Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Five Species of Sturgeon as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act, 51767-51771 [2012-21061]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2012 / Notices
The literature in the petition and
information available in our files
suggests that water pollution in south
Florida is significantly impacting queen
conch physiology and is affecting the
population’s growth and impeding the
recovery of the historically overfished
populations. The information provided
by the petitioner and in our files is
limited to the south Florida
populations. We do not have
information regarding the occurrence of
this threat in other areas of the species
range. However, it is possible that
Caribbean populations may be
experiencing similar physiological
effects resulting from water pollution.
Based on the information available to us
at this time, we believe water pollution
may pose a significant risk to the
species if it is occurring elsewhere.
In addition to the information on
overutilization and water pollution, the
petitioner also provided information on
the present and threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of seagrass
nursery habitat, the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms, and
other natural and manmade factors
affecting the species existence. Because
we have determined that the
information provided on overutilization
and other natural or manmade factors
presents substantial information
indicating the petitioned action may be
warranted, we are not conducting a
detailed analysis of this other
information here.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Petition Finding
We have determined after reviewing
the information contained in the
petition, as well as information readily
available in our files, that there is
substantial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted,
based on the threats of overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific
or education purposes and other natural
or manmade factors. Because we have
found that substantial information was
presented on the above factors, we will
commence a status review of the
species. During our status review, we
will fully address all five of the factors
set out in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. At
the conclusion of the status review, we
will determine whether the petitioned
action is warranted.
Information Solicited
As required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of
the ESA and NMFS’ implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we
are to commence a review of the status
of the species and make a determination
within 12 months of receiving the
petition as to whether the petitioned
action is warranted. We intend that any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 Aug 24, 2012
Jkt 226001
final action resulting from this review
be as accurate and as effective as
possible. Therefore, we open a 60-day
public comment period to solicit
information from the public,
government agencies, the scientific
community, industry, and any other
interested parties on the status of the
queen conch throughout its range
including: (1) Historical and current
distribution and abundance of this
species throughout its range; (2)
historical and current population
trends; (3) biological information (life
history, genetics, population
connectivity, etc.); (4) landings and
trade data; (5) management, regulatory,
and enforcement information; (6) any
current or planned activities that may
adversely impact the species; and (7)
ongoing or planned efforts to protect
and restore the species and their
habitats. We request that all information
be accompanied by: (1) Supporting
documentation such as maps,
bibliographic references, or reprints of
pertinent publications; and (2) the
submitter’s name, address, and any
association, institution, or business that
the person represents. Section 4(b)(1)(A)
of the ESA and NMFS’ implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.11(b)) require
that a listing determination be based
solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data, without
consideration of possible economic or
other impacts of the determination.
During the 60-day public comment
period we are seeking information
related only to the status of the queen
conch throughout its range.
Peer Review
On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
published a series of policies regarding
listings under the ESA, including a
policy for peer review of scientific data
(59 FR 34270). The intent of the peer
review policy is to ensure listings are
based on the best scientific and
commercial data available. The Office of
Management and Budget issued its Final
Information Quality Bulletin for Peer
Review on December 16, 2004. The
Bulletin went into effect June 16, 2005,
and generally requires that all
‘‘influential scientific information’’ and
‘‘highly influential scientific
information’’ disseminated on or after
that date be peer reviewed. Because the
information used to evaluate this
petition may be considered ‘‘influential
scientific information,’’ we solicit the
names of recognized experts in the field
that could take part in the peer review
process for this status review (see
ADDRESSES). Independent peer
reviewers will be selected from the
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51767
academic and scientific community,
tribal and other Native American
groups, Federal and state agencies, the
private sector, and public interest
groups.
References Cited
A complete list of references is
available upon request from the
Southeast Regional Office, Protected
Resource Division (see ADDRESSES).
Authority: The authority for this action is
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: August 21, 2012.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
Performing the Functions and Duties of the
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–21090 Filed 8–24–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[Docket No. 120705210–2210–01]
RIN 0648–XC101
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List
Five Species of Sturgeon as
Threatened or Endangered Under the
Endangered Species Act
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Ninety-day petition finding,
request for information, and initiation of
status review.
AGENCY:
We, NMFS, announce a 90day finding on a petition to list five
species of sturgeon (Acipenser sturio, A.
naccarii, A. mikadoi, A. sinensis, and
Huso dauricus), or any distinct
population segments of these species
that the Secretary of Commerce
determines may exist, as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). We find that the
petition and information in our files
present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
these petitioned actions may be
warranted. We will conduct a status
review of these species to determine if
the petitioned actions are warranted. To
ensure that the status review is
comprehensive, we are soliciting
scientific and commercial information
regarding these species (see below).
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM
27AUN1
51768
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2012 / Notices
Information and comments on
the subject action must be received by
October 26, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by the code NOAA–NMFS–
2012–0142, addressed to: Dwayne
Meadows, by any of the following
methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic comments via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal https://
www.regulations.gov.
• Facsimile (fax): 301–713–4060.
• Mail: NMFS, 1315 East-West
Highway, Room 13632, Silver Spring,
MD 20910.
• Hand delivery: You may hand
deliver written comments to our office
during normal business hours at the
street address given above.
