[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70074-70080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24477]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 160719634-6838-01]
RIN 0648-XE756
Listing Endangered or Threatened Species; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List the Pacific Bluefin Tuna as Threatened or Endangered
Under the Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: 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
Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis) as a threatened or endangered
species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to designate
critical habitat concurrently with the listing. We find that the
petition presents substantial scientific information indicating the
petitioned action may be warranted. We will conduct a status review of
the Pacific bluefin tuna to determine whether the petitioned action is
warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are
soliciting scientific and commercial information pertaining to this
species.
DATES: Scientific and commercial information pertinent to the
petitioned action must be received by December 12, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
``Pacific Bluefin Tuna Petition (NOAA-NMFS-2016-0100),'' by either of
the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= NOAA-NMFS-2016-0100, click the ``Comment Now'' icon,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Mail or hand-delivery: Protected Resources Division, West
Coast Region,
[[Page 70075]]
NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite #1100, Portland, OR 97232.
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 http://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. We will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Electronic copies of the petition and
other materials are available on the NMFS West Coast Region Web site at
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov. Please direct other inquiries to
Scott Rumsey, NMFS West Coast Region at [email protected], (503)
872-2791; or Marta Nammack, NMFS Office of Protected Resources at
[email protected], (301) 427-8469.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 20, 2016, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity (CBD), on behalf of 13 other co-petitioners, to
list the Pacific bluefin tuna as threatened or endangered under the ESA
and to designate critical habitat concurrently with its listing. The
petition includes general biological information about Pacific bluefin
tuna including its taxonomy, range and distribution, the physical and
biological characteristics of its habitat, population status and
trends, and factors contributing to the species' decline. CBD contends
that ``Pacific bluefin tuna are severely overfished, and overfishing
continues, making extinction a very real risk.'' The petitioner
presents information in the petition on the abundance of the species
relative to unfished levels and the fishing rates from 2011-2013 which
``were up to three times higher than commonly used reference point for
overfishing.'' The petitioner also presents information on the level of
harvest of juvenile Pacific bluefin tuna and what it characterizes as a
species in which ``reproduction is currently supported by just a few
adult age classes that will soon disappear due to old age.'' Copies of
the petition are available upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
ESA Statutory, Regulatory, Policy Provisions, and Evaluation Framework
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 it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information
in a petition indicates 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 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 positive 90-day 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 DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint
NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (jointly, ``the Services'')
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: (A) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) 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)).
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 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 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
necessitates a negative 90-day finding if a reasonable person would
conclude
[[Page 70076]]
that the unknown information itself suggests the species may be in
danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
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 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, population spatial
structure and connectivity, age structure, sex ratio, diversity,
current and historical range), 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
nongovernmental 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 such organizations or made under other Federal or
state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone will
not alone provide sufficient basis 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'' (http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/pdf/NatureServeStatusAssessmentsListing-Dec%202008.pdf).
Additionally, species classifications under IUCN and the ESA are not
equivalent; data standards, criteria used to evaluate species, and
treatment of uncertainty are not necessarily the same. Thus, when a
petition cites such classifications, we will evaluate the source of
information that the classification is based upon in light of the ESA's
standards on extinction risk and threats discussed above.
Distribution and Life History of the Pacific Bluefin Tuna
Pacific bluefin tuna are a pelagic, highly migratory species
occupying coastal and open ocean areas up to depths of 200 meters (m).
They are primarily found in subtropical and temperate waters of the
North Pacific Ocean, ranging from East Asia to the west coast of North
America. In the western Pacific they are most abundant between Sakhalin
Island and the Philippines, but have been reported as far south as
Australia and New Zealand. In the central part of the Pacific Ocean,
Pacific bluefin tuna have been caught in fisheries both north and south
of the equator (Bayliff 1994). In the eastern Pacific, they have been
documented from Alaska to South America, but they typically range from
the southern tip of Baja California, Mexico, and Point Conception,
California (Bayliff 1994).
Of the bony fishes, tuna are unique for their high metabolic rate
and in their ability to maintain body temperatures several degrees
higher than the surrounding water (Collette & Nauen 1983). The Atlantic
and Pacific bluefin tuna were once considered to be subspecies of the
Northern bluefin tuna, but are now considered separate species on the
basis of genetic and morphological differences (Collette 1999). Pacific
bluefin tuna are one of the cold-water group of tunas which have been
able to extend their feeding ranges into the colder ocean waters of the
temperate zone (Collette 1999).
