[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4877-4883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01895]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 131105931-3931-01]
RIN 0648-XC970
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Notice of 90-Day Finding on a
Petition to List the Caribbean Electric Ray as Threatened or Endangered
Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding, request for information, and
initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the
Caribbean electric ray (Narcine bancroftii) as threatened or endangered
under the ESA. We find that the petition and information readily
available in our files present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We
will conduct a status review of the species to determine if the
petitioned action is warranted. To ensure that the status review is
comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information
pertaining to this species from any interested party.
DATES: Information and comments on the subject action must be received
by March 31, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, information, or data on this
document, identified by the code NOAA-NMFS-2014-0011, by any of the
following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via
the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0011, click the ``Comment Now!'' icon,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Therese Conant, NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources, (301) 427-8456.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 7, 2010, we received a petition from WildEarth
Guardians to list the Caribbean electric ray as threatened or
endangered throughout its historic and current range and to designate
critical habitat within the territory of the United States concurrently
with listing the species under the ESA. On March 22, 2011 (76 FR
15947), we made a 90-day finding that the petition did not present
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. On March 22, 2012, we received a
60-day notice of intent to sue from WildEarth Guardians on the negative
90-day finding. On February 26, 2013, WildEarth Guardians filed a
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, on
the negative 90-day finding. On October 1, 2013, we entered a court
settlement agreement to accept a supplement to the 2010 petition, if
any is provided, and to make a new 90-day finding based on the 2010
petition, its supplement, and any additional information readily
available in our files. On October 31, 2013, we received a supplemental
petition from WildEarth Guardians and Defenders of Wildlife.
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 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 a petition includes substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating 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, which includes
conducting a
[[Page 4878]]
comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial
information. In such cases, and within 12 months of receipt of the
petition, we must conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in
fact, the petitioned action is warranted. 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 finding that the ``petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted'' at this point does not predetermine 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 DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint
NMFS-USFWS (jointly, ``the Services'') policy (DPS Policy) clarifies
the agencies' interpretation of the phrase ``distinct population
segment'' for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a
species under the ESA (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 based on any one
or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4)
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) 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 the Services (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 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 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)).
Judicial decisions have clarified the appropriate scope and
limitations of the Services' review of petitions at the 90-day finding
stage, in making a determination that a petition presents substantial
information indicating the 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.
At the 90-day finding stage, we evaluate the petitioners' request
based upon the information in the petition including its references and
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 petitioners' sources and characterizations of the
information presented if they appear to be based on accepted scientific
principles, unless we have specific information readily available 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 petitioners' assertions. In other
words, conclusive information indicating that 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 faces an 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 (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 indicating 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; we then assess the potential significance of that
negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by non-
governmental organizations, 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 such 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
[[Page 4879]]
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'' (http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a petition cites such
classifications, we will evaluate the source of information that the
classification is based upon in light of the standards on extinction
risk and impacts or threats discussed above.
Analysis of the Petition
The following analyzes the 2010 petition from WildEarth Guardians
and the 2013 supplement to the petition from WildEarth Guardians and
Defenders of Wildlife.
General
The petition clearly indicates the administrative measure
recommended and gives the scientific and common name of the species.
Based on the information presented in the petition, the supplement to
the petition, along with the information readily available in our
files, we find that the petitioned species, Narcine bancroftii,
constitutes a valid ``species'' eligible for listing under the ESA as
it is considered a valid taxonomic species. The petition also contains
a narrative justification for the recommended measures and provides
limited information on the species' geographic distribution, habitat,
and threats. Finally, the petition is accompanied by supporting
documentation.
Species Description and Distribution
The petition describes the Caribbean electric ray as a small,
shallow-water ray found on soft, sandy substrates from the intertidal
zone to depths of 35 m (Carvalho et al. 2007) to 55 meters (Press
2010). It concentrates in the surf zone or sand bars adjacent to
barrier beaches during warm months and moves offshore in winter (Rudloe
1989). It is the only electric ray that inhabits shallow waters along
the United States coastline. The Caribbean electric ray is sandy or
brown in color with darker, dusty blotches, and the underside is white
to creamy, sometimes with grey or brown blotches (McEachran and
Carvalho 2002). It is characterized by a flattened, oval-shaped disc,
large pelvic fins, and oversized dorsal and caudal fins that cover most
of its tapering tail (Tricas et al. 1997). The Caribbean electric ray
produces 14-37 volts of electricity that can deliver a small jolt but
is not strong enough to harm humans (Smith 1997; Tricas et al. 1997).