Instructions: All comments received
are a part of the public record and may
be posted to https://www.regulations.gov
without change. All personally
identifiable information (for example,
name, address, etc.) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be
publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information. We will accept anonymous
comments. Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats
only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources, (301) 427–8403.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
On March 12, 2012, we received a
petition from the WildEarth Guardians
and Friends of Animals to list 15
species of sturgeon (Acipenser
naccarii—Adriatic sturgeon; A. sturio—
Baltic sturgeon/common sturgeon; A.
gueldenstaedtii—Russian sturgeon; A.
nudiventris—ship sturgeon/bastard
sturgeon/fringebarbel sturgeon/spiny
sturgeon/thorn sturgeon; A. persicus—
Persian sturgeon; A. stellatus—stellate
sturgeon/star sturgeon; A. baerii—
Siberian sturgeon; A. dabryanus—
Yangtze sturgeon/Dabry’s sturgeon/river
sturgeon; A. sinensis—Chinese sturgeon;
A. mikadoi—Sakhalin sturgeon; A.
schrenckii—Amur sturgeon; Huso
dauricus—Kaluga sturgeon;
Pseudoscaphirhynchus fedtschenkoi—
Syr-darya shovelnose sturgeon/Syr
darya sturgeon; P. hermanni—dwarf
sturgeon/Little Amu-darya shovelnose/
little shovelnose sturgeon/Small Amudar shovelnose sturgeon; P.
kaufmanni—false shovelnose sturgeon/
Amu darya shovelnose sturgeon/Amu
darya sturgeon/big Amu darya
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 Aug 24, 2012
Jkt 226001
shovelnose/large Amu-dar shovelnose
sturgeon/shovelfish) as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). The petition states
that all 15 petitioned sturgeon species
are affected by similar threats: both legal
and illegal exploitation for meat and/or
caviar; habitat loss and degradation;
dams or dam construction; water
pollution; and increased competition
due to habitat loss. Copies of this
petition are available from us (see
ADDRESSES, above) or at https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/petitions/
sturgeon15_petition2012.pdf.
We acknowledged receipt of this
petition in a letter dated April 14, 2012,
and informed the petitioners that we
would determine, pursuant to section 4
of the ESA, whether the petition
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
As a result of subsequent discussions
between us and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), we have
determined that 10 of the 15 petitioned
sturgeon species are not marine or
anadromous and thus not within our
jurisdiction; therefore, those 10 species
are the responsibility of the FWS.
Accordingly, this 90-day finding
considers whether the petitioned
actions may be warranted for only the
five marine or anadromous sturgeon
species included in the petition:
Acipenser naccarii (Adriatic sturgeon)
and A. sturio (Atlantic sturgeon/Baltic
sturgeon/common sturgeon) in the
Western Europe region, A. sinensis
(Chinese sturgeon) in the Yangtze River
region, and A. mikadoi (Sakhalin
sturgeon) and Huso dauricus (Kaluga
sturgeon) in the Amur River Basin/Sea
of Japan/Sea of Okhotsk region.
ESA Statutory and Regulatory
Provisions and Evaluation Framework
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973,
as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
requires, to the maximum extent
practicable, that within 90 days of
receipt of a petition to list a species as
threatened or endangered, the Secretary
of Commerce make a finding on whether
that petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted, and to promptly
publish such finding in the Federal
Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When
we find that substantial scientific or
commercial information in a petition
indicates that the petitioned action may
be warranted (a ‘‘positive 90-day
finding’’), we are required to promptly
commence a review of the status of the
species concerned, during which we
will conduct a comprehensive review of
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the best available scientific and
commercial information. In such cases,
we shall conclude the review with a
finding as to whether, in fact, the
petitioned action is warranted within 12
months of receipt of the petition.
Because the finding at the 12-month
stage is based on a more thorough
review of the available information, as
compared to the narrow scope of review
at the 90-day stage, a ‘‘may be
warranted’’ finding does not prejudge
the outcome of the status review.
Under the ESA, a listing
determination may address a ‘‘species,’’
which is defined to also include
subspecies and, for any vertebrate
species, any distinct population
segment (DPS) that interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint
NOAA–FWS policy clarifies the
agencies’ interpretation of the phrase
‘‘distinct population segment’’ for the
purposes of listing, delisting, and
reclassifying a species under the ESA
(‘‘DPS Policy’’; 61 FR 4722; February 7,
1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is
‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, and ‘‘threatened’’ if
it is likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range (ESA
sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively; 16
U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the
ESA and our implementing regulations,
we determine whether species are
threatened or endangered because of
any one or a combination of the
following five section 4(a)(1) factors:
The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat
or range; overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; disease or predation;
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; and any other natural or
manmade factors affecting the species’
existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR
424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued
jointly by NMFS and FWS (50 CFR
424.14(b)) define ‘‘substantial
information’’ in the context of reviewing
a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a
species as the amount of information
that would lead a reasonable person to
believe that the measure proposed in the
petition may be warranted. In evaluating
whether substantial information is
contained in a petition, the Secretary
must consider whether the petition: (1)
Clearly indicates the administrative
measure recommended and gives both
the scientific and any common name of
the species involved; (2) contains
detailed narrative justification for the
recommended measure, describing,
based on available information, past and
E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM
27AUN1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2012 / Notices
present numbers and distribution of the
species involved and any threats faced
by the species; (3) provides information
regarding the status of the species over
all or a significant portion of its range;
and (4) is accompanied by the
appropriate supporting documentation
in the form of bibliographic references,
reprints of pertinent publications,
copies of reports or letters from
authorities, and maps (50 CFR
424.14(b)(2)).
Court decisions clarify the
appropriate scope and limitations of the
Services’ review of petitions at the 90day finding stage, in making a
determination whether a petitioned
action ‘‘may be’’ warranted. As a general
matter, these decisions hold that a
petition need not establish a ‘‘strong
likelihood’’ or a ‘‘high probability’’ that
a species is either threatened or
endangered to support a positive 90-day
finding.
We evaluate the petitioner’s request
based upon the information in the
petition including its references, as well
as the information readily available in
our files. We do not conduct additional
research, and we do not solicit
information from parties outside the
agency to help us in evaluating the
petition. We will accept the petitioner’s
sources and characterizations of the
information presented, if they appear to
be based on accepted scientific
principles, unless we have specific
information in our files that indicates
the petition’s information is incorrect,
unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise
irrelevant to the requested action.
