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

hypothecate, assign, transfer or encumber 

funds or assets in the Escrow Account except 

in accordance with the terms of this 

Agreement. 

20. This Agreement is for the benefit of the 

parties hereto and, accordingly, each and 

every provision hereof shall be enforceable 

by any or each or both of them. Additionally, 

this Agreement shall be enforceable by the 

Commission. However, this Agreement shall 

not be enforceable by any other party, person 

or entity whatsoever. 

21. (a) No amendments, modifications or 

other change in the terms of this Agreement 

shall be effective for any purpose whatsoever 

unless agreed upon in writing by Escrow 

Agent and Customer and approved in writing 

by the Commission. 

(b) No party hereto may assign its rights or 

obligations hereunder without the prior 

written consent of the other, and unless 

approved in writing by the Commission. The 

merger of Customer with another entity or 

the transfer of a controlling interest in the 

stock of Customer shall constitute an 

assignment hereunder for which prior 

written approval of the Commission is 

required, which approval shall not be 

unreasonably withheld. 

22. The foregoing provisions shall be 

binding upon undersigned, their assigns, 

successors and personal representative. 

23. The Commission shall have the right to 

inspect the books and records of the Escrow 

Agent and those of Customer as related to the 

Escrow Account. In addition, the 

Commission shall have the right to seek 

copies of annual audited financial statements 

and other financial related information. 

24. All investments, securities and assets 

maintained under the Escrow Agreement will 

be physically located in the United States. 

25. Notices relating to this Agreement shall 

be sent to Customer at (address) and to 

Escrow Agent at (address) or to such other 

address as any party hereto may hereafter 

designate in writing. Any communication 

sent to the Commission or its successor 

organization shall be sent to the following 

address: Bureau of Certification and 

Licensing, Federal Maritime Commission, 

800 North Capitol NW, Washington, DC 

20573–0001. 

26. This agreement may be executed in any 

number of counterparts, each of which shall 

be deemed to be an original and all of which 

when taken together shall constitute one and 

the same instrument. 

27. This Agreement is made and delivered 

in, and shall be construed in accordance with 

the laws of the State ll of without regard 

to the choice of law rules. 

In witness whereof, the undersigned have 

each caused this Agreement to be executed 

on their behalf as of the date first above 

written. 

By: lllllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

By: lllllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

EXHIBIT A 

ESCROW AGREEMENT, dated ll by and 

between (Customer) and (Escrow Agent). 

Passenger Vessels Owned or Chartered 

ANNEX 1 

RECOMPUTATION CERTIFICATE 

To: Federal Maritime Commission 

And To: (‘‘Bank’’) 

The undersigned, the Controller of ll

hereby furnishes this Recomputation 

Certificate pursuant to the terms of the 

Escrow Agreement dated ll, between the 

Customer and (‘‘Bank’’). Terms herein shall 

have the same definitions as those in such 

Escrow Agreement and Federal Maritime 

Commission regulations. 

I. Unearned Passenger Revenue as of (‘‘Date’’) 

was: $ll

a. Additions to unearned Passenger 

Revenue since such date were: 

1. Passenger Receipts: $ll

2. Other (Specify) $ll

3. Total Additions: $ll

b. Reductions in Unearned Passenger 

Revenue since such date were: 

1. Completed Cruises: $ll

2. Refunds and Cancellations: $ll

3. Other (Specify) $ll

4. Total Reductions: $ll

II. Unearned Passenger Revenue as of the 

date of this Recomputation Certificate is: 

$ll

a. Excess Escrow Amount $ll

III. Plus the Required Fixed Amount: $ll 

IV. Total Required in Escrow: $ll 

V. Current Balance in Escrow Account: 

$ll 

VI. Amount to be Deposited in Escrow 

Account: $ll 

VII. Amount of Escrow Account available to 

Operator: $ll 

VIII. I declare under penalty of perjury that 

the above information is true and correct. 

Dated: lllllllllllllllll

(Signature) lllllllllllllll

Name: lllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

(Signature) lllllllllllllll

Name: lllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

By the Commission. 

Rachel Dickon, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18220 Filed 8–24–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2020–0100; 

FF09E22000 FXES11180900000 212] 

RIN 1018–BE92 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for Amur Sturgeon 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

the Amur sturgeon (Acipenser 

schrenckii), a fish species from the 

Amur River basin in Russia and China, 

as an endangered species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). After a review of the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available, we find that 

listing the species is warranted. 

Accordingly, we propose to list the 

Amur sturgeon as an endangered 

species under the Act. If we finalize this 

rule as proposed, it would add this 

species to the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and extend the 

Act’s protections to the species. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

October 25, 2021. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for a public 

hearing, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by October 12, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: 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–2020–0100, which 

is the docket number for this 

rulemaking. Then, click on the Search 

button. On the resulting page, in the 

Search panel on the left side of the 

screen, under the Document Type 

heading, check the Proposed Rule box to 

locate this document. You may submit 

a comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment 

Now!’’ 

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

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–HQ–ES–2020–0100, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
47458 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Document availability: This proposed 

rule and supporting documents, 

including the species status assessment 

(SSA) report, are available at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–HQ–ES–2020–0100. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Maclin, Chief, Branch of 

Delisting and Foreign Species, 

Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg 

Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803; 

telephone, 703–358–2171. Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other concerned 

governmental agencies (including those 

in the species’ range in Russia and 

China), Native American Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. 

We particularly seek comments 

concerning: 

(1) The species’ biology, range, 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 destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat 

or range; overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; disease; predation; the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or other natural or 

manmade factors. 

(3) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to this species 

and existing regulations that may be 

addressing those threats. 

(4) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status, range, 

distribution, and population size of this 

species, including the locations of any 

additional populations of this species. 

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 a threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ You may 

submit your comments and materials 

concerning this proposed rule by one of 

the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We 

request that you send comments only by 

the methods described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via 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. 

Because we will consider all 

comments and information we receive 

during the comment period, and base 

our determination on the best scientific 

and commercial data available, our final 

determination may differ from this 

proposal. Upon consideration of new 

information we receive (and any 

comments on that new information), we 

may conclude based on the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

after considering all of the relevant 

factors that the species is threatened 

instead of endangered, or we may 

conclude that the species does not 

warrant listing as either an endangered 

species or a threatened species. 

Public Hearing 

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

a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests must be received by 

the date specified in DATES. Such 

requests must be sent to the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. We will schedule a public 

hearing on this proposal, if requested, 

and announce the date, time, and place 

of the hearing, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register at least 15 days before 

the hearing. For the immediate future, 

we will provide these public hearings 

using webinars that will be announced 

on the Service’s website, in addition to 

the Federal Register. The use of these 

virtual public hearings is consistent 

with our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.16(c)(3). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On March 12, 2012, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

received a petition dated March 8, 2012, 

from Friends of Animals and WildEarth 

Guardians to list the Amur sturgeon and 

14 related sturgeon species as 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act. 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— 

including the Amur sturgeon—are 

under the jurisdiction of the Service. In 

April 2012, the Service notified the 

petitioners of this jurisdictional finding. 

On September 24, 2013, we announced 

in the Federal Register (78 FR 58507) 

our 90-day finding that the petition 

presented substantial scientific and 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

for these 10 sturgeon species. 

This document constitutes our review 

and determination of the status of the 

Amur sturgeon, our 12-month finding 

on this species as required by the Act’s 

section 4(b)(3)(B), and our proposed rule 

to list this species. 

Supporting Documents 

We prepared a species status 

assessment (SSA) report for the Amur 

sturgeon. The SSA analysis was led by 

a Service biologist, in consultation with 

other Service staff and species experts. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 47459 

The SSA report represents a 

compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of the species, including the 

impacts of past, present, and future 

factors (both negative and beneficial) 

affecting the species. The Service sent 

the SSA report to six independent peer 

reviewers and received one response. 

Proposed Listing Determination 

Background 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, ecology, and overall 

viability of the Amur sturgeon is 

presented in the SSA report (Service 

2020; available at http://

www.regulations.gov). The following 

discussion is a summary of the 

biological background on the species 

from the SSA report. 

