61230 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

1The OIG Semiannual Report to Congress can be 

accessed through the OIG website at http://

oig.hhs.gov/publications/semiannual.asp. 

and willfully offer, pay, solicit, or 

receive remuneration to induce or 

reward business reimbursable under 

Federal health care programs. The 

offense is classified as a felony and is 

punishable by fines of up to $25,000 

and imprisonment for up to 5 years. OIG 

may also impose civil money penalties, 

in accordance with section 1128A(a)(7) 

of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a–7a(a)(7)), or 

exclusion from Federal health care 

programs, in accordance with section 

1128(b)(7) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a– 

7(b)(7)). 

Because the statute, on its face, is so 

broad, concern has been expressed for 

many years that some relatively 

innocuous commercial arrangements 

may be subject to criminal prosecution 

or administrative sanction. In response 

to the above concern, section 14 of the 

Medicare and Medicaid Patient and 

Program Protection Act of 1987, Public 

Law 100–93 § 14, specifically required 

the development and promulgation of 

regulations, the so-called ‘‘safe harbor’’ 

provisions, specifying various payment 

and business practices that, although 

potentially capable of inducing referrals 

of business reimbursable under Federal 

health care programs, would not be 

treated as criminal offenses under the 

anti-kickback statute and would not 

serve as a basis for administrative 

sanctions. OIG safe harbor provisions 

have been developed ‘‘to limit the reach 

of the statute somewhat by permitting 

certain non-abusive arrangements, while 

encouraging beneficial and innocuous 

arrangements’’ (56 FR 35952, July 29, 

1991). Health care providers and others 

may voluntarily seek to comply with 

these provisions so that they have the 

assurance that their business practices 

will not be subject to liability under the 

anti-kickback statute or related 

administrative authorities. OIG safe 

harbor regulations are found at 42 CFR 

part 1001. 

B. OIG Special Fraud Alerts 

OIG periodically issues Special Fraud 

Alerts to give continuing guidance to 

health care providers with respect to 

practices OIG considers to be suspect or 

of particular concern. The Special Fraud 

Alerts encourage industry compliance 

by giving providers guidance that can be 

applied to their own practices. OIG 

Special Fraud Alerts are published in 

the Federal Register and on our website 

and are intended for extensive 

distribution. 

In developing Special Fraud Alerts, 

OIG relies on a number of sources and 

consults directly with experts in the 

subject field, including those within 

OIG, other agencies of the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (the Department), other Federal 

and State agencies, and those in the 

health care industry. 

C. Section 205 of the Health Insurance 

Portability and Accountability Act of 

1996 

Section 205 of the Health Insurance 

Portability and Accountability Act of 

1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 104–191 

§ 205 (the Act), § 1128D, 42 U.S.C. 

1320a–7d, requires the Department to 

develop and publish an annual 

notification in the Federal Register 

formally soliciting proposals for 

modifying existing safe harbors to the 

anti-kickback statute and for developing 

new safe harbors and Special Fraud 

Alerts. 

In developing safe harbors for a 

criminal statute, OIG thoroughly 

reviews the range of factual 

circumstances that may fall within the 

proposed safe harbor subject area so as 

to uncover potential opportunities for 

fraud and abuse. Only then can OIG 

determine, in consultation with the U.S. 

Department of Justice, whether it can 

effectively develop regulatory 

limitations and controls that will permit 

beneficial and innocuous arrangements 

within a subject area while, at the same 

time, protecting Federal health care 

programs and their beneficiaries from 

abusive practices. 

II. Solicitation of Additional New 

Recommendations and Proposals 

In accordance with the requirements 

of section 205 of HIPAA, OIG last 

published a Federal Register 

solicitation notification for developing 

new safe harbors and Special Fraud 

Alerts on December 28, 2016 (81 FR 

95551). As required under section 205 

of the Act, a status report of the 

proposals OIG received for new and 

modified safe harbors in response to 

that solicitation notification is set forth 

in Appendix F of OIG’s Fall 2017 

Semiannual Report to Congress.1 OIG is 

not seeking additional public comment 

on the proposals listed in Appendix F 

at this time. Rather, this notification 

seeks additional recommendations 

regarding the development of new or 

modified safe harbor regulations and 

new Special Fraud Alerts beyond those 

summarized in Appendix F. 

A detailed explanation of 

justifications for, or empirical data 

supporting, a suggestion for a safe 

harbor or Special Fraud Alert would be 

helpful and should, if possible, be 

included in any response to this 

solicitation. 

A. Criteria for Modifying and 

Establishing Safe Harbor Provisions 

In accordance with section 205 of 

HIPAA, we will consider a number of 

factors in reviewing proposals for new 

or modified safe harbor provisions, such 

as the extent to which the proposals 

would affect an increase or decrease in: 

• Access to health care services, 

• the quality of health care services, 

• patient freedom of choice among 

health care providers, 

• competition among health care 

providers, 

• the cost to Federal health care 

programs, 

• the potential overutilization of 

health care services, and 

• the ability of health care facilities to 

provide services in medically 

underserved areas or to medically 

underserved populations. 

In addition, we will consider other 

factors, including, for example, the 

existence (or nonexistence) of any 

potential financial benefit to health care 

professionals or providers that may take 

into account their decisions whether to 

(1) order a health care item or service or 

(2) arrange for a referral of health care 

items or services to a particular 

practitioner or provider. 

B. Criteria for Developing Special Fraud 

Alerts 

In determining whether to issue 

additional Special Fraud Alerts, we will 

consider whether, and to what extent, 

the practices that would be identified in 

a new Special Fraud Alert may result in 

any of the consequences set forth above, 

as well as the volume and frequency of 

the conduct that would be identified in 

the Special Fraud Alert. 

Dated: December 12, 2017. 

Daniel R. Levinson, 

Inspector General. 

[FR Doc. 2017–27117 Filed 12–26–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4152–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2017–0047; 

4500090024] 

RIN 1018–BC83 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Listing the Yangtze 

Sturgeon as an Endangered Species 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 61231 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

proposed rule and a 12-month finding 

on a petition to list the Yangtze sturgeon 

(Acipenser dabryanus) as an endangered 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Loss of 

individuals due to overharvesting on the 

Yangtze River is the main factor that 

contributed to the historical decline of 

the species. Despite conservation efforts, 

this species is still currently in decline 

due primarily to the effects of dams and 

bycatch. If we finalize this rule as 

proposed, it would extend the Act’s 

protections to this species. We seek 

information from the public on this 

proposed rule and the status review for 

this species. 

DATES: We will consider comments and 

information received or postmarked on 

or before February 26, 2018. Comments 

submitted electronically using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 

date. We must receive requests for 

public hearings, in writing, at the 

address shown in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT by February 12, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Document availability: This 

finding is available on the internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–HQ–ES–2017–0047. 

Written comments: You may submit 

comments by one of the following 

methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–HQ–ES–2017–0047, which 

is the docket number for this 

rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel 

on the left side of the screen, under the 

Document Type heading, click on the 

Proposed Rules link to locate this 

document. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–HQ–ES–2017– 

0047; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments, below, for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janine Van Norman, Branch of Foreign 

Species, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803; telephone, 703–358–2171; 

facsimile, 703–358–2499. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Requested 

Public Comments 

Our intent, as required by the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), is to use the best 

available scientific and commercial data 

as the foundation for all endangered and 

threatened species classification 

decisions. Further, we want any final 

rule resulting from this proposal to be 

as accurate and effective as possible. 

Therefore, we invite the range country, 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, and other 

interested parties to submit comments 

regarding this proposed rule. Comments 

should be as specific as possible. 

Before issuing a final rule to 

implement this proposed action, we will 

take into account all comments and any 

additional relevant information we 

receive. Such communications may lead 

to a final rule that differs from our 

proposal. For example, new information 

or analysis may lead to a threatened 

status instead of an endangered status 

for this species, or we may determine 

that this species does not warrant listing 

based on the best available information 

when we make our determination. All 

comments, including commenters’ 

names and addresses, if provided to us, 

will become part of the administrative 

record. For this species, we particularly 

seek comments concerning: 

(1) The species’ biology, ranges, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of the species, including 

habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 

(2) Factors that may affect the 

continued existence of the species, 

which may include habitat modification 

or destruction, overutilization, disease, 

predation, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, or other natural 

or manmade factors. 

(3) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to the species 

and existing regulations that may be 

addressing those threats. 

