Our assessment of the resilience of and fish survive to reproduce multiple paginated). However, using a 1960 each of the three extant analysis units times. Moderate-resilience units are baseline underestimates actual indicates that none are in self-sustaining unlikely to be self-sustaining and are historical declines in the species’ condition (see table 2, below). Only the experiencing some level conservation abundance because intense fishing Amur Estuary unit has even moderate threat that could eventually lead to occurred at least as early as the 1890s resilience. Details of how we extirpation. Low- and very-low- (Koshelev et al. 2016, p. 240; Vaisman determined overall resilience from the resilience units are not self-sustaining, and Fomenko 2006, p. 11). Sizeable four demographic- and habitat-based due to ongoing conservation threats; populations now exist only in the Amur criteria in table 2, below, can be found they may become extirpated, perhaps Estuary and Lower Amur analysis units in the SSA report. rapidly in the case of very low- (Koshelev et al. 2014a, pp. 1313–1316).

TABLE 2—CURRENT RESILIENCE OF THE THREE EXTANT AMUR STURGEON ANALYSIS UNITS

Resilience criteria Amur Estuary Lower amur Middle amur

Number of reproductive females ... ∼28,860 ...... ∼425 ...... Nearly extirpated. Water quality to support prey avail- • Receives water pollution from • Heavy industrial presence and • Songhua River includes the ability and sturgeon health. all upstream reaches, including human population density. most polluted sections of the the heavily polluted Songhua • Likely impacts sturgeon health Amur basin. and Lower Amur. and prey abundance. • The medium-sized cities of • May impact sturgeon health Heihe and Blagoveschensk de- and prey abundance. posit sewage and industrial waste into this reach of the Amur. • Likely impacts sturgeon health and prey abundance. Survival to reproduce multiple • High fishing pressure ...... • High fishing pressure ...... • Few reproductive fish present. times. • Estimated 95 percent of spawn- • Estimated 95 percent of spawn- • Fishing pressure is likely still ing fish captured annually. ing fish captured annually. very high for any fish present. • Size of captured fish and pro- • Size of captured fish and pro- portion of fish that are large fe- portion of fish that are large fe- males are declining. males are declining. • Limits average fecundity ...... • Limits average fecundity ...... Connectivity between spawning No dams. Fish can move into the No known barriers to connectivity Songhua, Nen, Zeya, and Bureya and feeding grounds. main stem of the river to reach River dams prevent fish from spawning grounds. reaching spawning sites. Main stem remains without obstruc- tions. Current Resilience ...... Moderate ...... Low ...... Very low. Note: Sources for the information in this table are Koshelev et al. 2014a, pp. 1310–1316; Koshelev et al. 2014b, p. 1127; Cai et al. 2013, p. 150; Ruban and Qiwei 2010, not paginated; Simonov and Dahmer 2008, p. 47; Novomodny et al. 2004, p. 18; and others provided in the SSA report’s detailed discussion of current condition.

Amur sturgeon redundancy is complete extinction of the population all tributaries of the Amur. In turn, we considerably reduced compared to its due to a single catastrophic event is expect that adaptive potential of the historical level, which was never high, unlikely, at present. species is also lower than before, given that the species is endemic to a We have very little information about although we cannot quantify this at single large river system. One of four the contemporary population genetic present. units (the Upper Amur) is extirpated, structure of wild Amur sturgeon, We note that, by using the SSA and the Middle Amur unit is on the making it difficult to fully assess the framework to guide our analysis of the brink of extirpation, too. The Amur species’ representation. However, we scientific information documented in sturgeon has been extirpated from can assess that the variety of ecological the SSA report, we have not only several major tributaries (e.g., the Zeya settings inhabited by Amur sturgeon is analyzed individual effects on the and Bureya) within the Middle and at least somewhat reduced in the last species, but we have also analyzed their Lower Amur units. Despite the species’ century as the geographic range of the potential cumulative effects. We low redundancy, we assess that its species has contracted to primarily the incorporate the cumulative effects into geographically dispersed nature, across Lower Amur and Amur Estuary, now our SSA analysis when we characterize a several-hundred km stretch of the excluding the Upper Amur, as well as the current and future condition of the Lower Amur and Estuary, means that the Zeya, Bureya, and Songhua Rivers, species. To assess the current and future