Taxonomy 

The Amur sturgeon (Acipenser 

schrenckii) is one of 27 species of 

sturgeon in the family Acipenseridae 

(Fricke et al. 2019, not paginated). The 

synonyms Acipenser schrenki and 

Acipenser schrenkii are sometimes 

used, but are now considered invalid 

(Fricke et al. 2019, not paginated; ITIS 

2019, not paginated). We are not aware 

of any taxonomic disputes regarding the 

validity of the Amur sturgeon as a 

species. Thus, we determined that the 

Amur sturgeon is a valid species for 

listing under the Act. 

Physical Description 

Amur sturgeon are large fish reaching 

up to 3 meters (m) (10 feet) in length 

and 190 kilograms (420 pounds) in 

weight (Zhuang et al. 2002, p. 659). 

They have a downward-facing mouth, 

cartilaginous skeleton, and a series of 

bony plates in rows along their back 

(Billard and Lecointre 2001, p. 363). 

Tactile barbels hang from the mouth 

(Billard and Lecointre 2001, p. 359). A 

rare brown morph of Amur sturgeon 

grows more slowly than the more 

common gray morph (Zhuang et al. 

2002, p. 660). The presence of two color 

morphs (Zhuang et al. 2002, p. 660; 

Krykhtin and Svirskii 1997, p. 236) 

indicates some level of ecological or 

genetic diversity in the Amur sturgeon. 

Range 

Amur sturgeon live in the Amur River 

basin along the far eastern border 

between China and Russia. The species’ 

range includes the main river, its 

tributaries, and the Amur Estuary. The 

species was historically found as far 

west as Nerschinsk, Russia, in the upper 

Shilka River (Georgi 1775 cited in 

Vaisman and Fomenko, p. 4) and in all 

major tributaries of the Amur. Amur 

sturgeon are rare in areas of the estuary 

with salinity over 7.5 parts per thousand 

(ppt) (Koshelev et al. 2014a, p. 1314). 

The species occurs at low densities in 

the southern (and possibly northern) 

Sea of Okhotsk. Very rarely, Amur 

sturgeon are found in the Sea of Japan 

(Koshelev et al. 2014a, p. 1313). The 

species may also be present in very 

small numbers in Lake Khanka in 

extreme southeast Russia (Ruban and 

Qiwei 2010, not paginated), although 

few authors confirm this. 

Life History 

Amur sturgeon are slow to mature; 

males require 7 to 12 years, and females 

9 to 14 years, before reproducing 

(Novomodny et al. 2004, p. 19; Zhuang 

et al. 2002, p. 659). This long time to 

maturity can slow the species’ recovery 

from disturbance, relative to that of 

species with shorter generation times. 

On reaching maturity, fish are between 

1.1 and 1.3m (43 to 51 in) long and 

weigh 6 to 19 kg (13 to 42 pounds; 

Zhuang et al. 2002, p. 660). Individuals 

can live up to 60 years (Krykhtin and 

Svirskii 1997, p. 236) and reproduce 

every 3 to 4 years (Ruban and Qiwei 

2010, not paginated; Vaisman and 

Fomenko 2006, p. 5; Krykhtin and 

Svirskii 1997 p. 236). 

Spawning adults migrate upstream, 

mostly in spring (Koshelev et al. 2014b, 

p. 1126; Zhuang et al. 2002, p. 659; 

Krykhtin and Svirskii 1997, p. 237; Wei 

et al. 1997, p. 245). A smaller number 

of reproductive fish migrate the 

previous fall (mid-August to late 

September) and overwinter on the 

spawning grounds (Ruban 2020, pers. 

comm.). 

The exact distance that fish move 

upstream is unclear, although fish 

appear to spawn within the same river 

regions (lower, middle, upper) as those 

in which they spend the rest of the year 

(Ruban and Qiwei 2010, not paginated; 

Novomodny et al. 2004, p. 18). Few 

migrations are greater than 500 

kilometers (km) (about 300 miles) in 

length, although some estuary fish travel 

1,000 km (600 miles) or more up the 

river (Novomodny et al. 2004, p. 18) and 

may spend up to 2 years there prior to 

reproducing (Krykhtin and Svirskii 

1997, p. 237). 

Spawning occurs following migration, 

between May and September. Known 

spawning sites are primarily in the 

middle Amur River, including several 

major grounds in Luobei, Xunke, and 

Tongjiang counties (Wei et al. 1997, p. 

245). This evidence is consistent with 

findings that the population of Amur 

sturgeon was historically greatest in this 

stretch of the river (Krykhtin and 

Svirskii 1997, p. 237). 

Females can lay upwards of 1.3 

million eggs in a single spawning, 

although the norm is between 190,000 

and 300,000 eggs (Koshelev et al. 2014b, 

p. 1127; Zhang 1985 cited in Zhuang et 

al. 2002, pp. 660–661). In related 

sturgeon, only about 1 in 2,000 survive 

their first year post-hatching (Jaric and 

Gessner 2013, table 1; Jager et al. 2002, 

table 1). Thereafter, 20 to 90 percent of 

juvenile fish survive annually (Jaric and 

Gessner 2013, table 1; Jager et al. 2002, 

table 1). Although age-specific survival 

data for Amur sturgeon in particular are 

not available, the species very likely has 

similar patterns of survival by age 

(Kappenmann 2020, pers. comm.). 

Larvae hatch faster in warmer 

compared to colder water, emerging in 

3 to 14 days (Krykhtin and Svirskii 

1997, p. 237), then likely drift 

downstream. They begin feeding around 

9 days post-hatching (Zhuang et al. 

2003, figure 5; Krykhtin and Svirskii 

1997, p. 237). After about 30 days, they 

metamorphose into juvenile fish of 

about 4 centimeters (cm) (2 inches) in 

length and 3 grams (0.1 ounces) in 

weight (Zhuang et al. 1999a and Liu et 

al. 2000 cited in Zhuang et al. 2002, p. 

661). Juveniles feed in shallow 

shorelines and smaller tributaries and 

lakes (Zhuang et al. 2002, p. 659). 

By 1 year of age, fish average 

approximately 30 cm (12 inches; 

Nikolskii 1960 cited in Zhuang et al. 

2002, p. 660). Six-year-old individuals 

may be 90 cm (35 inches), 25-year-old 

fish 2 m (7 feet), and large 40-year-old 

fish can approach 2.5 m (8 feet; Zhang 

1985 cited in Zhuang et al. 2002, p. 

660). 

Amur sturgeon prey on larval insects, 

small mollusks, crustaceans, and fish 

(Novomody et al. 2004, p. 19; Nikolskii 

1960 and Sun et al. 2000 cited in 

Zhuang et al. 2002, p. 660), with 

geographic and age-based variation in 

preferred food items (Kolybov and 

Koshelev 2014, p. 489; Sun et al. 2000 

and Nikolskii 1960 cited in Zhuang et 

al. 2000, p. 660; Krykhtin and Svirskii 

1997, p. 236). 

Population Biology 

Amur sturgeon are thought to spawn 

primarily within the same larger river 

regions as those in which they feed 

throughout the year (Ruban and Qiwei 

2010, not paginated; Novomodny et al. 

2004, p. 18). Therefore, we followed the 

limited literature (e.g., Koshelev et al. 

2014a, entire; Krykhtin and Svirskii 

1997, pp. 236–238) and considered fish 

in four river regions to be the analysis 

units for our assessment of the species’ 

status. These units are: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
47460 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

• Amur Estuary, inclusive of the few 

individuals found in the Sea of Japan 

and Sea of Okhotsk; 

• Lower Amur, from Khaborovsk, 

Russia, to the mouth of the river where 

it meets the estuary; 

• Middle Amur, from Heihe, China, 

to Khaborovsk, Russia, inclusive of the 

Zeya and Bureya Rivers, both northern 

tributaries of the Amur; and 

• Upper Amur, upstream of Heihe, 

China, inclusive of the Shilka and 

Argun Rivers whose confluence form 

the Amur headwaters. 

Some fish from the Lower, Middle, 

and Upper Amur may enter the estuary 

to forage, but this is likely rare (Zhuang 

et al. 2003, p. 38). 

We use the analysis units to describe 

what we determine to be regions where 

Amur sturgeon likely have reproduced 

in at least partially distinct populations, 

where they may face different 

conservation threats, and where their 

status may be different. Although the 

exact migration routes, spawning 

locations, delineations between, and 

levels of interbreeding among fish from 

these regions are not known, there are 

clearly different breeding stocks, 

separated by time and location. For 

instance, fish from the Zeya and Bureya 

breed in the Upper and upper Middle 

Amur (Krykhtin and Svirskii 1997, pp. 

235–236), whereas fish from the estuary 

and lower river migrate upstream to 

breed between Luobei, Xunke, and 

Tongjiang counties along the lower 

Middle Amur (Wei et al. 1997, pp. 245). 

Fish that do not reproduce in a given 

year do not migrate (e.g., Koshelev et al. 

2014a, entire; Krykhtin and Svirskii 

1997, pp. 236–238). All estuary fish that 

reproduce do so only after having 

migrated upstream into the river. 

Offspring from the estuary population 

may spend up to 2 years in the river 

before reproducing and returning to the 

estuary to mature (Krykhtin and Svirskii 

1997, p. 237). 

Population Size and Demography 

A series of Amur sturgeon surveys 

conducted between 2005 and 2011 

(Koshelev et al. 2014a, pp. 1310–1314) 

are the most comprehensive, 

quantitative appraisal of the species we 

are aware of, for either contemporary or 

historical population estimates. A 

greater than 95 percent decline in the 

species’ abundance was estimated 

between 1960 and 2010 (Ruban and 

Qiwei, 2010, not paginated), and 

sizeable populations now exist only in 

the Amur Estuary and Lower Amur 

analysis units (see table 1, below). The 

species is extirpated from the Upper 

Amur and largely so from the Middle 

Amur (Koshelev et al. 2014a, pp. 1313– 

1316). The remaining population 

exhibits a skewed sex ratio of 1 female 

per 2 males, very likely due to 

preferential poaching of females for 

caviar and use in aquaculture (Koshelev 

et al. 2014b, pp. 1127, 1129, and chapter 

3 of the SSA for a detailed discussion 

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 

Regulatory Framework 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ The Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as a species that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range, and 

a ‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. The Act requires that we 

determine whether any species is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ because of any of the following 

factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

species’ expected response and the 

effects of the threats—in light of those 

actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 47461 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data available regarding the status of the 

species, including an assessment of the 

potential threats to the species. The SSA 

report does not represent a decision by 

the Service on whether the species 

should be proposed for listing as an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act. It does, however, provide the 

scientific basis that informs our 

regulatory decisions, which involve the 

further application of standards within 

the Act and its implementing 

regulations and policies. The following 

is a summary of the key results and 

conclusions from the SSA report; the 

full SSA report can be found at Docket 

No. FWS–HQ–ES–2020–0100 on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

To assess the Amur sturgeon’s 

viability, we used the three 

conservation-biology principles of 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, 

pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency 

supports the ability of the species to 

withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years), 

redundancy supports the ability of the 

species to withstand catastrophic events 

(for example, droughts, large pollution 

events), and representation supports the 

ability of the species to adapt over time 

to long-term changes in the environment 

(for example, climate changes). In 

general, the more resilient and 

redundant a species is and the more 

representation it has, the more likely it 

is to sustain populations over time, even 

under changing environmental 

conditions. Using these principles, we 

identified the species’ ecological 

requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated the individual 

species’ life-history needs. The next 

stage involved an assessment of the 

historical and current condition of the 

species’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 

at its current condition. The final stage 

of the SSA involved making predictions 

about the species’ responses to positive 

and negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences. Throughout 

all of these stages, we used the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available to characterize viability as the 

ability of a species to sustain 

populations in the wild over time. We 

use this information to inform our 

regulatory decision. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this discussion, we review the 

biological condition of the species and 

its resources, and the threats that 

influence the species’ current and future 

condition, in order to assess the species’ 

overall viability and the risks to that 

viability. 

Overfishing and the Trade in Amur 

Sturgeon Caviar and Meat 

Unsustainable harvest for caviar and 

meat consumption is the foremost threat 

to the Amur sturgeon (Vaisman and 

Fomenko 2006, entire; Zhuang et al. 

2002, p. 659). Both domestic and 

international demand fuel the market 

for these products and are a primary 

reason that 85 percent of sturgeon 

species are listed as critically 

endangered or extinct in the wild on the 

International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature’s Red List (note 

that while informative the Red List has 

no legal effect and uses different 

standards for inclusion than does the 

Act; Rachler and Reinartz 2017, p. 1). 

The threat posed by overfishing is 

despite both Russian and Chinese 

prohibition of open commercial fishing 

and trade of the Amur sturgeon. In 

China, permits have been required since 

2001 (Harris and Shiraishi 2018, pp. 46– 

47; Wang and Chang 2006, p. 48) and 

the country’s law enforcement efforts 

limit poaching in Chinese territory 

(Simonov and Dahmer 2008, p. 130; 

Novomodny et al. 2004, p. 24). In 

Russia, the commercial Amur sturgeon 

fishery has been banned since 1984 and 

was previously limited or closed by a 

series of temporary regulations as early 

as the 1920s (Harris and Shiraishi 2018, 

p. 9). However, since 1991 Russian 

state-sanctioned harvests (so-called ‘‘test 

fishing’’ or ‘‘controlled catches’’), 

purportedly for population monitoring, 

have likely been used as cover for 

continued fishing and commercial sale 

(Vaisman and Fomenko 2006, pp. v, 9– 

18; CITES 2001, p. 35). There is no 

restriction on the sale of caviar 

produced from fish caught in test 

fishing and it is likely that test fishing 

quotas are regularly exceeded (Vaisman 

and Fomenko 2006, p. 10). Overall, 

fishing bans (Wang and Chang 2006, 

p. 51; Xinhuanet, June 11, 2002) have 

not been successful at protecting or 

restoring the species, given the long 

history of overexploitation and ongoing 

harvests, both illegal (see below) and 

state-sanctioned. 

Prior to the current set of fisheries 

regulations, legal overharvest caused a 

greater than 99 percent decline in the 

volume of Amur sturgeon caught in 

Russia between 1891 and 1948 (Kryukov 

1894 cited in Krykhtin and Svirskii 

1997, pp. 231–232). Fishing records 

from China similarly indicate that 

overfishing has caused massive 

population declines in the Amur 

sturgeon (Wang and Chang 2006, p. 45). 

After a peak of 461 mt (508 t) in 1981, 

the Chinese catch declined 

precipitously to an average of just less 

than 120 mt (130 t) between 1996 and 

2002, with just 50 and 25 mt (55 and 28 

t) caught in the final 2 years (Vaisman 

and Fomenko 2006, table 6). Overall, the 

species’ population declined by greater 

than 95% between 1960 and 2010 

(Ruban and Qiwei 2010, not paginated). 

In the 1990s and early 2000s, the 

Amur sturgeon was by far the most 

commonly traded sturgeon species in 

China (Zhu et al. 2008, p. 31). Although 

this demand was largely fulfilled with 

captive-bred fish, the large-scale use of 

wild-caught Amur sturgeon as 

broodstock in aquaculture contributed 

to a crash in Amur sturgeon populations 

(Simonov and Dahmer 2008, p. 129 and 

figure 3.4; Wei no date, p. 1). By 2017, 

some residents of the Amur region 

within China reported that the fish’s 

population was so low that it could not 

support a profitable fishery (Harris and 

Shiraishi 2018, p. 46). 