(4) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status, range, 

distribution, and population size of the 

species, including the locations of any 

additional populations of the species. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for or opposition to the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Headquarters Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

one or more public hearings on this 

proposal, if requested. Requests must be 

received by the date listed above in 

DATES. Such requests must be sent to the 

address shown in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule 

public hearings on this proposal, if any 

are requested, and announce the dates, 

times, and places of those hearings, as 

well as how to obtain reasonable 

accommodations, in the Federal 

Register and local newspapers at least 

15 days before the hearing. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
61232 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

we solicited the expert opinion of six 

appropriate and independent specialists 

for peer review of the Species Status 

Assessment (SSA) that provides the 

biological basis for this proposed listing 

determination. The purpose of peer 

review is to ensure that our listing 

determinations are based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. Their comments and 

suggestions can be found at (https://

www.fws.gov/endangered/improving_

ESA/peer_review_process.html). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On March 12, 2012, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

received a petition dated March 8, 2012, 

from WildEarth Guardians and Friends 

of Animals to list as endangered or 

threatened under the Act the following 

15 sturgeon species: Adriatic sturgeon 

(Acipenser naccarii); Baltic sturgeon (A. 

sturio); Russian sturgeon (A. 

gueldenstaedtii); ship sturgeon (A. 

nudiventris); Persian sturgeon (A. 

persicus); stellate sturgeon (A. stellatus); 

Siberian sturgeon (A. baerii); Yangtze 

sturgeon (A. dabryanus); Chinese 

sturgeon (A. sinensis); Sakhalin 

sturgeon (A. mikadoi); Amur sturgeon 

(A. schrenckii); Kaluga sturgeon (Huso 

dauricus); Syr Darya sturgeon 

(Pseudoscaphirhynchus fedtschenkoi); 

dwarf sturgeon (P. hermanni); and Amu 

Darya sturgeon (P. kaufmanni). The 

petition states that all 15 petitioned 

sturgeon species are affected by similar 

threats, which are primarily: Legal and 

illegal harvest for meat and/or roe; 

habitat loss and degradation, including 

dams or dam construction; and water 

pollution. The petition is available at 

https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0051- 

0003. 

NMFS acknowledged receipt of this 

petition in a letter dated April 14, 2012, 

and informed the petitioners that NMFS 

would determine, under section 4 of the 

Act, whether the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. 

Although the petition was initially sent 

to NMFS, as a result of subsequent 

discussions between NMFS and the 

Service regarding the August 28, 1974, 

Memorandum of Understanding 

pertaining to ‘‘Jurisdictional 

Responsibilities and Listing Procedures 

Under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973,’’ we have determined that 10 of 

the 15 petitioned sturgeon species are 

within the jurisdiction of the Service. 

Therefore, in April 2012, the Service 

notified WildEarth Guardians that we 

have jurisdiction over the 10 sturgeon 

species, listed below. 

On September 24, 2013, we published 

in the Federal Register (78 FR 58507) a 

90-day finding that found that the 

petition presented substantial scientific 

and commercial information indicating 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted for the following 10 sturgeon 

species included in the petition: 

Siberian sturgeon (Acipenser baerii), 

Yangtze sturgeon (A. dabryanus), 

Russian sturgeon (A. gueldenstaedtii), 

ship sturgeon (A. nudiventris), Persian 

sturgeon (A. persicus), Amur sturgeon 

(A. schrenckii), stellate sturgeon (A. 

stellatus), Syr-Darya sturgeon 

(Pseudoscaphirhynchus fedtschenkoi), 

dwarf sturgeon (P. hermanni), and Amu 

Darya sturgeon (P. kaufmanni). This 

document constitutes our review and 

determination of the status of the 

Yangtze sturgeon, our publication of our 

12-month finding on this species, and 

our proposed rule to list this species. 

Background 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, ecology, and overall 

viability of the Yangtze sturgeon is 

presented in the Species Status 

Assessment (SSA) for the Yangtze 

sturgeon (Service 2017; available at 

http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–HQ–ES–2017–0047). The SSA 

documents the results of the 

comprehensive biological status review 

for the Yangtze sturgeon and provides 

an account of the species’ overall 

viability through forecasting of the 

species’ condition in the future (Service 

2017, entire). In the SSA, we summarize 

the relevant biological data and a 

description of past, present, and likely 

future stressors and conduct an analysis 

of the viability of the species. The SSA 

provides the scientific basis that informs 

our regulatory decision regarding 

whether this species should be listed as 

an endangered or threatened species 

under the Act. This decision involves 

the application of standards within the 

Act, its implementing regulations, and 

Service policies (see Determination, 

below). The SSA contains the risk 

analysis on which this determination is 

based, and the following discussion is a 

summary of the results and conclusions 

from the SSA. We solicited peer review 

of the draft SSA from six qualified 

experts. We received responses from 

one of the reviewers, and we modified 

the SSA as appropriate. 

Species Description 

The Yangtze sturgeon is a freshwater 

fish species that attains a maximum size 

of around 130 centimeters (4.3 feet (ft)) 

and a maximum weight of about 16 

kilograms (35 pounds) (Billiard and 

Lecointre 2000, p. 368; Zhuang et al. 

1997, pp. 257, 259). The species has a 

triangular head, an elongated snout, and 

large blowholes (Gao et al. 2009b, p. 

117). Yangtze sturgeons have tactile 

barbels at the front of their mouths that 

they use to dig for food. On the dorsal 

side, the Yangtze sturgeons are dark 

gray, brownish-gray, or yellow-gray in 

color. The rest of the body is milky 

white in color (Zhuang et al. 1997, p. 

259). 

Taxonomy 

Historically, the Yangtze sturgeon 

coexisted alongside the Chinese 

sturgeon in the Yangtze River. Initial 

attempts to differentiate the two species 

included using morphological measures. 

However, morphological characteristics 

can be influenced by differences in 

environmental conditions. For example, 

wild Yangtze sturgeon display grey 

color on the sides of their bodies while 

those bred in captivity sometimes 

display a darker color (Li et al. 2015, p. 

186). 

Due to similarities in their 

morphology, the two sturgeons were not 

identified as separate species until 1869, 

based on collection of specimens 

obtained from the Yangtze River 

(Zhuang et al. 1997, p. 257). Multiple 

studies since have shown the Yangtze 

and Chinese sturgeons are very closely 

related and can be considered to be 

sister species (Krieger et al. 2008, p. 41; 

Zhu et al. 2008, p. 32; Zhang et al. 2000, 

p. 136). A study of mitochondrial DNA 

found that Yangtze and Chinese 

sturgeon have a divergence value of 0.3 

percent. This is in contrast to Chinese 

sturgeon and starry sturgeon (Acipenser 

stellatus), which have a divergence 

value of 7.7 percent (Zhang et al. 2000, 

pp. 133–134). While these results 

suggest that Yangtze and Chinese 

sturgeon are closely related species, 

taxonomic confusion regarding the two 

species continued well into the 1960s 

(Li J. et al. 2015, p. 186). In addition to 

genetic similarities, Yangtze and 

Chinese sturgeon share the same habitat 

and multiple studies suggest that 

Yangtze sturgeon may be a landlocked 

ecotype of the Chinese sturgeon (Kynard 

2016, pers. comm.; Li J. et al. 2015, p. 

186; Krieger et al. 2008, p. 42; Zhang et 

al. 2000, p. 136). 

Despite similarities between Yangtze 

and Chinese sturgeon, there are 

differences between the two species. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 61233 

Yangtze and Chinese sturgeon can be 

differentiated by the different ecoregion 

they inhabit. The Chinese sturgeon is an 

anadromous species (species that spawn 

in freshwater and spend most of its life 

at sea) that migrates between coastal 

feeding grounds and spawning grounds 

in both the Yangtze River and the Pearl 

River. On the other hand, the Yangtze 

sturgeon is a potamodromous species (a 

species that conducts its entire life cycle 

in freshwater) that migrates between 

feeding grounds and spawning grounds 

entirely within the Yangtze River basin 

(Kynard et al. 2003, p. 28; Zhuang et al. 

1997, pp. 257–295). 

In addition to differences in their life 

history, these two species can also be 

differentiated based on their 

mitochondrial and nuclear DNA (Li J. et 

al. 2015, pp. 185, 194). Therefore, 

despite possessing morphological and 

genetic similarities, there are differences 

in the habitat, life history 

characteristics, and genetic makeup 

between the two species. We thus 

accept the Yangtze sturgeon as a 

separate species as classified below: 

Class: Actinopterygii 

Order: Acipenseriformes 

Family: Acipenseridae 

Species: Acipenser dabryanus Dume ́ril, 

1869 

Biology and Life History 

Although the Yangtze sturgeon’s life 

history is similar to other sturgeon 

species, there are key differences. Based 

on the best available information, much 

of what is known about the Yangtze 

sturgeon’s life history comes from 

research on the more numerous and 

studied Chinese sturgeon due to 

similarities in morphology, taxonomy, 

and life history between the two 

species. Yangtze sturgeons spawn in the 

spring from March to April, with a 

smaller late fall/early winter spawning 

period occurring from October to 

December (Qiwei 2010, p. 3; Gao et al. 

2009b, p. 117; Kynard et al. 2003, p. 28). 

Spawning migration begins when water 

level, flow velocity, and silt content 

enters a downward trend (Zhang H. et 

al. 2012, p. 4). 

At the spawning site, female Yangtze 

sturgeons can lay between 57,000 to 

102,000 eggs. These eggs, when mature, 

are gray to black and range from 2.7 to 

3.4 millimeters (0.11 to 0.13 inches) in 

diameter. The eggs are sticky and firmly 

adhere to the space between pebbles 

and boulders, known as the 

‘‘interstitial’’ space, on the riverbed (Gao 

et al. 2009b, p. 117; Zhuang et al. 1997, 

p. 261). Larvae emerge from the eggs 

about 115 to 117 hours after 

fertilization, and they remain at the 

spawning ground for around 12 to 30 

days before dispersing downstream 

(Kynard et al. 2003, pp. 33–34; Zhuang 

et al. 1997, p. 262). Yangtze sturgeons 

do not start their migration downriver 

until they become juveniles. 