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Aug 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM 25AUP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 47466 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules

condition of the species, we undertake extirpated. Thus, a relatively small commercial information available, we an iterative analysis that encompasses portion of the historical range now conclude that the Amur sturgeon and incorporates the threats accounts for most of the remaining currently lacks sufficient resiliency, individually and then accumulates and Amur sturgeon, increasing the species’ redundancy, and representation for its evaluates the effects of all the factors susceptibility to stochastic and continued existence to be secure. We that may be influencing the species, catastrophic events. therefore determine that the Amur including threats and conservation Fish throughout the range experience sturgeon is in danger of extinction efforts. Because the SSA framework very intensive fishing pressure, throughout all of its range. The species considers not just the presence of the estimated at 95 percent of spawning fish does not fit the statutory definition of a factors, but to what degree they annually (Factor B). This includes fish threatened species because it is collectively influence risk to the entire in the present relative stronghold of the currently in danger of extinction, species, our assessment integrates the species, the Amur Estuary analysis unit, whereas threatened species are those in cumulative effects of the factors and because they migrate into the river to danger of extinction in the foreseeable replaces a standalone cumulative effects breed, where they are heavily fished. future. analysis. Existing conservation measures are Russian and Chinese fishery regulations, Status Throughout a Significant Portion Determination of Amur Sturgeon’s the national laws and regulations of Its Range Status (Russia, China, U.S., and other CITES Under the Act and our implementing Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) Parties) for implementing CITES regulations, a species may warrant and its implementing regulations (50 requirements for international trade in listing if it is in danger of extinction or CFR part 424) set forth the procedures the Amur sturgeon, and limited likely to become so in the foreseeable for determining whether a species meets restocking of wild populations using future throughout all or a significant the definition of an ‘‘endangered captive-bred Amur sturgeon. These portion of its range. We have species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species.’’ The measures are currently inadequate to determined that the Amur sturgeon is in Act defines an ‘‘endangered species’’ as stop population declines (Factor D). danger of extinction throughout all of its a species in danger of extinction Organized networks for corrupt and range and accordingly did not undertake throughout all or a significant portion of illegal trade of Amur sturgeon caviar an analysis of any significant portion of its range, and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as and meat, and sometimes involving its range. Because the Amur sturgeon a species likely to become an government officials, create challenges warrants listing as endangered endangered species within the for law enforcement (Vaisman and throughout all of its range, our foreseeable future throughout all or a Fomenko 2006, pp. 14–18). Moreover, it determination is consistent with the significant portion of its range. The Act is difficult for even scrupulous law- decision in Center for Biological requires that we determine whether a enforcement agencies to discern Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289 species meets the definition of an between captive-bred and wild-sourced (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), in which the ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened caviar at the point of sale or import. court vacated the aspect of our Final species’’ because of any of the following This makes control of illegal harvest and Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase factors: (A) The present or threatened trade challenging (Factors B and D). ‘‘Significant Portion of Its Range’’ in the destruction, modification, or CITES requirements (e.g., labeling and Endangered Species Act’s Definitions of curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) quota systems) are not applicable to ‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened overutilization for commercial, domestic trade, further hampering law- Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) recreational, scientific, or educational enforcement efforts to control the sale of that provided that the Service and purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) wild-caught Amur sturgeon in Russia, NMFS do not undertake an analysis of the inadequacy of existing regulatory where the majority of Amur sturgeon significant portions of a species’ range if mechanisms; or (E) other natural or products are consumed (Vaisman and the species warrants listing as manmade factors affecting its continued Fomenko 2006, pp. iv–vii; Factors B and threatened throughout all of its range. existence. D). Pollution is also a widespread threat to the Amur sturgeon’s habitat and Determination of Status Status Throughout All of Its Range health (Factor A) and is not well Our review of the best scientific and After evaluating threats to the species regulated (Factor D). commercial information available and assessing the cumulative effect of The species is endemic to a single indicates that the Amur sturgeon meets the threats under the Act’s section large river basin and is extirpated from the definition of an endangered species. 4(a)(1) factors, we find that existing much of its historical range already (lost Therefore, we propose to list the Amur threats to the Amur sturgeon—primarily redundancy). At present, no population sturgeon as an endangered species in overfishing, loss of connectivity due to has the resilience to be self-sustaining. accordance with sections 3(6) and dams, and pollution—have caused and Among the remaining three extant 4(a)(1) of the Act. will continue to cause a decline in the populations, one has moderate species’ viability through reduction of resiliency (Amur Estuary), one has low Available Conservation Measures resilience, redundancy, and resiliency (Lower Amur), and one has Conservation measures provided to representation. For the four historical very low resiliency (Middle Amur). species listed as endangered or analysis units, one is extirpated, and the Overfishing and dams have reduced the threatened species under the Act remaining three are not self-sustaining. viability of the Amur sturgeon across its include recognition, recovery actions, The species is already extirpated from distribution. The vast decrease in requirements for Federal protection, and much of its historical range, including population abundance is very likely prohibitions against certain practices. most upstream portions of the Amur associated with a decrease in genetic Recognition through listing results in basin and several major tributaries diversity (representation) and adaptive public awareness, and encourages and where dams block access to spawning potential. Restocking efforts are not results in conservation actions by grounds and migration routes (Factor currently sufficient to stop declines in Federal, State, Tribal, and local A). The Middle Amur unit is on the resilience and overall abundance. Thus, agencies, foreign governments, private brink of being the second unit after assessing the best scientific and organizations, and individuals. The Act