The Amur sturgeon was included in 

Appendix II of the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES) in 1998, along with all other 

species in the order Acipenseriformes 

not previously listed under Appendix I 

(CITES 1997a, pp. 80–84; CITES 1997b, 

pp. 171; Ruban and Qiwei 2010, not 

paginated; Wang and Chang 2006, 

p. 48). Both range countries, Russia and 

China, are Parties to CITES, as is the 

United States. CITES Parties adopted a 

series of recommendations to improve 

regulation of the international sturgeon 

trade (Harris and Shirashi 2018, pp. 19– 

22), including reporting of scientifically 

based quotas for any legal wild-caught 

sturgeon (CITES 2015, entire; CITES 

2010, entire) and a caviar-labeling 

system to verify its legal origin (CITES 

2015; 50 CFR 23.71; USFWS OLE 2008). 

Since the inclusion of all sturgeon 

species in the CITES Appendices in 

1998, the proportion of caviar in 

international trade reported to be of 

captive-bred origin has climbed from 

near zero to near 100 percent (CITES 

Trade database cited in Harris and 

Shiraishi 2018, p. 25; UNEP–WCMC 

2008 p. 31). Since 2011, no quotas for 

wild-caught Amur sturgeon have been 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
47462 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

reported to CITES, indicating that no 

wild-caught Amur sturgeon can be 

legally traded internationally until 

quotas are reestablished. This is in line 

with the existing bans on commercial 

fishing in Russia and China. Still, some 

wild-sourced caviar is very likely traded 

internationally using fraudulent labels 

or without reporting (UNEP–WCMC 

2012, pp. 22). The sale of caviar and 

meat with mislabeled origin, species, or 

both makes enforcement difficult (Harris 

and Shiraishi 2018, Table 9) and it is 

very challenging for enforcement 

officials to confidently differentiate wild 

from captive-bred caviar (e.g., DePeters 

et al. 2013, pp. 130–131; Czesny et al. 

2000, pp. 147–148). Domestic sale of 

caviar (including in the United States, 

China, and Russia) is not subject to 

CITES labeling requirements, likely 

facilitating trade in wild-sourced 

products (Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p. 

54; Vaisman & Fomenko 2006, p. 20). In 

addition, legitimate CITES labels and 

containers are resold for use in 

concealing transport of illegal caviar 

(van Uhm and Siegel 2016, p. 81). 

Following the inclusion of the Amur 

sturgeon in CITES Appendix II in 1998, 

there was a notable increase in illegal 

Russia-to-China transport of caviar and 

meat (Vaisman and Fomenko 2006, 

p. 24). Fertilized eggs were also 

confiscated in transit from Russia to 

China and very likely destined for use 

in aquaculture (Harris and Shiraishi 

2018, p. 40; Vaisman and Fomenko 

2006, p. 24). 

The Amur River was identified in 

2018 as one of the most concerning 

regions for sturgeon poaching globally 

(Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p. 12) and an 

estimated 95 percent of spawning Amur 

sturgeon are harvested annually 

(Simonov and Dahmer 2008, p. 47; note: 

This is 95 percent of the approximately 

one quarter of all adults that spawn 

annually, not of all adults in the 

population). Illegal sturgeon harvesting 

has been widespread, intense, and 

sometimes sophisticated, with up to 750 

metric tons (mt) (830 U.S. tons (t)) of 

Amur sturgeon harvested illegally 

(Erickson et al. 2007, p. 31) and up to 

1,000 poachers detained in Russia 

annually (all sturgeon species, not just 

Amur sturgeon; Vladivostok News, June 

24, 2003). Organized and sometimes 

violent crime units control the harvest 

of Amur sturgeon in Russia, especially 

in the vicinity of Khabarovsk (Vaisman 

and Fomenko 2006, p. 19; Krykhtin and 

Svirskii 1997, p. 237), and fishing 

impacts have been especially intense on 

the Middle Amur spawning grounds 

(Krykhtin and Svirskii 1997, p. 237). As 

a result, the species became markedly 

less common in the early 2000s 

(Vaisman and Fomenko, 2006, p. 16). 

Although the caviar resulting from 

test fishing was legal for sale in Russia, 

between 90 and 100 percent of 

domestically sold Amur sturgeon was 

believed to be illegally caught in recent 

years (Harris and Shiraishi 2018 p. 33; 

Vaisman and Fomenko 2006, p. 22). 

Nearly every market stall in the city of 

Khaborosk sold illegally sourced caviar, 

and one could place an advance order 

for up to several metric tons of sturgeon 

meat (potentially several hundred 

smaller fish) (Vaisman and Fomenko 

2006, p. 20). In 2018, Khabarovsk 

residents indicated that sturgeon 

products remained easy to find on the 

black market (Harris and Shiraishi 2018, 

p. 40). Russian law does not provide for 

punishments strong enough to deter 

poaching (Musing et al. 2019, p. 20; 

Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p. 40; 

Erickson et al. 2007, p. 30; Vaisman and 

Fomenko 2006, p. 18), most arrests led 

to dismissal of the case before 

prosecution due to a pardon or the 

expression of remorse by defendants 

(Vaisman and Fomenko 2006, p. 17), 

and Russia remains the largest 

consumer of Amur sturgeon (Vaisman 

and Fomenko 2006, pp. iv–vii). 

Illegal international trade in Amur 

sturgeon products adds to the threat 

faced by the species. About 8 percent of 

17 mt (19 t) of Amur sturgeon caviar 

arriving in the United States between 

2000 and 2019 was determined to be 

illegal and was seized before import 

(CARS 2020, not paginated; CITES and 

UNEP–WCMC 2019). However, because 

of the very nature of illegal trade, its 

volume cannot be fully captured by the 

available data. Nonetheless, the United 

States has been the largest importer of 

sturgeon and sturgeon products (all 

Acipenser species) since 1998 (Harris 

and Shiraishi 2018, p. 26; UNEP–WCMC 

2012, p. 22). At least through the mid2000s, illegal import of sturgeon 

products to the United States was 

common among major caviar retailers 

(Wyler and Sheikh 2013, p. 10; Service 

2005, p. 7). Most seized caviar was 

confiscated because of violations of 

CITES requirements (e.g., incorrect label 

design, missing information, or 

misidentified species), and some 

purportedly captive-sourced caviar is 

likely wild-sourced product 

misrepresented as of farmed origin 

(Irving 2021, pers. comm.). 

Nearly 3.8 mt (4.2 t) of Amur sturgeon 

caviar were imported into the European 

Union between 1998 and 2006 (UNEP– 

WCMC 2008, p. 31), representing 19 

percent of the total reported exports 

from China and Russia (Engler and 

Knapp 2008, table 3). Between 2007 and 

2015, Belgium alone imported almost 3 

mt (3.3 t) of Amur sturgeon—mostly as 

caviar—and over 14.5 mt (15.9 t) of 

kaluga-Amur sturgeon hybrid products 

(Musing et al. 2018, p. 37). Most French 

vendors said that wild-sourced caviar is 

no longer available, although one said it 

could be obtained on the black market 

(Harris and Shiraishi 2018, p. 45). 

A growing trade in sturgeoncontaining cosmetics has opened newer 

markets, especially in Japan (Harris and 

Shiraish 2018, p. 68), where poached 

Amur sturgeon products were reported 

to be continuously available in the mid2000s (Vaisman and Fomenko 2006, 

p. 23) and where illegal sturgeoncontaining cosmetics were seized in 

large volumes in 2016 (Harris and 

Shiraishi 2018, p. 59). 

In summary, there is abundant 

evidence that heavy fishing pressure has 

for several decades put severe strain on 

Amur sturgeon populations. The blackmarket trade and the laundering of wildcaught fish and caviar into the legal 

market for captive-bred products has 

continued to negatively affect the 

species in the wild despite the CITES 

requirements for international trade in 

Amur sturgeon. More detail on the 

harvest and trade of the Amur sturgeon 

is available in the SSA report. 

Dams 

The main stem of the Amur River 

remains one of the largest undammed 

rivers in the world (GRanD 2019, not 

paginated; Lehner et al. 2011, pp. 494– 

502; Simonov and Dahmer 2008, p. 

185), but repeated proposals to build 

dams there have occurred for at least 70 

years (Simonov and Markina 2010, not 

paginated). The construction of dams 

blocks migration routes between Amur 

sturgeon feeding grounds (downstream) 

and spawning grounds (upstream); in 

several major tributaries of the Amur, 

this has stopped reproduction (Zhuang 

et al. 2016, p. 66; Wu et al. 2015, pp. 