The shock may be used to stun prey or as a defense against predators
(Smith 1997). The Caribbean electric ray eats bottom-dwelling
invertebrates, primarily sand worms, but also small fishes, young snake
eels, anemones, and crustaceans (Tricas et al. 1997; Press 2010).
Predators include large fishes and sharks (Press 2010).
Caribbean electric ray males mature at a size of 22-33 cm and
females at 20-26 cm body length. It can reach a maximum size of 60 cm
total length (Press 2010; Carvalho et al. 2007). Females reach sexual
maturity at about two years (Carvalho et al. 2007) and retain
developing embryos during a three-month gestation period (Press 2010).
However, diapause is possible, extending the gestation period to up to
11-12 months (Press 2010). Embryos are first nourished with yolk and
then with histotroph, a protein-rich liquid (Press 2010). Females move
into the surf zone in late summer to bear approximately 20 live pups
(Smith 1997; Tricas et al. 1997; McEachran and Carvalho 2002; Carvalho
et al. 2007). Pups average about 11 cm in length at birth and, like
other sharks and rays, have a more intense color pattern than adults
(Tricas et al. 1997). At birth, the young are able to produce the
electrical charge (Press 2010).
The petition cites Carvalho et al. (2007), which describes the
Caribbean electric ray as ranging in the western Atlantic from North
Carolina, through the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean (except for the
Bahamas where its presence is unknown), the Lesser and Greater
Antilles, and the north coast of South America. Individual populations
are localized, but individuals move onshore during warm months and
offshore during winter months in the Gulf of Mexico (Rudloe 1989).
Species Status
The petition states the ray has declined 98 percent since 1972 in
the northern Gulf of Mexico citing Carvalho et al., (2007). The
petition refers to a study by Shepherd and Myers (2005) that estimated
the species' relative abundance from fisheries independent survey data
available from 1972 to 2002. The data presented in that study show what
appears to be a significant decline in mean standardized catch per tow
of the Caribbean electric ray from 1972 to 1973, then consistently low
catch through 2002. Shepherd and Myers (2005) found steep declines in
catch per tow for shallow water shark and ray species, including the
Caribbean electric ray, while catch per tow increased for deep water
species. They concluded, ``While a suitable time series of elasmobranch
bycatch in this fishery [shrimp] was not available, our results and
supporting evidence suggest that the declines we observed are because
of bycatch in the shrimp trawl fishery, from which deeper waters
provide refuge.'' Shepherd and Myers (2005; supplement S2) found a more
positive, but not significant, trend in Caribbean electric ray
abundance since 1992 when turtle excluder devices (TEDs) were required
by regulation to be used in shrimp trawls operating in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Additional data in our files is from the Southeast Area Monitoring
and Assessment Program (SEAMAP-Gulf of Mexico http://seamap.gsmfc.org/)
for the period 1992 through 2012 regarding the annual capture of
Caribbean electric rays. This is a continuation of the same dataset
analyzed by Shepherd and Myers (2005). Using the NMFS Gulf Shrimp
Landing Statistical Zones (for a Zone map see Figure 1: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S27_RD_05_SEAMAP%20TRAWL%20PROTOCOL.pdf?id=DOCUMENT) we analyzed the additional
data at finer geographic resolution. That analysis shows high
variability in catch both temporally and spatially. For example, if we
divide the data by decade in Zone 11 (off shore Mississippi and
Alabama) in the autumn, 60 Caribbean electric rays were counted between
1982 to 1991; 25 between 1992-2001; and 20 between 2002-2011. During
spring in the same Zone 11, 97 Caribbean electric rays were counted
between 1982-1991 and 0 between 1992-2011. In Zone 12 (off shore
Louisiana), 19 Caribbean electric rays were counted in 1989 and
virtually were absent in all other years. Yet other zones appear to
have increased counts of Caribbean electric rays. For example, Zone 20
(off shore mid to lower Texas) during the summer, 1 Caribbean electric
ray was captured between 1982-1991; 4 between 1992-2001; and 34 between
2002-2011. The apparent trends in the counts could be due to many
factors, including sampling error, sampling regime (e.g., not
consistently sampling habitat types where the Caribbean electric ray is
found), and environmental conditions that cue the ray to congregate or
disperse. However, this interpretation is tempered by the Shepherd and
Myers (2005) abundance study in the northern Gulf of Mexico, and the
examination of the updated SEMAP- GOM showing high counts in some zones
followed by zero counts over several decades. In the absence of a
detailed sampling regime for the SEMAP-GOM surveys, we would anticipate
such long-term data set to account, in part, for catch variability due
to distribution and
[[Page 4880]]
abundance or sampling regimes. Thus, one fair interpretation of the
data is that localized populations are being depleted in some areas of
the northern Gulf of Mexico.