Pacific bluefin tuna spawning occurs in two areas of the western
Pacific. They spawn between the Philippines and the Ryukyu Islands in
April, May, and June, and in Japanese coastal waters of the Sea of
Japan in July and August (Schaefer 2001; Tanaka et al., 2007). Pacific
bluefin tuna are iteroparous spawners, meaning they may spawn more than
once in their lifetime. They reach sexual maturity between the ages of
3 and 5, and can live to be at least 20 years old. Research indicates
that fish spawning between Japan and the Philippines are primarily 5
year olds, while fish spawning in the Sea of Japan are mostly 3 year
olds (ISC 2014).
Pacific bluefin tuna tend to migrate north along the Japanese and
Korean coasts in the summer, and south in the winter (Inagake et al.,
2001; Itoh et al., 2003; Yoon et al., 2012). A variable but small
portion of the age 1-3 Pacific bluefin tuna migrate eastward across the
North Pacific Ocean each year, spending up to several years as
juveniles off the coast of North America before returning to the
western Pacific Ocean to spawn (Inagake et al., 2001). The trans-
Pacific migration is believed to take 1.5-2.0 months (Baumann et al.,
2015) and their migration route tends to be within the subtropical zone
(Whitlock et al., 2012). In the eastern Pacific they are found
primarily off the coast of Mexico, California, and Oregon (Domeier et
al., 2005). While in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, Pacific bluefin tuna
exhibit a seasonal pattern of northerly migrations in the summer and
fall, returning to Baja California in the winter months (Kitagawa et
al., 2007).
Pacific bluefin tuna fisheries in the eastern Pacific are managed
by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), and fisheries
in the western and central Pacific are managed by the Western and
Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). Five countries harvest
these fish but Japan catches the majority of Pacific bluefin tuna,
followed by Mexico, the United States, Korea and Chinese Taipei (ISC
2014). Based on genetic information and spawning distribution, the
Pacific bluefin tuna is managed as a single stock. Research surveys
have caught larval, postlarval, and early juvenile Pacific bluefin tuna
in the western Pacific Ocean, but not in the eastern Pacific Ocean,
leading to the conclusion that there is a single stock of Pacific
bluefin tuna in the North Pacific Ocean (IATTC 2014).
Analysis of Petition and Information Readily Available in NMFS Files
The petition contains information on the species, including the
taxonomy,
[[Page 70077]]
species description, geographic distribution, habitat, population
status and trends, and factors contributing to the species' decline.
According to the petition, four of the five causal factors in section
4(a)(1) of the ESA are adversely affecting the continued existence of
the Pacific bluefin tuna: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In the following sections, we evaluate the information provided in
the petition, as well as other pertinent information readily available
in our files, to determine if the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that an endangered or
threatened listing may be warranted as a result of any of the ESA
section 4(a)(1) factors. If it does, then we will make a positive
finding on the petition and conduct a review of the species range-wide.
Below, we summarize the information presented in the petition and in
our files on the status of the species and the ESA section 4(a)(1)
factors that may be affecting the species' risk of extinction, and
determine whether a reasonable person would conclude that an endangered
or threatened listing may be warranted as a result of any of these
factors.
Pacific Bluefin Tuna Status and Trends
The International Scientific Committee (ISC), the scientific body
that informs the Northern Committee to the WCPFC, uses fishery-specific
catch-and-effort data from Japanese and Taiwanese fisheries to derive
estimates of abundance for Pacific bluefin tuna. The ISC models
generate annual estimates of total biomass, spawning stock biomass, and
recruitment for each year beginning with 1952. Although there have been
fisheries for Pacific bluefin tuna since at least the beginning of the
20th century in the eastern Pacific Ocean, and for several centuries in
the western Pacific Ocean, the data prior to 1952, especially from the
western Pacific Ocean, are of relatively poor quality (ISC 2016). For
this reason, abundance estimates for Pacific bluefin tuna begin with
the 1952 fishing season.
The ISC uses an age-structured model, based on catch, size-
composition, and catch-per-unit of effort data, to derive estimates of
biomass. Catch of Pacific bluefin tuna is recorded as metric tons of
fish and biomass is likewise expressed in metric tons. The ISC model
indicates that although the total biomass fluctuated throughout the
assessment period (1952 through 2014), it began to steadily decline in
1996, leveling off in 2010 (ISC 2016). During the stock assessment
period, the total biomass reached a peak of 209,075 metric tons in 1960
and a low of 29,347 in 1983. The estimated total biomass of Pacific
bluefin tuna for 2014 is 35,817 metric tons.
The petition and the information in our files indicate that the
abundance of Pacific bluefin tuna which are old enough to spawn
(spawning stock biomass) has diminished to just 2.6 percent of its
unfished biomass and less than one-third of what it was 20 years ago
(ISC 2016). The unfished spawning stock biomass can roughly be defined
as the theoretical spawning stock biomass without fishing and assuming
no environmental or density-dependent effects. The ISC estimated the
spawning stock biomass for the year 2014 was 16,557 metric tons and the
unfished biomass to be approximately 636,807.
The ISC also estimates the productivity to be relatively stable
throughout the modeling period. Recruitment estimates for the most
recent years can be highly uncertain due to limited information on the
cohorts. However, the ISC (2016) estimated that recruitment in 2014 was
relatively low and the average for the last 5 years appears to be below
the long-term average. The petitioners assert that 97.6 percent of all
Pacific bluefin tuna caught are between 0 and 2 years of age and that
the population is supported by just a few adult age classes. The
petitioners further assert that along with the dwindling number of
adults, in 2014, the Pacific bluefin tuna population produced the
second lowest number of juvenile fish since 1952.
Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors
The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Its Habitat or Range
The petitioners contend that Pacific bluefin tuna are at risk of
extinction throughout their range due to water pollution, marine
debris, oil and gas development, wind energy development, and prey
depletion. The petitioners assert that Pacific bluefin tuna habitat is
threatened by pollution in the form of mercury, persistent organic
pollutants, plastics, radiation nuclides from Fukushima, oil spills,
oil and gas development related waste products, and waste from
aquaculture projects. The petitioners note that a recent study by
Lowenstein et al., (2010) found mercury levels of bluefin tuna samples
collected from restaurants and supermarkets exceed those permitted by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2000), Health Canada (2007) and
the European Commission (2008). Bluefin tuna samples in the cited study
were from Atlantic, Pacific, and Southern bluefin tuna, with over half
of the samples from Atlantic bluefin tuna. The petition concludes that
because of the relatively high mercury content compared to other fish
species, Pacific bluefin tuna are likely susceptible to physiological
impacts.
Petitioners also raised concerns about persistent organic
pollutants. Persistent organic pollutants are absorbed by organisms at
the base of the food chain and accumulated in the fatty tissues of
consumers, becoming more concentrated as they work their way up the
food chain. This process is known as biomagnification and can pose
risks to predators, like bluefin tuna, which are at the top of the food
chain. The petitioners cite various examples of studies that have
documented biomagnification in similar species and the risks to the
health of the organism. As an example, studies of Atlantic bluefin tuna
in the Mediterranean found unusually high levels of female proteins in
males of the species (Storelli et al., 2008). Researchers believe
polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlorine pesticides can mimic
endogenous hormones, disrupt reproductive functions and cause
developmental abnormalities (such as intersexes) in fish (De Metrio et
al., 2003).
The petitioners also raise concerns about pollution from
aquaculture projects, calling attention to a proposed project off the
coast of San Diego, California. Waste from aquaculture operations can
include excess fish feed, dead fish, fish feces, and chemicals used to
control disease and parasites (e.g. antibiotics and pesticides).
Excessive fish feed, dead fish, and fish feces can lead to elevated
levels of nitrogen and phosphorous which in turn can cause oxygen
depletion and harmful algal blooms in nearby waters. The petitioners do
not provide details about how the chemicals used in aquaculture may
affect the health of Pacific bluefin tuna in the wild.
The petitioners assert that Pacific bluefin tuna may be susceptible
to entanglement by marine debris and ingestion of plastic particles.