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Aug 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM 25AUP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 47467

encourages cooperation with the States of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1537(b) and (c)) The CBW program is available for and other countries and calls for authorize the Secretary to encourage species having a natural geographic recovery actions to be carried out for conservation programs for foreign listed distribution not including any part of listed species. The protection required species, and to provide assistance for the United States and other species that by Federal agencies and the prohibitions such programs, in the form of personnel the Director has determined to be against certain activities are discussed, and the training of personnel. eligible by regulation. The individual in part, below. Section 7(a) of the Act The Act and its implementing specimens must have been born in requires Federal agencies to evaluate regulations set forth a series of general captivity in the United States. There are their actions with respect to any species prohibitions and exceptions that apply also certain statutory exemptions from that is proposed or listed as an to all endangered wildlife. The the prohibitions, found in sections 9 endangered or threatened species and prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and 10 of the Act. For example, a with respect to its critical habitat, if any codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal limited exemption from the prohibitions is designated. Regulations implementing for any person subject to the jurisdiction on import and export is available under this interagency cooperation provision of the United States to import; export; section 9(b)(1) for a specimen of fish or of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship wildlife which was held in captivity or 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires in interstate or foreign commerce, by in a controlled environment on the date Federal agencies to confer with the any means whatsoever and in the course the species is listed under the Act, Service on any action that is likely to of commercial activity; or sell or offer provided that such holding and any jeopardize the continued existence of a for sale in interstate or foreign subsequent holding or use of the fish or species proposed for listing or result in commerce any species listed as an wildlife was not in the course of a destruction or adverse modification of endangered species. In addition, it is commercial activity. proposed critical habitat. If a species is unlawful to take (which includes harass, It is our policy, as published in the listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR the Act requires Federal agencies to trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt 34272), to identify to the maximum ensure that activities they authorize, any of these) endangered wildlife within extent practicable at the time a species fund, or carry out are not likely to the United States or on the high seas. It is listed, those activities that would or jeopardize the continued existence of is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, would not constitute a violation of the species or destroy or adversely carry, transport, or ship, by any means section 9 of the Act. The intent of this modify its critical habitat. If a Federal whatsoever any such wildlife that has policy is to increase public awareness of action may affect a listed species or its been taken illegally. Certain exceptions the effect of a proposed listing on critical habitat, the responsible Federal apply to employees of the Service, proposed and ongoing activities within agency must enter into consultation NMFS, other Federal land management the range of the species proposed for with the Service. agencies, and State conservation listing. Based on the best available An ‘‘action’’ that is subject to the information, the following actions are consultation provisions of section agencies. We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities unlikely to result in a violation of 7(a)(2) is defined in our implementing section 9, if these activities are carried regulations at 50 CFR 402.02 as ‘‘all involving endangered wildlife under out in accordance with existing activities or programs of any kind certain circumstances. Regulations regulations and permit requirements; authorized, funded, or carried out, in governing permits for endangered this list is not comprehensive: whole or in part, by Federal agencies in wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22, (1) Take of the Amur sturgeon in its the United States or upon the high and general Service permitting native range in China and Russia; and seas.’’ With respect to this species, there regulations are codified at 50 CFR part are no ‘‘actions’’ known to require 13. With regard to endangered wildlife, (2) Trade in the Amur sturgeon and its consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the a permit may be issued for the following products that is both outside the United Act. Given the regulatory definition of purposes: For scientific purposes, to States and conducted by persons not ‘‘action,’’ which clarifies that it applies enhance the propagation or survival of subject to U.S. jurisdiction (although to activities or programs ‘‘in the United the species, and for incidental take in this activity would still be subject to States or upon the high seas,’’ the Amur connection with otherwise lawful CITES requirements). sturgeon is unlikely to be the subject of activities. The Service may also register Based on the best available section 7 consultations, because the persons subject to the jurisdiction of the information, the following activities entire life cycle of the species occurs in United States through its captive-bred- may potentially result in a violation of freshwater and nearshore marine areas wildlife (CBW) program