Information that is susceptible to more
than one interpretation or that is
contradicted by other available
information will not be dismissed at the
90-day finding stage, so long as it is
reliable and a reasonable person would
conclude it supports the petitioner’s
assertions. In other words, conclusive
information indicating the species may
meet the ESA’s requirements for listing
is not required to make a positive 90day finding. We will not conclude that
a lack of specific information alone
negates a positive 90-day finding, if a
reasonable person would conclude that
the unknown information itself suggests
an extinction risk of concern for the
species at issue.
To make a 90-day finding on a
petition to list a species, we evaluate
whether the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the subject
species may be either threatened or
endangered, as defined by the ESA.
First, we evaluate whether the
information presented in the petition,
along with the information readily
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 Aug 24, 2012
Jkt 226001
available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ‘‘species’’
eligible for listing under the ESA. Next,
we evaluate whether the information
indicates that the species at issue faces
extinction risk that is cause for concern;
this may be indicated in information
expressly discussing the species’ status
and trends, or in information describing
impacts and threats to the species. We
evaluate any information on specific
demographic factors pertinent to
evaluating extinction risk for the species
at issue (e.g., population abundance and
trends, productivity, spatial structure,
age structure, sex ratio, diversity,
current and historical range, habitat
integrity or fragmentation), and the
potential contribution of identified
demographic risks to extinction risk for
the species. We then evaluate the
potential links between these
demographic risks and the causative
impacts and threats identified in section
4(a)(1).
Information presented on impacts or
threats should be specific to the species
and should reasonably suggest that one
or more of these factors may be
operative threats that act or have acted
on the species to the point that it may
warrant protection under the ESA.
Broad statements about generalized
threats to the species, or identification
of factors that could negatively impact
a species, do not constitute substantial
information that listing may be
warranted. We look for information
indicating that not only is the particular
species exposed to a factor, but that the
species may be responding in a negative
fashion; then we assess the potential
significance of that negative response.
Many petitions identify risk
classifications made by other
organizations or agencies, such as the
International Union on the Conservation
of Nature (IUCN), the American
Fisheries Society, or NatureServe, as
evidence of extinction risk for a species.
Risk classifications by other
organizations or made under other
Federal or state statutes may be
informative, but the classification alone
may not provide the rationale for a
positive 90-day finding under the ESA.
For example, as explained by
NatureServe, their assessments of a
species’ conservation status do ‘‘not
constitute a recommendation by
NatureServe for listing under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act’’ because
NatureServe assessments ‘‘have
different criteria, evidence
requirements, purposes and taxonomic
coverage than government lists of
endangered and threatened species, and
therefore these two types of lists should
not be expected to coincide.’’ (https://
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51769
www.natureserve.org/prodServices/
statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a
petition cites such classifications, we
will evaluate the source information
that the classification is based upon in
light of the standards on extinction risk
and impacts or threats discussed above.
Sturgeon Species Descriptions
All five of the petitioned species for
which we have jurisdiction are
migratory and spawn in freshwater
habitats while spending part of their life
cycle in marine or estuarine waters (i.e.,
they are anadromous). They are benthic
oriented feeders, eating mostly
invertebrates and small fishes. All five
of the species are protected under the
Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES). Acipenser sturio has been
protected under CITES Appendix I since
1983, and the other four species were
protected under Appendix II of CITES
in 1998. The IUCN Red list lists all five
species as critically endangered from
their most recent analysis in 2010.
A. sturio and A. naccarii in the Western
Europe Region
Acipenser sturio is a large species that
can grow to 5 m in length and weigh up
to 400 kg. Lifespan may reach 100 years.
It occurred historically in the North and
Baltic seas, the English Channel, and
most European coasts of the Atlantic
Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea and the
Black Sea. The species is tolerant of a
wide range of salinities, spending most
of its life in salt water (close to the
coast) and migrating up to 1000 km to
spawn in freshwaters. There is only one
extant reproductive population that
breeds in the Garonne River in France,
where the last known natural spawning
occurred in 1994. It is now extirpated in
Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the
Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain,
Tunisia and the United Kingdom.
According to the petitioner and IUCN,
its overall population is decreasing,
with more than a 90 percent population
decline in the past 75 years based
mainly on loss of habitat, along with
pollution and exploitation. No natural
reproduction has been recorded since
1994, and the current wild, native
population consist of about 20–750
adults.
Acipenser naccarii is an anadromous
species that spawns in freshwater after
an estuarine period of growth during
which it remains near the shore (at the
mouths of the rivers) at a depth of 10 to
40 m. It does not enter pure marine
waters. Historically they were found in
the southern part of Europe, mostly in
the Adriatic Sea area. They grow to 150
to 200 cm in length. The IUCN analysis
E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM
27AUN1
51770
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2012 / Notices
estimates that this species has declined
more than 80 percent in the past three
generations, or 60 years, and it may be
extinct in the wild. The only remaining
spawning sites may be at the confluence
of the Po River and its tributaries in
Italy, an area of occupancy reduced to
less than 10 km2. According to the
IUCN, there may be fewer than 250 wild
individuals remaining.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
A. sinensis in the Yangtze River Region
Acipenser sinensis is divided into
separate populations based on the river
of occurrence: the Pearl River Chinese
sturgeon and the Yangtze River Chinese
sturgeon. This species was historically
recorded in southwestern Korea and in
western Kyushu, Japan and in the
Yellow, Yangtze, Pear, Mingjiang, and
Qingtang rivers in China, but has been
extirpated from all of these areas except
for the two rivers noted above. It reaches
over 3 m in length and weighs up to 600
kg. According to the IUCN, the Pearl
River Chinese sturgeon spawns in
spring and the Yangtze River Chinese
sturgeon spawns in the fall and is only
present below the Gezhouba Dam.
Adults can be found in some fishing
grounds of the East China Sea and
Yellow Sea (IUCN, 2010). The IUCN
assessment documented an estimated
97.5 percent decline in the spawning
population over a 37-year period.
