Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Amur Sturgeon
| Published date | 25 August 2021 |
| Citation | 86 FR 47457 |
| Record Number | 2021-17881 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Fish And Wildlife Service |
Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 162 (Wednesday, August 25, 2021)
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 25, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47457-47468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17881]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 47458]]
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.
[[Page 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:
[[Page 47460]]
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.
[[Page 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
[[Page 47462]]
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 mid-2000s, 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 sturgeon-containing 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 mid-2000s (Vaisman and Fomenko 2006, p. 23) and where
illegal sturgeon-containing 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 black-market trade and the laundering of wild-caught 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).
[[Page 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 free-flowing, 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 government-accepted levels (Kondratyeva et al. 2012, p. 186) and
were later detected in
[[Page 47464]]
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 well-
studied, 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 ([deg]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
[[Page 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-low-resilience
units are not self-sustaining, due to ongoing conservation threats;
they may become extirpated, perhaps rapidly in the case of very low-
resilience 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 Receives water Heavy Songhua River
availability and sturgeon health. pollution from all industrial presence includes the most
upstream reaches, and human population polluted sections of
including the heavily density. the Amur basin.
polluted Songhua and Likely impacts The medium-
Lower Amur. sturgeon health and sized cities of Heihe
May impact prey abundance. and Blagoveschensk
sturgeon health and deposit sewage and
prey abundance. industrial waste into
this reach of the
Amur.
Likely impacts
sturgeon health and
prey abundance.
Survival to reproduce multiple times. High fishing High fishing Few
pressure. pressure. reproductive fish
Estimated 95 Estimated 95 present.
percent of spawning percent of spawning Fishing
fish captured annually. fish captured annually. pressure is likely
Size of Size of still very high for
captured fish and captured fish and any fish present.
proportion of fish proportion of fish
that are large females that are large females
are declining. are declining.
Limits average Limits average
fecundity. fecundity.
Connectivity between spawning and No dams. Fish can move No known barriers to Songhua, Nen, Zeya, and
feeding grounds. into the main stem of connectivity. Bureya River dams
the river to reach prevent fish from
spawning grounds. 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
[[Page 47466]]
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 law-enforcement 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 law-
enforcement 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
[[Page 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-bred-wildlife
(CBW) program if certain established requirements are met under the CBW
regulations (50 CFR 17.21(g)). Through a CBW registration, the Service
may allow a registrant to conduct certain otherwise prohibited
activities 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.
[[Page 47468]]
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
([email protected]).
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
0
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.
0
2. Amend Sec. 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:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fishes
* * * * * * *
Sturgeon, Amur................... Acipenser Wherever found..... E [Federal Register
schrenckii. 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