The petition cites Shepherd and Myers (2005) claiming that the
population has decreased around 95 percent in coastal areas between
Cape Canaveral, Florida, and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, in trawl
surveys between 1989 and 2001. Although we were unable to find such
statement in the referenced study, we found it in the IUCN report
(Carvalho et al. 2007). We accept the characterization of the
information at this 90-day finding, but note that Carvalho et al.
(2007) provide no citation or source to support their statement. Also,
we were unable to locate information readily available in our files to
support the statement. The 2013 supplement to the petition provided
Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP-SA) reports
from 1990 through 2007 (https://www.dnr.sc.gov/marine/mrri/SEAMAP/SMreports.html). SEMAP trawl surveys were conducted in coastal waters
from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, south to Cape Canaveral, Florida.
From 1990-2000, 98 Caribbean electric rays were counted, of which 96
were reported from shallow water (4-10 meter depth) surveys. In 2001,
outer strata sampling stations were eliminated and inner strata
stations increased from 78 to 102. Given that the majority of rays were
found in shallow water strata, we averaged the annual number of
Caribbean electric rays counted at shallow water stations from 1990
through 2000 (8.7 rays/year) and 2001 (the year sampling methods
changed) through 2007 (7.9 rays/year). The data can also be presented
as the number of Caribbean electric ray observations per unit sampling
effort for inner strata stations, which shows 0.037 (96 observations/
2570 inner strata stations) from 1990 through 2000 and 0.026 (55
observations/2142 inner strata stations) from 2001 through 2007. We do
not have the raw data to derive the confidence intervals around all of
these numbers, and we cannot assume a normal distribution given the
possibility of catch variability. However, the numbers are lower in
recent years, which may indicate changes in sampling regimes, habitat
type surveyed, or localized environmental events. Also plausible, the
lower counts in recent years may indicate a decline in the Caribbean
electric ray population in the region.
The petitioner claims the Caribbean electric ray has such a
critically low population count that it is increasingly vulnerable to
extirpation from stochastic events. To determine that there is
substantial information indicating that the species may be in danger of
extinction now or in the foreseeable future due to small population
size or stochastic events, information provided in the petition or
readily available in our files should be specific to the species and
should reasonably suggest that these factors may be operative threats
that act on the species to the point that it may warrant protection
under the ESA. Broad statements about a generalized threat to species
with small populations do not constitute substantial information that
listing may be warranted. The petition mischaracterizes Rudloe (1989)
as indicating the Caribbean electric ray exhibits small home ranges and
is highly localized within an area (Rudloe 1989). Instead, Rudloe
(1989) reports on capture of Caribbean electric rays from four offshore
stations where sampling was designed to include areas utilized by the
species at various seasons as the ray moves on and offshore through the
year. Rudloe (1989) found that the Caribbean electric ray was
``concentrated over an extremely limited area on each bar'' and ``as
little as several tens of meters change in position could determine
whether there were two or 20 rays.'' The petition cites Rudloe (1989)
stating the Caribbean electric ray does not migrate extensively. Rudloe
(1989) tagged 455 rays and released them at the point of capture off
Franklin and Gulf Counties, Florida. Ten rays were recaptured between 1
and 7 months. Although Rudloe (1989) did not provide distances between
release and recapture, three of the 10 were found at the release point
after 1 or 2 months, and an examination of maps indicate those that
travelled went a linear distance of approximately 25 miles (40 km)
between release and recapture. Rudloe (1989) did not provide population
estimates but concluded that ``. . . its low rate of reproduction and
localized distribution make it highly vulnerable to over fishing.''