Most of the reports of fish entangled in marine debris are from lost
fishing gear (NOAA 2014). The petitioners note that because of the
properties of plastic, small plastic pellets tend to accumulate
persistent organic pollutants and contribute to the
[[Page 70078]]
biomagnification of these pollutants in the pelagic food web.
Oil and gas development can affect water quality through acute and
chronic spills and discharge of produced water and drilling muds. The
petitioners assert that the direct impacts of oil spills include
behavioral alteration, suppressed growth, induced or inhibited enzyme
systems and other molecular effects, physiological responses, reduced
immunity to disease and parasites, histopathological lesions and other
cellular effects, tainted flesh, and mortality (Holdway 2002). The
petitioners further assert that oil spills can exert indirect effects
on wildlife through reduction of key prey species, impacting wildlife
species and ecosystems for decades (Peterson et al., 2003). The
petitioners assert that produced water and drilling muds contain toxic
pollutants such as mercury, lead, chromium, barium, arsenic, cadmium,
and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (MMS 2007). Furthermore, the
petitioners note that some of the chemicals added to fracking fluids
can have adverse effects on aquatic species and other wildlife (Colborn
et al., 2011). In addition to water quality concerns, the petitioner
asserts that oil and gas exploration and development activities produce
underwater noise which degrades Pacific bluefin tuna habitat. These
activities include seismic surveying, drilling, offshore structure
emplacement, offshore structure removal, and production related
activities, including ship and helicopter activity for providing
supplies to the drilling rigs and platforms.
The petitioners briefly describe the potential harm from wind-
energy development, citing interference with migration, feeding, and
collisions or entanglements during construction and operation as the
primary issues.
The final issue raised by the petitioners related to Pacific
bluefin tuna habitat is prey depletion. The petitioners assert that
commercial fisheries for forage fish and squid have diminished the
quality of Pacific bluefin tuna habitat in the California Current Large
Marine Ecosystem. The petitioners further note that the fishery for
market squid has increased five-fold in the last three decades
(Vojkovich 1998; CDFW 2014) and the fishery for sardines was recently
closed because of a 91 percent decline in abundance since 2007 (Hill et
al., 2015). Research results on Pacific bluefin tuna foraging ecology
demonstrate that their diet varies across years (PFMC 2016).
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petitioners assert that the primary threat to the Pacific
bluefin tuna is from overutilization by commercial and recreational
fisheries. A common practice in fisheries management is to define
biological reference points for abundance of adult fish and limit
harvest levels to maintain the stock at or above the biological
reference points. The fisheries commissions have not established
biological reference points for Pacific bluefin tuna. However, the ISC
compared the 2011-2013 estimated fisheries mortalities to standard
reference points (targets for fishing effort and abundance of the
population) and found that if those points were used to manage Pacific
bluefin tuna, overfishing would be occurring or just at the threshold
and the stock would be considered overfished (ISC 2016). The management
implications of the most recent stock assessment are that the stock is
at very low levels and the fishing mortality is higher than any
reasonable reference point (Maunder 2016).
The petitioners assert that the vast majority of the Pacific
bluefin tuna catch are juvenile fish and the population is supported by
a dwindling number of adult tuna. According to the petitioners, nearly
98 percent of all Pacific bluefin tuna caught are between 0 and 2 years
of age and the population is supported by just a few adult age classes.
Furthermore, the majority of Pacific bluefin tuna landed in the Western
Pacific are juveniles caught in or around their nursery grounds. In the
Eastern Pacific, 90 percent of the catch is estimated to be 1 to 3
years of age (IATTC 2014).
The petitioners also assert that industrial fishing fleets are
targeting adult Pacific bluefin on their spawning grounds, and that
this is widely recognized as an unsustainable practice. In support of
this assertion, the petitioners provide information about fisheries
management for Atlantic bluefin tuna. The International Commission for
the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas established regulations in 1982
which prohibit directed fishing on bluefin tuna in their Gulf of Mexico
spawning grounds.
The petitioners assert that along with the dwindling number of
adults, in 2014, the Pacific bluefin tuna population produced the
second lowest number of juvenile fish since 1952. The ISC (2016)
estimated that recruitment in 2014 was relatively low and the average
for the last 5 years appears to be below the long-term average. Two out
of the last three recruitments are the lowest levels observed since
1980 (Maunder 2016).