Juvenile sturgeons disperse around 

100 to 200 kilometers (km) (62 to 124 

miles (mi)) downstream from their 

spawning ground and arrive in 

backwater pools and sandy shallows 

with low velocity flow and rich mud 

and sand substrate where they feed on 

insects, aquatic plants, and small fish 

(Zhang et al. 2011, p. 184; Zhuang et al. 

1997, p. 259). During the spring flood on 

the main stem of the Yangtze River, 

juveniles will move to the tributaries to 

feed. Young sturgeons will remain in 

these feeding reaches until they reach 

maturity (4 to 6 years for males and 6 

to 8 years for females) after which they 

begin migrating upstream towards the 

spawning ground during the spring 

flood (Zhuang et al. 1997, p. 261). 

Habitat 

The Yangtze sturgeon is found in 

sandy shoal with silt ground and gentle 

to moderate water flow (Bemis and 

Kynard 1997, p. 169; Zhuang et al. 1997, 

p. 259). The spawning habitat for the 

Yangtze sturgeon is a riverbed that 

contains larger boulders, pebbles, clear 

water with a velocity of 1.2 to 1.5 meters 

(m) per second (3.9 to 4.9 ft per second), 

and a depth of 5 to 15 m (16 to 49 ft) 

(Zhuang et al. 1997, p. 261). The 

presence of large boulders ensures there 

is sufficient interstitial space between 

the rocks for eggs to adhere to. At the 

same time, smaller pebbles and gravel 

fill in the interstitial space so that water 

flowing through the space is not too 

high to prevent adherence (Du et al. 

2011, p. 257). Sufficient velocity is also 

needed to prevent excess buildup of 

gravel in the interstitial space (Du et al. 

2011, p. 262). If there is insufficient 

interstitial space, eggs will not adhere to 

the boulders on the riverbed. If there is 

too much space, the water current will 

be too strong and the eggs will be 

washed away. Therefore, suitable 

sturgeon habitat has specific 

requirements for velocity and riverbed 

composition to ensure successful 

spawning. 

Distribution 

Historical Range 

As its name implies, the Yangtze 

sturgeon is found in the Yangtze River 

(Wu et al. 2014, p. 5). The river is more 

than 6,397 km (3,975 mi) in length and 

is divided into three segments. The 

upper reach, which span a total of about 

4,300 km (2,671 mi), is further subdivided into two segments: the Jinsha 

River segment, which stretches from the 

headwater in Yushu in the Tibetan 

Plateau to Yibin, a distance of about 

2,300 km (1,429 mi), and the upper 

Yangtze River, which stretches from 

Yibin to the Three Gorges region at 

Yichang, a distance of about 1,000 km 

(621 mi) (Cheng et al. 2015, p. 571; Jiang 

et al. 2008, p. 1471; Fu et al. 2003, p. 

1651). Four major tributaries feed into 

the upper Yangtze. They are: the Min, 

Tuo, Jialing, and the Wu River (Chen Z. 

et al. 2001, p. 78). The middle reach is 

from Yichang to Hukou, a distance of 

about 950 km (590 mi). The Yangtze 

River widens in this segment and is 

identified by multiple large lakes, 

including Lake Dongting and Lake 

Poyang. The lower reach stretches from 

Hukou to the mouth of the river at 

Shanghai, a distance of about 930 km 

(577 mi) (Fu et al. 2003, p. 1651). 

Historically, the Yangtze sturgeon was 

found in the lower portion of the Jinsha 

River and the upper, middle, and lower 

reaches of the Yangtze River, a distance 

of about 1,300 km (807 mi) (Wu et al. 

2014, p. 5). The majority of historical 

sightings occurred in the lower Jinsha 

and upper Yangtze River with 

occasional sightings in the middle and 

lower Yangtze (Zhuang et al. 1997, p. 

259). The species has also been found in 

major tributaries that feed into the 

upper Yangtze including the Min, Tuo, 

and Jialing (Artyukhin et al. 2007, p. 

370). There have also been sightings of 

the species in Dongting Lake and 

Poyang Lake in the middle and lower 

reaches, respectively (Zhuang et al. 

1997, p. 259). One sighting took place as 

far downstream as Anhui province, a 

distance of more than 2,000 km (1,242 

mi) downstream from Yibin (Zhuang et 

al. 1997, p. 261). The species’ spawning 

reach is understood by Yangtze sturgeon 

researchers to have occurred from 

Maoshui in the lower Jinsha River to 

Hejiang in the upper Yangtze River 

(Zhang et al. 2011, p. 184). 

Current Range 

The Yangtze sturgeon’s current range 

is limited to the upper Yangtze River 

and its tributaries in the reaches 

between Yibin and Yichang, a distance 

of about 1,000 km (Wu et al. 2014, p. 5; 

Dudgeon 2010, p. 128; Huang et al. 

2011, p. 575; Zhang et al. 2011, p. 181; 

Artyukhin et al. 2007, p. 370). The 

completion of the Gezhouba Dam in 

1981 at Yichang prevented the upstream 

migration of adults to the species’ 

spawning ground (Zhuang et al. 1997, p. 

261). As a result of the construction of 

Gezhouba Dam, the species may have 

been extirpated in reaches below the 

dam (Li et al. 2015, p. 186; Zhu et al. 

2008, p. 30). That said, from 2014–2017, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
61234 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

fishermen below Gezhouba Dam 

accidently captured four adult Yangtze 

sturgeons, suggesting the presence of a 

very small remnant population (Du 

2017, pers. comm.). Due to Gezhouba 

Dam’s smaller size, the reservoir for the 

Gezhouba Dam is relatively small 

(Kynard 2017, pers. comm.) However, 

the Three Gorges Dam, located slightly 

upstream from Gezhouba Dam, and its 

reservoir changed the hydrology of the 

Yangtze. Construction on the Three 

Gorges Dam began in 2003 and was 

completed in 2009. The reservoir, which 

extends 600 km (372 mi) upstream, 

further reduced the species’ range by 

modifying reaches above Three Gorges 

Dam to a lentic (still water) system 

(Chen D. et al. 2009, p. 341; Fu et al. 

2003, p. 1650). Loss of lotic (rapidly 

moving water) ecosystem reduces the 

quality of remaining habitat for the 

species (Kynard 2016, pers. comm.; 

Cheng et al. 2015, pp. 570, 576). On the 

lower Jinsha River, in the upstream 

portion of the species’ historical range, 

the construction of the Xiangjiaba Dam, 

which was completed in 2008, limited 

the species’ spawning ground to areas 

below the dam (Zhang et al. 2011, pp. 

183–184). The species continues to 

ascend the major tributaries in the 

upper Yangtze, including the Min, Tuo, 

and Jialing River (Huang et al. 2011, p. 

575; Artyukhin et al. 2007, p. 370). 

Historical and Current Population 

The Yangtze sturgeon was historically 

abundant and was commercially 

harvested up to the 1970s (Lu et al. 

2015, p. 89; Zhang et al. 2013, p. 409; 

Kynard et al. 2003, p. 27). The majority 

(80 percent) of harvest of Yangtze 

sturgeon took place during the 1950s to 

the 1970s. However, overharvesting 

during this time period led to a sharp 

decline in the population size (Kynard 

et al. 2003, p. 27). 

While there may have been natural 

recruitment of the species in the 1990s, 

no natural recruitment has been 

observed in the wild since the 2000s 

(Du et al. 2014, p. 1; Wu et al. 2014, p. 

1). The population is currently being 

sustained by artificial restocking. 

Between the years of 2010–2013, 7,030 

Yangtze sturgeon juveniles were 

released into the middle and upper 

Yangtze River in two to three batches 

each year (Wu et al. 2014, p. 3). 

Restocking efforts have been ongoing in 

the reaches below Gezhouba Dam since 

2014 (Hu 2017, pers. comm.). However, 

restocked sturgeons suffer from low 

fitness; most notably, they lack the 

ability to survive to reproductive age. 

Capture data obtained from the releases 

in 2010–2013 found that 95 days after 

restocking, no restocked sturgeons were 

caught either by researchers or by 

fishermen in the upper Yangtze River 

(Wu et al. 2014, pp. 3–5). These results 

indicate that restocked sturgeon have a 

very low survival rate. Although we do 

not have population estimates for the 

species, based on the fact that there has 

been no observable natural reproduction 

since the 2000s and the low survival 

rate of restocked sturgeon, the species 

population in the Yangtze River is likely 

to be very low when compared to 

historical numbers (Du et al. 2014, p. 1; 

Wu et al. 2014, p. 4). 

Summary of Threats and Conservation 

Measures That Affect the Species 

The Act directs us to determine 

whether any species is an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any factors affecting its continued 

existence. We completed a 

comprehensive assessment of the 

biological status of the Yangtze 

sturgeon, and prepared a report of the 

assessment, which provides a thorough 

account of the species’ overall viability. 

In this section, we summarize the 

conclusions of that species status 

assessment, which can be accessed at 

Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2017–0047 on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Dams on the Yangtze River and Its 

Effects 

The topography of the upper Yangtze 

River basin is characterized by 

mountains of varying heights. The 

change in elevation between the upper 

Yangtze to the lower Yangtze amounts 

to 3,280 m (10,761 ft), which makes the 

upper Yangtze River an ideal place for 

hydroelectric projects (Fan et al. 2006, 

p. 33). The growth of dam construction 

in China has accelerated during the past 

decades. From the 1970s to the 1990s, 

an average of 4.4 large reservoirs 

(capacity greater than 0.1 km3) were 

constructed per year. By the 2000s, this 

number had increased to an average 

construction rate of 11.8 large reservoirs 

per year. By 2011, China possessed 552 

large reservoirs, 3,269 medium 

reservoirs (capacity of 0.01–0.1 km 3), 

and 84,052 small reservoirs (capacity of 

0.0001–0.01 km 3); of this number, the 

Yangtze River basin contained 45,000 

dams and reservoirs, including 143 

dams having large reservoirs, or a 

quarter of all large reservoirs in China 

(Miao et al. 2015, p. 2350; Mueller et al. 