Recent surveys between 2005 and 2007
show the total spawning population to
be 203–257 individuals (IUCN, 2010).
A. mikadoi and Huso dauricus in the
Amur River Basin/Sea of Japan/Sea of
Okhotsk Region
Acipenser mikadoi is historically
native to the northwest Pacific Ocean in
Japan and Russia, with an uncertain
presence in China, South Korea, and
North Korea. The species had been
considered conspecific with North
American green sturgeon (A.
medirostris) until chromosome and
morphometric differences were found;
we accepted the status of A. mikadoi as
a separate valid species in our 2002
status review of green sturgeon.
Maximum length is about 1.5 m and the
species reaches maturity between 8 to
10 years of age. It spawns in June
through July in the Tumnin River and
in April and May in the rivers of
Hokkaido, Japan. It is found at sea
throughout the Sea of Okhotsk, in the
Sea of Japan as far east as the eastern
shore of Hokkaido, along the Asian
coast as far south as Wonsan, North
Korea, and to the Bering Strait on the
coast of the Kamchatka Peninsula.
According to the IUCN, the species
historically ascended Russian coastal
rivers (the Suchan, Adzemi, Koppi,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 Aug 24, 2012
Jkt 226001
Tumnin, Viakhtu, and Tym rivers) and
the Ishikari and Teshio rivers of Japan.
It also inhabited the mouths of small
rivers of the Asian Far East and Korean
Peninsula, as well as the Amur River,
and rivers of the Sakhalin Island. Now,
it spawns persistently only in the
Tumnin River. The IUCN analysis
documents that the species has been
declining over the past century. Over
the past 45 years there has been an
estimated 80 percent decline in wild,
mature individuals. Current population
estimates range from 10–30 adults
entering the Tumnin River for spawning
annually.
Huso dauricus is a very large species,
reaching 5.6 m in length and 1000 kg in
weight. Maximum age is reported to be
80 years. This species historically
inhabited the entire Amur River from its
estuary to its uppermost sections and its
tributaries, including the Shilka, Onon,
Argun, Nerch, Sungari, Nonni, Ussuri,
and Neijian rivers. It is a semianadromous species that inhabits all
types of benthic habitats in the large
rivers and lakes of the Amur River
basin. It is semi-anadromous because
some populations do not migrate to the
sea as adults. According to the
petitioners, multiple populations have
been documented. Spawning peaks from
the end of May to July and young enter
the Sea of Okhotsk during the summer.
Generation length is 20 or more years
and it has spawning intervals of 4 to 5
years for females and 3 to 4 years for
males (IUCN, 2010). This species has
been in sharp decline in both stock and
recruitment since the 19th century, with
the IUCN analysis estimating a decline
of 80 percent.
Analysis of the Petition
We have determined, based on the
information provided in the petition
and readily available in our files, that
the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned actions
may be warranted for the five species
under our jurisdiction. The petition
contains a detailed narrative
justification for the recommended
measure, species taxonomic description,
geographic distribution, preferred
habitat characteristics, population status
and trends, threats contributing to the
species’ decline, and is accompanied by
appropriate supporting documentation.
We agree that each of the five petitioned
species is a valid taxonomic species. We
have no specific information in our files
that indicates the petition’s status
information is incorrect, unreliable, or
obsolete. Below is a synopsis of our
analysis of the status information
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
provided in the petition and readily
available in our files for each species.
A. sturio and A. naccarii in the
Western Europe Region
The IUCN first rated A. sturio as
‘‘critically endangered’’ in 1996 and
reconfirmed that ranking in 2010 by
documenting a greater than 90% decline
in the past 75 years. The petitioners
argue that A. sturio is highly vulnerable
to exploitation because of its life history
and the age it must reach before it can
reproduce. The species is prized for its
flesh and its caviar and was an
important commercial species until the
beginning of the 20th century. The
petitioners and IUCN also argue that
bycatch is the major current threat. The
species was added to CITES Appendix
II in 1975 and transferred to Appendix
I in 1983. According to the petitioners,
the development of river systems,
particularly for hydroelectric dams, has
also negatively impacted the population
because adults are unable to return to
their natal rivers to breed. It remains in
just one location, where 27 spawning
grounds (of less than 10 km2 total area)
remain potentially accessible. The
extraction of gravel in the Garonne River
is a potential threat to the spawning
habitat there. Dam construction,
pollution and river regulation may have
also led to loss and degradation of
spawning sites. The petition also cites
the 16th Meeting of the CITES Animals
Committee in December 2000, quoting a
press release (Cemagref, in litt., 26
January 2000) that reported an escape of
several thousand juvenile and several
hundred gravid females of A. baerii into
the Gironde River (Bordeaux region)
during two storms. While the survival of
these escaped fish and their effect on
the wild population of A. sturio are not
known, the introduction of new
pathological germs, food competition,
and hybridization with A. sturio needs
to be considered. The IUCN assessment
estimates the current adult population
may be as low as 20 to 750 individuals.
The IUCN first assessed A. naccarii as
‘‘vulnerable’’ in 1996 and elevated its
ranking to ‘‘critically endangered’’ in
2009, reporting that exploitation for
food, either legal or illegal, is a major
threat to the continued survival of the
species, especially exploitation of prereproductive fish. The species is fished
for its meat and the roe is not currently
consumed as caviar. Dams, particularly
hydropower dams on the Po River,
water pollution, and competition for
habitat with an introduced catfish
(Silurus glanis) also contribute to this
species’ decline. According to the IUCN,
‘‘without continuous re-stocking the
survival of this species is doubtful as
E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM
27AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2012 / Notices
continued successful reproduction in
the wild can no longer be confirmed’’.
Also, A. baerii was introduced in
captive breeding facilities and
hybridized with A. naccarii in Italy in
the 1990s. Subsequently, A. baerii has
also been found in the wild occasionally
in Italy, with fish sporadically escaping
from rearing plants or angling ponds, or
being released when they become too
large for private aquaria. These events
may also have contributed to A.
naccarii’s decline.
A. sinensis in the Yangtze River Region
The IUCN first assessed A. sinensis as
‘‘endangered’’ in 1996 and elevated its
ranking to ‘‘critically endangered’’ in
2010, owing to declines in the species
from overharvest, habitat destruction,
and potentially from water pollution.
Construction of the Gezhouba dam in
1981 blocked the migration routes of
this species to all but one of its
spawning grounds in the Yangtze River.
The species has been extirpated in most
of the rest of its range.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
A. mikadoi and Huso dauricus in the
Amur River Basin/Sea of Japan/Sea of
Okhotsk Region
The IUCN first assessed A. mikadoi as
‘‘endangered’’ in 1996 and elevated its
ranking to ‘‘critically endangered’’ in
2010, owing to overharvest, poaching,
habitat degradation and pollution. Only
one spawning site remains.
The IUCN first assessed H. dauricus
as ‘‘rare’’ in 1986, elevated its ranking
to ‘‘endangered’’ in 1996, and elevated
it again to ‘‘critically endangered’’ in
2010, owing to overharvest, poaching,
and recent pollution. The species is
poached for caviar roe. One study
documented parasite effects on
fecundity (CITES, 2000). According to
the IUCN assessment, at the end of the
19th century annual commercial catch
was 500 tonnes. The species was added
to CITES Appendix II in 1998.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the information
contained in the petition, as well as
information readily available in our
files, we conclude the petition presents
substantial scientific information
indicating the petitioned actions of
listing five species of sturgeon, or DPSs
of these species, under our jurisdiction
as threatened or endangered may be
warranted. Therefore, in accordance
with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and
NMFS’ implementing regulations (50
CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we will commence a
review of the status of these species and
make determinations within 12 months
of receiving the petition as to whether
the petitioned actions are warranted.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 Aug 24, 2012
Jkt 226001
Information Solicited
To ensure that the status review is
based on the best available scientific
and commercial data, we are soliciting
information on whether these five
sturgeon species are endangered or
threatened. Specifically, we are
soliciting information in the following
areas throughout the range of these
species: (1) Historical and current
distribution and abundance; (2)
historical and current population
trends; (3) biological information (life
history, genetics, population
connectivity, DPS structure, etc.); (4)
landings and trade data; (5)
management, regulatory, and
enforcement information; (6) any
current or planned activities that may
adversely impact the species; and (7)
ongoing or planned efforts to protect
and restore the species and their
habitats. We request that all information
be accompanied by: (1) Supporting
documentation such as maps,
bibliographic references, or reprints of
pertinent publications; and (2) the
submitter’s name, address, and any
association, institution, or business that
the person represents.
References Cited
A complete list of references is
available upon request from NMFS
Protected Resources Headquarters Office
(see ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: August 21, 2012.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
performing the functions and duties of the
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–21061 Filed 8–24–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XC194
Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and
South Atlantic; Southeast Data,
Assessment, and Review (SEDAR);
Assessment Process Webinar for Gulf
of Mexico and South Atlantic Spanish
Mackerel and Cobia
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51771
Notice of SEDAR 28 Gulf of
Mexico and South Atlantic Spanish
mackerel and cobia assessment webinar.
ACTION:
The SEDAR 28 assessment of
the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic
Spanish mackerel and cobia fisheries
will consist of a series of workshops and
supplemental webinars. This notice is
for a webinar associated with the
Assessment portion of the SEDAR
process.
DATES: The SEDAR 28 Assessment
Workshop Webinar #8 will be held on
September 12, 2012, 1 p.m. until 5 p.m.
EDT. The established time may be
adjusted as necessary to accommodate
the timely completion of discussion
relevant to the assessment process. Such
adjustments may result in the meeting
being extended from, or completed prior
to, the times established by this notice.
ADDRESSES: The webinar will be held
via a GoToMeeting Webinar Conference.
The webinar is open to members of the
public. Those interested in participating
should contact Ryan Rindone at SEDAR
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
below) to request an invitation
providing webinar access information.
Please request meeting information at
least 24 hours in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ryan Rindone, SEDAR Coordinator,
2203 N Lois Ave, Suite 1100, Tampa FL
33607; telephone: (813) 348–1630;
email: ryan.rindone@gulfcouncil.org.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf
of Mexico Fishery Management Council,
in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries,
has implemented the Southeast Data,
Assessment and Review (SEDAR)
process, a multi-step method for
determining the status of fish stocks in
the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a threestep process including: (1) Data
Workshop; (2) Assessment Process
involving a workshop and webinars;
and (3) Review Workshop. The product
of the Data Workshop is a data report
which compiles and evaluates potential
datasets and recommends which
datasets are appropriate for assessment
analyses. The product of the Assessment
Process is a stock assessment report
which describes the fisheries, evaluates
the status of the stock, estimates
biological benchmarks, projects future
population conditions, and recommends
research and monitoring needs. The
assessment is independently peer
reviewed at the Review Workshop. The
product of the Review Workshop is a
summary documenting panel opinions
regarding the strengths and weaknesses
of the stock assessment and input data.
Participants for SEDAR Workshops are
appointed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM
27AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51767-51771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21061]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 120705210-2210-01]
RIN 0648-XC101
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition
To List Five Species of Sturgeon as Threatened or Endangered Under the
Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Ninety-day petition finding, request for information, and
initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list five
species of sturgeon (Acipenser sturio, A. naccarii, A. mikadoi, A.
sinensis, and Huso dauricus), or any distinct population segments of
these species that the Secretary of Commerce determines may exist, as
threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We
find that the petition and information in our files present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that these petitioned
actions may be warranted. We will conduct a status review of these
species to determine if the petitioned actions are warranted. To ensure
that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific
and commercial information regarding these species (see below).
[[Page 51768]]
DATES: Information and comments on the subject action must be received
by October 26, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the code NOAA-NMFS-
2012-0142, addressed to: Dwayne Meadows, by any of the following
methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via
the Federal eRulemaking Portal https://www.regulations.gov.
Facsimile (fax): 301-713-4060.
Mail: NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13632, Silver
Spring, MD 20910.
Hand delivery: You may hand deliver written comments to
our office during normal business hours at the street address given
above.
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record
and may be posted to https://www.regulations.gov without change. All
personally identifiable information (for example, name, address, etc.)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do
not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information. We will accept anonymous comments. Attachments
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or
Adobe PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources, (301) 427-8403.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 12, 2012, we received a petition from the WildEarth
Guardians and Friends of Animals to list 15 species of sturgeon
(Acipenser naccarii--Adriatic sturgeon; A. sturio--Baltic sturgeon/
common sturgeon; A. gueldenstaedtii--Russian sturgeon; A. nudiventris--
ship sturgeon/bastard sturgeon/fringebarbel sturgeon/spiny sturgeon/
thorn sturgeon; A. persicus--Persian sturgeon; A. stellatus--stellate
sturgeon/star sturgeon; A. baerii--Siberian sturgeon; A. dabryanus--
Yangtze sturgeon/Dabry's sturgeon/river sturgeon; A. sinensis--Chinese
sturgeon; A. mikadoi--Sakhalin sturgeon; A. schrenckii--Amur sturgeon;
Huso dauricus--Kaluga sturgeon; Pseudoscaphirhynchus fedtschenkoi--Syr-
darya shovelnose sturgeon/Syr darya sturgeon; P. hermanni--dwarf
sturgeon/Little Amu-darya shovelnose/little shovelnose sturgeon/Small
Amu-dar shovelnose sturgeon; P. kaufmanni--false shovelnose sturgeon/
Amu darya shovelnose sturgeon/Amu darya sturgeon/big Amu darya
shovelnose/large Amu-dar shovelnose sturgeon/shovelfish) as threatened
or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The petition
states that all 15 petitioned sturgeon species are affected by similar
threats: both legal and illegal exploitation for meat and/or caviar;
habitat loss and degradation; dams or dam construction; water
pollution; and increased competition due to habitat loss. Copies of
this petition are available from us (see ADDRESSES, above) or at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/petitions/sturgeon15_petition2012.pdf.
We acknowledged receipt of this petition in a letter dated April
14, 2012, and informed the petitioners that we would determine,
pursuant to section 4 of the ESA, whether the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. As a result of subsequent
discussions between us and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), we
have determined that 10 of the 15 petitioned sturgeon species are not
marine or anadromous and thus not within our jurisdiction; therefore,
those 10 species are the responsibility of the FWS. Accordingly, this
90-day finding considers whether the petitioned actions may be
warranted for only the five marine or anadromous sturgeon species
included in the petition: Acipenser naccarii (Adriatic sturgeon) and A.
sturio (Atlantic sturgeon/Baltic sturgeon/common sturgeon) in the
Western Europe region, A. sinensis (Chinese sturgeon) in the Yangtze
River region, and A. mikadoi (Sakhalin sturgeon) and Huso dauricus
(Kaluga sturgeon) in the Amur River Basin/Sea of Japan/Sea of Okhotsk
region.
ESA Statutory and Regulatory Provisions and Evaluation Framework
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days
of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered,
the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly publish
such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When we
find that substantial scientific or commercial information in a
petition indicates that the petitioned action may be warranted (a
``positive 90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a
review of the status of the species concerned, during which we will
conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and
commercial information. In such cases, we shall conclude the review
with a finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is
warranted within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the
finding at the 12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the
available information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the
90-day stage, a ``may be warranted'' finding does not prejudge the
outcome of the status review.
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a ``species,''
which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate
species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NOAA-FWS policy clarifies the
agencies' interpretation of the phrase ``distinct population segment''
for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species
under the ESA (``DPS Policy''; 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A
species, subspecies, or DPS is ``endangered'' if it is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and
``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range
(ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively; 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and
(20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we
determine whether species are threatened or endangered because of any
one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade
factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR
424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and FWS (50 CFR
424.14(b)) define ``substantial information'' in the context of
reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. In
evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition,
the Secretary must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates
the administrative measure recommended and gives both the scientific
and any common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed
narrative justification for the recommended measure, describing, based
on available information, past and
[[Page 51769]]
present numbers and distribution of the species involved and any
threats faced by the species; (3) provides information regarding the
status of the species over all or a significant portion of its range;
and (4) is accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation in
the form of bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent
publications, copies of reports or letters from authorities, and maps
(50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
Court decisions clarify the appropriate scope and limitations of
the Services' review of petitions at the 90-day finding stage, in
making a determination whether a petitioned action ``may be''
warranted. As a general matter, these decisions hold that a petition
need not establish a ``strong likelihood'' or a ``high probability''
that a species is either threatened or endangered to support a positive
90-day finding.
We evaluate the petitioner's request based upon the information in
the petition including its references, as well as the information
readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research,
and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to
help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioner's
sources and characterizations of the information presented, if they
appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have
specific information in our files that indicates the petition's
information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant
to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than
one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available
information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long
as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude it supports
the petitioner's assertions. In other words, conclusive information
indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is
not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude
that a lack of specific information alone negates a positive 90-day
finding, if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown
information itself suggests an extinction risk of concern for the
species at issue.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we
evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the subject species may be
either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we
evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with
the information readily available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under
the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the
species at issue faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this
may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species'
status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to
the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic
factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species at
issue (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial
structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical
range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential
contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the
species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic
risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section
4(a)(1).
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to
the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these
factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species
to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad
statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification
of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute
substantial information that listing may be warranted. We look for
information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed
to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative
fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative
response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by other
organizations or agencies, such as the International Union on the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk
classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or
state statutes may be informative, but the classification alone may not
provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA.
For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a
species' conservation status do ``not constitute a recommendation by
NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because
NatureServe assessments ``have different criteria, evidence
requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of
endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of
lists should not be expected to coincide.'' (https://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a
petition cites such classifications, we will evaluate the source
information that the classification is based upon in light of the
standards on extinction risk and impacts or threats discussed above.
Sturgeon Species Descriptions
All five of the petitioned species for which we have jurisdiction
are migratory and spawn in freshwater habitats while spending part of
their life cycle in marine or estuarine waters (i.e., they are
anadromous). They are benthic oriented feeders, eating mostly
invertebrates and small fishes. All five of the species are protected
under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Acipenser sturio has been protected under
CITES Appendix I since 1983, and the other four species were protected
under Appendix II of CITES in 1998. The IUCN Red list lists all five
species as critically endangered from their most recent analysis in
2010.
A. sturio and A. naccarii in the Western Europe Region
Acipenser sturio is a large species that can grow to 5 m in length
and weigh up to 400 kg. Lifespan may reach 100 years. It occurred
historically in the North and Baltic seas, the English Channel, and
most European coasts of the Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea and
the Black Sea. The species is tolerant of a wide range of salinities,
spending most of its life in salt water (close to the coast) and
migrating up to 1000 km to spawn in freshwaters. There is only one
extant reproductive population that breeds in the Garonne River in
France, where the last known natural spawning occurred in 1994. It is
now extirpated in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands,
Norway, Portugal, Spain, Tunisia and the United Kingdom. According to
the petitioner and IUCN, its overall population is decreasing, with
more than a 90 percent population decline in the past 75 years based
mainly on loss of habitat, along with pollution and exploitation. No
natural reproduction has been recorded since 1994, and the current
wild, native population consist of about 20-750 adults.
Acipenser naccarii is an anadromous species that spawns in
freshwater after an estuarine period of growth during which it remains
near the shore (at the mouths of the rivers) at a depth of 10 to 40 m.
It does not enter pure marine waters. Historically they were found in
the southern part of Europe, mostly in the Adriatic Sea area. They grow
to 150 to 200 cm in length. The IUCN analysis
[[Page 51770]]
estimates that this species has declined more than 80 percent in the
past three generations, or 60 years, and it may be extinct in the wild.
The only remaining spawning sites may be at the confluence of the Po
River and its tributaries in Italy, an area of occupancy reduced to
less than 10 km\2\. According to the IUCN, there may be fewer than 250
wild individuals remaining.
A. sinensis in the Yangtze River Region
Acipenser sinensis is divided into separate populations based on
the river of occurrence: the Pearl River Chinese sturgeon and the
Yangtze River Chinese sturgeon. This species was historically recorded
in southwestern Korea and in western Kyushu, Japan and in the Yellow,
Yangtze, Pear, Mingjiang, and Qingtang rivers in China, but has been
extirpated from all of these areas except for the two rivers noted
above. It reaches over 3 m in length and weighs up to 600 kg. According
to the IUCN, the Pearl River Chinese sturgeon spawns in spring and the
Yangtze River Chinese sturgeon spawns in the fall and is only present
below the Gezhouba Dam. Adults can be found in some fishing grounds of
the East China Sea and Yellow Sea (IUCN, 2010). The IUCN assessment
documented an estimated 97.5 percent decline in the spawning population
over a 37-year period. Recent surveys between 2005 and 2007 show the
total spawning population to be 203-257 individuals (IUCN, 2010).
A. mikadoi and Huso dauricus in the Amur River Basin/Sea of Japan/Sea
of Okhotsk Region
Acipenser mikadoi is historically native to the northwest Pacific
Ocean in Japan and Russia, with an uncertain presence in China, South
Korea, and North Korea. The species had been considered conspecific
with North American green sturgeon (A. medirostris) until chromosome
and morphometric differences were found; we accepted the status of A.
mikadoi as a separate valid species in our 2002 status review of green
sturgeon. Maximum length is about 1.5 m and the species reaches
maturity between 8 to 10 years of age. It spawns in June through July
in the Tumnin River and in April and May in the rivers of Hokkaido,
Japan. It is found at sea throughout the Sea of Okhotsk, in the Sea of
Japan as far east as the eastern shore of Hokkaido, along the Asian
coast as far south as Wonsan, North Korea, and to the Bering Strait on
the coast of the Kamchatka Peninsula. According to the IUCN, the
species historically ascended Russian coastal rivers (the Suchan,
Adzemi, Koppi, Tumnin, Viakhtu, and Tym rivers) and the Ishikari and
Teshio rivers of Japan. It also inhabited the mouths of small rivers of
the Asian Far East and Korean Peninsula, as well as the Amur River, and
rivers of the Sakhalin Island. Now, it spawns persistently only in the
Tumnin River. The IUCN analysis documents that the species has been
declining over the past century. Over the past 45 years there has been
an estimated 80 percent decline in wild, mature individuals. Current
population estimates range from 10-30 adults entering the Tumnin River
for spawning annually.
Huso dauricus is a very large species, reaching 5.6 m in length and
1000 kg in weight. Maximum age is reported to be 80 years. This species
historically inhabited the entire Amur River from its estuary to its
uppermost sections and its tributaries, including the Shilka, Onon,
Argun, Nerch, Sungari, Nonni, Ussuri, and Neijian rivers. It is a semi-
anadromous species that inhabits all types of benthic habitats in the
large rivers and lakes of the Amur River basin. It is semi-anadromous
because some populations do not migrate to the sea as adults. According
to the petitioners, multiple populations have been documented. Spawning
peaks from the end of May to July and young enter the Sea of Okhotsk
during the summer. Generation length is 20 or more years and it has
spawning intervals of 4 to 5 years for females and 3 to 4 years for
males (IUCN, 2010). This species has been in sharp decline in both
stock and recruitment since the 19th century, with the IUCN analysis
estimating a decline of 80 percent.