Although, the petition fails to provide substantial evidence that
the Caribbean electric ray's population is critically low throughout
its range, data in the petition and in our files suggest the number of
Caribbean electric rays reported from fisheries independent survey data
has been variable (SEAMAP-Gulf of Mexico http://seamap.gsmfc.org) and
declines of 98 percent of their 1972 survey abundance may have occurred
in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Shepherd and Myers 2005). Also, fewer
rays have been reported annually since 2001 despite increased sampling
in nearshore waters along the U.S. Atlantic coast (SEAMAP-Gulf of
Mexico http://seamap.gsmfc.org). However, the petition and information
in our files do not provide evidence that the species' distribution and
abundance is vulnerable to threats and at greater extinction risk due
to stochastic and chronic events.
The petition describes several other demographic factors specific
to the Caribbean electric ray that could indicate extinction risk,
including the abortion of embryos by gravid females when stressed
(Acevedo et al. 2007a) and low survival rates of incidentally caught
individuals (Carvalho et al. 2007; Moreno et al. 2010). The majority of
the other demographic factors are discussed in the IUCN (Carvalho et
al. 2007) synopsis of the threats to the species, which the petitioner
relies heavily upon to support the assertion that the Caribbean
electric ray is imperiled. The IUCN could not identify a population
trend for the Caribbean electric ray.
The petition cites the abortion of embryos by gravid females caught
in shrimp trawls as another characteristic that imperils the species by
lowering its reproductive output (Acevedo et al. 2007a). The petition
cites Acevedo et al. (2007a) as a source for abortions by gravid
females as a result in Colombian artisanal shrimp fisheries. Acevedo et
al. (2007a) reported on two adult females caught in Colombian artisanal
shrimp fisheries and one female had placental material in the uterus.
It is unclear whether the exposure to the fishery was the cause for the
absence of embryos or whether the individual had given birth recently.
Although removing gravid females from a population is a characteristic
that would lower reproductive output, the petition provides no
information on the rate at which gravid females are caught or the rate
of spontaneous natural abortion. The petition also asserts that
Caribbean electric rays are generally discarded at sea, and
survivorship rates are believed to be quite low, citing Moreno et al.
(2010) and the IUCN's assessment of the species (Carvalho et al.,
2007). Moreno et al. (2010) state the Caribbean electric ray has no
commercial value in Colombia and is returned to the sea. They do not
provide data on bycatch condition or survivability. Review of the IUCN
assessment provided no additional information, and we have no
information readily available in our files on the survivorship of
incidentally caught Caribbean electric rays. Beyond the IUCN statement,
the petition provides no additional information on
[[Page 4881]]
the survival rates of Caribbean electric rays incidentally caught in
shrimp trawls. Without specific information on the extent of bycatch of
reproductive females, rates of abortion, and post-interaction
survivorship, it is difficult to determine what effects these traits
may have on the species' extinction risk.
The petition cites Garc[iacute]a et al. (2010) who found that
chondrichthyans tend to have a higher extinction risk if they are
matrotrophically viviparous (i.e., embryos are nourished by their
mothers during development) as are Caribbean electric rays. Garcia et
al. (2010) also found that the life-history traits and the extinction
risk of chondrichthyans are highly associated with habitat. That is,
deep water chondrichthyans with longer turnover times (i.e. slower
growth, later age at maturity, and higher longevity) are at higher risk
of extinction than oceanic and continental shelf chondrichthyans
(Garcia et al. 2010) as are Caribbean electric rays. These data on
life-history traits and extinction risk are general statements on risk
to the Class Chondrichthyans and are not specific to the Caribbean
electric ray. Broad statements about generalized extinction
vulnerability do not constitute substantial information indicating that
listing may be warranted due to concerns for extinction risk.