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petitioners assert that the existing international, regional,
and national regulations do not adequately protect the Pacific bluefin
tuna. The regional fisheries management organizations, the IATTC and
the WCPFC have adopted management measures for Pacific bluefin tuna,
but these measures may not be adequate to end overfishing. The
petitioner's primary concern with the existing regulatory mechanisms is
the absence of science-based biological reference points and a
mandatory limit on the aggregate international catch of Pacific bluefin
tuna. As noted above, the petitioners contend that Pacific bluefin tuna
are at or below what should be considered a threshold for overfished.
The IATTC staff recommended that commercial catches in 2014 be
limited to an amount below 3,154 metric tons, which was the estimated
commercial catch in the Eastern Pacific in 2013, and that the
noncommercial catches in 2014 be limited below 221 metric tons, which
is based on the same method that was applied to commercial catch to
determine that recommended limit (IATTC 2014a). The petitioners note
that instead of using common scientific reference points, the IATTC
staff recommended catch limits based on the previous year's total
catch. The petitioners also note that despite recommendations from
staff, the IATTC decided to set total commercial catches for 2015 and
2016 at 6,600 metric tons, for an effective annual catch of 3,300
metric tons in each year.
In 2014, WCPFC adopted a rebuilding plan designed to rebuild the
stock to the historical median of 42,592 metric tons within 10 years
(WCPFC 2014a). Estimated catches of Pacific bluefin tuna were high from
1929 to 1940 with a peak catch of approximately 47,635 metric tons in
1935 (ISC 2014). However, the WCPFC uses the year 1952 as the first
year in its calculations for the historical median. The petitioners
argue that the chosen historical median equates to just 6.4 percent of
the historical unfished level, well below the commonly recommended
rebuilding target of 20-40 percent of unfished levels for species such
as bluefin tuna (Restrepo et al., 1998).
The petitioners assert that U.S. regulations for domestic Pacific
bluefin tuna fisheries are not adequate to prevent extinction. They
argue that the United States has not taken adequate
[[Page 70079]]
steps to prevent overfishing and to rebuild Pacific bluefin tuna. The
petitioners note that for the 2012 and 2013 fishing seasons, NMFS
implemented IATTC recommendations for commercial fisheries capping
Pacific bluefin tuna annual catch at 500 metric tons--an amount above
any U.S. catches since 2000. The petitioners also note that the annual
catch limit for 2015 and 2016, a combined limit of 600 metric tons for
both years, is more than the U.S. commercial fleet has caught in any 2-
year period since 2002.
Since 2010, U.S. recreational catch has been significantly higher
than U.S. commercial catch in all but one year, and accounts for the
majority of the U.S. landings. In recent years, NMFS reduced the bag
limit for recreational fisheries from 10 to 2 fish per day. The
petitioners argue that the bag limit does not provide an absolute limit
on recreational catch because (1) the fishery is open access, meaning
there is no limit on the number of fishermen who can participate in the
fishery, and (2) there is no limit on the number of trips each
fisherman can take. Therefore, they feel the bag limits do not provide
a reliable mechanism for limiting recreational catch and preventing
overfishing.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
The petition contends that climate change and its associated ocean
impacts threaten the continued existence of Pacific bluefin tuna.
Climate change is increasing ocean temperatures and surface ocean
acidity, and decreasing dissolved oxygen levels. Water temperature is
believed to be one of the factors which influence spawning success of
Pacific bluefin tuna. The petitioners assert that climate change and
its associated influence on the distribution of ocean temperatures may
disrupt both migration and spawning success for Pacific bluefin tuna.
The success of Pacific bluefin tuna spawning and hatching, as well as
larval survival, are believed to be closely linked to water
temperature. The petitioners note that Kimura et al. (2010) found the
optimal temperature range for Pacific bluefin tuna larval survival to
be 24 to 28 degrees Celsius, and an increase of just 3 degrees above
this range to result in an immediate rise in mortality rate. The
petitioners also assert that climate change may also reduce prey
availability for Pacific bluefin tuna, noting that climate-associated
ecosystem changes have reduced productivity in the last half-century in
the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem (Black et al., 2014).
