[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