2008, p. 233). The construction of dams 

and reservoirs have multiple and broad 

effects on the Yangtze sturgeon and its 

habitat, including limiting connectivity 

between spawning and feeding reaches; 

altering water temperature, water 

discharge, and velocity rates; and 

changing sediment concentration. 

Connectivity 

Dam construction on Yangtze River 

limits the ability of the Yangtze sturgeon 

to migrate between spawning and 

feeding reaches. Dam construction on 

the Yangtze occurs on both the upper 

and lower end of the species’ current 

range. In the middle Yangtze River, the 

construction of Gezhouba Dam in 1981 

prevented migration of adults 

downstream of the dam from being able 

to migrate to the species’ spawning 

ground in the upper Yangtze near Yibin 

(Miao et al. 2015, p. 2351; Dudgeon 

2010, p. 128; Fang et al. 2006, p. 375; 

Zhuang et al. 1997, p. 261). Although 

the reaches below Gezhouba Dam might 

be suitable for the species, at present 

there has been no observed natural 

reproduction below Gezhouba Dam (Du 

2017, pers. comm.). The construction of 

Three Gorges Dam created a reservoir, 

which affected individuals of the 

species upstream. The Three Gorges 

Dam reservoir, which extended 600 km 

upstream from the dam, transformed the 

area into unsuitable habitat (Kynard 

2016, pers. comm.; Cheng et al. 2015, p. 

570; Miao et al. 2015, p. 2351). After the 

construction of the reservoir, the species 

rarely moves to reaches below 

Chongqing, a distance of approximately 

500 km (Wu et al. 2015, p. 5). 

Meanwhile, the construction of 

Xiangjiaba Dam on the lower Jinsha 

River segment occurred on part of the 

historical spawning reach of the species. 

Xiangjiaba Dam is a barrier to all fish 

species and prevents the migration to 

areas above or the below the dam (Wu 

et al. 2014, p. 2). However, the species 

may be able to use spawning reaches 

below the dam (Fan et al. 2006, p. 36). 

That said, a dam located upstream from 

the species’ habitat affects the species 

downstream by altering water 

temperature and sedimentation rate, 

which we discuss below (Fan et al. 

2006, p. 36). 

In addition to dams currently present 

on the lower Jinsha and upper Yangtze 

River, in the early 2000s, a proposal was 

presented for the construction of the 

Xiaonanhai Dam, which is to be located 

upstream from Chongqing. If built, this 

dam will create a barrier between the 

species’ last known spawning ground 

and feeding reach, which, depending on 

design, could have a negative impact on 

the species (Cheng et al. 2015, p. 579). 

However, at present, China’s Ministry of 

Environmental Protection has rejected 

the proposal and any future dam 

projects on the last stretch of freeflowing Yangtze River due to 

environmental impacts (Chang 2016, 

pers. comm.; Kynard 2016, pers. comm.; 

Mang 2015, unpaginated). 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 61235 

While the rejection of the proposal to 

construct the Xiaonanhai Dam is good 

for Yangtze sturgeon, the country’s 

twelfth 5-year plan stated that 

renewable resources should make up 15 

percent of all energy generated in China 

with 9 percent coming from 

hydroelectric source. This plan 

translates to an additional 230 gigawatt 

(GW) of power generated via 

hydroelectric dam. This target is a very 

ambitious one, given that Three Gorges 

Dam generates 18 GW of power per year 

(Dudgeon 2011, p. 1496). Furthermore, 

although the plan to construct the 

Xiaonanhai Dam has been rejected, 

plans to construct dams on the Jinsha 

River as part of a 12-dam cascade are 

still proceeding (Dudgeon 2010, p. 129). 

Water Temperature 

Historically, dams negatively affect 

the reproductive success of Yangtze 

sturgeon by altering water temperature 

flowing through the species’ habitat. 

Water temperature influences the 

reproductive success of the Yangtze 

sturgeon at two stages in its life cycle: 

Commencement of spawning migration 

and egg survival. Spawning migration of 

the Yangtze sturgeon will not start until 

the water temperatures reach 18 degrees 

Celsius (°C) (64.4 degrees Fahrenheit 

(°F)) (Cheng et al. 2015, p. 578). 

Historically, before the construction of 

the Xiangjiaba and other dams on the 

lower Jinsha, water temperature reached 

18 °C (64.4 °F) around April. However, 

the construction of the dams stratified 

the water table. As most dams on the 

Yangtze are designed to release cold 

water located at the bottom of the dams, 

the spawning season for the Yangtze 

sturgeon could be delayed by more than 

a month (Deng et al. 2006 and Wang et 

al. 2009, as cited in Cheng et al. 2015, 

p. 578). This delay shortens the 

maturing season for juveniles and is 

likely to reduce the species’ survival 

rate. Additionally, if the water remains 

too cold for too long, sturgeon eggs will 

not mature, resulting in total loss of 

reproduction for that season (Kynard 

2016, pers. comm.). 

Water Discharge and Velocity 

By altering discharge rates, dams 

affect the Yangtze sturgeon’s 

reproductive success by affecting the 

timing of spawning migration. The 

species’ spawning migration begins 

when flow rate increases during the 

spring flood (Zhuang et al. 1997, p. 261). 

At Yichang, the most downstream 

portion of the Yangtze sturgeon’s 

current range, the mean discharge rate 

from 1983 to 2004 (before the 

construction of Three Gorges Dam) was 

between 10,000 m3/s and 17,000 m3/s. 

After the construction of the Three 

Gorges Dam, mean flow rate varies 

between 12,780 m3/s in high flow years 

and 6,414 m3/s in low flow years (Chen 

and Wu 2011, p. 384). For Chinese 

sturgeon, successful spawning occurs 

when water discharge is between 7,000 

and 26,000 m3/s. This means that 

although flow rate during high flow 

years remains in the optimal discharge 

rate for Chinese sturgeon spawning, 

discharge rates during low flow years 

could have a negative impact on 

spawning success rates of both sturgeon 

species (Chen and Wu 2011, p. 385). 

While we do not have long-term 

historical data for water discharge rate 

for the Yangtze sturgeon at Yibin, the 

flow rate at Chongqing during the years 

1950–2000 was between 4,540 m3/s and 

11,000 m3/s (Zhang et al. 2011, p. 183). 

Since Chongqing is farther upstream 

from Yichang, this flow rate may be the 

river’s natural rate at this section of the 

Yangtze. However, following the 

impoundment by the Xiangjiaba Dam in 

October 2012 and the Xiluodo Dam in 

May 2013, discharge in the lower Jinsha 

has declined more than 50 percent, 

suggesting that current flow rate is 

likely to be lower than the flow rate 

between 1950 and 2000 (Cheng et al 

2015, p. 577). The Jinsha River feeds 

into the upper Yangtze River. This 

means that reduction in flow rate on the 

Jinsha will also reduce the flow rate on 

the upper Yangtze River. Given that the 

Yangtze sturgeon is closely related to 

the Chinese sturgeon, a reduction of 

flow rate by over 50 percent could have 

a significant negative impact on the 

reproductive success rate of the Yangtze 

sturgeon given its already tenuous 

biological status. 

Sedimentation Concentration 

In addition to affecting spawning of 

Yangtze sturgeon, dams affect the 

condition of the species’ spawning 

ground through changes in the water 

velocity and sedimentation load. 

Because reproductive success of 

sturgeon is tied to the amount of 

suitable habitat, a reduction in habitat 

area can reduce the reproductive 

success of the species (Ban et al. 2011, 

p. 96; Bemis and Kynard 1997, p. 169). 

Specifically, flow rates affect the 

Yangtze sturgeon by affecting the 

sedimentation concentration in the 

water and on the riverbed. As noted 

before, Yangtze sturgeon lay their eggs 

on the interstitial spaces between rocks 

and boulders. The makeup of the 

riverbed needs to contain the right 

concentration of small pebbles and 

larger boulders to provide sufficient 

space for adherence and aeration of the 

eggs (Du et al. 2011, pp. 261–262; Bemis 

and Kynard 1997, p. 169). 

Historically, discharge rates and 

sedimentation load were in alignment 

with precipitation rates. A low 

discharge rate results in low 

sedimentation load. High discharge 

rates lead to higher sediment load, as 

high flows are able to transport more 

sediments downstream (Chen Z. et al. 

2001, pp. 88–89). However, dams cause 

discharge and sedimentation rates to go 

out of alignment. While discharge rates 

remain aligned with precipitation rate, 

the sedimentation load pattern displays 

a 2-month delay due to sediment being 

trapped behind the dams. When the 

spring flood occurs, numerous dams 

release highly concentrated sediment 

downstream all at once, resulting in an 

asymmetrical sediment load pattern 

(Chen Z. et al. 2001, p. 90). The effects 

of sediment load patterns on the 

species’ habitat occur at two stages: 

Release of sediments during high river 

stages and reduced sediment size and 

load over time (Dudgeon 2011, pp. 1488, 

1495). 