The petitioners assert that although research on ocean
acidification's direct effects on tuna is in its infancy, preliminary
experiments hatching yellowfin tuna eggs in ocean water of varying pH,
including current and predicted near future ocean pH (6.9, 7.3, 7.7,
and 8.1), showed that decreasing pH (i.e., acidification) significantly
increased hours until complete hatching (Bromhead et al., 2013; Frommel
et al., 2016). The petitioners also cite research on other species
which indicate that decreasing pH can lead to loss of the senses of
sight, smell, and touch in fishes.
The petitioners assert that climate change will decrease dissolved
oxygen levels in the ocean and influence the range of suitable habitat
for Pacific bluefin tuna. The petitioners also assert that scientists
have already documented reduced oxygen levels in Pacific bluefin tuna
habitat--in waters off Japan, and the California Current (Bograd et
al., 2008; Emerson et al., 2004; McClatchie et al., 2010).
Petition Finding
After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well
as information readily available in our files, and based on the above
analysis, we conclude the petition presents substantial scientific
information indicating the petitioned action of listing the Pacific
bluefin tuna 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 status review of
the species. During our status review, we will first determine whether
the species is in danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to become
so (threatened) throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Within 12 months of the receipt of the petition (June 20, 2017), we
will make a finding as to whether listing the species as endangered or
threatened is warranted as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA.
Information Solicited
As a result of this 90-day finding, we commence a status review of
the Pacific bluefin tuna to determine whether listing the species is
warranted. To ensure that our review of Pacific bluefin tuna is
informed by the best available scientific and commercial information,
we are opening a 60-day public comment period to solicit information to
support our status review and 12-month finding.
Specifically, we request information regarding: (1) Species
abundance; (2) species productivity; (3) species distribution or
population spatial structure; (4) patterns of phenotypic, genotypic,
and life history diversity; (5) habitat conditions and associated
limiting factors and threats; (6) ongoing or planned efforts to protect
and restore the species and their habitats; (7) information on the
adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, whether protections are
being implemented and whether they are proving effective in conserving
the species; (8) data concerning the status and trends of identified
limiting factors or threats; (9) information on targeted harvest
(commercial and recreational) and bycatch of the species; (10) other
new information, data, or corrections including, but not limited to,
taxonomic or nomenclatural changes and improved analytical methods for
evaluating extinction risk; and (11) information concerning the impacts
of environmental variability and climate change on survival,
recruitment, distribution, and/or extinction risk.
In addition to the above requested information, we are interested
in any information concerning protective efforts that have not yet been
fully implemented or demonstrated effectiveness. Our consideration of
conservation measures, regulatory mechanisms, and other protective
efforts will be guided by the Services ``Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions'' (PECE Policy; 68
FR 15100; March 28, 2003). The PECE Policy establishes criteria to
ensure the consistent and adequate evaluation of formalized
conservation efforts when making listing decisions under the ESA. This
policy may also guide the development of conservation efforts that
sufficiently improve a species' status so as to make listing the
species as threatened or endangered unnecessary. Under the PECE Policy
the adequacy of conservation efforts is evaluated in terms of the
certainty of their implementation, and the certainty of their
effectiveness. Criteria for evaluating the certainty of implementation
include whether: The necessary resources available; the necessary
authority is in place; an agreement formalized (i.e., are regulatory
and procedural mechanisms in place); there is a schedule for completion
and evaluation; for voluntary measures, incentives to ensure necessary
participation are in place; and there is agreement of all necessary
parties to the measure or plan. Criteria for evaluating the certainty
of effectiveness include whether the
[[Page 70080]]
measure or plan: includes a clear description of the factors for
decline to be addressed and how they will be reduced; establishes
specific conservation objectives; identifies necessary steps to reduce
threats; includes quantifiable performance measures for monitoring
compliance and effectiveness; employs principles of adaptive
management; and is certain to improve the species' status at the time
of listing determination. We request that any information submitted
with respect to conservation measures, regulatory mechanisms, or other
protective efforts, that have yet to be implemented or show
effectiveness, explicitly address the criteria in the PECE policy.
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
The complete citations for the references used in this document can
be obtained by contacting NMFS (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or
on our Web page at: www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov.
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16. U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: September 29, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-24477 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P