Threats to the Caribbean Electric Ray
The petition asserts that the Caribbean electric ray meet three of
the ESA section 4(a)(1) listing factors: The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range;
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or
manmade factors affecting the species' existence.
In terms of habitat destruction, the petition claims the Caribbean
electric ray is threatened from energy development, burgeoning human
populations, and other pressures. The petition states that although the
Caribbean electric ray's range is relatively large, localized habitat
loss and degradation are threats to significant portions of the
species' range. The petition also makes a general reference to how
coastal areas of the United States and other nations are being
threatened and destroyed, and references studies suggesting these
changes are affecting all species of sharks and rays (Camhi et al.,
1998). The only specific statement provided in the petition regarding
the extent of habitat degradation is from the proposed rule to list the
largetooth sawfish under the ESA (75 FR 25174; May 7, 2010), which
stated that wetland losses from 1998 to 2004 in the Gulf of Mexico
region averaged annual net losses of 60,000 acres (242.8 km\2\) of
coastal and freshwater habitats, largely due to commercial and
residential development, port construction (dredging, blasting, and
filling activities), construction of water control structures,
modification to freshwater inflows (Rio Grande River in Texas), and gas
and oil related activities. The species description provided in the
petition states the Caribbean electric ray concentrates in the surf
zone adjacent to barrier beaches and sand bars in warm months and moves
offshore in winter (Rudloe 1989), and ``are unable to penetrate fresh
water to any extent.'' Given this description, the petition fails to
demonstrate why or how the loss of wetlands and freshwater habitats
would affect a species commonly found in sandy marine habitats.
The petition mentions the BPDeepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill that
occurred in April 2010. The petition claims that following the DWH oil
spill disaster, the threat of habitat modification and degradation is
now more acute for Gulf of Mexico marine life, including the Caribbean
electric ray. The petition concludes that ``the current oil spill
situation, combined with the already-strained ecosystems in the Gulf of
Mexico and coastal areas within the Ray's range, is a recipe for
extinction, particularly given its current lack of ESA protection.''
The petition further states that drilling for oil and gas subjects
marine species, including the Caribbean electric ray, to elevated
risks. Finally, the petition references the IUCN's statement that
pollution and oil exploration may also adversely affect the habitat of
the Caribbean electric ray, although no specific information is
available (Carvalho et al., 2007), as supporting evidence of habitat
degradation.
We acknowledge that coastal habitats in the United States are being
impacted by urbanization and oil and gas exploration may adversely
affect the marine environment. The DWH oil spill was an unprecedented
disaster, likely impacting the marine ecosystem in ways that may not be
fully known for decades. However, the petition fails to provide any
information on the specific effects to Caribbean electric rays beyond
broad statements on the impacts of coastal development and oil and gas
exploration. Thus, these threats do not constitute substantial
information that listing may be warranted.
Beyond the impacts from habitat loss and oil and gas exploration,
the petition also presents arguments that the destruction of coral reef
habitats may be adversely affecting the Caribbean electric ray. The
petition states that habitat degradation in the form of coral reef
destruction is a serious threat to Caribbean electric ray populations
living in coral reef habitats. The petition erroneously cites Press
(2010) as describing the Caribbean electric ray possibly inhabiting
coral reefs. Press (2010) describes the electric ray habitat as
``shallow coastal waters buried beneath the sand, mud or swimming among
the sea grass beds.'' Press (2010) also states that the species can be
found at greater depth, but does not specify the habitat type. Reef
habitats in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean are threatened by multiple
factors, including: Natural abrasion and breakage, anthropogenic
abrasion and breakage, sedimentation, persistent elevated sea surface
temperature, competition, excessive nutrients, and sea level rise.
However, the petition fails to demonstrate to what extent, if any, the
Caribbean electric ray use these habitats and how impacts to coral
reefs would cause specific adverse effects to the species. Thus, the
petition fails to provide substantial information that listing may be
warranted because of destruction of coral reef habitat.
The petition also requests that we consider the effects of Florida
red tide in limiting the range of Caribbean electric ray. The petition
asserts that the red tide (Karenia brevia) impacts many species of fish
and wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Florida coast. While
red tide events can cause deaths of aquatic species, possibly even the
Caribbean electric ray, the petition fails to describe how and to what
extent red tides may be affecting the species. More importantly, the
petition fails to provide compelling evidence regarding how the
natural, localized phenomenon of red tide is impacting habitat used by
the Caribbean electric ray. Thus, the petition fails to provide
substantial information that listing may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range.
In terms of the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, the
petition asserts there are no specific regulations in place to protect
the Caribbean electric ray. The petition claims that since shrimp trawl
bycatch is the primary threat to the species, the regulations requiring
the use of TEDs and bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) are inadequate
because TEDs and BRDs do not effectively release Caribbean electric
rays.
The lack of species-specific regulations does not necessarily mean
a species' listing is warranted. To conclude that listing may be
warranted because of inadequate regulatory
[[Page 4882]]
mechanisms, there must be evidence that the lack of regulations has
actually caused or is a contributing factor to the potential
endangerment of the Caribbean electric ray. The petition fails to
provide any supporting information about how the lack of species
specific regulations has actually contributed to the endangerment of
the Caribbean electric ray. Regarding the efficacy of TEDs and BRDs in
releasing Caribbean electric rays, the petition fails to provide
substantial information specific to the species regarding the release
or retention rates of Caribbean electric rays in shrimp nets equipped
with TEDs and BRDs. Instead, the claim that TEDs and BRDs are
ineffective is based on broad statements about finfish swimming ability
related to size. Specifically, the petition states that devices
intended to reduce bycatch are ineffective for this species due to its
size and slow speed (Steele et al. 2002). Steele et al. (2002) did not
include the Caribbean electric ray or any other ray species. The
statement that larger fish are more likely to escape than smaller fish
because swimming ability is positively associated with size is not
applicable to the Caribbean electric ray because it is not a finfish.
The petition fails to present any information to suggest that TEDs and
BRDs are ineffective in releasing Caribbean electric ray. Thus, the
petition fails to provide substantial information that listing may be
warranted due to inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
In terms of other natural or manmade factors, the petition claims
that the Caribbean electric ray faces threats from incidental take in
inshore shrimp trawls and other fisheries in U.S. waters and abroad.
The 2013 supplement characterizes this threat under the listing factor:
Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. For purposes of this notice, we will keep the
discussion under other natural or manmade factors as there is no
evidence of directed harvest. The petition cites several documents
indicating that the Caribbean electric ray is incidentally taken in
shrimp fisheries, especially in Colombia (Acevedo et al. 2007a, b;
Grijalba-Bendeck et al. 2007, 2012; Moreno et al. 2010). We accept that
the Caribbean electric ray is bycaught in fisheries. Approximately 140
females and 60 males were incidentally taken in artisanal and
commercial fisheries operating in Colombia from August 2005 through
October 2006 (Moreno et al. 2010; Grijalba-Bendeck et al. 2007, 2012).