Analysis of the Petition
We have determined, based on the information provided in the
petition and readily available in our files, that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned actions may be warranted for the five species under our
jurisdiction. The petition contains a detailed narrative justification
for the recommended measure, species taxonomic description, geographic
distribution, preferred habitat characteristics, population status and
trends, threats contributing to the species' decline, and is
accompanied by appropriate supporting documentation. We agree that each
of the five petitioned species is a valid taxonomic species. We have no
specific information in our files that indicates the petition's status
information is incorrect, unreliable, or obsolete. Below is a synopsis
of our analysis of the status information provided in the petition and
readily available in our files for each species.
A. sturio and A. naccarii in the Western Europe Region
The IUCN first rated A. sturio as ``critically endangered'' in 1996
and reconfirmed that ranking in 2010 by documenting a greater than 90%
decline in the past 75 years. The petitioners argue that A. sturio is
highly vulnerable to exploitation because of its life history and the
age it must reach before it can reproduce. The species is prized for
its flesh and its caviar and was an important commercial species until
the beginning of the 20th century. The petitioners and IUCN also argue
that bycatch is the major current threat. The species was added to
CITES Appendix II in 1975 and transferred to Appendix I in 1983.
According to the petitioners, the development of river systems,
particularly for hydroelectric dams, has also negatively impacted the
population because adults are unable to return to their natal rivers to
breed. It remains in just one location, where 27 spawning grounds (of
less than 10 km\2\ total area) remain potentially accessible. The
extraction of gravel in the Garonne River is a potential threat to the
spawning habitat there. Dam construction, pollution and river
regulation may have also led to loss and degradation of spawning sites.
The petition also cites the 16th Meeting of the CITES Animals Committee
in December 2000, quoting a press release (Cemagref, in litt., 26
January 2000) that reported an escape of several thousand juvenile and
several hundred gravid females of A. baerii into the Gironde River
(Bordeaux region) during two storms. While the survival of these
escaped fish and their effect on the wild population of A. sturio are
not known, the introduction of new pathological germs, food
competition, and hybridization with A. sturio needs to be considered.
The IUCN assessment estimates the current adult population may be as
low as 20 to 750 individuals.
The IUCN first assessed A. naccarii as ``vulnerable'' in 1996 and
elevated its ranking to ``critically endangered'' in 2009, reporting
that exploitation for food, either legal or illegal, is a major threat
to the continued survival of the species, especially exploitation of
pre-reproductive fish. The species is fished for its meat and the roe
is not currently consumed as caviar. Dams, particularly hydropower dams
on the Po River, water pollution, and competition for habitat with an
introduced catfish (Silurus glanis) also contribute to this species'
decline. According to the IUCN, ``without continuous re-stocking the
survival of this species is doubtful as
[[Page 51771]]
continued successful reproduction in the wild can no longer be
confirmed''. Also, A. baerii was introduced in captive breeding
facilities and hybridized with A. naccarii in Italy in the 1990s.
Subsequently, A. baerii has also been found in the wild occasionally in
Italy, with fish sporadically escaping from rearing plants or angling
ponds, or being released when they become too large for private
aquaria. These events may also have contributed to A. naccarii's
decline.
A. sinensis in the Yangtze River Region
The IUCN first assessed A. sinensis as ``endangered'' in 1996 and
elevated its ranking to ``critically endangered'' in 2010, owing to
declines in the species from overharvest, habitat destruction, and
potentially from water pollution. Construction of the Gezhouba dam in
1981 blocked the migration routes of this species to all but one of its
spawning grounds in the Yangtze River. The species has been extirpated
in most of the rest of its range.
A. mikadoi and Huso dauricus in the Amur River Basin/Sea of Japan/Sea
of Okhotsk Region
The IUCN first assessed A. mikadoi as ``endangered'' in 1996 and
elevated its ranking to ``critically endangered'' in 2010, owing to
overharvest, poaching, habitat degradation and pollution. Only one
spawning site remains.
The IUCN first assessed H. dauricus as ``rare'' in 1986, elevated
its ranking to ``endangered'' in 1996, and elevated it again to
``critically endangered'' in 2010, owing to overharvest, poaching, and
recent pollution. The species is poached for caviar roe. One study
documented parasite effects on fecundity (CITES, 2000). According to
the IUCN assessment, at the end of the 19th century annual commercial
catch was 500 tonnes. The species was added to CITES Appendix II in
1998.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well
as information readily available in our files, we conclude the petition
presents substantial scientific information indicating the petitioned
actions of listing five species of sturgeon, or DPSs of these species,
under our jurisdiction as threatened or endangered may be warranted.
Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS'
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we will commence a
review of the status of these species and make determinations within 12
months of receiving the petition as to whether the petitioned actions
are warranted.
Information Solicited
To ensure that the status review is based on the best available
scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information on
whether these five sturgeon species are endangered or threatened.
Specifically, we are soliciting information in the following areas
throughout the range of these species: (1) Historical and current
distribution and abundance; (2) historical and current population
trends; (3) biological information (life history, genetics, population
connectivity, DPS structure, etc.); (4) landings and trade data; (5)
management, regulatory, and enforcement information; (6) any current or
planned activities that may adversely impact the species; and (7)
ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and their
habitats. We request that all information be accompanied by: (1)
Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or
reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name,
address, and any association, institution, or business that the person
represents.
References Cited
A complete list of references is available upon request from NMFS
Protected Resources Headquarters Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: August 21, 2012.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and
duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-21061 Filed 8-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P