839–842; Gessner et al. 2010, not 

paginated). Dams can also increase 

sediment and pollution concentrations, 

limiting sunlight that benefits egg 

development and reducing the adhesion 

of eggs to the substrate (Li et al. 2012, 

p. 557). 

The Russian state hydrological plan 

for the Amur region does not include 

development of hydropower dams on 

the river’s main stem, and little regional 

demand exists for additional electrical 

capacity on the Russian side of the river 

(Simonov 2016, not paginated). 

However, proposals still exist for as 

many as 13 dams on the Amur River or 

the Shilka River, its source (Simonov et 

al. 2019, figure 2). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 47463 

Some Russian water-management 

agencies are now promoting flood 

control for property protection in the 

Amur floodplain, and Chinese 

institutions remain interested in future 

hydropower development as the much 

larger human population on their side of 

the river demands electricity (Simonov 

2016, not paginated). Construction of 

any dam on the Lower or lower Middle 

Amur main stem would be catastrophic 

for Amur sturgeon by hindering or 

preventing connectivity (Simonov and 

Dahmer 2008, pp. 193–196). The 

Khingansky-Taipinggou Dam, proposed 

for the Middle Amur, would have severe 

hydrological impacts on the river, 

creating a complete barrier to migrating 

fish (Simonov and Egidarev 2018, pp. 9– 

10). Until recently, prevailing economic 

and social conditions made it unlikely 

that Chinese and Russian counterparts 

would agree to advance such a project 

in the next several years (Simonov and 

Egidarev 2018, p. 10); however, recently 

thawing China-Russia relations (Chen 

2019, pp. 62–64) could now lead to 

further discussion and construction of a 

main stem dam. 

While the Amur itself remains freeflowing, approximately 100 dams dot its 

tributaries (Simonov et al. 2019, p. 4). 

Many of these are small and the impacts 

of smaller dams on Amur sturgeon are 

uncertain, but they more likely than not 

prevent connectivity along stretches of 

several tributaries and have likely 

contributed to the species’ decline. 

Several tributaries also have larger 

dams; in all such cases, Amur sturgeon 

have been extirpated from these rivers 

due in large part to the inability of 

Amur sturgeon to pass over or around 

the dams. The Songhua River, a major 

tributary in the lower section of the 

Middle Amur, is interrupted by the 

Baishan, Hongshi, and Xiao Fengman 

dams (GRanD 2019, not paginated; 

Lehner et al. 2011, pp. 494–502), which 

are approximately 150, 50, and 150 m 

tall, respectively. The Nierji Dam on the 

Nen River was built in 2006, after the 

Amur sturgeon was extirpated from this 

tributary (Lehner et al. 2011; GRanD 

2019, not paginated), but because it 

blocks the route taken by Nen River 

spawners, its presence would make any 

restoration efforts there difficult. 

Farther upstream, the Zeya and 

Bureya Rivers are interrupted by dams 

built in 1975 and 2003, respectively 

(GRanD 2019, not paginated; Simonov et 

al. 2019, p. 4; Lehner et al. 2011, pp. 

494–502). These two large hydroelectric 

dams are 115 and 140 m high (Lehner 

et al. 2011, pp. 494–502), and have the 

greatest ecological impacts of any of the 

dams in the Amur basin (Simonov and 

Dahmer 2008, p. 191). They block Amur 

sturgeon migrations and destroyed 

downstream wetlands (Simonov and 

Egivdarev 2008, p. 192), contributing 

substantially to the extirpation of the 

species from these rivers (Koshelev et al. 

2014a, pp. 1313, 1316; Krykhtin and 

Svirskii 1997, p. 237). Another dam 

downstream of the existing Bureya 

impoundment began operating in 2017 

(Simonov et al. 2019, p. 4) and its 

presence and effect on the river further 

limits the potential to restore sturgeon 

to the Bureya River by making yet a 

longer stretch of river inaccessible to 

Amur sturgeon. 

Sturgeon are slower swimmers with 

large bodies; therefore, both fish 

elevators and fish ladders have been 

relatively ineffective at allowing 

sturgeon to transit around dams (Billard 

and Lecointre 2001, p. 380). For the 

Amur sturgeon, fish passageways made 

to allow travel through or around dams 

must include resting pools between fast 

velocity runs and must be wider than 

the maximum tail-beat width during 

swimming (Cai et al. 2013, p. 153). 

However, we have no information 

indicating that such structures are built 

into dams in the Amur basin, and the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available shows that the 

Amur sturgeon is unable to traverse the 

larger existing dams constructed in the 

Amur basin, limiting its range to 

stretches of river below existing large 

dams and contributing to its decline. 

Remaining available spawning grounds 

are substantially reduced compared to 

their historical extent. 

Pollution 

Pollution of the Amur basin has likely 

contributed to the decline of the Amur 

sturgeon, given the volume and extent 

of pollution in the Amur basin, the 

susceptibility of the species to 

pollutants, and reports of large-scale 

fish kills in polluted river reaches 

(Simonov and Dahmer 2008, pp. 47, 

212–236; Zhang 1985 cited in Zhuang et 

al. 2003, p. 38). Extensive human 

settlements, agriculture, and industry— 

especially but not exclusively in 

China—all pollute the Amur River and 

its tributaries with petrochemicals, 

heavy metals, and persistent organic 

pollutants such as polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) (Jiang et al. 2016, 

p. 537; Meng et al. 2016, pp. 1–5). Many 

Amur River fish, including the single 

Amur sturgeon sampled, contained 

copper, chromium, arsenic, and 

mercury (Jiang et al. 2016, p. 540, table 

2). 

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, 

pollution in the Lower Amur was 

considered at an emergency level, and 

mass fish kills were not uncommon 

(Erickson 2007, p. 30; Jen 2003, p. 3). 

Sewage, domestic animal feces, 

pesticides, petrochemicals, heavy 

metals, and industrial pollutants 

including PCBs (Jiang et al. 2016, p. 537; 

Meng et al. 2016, pp. 1–5; Kondratyeva 

et al. 2012, p. 186), as well as 

eutrophication (the process by which 

waters lose oxygen following extreme 

plant growth triggered by excessive 

nutrient inputs) due to fertilizer runoff, 

all damaged the river basin’s ecosystems 

(Erickson 2007, p. 30; Jen 2003, pp. 2– 

3). 

In the Middle Amur analysis unit, the 

Zeya and Bureya catchments were 

substantially polluted with mercury, 

cadmium, and lead as of 2005 

(Kondrat’eva et al. 2013, p. 131). In 

addition, these two river basins are 

home to more than 30 reservoirs storing 

heavily polluted wastewater and mining 

residues. The potential for future failure 

of the smaller dams that contain these 

reservoirs and the consequent release of 

toxic pollutants into the river system 

poses a high risk to remaining habitats 

suitable for Amur sturgeon (Simonov 

and Dahmer 2008, p. 191). 

In 2001, 100 million mt (110 million 

t) of wastewater containing 2,500 mt 

(2,800 t) of organic chemicals, 80 mt (88 

t) of oil products, more than 1,000 mt 

(1,100 t) of nitrogenous waste, and 2.5 

mt (2.8 t) of phenols were discharged 

into the Amur from Blagoveschensk, 

Russia at the boundary of the Middle 

and Upper Amur (Simonov and Dahmer 

2008, p. 2016). In the Upper Amur, 

including the Shilka, Amgun, and 

Argun Rivers, illegal gold mining causes 

sedimentation and turbidity, hampering 

sturgeon reproductive success (Pacific 

Environment 2016, not paginated; 

Egidarev and Simonov 2015, pp. 900, 

906–907). 

Historically, the Songhua River in the 

Middle Amur has been the most 

contaminated tributary (Kondratyeva et 

al. 2012, p. 185); the Amur sturgeon is 

extirpated from this river, very likely in 

part due to pollution (Cai et al. 2013, 

p. 150; Simonov and Dahmer 2008, p. 

129; Novomodny et al. 2004, p. 18). Two 

industrial accidents at Jilin City, China, 

contaminated the Songhua (and 

eventually the Amur River, 1,000 km 

(600 miles) downstream) in 2005 and 

2010. They released a combined 600 mt 

(660 t) of methyl chloride, trimethyl 

chloride, nitrobenzene, benzene, 

aniline, chloroform, chlorobenzene, and 

other chemicals into the Songhua 

(Kondratyeva et al. 2012, p. 186; The 

Guardian, November 25, 2005). 

Concentrations of these chemicals were 

as high as 600 times the governmentaccepted levels (Kondratyeva et al. 

2012, p. 186) and were later detected in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
47464 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

fish tissues, including those of Amur 

sturgeon (Kondratyeva et al. 2012, pp. 

187–189; Levshina et al. 2009, table 1, 

p. 779). Also in the Songhua, heavy 

metals leach into the river from nearby 

mines (Jen 2003, p. 4), and fish tissues 

have PCB concentrations up to 10,000 

times those in the sediment (Li et al. 

1989 cited in Meng et al. 2016, p. 5). 

Some Amur River fish are even said to 

smell of chemicals (Simonov and 

Dahmer 2008, p. 225). 

The impacts of pollution on wild 

Amur sturgeon have not been wellstudied, but their life history and some 

laboratory studies indicate they are 

likely quite susceptible. Because the 

Amur sturgeon is a river bottom species, 

it is exposed to pollutants that 

accumulate in sediments and in its 

bottom-dwelling prey (Kasymov 1994 

cited in He et al. 2017, p. 10; 

Kondrat’eva et al. 2013, p. 129; Kocan 

et al. 1996, p. 161). Larvae and small 

juveniles may be especially sensitive to 

petrochemicals polluting the Amur 

(Kondratyeva and Stukova 2009, p. 46; 

Bickham et al. 1998, pp. 514–515; 

Kocan et al. 1996, p. 163), although 

extrapolating results from laboratory 

trials to impacts on wild fish is not 

straightforward (Tabak et al. 2002, table 

3; Bickham 1998, pp. 514–515). 

Comprehensive toxin concentration 

data from around the basin and 

knowledge of the concentration 

thresholds at which Amur sturgeon are 

affected are unavailable, and field 

studies definitively linking population 

declines to pollution also do not exist, 

to our knowledge. However, sturgeon 

are, at least at their early life stages, 

sensitive to polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs), one class of 

petrochemicals polluting the Amur 

(Kondratyeva and Stukova 2009, p. 46; 

Tabak et al. 2002, table 3; Bickham et al. 

1998, pp. 514–515; Kocan et al. 1996, 

p. 163;). Methyl mercury, another 

pollutant found in the Amur basin, 

interferes with sturgeon growth and 

reproduction and can even cause direct 

mortality (Depew et al. 2012, table 2; 

Webb et al. 2006, pp. 447–450). 

The future trajectory of water quality 

in the Amur basin is uncertain, but 

possibly improving as wastewater and 

industrial waste treatment capacity have 

been developed since the early 2000s 

(Meng et al. 2016, pp. 4–5, table 1). 

Mercury concentrations in Amur River 

sediments have declined since the 

1990s, likely due to a Russian economic 

slowdown that limited industrial 

emissions (Kot et al. 2009, p. 133). In 

addition, human populations of most 

Chinese industrial cities in the region 

are shrinking, as cost-efficient raw 

materials are exhausted and industry 

declines (Duhalde et al. 2019, not 

paginated). 

Climate Change 

When and how progressing climate 

change will affect the species is 

uncertain. Air temperatures in the 

region are rising (see the SSA report for 

a detailed analysis), and all species have 

a thermal maximum; for example, the 

closely related Yangtze sturgeon 

becomes stressed above 23 degrees 

Celsius (°C) (Chang et al. 2017, p. 1449). 

On the other hand, warmer water can 

speed the maturation of Amur sturgeon 

(Krykhtin and Svirskii 1997, p. 237) and 

so may have short-term positive impacts 

on the species, but we cannot currently 

estimate their magnitude or at what 

point increasing water temperature 

stops being beneficial. We also do not 

have information on the water 

temperatures Amur sturgeon experience 

at present or reliable projections of what 

the water temperatures are likely to be 

in the future. Indirect effects of warming 

temperatures may impact the Amur 

sturgeon as climate change progresses. 

For example, between 1955 and 2014, 

the average annual duration of ice cover 

in the Amur basin decreased by 7 days 

per decade, and the maximum ice 

thickness decreased by 17 cm (6.7 

inches; Vuglinsky and Valantin 2018, 

p. 83; Ohshima et al. 2016, pp. 10–11). 

This potentially exposes Amur sturgeon 

to fishing pressure for a greater 

proportion of the year. 

Other Threats and Conservation 

Measures 

Hybridization, disease, and predation 

presently constitute lesser or negligible 

threats to the viability of the Amur 

sturgeon and are addressed in more 

detail in the SSA report (Service 2020, 

pp. 28–29). Although very little 

information is available on the genetic 

structure of wild Amur sturgeon 

populations, representation of the 

species would be diminished if its 

genome were diluted by hybridization 

with escaped captive-bred fish or other 

sturgeon species. From a fitness 

perspective, hybridization can erase 

locally adaptive features that evolved 

over evolutionary time, and from a 

conservation-management perspective, 

muddled genomes make DNA-based 

identification of traded specimens more 

difficult (Ludwig 2006, pp. 6). That said, 

we are not aware that wild Amur 

sturgeon have been documented 

hybridizing with fish escaped from 

aquaculture facilities yet (Osipov 2020, 

pers. comm.). However, the presence of 

over 1,200 sturgeon farms across the 

whole of China (Bronzi et al. 2017, pp. 

260) and confirmed escapes and releases 

of hybrid fish created in aquaculture 

suggests it is likely to occur soon, if it 

has not already (Boscari et al. 2017, pp. 

250). The best scientific and commercial 

information available shows that disease 

and predation do not presently pose a 

threat to the viability of the Amur 

sturgeon. 

The primary conservation effort 

targeting recovery of the Amur sturgeon 

is the release of captive-bred fish into 

wild habitats, but these activities are not 

sufficient to restore wild populations 

and must employ sound genetic 

management to avoid the potential 

impacts of hybridizing maladapted 

captive-bred fish with wild ones. 

Whereas some experts have suggested 

10 to 11 million fish would need to be 

released annually to successfully 

replenish the species (Krykhtin and 

Gorbach 1994 cited in Koshelev et al. 

2014a, p. 1316), no more than 10 

percent of this volume has been 

released, on average, in years since 

restocking began in 1988 (Simonov and 

Dahmer 2008, p. 130; Wei et al. 2004, 

p. 330; Zhuang et al. 2002, p. 361; 

Qiuzhi and Dajiang 1994, p. 67). As of 

the early 2000s, 99 percent of the Amur 

sturgeon produced by China’s 

aquaculture industry (approximately 15 

million fish per year) (Wei et al. 2011, 

figure 2) were sold for meat or caviar 

(Simonov and Dahmer 2008, p. 131; Wei 

et al. 2004, p. 330). 

We are not aware of any studies that 

have tracked the growth or reproductive 

success of Amur sturgeon released from 

captive-breeding operations. However, 

when releases do occur, they almost 

always use very young fish, 30 to 45 

days old and weighing in the range of 

1 to 5 grams (0.1 ounces). In other 

sturgeon species, no more than 1 in 

2,000 fish survive their first year, 

although survival rates are much higher 

thereafter (Jaric and Gessner 2013, table 

1; Jager et al. 2002, table 1). If hatcheries 

grew fish to a larger size before release, 

their survival and population recovery 

may improve (Koshelev et al. 2009 and 

Mikhailova 2004 cited in Koshelev et al. 

2014a, p. 1316, scenario 3 in chapter 5 

of the SSA, figures 5.2 and 5.3, tables 

5.3 and 5.4). 

Current Condition 

We assessed the current status of the 

Amur sturgeon in light of the species’ 

demographic and habitat requirements 

for maintaining low-risk levels of 

resilience, redundancy, and 

representation. Resilience is a 

population-level metric; therefore, we 

only scored its present levels for the 

three analysis units where Amur 

sturgeon are extant (Amur Estuary, 

Lower Amur, and Middle Amur). The 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 47465 

species is extirpated from a large 

portion of its range, including the entire 

Upper Amur unit and several major 

tributaries. 

High-resilience units are those in a 

self-sustaining condition and 

experiencing little, if any, risk of 

extirpation; they have relatively higher 

abundance of adult females, 

connectivity between feeding and 

spawning grounds, high water quality, 

and fish survive to reproduce multiple 

times. Moderate-resilience units are 

unlikely to be self-sustaining and are 

experiencing some level conservation 

threat that could eventually lead to 

extirpation. Low- and very-lowresilience units are not self-sustaining, 

due to ongoing conservation threats; 

they may become extirpated, perhaps 

rapidly in the case of very lowresilience units. Highly redundant 

species have a large number of 

populations, which safeguards against 

rare, localized catastrophic events. 

Representation is a measure of the 

species’ capacity to adapt to changing 

environments. 

The species as a whole is estimated to 

have experienced a population decline 

of greater than 95 percent between 1960 

and 2010 (Ruban and Qiwei 2010, not 

paginated). However, using a 1960 

baseline underestimates actual 

historical declines in the species’ 

abundance because intense fishing 

occurred at least as early as the 1890s 

(Koshelev et al. 2016, p. 240; Vaisman 

and Fomenko 2006, p. 11). Sizeable 

populations now exist only in the Amur 

Estuary and Lower Amur analysis units 

(Koshelev et al. 2014a, pp. 1313–1316). 

The species has a skewed sex ratio of 1 

female per 2 males, very likely due to 

preferential poaching of females for 

caviar and use in aquaculture (Koshelev 

et al. 2014b, pp. 1127, 1129), and the 

largest fish—which are also the most 

reproductively valuable—have been 

removed from the population (Koshelev 

et al. 2014a, table 5). 

Our assessment of the resilience of 

each of the three extant analysis units 

indicates that none are in self-sustaining 

condition (see table 2, below). Only the 

Amur Estuary unit has even moderate 

resilience. Details of how we 

determined overall resilience from the 

four demographic- and habitat-based 

criteria in table 2, below, can be found 

in the SSA report. 

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 availability and sturgeon health.• Receives water pollution from 

all upstream reaches, including 

the heavily polluted Songhua 

and Lower Amur.

• May impact sturgeon health 

and prey abundance.

• Heavy industrial presence and 

human population density.

• Likely impacts sturgeon health 

and prey abundance.

• Songhua River includes the 

most polluted sections of the 

Amur basin. 

• The medium-sized cities of 

Heihe and Blagoveschensk deposit sewage and industrial 

waste into this reach of the 

Amur. 

• Likely impacts sturgeon health 

and prey abundance. 

Survival to reproduce multiple 

times.

• High fishing pressure ................

• Estimated 95 percent of spawning fish captured annually.

• Size of captured fish and proportion of fish that are large females are declining.

• Limits average fecundity ...........

• High fishing pressure ................

• Estimated 95 percent of spawning fish captured annually.

• Size of captured fish and proportion of fish that are large females are declining.

• Limits average fecundity ...........

• Few reproductive fish present. 

• Fishing pressure is likely still 

very high for any fish present. 

Connectivity between spawning 

and feeding grounds.

No dams. Fish can move into the 

main stem of the river to reach 

spawning grounds.

No known barriers to connectivity Songhua, Nen, Zeya, and Bureya 

River dams prevent fish from 

reaching spawning sites. Main 

stem remains without obstructions. 

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 

considerably reduced compared to its 

historical level, which was never high, 

given that the species is endemic to a 

single large river system. One of four 

units (the Upper Amur) is extirpated, 

and the Middle Amur unit is on the 

brink of extirpation, too. The Amur 

sturgeon has been extirpated from 

several major tributaries (e.g., the Zeya 

and Bureya) within the Middle and 

Lower Amur units. Despite the species’ 

low redundancy, we assess that its 

geographically dispersed nature, across 

a several-hundred km stretch of the 

Lower Amur and Estuary, means that 

complete extinction of the population 

due to a single catastrophic event is 

unlikely, at present. 

We have very little information about 

the contemporary population genetic 

structure of wild Amur sturgeon, 

making it difficult to fully assess the 

species’ representation. However, we 

can assess that the variety of ecological 

settings inhabited by Amur sturgeon is 

at least somewhat reduced in the last 

century as the geographic range of the 

species has contracted to primarily the 

Lower Amur and Amur Estuary, now 

excluding the Upper Amur, as well as 

the Zeya, Bureya, and Songhua Rivers, 

all tributaries of the Amur. In turn, we 

expect that adaptive potential of the 

species is also lower than before, 

although we cannot quantify this at 

present. 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have not only 

analyzed individual effects on the 

species, but we have also analyzed their 

potential cumulative effects. We 

incorporate the cumulative effects into 

our SSA analysis when we characterize 

the current and future condition of the 

species. To assess the current and future 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
47466 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

condition of the species, we undertake 

an iterative analysis that encompasses 

and incorporates the threats 

individually and then accumulates and 

evaluates the effects of all the factors 

that may be influencing the species, 

including threats and conservation 

efforts. Because the SSA framework 

considers not just the presence of the 

factors, but to what degree they 

collectively influence risk to the entire 

species, our assessment integrates the 

cumulative effects of the factors and 

replaces a standalone cumulative effects 

analysis. 

Determination of Amur Sturgeon’s 

Status 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species.’’ The 

Act defines an ‘‘endangered species’’ as 

a species in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

a species likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. The Act 

requires that we determine whether a 

species meets the definition of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the Act’s section 

4(a)(1) factors, we find that existing 

threats to the Amur sturgeon—primarily 

overfishing, loss of connectivity due to 

dams, and pollution—have caused and 

will continue to cause a decline in the 

species’ viability through reduction of 

resilience, redundancy, and 

representation. For the four historical 

analysis units, one is extirpated, and the 

remaining three are not self-sustaining. 

The species is already extirpated from 

much of its historical range, including 

most upstream portions of the Amur 

basin and several major tributaries 

where dams block access to spawning 

grounds and migration routes (Factor 

A). The Middle Amur unit is on the 

brink of being the second unit 

extirpated. Thus, a relatively small 

portion of the historical range now 

accounts for most of the remaining 

Amur sturgeon, increasing the species’ 

susceptibility to stochastic and 

catastrophic events. 

Fish throughout the range experience 

very intensive fishing pressure, 

estimated at 95 percent of spawning fish 

annually (Factor B). This includes fish 

in the present relative stronghold of the 

species, the Amur Estuary analysis unit, 

because they migrate into the river to 

breed, where they are heavily fished. 

Existing conservation measures are 

Russian and Chinese fishery regulations, 

the national laws and regulations 

(Russia, China, U.S., and other CITES 

Parties) for implementing CITES 

requirements for international trade in 

the Amur sturgeon, and limited 

restocking of wild populations using 

captive-bred Amur sturgeon. These 

measures are currently inadequate to 

stop population declines (Factor D). 

Organized networks for corrupt and 

illegal trade of Amur sturgeon caviar 

and meat, and sometimes involving 

government officials, create challenges 

for law enforcement (Vaisman and 

Fomenko 2006, pp. 14–18). Moreover, it 

is difficult for even scrupulous lawenforcement agencies to discern 

between captive-bred and wild-sourced 

caviar at the point of sale or import. 

This makes control of illegal harvest and 

trade challenging (Factors B and D). 

CITES requirements (e.g., labeling and 

quota systems) are not applicable to 

domestic trade, further hampering lawenforcement efforts to control the sale of 

wild-caught Amur sturgeon in Russia, 

where the majority of Amur sturgeon 

products are consumed (Vaisman and 

Fomenko 2006, pp. iv–vii; Factors B and 

D). Pollution is also a widespread threat 

to the Amur sturgeon’s habitat and 

health (Factor A) and is not well 

regulated (Factor D). 