The bycatch consisted mostly of sexually mature adults, but all life
stages were represented. Acevedo et al. (2007a) subsampled discards
from the shrimp trawl fleet operating in Colombia from August through
November 2004. A total of six Caribbean electric rays were sampled, and
all were mature adults (Acevedo et al. 2007a). However, these studies
looked at reproductive aspects by necropsying individuals, and it is
unclear whether the samples were killed in the fisheries or were killed
for the study. Either scenario is plausible. Other studies examined
composition and distribution of shark and ray assemblages bycaught in
fisheries over short periods of time in different regions of Colombia
(Acevedo et al. 2007b; Grijalba-Bendeck et al. 2007). None of these
studies provide specific information on how the species may be
responding to the exposure to the Colombian fisheries. The petition
also cites Shepherd and Myers (2005) as indicating that nearshore
shrimp trawl fisheries are impacting the Caribbean electric ray in the
northern Gulf of Mexico. Shepherd and Myers (2005) analyzed fisheries
independent data and found a severe decline in catch per unit effort
between 1972 and 1973 of the Caribbean electric ray in the northern
Gulf of Mexico. Shepherd and Myers (2005) concluded that the decline
was due to bycatch in the shrimp trawl fishery (see Species Status
section above). All other petition documents and information readily
available in our files provide general information on the threat of
bycatch to rays; none of these documents are specific to the Caribbean
electric ray. Thus, we know some bycatch of the Caribbean electric ray
occurs in fisheries operating in Colombia (Acevedo et al. 2007a, b;
Grijalba-Bendeck et al. 2007, 2012; Moreno et al. 2010), and we have
one study (Shepherd and Myers 2005) indicating that nearshore shrimp
trawl fisheries operating in the northern Gulf of Mexico may impact the
Caribbean electric ray in this region. It is reasonable to infer that
if Caribbean electric ray populations may have declined in one area due
to fisheries, then it is plausible that similar impacts to the species
may occur in other areas of known fisheries bycatch. For these reasons,
we conclude that the information in the petition and readily available
in our files constitute substantial information indicating that listing
may be warranted due to impacts from incidental take in fisheries.
Petition Finding
We conclude that the 2010 petition and 2013 supplement to the
petition present substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted due to the
following ESA section 4(a)(1) factor that may be causing or
contributing to an increased risk of extinction for the Caribbean
electric ray: Other natural and manmade factors due to incidental
capture in fisheries. Data in the petition suggest that declines in
Caribbean electric ray populations in localized areas in the northern
Gulf of Mexico may have occurred. Data in the petition and in our files
suggest that numbers of Caribbean electric rays reported in the
fisheries independent surveys in both the Gulf of Mexico are highly
variable: Some areas have increased counts and others have decreased
counts. One explanation is that the concentrated distribution of the
ray would result in variable catch data. However, some areas have high
counts followed by zero counts over the decades of the data series,
indicating an absence of individuals from an area over time. Data in
the petition and in our files show fewer Caribbean electric rays have
been reported in the southeast Atlantic since 2001 when surveys were
increased in shallow waters where the ray has historically been found.
Data in the petition and in our files suggest that in the northern Gulf
of Mexico those declines may be due to incidental capture in fisheries
and incidental capture in fisheries occurs in other areas of the
species' range. Further, we conclude that the petition does not present
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted based on the following ESA section
4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of its habitat or range; or inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms. The petition also asserts that listing the
Caribbean electric ray may not be warranted based on the ESA section
4(a)(1) factors: Overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes (note: The 2013 supplement
categorized incidental capture in fisheries under this factor, whereas
the original petition discussed it under other natural or manmade
factors. For purposes of the analysis, we considered it as categorized
by the original petition because there is no evidence of directed
harvest); or disease or predation. Because we have determined that the
petitioned action may be warranted, we did not examine those assertions
as they will be analyzed in the status review.
After reviewing the information contained in the petitions, as well
as information readily available in our files, and based on the above
analysis,
[[Page 4883]]
we conclude that the petition presents substantial scientific
information indicating that the petitioned action of listing the
Caribbean electric ray 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 status review of the species.
Information Solicited
To ensure that the status review is based on the best available
scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information on
whether the Caribbean electric ray may warrant listing as threatened or
endangered. Specifically, we are soliciting data and information,
including unpublished data and information, in the following areas: (1)
Historical and current distribution and abundance of this species
throughout its range; (2) historical and current population trends; (3)
life history and habitat requirements (4) population structure
information, such as genetics data; (5) past, current and future
threats specific to the Caribbean electric ray, including any current
or planned activities that may adversely impact the species, especially
information on destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat and
on bycatch in commercial and artisanal fisheries worldwide; (6) ongoing
or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and its habitat;
and (7) management, regulatory, and enforcement information 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: January 24, 2014.
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. 2014-01895 Filed 1-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P