if certain section 9 of the Act if they are not outside of the United States unlikely to established requirements are met under authorized in accordance with be affected by U.S. Federal actions. the CBW regulations (50 CFR 17.21(g)). applicable law; this list is not Additionally, no critical habitat will be Through a CBW registration, the Service comprehensive: designated for this species because, may allow a registrant to conduct (1) Import into the United States of under 50 CFR 424.12(g), we will not certain otherwise prohibited activities the Amur sturgeon and its products, designate critical habitat within foreign as part of conservation breeding including fish originating from the wild countries or in other areas outside of the activities that enhance the propagation or captive-bred, without obtaining jurisdiction of the United States. or survival of the affected species: Take; permits required under Section 10 of the Section 8(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. export or re-import; deliver, receive, Act and without following applicable 1537(a)) authorizes the provision of carry, transport or ship in interstate or CITES requirements at 50 CFR part 23. limited financial assistance for the foreign commerce, in the course of a (2) Export of the Amur sturgeon and development and management of commercial activity; or sell or offer for its products, whether originating from programs that the Secretary of the sale in interstate or foreign commerce. A the wild or captive-bred, from the Interior determines to be necessary or CBW registration may authorize United States without obtaining permits useful for the conservation of interstate purchase and sale only required under Section 10 of the Act endangered or threatened species in between entities that both hold a and without following applicable CITES foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) registration for the taxon concerned. requirements at 50 CFR part 23.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Aug 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM 25AUP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 47468 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Separate from its proposed listing as (5) Use lists and tables wherever Authors an endangered species, as a CITES-listed possible. species, all international trade of Amur If you feel that we have not met these The primary authors of this proposed sturgeon by persons subject to the requirements, send us comments by one rule are staff members of the Service’s jurisdiction of the United States must of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species. also comply with CITES requirements better help us revise the rule, your List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 pursuant to Section 9(c), (g) of the Act comments should be as specific as and 50 CFR part 23. Applicable wildlife possible. For example, you should tell Endangered and threatened species, import/export requirements established us the numbers of the sections or Exports, Imports, Reporting and under Section 9(d)–(f) of the Act, the paragraphs that are unclearly written, recordkeeping requirements, Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 which sections or sentences are too Transportation. U.S.C. 3371, et seq.), and 50 CFR part long, the sections where you feel lists or Proposed Regulation Promulgation 14 must also be met for Amur sturgeon tables would be useful, etc. Accordingly, we propose to amend imports and exports. Questions National Environmental Policy Act (42 regarding whether specific activities U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title would constitute a violation of section 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 9 of the Act should be directed to Mary We have determined that as set forth below: Cogliano, Chief of the Branch of Permits environmental assessments and ([email protected]). environmental impact statements, as PART 17—ENDANGERED AND defined under the authority of the THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS Required Determinations National Environmental Policy Act (42 ■ Clarity of the Rule U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be 1. The authority citation for part 17 prepared in connection with listing a continues to read as follows: We are required by Executive Orders species as an endangered or threatened Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 12866 and 12988 and by the species under the Endangered Species 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise Presidential Memorandum of June 1, Act. We published a notice outlining noted. 1998, to write all rules in plain our reasons for this determination in the language. This means that each rule we Federal Register on October 25, 1983 ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an publish must: (48 FR 49244). entry for ‘‘Sturgeon, Amur’’ to the List (1) Be logically organized; of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife References Cited in alphabetical order under FISHES to (2) Use the active voice to address A complete list of references cited in read as follows: readers directly; this rulemaking is available on the (3) Use clear language rather than internet at http://www.regulations.gov § 17.11 Endangered and threatened jargon; and upon request from the Branch of wildlife. (4) Be divided into short sections and Delisting and Foreign Species (see FOR * * * * * sentences; and FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). (h) * * *

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

******* FISHES

******* Sturgeon, Amur ...... Acipenser schrenckii ...... Wherever found ...... E [Federal Register citation when published as a final rule].

*******

Martha Williams, Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2021–17881 Filed 8–24–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Aug 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM 25AUP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS