[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 225 (Friday, November 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74320-74322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25625]
[[Page 74320]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 201105-0292; RTID 0648-XR114]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition
To List the Giant Devil Ray as Threatened or Endangered Under the
Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notification of 90-Day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the
giant devil ray (Mobula mobular) as an endangered or threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The petition requests that we
list the giant devil ray (M. mobular) as a distinct species with a
limited range throughout the Mediterranean Sea. Information in our
files indicates a recent taxonomic revision that found M. mobular and
M. japanica (spinetail devilray) to be synonymous species (i.e., same
taxon described and named more than once independently) with
circumglobal distribution in tropical and warm temperate seas. The
petition relies on obsolete information to identify the species, and
therefore we find that the petition does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons may obtain a copy of the petition online
at the NMFS website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/negative-90-day-findings.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephania Bolden (727 551-5768) or
Lisa Manning (301 427-8466), NMFS Office of Protected Resources,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 10, 2020, we received a petition from Friends of
Animals to list the giant devil ray (M. mobular) as a threatened or
endangered species throughout its entire range under the ESA. The
petition describes the range of the giant devil ray as being limited to
the Mediterranean Sea. The petition also requests that critical habitat
be designated for the species in Mediterranean waters. The petition is
available online (see ADDRESSES).
ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and 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 we find that substantial scientific or commercial information in a
petition indicates that the petitioned action may be warranted (a
``positive 90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a
review of the status of the species concerned, which includes
conducting 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 ``may be warranted'' finding does not prejudge the outcome of
the status review and 12-month finding.
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a ``species,''
which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate
species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) 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: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or
predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other
natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C.
1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i) define ``substantial scientific or commercial
information'' in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist,
or reclassify a species as credible scientific or commercial
information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable
person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that
the action proposed in the petition may be warranted. Conclusions drawn
in the petition without the support of credible scientific or
commercial information will not be considered ``substantial
information.'' In reaching the initial (90-day) finding on the
petition, we will consider the information described in sections 50 CFR
424.14(c), (d), and (g) (if applicable). Our determination as to
whether the petition provides substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted
depends in part on the degree to which the petition includes the
following types of information: (1) Information on current population
status and trends and estimates of current population sizes and
distributions, both in captivity and the wild, if available; (2)
identification of the factors under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA that may
affect the species and where these factors are acting upon the species;
(3) whether and to what extent any or all of the factors alone or in
combination identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA may cause the
species to be an endangered species or threatened species (i.e., the
species is currently in danger of extinction or is likely to become so
within the foreseeable future), and, if so, how high in magnitude and
how imminent the threats to the species and its habitat are; (4)
information on adequacy of regulatory protections and effectiveness of
conservation activities by States as well as other parties, that have
been initiated or that are ongoing, that may protect the species or its
habitat; and (5) a complete, balanced representation of the relevant
facts, including information that may contradict claims in the
petition. See 50 CFR 424.14(d).
We may also consider information readily available at the time the
determination is made. We are not required to consider any supporting
materials cited by the petitioner if the petitioner does not provide
electronic or
[[Page 74321]]
hard copies, to the extent permitted by U.S. copyright law, or
appropriate excerpts or quotations from those materials (e.g.,
publications, maps, reports, letters from authorities). See 50 CFR
424.14(c)(6).
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.
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; then we assess the potential significance of that
negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by non-
governmental organizations, such as the International Union for 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
requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of
endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of
lists should not be expected to coincide'' (https://explorer.natureserve.org/AboutTheData/DataTypes/ConservationStatusCategories). Additionally, species classifications
under IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent; data standards, criteria
used to evaluate species, and treatment of uncertainty are also 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 standards on extinction risk and impacts or
threats discussed above.
Analysis of the Petition and Information Readily Available in NMFS
Files
As mentioned above, in analyzing the request of the petitioner, we
first evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along
with information readily available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under
the ESA.
To evaluate the petition, we first looked at the taxonomic
description in the petition that referred to the M. mobular by one of
its common names, ``giant devil ray.'' The petition includes a ``full
taxonomic classification'' of the giant devil ray, and identifies M.
mobular (Raia mobular Bonnaterre 1778) within the genus Mobula. The
petition then asserts there are nine different species of the devil ray
and lists them as: Giant devil ray (M. mobular), lesser Guinean devil
ray (M. rochebrunei), Chilean devil ray (M. tarapacana), pygmy devil
ray (M. eregoodootenkee), smoothtail Mobula (M. munkiana), bentfin
devil ray (M. thurstoni), spinetail devil ray (M. japanica), Atlantic
devil ray (M. hypostoma), and the shortfin devil ray (M. kuhlii). The
petition cites the M. mobular 2015 IUCN Red List Report (Notarbartolo
di Sciara et al. 2015) as reference for the taxonomy of the giant devil
ray and includes as the source a 12-page document downloaded from the
IUCN website (Notarbartolo di Sciara et al. 2015; that appears to be
downloaded on January 24, 2020). However, this source citation for the
taxonomic description provided by the petitioner includes on the first
page next to the scientific name of the species the statement: ``This
concept is no longer recognized.''
The 2019 IUCN Red List Report for M. mobular (Marshall et al.
2019), which was readily available in our files, describes a 2017
taxonomic revision that combines the individuals previously identified
as M. japanica with those classified as M. mobular. Citing both
morphological examination and an increased understanding of molecular
genetics, the 2017 taxonomic revision found M. japanica to be a junior
synonym to the senior M. mobular (White et al. 2017 with agreement by
Hosegood et al. 2018). This taxonomic revision is reflected in the 2019
IUCN Red List Report (Marshall et al. 2019), which no longer recognizes
M. japanica and identifies the range of M. mobular as ``circumglobal in
temperate and tropical waters throughout all oceans.''
[[Page 74322]]
Thus, while the petition identifies M. mobular as a species
separate from M. japanica, recent improved knowledge of phylogenetic
relationships, available when the petition was submitted to NMFS in
2020, indicates the species is no longer a valid concept. Information
in our files, as well as the source citation submitted with the
petition (IUCN Red List 2015), clearly indicate the species identified
in the petition is based on an obsolete taxonomic classification.
Because we concluded that the petition does not identify a valid
species for listing, we do not need to evaluate whether the information
in the petition indicates the species may be an endangered or
threatened species based on ESA section 4(a)(1) factors. Furthermore,
our regulations specify that critical habitat will not be designated
within foreign countries or in areas outside the jurisdiction of the
United States (50 CFR 424.12(g)). Thus, we conclude that the petition
does not meet the requirements outlined in our regulations indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well
as information readily available in our files, we conclude that because
of a recent taxonomic revision the species identified in the petition
is no longer a valid concept. Therefore, the petition does not present
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the
requested actions may be warranted. We note our regulations (50 CFR
424.12(g)) specify that critical habitat will not be designated within
foreign countries or in areas outside the jurisdiction of the United
States.
References Cited
A complete list of references is available upon request to the NMFS
Office of Protected Resources (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: November 10, 2020.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-25625 Filed 11-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P