The species is endemic to a single 

large river basin and is extirpated from 

much of its historical range already (lost 

redundancy). At present, no population 

has the resilience to be self-sustaining. 

Among the remaining three extant 

populations, one has moderate 

resiliency (Amur Estuary), one has low 

resiliency (Lower Amur), and one has 

very low resiliency (Middle Amur). 

Overfishing and dams have reduced the 

viability of the Amur sturgeon across its 

distribution. The vast decrease in 

population abundance is very likely 

associated with a decrease in genetic 

diversity (representation) and adaptive 

potential. Restocking efforts are not 

currently sufficient to stop declines in 

resilience and overall abundance. Thus, 

after assessing the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

conclude that the Amur sturgeon 

currently lacks sufficient resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation for its 

continued existence to be secure. We 

therefore determine that the Amur 

sturgeon is in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range. The species 

does not fit the statutory definition of a 

threatened species because it is 

currently in danger of extinction, 

whereas threatened species are those in 

danger of extinction in the foreseeable 

future. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. We have 

determined that the Amur sturgeon is in 

danger of extinction throughout all of its 

range and accordingly did not undertake 

an analysis of any significant portion of 

its range. Because the Amur sturgeon 

warrants listing as endangered 

throughout all of its range, our 

determination is consistent with the 

decision in Center for Biological 

Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289 

(D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), in which the 

court vacated the aspect of our Final 

Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase 

‘‘Significant Portion of Its Range’’ in the 

Endangered Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) 

that provided that the Service and 

NMFS do not undertake an analysis of 

significant portions of a species’ range if 

the species warrants listing as 

threatened throughout all of its range. 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

indicates that the Amur sturgeon meets 

the definition of an endangered species. 

Therefore, we propose to list the Amur 

sturgeon as an endangered species in 

accordance with sections 3(6) and 

4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act 

include recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness, and encourages and 

results in conservation actions by 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

agencies, foreign governments, private 

organizations, and individuals. The Act 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 47467 

encourages cooperation with the States 

and other countries and calls for 

recovery actions to be carried out for 

listed species. The protection required 

by Federal agencies and the prohibitions 

against certain activities are discussed, 

in part, below. Section 7(a) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to evaluate 

their actions with respect to any species 

that is proposed or listed as an 

endangered or threatened species and 

with respect to its critical habitat, if any 

is designated. Regulations implementing 

this interagency cooperation provision 

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 

402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with the 

Service on any action that is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. If a species is 

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act requires Federal agencies to 

ensure that activities they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species or destroy or adversely 

modify its critical habitat. If a Federal 

action may affect a listed species or its 

critical habitat, the responsible Federal 

agency must enter into consultation 

with the Service. 

An ‘‘action’’ that is subject to the 

consultation provisions of section 

7(a)(2) is defined in our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 402.02 as ‘‘all 

activities or programs of any kind 

authorized, funded, or carried out, in 

whole or in part, by Federal agencies in 

the United States or upon the high 

seas.’’ With respect to this species, there 

are no ‘‘actions’’ known to require 

consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act. 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 Amur 

sturgeon is unlikely to be the subject of 

section 7 consultations, because the 

entire life cycle of the species occurs in 

freshwater and nearshore marine areas 

outside of the United States unlikely to 

be affected by U.S. Federal actions. 

Additionally, no critical habitat will be 

designated for this species because, 

under 50 CFR 424.12(g), we will not 

designate critical habitat within foreign 

countries or in other areas outside of the 

jurisdiction of the United States. 

Section 8(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1537(a)) authorizes the provision of 

limited financial assistance for the 

development and management of 

programs that the Secretary of the 

Interior determines to be necessary or 

useful for the conservation of 

endangered or threatened species in 

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

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1537(b) and (c)) 

authorize the Secretary to encourage 

conservation programs for foreign listed 

species, and to provide assistance for 

such programs, in the form of personnel 

and the training of personnel. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to all endangered wildlife. The 

prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, 

codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal 

for any person subject to the jurisdiction 

of the United States to import; export; 

deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship 

in interstate or foreign commerce, by 

any means whatsoever and in the course 

of commercial activity; or sell or offer 

for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce any species listed as an 

endangered species. In addition, it is 

unlawful to take (which includes harass, 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt 

any of these) endangered wildlife within 

the United States or on the high seas. It 

is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, 

carry, transport, or ship, by any means 

whatsoever any such wildlife that has 

been taken illegally. Certain exceptions 

apply to employees of the Service, 

NMFS, other Federal land management 

agencies, and State conservation 

agencies. We may issue permits to carry 

out otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits for endangered 

wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22, 

and general Service permitting 

regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 

13. 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. The Service may also register 

persons subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States through its captive-bredwildlife (CBW) program if certain 

established requirements are met under 

the CBW regulations (50 CFR 17.21(g)). 

Through a CBW registration, the Service 

may allow a registrant to conduct 

certain otherwise prohibited activities 

as part of conservation breeding 

activities that enhance the propagation 

or survival of the affected species: Take; 

export or re-import; deliver, receive, 

carry, transport or ship in interstate or 

foreign commerce, in the course of a 

commercial activity; or sell or offer for 

sale in interstate or foreign commerce. A 

CBW registration may authorize 

interstate purchase and sale only 

between entities that both hold a 

registration for the taxon concerned. 

The CBW program is available for 

species having a natural geographic 

distribution not including any part of 

the United States and other species that 

the Director has determined to be 

eligible by regulation. The individual 

specimens must have been born in 

captivity in the United States. There are 

also certain statutory exemptions from 

the prohibitions, found in sections 9 

and 10 of the Act. For example, a 

limited exemption from the prohibitions 

on import and export is available under 

section 9(b)(1) for a specimen of fish or 

wildlife which was held in captivity or 

in a controlled environment on the date 

the species is listed under the Act, 

provided that such holding and any 

subsequent holding or use of the fish or 

wildlife was not in the course of a 

commercial activity. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a proposed listing on 

proposed and ongoing activities within 

the range of the species proposed for 

listing. Based on the best available 

information, the following actions are 

unlikely to result in a violation of 

section 9, if these activities are carried 

out in accordance with existing 

regulations and permit requirements; 

this list is not comprehensive: 

(1) Take of the Amur sturgeon in its 

native range in China and Russia; and 

(2) Trade in the Amur sturgeon and its 

products that is both outside the United 

States and conducted by persons not 

subject to U.S. jurisdiction (although 

this activity would still be subject to 

CITES requirements). 

Based on the best available 

information, the following activities 

may potentially result in a violation of 

section 9 of the Act if they are not 

authorized in accordance with 

applicable law; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Import into the United States of 

the Amur sturgeon and its products, 

including fish originating from the wild 

or captive-bred, without obtaining 

permits required under Section 10 of the 

Act and without following applicable 

CITES requirements at 50 CFR part 23. 

(2) Export of the Amur sturgeon and 

its products, whether originating from 

the wild or captive-bred, from the 

United States without obtaining permits 

required under Section 10 of the Act 

and without following applicable CITES 

requirements at 50 CFR part 23. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
47468 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Separate from its proposed listing as 

an endangered species, as a CITES-listed 

species, all international trade of Amur 

sturgeon by persons subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States must 

also comply with CITES requirements 

pursuant to Section 9(c), (g) of the Act 

and 50 CFR part 23. Applicable wildlife 

import/export requirements established 

under Section 9(d)–(f) of the Act, the 

Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 

U.S.C. 3371, et seq.), and 50 CFR part 

14 must also be met for Amur sturgeon 

imports and exports. Questions 

regarding whether specific activities 

would constitute a violation of section 

9 of the Act should be directed to Mary 

Cogliano, Chief of the Branch of Permits 

(mary_cogliano@fws.gov). 

Required Determinations 

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 

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 

Delisting and Foreign Species (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are staff members of the Service’s 

Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an 

entry for ‘‘Sturgeon, Amur’’ to the List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

in alphabetical order under FISHES to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS