Je veux savoir à propos de…

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.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

Determination of Amur Sturgeons 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 Acts section 4a1 factors, we find that existing threats to the Amur sturgeonprimarily overfishing, loss of connectivity due to dams, and pollutionhave 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:13 Aug 24, 2021

Jkt 253001

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. 1418. 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. ivvii; Factors B and D. Pollution is also a widespread threat to the Amur sturgeons 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
PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

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 Acts 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 36 and 4a1 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
E:FRFM25AUP1.SGM

25AUP1