The Jinsha River dams trap up to 82 

percent of the sediment during the 

winter months, resulting in ‘‘clean’’ (i.e., 

sediment-free) water flowing 

downstream. This ‘‘clean’’ water lacks 

nutrients and may decrease the food 

supply of the Yangtze sturgeon over the 

winter months (Cheng et al. 2015, p. 

578). During the subsequent spring 

flood, the release of concentrated 

sediment by dams likely results in 

sediments filling in all the interstitial 

spaces in spawning habitat, thereby 

reducing available spawning habitat for 

that season. 

Despite the spring release of 

concentrated sediments, sediment load 

is expected to decline over time. At 

Yichang, sediment load per year has 

decreased from 530 mega tons (Mt) per 

year in the 1950s–1960s, to 60 Mt per 

year after 2003. Additionally, 

suspended sediment at Yichang below 

Three Gorges Dam has decreased in size 

from 8–10 micrometers in 1987–2002 to 

3 micrometers after 2003 (Yang et al. 

2011, pp. 16–17). Reduction in sediment 

size can lead to increased 

embeddedness of available interstitial 

space. At the reaches below Gezhouba 

Dam, sedimentation has reduced 

available interstitial space by up to 50 

to 70 percent (Du et al. 2011, p. 262). 

This prevents the adherence of eggs to 

the river bottom and reduces the quality 

of remaining spawning habitats. 

Summary of Effects of Dams on the 

Yangtze Sturgeon 

Dam construction in the middle 

Yangtze and lower Jinsha has restricted 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
61236 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

the species’ range to the reaches of the 

Yangtze between Yibin and Yichang 

(Wu et al. 2014, p. 5). These projects 

prevented the migration of the species 

upstream and downstream of the dams. 

Although there is currently access 

between the species’ remaining 

spawning and feeding grounds, the 

condition of remaining habitat is likely 

to be negatively affected by changes to 

the river flow and sedimentation rate. 

The formation of the Three Gorges 

reservoir has transformed the 600-km 

reach above the dam into a lentic 

system, resulting in unsuitable habitat 

for the species (Kynard 2016, pers. 

comm.; Cheng et al. 2015, pp. 570, 576). 

As a result, Yangtze sturgeon rarely use 

habitat downstream from Chongqing 

(Wu et al. 2014, p. 5). 

Upstream from the species’ current 

range, the construction of the Xiluodu 

and Xiangjiaba Dam is likely to 

negatively affect the reproductive 

success of the Yangtze sturgeon. 

Through the release of cold water 

during the spring flood, the dam can 

delay the spawning migration of the 

sturgeon, which will either shorten the 

maturation time for juveniles or prevent 

the successful maturation of eggs 

altogether (Kynard 2016, pers. comm.; 

Cheng et al. 2015, p. 578). Alteration to 

sediment concentration in both the 

short term and long term reduces the 

quality of remaining habitat (Du et al. 

2011, p. 262). Given the lack of observed 

natural reproduction of the species in 

the upper Yangtze, dams significantly 

affect the viability of the species. 

Overfishing (historical) and Bycatch 

(current) 

Historically, the Yangtze sturgeon was 

commercially harvested on the Yangtze 

River. In the 1960s, harvest of Yangtze 

sturgeon accounted for 10 percent of 

total harvest. In the 1970s, 5,000 

kilograms (5.5 tons) of Yangtze 

sturgeons were caught in the spring 

season at Yibin (Zhuang et al. 1997, p. 

262). Since then however, the 

population of Yangtze sturgeon has 

declined significantly (Zhang et al. 

2013, p. 409). This decline is due to 

multiple reasons. Fishermen use fine 

mesh nets that prevent smaller fish, 

weighing as little as 50 grams (1.7 

ounces), from being able to escape. The 

number of fishing boats increased from 

500 in 1950s to 2,000 by 1985. More 

than 140,000 fishermen currently 

depend on the river for a living. 

Furthermore, the fishing season 

overlapped with the main spawning 

season of the Yangtze sturgeon (Yi 2016, 

p. 1; Fan et al. 2006, p. 37; Zhuang et 

al. 1997, p. 262). The replacement of 

bamboo and reed gear with gear made 

from synthetic fibers further contributed 

to a higher catch rate of sturgeons (Chen 

D. et al. 2009, p. 346). 

Despite attempts to help conserve the 

species by restocking, restocked 

juveniles experience very low survival 

rates (Wu et al. 2014, p. 4). From 2010 

to 2013, restocking operations released 

7,030 juveniles into the upper Yangtze 

River main stem. Subsequent bycatch 

between 2010 and 2013 recorded a total 

of 112 sturgeons caught, indicating a 

very low survival rate of stocked 

juveniles (Wu et al. 2014, p. 3). These 

results suggest very low survivability of 

restocked sturgeon, and the subsequent 

impacts from bycatch are too high for 

the species to persist (Wu 2016, pers. 

comm.; Wu et al. 2014, p. 4). 

Riverbed Modification 

The Yangtze sturgeon requires river 

substrate to contain suitable 

concentration to reproduce successfully 

(Du et al. 2011, p. 257). Alteration to the 

riverbed has reduced the reproductive 

success of this species. To improve 

navigation on the lower Jinsha and 

upper Yangtze River, multiple projects, 

including sand and gravel extraction 

operations, were implemented on the 

reaches between Shuifu and Yibin and 

Yibin and Chongqing (Zhang et al. 2011, 

p. 184). Between 2005 and 2009, $44 

million (converted to U.S. dollars) were 

invested to improve the navigation 

between Yibin and Chongqing. These 

investments have led to the 

modification of 22 riffles (a shallow 

section of a stream or river with rapid 

current and a surface broken by gravel, 

rubble or boulders) on the upper 

Yangtze and the deepening of the 

channel from 1.8 m (5.9 ft) to 2.7 m (8.8 

ft) (Zhang et al. 2011, p. 184). 

Additionally, up to 10, 6, and 3 river 

dredge ships operate in the Yangtze 

River, the Jinsha River, and the Min 

River, respectively. The operations of 

these ships alters the bottom topography 

of the riverbeds, which results in the 

loss of benthic habitat and spawning 

ground for many fish species, including 

the Yangtze sturgeon (Fan et al. 2006, p. 

37). These projects are occurring on or 

near current Yangtze sturgeon spawning 

and feeding grounds from Yibin to 

Hejiang. Thus these operations will 

continue to reduce the quality and 

quantity of remaining habitat (Zhang et 

al. 2011, p. 184). 

Industrial Pollution 

As a benthic predator, the Yangtze 

sturgeon is exposed to higher 

concentrations of industrial pollution 

than many other fish species (Yujun et 

al. 2008, pp. 341–342). While we are not 

aware of any studies that analyze the 

impacts of industrial pollution on 

Yangtze sturgeon specifically, there 

have been studies on Chinese sturgeon 

and other sturgeon species. Industrial 

pollutants such as triphenyltin (TPT) 

affect reproductive success of the 

Chinese sturgeon. TPT, used in paint on 

ship hulls and in fishnets in China, can 

be absorbed into the eggs of Chinese 

sturgeon, resulting in increased 

deformities including abnormal 

development and skeletal and 

morphological deformities in embryos 

(Hu et al. 2009, pp. 9339–9340). 

A study on TPT exposure to 2- to 3- 

day-old Chinese sturgeon larvae found 

that 6.3 percent showed skeletal/ 

morphological deformities and 1.2 

percent had no eyes or only one eye. At 

the same time, larvae from spawning 

hatches of captured adults showed 

skeletal/morphological deformities of 

3.9 percent and 1.7 percent that had 

only one eye or no eyes. Given the rate 

of deformities found in this study, the 

capability for the studied Chinese 

sturgeon to reproduce was reduced by 

58.4 to 75.9 percent (Hu et al. 2009, p. 

9342). Because the Yangtze and Chinese 

sturgeon are closely related species, the 

presence of TPT in the upper Yangtze 

River is likely reducing the reproductive 

success of the Yangtze sturgeon by a 

similar rate. 

In addition to TPT, the presence of 

endocrine disruptors compound (EDC) 

affects Chinese sturgeon by inducing 

declining sperm activity, intersex testisova, and a decline in male to female 

ratio in the population (An and Hu 

2006, p. 381). A study on EDC found 

that the concentration of EDC in the 

Yangtze River (1.55 to 6.85 micrograms 

per liter) is very high and could have a 

detrimental impact on sturgeon in the 

river. This result suggests that industrial 

discharge of EDC is occurring in the 

Yangtze. 

As a result of rapid industrialization 

on the Yangtze River, higher 

concentration of heavy metals are found 

in the Yangtze River (Yujun et al. 2008, 

p. 338). High concentration of heavy 

metals leads to greater accumulation in 

all aquatic organisms (Yujun et al. 2008, 

p. 339). The toxicity effect of heavy 

metal accumulation is especially 

pronounced in zoobenthic predators, 

like the Yangtze sturgeon, because they 

occupy a higher position in the food 

chain. The result is that by consuming 

smaller prey species that have absorbed 

heavy metal, zoobenthic predator build 

up heavy metal accumulation inside 

their bodies (Yujun et al. 2008, p. 346). 

Given that heavy metal concentration is 

highest in benthic animals, especially 

zoobenthic predators like the sturgeon, 

the effect of heavy metals on the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 61237 

sturgeon could be more pronounced 

than other aquatic species (Yujun et al. 

2008, p. 341; An and Hu 2006, p. 381). 

Despite the known impacts on captured 

Chinese sturgeon, we currently do not 

have evidence of population-level 

impacts of EDC or heavy metal on the 

wild Yangtze sturgeon population. That 

said, even though we have no evidence 

of morphological deformities in wild 

sturgeon, it is likely that industrial 

pollution does have an effect on the 

reproductive success of wild sturgeon. 

Hybridization With Displaced Native 

and Nonnative Sturgeon 

Despite decline in wild fishery yields, 

the Yangtze basin remains one of the 

major centers of China’s aquaculture 

industry. Fishery yields from the basin 

accounts for 65 percent of total 

freshwater fisheries production in China 

(Shen et al. 2014, p. 1547; Chen D. et 

al. 2009, p. 338). In the past 30 years, 

sturgeon aquaculture in China has risen 

significantly. Although commercial 

aquaculturing of sturgeon only started 

in the 1990s, by 2006, production had 

reached 17,424 tons, which accounts for 

80 percent of the world total production 

(Shen et al. 2014, p. 1548). The growth 

of the aquaculture industry in China 

saw aquaculture farms constructed 

across all branches of the Yangtze River 

(Li R. et al. 2009, p. 636). Sturgeon 

species that are commonly used in the 

aquacultural industry include A. 

schrenckii, Huso dauricus, and other 

Amur River sturgeon hybrids (Li R. et al. 

2009, p. 636). However, none of these 

commonly cultured species are native to 

the Yangtze River. Additionally, there is 

a lack of regulation and enforcement of 

regulation to properly manage 

hybridization of sturgeon species. There 

is also the problem of aquaculture 

sturgeon escaping from sturgeon farms 

into the wider river system (Li R. et al. 

2009, p. 636). The result is a comingling 

of native, exotic, and hybrid sturgeon 

species which could have a negative 

impact on the Yangtze sturgeon (Shen et 

al. 2014, p. 1549; Li R. et al. 2009, p. 

636). 

There is currently no native-strain 

farm (farm that raises native species) for 

sturgeons in China. Because no farms in 

China focus on raising native stock in 

large enough number, this system 

creates shortages of parental stock of 

native sturgeons. In response to this 

shortage, farmers crossbreed wildcaught sturgeon with any sturgeon 

species available including nonnative 

species (Xiong et al. 2015, p. 658; Li R. 

et al. 2009, p. 636). For example, in 

2006, there was a shortage of Siberian 

sturgeon in China (Acipenser baerii). 

Farmers then started crossbreeding 

Siberian sturgeon with Russian sturgeon 

(A. gueldenstaedtii), Sterlet sturgeon (A. 

ruthenus), and Amur sturgeon (A. 

schrenckii) (Li R. et al. 2009, p. 636). 

Crossbreeding of sturgeon species in 

China alters the wild population 

makeup. A study on the lower Yangtze 

River in 2006 found that of the 221 

young sturgeons captured, 153 were 

hybrids, which accounted for 69.9 

percent of total sturgeons caught (Li R. 

et al. 2009, p. 636). This information 

indicates that farmed hybrids are 

escaping into the river system. Although 

this study was conducted in the lower 

Yangtze River, because sturgeon 

aquaculture occurs across the Yangtze 

River system, it is likely that 

hybridization is occurring in the upper 

Yangtze River as well. 

The uncontrolled hybridization of 

native and nonnative species on the 

Yangtze alters the population dynamics 

between hybrids and native stocks. 

Hybridization may reduce the fitness of 

the overall population or replace a 

population of native fish with hybrids 

(Shen et al. 2014, p. 1549; Li R. et al. 

2009, p. 636). Hybridization may also 

result in hybrids with better fitness than 

wild stock that outcompete wild native 

stock of Yangtze sturgeon for habitat 

and resources. When native fish are 

unavailable, farmers tend to import 

nonnative fish that have better 

characteristics, such as higher growth 

rate and better adaptability. These nonnative sturgeons are bred with available 

native sturgeon to produce hybrids. 

These hybrids oftentimes escape or are 

accidentally introduced into the wild 

and then compete with the Yangtze 

sturgeon for resources (Xiong et al. 

2015, pp. 657–658). Although 

hybridization is likely to be occurring 

all along the Yangtze River, we 

currently do not have information on 

the rates of hybridization of sturgeon in 

the upper Yangtze or how significant 

the effects are on the Yangtze sturgeon. 

That said, given that hybridized 

sturgeons make up 69.9 percent of 

sturgeons found in the studied area, it 

is likely that sturgeon hybrids are 

competing, and will likely continue to 

compete, with native stocks for habitat 

and resources throughout the Yangtze 

River system. 

Management Efforts 

As a result of overfishing and the 

construction of Gezhouba Dam in 1981, 

the population of Yangtze sturgeon has 

declined (Du et al. 2014, p. 1; Wu et al. 

2014, p. 1; Zhang H. et al. 2011, p. 181). 

In response to the decline of the species, 

national and local officials have 

embarked on a number of initiatives to 

help conserve the species. These 

initiatives include increasing legal 

protection for the Yangtze sturgeon, 

creating and designating part of the 

species’ range as a protected area, and 

repopulating the species in the wild 

through restocking (Zhang H. et al. 

2011, p. 181; Fan et al. 2006, p. 35; Wei 

et al. 2004, p. 322). 

Legal Protections 

In response to the decline of the 

Yangtze sturgeon, in 1989, China’s State 

Council added the Yangtze sturgeon to 

the National Red Data Book for 

Threatened Chinese Fish as a Class I 

Protected Animal (Wu et al. 2014, p. 1; 

Zhang H. et al. 2011, p. 181; Dudgeon 

2010, p. 128; Wei et al. 2004, p. 322; 

Zhuang et al. 1997, p. 258). Animals 

listed as a Class I species are protected 

from certain activities, including 

hunting, capturing, or killing, for both 

commercial and personal uses. 

Scientific research, domestication, 

breeding, and exhibition are exempted 

(Wei et al. 2004, p. 322). Transportation 

of Class I-listed species requires 

approval from the Department of 

Wildlife Administration. Import or 

export of Class I aquatic species is 

regulated by the Fisheries Bureau of the 

Minister of Agriculture (Wei et al. 2004, 

p. 323). 

In addition to its listing under 

national law, the species has also been 

included in Appendix II of the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES) since 1998 (Ludwig 2008, 

p. 5; CITES 1997, pp. 152–153). The 

CITES trade database has recorded no 

international trade of this species going 

as far back as 1975 (the oldest date on 

CITES database) (CITES 2017). 

International trade in CITES species is 

regulated via a permit system. Under 

Article IV of CITES, export of an 

Appendix-II specimen requires the prior 

grant and presentation of an export 

permit. Export permits for Appendix-II 

specimens are only granted if the 

Management Authority of the State of 

export is satisfied that the specimens 

were lawfully obtained and if the 

Scientific Authority of the State of 

export has advised that the trade is not 

detrimental to the survival of the 

species in the wild. For any living 

specimen, the Management Authority of 

the State of export must also be satisfied 

that the specimen will be so prepared 

and shipped as to minimize the risk of 

injury, damage to health or cruel 

treatment. Re-export of an Appendix-II 

specimen requires the prior grant and 

presentation of a re-export certificate, 

which is only granted if the 

Management Authority of the State of 

re-export is satisfied that the specimen 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
61238 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

was imported into that State in 

accordance with CITES and, for any 

living specimen, that the specimen will 

be so prepared and shipped as to 

minimize the risk of injury, damage to 

health or cruel treatment. Certain 

exemptions and other special provisions 

relating to trade in CITES specimens are 

also provided in Article VII of CITES. In 

the United States, CITES is 

implemented through the Act and 

regulations at 50 CFR part 23. 

Additionally, since 2003, a fishing 

ban on all fish species has been 

implemented in the upper Yangtze 

River from February 1 to April 30. 

Starting in 2017, the fishing ban was 

extended from March to June (Du 2017, 

pers. comm.). One of the side effects of 

this ban is a reduction in the bycatch of 

Yangtze sturgeon since the time period 

of the ban coincides with the spawning 

season of the Yangtze sturgeon (Chen D. 

et al. 2012, p. 532; Chen D. et al. 2009, 

p. 348). 

Despite the implementation of legal 

protection for the species, there are 

several shortcomings with the current 

regulatory mechanisms for the species. 

China currently does not have a 

specialized, dedicated agency to manage 

fisheries resources across the country. 

Riverine resource management is 

maintained at local levels which are 

often located in major population 

center, far away from the fishery 

resource (Chen D. et al. 2012, p. 541). 

In the case of Yangtze sturgeon, these 

different jurisdictions have variations in 

regulation and conservation goals for 

the Yangtze River ecosystem, which 

limits coordination of speciesconservation efforts and the overall 

effectiveness in managing species 

conservation across the Yangtze River 

basin (Chen D. et al. 2012, p. 541). 

In addition to a lack of a specialized 

body or other effective basin-wide 

conservation efforts, lack of funding is 

major problem for local jurisdictions. 

Enforcement officers often lack basic 

equipment, such as boats, to carry out 

fishing regulations within the fishery 

(Chen D. et al. 2012, p. 541). 

Additionally, while commercial 

harvesting of the species is prohibited, 

bycatch is still occurring and may still 

be too high to sustain a wild breeding 

population (Zhang H. et al. 2011, p. 

184). The new fishing ban implemented 

in 2017 has the potential to reduce 

bycatch (Du 2017, pers. comm.). 

However, the positive effects from a 

fishing ban on the Yangtze may be 

limited, given the importance of the 

Yangtze to the economic well-being of 

riverside communities as entire 

stretches of the river cannot be closed 

off to fishing (Fan et al. 2006, p. 38). 

Protected Areas 

To offset the effects of habitat loss due 

to dams, China’s State Department 

established in 2000 the National Reserve 

of Hejiang-Leibo Reaches of the Yangtze 

River for Rare and Endangered Fishes 

(Zhang H. et al. 2011, p. 181; Fan et al. 

2006, p. 35). The reserve is located on 

the upper Yangtze River on the reaches 

between Xiangjiaba Dam and the city of 

Chongqing. This reserve is intended to 

protect three imperiled fish species, the 

Yangtze sturgeon, the Chinese 

paddlefish (Psephurus gladius), and the 

Chinese high-fin banded shark 

(Myxocyprinus asiaticus), as well as 37 

other endemic fish species (Fan et al. 

2006, p. 35). In 2005, the reserve was 

expanded to mitigate the impact from 

current and future hydroelectric projects 

(Zhang H. et al. 2011, pp. 181–182). 

While the reserve plays an important 

role in protecting wildlife within its 

borders, expansion of the hydroelectric 

project in the lower Jinsha River and 

upper Yangtze outside the protected 

area is likely to undermine the 

effectiveness of the reserve. In order to 

facilitate economic growth, China has 

decentralized authority for 

infrastructure development from the 

state to local municipalities. This 

decentralized model has resulted in 

provincial governments prioritizing 

economic growth over environmental 

impacts (Dudgeon 2011, p. 1496). 

Since 2003, hydroelectric projects in 

China are subjected to environmental 

assessments and approval from the 

Ministry of Environmental Protection 

(Ministry) (Dudgeon 2011, p. 1496). 

However, this approval is routinely 

ignored even by nationally owned 

corporations. For example, in 2004, 

China Three Gorges Corporation (CTGC) 

began construction of the Xiluodu Dam 

in the Lower Jinsha without obtaining 

permission from the Ministry (Dudgeon 

2011, pp. 1496–1497). In response, the 

Ministry suspended work on the dam in 

2005. However, despite initial 

reservation about the lack of an 

environmental impact assessment, the 

Ministry quickly compiled reports and 

allowed the dam construction to 

proceed (Dudgeon 2011, p. 1499). 

Additionally, in 2009 the Ministry gave 

the authority to build two additional 

dams on the Jinsha segment to other 

dam construction companies after a 

brief suspension (Dudgeon 2010, p. 

129). Overall, these temporary 

suspensions of construction have done 

little to slow down the pace of dam 

development. In 2011, CTGC began 

constructing the Xiangjiaba Dam on the 

Lower Jinsha. The location of this dam 

would have occurred within the 500-km 

boundary of the National Reserve of 

Hejiang-Leibo Reaches. The CTGC 

successfully petitioned the State 

Council to redraw the boundaries of the 

reserve to exclude the section of the 

river where the Xiangjiaba Dam is 

located (Dudgeon 2011, p. 1500; 

Dudgeon 2010, p. 129). The reserve, 

now renamed the National Natural 

Reserve Area of Rare and Special Fishes 

of the Upper Yangtze River, 

encompasses the reaches below the 

Xiangjiaba Dam from Yibin to 

Chongqing as well the tributaries that 

feed into the Yangtze (Zhang H. et al. 

2011, p. 182; Fan et al. 2006, p. 35). The 

redrawing of the area of the reserve to 

accommodate the construction of 

Xiangjiaba Dam lends further evidence 

that local governments are prioritizing 

growth over environmental impacts. 

The construction of the Xiangjiaba Dam 

led to the impoundment of the reach 

upriver, which will affect the flow and 

sedimentation rate downstream (Cheng 

et al. 2015, p. 577; Dudgeon 2011, p. 

1500). Given the lack of natural 

reproduction of the Yangtze sturgeon 

and future impacts from the dam, it is 

unlikely that the current boundary of 

the reserve will be sufficient to maintain 

a wild breeding population of this 

species (Kynard 2016, pers. comm.; 

Dudgeon 2011, p. 1500). 

Restocking 

As a result of the decline of the 

species, controlled reproduction and 

release of juvenile Yangtze sturgeon has 

occurred every year since 2007 (Zhang 

H. et al. 2011, p. 181). Between 2007 

and 2012, more than 10,000 Yangtze 

sturgeon juveniles were released into 

the upper Yangtze on reaches 

downstream from Xiangjiaba Dam (Wu 

et al. 2014, p. 1). In 2014, restocking was 

started on the reaches below Gezhouba 

Dam (Du 2017, pers. comm.). While this 

number pales in comparison to the six 

million Chinese sturgeon that have been 

released since 1983, the restocking of 

the Yangtze sturgeon represent an 

attempt by local and state officials to try 

to maintain the species in the wild 

(Chen D. et al. 2009, p. 349). 

Despite the efforts to restock the 

Yangtze sturgeon in the wild, current 

restocking efforts are unsuccessful (Wu 

et al. 2014, p. 4). No juveniles were 

caught 95 days after release, indicating 

that released sturgeon experienced a 

very high mortality rate (Wu et al. 2014, 

p. 4). There are multiple possible 

reasons for the limited success of 

current restocking efforts, including 

poor breeding and rearing techniques 

that result in progeny with low survival 

rates in the wild, high bycatch rate, and 

loss or deterioration of remaining 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 61239 

habitats (Cheng et al. 2015, pp. 579–580; 

Du et al. 2014, p. 2; Shen et al. 2014, 

p. 1549; Zhang H. et al. 2011, p. 184). 

Thus, despite attempts to conserve the 

species in the wild through restocking, 

with all the other forces acting on the 

Yangtze sturgeon it is unlikely that 

current restocking efforts are adequate 

to improve the species’ condition in the 

wild. 

Stochastic (Random) Events and 

Processes 

Species endemic to small regions, or 

known from few, widely dispersed 

locations, are inherently more 

vulnerable to extinction than 

widespread species because of the 

higher risks from localized stochastic 

(random) events and processes, such as 

industrial spills and drought. These 

problems can be further magnified when 

populations are very small, due to 

genetic bottlenecks (reduced genetic 

diversity resulting from fewer 

individuals contributing to the species’ 

overall gene pool) and random 

demographic fluctuations (Lande 1988, 

p. 1455–1458; Pimm et al. 1988, p. 757). 

Species with few populations, limited 

geographic area, and a small number of 

individuals face an increased likelihood 

of stochastic extinction due to changes 

in demography, the environment, 

genetics, or other factors, in a process 

described as an extinction vortex (a 

mutual reinforcement that occurs among 

biotic and abiotic processes that drives 

population size downward to 

extinction) (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, pp. 

24–25). The negative impacts associated 

with small population size and 

vulnerability to random demographic 

fluctuations or natural catastrophes can 

be further magnified by synergistic 

interactions with other threats. 

The Yangtze sturgeon is known from 

a single geographic population in the 

upper Yangtze River and its tributaries 

(Zhang et al. 2011, pp 181–182; Zhuang 

et al. 1997, p. 259). As a result, the 

species is highly vulnerable to 

stochastic processes and is highly likely 

negatively affected by these processes. 

In March 2000, for example, the 

Jinguang Chemical Plant, located on the 

Dadu River (a tributary of the Yangtze 

River), was found to be releasing yellow 

phosphorous into the Yangtze. This 

substance is highly toxic to aquatic 

organisms including the Yangtze 

sturgeon (Chen D. et al. 2009, p. 343). 

Another spill in 2006 on the Yuexi 

River, which also feeds into the 

Yangtze, saw mercury being released 

into the river (Worldwatch Insitute 

2006, npn). These and other incidents 

combined with the fact that the Yangtze 

River system is home to a large number 

of chemical plants suggest that risk of 

industrial spills is quite high. Therefore, 

it is likely that stochastic processes have 

negative impacts on the species in 

combination with other factors such as 

habitat modification and loss and 

bycatch. 

Determination 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424, set forth the procedures 

for adding species to the Federal Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, we may list a species based on: (A) 

The present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. Listing 

actions may be warranted based on any 

of the above threat factors, singly or in 

combination. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available on the Yangtze sturgeon. 

While we do not know the exact 

population size of the Yangtze sturgeon, 

the species was historically abundant 

enough to be commercially viable up to 

the 1970s, after which it experienced a 

significant decline (Kynard et al. 2003, 

p. 27). Loss of individuals due to 

overharvesting by fishermen on the 

Yangtze (Factor B) is the main factor 

that contributed to the historical decline 

of the species. Subsequent construction 

of dams on the Yangtze prevented the 

migration in the middle Yangtze and 

lower Jinsha, which prevented recovery 

of the species in these areas (Miao et al. 

2015, p. 2351; Wu et al. 2014, p. 2; 

Dudgeon 2010, p. 128; Fang et al. 2006, 

p. 375; Zhuang et al. 1997, p. 261). 

Additionally, dams affect the quality of 

the species’ habitat through changes in 

discharge, temperature, and 

sedimentation rate (Zhang G. et al. 2012, 

p. 445; Du et al. 2011, p. 262; Chen Z. 

et al. 2001, p. 90). In addition to dams, 

the species’ habitat is also adversely 

affected by riverbed modification to 

accommodate increasing boat traffic. 

The combined effects of dams and 

riverbed modification on the Yangtze 

include the loss and reduction in 

quality of remaining habitat (Factor A). 

Despite conservation efforts 

undertaken by local and national 

authorities such as fishing bans and 

restocking, current efforts do not appear 

to be successful in conserving the 

species. No natural reproduction has 

been documented in the wild since the 

2000s (Wu et al. 2014, p. 1). 

Additionally, restocked juvenile 

sturgeon experience very high mortality 

rates due to a high bycatch rate and an 

inability to survive in wild conditions 

(Du et al. 2014, p. 1; Wu et al. 2014, p. 

4). 

Industrial pollution and hybridization 

with displaced native and nonnative 

sturgeon species are also acting on the 

species (Factor E). Although we do not 

have information on the impact of 

industrial pollution on the species in 

the wild, studies in a laboratory 

environment found that pollutants such 

as TPT and EDC can reduce the 

reproductive success rate of adult 

sturgeons (Hu et al. 2009, p. 9342; An 

and Hu 2006, pp. 379–380). 

Additionally, there are high 

concentrations of TPT and EDC in the 

Yangtze River. While we do not have 

data on the hybridization of Yangtze 

sturgeon with other species, surveys 

conducted in the lower Yangtze River 

found that 69.9 percent of sturgeon 

species caught were hybrids (Li R. et al. 

2009, p. 636). These results suggest that 

industrial pollution and hybridization, 

in tandem with other factors, are 

affecting the species. 

Therefore, for the following reasons 

we conclude that this species has been 

and continues to be significantly 

reduced to the extent that the viability 

of the Yangtze sturgeon is significantly 

compromised: 

(1) The species is limited to a single 

geographic population in the upper 

Yangtze main stem and its tributaries. 

There is also some evidence of a small 

remnant population in the middle 

Yangtze. 

(2) Loss of habitat and connectivity 

between the spawning and feeding 

reaches is having a significant adverse 

effect on the species, which appears to 

have low to no reproduction. 

(3) The cumulative effects of habitat 

modification and loss due to dams and 

riverbed projects, bycatch, industrial 

pollution, and hybridization are 

adversely affecting the species. 

(4) Current restocking and 

management efforts are inadequate to 

maintain the species’ presence in the 

wild. 

(5) Stochastic events, such as 

industrial spills or drought, can reduce 

the survival rate of the species 

In section 3(6), the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as any species 

that is ‘‘in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and in section 3(20), a 

‘‘threatened species’’ as any species that 

is ‘‘likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
61240 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

its range.’’ We find that the Yangtze 

sturgeon is presently in danger of 

extinction throughout its range based on 

the severity and immediacy of threats 

currently adversely affecting the 

species. The populations and 

distributions of the species have been 

significantly reduced to the point where 

there is no current reproduction in the 

wild which is indicative of a very high 

risk of extinction, and the remaining 

habitat and populations are threatened 

by a variety of factors acting alone and 

in combination to reduce the overall 

viability of the species. 

Based on the factors described above 

and their impacts on the Yangtze 

sturgeon, we find the following factors 

to be threats to this species (i.e., factors 

contributing to the risk of extinction of 

this species): Loss and modification of 

habitat due to dams and riverbed 

expansion (Factor A), bycatch (Factor 

C), and cumulative effects (Factor E) of 

these and other threats including 

industrial pollution and hybridization. 

Furthermore, current legal and 

management efforts over these practices 

are inadequate to conserve the species 

(Factor D). 

Therefore, on the basis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we propose listing Yangtze 

sturgeon as endangered in accordance 

with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

We find that a threatened species status 

is not appropriate for this species 

because of its restricted range, limited 

distribution, and vulnerability to 

extinction; and because the threats are 

ongoing throughout its range at a level 

that places this species in danger of 

extinction now. 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. Because we have determined 

that the Yangtze sturgeon is endangered 

throughout all of its range, we do not 

need to conduct an analysis of whether 

there is any significant portion of its 

range where the species is in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future. This is consistent 

with the Act because when we find that 

a species is currently in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range 

(i.e., meets the definition of an 

‘‘endangered species’’), the species is 

experiencing high-magnitude threats 

across its range or threats are so high in 

particular areas that they severely affect 

the species across its range. Therefore, 

the species is in danger of extinction 

throughout every portion of its range 

and an analysis of whether there is any 

significant portion of the range that may 

be in danger of extinction or likely to 

become so would not result in a 

different outcome. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition of conservation status, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing encourages 

and results in public awareness and 

conservation actions by Federal and 

State governments in the United States, 

foreign governments, private agencies 

and groups, and individuals. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR part 402 

implement the interagency cooperation 

provisions found under ESA Section 7. 

Under section 7(a)(1) of the ESA, federal 

agencies are to utilize, in consultation 

with and with the assistance of the 

Service, their authorities in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. Section 

7(a)(2) of the Act, as amended, requires 

Federal agencies to ensure, in 

consultation with the Service, that ‘‘any 

action authorized, funded, or carried 

out’’ by such agency is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or result in destruction or 

adverse modification of its critical 

habitat. An ‘‘action’’ that is subject to 

the consultation provisions of section 

7(a)(2) has been defined in our 

implementing regulations as ‘‘all 

activities or programs of any kind 

authorized, funded, or carried out, in 

whole or in part, by Federal agencies in 

the United States or upon the high 

seas.’’ 50 CFR 402.02. With respect to 

this species, there are no ‘‘actions’’ 

known to require consultation under 

ESA Section 7(a)(2). Given the 

regulatory definition of ‘‘action,’’ which 

clarifies that it applies to ‘‘activities or 

programs . . . in the United States or 

upon the high seas,’’ the species is 

unlikely to be the subject of section 7 

consultations, because the species 

conducts its entire life cycle in 

freshwater outside of the United States 

and is unlikely to be affected by U.S. 

Federal actions. Additionally, because 

the Yangtze sturgeon is not native to the 

United States, no critical habitat is being 

proposed for designation with this rule. 

50 CFR 424.12(g). 

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 or threatened species in 

foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) 

of the Act authorize the Secretary to 

encourage conservation programs for 

foreign listed species, and to provide 

assistance for such programs, in the 

form of personnel and the training of 

personnel. 

Section 9 of the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

17.21 set forth a series of general 

prohibitions that apply to all 

endangered wildlife. These 

prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for 

any person subject to the jurisdiction of 

the United States to ‘‘take’’ (which 

includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect; or to attempt any of these) 

endangered wildlife within the United 

States or upon the high seas. It is also 

illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, 

transport, or ship any such wildlife that 

has been taken illegally. In addition, it 

is illegal for any person subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States to 

import; export; deliver, receive, carry, 

transport, or ship in interstate or foreign 

commerce, by any means whatsoever 

and in the course of commercial 

activity; or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

listed species. Certain exceptions apply 

to employees of the Service, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, other 

Federal land management agencies, and 

State conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits under section 

10 of the Act to carry out otherwise 

prohibited activities involving 

endangered wildlife under certain 

circumstances. Regulations governing 

permits for endangered species are 

codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to 

endangered wildlife, a permit may be 

issued for the following purposes: For 

scientific purposes, to enhance the 

propagation or survival of the species, 

and for incidental take in connection 

with otherwise lawful activities. There 

are also certain statutory exemptions 

from the prohibitions, which are found 

in sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

Required Determination 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 61241 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be 

prepared in connection with listing a 

species as an endangered or threatened 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Branch of 

Foreign Species, Ecological Services 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the Branch 

of Foreign Species, Ecological Services, 

Falls Church, VA. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.11(h), add an entry for 

‘‘Sturgeon, Yangtze’’ to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 

alphabetical order under FISHES to read 

as set forth below: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable 

rules 

*******

FISHES

* * * * * * * 

Sturgeon, Yangtze ...................... Acipenser dabryanus ................ Wherever found ........................ E [Insert Federal Register citation when published as a final 

rule]. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

Dated: November 15, 2017. 

James W. Kurth, 

Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Exercising the Authority of the 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–27954 Filed 12–26–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 170720688–7688–01] 

RIN 0648–BH07 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish 

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 

Vermilion Snapper Management 

Measures; Amendment 47 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to implement 

management measures described in 

Amendment 47 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for the Reef Fish 

Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), 

as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council (Council) 

(Amendment 47). For vermilion 

snapper, this proposed rule would 

revise the stock annual catch limit 

(ACL). Additionally, Amendment 47 

would establish a proxy for the estimate 

of the stock maximum sustainable yield 

(MSY). The purpose of this proposed 

rule is to revise the stock ACL for 

vermilion snapper in the Gulf of Mexico 

(Gulf) consistent with the most recent 

stock assessment. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 26, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the amendment identified by 

‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2017–0106’’ by either 

of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

NOAA-NMFS-2017-0106, click the 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the 

required fields, and enter or attach your 

comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Lauren Waters, Southeast Regional 

Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, 

St. Petersburg, FL 33701. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter 

‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish 

to remain anonymous). Electronic 

copies of Amendment 47, which 

includes an environmental assessment, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS