[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55200-55239]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19109]



[[Page 55199]]

Vol. 87

Thursday,

No. 173

September 8, 2022

Part IV





Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 223





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Rule To List 
the Queen Conch as Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 55200]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 223

[Docket No. 220830-0177; RTID 0648-XR071]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Rule to 
List the Queen Conch as Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a proposed rule to list the queen conch 
(Aliger gigas, previously known as Strombus gigas) as a threatened 
species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We have completed a 
comprehensive status review for the queen conch. After considering the 
status review report, and after taking into account efforts being made 
to protect the species, we have determined that the queen conch is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout its range. Therefore, we propose to list the queen conch as 
a threatened species under the ESA. Any protective regulations 
determined to be necessary and advisable for the conservation of the 
queen conch under ESA would be proposed in a subsequent Federal 
Register announcement. We solicit information to assist this listing 
determination, the development of proposed protective regulations, and 
designation of critical habitat within U.S jurisdiction.

DATES: Information and comments on this proposed rule must be received 
by November 7, 2022. Public hearing requests must be requested by 
October 24, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, information, or data on this 
document, identified by the code NOAA-NMFS-2019-0141 by any of the 
following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov and enter 
NOAA-NMFS-2019-0141 in the Search box. Click on the ``Comment'' icon, 
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
     Mail: NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue 
South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701;
     Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any 
other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment 
period, might 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). You can find the petition, status review report, Federal 
Register notices, and the list of references electronically on our 
website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/queen-conch

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Calusa Horn, NMFS Southeast Regional 
Office, 727-551-5782 or [email protected], or Maggie Miller, NMFS 
Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8457 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 27, 2012, we received a petition from WildEarth 
Guardians to list the queen conch as threatened or endangered 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range under the ESA. We 
determined that the petitioned action may be warranted and published a 
positive 90-day finding in the Federal Register (77 FR 51763; August 
27, 2012). After conducting a status review, we determined that listing 
queen conch as threatened or endangered under the ESA was not warranted 
and published our determination in the Federal Register (79 FR 65628; 
November 5, 2014). In making that determination, we first concluded 
that the queen conch was not presently in danger of extinction, nor was 
it likely to become so in the foreseeable future. We also evaluated 
whether there was a portion of the queen conch's range that was 
``significant,'' applying the definition of that term from the joint 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/NMFS Policy on Interpretation of the 
Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' (SPR Policy; 79 FR 37580, 
July 1, 2014). We concluded that available information did not indicate 
any ``portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so 
important that, without the members in that portion, the species would 
be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future, throughout all of its range.''
    WildEarth Guardians and Friends of Animals filed suit on July 27, 
2016, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 
challenging our decision not to list queen conch as threatened or 
endangered under the ESA. On August 26, 2019, the court vacated our 
determination that listing queen conch under the ESA was not warranted 
and remanded the determination back to the NMFS based on our reliance 
on the SPR Policy's particular threshold for defining ``significant,'' 
which was vacated nationwide in 2018 (though other aspects of the 
policy remain in effect). See Desert Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of 
Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2018). Following the 2019 
ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, we 
announced the initiation of a new status review of queen conch and 
requested scientific and commercial information from the public (84 FR 
66885, December 6, 2019). We received 12 public comments in response to 
this request. We also provided notice and requested information from 
jurisdictions through the Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission 
(WECAFC), Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM), and the 
Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 
Fauna and Flora (CITES) Authorities. All relevant, new information was 
incorporated as appropriate in the status review report and in this 
proposed rule. In particular, new information considered in the status 
review report includes: (1) fisheries landings data (1950-2018) from 
the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); (2) reconstructed landing 
histories (1950-2016) from the Sea Around Us (SAU) project; (3) results 
from recent genetic studies; and (4) the results from regional 
hydrodynamics and population connectivity modeling.

Listing Determinations Under the ESA

    We are responsible for determining whether species are threatened 
or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To make this 
determination, we first consider whether a group of organisms 
constitutes a ``species'' under section 3 of the ESA, then whether the 
status of the species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or 
endangered. Section 3 of the ESA defines species to include ``any 
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population 
segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds 
when mature.'' Because the queen conch is an invertebrate, we do not 
have the authority to list individual populations as distinct 
population segments.

[[Page 55201]]

    Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as ``any species 
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range'' and a threatened species as one ``which is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' Thus, in the 
context of the ESA, the Services interpret an ``endangered species'' to 
be one that is presently at risk of extinction. A ``threatened 
species,'' on the other hand, is not currently at risk of extinction, 
but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future. In other words, a 
key statutory difference between a threatened and endangered species is 
the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either now 
(endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened). Additionally, 
as the definition of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened species'' 
makes clear, the determination of extinction risk can be based on 
either the range-wide status of the species, or the status of the 
species in a ``significant portion of its range.'' A species may be 
endangered or threatened throughout all of its range or a species may 
be endangered or threatened within a significant portion of its range 
(SPR).
    Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us to determine whether any 
species is endangered or threatened as a result of any of the following 
five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence (section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E)). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the 
ESA requires us to make listing determinations based solely on the best 
scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of 
the status of the species and after taking into account conservation 
efforts being made by any State or foreign nation or political 
subdivision thereof to protect the species.

Status Review

    We convened a team of seven agency scientists to conduct a new 
status review for the queen conch and prepare a report. The status 
review team (SRT) was comprised of natural resource management 
specialists and fishery biologists from the NMFS Southeast Regional 
Office, West Coast Regional Office, Office of Protected Resources, and 
Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC). The SRT had group expertise 
in queen conch life history and ecology, population dynamics, 
connectivity modeling, fisheries management and stock assessment 
science, and protected species management and conservation. The status 
review report presents the SRT's professional judgment of the 
extinction risk facing the queen conch but makes no recommendation as 
to the listing status of the species. The status review report was 
subjected to independent peer review as required by the Office of 
Management and Budget Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 
Review (M-05-03; December 16, 2004). The status review report was peer 
reviewed by three independent specialists selected from the scientific 
community, with expertise in queen conch biology and ecology, 
conservation and management, and specific knowledge of threats to queen 
conch. The peer reviewers were asked to evaluate the adequacy, 
appropriateness, and application of data used in the status review as 
well as the findings resulting from that data. All peer reviewer 
comments were addressed prior to finalizing the status review report.
    We subsequently reviewed the status review report, its cited 
references, and public and peer reviewer comments. We determined the 
status review report, upon which this proposed rule is based, provides 
the best available scientific and commercial information on the queen 
conch. Much of the information discussed below on queen conch biology 
and ecology, distribution and connectivity, density and abundance, 
threats, and extinction risk is taken from the status review report. 
However, we have independently applied the statutory provisions of the 
ESA, including evaluation of the factors set forth in section 
4(a)(1)(A)-(E), our regulations regarding listing determinations, 
conservation efforts, and the aspects of our SPR Policy that remain 
valid in making our determination that the queen conch meets the 
definition of a threatened species under the ESA.

Life History, Ecology, and Status of the Petitioned Species

Taxonomy and Species Description

    Aliger gigas, originally known as Strombus gigas or more recently 
as Lobatus gigas, is commonly known as the queen conch. The queen conch 
belongs to the family Strombidae and the most recent classification 
places the queen conch under the genus Aliger (Maxwell et al. 2020) in 
the class Gastropoda, order Neotaenioglossa, and family Strombidae. 
Other accepted synonyms include: Strombus gigas (Linnaeus, 1758); 
Lobatus gigas (Linnaeus, 1758); Strombus lucifer (Linnaeus, 1758); 
Eustrombus gigas (Linnaeus, 1758); Pyramea lucifer (Linnaeus, 1758); 
Strombus samba (Clench 1937); Strombus. horridus (Smith 1940); Strombus 
verrilli (McGinty 1946); Strombus canaliculatus (Burry 1949); and 
Strombus pahayokee (Petuch 1994), as cited in (Landau et al. 2009).
    The queen conch is a large marine gastropod mollusk. Adult queen 
conch have a heavy shell (5 pounds, 2.3 kilograms (kg)) with spines on 
each whorl of the spire and flared aperture. The shell grows as the 
mollusk grows, forming into a spiral shape with a glossy pink interior. 
The outside of the shell becomes covered by an organic periostracum 
(``around the shell'') layer as the queen conch matures that can be 
much darker than the natural color of the shell. Characteristics used 
to distinguish queen conch from other family members include: (1) 
large, heavy shell; (2) short, sharp spires; (3) brown and horny 
operculum; and (4) pink interior of the shell (Prada et al. 2009).

Distribution, Movements, and Habitat Use

    The queen conch is distributed throughout the Caribbean Sea, the 
Gulf of Mexico, and around Bermuda. Its range includes the following 
countries, territories, and areas: Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, 
Aruba, Barbados, The Bahamas, Belize, Bermuda, Bonaire, British Virgin 
Islands, Brazil, Cayman Islands, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, 
Cura[ccedil]ao, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guadeloupe and Martinique, 
Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Montserrat, Nicaragua, 
Panama, Puerto Rico, Saba, St. Barthelemy, St. Martin, St. Eustatius, 
St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, 
Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos, U.S. Virgin Islands, the United 
States (Florida), and Venezuela (Theile 2001; see File S1 in Horn et 
al. 2022).
    As conch develop they use different habitat types including 
seagrass beds, sand flats, algal beds, and rubble areas from a few 
centimeters deep to approximately 30 meters (m) (Brownell and Stevely 
1981). After the eggs of queen conch hatch, the veligers (larvae) drift 
in the water column for up to 30 days depending on phytoplankton 
concentration, temperature, and the proximity of settlement habitat. 
The minimum pelagic duration is reported from four field studies to be 
16 days (Brownell 1977; Davis 1994, 1996;

[[Page 55202]]

Salley 1986), but can range from 21 days to 30 days (Brownell 1977; 
D'Asaro 1965; Davis 1994; Paris et al. 2008; Salley 1986) with a mean 
of approximately 25 days. These veligers are found primarily in the 
upper few meters of the water column (Paris et al. 2008; Posada and 
Appeldoorn 1994; Stoner 2003; Stoner and Davis 1997) where they feed on 
phytoplankton. When the veligers are morphologically and 
physiologically ready, they metamorphose into benthic animals in 
response to trophic cues from their seagrass habitat (Davis 2005). The 
key trophic cues shown to induce metamorphosis are epiphytes associated 
with macroalgae and sediment (Davis and Stoner 1994). Settlement 
locations are usually areas that have sufficient tidal circulation and 
high macroalgae production. Upon metamorphosis, veligers settle to the 
bottom and bury completely into the sediment where they spend much of 
their first year of life. They emerge about a year later as juveniles 
measuring around 60 millimeters (mm) shell length (Stoner 1989b). When 
juvenile conch first emerge from the sediment and move to nearby 
seagrass beds, densities can be as high as 200-2000 conch/hectare 
(Stoner 1989a; Stoner and Lally 1994; Stoner 2003). A hectare (ha) is 
an area 100 meters by 100 meters, equivalent to 2.471 acres.
    Queen conch nursery areas primarily occur in back reef areas (i.e., 
shallow sheltered areas, lagoons, behind emergent reefs or cays) of 
medium seagrass density, at depths between 2 to 4 m, with strong tidal 
currents of at least 50 centimeters (cm)/second (Stoner 1989a), and 
frequent tidal water exchanges (Stoner et al. 1996; Stoner and Waite 
1991). Seagrass is thought to provide both nutrition and protection 
from predators (Ray and Stoner 1995; Stoner and Davis 2010). The 
structure of the seagrass beds decreases the risk of predation (Ray and 
Stoner 1995), which is very high for juveniles (Appeldoorn 1988c; 
Stoner and Glazer 1998; Stoner et al. 2019). Posada et al. (1997) 
observed that the most productive nurseries for queen conch tend to 
occur in shallow (< 5-6 m deep) seagrass meadows. Jones and Stoner 
(1997) found that optimal nursery habitat occurred in areas of medium 
density seagrass, particularly areas associated with strong ocean 
currents or hydrographic conditions. Boman et al. (2019) observed a 
significantly higher probability of positive growth in juvenile conch 
in native seagrass compared to invasive seagrass. In The Bahamas, 
juveniles were found only in areas within 5 km from the Exuma Sound 
inlet, emphasizing the importance of currents and frequent tidal water 
exchange that affects both larval supply and growth of their algal food 
(Jones and Stoner, 1997). However, there are certain exceptions, such 
as in Florida, where many juveniles are found on shallow algal flats, 
or in Jamaica, where they can be found on deep banks such as Pedro 
Bank.
    While the early life stages of queen conch primarily occur in 
shallow waters with dense seagrass meadows, adult queen conch can be 
found in a wider range of environments (Stoner et al. 1994), including 
sand, algal flats, or coral rubble (Acosta 2001; Stoner and Davis 
2010). Queen conch are rarely, if ever, found on soft bottoms composed 
of silt or mud, or in areas with high coral cover (Acosta 2006). The 
movements of adult queen conch are associated with factors like changes 
in temperature, food availability, and predation. Adult conch are 
typically found in shallow, clear water of oceanic or near-oceanic 
salinities at depths generally less than 75 m, but are most common in 
waters less than 30 m (McCarthy 2007). Depth limitation is based mostly 
on light attenuation limiting their photosynthetic food source (e.g., 
filamentous alga) (McCarthy 2007; Creswell, 1994; Ray and Stoner 1994; 
Randall 1964). The average home range size for an individual queen 
conch is variable and has been measured at 5.98 ha in Florida (Glazer 
et al. 2003), 0.6 to 1.2 ha in Barbados (Phillips et al. 2010), and 
0.15 to 0.5 ha in the Turks and Caicos Islands (Hesse 1979). Studies 
have suggested that adult conch move to different habitat types during 
their reproductive season, but afterwards return to feeding grounds 
(Glazer et al. 2003; Stoner and Sandt 1992; Hesse 1979). In general, 
adult conch do not move very far from their feeding grounds during 
their reproductive season (Stoner and Sandt 1992).

Diet and Feeding

    Queen conch are herbivores and primarily feed on macroalgae and 
seagrass detritus (Ray and Stoner 1995; Creswell 1994). The production 
of red and green algae, which can be highly variable, has been shown to 
directly affect the growth of juvenile conch (Stoner 2003; Stoner et 
al. 1995; Stoner et al. 1994). Organic material in the sediment 
(benthic diatoms and particulate organic matter and cyanobacteria) has 
also been suggested to be a source of nutrition to juvenile conch 
(Boman et al. 2019; Serviere-Zaragoza et al. 2009; Stoner et al. 1995; 
Stoner and Waite 1991). Stoner and Waite (1991) also showed that 
macroalgae were the most likely food source of juvenile conch (shell 
length 120-140 mm) in native seagrass beds in The Bahamas. Several 
studies have indicated that seagrass detritus is an important secondary 
food source for juvenile queen conch, in particular detritus of T. 
testudinum (Stoner and Waite 1991; Stoner 1989a). In sand habitats, 
juveniles can also feed on diatoms and cyanobacteria that are found in 
the benthos (Creswell 1994; Ray and Stoner 1995).

Age and Growth

    Queen conch are estimated to have a life span of 25-30 years (Davis 
2005; McCarthy 2007). As with many gastropods, growth in queen conch is 
determinate and strongly influenced by the environment (Mart[iacute]n-
Mora et al. 1995; Alcolado, 1976). The species has determinate growth 
and reaches maximum shell length before sexual maturation; thereafter 
the shell grows only in thickness (Stoner et al. 2012; Appeldoorn 
1988a). Conch are often considered to be mature when the lip is flared, 
however Appeldoorn (1988c) observed that the verge (the male 
reproductive organ) of thin-lipped males in Puerto Rico was not yet 
functional, and true reproductive maturity did not occur until at least 
two months after the lip flared outward at about 3.6 years of age. The 
result is that thin-lipped individuals probably do not mate or spawn in 
the first reproductive season after the shell lip flares, and are at 
least 4 years old before first mating. Once the shell lip is formed, 
the shell does not increase in length (Appeldoorn 1996; Tewfik et al. 
1998). Because the shell lip continues to thicken upon the onset of 
maturity (Appeldoorn 1988a), studies have found that shell lip 
thickness is a better indicator of sexual maturity rather than the 
formation of the flared lip (Appeldoorn 1994b; Clerveaux et al. 2005; 
Stoner et al. 2012c). With the onset of sexual maturity, tissue growth 
decreases and switches from primarily thickening of the meat to 
increasing the weight of the gonads. Once the conch is around ten years 
of age, the shell volume starts to decrease, as layers of the shell 
mantle are laid down from the inside (Randall 1964). Eventually, the 
room inside the shell can no longer accommodate the tissue and the 
conch will start to decrease its tissue weight (CFMC and CFRAMP 1999). 
Stoner et al. (2012c) found that after shell lip thickness reached 22 
to 25 mm, both soft tissue and gonad weight decreased.

[[Page 55203]]

Reproductive Biology

    Queen conch reproduce via internal fertilization. Males and females 
are distinguished by either a verge (the male reproductive organ) or 
egg groove. Approximately three weeks after copulation the female lays 
a demersal egg mass on coarse sand of low organic content, completing 
deposition within 24-36 hours (D'Asaro 1965; Randall 1964). The egg 
mass consists of a long, continuous, egg-filled tube that folds and 
sticks together in a compact crescent shape, adhering to sand grains 
that provide camouflage and discourage predation. After an incubation 
period of approximately five days, the larvae emerge and assume a 
pelagic lifestyle (Weil and Laughlin 1984; D'Asaro 1965).
    Assessments of fecundity require knowledge of the population sex 
ratio, spawning season duration, rate of spawning during the season, 
number of eggs per egg mass, and the relationship between body mass and 
age (Appeldoorn 1988c). Few studies have investigated these factors 
concurrently, and the variability reported in these metrics is high. 
For example, estimates of the number of eggs contained within each egg 
mass range from 150,000 to 1,649,000 (Appeldoorn 2020; Delgado and 
Glazer 2020; Appeldoorn 1993; Berg Jr. and Olsen 1989; Mianmanus 1988; 
Weil and Laughlin 1984; D'Asaro 1965; Randall 1964; Robertson 1959). 
Additionally, females are capable of storing eggs for several weeks 
before laying an egg mass, which means it is possible that multiple 
males have fertilized the same eggs (Medley 2008). The ability to store 
sperm is advantageous for conch populations since females are still 
capable of laying egg masses without encountering another male. The 
number of egg masses produced per female is also highly variable and 
ranges between 1 and 25 per female per season for experiments performed 
in different areas throughout the queen conch range (Appeldoorn 1993; 
Berg Jr. and Olsen 1989; Davis et al. 1984; Weil and Laughlin 1984; 
Davis and Hesse 1983).
    The number of masses produced as well as the number of eggs per 
mass may decrease toward the end of the reproductive season (Weil and 
Laughlin 1984), but individual variability may also be influenced by 
spawning frequency and the size and number of egg masses produced 
during the season (Appeldoorn 2020). Differences in spawning rates have 
been attributed to spawning site selection, population densities, and 
food selection and availability, among other variables. Variability in 
spawning activity may also be correlated to water temperature and 
weather conditions. For example, reproductive activity decreased with 
increasing water turbulence (Davis et al. 1984) and reproduction peaked 
with longer days, warmer water temperatures, and relatively stable 
circulation patterns (Stoner et al. 1992).
    Seasonal movements, usually associated with the initiation of the 
reproductive season, are widely known for queen conch. Weil and 
Laughlin (1984) reported that adult conch at Los Roques, Venezuela, 
moved from offshore feeding areas in the winter to summer spawning 
grounds in shallow, inshore sand habitats. In the Turks and Caicos, 
adult conch moved from seagrass to sand-algal flats with the onset of 
winter (Hesse 1979). Movements to shallower habitats have also been 
reported for deep-water populations at St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 
(Coulston et al. 1987). Increasing water temperature and photoperiod 
are thought to trigger large-scale migrations and the subsequent 
initiation of mating. In locations where adult conch are abundant, 
these migrations culminate in the formation of reproductive 
aggregations. These aggregations generally form in the same locations 
each year (Marshak et al. 2006; Glazer and Kidney 2004; Posada et al. 
1997) and are dominated by older individuals that produce viable egg 
masses (Berg Jr. et al. 1992). However, in some areas large-scale 
movements do not occur. For example, in the United States (Florida 
Keys), adult aggregations are relatively persistent throughout the 
year, although reproductive activity does not occur year-round (Glazer 
and Kidney 2004; Glazer et al. 2003). Queen conch found in the deep 
waters near Puerto Rico are geographically isolated from nearshore, 
shallow habitats and remain offshore during the spawning season 
(Garc[iacute]a-Sais et al. 2012). The distribution of feeding and 
spawning habitats may also be an important factor in the timing and 
extent of adult movements.
    Multiple studies involving visual surveys of mating and spawning 
events and histological examinations of gonadic activity show that the 
duration and intensity of the spawning season varies extensively 
throughout the queen conch's range (Table 1 in Horn et al. 2022). 
External variables such as temperature, photoperiod, and weather events 
interact to mediate seasonality in reproductive and spawning behaviors. 
Generally, reproductive activity begins earlier and extends later into 
the year with decreasing latitude. Visual surveys of reproductive 
activity have reported the reproductive season to extend from May to 
September in Florida (D'Asaro 1965), May to November in Puerto Rico 
(Appeldoorn 1985), March to September in the Turks and Caicos (Davis et 
al. 1984; Hesse 1976), and February through November in the U.S. Virgin 
Islands (Coulston et al. 1987; Randall 1964). In warmer regions such as 
Cuba and Mexico's Banco Chinchorro, reproductive activity can occur 
throughout the year (Cala et al. 2013; Corral and Ogawa 1987; Cruz S. 
1986); however, there is a seasonal peak in activity in most areas 
during the warmest months, usually from July to September (Aldana-
Aranda et al. 2014).

Spawning Density

    Depensatory mechanisms have been implicated as a major factor 
limiting the recovery of depleted queen conch populations (Stoner et 
al. 2012c; Appeldoorn 1995). Depensation occurs when a population's 
decreased abundance or density leads to a reduced per capita growth 
rate, thereby reducing the population's ability to recover. 
Reproductive potential is primarily reduced by the removal of mature 
adults from the population (Appeldoorn 1995). Empirical observations 
have suggested mating and egg-laying in queen conch are directly 
related to the density of mature adults (Stoner et al. 2012c; Stoner et 
al. 2011; Stoner and Ray-Culp 2000). In animals that aggregate to 
reproduce, low population densities can make it difficult or impossible 
to find a mate (Stoner and Ray-Culp 2000; Erisman et al. 2017; Rossetto 
et al. 2015; Stephens et al. 1999; Appeldoorn 1995). Challenges 
associated with mate finding are likely exacerbated for slow-moving 
animals such as the queen conch (Doerr and Hill 2013; Glazer et al. 
2003). This limitation directly impacts the species' ability to 
increase its population size because increased ``search time'' depletes 
energy resources, reducing the rate of gametogenesis and the overall 
reproductive potential of the population. Simulations by Farmer and 
Doerr (in review) confirm that limitations on mate finding associated 
with density are the primary driver behind observed patterns in queen 
conch mating and spawning activity, but similar to field observations 
by Gascoigne and Lipcius (2004), it is unlikely to be the only 
explanation for lack of reproductive activity at low densities.
    An additional postulated depensatory mechanism is the breakdown of 
a positive feedback loop between contact with males and the rate of 
gametogenesis and spawning in females, where copulation stimulates 
oocyte development and maturation, leading to

[[Page 55204]]

more frequent spawning (Appeldoorn 1995). Copulation in conch is more 
likely in spawning than non-spawning females, providing an additional 
positive feedback mechanism that amplifies the effect at high densities 
(Appeldoorn 1988a). Evidence supporting this idea has been provided by 
several studies that reported a consistent lag at the start of the 
reproductive season between first observations of copulation and first 
spawning (Weil and Laughlin 1984; Brownell 1977; Hesse 1976; Randall 
1964). This lag period, averaging three weeks, may represent the time 
required to achieve oocyte maturation after first copulation. Farmer 
and Doerr (in review) considered differences in adult density, movement 
speeds, scent-tracking, barriers to movement, interbreeding rest 
periods, perception distance, and sexual facilitation. Sexual 
facilitation was the only mechanism explaining the lack of empirical 
observations of mating at relatively low population densities, 
providing statistical confirmation that the reductions of densities 
caused by overfishing of spawning aggregations increases the 
probability of recruitment failure beyond what would be anticipated 
from delays in mate finding alone. This is consistent with observations 
by Gascoigne and Lipcius (2004), which indicate that in addition to 
depensatory mechanisms associated with mate finding, delayed functional 
maturity at low density sites can explain declines in reproductive 
activity.
    Because direct physical contact is necessary for copulation and 
queen conch are slow moving, the density of mature adults within 
localized queen conch populations is a critical and complex factor 
governing mating success and population sustainability. Although many 
surveys of conch populations have been completed over the last half 
century, few studies have simultaneously investigated the relationship 
between adult density and reproductive rates. Of these, the reported 
rates of reproductive activity associated with surveys of adult 
populations have varied extensively across multiple jurisdiction as 
density is dependent on the scale of measurement and the targeted area 
surveyed. For example, in The Bahamas where queen conch populations are 
at densities near 200 adults per hectare, Stoner and Ray-Culp (2000) 
reported mating and spawning rates of approximately 13 percent and 10 
percent, respectively. During continued surveys in fished areas (Berry 
and Andros Islands) and a no-take reserve (Exuma Cays Land and Sea 
Park) of The Bahamas, Stoner et al. (2012c) observed that, at a mean 
adult density of 60 conch/ha within the Exuma Cays Land and Sea Park, 
9.8 percent of adult queen conch were mating, while at 118 adult conch/
ha at Andros Island, approximately 2.4 percent were mating, and at 131 
adult conch/ha at the Berry Islands, only 5.9 percent were involved in 
mating activity. Doerr and Hill (2018) reported reproductive activity 
in 2.4 percent of adult conch located across the shelf of St. Croix, 
U.S. Virgin Islands, with the lowest mean density of adult queen conch 
at survey sites, where reproductive activity occurred, was 63.7 adult 
conch/ha. Of these studies, the highest densities were reported from 
Cuba, where at one protected site with densities of 223 adult conch/ha 
only 0.3 percent of adult queen conch were mating, while at another 
site with a reported adult density of 497 conch/ha, 3.7 percent of 
conch were mating, and 2.5 percent were involved in spawning (Cala et 
al. 2013). In Colombia, however, reproductive activity demonstrated by 
the presence of egg masses was reported in areas with population 
densities as low as 24 and 11 conch/ha (G[oacute]mez-Campo et al. 
2010). The scale over which these observations were recorded and 
subsequent interpretation of the spatial dispersion of queen conch are 
critical to understanding differences among study conclusions.
    As previously discussed, queen conch life history traits make them 
vulnerable to depensatory mechanisms. When reproductive fitness 
declines such that per capita population growth rate becomes negative, 
localized extinction may result (Courchamp et al. 1999; Allee 1931). 
Appeldoorn (1988a) initially suggested that queen conch may have a 
critical density for egg production, and Stoner and Ray-Culp (2000) 
provided evidence for demographic effects in queen conch populations, 
reporting a complete absence of mating and spawning in population 
densities less than 56 and 48 adult conch/ha, respectively. They 
concluded that the absence of reproduction in low-density populations 
was primarily related to encounter rate and noted that reproductive 
activity reached an asymptotic level near 200 adult conch/ha (Stoner 
and Ray-Culp 2000). Based on these studies, 50 adult conch/ha is 
generally accepted as the minimum threshold required to achieve some 
level of reproductive activity within a given conch population 
(Gascoigne and Lipcius 2004; Stoner and Ray-Culp 2000; Stephens and 
Sutherland 1999; Appeldoorn 1995). Conversely, Delgado and Glazer 
(2020) reported the highest adult queen conch threshold densities below 
which no reproduction was observed, with no mating occurring at 
aggregation densities below 204 adult conch/ha and no spawning at 
aggregation densities below 90 adult conch/ha. Given the highly 
aggregated nature of queen conch (Glazer and Kidney 2004; Glazer et al. 
2003), managing for minimum cross-shelf densities (i.e., 100 adult 
conch/ha) does not specifically protect the high-density spawning 
aggregations where most reproduction occurs. Thus, the Delgado and 
Glazer (2020) contend that queen conch fishery managers should identify 
and protect high density queen conch spawning aggregations irrespective 
of cross-shelf densities.
    The persistent formation of adult queen conch aggregations may help 
to sustain some populations as evidenced by long-term intra-aggregation 
surveys conducted by Delgado and Glazer (2020) in Florida, which show 
that, as aggregation densities increase both mating and spawning 
increase, correspondingly. Delgado and Glazer (2020) observed an 
increase in mating activity, peaking at 71 percent of the aggregation 
at densities greater than 800 adult conch/ha. In addition, a greater 
portion of the aggregations were found to have egg-laying females as 
aggregation density increased. The percentage of aggregations with 
spawning females reached a peak of just over 84 percent at aggregation 
densities greater than 600 adult conch/ha (Delgado and Glazer 2020). 
Similarly, Stoner et al. (2012b) reported that mating frequency 
increased at higher densities of adults in The Bahamas, with a maximum 
of 34 percent of the population mating at approximately 2,500 adult 
conch/ha. Repeat visual surveys in the same sites in The Bahamas have 
provided evidence of this susceptibility, revealing that adult 
densities in the Exuma Cays Land and Sea Park have declined 
significantly over 22 years due to lack of recruitment (Stoner et al. 
2019). Stoner et al. (2019) further concluded that most conch 
populations in The Bahamas are currently at or below critical densities 
for successful mating and reproduction and that significant management 
measures are needed to preserve the stock. Similar long-term declines 
of reproductively active adult conch have been reported within the Port 
Honduras Marine Reserve in southern Belize. Densities of conch in the 
Port Honduras Marine Reserve (no-take zone) have been declining since 
2009, falling below

[[Page 55205]]

88 conch/ha by 2013, decreasing further to fewer than 56 adult conch/ha 
in 2014 (Foley 2016, unpublished. cited in, Foley and Takahashi 2017). 
If queen conch, particularly females, do not have the opportunity to 
mate and spawn to their full potential, fewer offspring are produced 
per individual, which is likely to lead to a decrease in the per capita 
population growth rate (Gascoigne et al. 2009). Therefore this is a 
critical consideration in assessing the sustainability of conch 
populations. As discussed above, although the observed minimum 
reproductive density thresholds are highly variable, queen conch 
populations are recommended to be managed to maintain a threshold 
density of 100 adult conch/ha (Prada 2017). A density value of 100 
adult conch/ha is recommended as a minimum reference threshold for 
successful reproduction, following a recommendation from the Queen 
Conch Expert Workshop, held in May 2012 in Miami, Florida (FAO 2012). 
The Regional Queen Conch Fisheries Management and Conservation Plan 
(Prada 2017) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have 
both adopted 100 adult conch/ha as the minimum density threshold to 
avoid significant impacts to recruitment (UNEP 2012). Unfortunately, 
many queen conch populations do not meet the conditions necessary for 
successful reproduction and sustainability because adult queen conch 
densities in most jurisdictions are below 100 adult conch/ha (see 
Status of the Population below).

Population Structure and Genetics

    Early studies using allozymes (variant forms of the same enzyme) to 
examine the genetic structure of queen conch implied high levels of 
gene flow, but also showed isolated genetic structure for populations 
either at isolated sites or at the microscale level.
    Mitton et al. (1989) collected samples from nine locations across 
the Caribbean including Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, St. Kitts (St. 
Christopher) and Nevis, St. Lucia, the Grenadines, Bequia Island, 
Barbados, and Belize, and reported high gene flow as well as genetic 
differentiation at all spatial scales. For example, they found that 
queen conch in Bermuda and Barbados were genetically isolated from the 
rest of the sampled locations. Yet, they also found that conch sampled 
at two geographically close locations (i.e., Gros Inlet and Vieux Fort) 
in St. Lucia had significant genetic differentiation despite being 
separated by only 40 km (Mitton et al. 1989). Conch sampled in the 
United States (Florida Keys) also demonstrated significant spatial and 
temporal genetic variation, although genetic similarity among 
populations was high (Campton et al. 1992). Tello-Cetina et al. (2005) 
sampled conch from four sites along the Yucatan Peninsula and reported 
relatively high levels of intrapopulation diversity and little 
geographic differentiation, with the population from the Alacranes Reef 
having the furthest genetic distance from the other three sites.
    Several studies conducted in Jamaica reported similar levels of 
connectivity and genetic differentiation. Blythe-Mallett et al. (2021) 
sampled multiple zones across Pedro Bank, an important commercial 
fishing ground southwest of Jamaica, and identified two possible 
subpopulations, one on the heavily exploited eastern end of the bank 
and another on the central and western end. Pedro Bank is directly 
impacted by the westward flow of the Caribbean current and could serve 
as the primary recruitment area of queen conch larvae from upstream 
locations (Blythe-Mallett et al. 2021). Pedro Bank is geographically 
isolated and receives limited gene flow from mainland Jamaica and other 
historically important offshore populations within the Jamaican 
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (Kitson-Walters et al. 2018). The high 
degree of genetic relatedness within conch sampled from Pedro Bank 
likely indicates that the populations are sufficiently self-sustaining 
(Kitson-Walters et al. 2018), but still receive larvae from upstream 
sources that contribute to the population on the eastern end of the 
bank (Blythe-Mallett et al. 2021).
    Studies conducted in the Mexican Caribbean have also detected a 
spatial genetic structure for queen conch populations. P[eacute]rez-
Enriquez et al. (2011) identified a genetic cline along the southern 
Mexican Caribbean to north of the Yucatan Peninsula, with a reduced 
gene flow observed between the two most distant locations, representing 
an increase in genetic differences as geographic distance increased. 
These authors suggested that since the overall genetic diversity varied 
from medium to high values, the queen conch had not reached genetic 
level indicative of a population bottleneck (P[eacute]rez-Enriquez et 
al. 2011). Machkour-M'Rabet et al. (2017) used updated molecular 
markers to analyze queen conch from seven sites within the same area 
and observed similar results with the exception of the apparent genetic 
isolation of queen conch collected on Isla Cozumel, which was not 
detected by P[eacute]rez-Enriquez et al. (2011). The results of this 
study led Machkour-M'Rabet et al. (2017) to conclude that populations 
of queen conch along the Mesoamerican Reef are not panmictic and 
demonstrate genetic patchiness indicative of homogeneity among sample 
areas, providing further evidence for the pattern of isolation by 
distance.
    M[aacute]rquez-Pretel et al. (2013) found four genetic stocks 
reflecting heterogeneous spatial mosaics of marine dispersion between 
the San Andres archipelago and the Colombian coastal areas. Queen conch 
in these areas exhibited an overall deficit of heterozygosity related 
to assortative mating or inbreeding, potentially leading to a loss in 
genetic variation (M[aacute]rquez-Pretel et al. 2013).
    A broad-ranging spatial genetic study of queen conch across the 
greater Caribbean using nine microsatellite DNA markers (Truelove et 
al. 2017) found that basin-wide gene flow was constrained by oceanic 
distance that served to isolate local populations. Truelove et al. 
(2017) genetically characterize 643 individuals from 19 locations 
including Florida, The Bahamas, Anguilla, the Caribbean Netherlands 
(i.e., Bonaire, St Eustatius, and Saba), Jamaica, Honduras, Belize, and 
Mexico, and determined that queen conch do not form a single panmictic 
population in the greater Caribbean. The authors reported significant 
differentiation between and within jurisdictions and among sites 
irrespective of geographic location. Gene flow was constrained by 
oceanic distance and local populations tended to be genetically 
isolated.
    Recently, Douglas et al. (2020) conducted a genomic analysis using 
single nucleotide polymorphisms from two northeast Caribbean Basin 
Islands (Grand Bahama to the north and Eleuthera to the south). The 
authors identified distinct populations on the south side of Grand 
Bahama Island and the west side of Eleuthera Island potentially due to 
larval separation by the Great Bahama Canyon. Despite extensive spatial 
separation of sampled populations around Puerto Rico, Beltr[aacute]n 
(2019) concluded that there was little genetic structure in the conch 
population. However, genetic analyses of four visually characterized 
phenotypes showed that one morph (designated as Flin) was slightly 
differentiated from the other phenotypes sampled. Further research into 
this aspect of queen conch biology is needed to examine the degree of 
differentiation between phenotypes and to determine if they share the 
same distribution across the Caribbean region. The results presented in 
all of these studies provide evidence that variation in marine 
currents, surface winds, and

[[Page 55206]]

meteorological events can either promote larval dispersal or act as 
barriers enhancing larval retention.

Status of the Population

    The SRT reviewed data from 39 jurisdictions throughout the species' 
range and developed several interrelated assessments that were used to 
inform the status of the queen conch. First, the SRT compiled cross-
shelf adult conch density estimates for each jurisdiction in the 
species' range (see Density Estimates below). Second, the SRT developed 
spatially explicit habitat estimates (see Conch Habitat Estimate below) 
for each jurisdiction. The habitat estimates were necessary for the SRT 
to be able to estimate total abundance and evaluate population 
connectivity. Third, the SRT extrapolated each jurisdiction's conch 
density estimate in the surveyed areas to the jurisdiction's total 
estimated habitat area to generate population abundance estimates at a 
jurisdiction-level (see Abundance Estimates below). Last, the SRT 
evaluated population connectivity to elucidate the potential impacts of 
localized low conch densities on population-wide connectivity patterns 
(see Population Connectivity below). As described above, queen conch 
reproductive failure has been attributed in many cases to declines in 
population densities. There are two density thresholds (i.e., <50 adult 
conch/ha and >100 adult conch/ha) that are well established in the 
scientific literature and are generally accepted by fisheries managers. 
The scientific literature indicates that when adult queen conch numbers 
decline to fewer than 50 adult conch/ha there are significant 
implications for finding a mate and thus reproductive activity and 
population growth. When adult queen conch density are reduced to this 
degree, reproductive activity is limited or non-existent. Along those 
same lines, the available literature suggests that populations with 
adult queen conch densities greater than 100 adult conch/ha are 
sufficient in most cases to promote successful mate finding and thus 
reproductive activity and population growth. The 100 adult conch/ha 
density threshold recommendation was prepared by the Queen Conch Expert 
Working Group (Miami, Florida, May 2012), and subsequently accepted by 
consensus by fisheries managers participating in the WECAFC/Caribbean 
Fishery Management Council (CFMC)/Organization of the Fisheries and 
Aquaculture Sector of the Central American (OSPESCA)/CRFM Working 
Group, as minimum reference point or ``precautionary principle'' 
required to sustain conch populations (Prada et al. 2017).
    Considering this information, including the best available 
scientific and commercial information on queen conch reproduction, 
depensatory processes, and population growth, the SRT applied the 
following density thresholds to queen conch populations:
     Populations with densities below the 50 adult conch/ha 
threshold are considered to be not reproductively active due to low 
adult encounter rates or mate finding. This threshold is largely 
recognized as an absolute minimum required to support mate finding and 
thus reproduction.
     Populations with densities between 50-99 adult conch/ha 
are considered to have reduced reproductive activity resulting in 
minimal population growth.
     Populations with densities above 100 adult conch/ha are 
considered to be at a density that supports reproductive activity 
resulting in population growth.
    These density thresholds were used to evaluate the status of queen 
conch populations in each jurisdiction, and to assess how heterogeneous 
fishing pressure and localized depletion (i.e., low adult queen conch 
densities, leading to reduced egg and larval production) effect 
population connectivity throughout the species' range. The results of 
these assessments are described in the following sections.

Density Estimates

    In order to develop estimates of queen conch density, the SRT 
conducted a comprehensive, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction search to 
identify literature pertaining to the status of queen conch throughout 
its range. The SRT reviewed the best scientific and commercial 
information including all relevant published and gray literature, 
databases, and reports. The SRT organized this information and data by 
jurisdiction and searched systematically for information on queen conch 
densities. The SRT also considered relevant information provided during 
the public comment period (84 FR 66885, December 6, 2019). The SRT's 
goal was to compile robust, cross-shelf adult queen conch density 
estimates for each jurisdiction. To the extent possible, the SRT 
focused on the most recent studies where randomized sampling was 
conducted across broad areas of the shelf, including a range of 
habitats and depths. For jurisdictions where such studies were not 
available, the SRT used available density information. For example, in 
some cases the only available data were single point estimates from a 
study or workshop report. For nine jurisdictions where no density 
information was available (i.e., Cura[ccedil]ao, Costa Rica, Dominica, 
Grenada, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Martin, St. Barthelemy, 
and Trinidad and Tobago), the SRT approximated queen conch density 
estimates based on density estimates for the nearest neighboring 
jurisdiction that had information available. The SRT used available 
qualitative information on the general population status (e.g., 
severely depleted, moderately fished, and lightly exploited) to ensure 
that approximating queen conch densities based on a jurisdiction's 
nearest neighbor was reasonable (for detailed discussion on methods see 
Horn et al. 2022).
    From each study or report compiled, the SRT noted the location, 
year of the survey (1996 to 2022), total area surveyed, status of the 
area surveyed (fished or unfished), and the survey methods used (see 
Table 2 in Horn et al. 2022). The SRT extracted information on the 
overall density or the adult density (or both) of queen conch, and 
recorded these in a spreadsheet and standardized to a per hectare (ha) 
unit (see S5 in Horn et al. 2022). For jurisdictions with large shelf 
areas (e.g., The Bahamas, Belize, Mexico) densities were recorded at 
the sub-jurisdiction level (e.g., as defined by region, bank, or 
cardinal direction from an island). For smaller jurisdictions (e.g., 
those within the Lesser Antilles), queen conch densities were typically 
reported for an entire island or group of islands. The status review 
report (Horn et al. 2022) provides additional detail on how the SRT 
estimated queen conch population densities.
    The adult queen conch density estimates were also plotted by their 
geographical locations (see Figure 6 in Horn et al. 2022). The results 
revealed that several jurisdictions, mostly located in the north-
central to the southwestern Caribbean (i.e., Turks and Caicos, The 
Bahamas' Cay Sal Bank and Jumentos and Ragged Cays, Cuba, Jamaica, 
Nicaragua, Costa Rica), tended to have higher adult conch population 
densities (>100 adult conch/ha) indicating that these populations are 
reproductively active and are supporting successful population growth. 
There are a two jurisdictions (i.e., St. Eustatius and St. Kitts and 
Nevis) within the eastern Caribbean region and a single jurisdiction 
(i.e., Cayman Islands) in the central Caribbean region, that have 
moderate adult conch population densities (<100 adult conch/ha, but >50 
adult conch/ha). In the eastern Caribbean only two jurisdictions (St. 
Lucia and Saba) have queen conch densities greater than 100 adult 
conch/ha. With a few exceptions, the rest of

[[Page 55207]]

the jurisdictions not previously mentioned above (i.e., Aruba, 
Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Bonaire, The 
Bahamas' Western and Central Great Banks and Little Bahama Bank, 
British Virgin Islands, Colombia's Serranilia and Quitasueno Banks, 
Cura[ccedil]ao, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guadeloupe, 
Haiti, Martinique, Mexico, Montserrat, Panama, Puerto Rico, St, 
Barthelemy, St. Martin, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Trinidad and 
Tobago, United States (Florida), U.S. Virgin Islands, and Venezuela), 
have queen conch densities near or below the minimum adult queen conch 
density threshold (<50 adult conch/ha) required to support reproductive 
activity. These jurisdictions represent approximately 27 percent 
(19,626 km\2\) of the estimated habitat available in the Caribbean 
region.

Conch Habitat Estimate

    To increase the SRT's understanding of the status of queen conch 
throughout its range, the SRT estimated conch habitat and prepared a 
spatially explicit map for the Caribbean region. This spatially 
explicit conch habitat estimate was necessary in order for the SRT to 
estimate total abundance and conduct the population connectivity 
analysis. To develop an estimate of habitat area, the SRT conducted an 
extensive search for the best available habitat information, including 
estimated conch fishing bank areas, and contacted researchers and 
institutions involved in various mapping efforts. The SRT determined 
that a 0-20 m depth habitat area represented a best estimate because 
the available information indicates that conch are found in shallow 
waters generally less than 20 m depth (Berg Jr. et al. 1992; Boidron-
Metairon 1992; Delgado and Glazer 2020; Salley 1986; Stoner and Sandt 
1992; Stoner and Schwarte 1994). The most comprehensive and suitable 
publicly-available habitat map that could be found was the Millennium 
Coral Mapping Project, which specifies 1,359 8-km by 8-km polygons 
based on coral reefs locations (Andr[eacute]fou[euml]t et al. 2001). 
The polygons included seagrass and coral reef locations where queen 
conch occur (Kough 2019; Souza Jr. and Kough 2020). To ensure that all 
spawning sites, including deep water spawning sites (i.e., at depths 
greater than 20 m), were included in the dataset, the SRT verified the 
habitat map with spawning sites reported in the available literature 
(Berg Jr. et al. 1992; Brownell 1977; Cala et al. 2013; Coulston et al. 
1987; D'Asaro 1965; Davis et al. 1984; de Graaf et al. 2014; 
Garc[iacute]a E. et al. 1992; Gracia-Escobar et al. 1992; Lagos-Bayona 
et al. 1996; M[aacute]rquez-Pretel et al. 1994; Meijer zu Schlochtern 
2014; P[eacute]rez-P[eacute]rez and Aldana-Aranda 2003; Randall 1964; 
Stoner et al. 1992; Truelove et al. 2017; Weil and Laughlin 1984; 
Wicklund et al. 1991; Wilkins et al. 1987; Wynne et al. 2016).
    Following this review, the SRT included 13 additional deep spawning 
sites for Venezuela, Cuba, The Bahamas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Turks and 
Caicos, Saba, Colombia, Belize, Honduras, and Jamaica (Brownell 1977; 
Cala et al. 2013; Davis et al. 1984; De Graaf et al. 2014; Lagos-Bayona 
et al. 1996; Randall 1964; Stoner et al. 1992; Truelove et al. 2017; 
Weil and Laughlin 1984; Wicklund et al. 1991). The SRT also 
incorporated 13 shallow polygons not initially present in the dataset 
for St. Eustatius, U.S. Virgin Islands, Colombia, United States 
(Florida), Mexico, Jamaica, Saba, Bonaire and The Bahamas (Meijer zu 
Schlochtern 2014; Randall 1964; Coulston et al. 1987; Gracia-Escobar et 
al. 1992; M[aacute]rquez-Pretel et al. 1994, Truelove et al. 2017). 
Overall, the habitat area estimates from the data source selected by 
the SRT were much lower than total seagrass area estimates, and 
generally ranged from approximately 30 to 100 percent of the estimated 
conch fishing banks and incorporated known deep-water spawning sites 
(see Figure 5 in Horn et al. 2022). Thus, the SRT concluded, and we 
agree, that its habitat estimates were likely conservative, but 
suitable for analysis of general connectivity patterns and population 
abundance estimates.

Abundance Estimates

    The SRT estimated abundance by extrapolating adult queen conch 
density estimates across the estimated habitat areas. However, the SRT 
used these abundance estimates with caution because the available 
density estimates on which they are based were dated, had sparse data, 
or were conducted in small areas. In some cases, the number of 
available surveys with queen conch densities were also limited. For 
example, the very high estimated queen conch abundance from Cuba is 
particularly questionable due to the small sample size of survey and 
the large shelf area over which the survey density data was expanded. 
Where no survey data were available (i.e., Costa Rica, Cura[ccedil]ao, 
Dominica, Grenada. St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Barthelemy, St. Martin, 
Monserrat, and Trinidad and Tobago), density estimates were 
approximated from the nearest neighboring jurisdiction, and thus their 
abundance estimates are highly uncertain. The estimated conch habitat 
areas also introduce some uncertainty in the estimates, and the 
resolution of the SRT's habitat map is coarse (for additional 
discussion on methods see Horn et al. 2022).
    Despite the aforementioned constraints, the SRT estimated 
jurisdiction-level conch abundance by multiplying available conch 
density estimates by estimated habitat areas. This approach assumed the 
range of jurisdiction-level survey-generated conch density estimates is 
representative of the range of conch densities across the entirety of 
each jurisdiction's estimated habitat area. When available, multiple 
surveys were used to better capture the substantial uncertainty 
inherent in this approach. In jurisdictions where comprehensive surveys 
were carried out across all areas of the shelf, the mean estimates 
reported from each survey typically take into account any sub-
jurisdiction level variability in conch densities; however, in cases 
where extrapolations were based on only a few reported density 
estimates or sampling that was done over a small area, this assumption 
may be violated. In most studies, conch densities were surveyed across 
various habitat types (including those types supporting few or no 
conch) and weighted averages were reported. Thus, those survey means 
account for areas of both high and low density. The SRT also made 
efforts to quantify the uncertainty inherent in basing the abundance 
estimates on surveys that used different methodologies, occurred over a 
wide time span and over a range of spatial scales. The results suggest 
that adult queen conch abundance is estimated (i.e., the sum of median 
estimated abundance across all jurisdictions) to be about 743 million 
individuals (90 percent confidence interval of 450 million to 1.492 
billion). Adult queen conch abundance was estimated to be between ten 
and 100 million individuals in six jurisdictions, and 15 jurisdictions 
had median estimated abundances between one and ten million adults. The 
estimated adult abundance was less than one million adults in each of 
20 jurisdictions, with three of those jurisdictions estimated to have 
populations of fewer than 100,000 adult queen conch. Seven 
jurisdictions (i.e., Cuba, The Bahamas, Nicaragua, Jamaica, Honduras, 
the Turks and Caicos Islands, and Mexico) accounted for 95 percent of 
the population of adult queen conch. Within the species' range, Cuba, 
The Bahamas, and Nicaragua, are estimated to have the most conch 
habitat area (56 percent) and the majority of adult queen conch

[[Page 55208]]

population abundance (84.1 percent). In addition, Jamaica, Honduras, 
Turks and Caicos, and Mexico are the other major contributors, in terms 
of both habitat area and conch abundance (see Figures 10, 11, in Horn 
et al. 2022). Twenty-one jurisdictions make up 95 percent of the total 
estimated conch habitat area, while only seven jurisdictions (i.e., 
Cuba, the Bahamas, Nicaragua, Jamaica, Honduras, Turks and Caicos, and 
Mexico) make up 95 percent of the total estimated abundance. This 
indicates that conch are depleted in many jurisdictions with large 
habitat areas, and the remaining populations are concentrated in just a 
few jurisdictions (Horn et al. 2022).

Population Connectivity

    To elucidate the potential impacts of localized low adult conch 
densities on population-wide connectivity patterns, the SRT evaluated 
queen conch population connectivity. The population connectivity model 
was based on a simulation of the entire pelagic phase of the conch 
early life cycle, from the hatching of eggs to the settlement of conch 
veligers in suitable habitats (Vaz et al. 2022). This population 
connectivity evaluation offers insights into how overall exchange of 
larvae across the species' range has been impacted by overexploitation 
of adult conch in certain areas. Two sets of simulations were 
conducted. First, the connectivity patterns were simulated for uniform 
egg releases across the entire Caribbean region (from 8[deg]N to 
37[deg]N and from 98[deg]W to 59[deg]W); this represents an 
``unexploited spawning'' historical density scenario in which all 
jurisdictions have the same potential for reproductive levels, on a 
per-area basis. A second simulation of connectivity patterns 
representing an ``exploited'' scenario, incorporated realistic 
localized density patterns by scaling the number of eggs released (on a 
per-area basis, by jurisdiction or region) by the adult conch 
densities, and accounts for Allee effects at very low densities (<50 
adult conch/ha). Two different hydrodynamic models were used to 
simulate larvae dispersal through oceanic processes (e.g., oceanic 
circulation, velocities, sea surface temperatures) (For detailed 
discussion on methods see Horn et al. 2022).
    The comparison of the two sets of simulations illustrates the 
population-level impact of heterogeneous patterns in densities of adult 
conch (see Figure 12 in Horn et al. 2022). The most apparent 
differences in the two sets of simulations emerged from the fact that 
many of the jurisdictions had conch densities well below the critical 
threshold for reproduction (<50 adult conch/ha) and were considered to 
be reproductively non-viable. Within the ``exploited'' scenario, the 
SRT assumed no larvae were spawned from these jurisdictions; 
subsequently they could only act as sinks (e.g., populations that are 
not contributing or receiving larvae) for queen conch larvae to settle, 
but were not sources for themselves or other locations. Connectivity 
patterns emerging from ``exploited'' scenario were thus drastically 
different (see Figure 12 in Horn et al. 2022). For example, due to 
their position up current and their small shelf areas, the Lesser 
Antilles (i.e., Leeward and Windward Islands) were estimated to be 
historically important for contributing larval input to other 
jurisdictions downstream (i.e., to the west). However, due to low adult 
conch densities in many of these jurisdictions, they are no longer 
expected to contribute larvae in the ``exploited'' scenario, resulting 
in reduced larval input into the Greater Antilles and Colombia.
    Other patterns in comparing the ``unexploited'' versus and 
``exploited'' simulations were more subtle, but would be locally 
significant. For example, historically the Turks and Caicos Islands 
were estimated to have received many larvae from the Dominican Republic 
and Haiti, which would have been important given its low local 
retention rate (see Figure 12 in Horn et al. 2022). However, due to low 
adult conch densities in these source jurisdictions, the ``exploited'' 
scenario suggests that Turks and Caicos Islands are now entirely 
dependent on local production, and a substantial percentage of larvae 
are exported to The Bahamas. Likewise, the ``unexploited'' simulation 
suggests that the United States (Florida) was dependent on relatively 
high local retention, with the most significant external source of 
larvae coming from Mexico (see Figure 12, left column in Horn et al. 
2022). Both Florida and Mexico are thought to now have very low adult 
queen conch densities (<50 conch/ha) unable to support any reproductive 
activity; in other words, Florida currently has no significant upstream 
or local sources of larvae. This could explain why, despite a 
moratorium on fishing for several decades, queen conch in Florida 
waters have been slow to recover (Glazer and Delgado 2020).
    The SRT also found that some jurisdictions acted as important 
``connectors'' between different regions of the population as a whole, 
and could be important for maintaining genetic diversity. The 
importance of a jurisdiction as a ``connector'' was quantified 
mathematically as a Betweenness Centrality (BC) value on a scale of 0 
to 1. The BC value measures the relative influence of a jurisdiction's 
conch reproductive output on the flow of larvae (e.g., larvae dispersed 
and retained) among jurisdictions range wide. The median of all 
calculated BC values (approximately 0.05-0.06) was selected to 
distinguish between high versus low BC values (Vaz et al. 2022), which 
is appropriate given that the BC values are a relative scale of non-
normally distributed values. Jurisdictions with high BC values (above 
the median) act as ecological corridors that facilitate larval flow and 
are essential to preserve population connectivity. The ``unexploited'' 
scenario identified Jamaica, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic as having 
a high BC value, and to a lesser extent Puerto Rico and Colombia (see 
Figure 13 in Horn et al. 2022). This was not surprising given the 
relative central location of these jurisdictions and the exposure of 
their shelves to a diversity of ocean currents, which allows them to be 
``connectors'' of larval flow. In contrast, jurisdictions located at 
the most up current (e.g., Lesser Antilles) or down current locations 
(e.g., Florida, Bermuda), or those located at the fringes of the region 
(e.g., Panama, Bermuda) were not identified as important connectors of 
larval flow and, as expected, had low BC values (below the median) (see 
Figure 13 in Horn et al. 2022).
    Jurisdictions with documented low adult conch densities influenced 
the estimated connections between jurisdictions when comparing the 
``unexploited'' to ``exploited'' scenarios. One of the biggest 
differences was the absence of reproductive output (e.g., larval 
recruits) from Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, and Haiti. These 
jurisdictions had a high BC value (i.e., above 0.05-0.06) under the 
``unexploited'' scenario, but have a low BC value (i.e., below 0.05) 
under the ``exploited'' scenario because they no longer function as 
important connectors (see Figure 13a in Horn et al. 2022). An almost 
complete break in the connectivity between the eastern and western 
Caribbean region was apparent in the ``exploited'' scenario, with the 
Dominican Republic receiving limited larvae from Cuba, Turks and 
Caicos, and from a deep mesophotic reef off the west coast of Puerto 
Rico. When those jurisdictions were removed from the chain of larval 
supply in the ``exploited'' scenario, Jamaica and Cuba remained 
important connectors in the

[[Page 55209]]

western portion of the range, and some of the offshore banks in 
Colombia remained functional connectors (see Figure 13 in Horn et al. 
2022). While Vaz et al. (2022) indicates that connections have been 
lost in several locations due to the existence of low adult conch 
densities, points of connection likely still exist, albeit reduced, 
which allow some exchange of larvae and maintenance of some genetic 
diversity.
    Localized patterns of conch overfishing can also influence 
genetics. The SRT estimated genetic distance between jurisdictions and 
then compared those to a Caribbean-wide genetic study (Vaz et al. 2022; 
Truelove et al. 2017). The ``unexploited'' scenario corresponded well 
to the patterns observed by Truelove et al. (2017) given that larvae 
within each region identified by the Truelove et al. (2017) were most 
likely locally originated. The exception was the high probability of 
larval exchange between The Bahamas and Turks and Caicos Islands and 
the Greater Antilles (see Figure 12 in Horn et al. 2022). In the 
``exploited'' scenario, six of the 12 jurisdictions sampled by Truelove 
et al. (2017) were not reproductively active (Vaz et al. 2022). Due to 
the lack of spawning, it was expected that not all connectivity 
patterns could be reproduced. Indeed, in this case, the high self-
settlement observed for Mexico, Belize, and Florida was absent due to 
the lack of reproductive activity (Vaz et al. 2022). Subsequently, the 
genetic evaluation focused only on the results of the ``unexploited'' 
scenario since the results of the ``exploited'' scenario were 
insignificant due to the reduced number of data points (i.e., 
jurisdictions). The results suggest that queen conch populations 
exhibit an isolation-by-distance pattern (Vaz et al. 2022).

Summary of Factors Affecting Queen Conch

    As described above, section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS' 
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.11(c)) state that we must 
determine whether a species is endangered or threatened because of any 
one or a combination of the following factors: (A) The present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. The SRT summarized information 
regarding each of these threats according to the factors specified in 
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. We conclude the SRT's findings with respect 
to the ESA section 4(a)(1) listing factors are well-considered and 
based on the best available scientific information, and we concur with 
their assessment. Available information does not indicate that 
destruction, modification or curtailment of the species' habitat or 
range and disease or predation are operative threats on this species; 
therefore, we do not discuss those further here. More details with 
respect to the available information on these topics can be found in 
the status review report (Horn et al. 2022). This section briefly 
summarizes the SRT's findings regarding the following factors: 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes, inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and 
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

Description of the Fishery

    Queen conch have been harvested for centuries and are an important 
fishery resource for many nations in the Caribbean and Central America. 
The most common product in trade is queen conch meat. The FAO landings 
data indicate that the total annual landings in 2018 (most recent year 
data are available) for all jurisdictions is estimated to be 33,797 
metric tons (mt) (see S1; Horn et al. 2022). Prada et al. (2017) 
estimated production of queen conch meat for most jurisdictions is 
approximately 7,800 mt annually. However, total conch production is 
difficult to estimate because of incomplete and incomparable data 
across jurisdictions (Prada et al. 2017). The majority of the queen 
conch meat is landed in Belize, The Bahamas, Honduras, Jamaica, 
Nicaragua, and Turks and Caicos. In the artisanal fishery, queen conch 
are sometimes landed with the shell, but mostly as unclean meat with 
the majority of organs still attached. Additionally, local markets and 
subsistence fishing of queen conch is often not monitored or not 
included in catch data. In some jurisdictions, the subsistence and 
locally marketed catches are small, but they can be high in some 
jurisdictions (Prada et al. 2017). Furthermore, the best estimates of 
unreported catch and illegal harvest is most likely an underestimate, 
yet accounts for about 15 percent of total annual catch (Horn et al. 
2022; Pauly et al. 2020). Queen conch meat production shows a negative 
trend over time and the decrease can largely be attributed to 
overfishing (Prada et al. 2017). Some stocks have collapsed and have 
yet to recover (Theile 2005; Aldana-Aranda et al. 2003; Appeldoorn 
1994b).
    Queen conch shells are also used as curios and in jewelry, but are 
generally of secondary economic importance. Shells may be offered to 
tourists in its natural or polished form (Prada et al. 2017). The large 
pinkish queen conch shells are brought to landing sites in only a few 
places. In most cases, shells are discarded at sea, generating several 
underwater sites with piles of empty conch shells. According to Theile 
(2001) from 1992 to 1999, a total of 1,628,436 individual queen conch 
shells, plus 131,275 kg of shells were recorded in international trade. 
Assuming that each queen conch shell weighs between 700 and 1500 g, the 
total reported volume of conch shells from 1992 to 1999 may have been 
equivalent to between 1,720,000 and 1,816,000 shells (Prada et al. 
2017). In addition, queen conch pearls are valuable and rare, but their 
production and trade remain largely unknown across the region. In 
Colombia, one of the few jurisdictions with relevant data, exports of 
4,074 pearls, valued around USD 2.2 million, were reported between 2000 
and 2003 (Prada et al. 2009). With the reduction of the fishing effort 
in Colombia, the number of exported queen conch pearls declined from 
732 units in 2000 to 123 units in 2010 (Castro-Gonz[aacute]lez et al. 
2011). Japan, Switzerland, and the United States are the main queen 
conch pearl importers (Prada et al. 2017). Lastly, in recent years, 
operculum trade has developed, but similarly little is known about it. 
China is the major importer and it is believed opercula are used in 
traditional Chinese medicine. In 2020, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USFWS) confiscated a shipment in-transit from Miami, Florida 
to China (weighing 1 mt) of conch products, consisting largely of 
opercula. The shipment was confiscated by USFWS for CITES and U.S. 
Lacey Act violations (GCFINET, June 10, 2020).

Indications of Overutilization

    In broad terms, a sustainable fishery is based on fishing ``excess 
production'' and supported by a stable standing stock or population. In 
a sustainable fishery, the abundance of the fished population is not 
diminished by fishing (i.e., new production replaces the portion of the 
population removed by fishing). Under ideal conditions, the age 
structure of a fished population is also stable, for example, without 
truncation of the largest, most productive members of the

[[Page 55210]]

population. There are a variety of indications when a fishery resources 
is overutilized. Declines in fishing catches or landings with the same 
amount of fishing effort (i.e., CPUE) can indicate a population is 
being over-utilized. Similarly, changes in spatial distribution (e.g., 
depletions near fishing centers or depletions in more easily accessible 
shallow water habitats) likely indicate overutilization. Additionally, 
a reduction of genetic diversity or a reduction in maximum size 
achieved can indicate severe overutilization. Drastic differences 
between population densities found in protected, non-fishing reserves 
and those found in fishing areas can also indicate overutilization, 
even though the reserve may serve to moderate the effects of 
overutilization to a certain extent. These factors were all considered 
in the SRT's assessment of the threat and impact of overutilization on 
the status of the queen conch. Reductions in distribution as well as 
overall population levels can be especially problematic for queen conch 
because they require a minimum local adult density to support 
reproductive activity.
    In particular, available density estimates provide an initial 
indication that queen conch may be suffering from overutilization. 
Approximately 25 (of 39) jurisdictions have adult conch densities below 
the minimum cross-shelf density (50 adult conch/ha) at which 
reproductive activity largely ceases. It should be noted, however, that 
this minimum density pertains to density within reproductive 
populations and not necessarily cross-shelf densities. Overall, 
however, the available data suggest that queen conch has been 
significantly depleted throughout its range with only a few exceptions. 
The jurisdictions of Saba, St. Lucia, Colombia's Serrana Bank, 
Nicaragua, Jamaica's Pedro Bank, Costa Rica, Cuba, The Bahamas' Cay Sal 
Bank and Jumentos and Ragged Cays, and Turks and Caicos are the only 
jurisdictions that have cross-shelf densities above the 100 adult 
conch/ha threshold to support reproductive activity resulting in 
population growth discussed above. It is likely that populations 
residing in inaccessible areas (difficult to fish) may support some 
level of mating success and therefore recruitment. However, in these 
jurisdictions surveys are not comprehensively performed, and there is 
evidence of local overutilization of some populations.

The Landings Data

    The SRT evaluated landings data from two international databases. 
The FAO maintains data supplied by member nations in their FishStat 
database. The queen conch data represent the landings of commercial 
fisheries, generally artisanal and industrial, in the Western Tropical 
Atlantic; however, discussions are continuing among scientific working 
groups regarding the inadequacy and inconsistency of reporting in this 
database (FAO Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission 2020). For 
example, the reports from each jurisdiction vary depending on how much 
processing has been done (FAO Western Central Atlantic Fishery 
Commission 2020). Data are reported either in live weight, which 
equates to whole animals, or in various grades of cleaned weight (e.g., 
dirty conch (unprocessed, removed from shell), 50 percent (operculum 
and viscera removed), 65 percent (operculum, viscera, and ``head'' 
(i.e., eyes, stalks, and proboscis) removed), 85 percent (all of the 
above plus verge, mantle, and part of the skin removed) and 100 percent 
cleaned (fillet, i.e., only the pure white meat remains)). The types of 
submitted landings have not always been clearly defined and there is a 
continuing effort to encourage jurisdictions to submit consistent queen 
conch fisheries data and use standardized conversion factors so data 
from different reports can be compared more reliably (FAO Western 
Central Atlantic Fishery Commission 2020).
    Additional complications in interpreting FishStat data relate to 
unexplained changes in local conditions or influences on the fisheries. 
Interannual changes in landings may be due to changes in availability 
of queen conch (i.e., lowered CPUE), but they may also be due to 
changes in regulations or enforcement or unfavorable environmental 
conditions (e.g., hurricane disruptions of fishing). Without some 
concomitant data on fishing effort, it is difficult to interpret 
changing landings.
    The second international repository of conch data is maintained by 
the CITES. The CITES database records exports and imports of 
internationally traded queen conch. The CITES data do not include 
commercial catches for local markets and can suffer from many of the 
same shortcomings as the FAO FishStat data. Neither database includes 
spatial information that allows analysis of local effects on 
populations. In addition to providing data for international 
obligations, most jurisdictions have widely varying capabilities for 
collecting complete data that would adequately characterize all fishing 
sectors. They primarily have focused on commercial fishing, either 
industrial or artisanal. Jurisdictions have typically inadequately 
recorded data from the artisanal commercial fishing sector since 
landing sites can be too numerous to effectively monitor with the 
limited number of fishing inspectors employed, and self-reporting is 
often incomplete. Generally, information is lacking from most 
jurisdiction throughout the Caribbean region on recreational or 
subsistence fishing, which includes sectors that generally fish for 
personal consumption, as well as minor sales or barter of catches. Gaps 
also occur in some data collected on catches destined for local 
consumption, either by family, neighbors or restaurants. An additional 
complication with interpreting ecological and fishery independent data 
is that different metrics tend to be used. Commercial landings are 
reported in weight and ecological surveys typically count numbers and 
estimate or measure lengths of queen conch. Conversion factors may be 
jurisdiction- or site-specific, so comparing reported landings to 
density surveys has inherent difficulties and opportunities for 
miscalculation.
    In an effort to fill the gaps in total reported queen conch 
landings, the SAU program (Fisheries Centre, Univ. of British Columbia, 
www.seaaroundus.org) developed a protocol to reconstruct landings 
histories for most of the jurisdictions where queen conch is fished. 
The SAU scientists assembled available data on landings, supplemented 
with additional sociological and fishing data and identified 
alternative information sources for missing data by consulting with 
local experts and additional literature, to produce their best 
estimates of total landings from all fishing sectors. The SAU data 
includes subsistence fishing, recreational fishing, and small-scale 
artisanal fishing that are generally poorly documented by other 
sources. For these reasons, the SRT concluded the SAU data are the most 
comprehensive and is the best available data for understanding the 
magnitude and impact of all fishing pressure including subsistence, 
recreational, and artisanal fishing on local stocks of queen conch. The 
SRT compared the reconstructed landings from the SAU project (Pauly et 
al. 2020) to the reported FAO landings for queen conch in the western 
Caribbean to examine the magnitude of potential differences (see Figure 
14 in Horn et al. 2022). Based on this comparison, early reports of FAO

[[Page 55211]]

landings were greatly underestimated. From 1950-59, unreported landings 
averaged 93.8 percent of the total SAU-reconstructed queen conch 
landings (see Figure 14 in Horn et al. 2022). For regional landings, 
the mean percent of unreported landings varied in each decade, 1960-69: 
72.1 percent, 1970-79: 53.0 percent, 1980-89: 42.0 percent, 1990-99: 
15.8 percent, 2000-09: 23.0 percent, 2010-16: 23.7 percent. Since about 
1990, there were improvements in the correlation between FAO and the 
SAU-reconstructed landings (ranging from 15-25 percent unreported), but 
the FAO landings are unlikely to include all of the fishing sectors in 
each jurisdiction, for the reasons discussed above.
    To provide a more meaningful comparison with population estimates, 
the SAU-reconstructed landings were converted to estimated abundance. 
For this region-wide comparison, a standard regional conversion factor 
was used (live weight: 1.283 kg/individual, Thiele 2001); subsequent 
analyses for specific jurisdictions used location-specific conversion 
factors where available. When no jurisdiction or site-specific 
information was available, the SRT used the same standard regional 
conversion factor. At the peak, regional landings translated into about 
32-33 million queen conch per year and, after a slight dip in 2005-
2006, landings remained about 30-31 million queen conch per year from 
2012-2016, which is the most recent years with complete data (see 
Figure 14 in Horn et al. 2022). Repeatedly in the reports of SAU-
reconstructed landings, the landings are stated as conservative, 
underestimating the likely actual landings. The information cited by 
the SRT (see S1 in Horn et al. 2022) also provides evidence that many 
jurisdictions are landing significant amounts of juvenile or sub-adult 
conch, which would be expected to weigh less than 1.283 kg/individual, 
thus, the converted abundance figures should also be considered an 
underestimation.
    The SRT chose to use the SAU-reconstructed landings, when 
available, as the best estimate of total landings and used them to 
compare exploitation rates (e.g., individuals removed) and stock size 
estimates. If SAU-reconstructed landings data were not available, the 
SRT used FAO landings data for the comparisons. These data give some 
indication of the full magnitude of fishing on queen conch across the 
species' range. The mean landings per year from 1950-2016 show that the 
12 highest producing jurisdictions have produced 95 percent of the 
landings across the region (i.e., Turks and Caicos, The Bahamas, 
Honduras, and Jamaica, followed by Belize and Nicaragua, and then 
Dominican Republic, Mexico, Cuba, Antigua and Barbuda, Colombia, and 
Guadeloupe).

Estimates of Exploitation Rate

    Traditional fishery stock assessments use fishery landings data and 
indices of relative stock abundance to determine exploitation rates. 
However, few jurisdictions collect adequate information (e.g., catch-
per-unit effort data, landings data encompassing all removals) from 
their queen conch fisheries to develop traditional stock assessment 
models and associated recommendations for sustainable harvest. An 
alternative metric using a combination of landings and density surveys 
has been recommended by expert working groups and fisheries managers to 
estimate exploitation rates. Using this alternative metric, the working 
groups and fisheries managers recommend limiting fishing to no more 
than 8 percent of mean or median fishable biomass (i.e., standing 
stock) as a precautionary sustainable yield, if the stock density can 
support successful reproduction (i.e., 100 adult conch/ha) (FAO Western 
Central Atlantic Fishery Commission 2013). The 8 percent exploitation 
target seeks to ensure that the population per capita growth rate 
exceeds the exploitation rate, which in turn ensures population 
sustainability under controlled harvest. Using exploitation rates as a 
proxy for sustainable yield targets uses fishery-independent estimates 
of abundance and fishery-dependent landings data as a substitute for 
full stock assessments in data-poor fisheries. Additionally, using 
exploitation rates as a proxy depends on statistically valid sampling 
to ensure that population extrapolations are an accurate indicator of 
population status. This approach also depends on quantifying or mapping 
depths and habitats on which to base extrapolations. The FAO also 
recommends that the 8 percent exploitation rate be adjusted downward if 
the mean conch density is below the level required to support 
successful reproductive activity (100 adult conch/ha) (FAO Western 
Central Atlantic Fishery Commission 2013).
    In an effort to better understand whether adult conch densities can 
support current exploitation rates, the SRT plotted the estimated adult 
conch densities against recent landings (maximum of either FAO or SAU) 
to evaluate regional trends in resource usage (see Figures 18, 19 in 
Horn et al. 2022). Exploitation rates for each jurisdiction were 
calculated by the SRT as the average numbers landed per year divided by 
the total abundance (adults only) across the shelf for the period 2010-
2018 (For additional information on methods, see Horn et al. 2022). The 
SRT's analysis suggests that the highest producers in the region, 
Dominican Republic, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Turks and Caicos, and 
Mexico, significantly exceed the 8 percent exploitation rate target. 
Additionally, of these jurisdictions, all but Turks and Caicos, have 
adult conch densities below the absolute minimum adult density (i.e., 
50 adult conch/ha) required to support any level of reproductive 
activity. The fact that these jurisdictions have exceeded the 8 percent 
exploitation rate, have adult conch densities below 50 adult conch/ha, 
and have not lowered the exploitation rate, indicates harvest is 
unsustainable and overutilization is likely occurring. Nicaragua, 
Honduras, and Jamaica are fishing near the 8 percent exploitation rate 
target. However, while Honduras fishes near the 8 percent exploitation 
rate, the adult conch densities are also below the minimum density 
threshold (50 adult conch/ha), which also indicates that harvest is 
unsustainable and overutilization is likely occurring. The majority of 
other conch meat producers within the Caribbean region (e.g., St. 
Vincent and the Grenadines, Puerto Rico, Panama, Guadeloupe, Anguilla, 
St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Barthelemy, St. Martin, 
Cura[ccedil]ao, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Haiti), are fishing well above 
the 8 percent rate and their adult conch densities are well below the 
minimum density threshold (50 adult conch/ha), indicating 
overutilization is likely occurring. Notably, Aruba, Barbados, 
Colombia, The Bahamas, Bonaire, British Virgin Islands, Martinique, 
Venezuela, and Grenada, all fish below the 8 percent exploitation rate, 
but also have very low adult densities (<50 adult conch/ha), which 
suggests that these populations are experiencing recruitment failure 
due to depensatory processes, despite the low exploitation rate.

Summary of Findings

    Queen conch has been fished in the western tropical Atlantic for 
hundreds of years, but in the last four decades, fishing has increased 
and industrial scale fishing has developed (CITES 2003). In most 
jurisdictions, conch fishing continues although population densities 
are very low, with conch populations either experiencing reduced 
reproductive activity or having densities so low that reproductive 
activity has ceased.

[[Page 55212]]

    Several indicators suggest that overfishing is affecting 
abundances, densities, spatial distributions, and reproductive outputs 
(FAO 2007). In addition, many jurisdictions cite the loss of queen 
conch from shallow waters and the need for their fisheries to pursue 
conch with SCUBA or hookah in deeper waters (see S1 in Horn et al. 
2022).
    Efforts to assess the status of queen conch across its range are 
hampered by the lack of data collection for all fishing sectors. While 
many jurisdictions make an effort to collect data on the main 
commercial fisheries, including both industrial and artisanal, the 
collections are difficult in artisanal conch fisheries. Artisanal 
fisheries typically land queen conch at a wide variety of locations, 
lack adequate centralized marketing outlets that can be monitored as a 
check on landings, and lack enforcement resources to ensure compliance 
with size, quotas, and other regulations. To cope with the short-
comings of data collection, the SAU project implemented an approach to 
reconstruct catches for most of the jurisdictions where queen conch is 
fished. The SRT relied on these reconstructed landings as best 
available scientific information to examine changes in landings over 
time and comparisons of landings with standing stock.
    The results from the SRT's analysis provide substantial evidence 
indicating that overutilization is occurring throughout the species' 
range. Only 10 percent (4 jurisdictions) of the 39 jurisdictions 
reviewed are fishing at or below the 8 percent exploitation rate and 
have adult conch densities that are capable of supporting successful 
reproduction (>100 conch/ha), and therefore recruitment (Horn et al. 
2022). Forty-one percent of the jurisdictions reviewed are exceeding 
the 8 percent exploitation rate and have a median conch densities below 
the 100 adult conch/ha threshold required for successful reproductive 
activity, while 33 percent of the jurisdictions reviewed are exceeding 
the 8 percent exploitation rate and have median conch densities below 
the minimum threshold required to support any reproductive activity 
(<50 adult conch/ha). Thus, the best available commercial and 
scientific information indicates that exploitation levels have resulted 
in the overutilization of the species throughout its range and 
represents the most significant threat to species.

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The SRT evaluated each jurisdiction's regulations specific to queen 
conch, including fisheries management, implementation and enforcement, 
to determine the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms in 
controlling the main threat of overutilization of the species 
throughout its range. The SRT identified some common minimum size 
regulations that are intended to restrict legal harvest with some form 
of size-related criterion. The general goal of the size restrictions is 
to offer protection to at least some proportion of queen conch (e.g., 
juveniles or immature conch) that are not yet sexually mature to 
preserve reproductive potential. A more detailed summary that includes 
the best available information on queen conch populations, fisheries, 
and their management in each jurisdictions is presented in its entirety 
in the status review report (see S1 in Horn et al. 2022).

Common Queen Conch Minimum Size Regulations

    Minimum size regulations are often implemented to help prevent the 
harvest of juvenile or immature conch. These minimum size requirements 
rely on lip thickness, lip flare, shell length, and meat weight as 
indicators of maturity.
    Lip thickness is the most reliable indicator for maturity in queen 
conch. The best available information indicates that shell lip 
thickness for mature queen conch ranges from 17.5 to 26.2 mm for 
females, and 13 to 24 mm for males (Stoner et al. 2012; Bissada 2011; 
Aldana-Aranda and Frenkiel 2007; Avila-Poveda and Barqueiro-Cardenas 
2006). Boman et al. (2018) suggested that a 15 mm minimum lip thickness 
would be appropriate for most of the Caribbean region. The primary goal 
of a minimum lip thickness is that queen conch will have at least one 
season after reaching sexual maturity to mate and spawn. However, many 
of the lip thickness requirements discussed below are set too low to 
ensure the maturity of the harvested conch.
    Regulations that simply require a flared lip to be harvested are 
based on a long-outdated idea that maturity occurs at the time of the 
flared lip develops (Stoner et al. 2021). Flared shell lips are an 
unreliable independent indicator of maturity because as discussed 
above, the shell lip can flare a full reproductive season before an 
individual can mate or spawn. Similarly, it is well established that 
shell length is a poor predictor of maturity in queen conch because 
maturity occurs following the termination of growth in shell length, 
and final shell length is highly variable with location and 
environmental conditions (Tewfik et al. 2019; Appeldoorn et al. 2017; 
Foley and Takahashi 2017; Stoner et al. 2012c; Buckland 1989 Appeldoorn 
1988a).
    Moreover, regulations that impose shell requirements (e.g., shell 
length, flared lip or lip thickness) are not enforceable if the shell 
is discarded at sea and the conch can be landed out of its shell. Meat 
weight is the only maturity measure not associated with the shell and 
it is also not a reliable criterion of maturity in queen conch. As 
previously discussed, large immature conch can have larger shells 
(sometimes with a flared lip) and weigh more than adults. Further, meat 
weight requirements that are enforced after the animal is removed from 
its shell have reduced effectiveness in limiting the harvest or 
protecting reproductive potential because the animal cannot be 
returned.

Bermuda

    Queen conch were relatively abundant in Bermuda up until the late 
1960s, but by the late 1970s populations had reached very low levels 
(Sarkis and Ward 2009). Bermuda subsequently closed the queen conch 
fishery in 1978 and queen conch is currently listed as endangered under 
the Bermuda Protected Species Act 2003. The Bermuda Department of 
Conservation Services has developed a recovery plan for queen conch 
with the primary goal to promote and enhance self-sustainability of the 
queen conch in Bermuda waters. Despite closure of the fishery over 40 
years ago, adult densities across the shelf remain low (and below the 
50 adult conch/ha required to support any reproductive activity) 
suggesting additional regulations or management measures, such as those 
aimed at protecting local habitat or water quality, may be warranted. 
The SRT's connectivity model (Vaz et al. 2022) indicates that the queen 
conch population in Bermuda relies entirely on self-recruitment. Thus, 
without management or regulatory measures that not only protect, but 
also help grow the adult breeding population, queen conch densities 
will likely decline in the future.

Cayman Islands

    Concerns about overfishing of queen conch in the Cayman Islands 
began in the early 1980s, and in 1988 the Department of Environment 
began conducting surveys to monitor the status of queen conch. 
Available survey data indicate persistently low queen conch densities 
from 1999 to 2006; followed by a decline in 2007 and a modest increase 
in 2008 (Bothwell

[[Page 55213]]

2009). The Cayman Islands import the majority of their conch meat, but 
there is a small fishery that harvests queen conch for domestic 
consumption (Bothwell 2009). The Cayman Islands' 1978 Marine 
Conservation Law established a closed fishing season (May 1 through 
October 31), during which no conch may be taken from Cayman waters, and 
a 5 conch per person or 10 conch per vessel per day bag limit during 
the open season. Queen conch fishing is prohibited in Marine Park 
Replenishment Zones. There are no minimum size regulations to prevent 
harvest of juvenile conch. The use of Self-Contained Underwater 
Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) and hookah diving gear to harvest marine 
life is prohibited in the Cayman Islands (Bothwell 2009; Ehrhardt and 
Valle-Esquivel 2008). Local Illegal, Unreported, Underreported (IUU) 
fishing is a significant issue and regularly occurs in protected areas 
by neighboring countries (Bothwell 2009). Given the Caymans' small 
shelf area, Bothwell (2009) concluded that even a single poacher, who 
requires only simple fishing gear (i.e., mask and fins), can cause 
severe problems. In addition to local illegal fishing, the Cayman 
Islands also receive IUU queen conch meat fished or exported from 
neighboring jurisdictions, and border control has been identified as a 
severe weakness (Bothwell 2009). The SRT's connectivity model indicates 
(Vaz et al. 2022) that the Cayman Islands are largely a source for 
queen conch larvae to other jurisdictions (particularly Cuba), so as 
queen conch in the Cayman islands are depleted, other jurisdictions are 
less likely to receive recruits from the Cayman Islands (see Figure 12 
in Horn et al. 2022). Given the persistently low queen conch densities 
over the last decade, lack of minimum size regulations to prevent 
juvenile harvest, lack of enforcement, and evidence of significant IUU 
fishing, existing regulatory measures within the Cayman Islands are 
likely inadequate to protect queen conch from overutilization and 
further decline in the future.

Colombia

    The queen conch commercial fishery in Colombia shifted to the 
continental shelf Archipelago of San Andr[eacute]s, Providencia, and 
Santa Catalina (ASPC), including its associated banks 
(Quitasue[ntilde]o, Serrana, Serranilla, and Roncador) in the 1970s 
when conch populations in San Bernardo and Rosario became severely 
depleted due to inadequate regulatory mechanisms (Mora 1994). Even with 
the declaration of San Bernardo and Rosario as national parks that 
allow subsistence fishing only, densities further declined to very low 
levels by 2005 (0.9-12.8 adult conch/ha, 0.2-12.9 juvenile conch/ha), 
suggesting recruitment failure (Prada et al. 2009). Prada et al. (2009) 
noted that illegal queen conch harvest might represent 2-14 percent of 
total harvest (approximately 1.4-21.8 mt of clean meat). During the 
1980s and 1990s, a suite of regulatory measures was put in place to 
protect populations in the ASPC because it constituted almost all of 
Colombia's production. Regulations include area closures, prohibition 
on the use of SCUBA gear, a minimum of 225 g meat weight, and a minimum 
of 5 mm shell lip thickness (Prada et al. 2009). In addition, the CITES 
listing in 1992 established international trade rules. Despite these 
measures, fishery-dependent data collected through the mid-1990s and 
early 2000s masked continued population declines due to biases 
associated with reporting CPUE, incomplete data reporting (e.g., 
inconsistent reporting of landings in versus out of the shell and 
incomplete or absent key spatial information), and illegal trade both 
into and out of Colombia. For example, in 2008, illegal queen conch 
meat exports were traced back to Colombia (as well as other 
jurisdictions previously mentioned) during the Operation Shell Game 
investigation (U.S. House, Committee on Natural Resources, 2008). 
Ultimately, management measures were ineffective as evidenced by 
decreased landings, increased effort, and low densities reported by 
diver-based visual surveys at two of the three offshore banks: 2.4 
conch/ha at Quitasue[ntilde]o and 33.7 conch/ha at Roncador (Valderrama 
and Hern[aacute]ndez, 2000). The Colombian government responded by 
closing the fisheries at Serrana and Roncador, and reducing the export 
quota by 50 percent (CITES 2003). Still these measures were inadequate 
and the entire ASPC closed from 2004-2007 due to illegal trade, 
conflicts between industrial and artisanal fishers, and discrepancies 
between landings and exports (Castro-Gonz[aacute]lez et al. 2009). In 
2008 the fishery at ASPC partially reopened at Roncador and Serrana 
Banks, with annual production set at 100 mt (Castro-Gonz[aacute]lez et 
al. 2011), only to close the fishery at Serrana Bank again in 2012.
    The overall adult queen conch densities remain below the critical 
threshold required to support any reproductive activity throughout much 
of the jurisdiction. Despite very low adult densities (fewer than 50 
adult conch/ha in all locations, except at Serrana bank), the queen 
conch fishery continues to operate in Colombia. Because the ASPC is 
unlikely to receive significant larval input from source populations 
outside the area (Vaz et al. 2022), the region may not recover with 
current regulatory measures without sufficient adult densities in local 
populations. The lack of information for populations in deeper areas 
throughout the ASPC, which may be particularly important for recovery 
(Castro et al. 2011 unpublished), hinders Colombia's ability to make 
comprehensive management decisions and illegal fishing continues to 
plague the region. Furthermore, while regulations require a minimum 
shell lip thickness of 5 mm and shell lip thickness is a reliable 
indicator for maturity in queen conch, this value is likely too low to 
protect immature queen conch harvest. Finally, when the shell is 
discarded at sea the lip thickness requirement is not enforceable, and 
any protective value of the meat weight regulations is diminished.

Costa Rica

    Queen conch harvest in Costa Rica was prohibited in 1989 (CITES 
2003; Mora 2012). In 2000, the commercial sale of incidentally captured 
queen conch was also prohibited, but queen conch caught as bycatch 
could be kept for personal consumption. Population declines were 
reported in 2001, but there is limited information available related to 
those declines (CITES 2003). The adequacy of existing regulatory 
measures in protecting queen conch from threats, such as IUU fishing is 
unknown.

Cuba

    The current status of queen conch populations in Cuba is 
questionable due to a lack of available information; however, the few 
published surveys suggest relatively high densities, particularly in 
protected national parks (e.g., Jardines de la Reina National Park: 
1,108 conch/ha in 2005; Formoso et al. 2007; National Park Desembarco 
del Granma: 511 conch/ha to 1,723 conch/ha in 2009 to 2010; Cala et al. 
2013). The SRT was unable to locate more recent population assessments 
or surveys. The commercial harvest of queen conch began in Cuba in the 
1960s and the harvest level increased considerably in the mid to late 
1970s. However, due to the largely unregulated and unmanaged harvest, 
the queen conch population collapsed, and the fishery was closed in 
1978. It reopened in the 1982 with a 555 mt harvest quota, which 
increased to 780 mt in 1984 (Munoz et al. 1987). Conch populations 
continued to decrease at an accelerated

[[Page 55214]]

rate despite the newly established quota system and size based 
regulations (Grau and Alcolado as cited in Munoz et al. 1987). Munoz et 
al. (1987) attributed the continued population declines to harvest 
quotas being set too high and illegal harvest. In 1998 the fishery was 
closed again for a year to conduct an abundance survey (Formoso 2001) 
and update quotas. Since then, the queen conch fishery has been managed 
under a catch quota system that is established by ``zones'' and set 
between 15 and 20 percent of the adult queen conch biomass, according 
to population assessments and monitoring. The most recent FAO landings 
data indicates that queen conch landings have ranged from 475 mt landed 
in 2018, 405 mt in 2017, and 477 mt in 2016 (see S2 in Horn et al. 
2022); however, no population assessments or surveys were available for 
these years. The regulations also include seasonal closures that co-
occur with peak spawning, depth limits on diving operations, a 
prohibition on SCUBA gear, and a minimum lip thickness of greater than 
10 mm. While shell lip thickness is a reliable indicator for maturity 
in queen conch, the minimum 10 mm shell lip thickness regulation likely 
does not prevent the harvest of immature queen conch. Additionally, 
compliance and enforcement of these regulations appears to be a 
problem. For example, two fishing ``zones'' were closed in 2012 because 
fishermen were not complying with the regulatory requirements (FAO 
Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission 2013).
    Despite the lack of available information on illegal harvest of 
conch in Cuba, there is evidence that some limited illegal conch 
harvest likely occurs. A recent news article estimated that around one 
thousand vessels involving approximately 2,500 people were engaged in 
the illegal harvest of marine species, including conch, lobster, and 
shrimp (14ymedio 2019). In 2019, Cuba passed new fishery laws aimed at 
curbing illegal fishing by instituting a new licensing system (14ymedio 
2019). There is currently no information available on the 
implementation and enforcement of these new regulations, and the only 
survey data available are from surveys of protected areas in 2009. In 
addition, Cuba's regulations are meant to implement a catch quota 
system that is based on adult biomass estimates, which are obtained 
through population assessment, and the most recent population 
assessments available are more than 10 years old. Without additional 
information on the status of the queen conch population in Cuba or the 
effectiveness of the new regulations, the adequacy of existing 
regulations is unknown. However, given the history of the conch 
fishery, including the rate at which declines can occur with 
unsustainable quotas, and the rate of illegal harvest, effective 
enforcement of existing regulations, particularly in the protected 
areas, is important to protect the queen conch in Cuba from 
overutilization in the future.

Dominican Republic and Haiti

    Queen conch in the Dominican Republic and Haiti have been 
overfished since the 1970s (Wood 2010; Mateo P[eacute]rez and Tejeda 
2008; Brownell and Stevely 1981). In 2003, Haiti established 
regulations that include a ban on harvesting queen conch without a 
flared lip, and the use of SCUBA and hookah gears (CITES 2003). 
However, the available information indicates that queen conch are still 
fished in Haiti using SCUBA gear (FAO 2020; Wood 2010). Similarly, 
while the regulations for a closed season from April 1 through 
September 30 exist, the available information indicates that 
enforcement is limited (FAO 2020).
    The Dominican Republic established regulations for a minimum shell 
size in 1986, a closed season in 1999, and no fishing areas in 2002. 
But these regulations are reported to be ineffective due to inadequate 
enforcement (CITES 2003, 2012). Illegal trade is also common. For 
example, from 1999 to 2001, the Dominican Republic almost doubled its 
queen conch production, elevating concerns about illegal fishing, which 
resulted in the imposition of a CITES moratorium. More recently, in 
2008, both Haiti and the Dominican Republic, in addition to Jamaica, 
Honduras, and Colombia, were implicated in illegal exports of more than 
119 mt of queen conch meat during the Operation Shell Game 
investigation (Congress, U.S. House, Committee on Natural Resources, 
2008).
    Although dated (i.e., more than 10 years old), the available 
information indicates that adult queen conch densities are below the 
minimum density threshold for any reproductive activity (50 adult 
conch/ha). The status of queen conch in the Dominican Republic is 
concerning because under historical conditions it likely functioned as 
an important ecological corridor, facilitating species connectivity 
throughout the region (Vaz et al. 2022). Although there is evidence 
that the rates of decline may have slowed in some areas since 2000 
(Torres and Sullivan-Sealey 2002) and that some locations have 
reproductive activity (Wood 2010), there is no evidence that 
regulations have been effectively implemented or enforced (CITES 2003, 
2012; Wood 2010; Figueroa and Gonz[aacute]lez 2012). In addition, 
detailed, accurate, consistent, and unbiased reporting of fisheries 
data is a challenge and creates a barrier to recognizing and 
understanding the current status of populations (FAO Western Central 
Atlantic Fishery Commission 2020). Thus, the SRT concluded that adult 
queen conch densities are well below what is required for healthy 
spawning populations at most locations (Posada et al. 1999; Wood 2010) 
and continued declines may be irreversible without human intervention 
even if fishing pressure is significantly reduced or halted (Torres and 
Sullivan-Sealey 2002). Based on the foregoing, existing regulations are 
likely inadequate to address the threat of overutilization and reverse 
the decline of populations in the Dominican Republic and Haiti.

Jamaica

    Jamaica has been a major producer for the queen conch fishery since 
the 1990s (Aiken et al. 1999; Appeldoorn 1994a; Prada et al. 2009). The 
commercial fishery is focused around Pedro Bank, located approximately 
80 km southwest of Jamaica. Fisheries-independent diver-based surveys 
began on Pedro Bank in 1994 and these surveys have helped establish 
total allowable catch (TAC) limits for the fishery. Queen conch surveys 
are conducted about every 3 to 4 years (e.g., 1994, 1997, 2002, 2007, 
2011, 2015, and 2018). Queen conch density estimates for all life 
stages and depth strata from 1994 to 2018 have remained at a level that 
supports successful reproductive activity (142-203 conch/ha; NEPA 
2020). However, surveys in 2018 recorded low enough densities (203 
conch/ha, age classes was not provided) such that the National 
Fisheries Authority of Jamaica implemented a closure of the queen conch 
fishery from 2019 to 2020. Due to the lack of funding to conduct a new 
survey, the closure was extended to February 2021 (Jamaica Gleaner, Ban 
on Conch Fishing Extended to February 2021, April 6, 2020).
    In 1994 the queen conch fishery management plan established 
guidelines for management measures including a national TAC and 
individual quota system (Morris 2012), a closed commercial season 
generally extends from August 1 through February 28 (FAO 2022), and a 
prohibition on fishing queen conch at depths greater than 30 m (Morris 
2012). These regulations are intended to conserve nursery and breeding 
areas as well as

[[Page 55215]]

deep spawning stocks (Morris 2012). There are no minimum size based 
regulations to prevent harvest of immature conch. There is no closed 
season for the recreational fishery, but harvesting is limited to three 
conch per person per day (CITES 2003). Currently, annual quotas for 
Pedro Bank are determined through a control rule based on harvesting 8 
percent of the estimated exploitable biomass (Smikle 2010). Under this 
scenario, the maximum catch is fixed when densities are above 100 adult 
conch/ha and are progressively reduced if the population density is 
reduced. Quotas cannot be increased unless supported by the results of 
an in-water survey; however, quotas can be lowered if there is evidence 
of problems, such as a drop in catch per unit effort or a survey 
indicating a lack of juveniles for future recruitment, and field 
surveys are mandated at regular intervals. Additional management 
measures include the designation of the South West Cay Special 
Fisheries Conservation Area (SWCSFCA) in 2012. Queen conch fishing is 
prohibited within the SWCSFCA, which extends in a 2-km radius around 
Bird Key on Pedro Bank. Even so, regulations have not been able to 
address illegal fishing, which is thought to be problematic based on a 
spike in catch statistics reported by Honduras and the Dominican 
Republic during two discrete periods between 2000 and 2002 when 
Jamaica's fishery on Pedro Bank was closed (CITES 2012). According to 
the FAO Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (2020), a Jamaican 
national fisheries authority was established, but had an unfunded 
compliance branch that receives assistance from the Jamaican Coast 
Guard and Marine Police, though fisheries issues are not a priority. 
Thus, illegal fishing is thought to remain a serious problem, as 
further evidenced by the FAO Western Central Atlantic Fishery 
Commission (2020) observation that ``. . . there is intense IUU fishing 
by vessels from jurisdictions such as Honduras, Dominican Republic and 
Nicaragua'' within the large Jamaican EEZ.
    Effective conservation management measures are particularly 
important for the Pedro Bank queen conch fishery because it is 
geographically isolated and receives little gene flow from external 
areas. Thus, the future of Pedro Bank's queen conch fishery likely 
depends on local recruitment for sustaining its stocks (Kitson-Walters 
et al. 2018). The health of the Pedro Bank conch population may also be 
important to species connectivity throughout the Caribbean region, as 
Jamaica has been identified as an important ecological corridor and a 
source of larvae to down current jurisdictions (Vaz et al. 2022).
    In summary, management actions to date have maintained queen conch 
populations on Pedro Bank, on average, at levels above the necessary 
threshold required to support successful reproduction (i.e., greater 
than 100 adult conch/ha); however, existing regulations do not protect 
immature conch from harvest and may not be adequate to control illegal 
fishing, prevent habitat degradation, or reverse the decline of queen 
conch in shallower areas.

Leeward Antilles (Aruba, Cura[ccedil]ao, and Bonaire)

    No historical or current fisheries data from the Leeward Antilles 
islands are available. However, in Bonaire, Lac Bay historically was 
considered to have been ``plentiful in conch.'' (STINPA 2019, as cited 
in Patitas 2010). Fisheries were closed in Bonaire and Aruba in 1985 
and 1987, respectively, but enforcement of the closure did not begin in 
Bonaire until the mid-1990s (van Baren 2013). Limited permits, allowing 
take of adult conch over 18 cm shell length or meat weight over 225 
grams (g), were issued in Bonaire through the 1990s. But a moratorium 
on permit issuance was reported in 2012 due to concern over the 
extremely low adult population size at that time (van Baren 2013). The 
limited fisheries-independent monitoring suggests that the island-wide 
density of conch in Bonaire is very low 21.8 conch/ha. Current 
densities are too low to support fisheries, despite being closed for 
more than 30 years in two of the three islands (i.e., Aruba and 
Bonaire). Queen conch are imported legally from Jamaica and Colombia 
and illegally from Venezuela to markets in Cura[ccedil]ao and Bonaire 
(FAO 2007).
    The most recent study to assess the status of queen conch in 
Bonaire was conducted in 2010 in Lac Bay (Patitsas 2010). Within Lac 
Bay, overall conch density was recorded to be 11.24 conch/ha. The 
majority of conchs in Lac Bay were adults, constituting 85 percent of 
the total found (Patitsas 2010). The previous conch density study in 
Lac Bay was conducted in 1999, and estimated the overall population to 
be around 22 conch/ha with an average age of 2.5 years (Lott 2001, as 
cited in Patitsas 2010). Patitsas (2010) concluded the densities in Lac 
Bay are below the Allee effect threshold of 50 adult conch/ha (Stoner 
and Culp 2000). No surveys have been done to determine the density and 
the conditions of the populations in the island of Cura[ccedil]ao 
(Sanchez, 2017). The only information of the populations in the island 
of Cura[ccedil]ao located by the SRT is presented in a 2017 thesis on 
the diet and size of queen conch around the island of Cura[ccedil]ao 
(Sanchez 2017). While, Sanchez (2017) did not provide conch density 
data, the author concluded that adult queen conch are very rare 
surrounding the island, and appear to only occur in restricted places, 
like the Sea Aquarium Basins, where illegal fishing and predation is 
limited (Sanchez 2017). The average density of queen conch on the west 
side of Aruba was 11.3 conch/ha from 2009 to 2011, and the population 
was dominated by juveniles, suggesting Aruba populations on the west 
side of the island are not large enough for successful reproduction, 
though there are isolated areas of higher conch densities (Ho 2011). 
There is evidence that illegal fishing continues and is further 
contributing to declines (van Baren 2013; Ho 2011; FAO 2011).
    Despite fisheries closures in Bonaire and Aruba since the 1980s, 
the best available information indicates that there has been limited or 
no recovery. The most recent available survey, although dated (i.e., 
more than 10 years old) and discussed above, reported very low conch 
densities and suggest further decline in Lac Bay, Bonaire. There is 
limited evidence of improvements to management, enforcement, and 
conservation planning strategies in Aruba, Cura[ccedil]ao, and Bonaire. 
The lack of recovery in the respective conch populations despite the 
complete closures of the conch fisheries, indicates that the closures 
were likely implemented too late because adult conch densities were too 
low to support reproductive activity. In addition, Aruba, Curacao, and 
Bonaire appear to have historically relied on larval subsidies of local 
origin and from Venezuela, and are mostly isolated from other sources 
of larval supply. Therefore, their ability to recover post 
overutilization is limited.

Leeward Islands (Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, British Virgin Islands, 
Guadeloupe and Martinique, Montserrat, Saba, St. Barth[eacute]lemy, St. 
Martin, St. Eustatius, St. Kitts and Nevis, U.S. Virgin Islands)

    Based on the available data, as described in Horn et al. (2022), 
indicates that the majority of the Leeward Islands (i.e., Anguilla, 
Antigua and Barbuda, British Virgin Islands, Guadeloupe and Martinique, 
Montserrat, St. Barth[eacute]lemy, St. Eustatius, St. Martin, St. Kitts 
and Nevis, and U.S. Virgin Islands) have queen conch populations that 
are overexploited, with estimated population densities that are below 
that

[[Page 55216]]

which is necessary for reproductive success (100 adult conch/ha). The 
existing regulatory mechanisms largely appear inadequate, resulting in 
overexploitation and illegal fishing, and have likely contributed to 
the decline in these populations and reproductive failure. For example, 
in Anguilla, surveys conducted in 2015 and 2016 found 26 adult conch/
ha, which is well below the minimum density threshold for any 
reproductive activity (50 adult conch/ha) and may not be supporting any 
reproductive activity (Izioka 2016). Despite low adult densities, 
fishing for queen conch is still allowed. In addition, existing 
regulatory mechanisms do not prevent immature queen conch from being 
harvested. Currently, the minimum landing size for queen conch in 
Anguilla is 18 cm shell length; however, Wynne et al. (2016) found that 
up to 94 percent of queen conch harvested at that size were immature.
    In Antigua and Barbuda, surveys of populations also show low 
densities and low proportions of adult conch, suggesting that fishing 
pressure has significantly reduced the adult population to the point 
where Allee effects are occurring (Ruttenberg et al. 2018; Tewfik et 
al. 2001). For example, Tewfik et al. (2001) conducted 34 visual 
surveys (12.84 hectares total) off the southwestern side of Antigua. 
These surveys recorded 3.7 adult conch/ha, significantly below the 50 
adult conch/ha threshold required to support any reproductive activity. 
Overall conch density (adults and juveniles) for Antigua were 17.2 
conch/ha, with juveniles making up about 78.4 percent of the entire 
population. Reported conch densities in Barbuda are also very low. 
Ruttenberg et al. (2018) reports 29  12 adult conch/ha and 
96  30 juvenile conch/ha (mean  SE). In terms 
of regulations, both jurisdictions prohibit harvesting of queen conch 
without a flared lip, or a shell length less than 180 mm, or animals 
whose meat is less than 225 g without the digestive gland. In addition, 
Horsford (2019) found over 20 percent of landed conch meat samples were 
below the minimum legal meat weight in 2018 and 2019, including conch 
harvested within marine reserves. Evidence of the harvest of undersized 
and immature queen conch suggests that the existing regulations are 
either inadequate or are not enforced, or both. Based on the size 
distribution of queen conch in Barbuda, existing regulations do not 
necessarily prevent harvesting of immature queen conch. In 2003 the 
British Virgin Islands implemented regulations that require an 18 cm 
minimum shell length, a flared lip, a meat weight of at least 226 g, 
and established a closed season (June 1 through September 30) and 
prohibited SCUBA gear. However, enforcement of these regulations is 
questionable as the fishery appears to be essentially unmonitored (Gore 
and Llewellyn 2005). In addition, as previously discussed shell length 
and flared shell lip are not reliable indicators of maturity and likely 
do not prevent immature queen conch from harvest. Given that surveys of 
queen conch populations in 1993 and 2003 both showed densities of queen 
conch on the order of less than 0.07 conch/ha, existing regulatory 
mechanisms may not adequately protect queen conch in the British Virgin 
Islands from overexploitation (CITES 2003; Ehrhardt and Valle-Esquivel 
2008; Gore and Llewellyn 2005).
    In Guadeloupe and Martinique, demand is high for local consumption 
of queen conch (CITES 2003). In 1986, Martinique passed regulations to 
prohibit the harvest of queen conch with a shell length of less than 22 
cm, or shells without a flared lip, or animals whose meat weighs less 
than 250 g. The majority of landings in Martinique are meat only (FAO 
2020), which means that immature queen conch can potentially be 
harvested as long as the meat weight is greater than 250 g. In 
Martinique, a closed season runs from January 1 through June 30, and 
the use of SCUBA gear to harvest conch is prohibited. Studies on the 
reproductive cycle of queen conch in Martinique and Guadeloupe have 
concluded that the minimum shell length size is not an effective 
criterion to base sexual maturity (Frenkiel et al. 2009; Reynal et al. 
2009). Thus, the best available information indicates that these 
regulatory measures are inadequate to prevent the harvest of immature 
queen conch. Given the increasing demand, with the price of queen conch 
meat having doubled over the past 25 years (FAO 2020; FAO Western 
Central Atlantic Fishery Commission 2013), the existing regulations 
will likely continue to contribute to harvesting of immature queen 
conch and declines in the queen conch population in the future.
    The island of Saba supported large conch fisheries until the mid-
1990s. Intensive and unsustainable harvest during the mid-1980s and 
throughout the 1990s led to the declines on Saba Bank. The Saba Bank 
was also overfished by several foreign vessels (van Baren 2013). In 
1996, fishery legislation prohibited the harvest of queen conch for 
commercial purposes, and allowed only Saban individuals to harvest 
queen conch for private use and consumption. These regulations limit 
Saban individuals to no more than 20 conch per person per year and 
require that catch be reported to the manager of the Saba Marine Park 
(van Baren 2013). Nonetheless, collection and reporting laws are not 
enforced (van Baren 2013). Additional regulations require a 19 cm 
minimum shell length or a ``well-developed lip,'' and prohibit SCUBA 
and hookah gears (van Baren 2013). No surveys have been conducted to 
determine the status of queen conch or if the commercial closure has 
been effective in rebuilding queen conch stocks (van Baren 2013). 
Anecdotal evidence indicates that queen conch on the Saba Bank are 
fished by foreign vessels (FAO Western Central Atlantic Fishery 
Commission 2013). The island of St. Eustatius had a small commercial 
conch fishery that exported to St. Maarten. In 2010 the fishery was 
curtailed because St. Maarten began to require CITES permits for their 
imports (van Baren 2013).
    In the U.S. Virgin Islands, the U.S. Federal government has 
jurisdiction within the U.S. Virgin Island EEZ (i.e., those waters from 
3-200 nautical miles (4.8-370 km) from the coast) and the CFMC and NMFS 
are responsible for management measures for U.S. Caribbean federal 
fisheries. The Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands manages marine 
resources from the shore out to the 3 nautical miles. At present, the 
U.S. Virgin Islands manages fisheries resources cooperatively with the 
CFMC, although not all regulations are consistent across the state-
Federal boundary. Recently, the Secretary of Commerce approved three 
new fishery management plans (FMP) for the fishery resources managed by 
the CFMC in Federal waters of each of St. Thomas, St. John, and St. 
Croix. The St. Thomas and St. John FMP and the St. Croix FMP will 
transition fisheries management in the respective EEZ from the 
historical U.S. Caribbean-wide approach to an island-based approach; 
however, this change does not alter existing regulations for the queen 
conch fishery. In the U.S. Caribbean EEZ, no person may fish for or 
possess a queen conch in or from the EEZ, except from November 1 
through May 31 in the area east of 64[deg]34' W longitude which 
includes Lang Bank east of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (50 CFR 
622.491(a)). Fishing for queen conch is allowed in territorial waters 
of St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John from November 1 through May 31, 
or until the queen conch annual quota is reached. The annual quota is 
22.7 mt (50,000 lbs) for St. Croix territorial

[[Page 55217]]

waters and 22.7 mt (50,000 lbs) for St. Thomas and St. John territorial 
waters (combined). The CFMC established a comparable annual catch limit 
(ACL) for harvest of queen conch within the EEZ around St. Croix east 
of 64[deg]34' W longitude, which includes Lang Bank. When the ACL is 
reached or projected to be reached across territorial and Federal 
waters, the Federal queen conch fishery within the EEZ around St. Croix 
is closed. From 2012 to 2020, commercial fishermen in St. Croix landed 
between 24 and 74 percent of their ACL; therefore, there were no 
closures of the queen conch fishery during this time period. In 
addition to the harvest quotas, commercial trip limits and recreational 
bag limits for queen conch harvest apply in both territorial waters and 
Federal waters of the U.S. Virgin Islands. The commercial trip limit in 
territorial waters and in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ around St. Croix is 
200 queen conch per vessel per day (50 CFR 622.495). The recreational 
bag limit from the EEZ around St. Croix is three per person per day or, 
if more than four persons are aboard, 12 per vessel per day (50 CFR 
622.494). The recreational bag limit in territorial waters is six conch 
per person per day, not to exceed 24 conch per vessel per day. In the 
EEZ around St. Croix and in U.S. Virgin Islands territorial waters, 
regulations require a 22.9 cm minimum shell length or 9.5 mm lip 
thickness (50 CFR 622.492). In the EEZ around St. Croix and in U.S. 
Virgin Islands territorial waters, queen conch must be landed alive 
with meat and shell intact. Finally, Federal regulations at 50 CFR 
622.490(a) prohibit the harvest of queen conch in the EEZ around St. 
Croix by diving while using a device that provides a continuous air 
supply from the surface.
    Surveys of queen conch were conducted in the U.S. Virgin Islands in 
2008-2010. The median cross shelf adult density estimate for the three 
island groups is 44 adult conch/ha, suggesting that densities are too 
low to support reproductive activity (Horn et al. 2022). However, queen 
conch densities (at all the island groups) were higher in 2008 through 
2010 than those observed in the 1980s and 1990s (Boulon 1987; 
Friedlander 1997; Friedlander et al. 1994; Gordon 2002; Wood and Olsen 
1983). For example, the mean adult queen conch density estimated for 
St. Thomas was five times that of adult conch in 2001 (24.2 adult 
conch/ha) and four times that in 1996 (32.2 adult conch/ha) and ten 
times that in 1990 (11.8 adult conch/ha) (Gordon 2010). In the 2008-
2010 surveys, the population was composed mainly of juveniles (greater 
than 50 percent) with the remainder of the population spread evenly 
among the older age classes. Similarly, a more recent survey conducted 
in Buck Island Reef National Monument (a no-take reserve) estimated 
68.5 adult conch/ha and 233.5 juvenile conch/ha (Doerr and Hill, 2018). 
This age class structure suggests some successful recruitment in this 
area. However, due to the age of the data from the 2008-2010 surveys, a 
more recent assessment could better inform stock status. NMFS's 2022 
second quarter update to its Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. 
Fisheries identifies the queen conch stock in the Caribbean as 
overfished, but not currently undergoing overfishing.
    Overall, while queen conch regulations exist within the Leeward 
Islands to prohibit the harvesting of immature queen conch and manage 
fisheries, many of these regulations use inadequate proxy measures for 
maturity, are poorly enforced, and lack effective monitoring controls. 
For example, minimum shell length, flared lip, and meat weight 
regulations are unreliable measures to protect immature conch. While 
lip thickness is a more reliable indicator of maturity for queen conch, 
values set too low do not ensure that only mature conch are harvested 
(Doerr and Hill, 2018; Frenkiel et al. 2009; Reynal et al. 2009; 
Horsford 2019). The connectivity models (Vaz et al. 2022) show a 
reliance on self-recruitment for the Leeward Islands, with larval 
transport mainly away from the islands. Thus, queen conch populations 
throughout the Leeward Islands may continue to decline in the future 
due to the inadequacy of many of the existing regulatory measures in 
protecting the Leeward Island conch populations from overutilization 
and limited larval supply from other locations.

Nicaragua

    In Nicaragua, the queen conch fishery was not considered a major 
fishery until the mid 1990s (CITES 2012). The majority of the queen 
conch harvest is caught by fishermen targeting lobster, with the 
remainder made by divers during the lobster closed season (Barnutty 
Navarro and Salvador Castellon 2013) or incidentally (Escoto 
Garc[iacute]a 2004). Landings, quotas, and exports have all increased 
significantly since the 1990s (S[aacute]nchez Baquero 2009). In 2003, 
Nicaragua implemented regulations that established a 20 cm minimum 
shell length, a minimal lip thickness of 9.5 mm, a seasonal closure 
from June 1 through September 30, and set the export quota at 45 mt 
(Barnutty Navarro and Salvador Castellon 2013; FAO Western Central 
Atlantic Fishery Commission 2020). Since then, the export quota has 
increased significantly. In 2009, the export quota was set at 341 mt of 
clean fillet and 41 mt for research purposes. In 2012, Nicaragua gained 
additional conch fishing grounds through the resolution of a maritime 
dispute with Honduras (International Court of Justice 2012), and 
increased its export quota to 345 mt (Barnutty Navarro and Salvador 
Castellon 2013; FAO Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission 2013). 
By 2019, this quota had almost doubled to an annual export quota of 638 
mt (FAO Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission 2020). The 2020 
export quota increased again to 680 mt (see CITES Export Quota). 
Whether these regulations are adequate to protect the queen conch 
population from overexploitation is unclear, but a comparison of queen 
conch densities over the years suggests the current quota may be set 
too high. For example, results from a 2009 systematic cross-shelf 
scientific survey conducted by SCUBA divers showed densities ranging 
from 176-267 adult conch/ha depending on the month (April, July, or 
November), location, and depth (10-30 m) (Barnutty Navarro and Salvador 
Castellon 2013). More recent surveys, conducted in October 2016, March 
2018, and October 2019, show a decrease in densities to 70-109 conch/ha 
(FAO Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission 2020). However, 
details on these surveys were unavailable and it is unclear if these 
are adult queen conch densities. Regardless, the available information 
suggests that overall densities have decreased substantially since 
2009, presumably due to the significant increases in the export quota 
over the past few years. While the densities, if they reflect adult 
conch densities, may still support some reproductive activity within 
the queen conch population, the existing regulatory measures, including 
the current quota, may not be adequate to prevent further queen conch 
declines in the future. If these trends continue this population is 
vulnerable to collapse, as the connectivity model (Vaz et al. 2022) 
indicates that Nicaragua's queen conch population is mostly reliant on 
self-recruitment.

Panama

    There is little information available on the status of queen conch 
or harvest of queen conch in Panama. Georges et al. (2010) suggested 
that the queen conch fishery in Panama may not have specific 
regulations, but recognized harvest using SCUBA gear is prohibited. In 
the 1970s, a subsistence fishery was

[[Page 55218]]

centered in the San Blas Islands (Brownell and Stevely 1981). By the 
late 1990s, landings data suggest that the queen conch population had 
collapsed (CITES 2003; Georges et al. 2010). In 2000, extremely low 
adult densities were observed at Bocas del Toro archipelago 
(approximately 0.2 conch/ha; CITES 2003). The most recent information, 
although dated, indicates that the fishery was closed for 5 years in 
2004 (CITES 2012) and a ``permanent closed season'' remains in place as 
of 2019 (FAO 2019). The SAU data suggests that queen conch harvest has 
continued during the closure with unreported landings likely occurring 
for subsistence and by the artisan fishery (Pauly et al. 2020). In 
Panama, queen conch appear to be largely self-recruiting (Vaz et al. 
2022) and more vulnerable to depletion as the population likely does 
not receive larval recruits from other jurisdictions. The best 
available information suggests that Panama does not have adequate 
regulatory measures in place to manage queen conch harvest. While it 
appears that the harvest is limited to subsistence, the available 
information suggests that the population has collapsed, and without 
additional regulations and appropriate conservation planning, it is 
unlikely that Panama's severely depleted queen conch population will 
recover.

Puerto Rico

    Queen conch populations in Puerto Rico showed signs of steady 
decline beginning in the 1980s (CITES 2012). Estimated fishing 
mortality exceeded estimates of natural mortality, catch continued to 
decline while effort increased through 2011 (CITES 2012), and the catch 
became increasingly skewed to smaller sizes, all suggesting that Puerto 
Rican populations have been overfished for decades (Appeldoorn 1993; 
SEDAR 2007). Surveys conducted in 2013 observed larger size 
distributions, higher adult queen conch densities (compared to three 
previous studies, but lower than the density reported in 2006), an 
increase in the proportion of older adults, and evidence of sustained 
recruitment, suggesting that Puerto Rico's conch populations are 
recovering to some extent (Jim[eacute]nez 2007, Baker et al. 2016).
    There are several regulations associated with the Queen Conch 
Resources Fishery Management Plan of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands (CFMC 1996). Recently, the Secretary of Commerce approved new 
FMPs for the fishery resources managed by the CFMC in Federal waters of 
U.S. Caribbean. The Puerto Rico FMP will transition fisheries 
management to an island-based approach.
    In 1997, the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (with the exception of St. Croix, 
U.S. Virgin Islands) was closed to queen conch fishing and a closed 
season (July 1 through September 30) for territorial waters was 
implemented. In 2004, additional regulations implemented in local 
waters included a 22.86 cm minimum shell length or a 9.5 mm minimum lip 
thickness requirement, daily bag limits of 150 per person and 450 per 
boat, and a requirement to land queen conch intact in the shell. In 
2012, the territorial waters seasonal closure was amended to begin on 
August 1 and extend until October 31.
    In 2013, the Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources 
implemented an administrative order that lifted the prohibition on 
extracting conch meat from the shell while underwater (Puerto Rico 
Department of Natural and Environmental Resources Administrative Order 
2013-14). The administrative order remains valid today. The elimination 
of an important accountability mechanism to ensure compliance and 
enforcement with the minimum size regulations (i.e., the requirement 
that conch be landed whole), occurred while populations were still 
considered severely depleted and subjected to continued fishing 
pressure. Furthermore, shell length is not a reliable indicator of 
maturity in queen conch. As previously discussed, shell lip thickness 
is the most reliable indicator of maturity in queen conch; however, the 
available information indicates that the 9.5 mm lip thickness 
regulation is not high enough to prevent immature conch from being 
harvested. Lastly, the mesophotic reef off the west coast of Puerto 
Rico is likely an important ecological corridor for maintaining 
connectivity between the Windward Islands and the western Caribbean 
(Vaz et al. 2022; Truelove et al. 2017), which means that a decline in 
queen conch could implicate other jurisdictions down-current. Based on 
the foregoing, existing regulations are likely inadequate to reverse 
the decline of queen conch in Puerto Rico.

The Bahamas

    Landings data from the 1950s through 2018 have ranged between 
approximately 750-6,000 mt, with a steadily increasing trend over that 
period. Prior to 1992, the export of queen conch from The Bahamas was 
illegal. More recently, at least 51 percent of the landings are 
exported, with export amounts and values increasing over time, and the 
bulk of the product exported (99 percent) going to the United States 
(Posada et al. 1997, Gittens and Braynen 2012). The Bahamian government 
began implementing an export quota system in 1995 and more recently 
additional protective measures have been implemented including: a SCUBA 
ban, limited use of compressed air, establishment of a network of 
marine protected areas, and restricting take to conch with well-formed 
flared lips (FAO 2007; Gittens and Braynen 2012). The Bahamas also 
established closed areas, but not closed seasons (Prada et al. 2017). 
Concerns continue regarding IUU fishing, which is likely exacerbating 
the serial depletion that queen conch are experiencing throughout most 
of The Bahamas (Stoner et al. 2019).
    Several fishery-independent studies in both fished and unfished 
areas within The Bahamas have reported one or more of the following 
trends since the late 1990s: declines in adult queen conch densities, a 
reduction in the size of adults on mating grounds, a reduction in the 
average age of individuals within populations, and a reduction in the 
number of immature queen conch within nursery grounds (Stoner et al. 
2019). Recent surveys suggest adult queen conch densities are too low 
to support any reproductive activity (i.e., <50 adult conch/ha), except 
in the most remote areas (Stoner et al. 2019). Substantial decreases in 
adult conch densities (up to 74 percent) observed in repeated surveys 
in three fishing grounds indicate that the conch population is 
collapsing. In fact, Stoner et al. (2019) found that only one location 
of the 17 locations surveyed in 2011 and 2018, had reproductively-
viable adult conch densities. Declines in juvenile populations were 
reported near Lee Stocking Island where aggregations associated with 
nursery grounds were estimated to have decreased by more than half 
between surveys conducted in the early 1990s and 2011 (Stoner et al. 
2011; Stoner et al. 2019). Visual surveys spanning two decades show 
that densities of adult queen conch had a significant negative 
relationship with an index of fishing pressure. These surveys also 
reveal that average shell length in a population was not related to 
fishing pressure, but that shell lip thickness declined significantly 
with fishing pressure (Stoner et al. 2019). Other less quantitative 
observations on changing queen conch populations, have been observed 
over the decades in several nursery grounds (e.g., Vigilant Cay and 
Bird Cay). While, juvenile aggregations are subject to large inter-
annual shifts in conch recruitment (Stoner 2003), these

[[Page 55219]]

nurseries are typically inhabited by three year classes or more at any 
one time. However, the near total loss of queen conch at these sites 
indicates a multi-year recruitment failure or heavy illegal fishing on 
the nursery grounds (Stoner et al. 2019; Stoner et al. 2009).
    Densities have also declined significantly in three repeated 
surveys conducted over 22 years in a large no-take fishery reserve 
(Stoner et al. 2019). Unlike fished populations, the protected 
population has aged and appears to be declining because of lack of 
recruitment (Stoner et al. 2019). Queen conch populations around Andros 
Island, the Berry Islands, Cape Eleuthera, and Exuma Cays are at or 
below critical densities for successful reproduction (i.e., >100 adult 
conch/ha). A fishery closure in the Exuma Cays Land and Sea Park since 
1986 has been ineffective in reversing the collapse of the stock in 
this area (Stoner et al. 2019). Some areas of the southern Bahamas, 
including Cay Sal and Jumentos and Ragged Cays, have maintained queen 
conch densities greater than 100 adult conch/ha (Souza Jr. and Kough 
2020; Stoner et al. 2019). However, fishing grounds in the central and 
northern Bahamas, including the Western and Central Great Bahamian 
Banks and Little Bahamian Bank, are depleted and regulatory measures 
are needed to reverse the downward trend (Souza and Kough 2020). Media 
reports from 2010 through 2020 indicate that remote Bahamian banks are 
increasingly threatened by illegal fishing as fishers deplete more 
accessible areas (Souza Jr. and Kough 2020).
    The Bahamas is largely self-recruiting, retaining the majority of 
conch larvae (Vaz et al. 2022). The Bahamas does not export a 
significant amount of larvae to most jurisdictions; however, it does 
receive a substantial amount of larvae from Turks and Caicos, and to a 
lesser extent Cuba (Vaz et al. 2022). The sustainability of queen conch 
populations in The Bahamas relies heavily on domestic regulations. 
Based on the foregoing, the current status and trends of queen conch in 
The Bahamas indicates that existing regulatory measures in The Bahamas 
are inadequate to protect queen conch from overutilization and further 
declines.

Turks and Caicos

    The Turks and Caicos one of the largest producers of queen conch 
meat, providing roughly 35 percent of the total landings reported for 
the Caribbean region from 1950-2016. In 1994, regulatory measures 
prohibited the use of SCUBA gear, established annual quotas, set a 
minimum shell length of no less than 18 cm or a minimum meat weight of 
no less than 225 g, and stated that all conch landed must have a flared 
lip. In 2000, a closed season to exports (July 15 through October 15) 
was established, although queen conch can still be harvested for local 
consumption during the closed season (DEMA 2012). As previously noted, 
shell length, flared lip, and meat weight requirements are not reliable 
indicators of maturity. The existing regulations do not include a 
minimum lip thickness requirement. It is also notable that queen conch 
are not required to be landed whole, but the meat may be removed from 
the shell at sea (Ulman et al. 2016), which undermines the 
effectiveness of most minimum size-based regulations. In addition, 
while a closed season to exports may decrease demand during the 
species' reproductive season, it does not fully prohibit the harvest of 
spawning adult conch.
    Two recent studies suggest that the level of exploitation of conch 
populations in Turks and Caicos may be higher than previously thought. 
The first study by Ulman et al. (2016) performed catch reconstructions 
that identified a significant problem with underreported fishery 
landings data from 1950 to 2012. The authors found that the total 
reconstructed catch was approximately 2.8 times higher than that 
reported by the Turks and Caicos to the FAO, and 86 percent higher than 
the export-adjusted national reported baseline. The discrepancies arose 
because local consumption was not reported and in fact, the total local 
consumption of queen conch accounted for almost the entire total 
allowable catch before exported amounts were considered. In response to 
this study, the catch quota was lowered in 2013.
    The last available queen conch survey was completed in 2001. While 
dated, this survey recorded queen conch densities at 250 adult conch/ha 
(DEMA 2012). Queen conch harvest is prohibited in the Admiral Cockburn 
Land and Sea National Park and in the East Harbor Conch and Lobster 
Reserve. Both protected areas are located in South Caicos (CITES 2012). 
A study by Schultz and Lockhart (2017) examined the demographics of 
conch populations inside and outside the East Harbor Conch and Lobster 
Reserve. The authors identified a lack of algal plain habitat, smaller 
conch, and lower densities of conch in the reserve. Only one of 118 
sites examined inside the reserve contained densities of more than 50 
adult conch/ha and none of the sites had densities of more than 100 
adult conch/ha. Outside of the reserve, only four of 96 sites had 
densities of more than 50 adult conch/ha and only one site had a 
density of more than 100 adult conch/ha. Overall, the densities inside 
and outside the reserve were similar and had declined by at least an 
order of magnitude since 2000. The authors cite a lack of habitat 
inside the reserve and continued fishing pressure within the reserve 
due to low enforcement presence, as the most likely reasons for an 
underperformance of the reserve for queen conch conservation.
    The Turks and Caicos likely supplies larvae to The Bahamas, and is 
unlikely to receive larvae from overfished populations up current, and 
is largely self-recruiting (Vaz et al. 2022). Thus, local reproduction 
is critical for sustaining queen conch in Turks and Caicos. The Turks 
and Caicos has been one of the largest producers of queen conch meat 
for decades; however, recent density trends suggest that existing 
regulations may be inadequate to sustain viable populations.

United States (Florida)

    Within the continental United States, queen conch only occur in 
Florida, where the historical queen conch harvest supported both 
commercial and recreational fisheries. Regulatory measures were put in 
place in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s (Florida Administrative Code, 
1971, 1985, 1990) to first limit and then prohibit commercial and 
recreational take of queen conch in order to reverse the downward trend 
of queen conch populations in Florida (Florida Department of State 
2021; Glazer and Berg Jr. 1994). The 1990 regulations also provided a 
stricter framework for shell possession. Habitat loss resulting from 
coastal developmental contributed to the decline of queen conch 
populations during the 1980s, and since that time, multiple state and 
Federal regulations (e.g., Florida Department of Environmental Planning 
and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary) have limited discharge, 
development, and other anthropogenic activities that may influence 
water quality and degrade coastal habitat.
    Queen conch are grouped into three ``subpopulations'' within the 
Florida Keys based on their spatial distribution (i.e., nearshore, 
back-reef, and deep-water) (Glazer and Delgado 2020). To date, none of 
the above measures have been effective in restoring subpopulations in 
the nearshore, shallow water, and hard bottom habitats immediately 
adjacent to the Florida Keys island chain. In fact, three populations 
known to exist in the 1990s remain locally extinct despite 35 years of 
fishery closure (Glazer and Delgado 2020). Most queen conch in the

[[Page 55220]]

nearshore areas are not capable of reproduction, which in part, may be 
due to deficiencies in their gonadal development (Glazer et al. 2008; 
Spade et al. 2010; Delgado et al. 2019), and very low densities. While 
the reason for reproductive failure in the nearshore areas has not been 
clearly identified, contaminants may also play a role in the 
reproductive failure. In addition, low adult densities, high water 
temperatures, and natural geographic barriers to movement (e.g., Hawks 
Channel) appear to limit opportunities for the formation of spawning 
aggregations that could restore viable populations in nearshore areas. 
Therefore, it is likely that these populations will continue to decline 
without additional intervention, despite the protective measures that 
have been in place for 50 years.
    The Florida Keys' back-reef subpopulation is located in shallow 
water reef flats in habitats primarily consisting of coral rubble, 
sand, and seagrass (Glazer and Kidney 2004), and has been the focus of 
fishery-independent surveys since 1993 (Delgado and Glazer 2020). These 
surveys confirm that the adult abundance of queen conch on back reefs 
in the Florida Keys has been increasing slowly but steadily since 2007. 
By 2013, with a few setbacks due to major hurricanes in 2004 and 2005, 
adult abundance reached approximately 65,000 individuals (Glazer and 
Delgado 2020). Delgado and Glazer (2020) have confirmed that adult 
spawning densities in the back-reef are high enough (exceeding 100 
adult conch/ha) to support successful reproduction, although the 
authors never observed mating when aggregation density was less than 
204 adult conch/ha, and spawning was not observed when densities were 
less 90 adult conch/ha.
    In summary, queen conch in Florida have experienced large declines 
since the 1970s due to fisheries harvest and habitat degradation, 
despite protective regulations being put in place in the 1970s, 1980s, 
and 1990s. The best available data indicate that the density of large 
adults is still too low and compromised (i.e., non-reproductive adults 
in nearshore areas) to restore healthy subpopulations in the Florida 
Keys: nearshore, back reef, and deep-water. The median adult queen 
conch density in Florida is less than 50 conch/ha, which is too low for 
successful reproduction to be maintained throughout the region and for 
Florida to have a healthy self-recruiting population. Evidence of 
increasing abundance on back reefs and the restoration of the 
reproductive capacity of nearshore adult conch following translocation 
is promising. Fishery closures and other regulatory measures 
implemented up until the early 2000s may be partially responsible for 
some of the positive trends that have been observed within the last 
decade. Recent restoration measures through translocation implemented 
by the State suggest that queen conch populations may have the capacity 
to recover with sustained human intervention. Additional regulatory 
measures outside of Florida are unlikely to have a positive impact on 
queen conch occurring within Florida because connectivity modeling (Vaz 
et al. 2022) and genetic analysis (Truelove et al. 2017) suggest that 
Florida is largely a self-recruiting population. The commercial and 
recreational fishery closures in Florida are likely adequate to prevent 
further overutilization, but, given the longevity of the closures and 
lack of recovery observed, particularly in nearshore, additional 
restoration measures are likely needed.

Venezuela

    The commercial conch fishery in Venezuela occurred almost 
exclusively in the insular region, with the archipelagos of La Orchila, 
Los Roques, Los Testigos, and Las Aves all having significant conch 
densities (Schweizer and Posada 2006). Until the mid 1980s queen conch 
were predominantly harvested in Los Roques Archipelago. Studies of the 
queen conch population around Los Roques Archipelago in the 1980s 
(Guevara et al. 1985) showed the population to be severely overfished, 
and subsequently the Los Roques Archipelago conch fishery was closed in 
1985. Despite the closure, high landings continued (e.g., 360 mt in 
1988) and in 1991, the entire commercial queen conch fishery closed 
(CITES 2003). Most recently, the FAO reported the following annual 
landings data at 2 mt, in 2016, 2017, and 2018 (see S2 in Horn et al. 
2022). This illegal harvest of queen conch despite the closure, as well 
as illegal fishing by other jurisdictions, is thought to be the cause 
of the low densities and lack of recovery of the Venezuelan queen conch 
population (CITES 2003). Connectivity models show Venezuela is largely 
self-recruiting (Vaz et al. 2022); thus, queen conch in Venezuelan 
waters must maintain relatively high adult densities to support 
recruitment and population growth. Therefore, without adequate 
enforcement of current regulations prohibiting the harvest of the local 
queen conch population, which are already depleted and unlikely to be 
successfully reproducing, densities will likely continue to decline 
into the future.

Western Caribbean (Mexico, Belize, Honduras)

    The jurisdictions in the western Caribbean have a history of 
industrial-scale exploitation of queen conch. In Mexico and Belize, the 
queen conch fisheries grew rapidly during the 1970s, which was followed 
by subsequent declines in queen conch population and densities (CFMC 
and CFRAMP 1999). In Mexico, the government responded to these declines 
by implementing temporary and permanent fishery closures in various 
areas in the 1990s (CITES 2012). Despite these closures and the more 
recent implementation of size limits, closed seasons, and quotas, 
Mexico's queen conch population has largely failed (CITES 2012). 
Density surveys conducted in 2009 show a population that is unlikely to 
be reproductively viable (De Jes[uacute]s-Navarrete and Valencia-
Hern[aacute]ndez 2013). While Mexico reported in 2018 that there have 
been no legal exports of wild queen conch from Mexico during the 
previous 7 years (CITES 2018), the FAO data show queen conch exports 
from Mexico increasing from 204 mt in 2003 to 623 mt in 2018 (see S2 in 
Horn et al. 2022). Given that harvest and export of the already 
depleted queen conch population in Mexico is still occurring, existing 
regulatory measures are inadequate to protect the species from 
overutilization and further decline. Additionally, illegal fishing of 
queen conch at both the Chinchorro and the Cozumel Banks and at 
Alacranes Reef is thought to be a significant factor inhibiting 
recovery (CITES 2012).
    In Belize, the heavy exploitation of queen conch almost led to a 
stock collapse in 1996 (CITES 2003). In response, the government 
prohibited the selling of diced conch (Government of Belize 2013), 
instituted minimum shell length (178 mm) and clean meat weight 
requirements (85 g) to prevent the harvest of immature conch, 
prohibited harvest by SCUBA gear, and established a TAC limit based on 
biennial surveys (Gongora et al. 2020). While the biennial surveys to 
determine TAC show relative stability in queen conch size classes over 
several years, there is evidence of potential overutilization. For 
example, Foley and Takahashi (2017) found that only 50 percent of 
female conch were mature at 199 g (clean market meat), which is 
significantly higher than the current minimum 85 g weight requirement, 
indicating that this requirement is too low to protect immature conch. 
In addition, Tewfik et al. (2019) documented a significant 15-

[[Page 55221]]

year decline in the mean shell length of adult and sub-adult queen 
conch at Glover's Atoll, likely due to the selective harvest of conch 
with a certain shell length size. This decline in the size distribution 
may impact productivity because smaller adults tend to have lower 
mating frequencies and smaller gonads (Tewfik et al. 2019), thereby 
leading to a decline in overall reproductive output.
    Tewfik et al. (2019) found evidence that indicates Belize's minimum 
shell length size (178 mm) and market clean meat (85 g) regulations are 
inadequate to protect juveniles from harvest. Tewfik et al. (2019) also 
found a significant amount of immature conch with shell length sizes 
over 178 mm and suggest lip thickness should be used as a proxy for 
maturity, rather than shell length. Based on surveys of queen conch at 
Glover's Atoll, Tewfik et al. (2019) calculated a threshold for the 
size at 50 percent maturity to be a 10 mm thick shell lip and an 
associated 192 g market clean meat. However, in Belize, queen conch are 
not required to be landed intact with the shell. Because most conch 
meat is removed at sea and the shell discarded, it is the minimum shell 
size regulations are difficult to enforce and meat weight requirements 
have diminished value in protecting undersized conch from harvest. 
Based on the preceding, existing regulations are likely inadequate to 
protect immature queen conch from harvest and may lead to a decline in 
recruitment and growth in the future. In fact, the fishing of immature 
queen conch has been confirmed directly by fishermen and fishery 
managers, who note that imposing a lip thickness requirement would 
significantly affect their landings as ``the majority of conch that is 
fished are juveniles'' (Arzu 2019; FAO Western Central Atlantic Fishery 
Commission 2020). In addition, a study conducted by Huitric (2005) 
presented a historical review of conch fisheries and sequential 
exploitation. The overall objective of this study was to analyze how 
Belize's conch fisheries have developed and responded to changes in 
resource abundance. Huitric (2005) suggests that the use of new 
technology over time and space (by increasing the area of the fishing 
grounds), together with fossil fuel dependence and fuel cost, have 
sustained yields at the expense of depleted stocks, preventing learning 
about resource and ecosystem dynamics, and removing incentives to 
change fishing behavior and regulation.
    Belize has established a network of marine reserves along the 
Belize Barrier Reef and two offshore atolls that are divided up into 
zones of varying levels of protection; however, enforcement of 
protected areas is limited. For example, long-term declines of 
reproductively active adult conch have been reported within the Port 
Honduras Marine Reserve (PHMR) in southern Belize, a no-take zone for 
queen conch. In fact, densities of conch have been continuously 
declining since 2009, falling below 88 conch/ha by 2013, and decreasing 
further to less than 56 conch/ha in 2014 (Foley 2016, unpublished cited 
in Foley and Takahashi 2017). There have also been reports of illegal 
fishing near Belize's border with Guatemala as well as reports of 
Honduras fishermen illegally selling seafood products from Belize (Arzu 
2019). In 2017, the Belize Fisheries Department reported confiscating 
around 4.1 mt of queen conch meat that was harvested out of season (San 
Pedro Sun 2018). The existing regulations appear adequate to maintain a 
conch fishery in the short-term because there at least some large 
mature conch that are protected from fishing located below the depths 
usually accessed by free-diving (Tewfik et al. 2019; 
Singh[hyphen]Renton et al. 2006). But the existing regulations will 
likely be inadequate to prevent overutilization of the species in the 
future, in light of the evidence of significant harvesting of immature 
queen conch, the decreasing size of adult queen conch in the 
population, ongoing reports of IUU fishing, and lack of enforcement. 
Further, Tewfik et al. (2019) found that the deep water sites (i.e., 
fore-reef sites at Glovers Atoll), which are generally protected from 
fishing due to their location, displayed the lowest overall density 
(14-4 conch/ha) and were dominated by significantly older individuals 
(lip thickness >20 mm) that have lower fecundity.
    Honduras is one of the largest producers of queen conch meat, with 
some population monitoring and evidence of general compliance with 
existing regulations; however, there is also substantial evidence of 
IUU fishing. In 1996, visual surveys resulted in an overall juvenile 
and adult density of 14.6 conch/ha (Tewfik et al. 1998b). These low 
densities were attributed to intensive exploitation that had taken 
place over the previous decades (CITES 2012). However, the most recent 
survey available conducted in 2011 reported overall conch densities 
that should be able to sustain successful reproductive activity at two 
of the three major banks: 134 conch/ha at Roselind; 196 conch/ha at 
Oneida; and 93 conch/ha at Gorda Banks (Regalado 2012). However, no age 
structure data was provided with this survey, and therefore the SRT was 
unable to determine what proportion of the population surveyed are 
adult queen conch. However, the densities increased with depth, which 
is most likely the result of fishing effort focused in shallow areas 
(Regalado 2012). In the early 2000s, there was also evidence that a 
significant portion of the queen conch meat landed in and exported from 
Honduras was fished illegally from neighboring jurisdictions. In 
particular, concerns were raised about a period when Jamaica's fishery 
at Pedro Bank was closed (2000-2002), which led to an increase in 
illegal fishing by foreign vessels (including Honduran vessels) and 
coincided with an increase in queen conch meat exports from Honduras 
(CITES 2003; CITES 2012). From 1999 to 2001, Honduras almost doubled 
its queen conch production, elevating concerns about IUU fishing (FAO 
2016). Honduras, in addition to other jurisdictions, was also 
implicated in unlawful queen conch exports that were confiscated in 
2008 during the Operation Shell Game investigation (U.S. House, 
Committee on Natural Resources, 2008). Illegal fishing has been 
connected to illegal drug trafficking, increasing the complexity of the 
issue for fisheries managers and the enforcement challenges (FAO 2016; 
canadianbusiness.com, Illegal trade: raiders of the lost conch, April 
28, 2008).
    Due to the high amount of exports, lack of landings records, 
evidence of illegal activity, and low population densities, Honduras 
was placed under a CITES trade suspension in 2003, and the Honduran 
government declared a moratorium on conch fishing from 2003 to 2006. 
From 2006 to 2012, export quotas were set annually for queen conch meat 
that was taken during scientific surveys (CITES 2012; Regalado 2012). 
However, based on surveys in 2009-2011 at the three main queen conch 
fishing banks (Regalado 2012), the mean queen conch landings from 2010 
through 2018 represented about 12.3 percent of the standing stock, or 
more than 50 percent above the recommendation to fish at 8 percent of 
standing stock, indicating that quotas are being set too high to 
sustain fishing of these queen conch populations (Horn et al. 2022). In 
2012, Honduras lost a substantial portion of its conch fishing grounds 
to Nicaragua in a marine dispute resolution (Grossman 2013). Subsequent 
to that determination, Honduras terminated its queen conch research 
program and temporarily ceased generating scientific reports to inform 
the annual quota allocation.
    In 2017, Honduras developed and adopted a formal fishery management

[[Page 55222]]

plan aimed at establishing legal and technical regulations contributing 
to the sustainable use of its queen conch populations. Regulations 
implemented in the plan established a quota of 310 mt of 100 percent 
clean conch meat to be distributed among 11 industrial fishing vessels. 
In 2018 and 2019, the total quota increased to 416 mt and was allocated 
among 13 vessels. Each vessel must carry a satellite monitoring and 
tracking system during operations and carry one inspector onboard. 
Minimum size limits were also established at 210 mm shell length, 18 mm 
shell lip thickness, and a minimum meat weight of 125 g. As previously 
noted, minimum shell length and meat weight regulations are unreliable 
since large juveniles can have larger shells and more meat than mature 
adults. The minimum shell lip thickness of 18 mm likely prohibits 
immature queen conch from harvest. However, shells are commonly 
discarded at sea, as the existing regulations do not require queen 
conch to be landed with the shell intact, which makes it difficult to 
ensure compliance and enforcement of most size-based regulations. The 
most recent data (for 2018-2019) show that approximately 416 mt of 
clean conch meat was landed (Ortiz-Lobo 2019). However, 0.6 mt of conch 
meat was seized by the Honduran Navy from an unauthorized vessel in 
November 2018 (Ortiz-Lobo 2019), indicating IUU fishing is still a 
problem. In addition, fishermen, who agreed to conduct population 
abundance and density surveys as part of a condition to fish for queen 
conch under CITES, reversed their decision (Ortiz-Lobo 2019), and 
abundance surveys from which harvest quotas are established have not 
been conducted since 2011. The evidence of IUU fishing and the failure 
to conduct required stock surveys, while increasing export quotas, 
suggests the existing regulatory measures, including the current 
allowable quota, are likely inadequate to prevent further declines of 
the Honduran population of queen conch in the future.

Windward Islands (Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent 
and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago)

    In the Windward Islands, queen conch populations appear to be 
following the same trend as the Leeward Islands, likely due to Allee 
effects and lack of self-recruitment. Connectivity models (Vaz et al. 
2022) demonstrate that queen conch in the southern Windward Islands 
(i.e., Barbados, Grenada, and Trinidad and Tobago) are mostly self-
recruiting with larvae hatching and being retained locally; however, it 
is likely that little to no recruitment is occurring due to the 
relatively low adult queen conch densities observed throughout the 
Windward Islands. These low conch densities appear to be the result of 
overexploitation through sustained and unregulated or inadequately 
regulated queen conch fishing over the last several decades.
    In Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago, there is no management of the 
queen conch fishery or regulations pertaining specifically to queen 
conch harvests or sales. While there are no queen conch surveys or 
assessment for Trinidad and Tobago, declines in abundance were noted as 
early as the 1970s and 1980s (Georges et al. 2010; van Bochove et al. 
2009; Luckhust and Marshalleck 2004; Lovelace 2002; Brownell and 
Stevely 1981; Percharde 1968). In a 2010 technical report, 71 percent 
of fishers interviewed reported declines in queen conch abundance 
(Georges et al. 2010). Queen conch have been overfished and considered 
depleted in Trinidad and Tobago since the 1990s (CITES 2012). In 
Barbados, the queen conch catch is mainly comprised of immature 
individuals, with an estimate as high as 96 percent (Oxenford and 
Willoughby 2013), indicating highly unsustainable fishing of queen 
conch. While there is limited information available on queen conch in 
Dominica, the Significant Trade Review undertaken in 1995 resulted in a 
CITES suspension of exports from Dominica (Theile 2001).
    Grenada has been under a CITES trade suspension since May 2006 due 
to failure to implement Article IV of the Convention, which requires 
that the scientific authority of the state has advised that exports 
will not be detrimental to the survival of the species (a determination 
known as a `non-detriment finding'). During this trade suspension, 
Grenada has continued to export conch to Trinidad and Tobago, and 
Martinique (exporting 249 mt from 2007-2018; see S2 in Horn et al. 
2022). However, Grenada recently indicated that it would be working 
towards a regional action plan for queen conch in an effort to overcome 
the CITES trade suspension (Blue BioTrade Opportunities in the 
Caribbean, March 22-23, 2021).
    St. Vincent and the Grenadines have regulations in place intended 
to ensure sustainable conch fishing (FAO 2016). However, regulations 
have not been updated since they were established in 1987 (Isaacs 
2014), and queen conch density has continued to decline since the late 
1970s, with estimates of 73 to 78 percent declines, depending on depth 
area, from 2013 to 2016 (Rodriguez and Fanning 2018). Overall, adult 
conch density estimates (10.4 conch/ha) are well below the minimum 
adult density required to support any reproductive activity. Divers 
have begun using SCUBA gear to reach deep waters as populations have 
become depleted (CITES 2012). Current regulations prohibit the harvest 
of queen conch with a shell length less than 18 cm, or without a flared 
lip, or animals whose total meat weighs less than 225 g. Seasonal 
closures have not been established and divers fish conch year round 
(Rodriguez and Fanning 2018; CITES 2012). An export quota was 
established, based on one of the highest export years recorded in 2002; 
however, there appears to be no scientific basis for the establishment 
of the export quota (CITES 2012). In fact, the high level of exports 
that occurred in 2002 and 2004, was stated to be ``influenced by market 
forces rather than stock abundance'' (Management Authority of St. 
Vincent and the Grenadines in litt. to CITES Secretariat, 2004, as 
cited in CITES 2012). The best available information indicates that 
existing regulatory measures are inadequate to protect spawning adults, 
as there is no seasonal closure, and deep water locations are being 
fished with SCUBA gear. The existing regulations do not include a 
minimum lip thickness requirement, a more reliable indicator of 
maturity, to prevent harvest of immature conch and protect spawning. 
Furthermore, because the existing quota system does not appear to be 
based on population assessments or surveys, effective monitoring of the 
fishery is lacking, which has likely contributed to the continued 
depletion of the queen conch population.
    In St. Lucia, the Department of Fisheries implemented regulations 
in 1996 that prohibit the harvest of queen conch with a shell length 
less than 18 cm, or without a flared lip, or animals whose total meat 
weighs less than 280 g without digestive gland (Hubert-Medar and Peter 
2012). Conch are harvested in St. Lucia mainly with SCUBA gear. There 
are no lip thickness regulations to prohibit the harvest of juveniles, 
and as previously described, shell length and flared lip are not 
reliable indicators for maturity in conch. In addition, although the 
Department of Fisheries requires queen conch to be landed whole in the 
shell, it appears the majority of conch meat is extracted at sea and 
the shell discarded (Williams-Peter 2021), making the shell length, 
flared lip and meat weight requirements ineffective mechanisms for 
protecting the fishery. Queen conch are also fished year round;

[[Page 55223]]

thus, fishing of spawning adults during their reproductive season is 
likely occurring (Williams-Peter 2021). Information on stocks is still 
scarce, especially information on density, abundance, and distribution 
(Williams-Peter 2021). However, CPUE and landings data (1996-2007) 
shows that stock have been in a steady decline (Williams-Peter, 2021; 
Hubert-Medar and Peter 2012) indicating inadequate regulatory controls.
    The best available information suggests that most jurisdictions 
within the Windward Islands use inadequate proxy measures (i.e., shell 
length, flared lip, and meat weight) to indicate maturity, allowing for 
immature conch to be harvested. In addition, there is a general lack 
monitoring of these fisheries to form the basis for their fishing 
quotas, poor enforcement, and evidence IUU fishing. The connectivity 
model (Vaz et al. 2022) indicates a strong reliance on self-recruitment 
for these jurisdictions (although there is some exchange within 
islands), with many of these jurisdictions acting as sources rather 
than sinks for queen conch larva. Thus, it is likely that queen conch 
throughout the Windward Islands will continue to decline due to 
overutilization and the inadequacy of the existing regulatory measures 
to address this threat.

Summary of Findings

    Given the ongoing demand for queen conch, the lack of compliance 
with and enforcement of existing regulatory measures, size-based 
regulations that do not effectively protect juveniles from harvest, and 
continued illegal fishing and international trade of the species, 
combined with the observed low densities and declining trends in most 
of the queen conch populations, the best available scientific and 
commercial information indicates that existing regulatory mechanisms 
are generally inadequate to control the threat of harvest and 
overutilization of queen conch throughout its range. Our review of 
minimum meat weight, shell length, and flared lip regulations indicates 
that immature queen conch are being legally harvested in 20 
jurisdictions, which is partially responsible for observed low 
densities and declining populations. Shell lip thickness is considered 
the most effective criterion for preventing the legal harvest of 
immature queen conch (Appeldoorn 1994; Clerveaux et al. 2005; Cala et 
al. 2013; Stoner et al. 2012; Foley and Takahashi 2017), while flared 
shell lip and minimum shell length requirements do not guarantee sexual 
maturity. Furthermore, there is general agreement among fisheries 
managers that no individuals should be harvested before they have had 
the opportunity to reproduce during at least one season (Stoner et al. 
2012). Thus, the intent of the minimum size regulations is to protect 
individuals until they have had the chance to reproduce at least once, 
assuming that this will return a sustainable supply of new recruits 
into the population. Nevertheless, only six jurisdictions (i.e., 
Colombia, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, U.S. Virgin Islands, Cuba, and 
Honduras) have minimum shell lip thickness regulations, but only 
Honduras has a minimum shell lip thickness of at least 18 mm, which is 
likely the most effective criteria for prohibiting the harvest of 
immature conch; the other five jurisdictions require a minimum lip 
thickness that may not ensure maturity (i.e., 5 mm, Colombia; 9.5 mm, 
Puerto Rico; 9.5 mm, Nicaragua; and 10 mm, Cuba). While historical 
studies report that some queen conch mature with relatively thin lips 
(less than 7 mm) (Egan 1985, Appeldoorn 1988), more recent studies 
indicate that maturation occurs later, at larger sizes, and differs by 
gender (Doerr and Hill 2018). Several more recent studies indicate that 
shell lip thickness values at maturity for queen conch range from 17.5 
to 26.2 mm for females, and 13 to 24 mm for males (Avila-Poveda and 
Barqueiro-Cardenas 2006; Aldana-Aranda and Frenkiel 2007; Bissada 2011; 
Stoner et al. 2012). These studies have advocated for increases in the 
minimum shell lip thickness for legal harvest. Avila-Poveda & Baqueiro-
C[aacute]rdenas (2006) suggests a minimum up to 13.5 mm by and Stoner 
et al. (2012) suggests 15 mm. While, we recognize that the 
relationships between shell lip thickness, age, and maturity vary 
geographically, the best available information demonstrates that the 
value established for minimum shell lip thickness by most jurisdictions 
is inadequate to prevent immature conch from being harvested. In 
addition, the majority of queen conch fisheries (except St. Lucia and 
the U.S. Virgin Islands) do not have requirements to land queen conch 
in the shell. Queen conch meat is typically removed and shell is 
discarded at sea, which undermines enforcement and compliance with 
regulations for a minimum shell length, shell lip thickness, and flared 
shell lip. Furthermore, most jurisdictions require a minimum meat 
weights (125 g to 280 g); however, meat weight is more applicable to 
catch data, and generally does not constitute a reliable indicator of 
queen conch maturity (FAO 2017). In addition, 15 jurisdictions do not 
have regulations that include a seasonal closure, which is essential to 
prevent the harvest of spawning adults. Similarly, 21 jurisdictions do 
not have regulations that prohibit the use of SCUBA gear, which could 
aid in protecting putative deep-water populations. Only a fraction of 
the jurisdictions (i.e., Belize, The Bahamas, Jamaica, Nicaragua, and 
Colombia) that have conch fisheries are conducting periodic surveys to 
gather relevant information on the status of their queen conch 
populations to inform their national management (e.g., TACs). Available 
landings data indicate that substantial commercial harvest has led to 
declines in many queen conch populations to the point where 
reproductive activity and recruitment has been significantly impacted, 
particularly throughout the eastern, southern, and northern Caribbean 
region. Furthermore, several jurisdictions (e.g. Curacao and Trinidad 
and Tobago) have no regulations despite having queen conch fisheries 
(see S1 in Horn et al. 2022). Finally, Aruba (closed 1987), Bermuda 
(closed 1978), Costa Rica (closed 1989), Florida (closed 1975), Panama 
(closed 2004), and Venezuela (closed 2000) have completely closed their 
respective queen conch fisheries. We conclude that fishery closures are 
likely adequate, if enforced, to prevent further overutilization. 
However, based on the longevity of the closures, and the lack of 
recovery observed in each population, it is likely additional measures 
will be necessary to restore those queen conch populations.
    In summation, in some jurisdictions, regulatory controls are non-
existent. In other jurisdictions, fishery management regulations aimed 
at controlling commercial harvest have fallen short of their goals, 
largely due to a lack of population surveys, assessments, and 
monitoring, and a reliance on minimum size-based regulations that 
likely do not prevent the harvest of immature conch or protect spawning 
stocks. In addition, poor enforcement and compliance with existing 
regulations combined with significant IUU fishing has greatly reduced 
the effectiveness of existing regulations. Based on the above, we 
conclude that the best available information demonstrates that the 
existing regulatory mechanisms throughout the range of the species are 
inadequate to achieve their purpose of protecting the queen conch from 
unsustainable harvest and continued populations decline.

[[Page 55224]]

Other Natural and Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Direct Impacts to Queen Conch From Climate Change

    Queen conch reproduction is dependent on water temperature (Aladana 
Aranda et al. 2014; Randall 1964), and therefore alteration to water 
temperature regimes may limit the window for successful reproduction. 
An increase in mean sea-surface temperatures may have direct effects on 
the timing and length of the reproductive season for queen conch and 
ultimately decrease reproductive output during peak spawning periods 
(Appeldoorn et al. 2011; Randall 1964). Queen conch reproduction begins 
at around 26-27 [deg]C. Aldana-Aranda and Manzano (2017) observed that 
nearly all reproduction ceased when temperatures reached 31 [deg]C. 
Early life history stages of queen conch are particularly sensitive to 
ocean temperature (Brierley and Kingsford 2009; Byrne et al. 2011; 
Harley et al. 2006), and rising water temperatures may have a direct 
impact on larval and egg development (Aldana-Aranda and Manzano 2017; 
Ch[aacute]vez Villegas et al. 2017; Boettcher et al. 2003). Aldana-
Aranda and Manzano (2017) tested the influence of climate change on 
queen conch, larval development, growth, survival rate, and 
calcification by exposing egg masses and larvae to increased 
temperatures (28, 28.5, 29, 29.5 and 30 [deg]C, for 30 days. Queen 
conch egg masses exposed to water temperatures greater than 30 [deg]C 
resulted in the highest larval growth rate, but also higher larval 
mortality (76 percent; Aldana-Aranda and Manzano 2017). This study 
found no link between elevated water temperatures and the calcification 
process in queen conch larvae. Furthermore, heat stress can induce 
premature metamorphosis of queen conch leading to developmental 
abnormalities and lower survival (Boettcher et al. 2003). Higher 
temperatures also accelerate growth rates and decrease the amount of 
time queen conch spend in vulnerable early stages. For example, faster 
growth of juvenile queen conch offers earlier protection from predators 
and shortens the time to reach sexual maturity. While growth may be 
optimized at higher temperatures up to a certain point, the evidence to 
date suggests that warming ocean conditions will also lead to higher 
queen conch mortality rates for early life stages and possible 
disruption of the shell biomineralization process (Aldana-Aranda and 
Manzano 2017; Ch[aacute]vez Villegas et al. 2017). In addition, other 
studies have indicated that queen conch veligers developed normally at 
28 [deg]C, decrease growth at 24 [deg]C and have 100 percent mortality 
at 32 [deg]C (Glazer pers. comm, as cited in Davis 2000; Aldana Aranda 
et al. 1989; Aldana Aranda and Torrentera 1987.). However, Davis (2000) 
found that a temperature of 32 [deg]C provided conditions for fast 
growth and high survival of veligers, but also noted this temperature 
is probably near the upper physiological tolerance for these veligers. 
These findings suggest that future water temperatures in the Caribbean 
Sea are likely to impact survival rates of queen conch during its early 
life stages.
    Climate change will also adversely impact the Caribbean region 
through ocean acidification, which affects the calcification process of 
organisms with calcareous structures, like the shells of queen conch. 
Ocean acidification impedes calcareous shell formation, and thereby 
impacts shell development (Aldana-Aranda and Manzano 2017; Parker et 
al. 2013). Many mollusks, like queen conch, deposit shells made from 
calcium carbonate (CaCO3; in the form of aragonite and high-
magnesium calcite) and these shells play a vital role in protection 
from predators, parasites, and unfavorable environmental conditions. 
Low pH is known to have a strong negative impact on larval development 
in mollusks, like queen conch, and the very thin shells of queen conch 
veligers may be especially vulnerable (Chavez-Villegas et al. 2017).
    The absorption of CO2 into the surface ocean has led to 
a global decline in mean pH levels of more than 0.1 units compared with 
pre-industrial levels (Raven et al. 2005, Parker et al. 2013). A 
further 0.3 to 0.4 unit decline is expected over this century as the 
partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) reaches 800 ppm 
(Raven et al. 2005; Feely et al. 2004). At the same time there will be 
a reduction in the concentration of carbonate ions (CO3\-
2\), which will lower the CaCO3 saturation state in 
seawater, making it less available to organisms that use 
CaCO3 for shells development (Cooley et al. 2009; as cited 
in Parker et al. 2013). Ocean acidification impacts to larval queen 
conch could have major impacts on recruitment to the adult age class, 
including reproductive populations, throughout the species' 
distribution (Stoner et al. 2021). Whether the impacts of ocean 
acidification persist over multiple generations and at large enough 
spatial scales to affect the long-term viability of queen conch 
populations remains uncertain (Aldana-Aranda and Manzano 2017; Gazeau 
et al. 2013). While changes to ocean pH will likely upset the shell 
biomineralization processes, and challenge metabolic processes and 
energetic partitioning, acidic ocean conditions can be patchy in space 
and time and may develop slowly (Aldana-Aranda and Manzano 2017). 
Research conducted by Aldana-Aranda and Manzano (2017) observed that 
acidification conditions produced a 50 percent decrease in aragonite in 
queen conch larval shell calcification at pH 7.6 and 31 [deg]C (see 
Figure 21 in Horn et al. 2022). As previously mentioned, aragonite and 
high-magnesium calcite are the primary ingredients in queen conch shell 
formation. Uncertainty with regard to the queen conch's ability to 
adapt to predicted changing climate conditions, the potential costs of 
those adaptations, and the projections of future carbon dioxide 
emissions make it difficult to assess the severity and magnitude of 
this threat to the species. Recent studies and reviews have stressed 
the importance of conducting multi-stressor (e.g., elevated water 
temperature and ocean acidity), multi-generational, and multi-predicted 
scenario experiments using animals from different areas in order to 
better understand the impacts of climate change on mollusks at species-
wide levels (Aldana-Aranda and Manzano 2017; Parker et al. 2013).

Indirect Impacts to Queen Conch From Climate Change

    Queen conch nursery habitat includes shallow and sheltered back 
reef areas that contain moderate amounts of seagrass. These areas are 
characterized by strong tidal currents and frequent exchange of clear 
seawater (Stoner et al. 1996). Sea level rise, erosion, sea surface 
temperatures, eutrophication, turbidity, siltation, and severity of 
hurricanes and tropical storms resulting from climate change can have 
both short- and long-term impacts on the water quality and health of 
seagrass meadows (Boman et al. 2019; Cullen-Unsworth et al. 2014; Grech 
et al. 2012; Burkholder et al. 2007; Orth et al. 2006; Duarte 2002; 
Short and Neckles 1999). Depending on the frequency, severity, and 
scale of climate change-induced conditions, seagrass meadow biomass may 
decrease at local and over larger scales, reducing conch larvae 
encounter rates with appropriate queen conch veliger settlement cues 
(i.e., Thalassia testudinum detritus and associated epiphytes; Davis 
and Stoner 1994). In addition, high water temperatures (greater than 30 
[deg]C) in the shallow flats where queen conch nurseries occur can 
result in low oxygen concentrations, which would reduce queen conch 
growth and may lead to maturation at smaller than normal length, 
thereby impacting reproductive output (Stoner

[[Page 55225]]

et al. 2021). Juvenile queen conch may experience lower growth and 
higher mortality rates if they have limited access to adequate food 
sources and shelter from predators, which are also provided by seagrass 
meadow communities (Appeldoorn and Baker 2013). Deposits of fine 
sediment or sediment with high organic content in a wider variety of 
habitats that adults depend upon (e.g., algal plains, coarse sand, 
coral rubble, and seagrass meadows) could smother the algae queen conch 
graze on, thus limiting the nutritional value, and making these 
habitats unsuitable (Appeldoorn and Baker 2013).
    Queen conch are described as stenohaline (Stoner 2003), meaning 
they tolerate a narrow range of salinities (approximately 34-36 ppt). 
The species' ability to adapt to short- or long-term intrusions of 
lower salinity water is uncertain; however, in at least one 
groundwater-fed coastal area on the Yucatan Peninsula, queen conch 
movement and growth was not different from core habitat areas with more 
stable salinity and temperature signatures (Dujon et al. 2019; 
Stieglitz et al. 2020). Hypoxic or anoxic conditions may also affect 
the movement of juvenile queen conch (Dujon et al. 2019), which could 
make them more vulnerable to predation. Changing climate may have 
subtler effects that could impact tidal flow, circulation patterns, the 
frequency and intensity of storm events, and larger scale current 
patterns (Franco et al. 2020; van Gennip et al. 2017). Changes in tidal 
flow and current patterns could alter the rate and condition of larval 
dispersal and the cycle of source and sink dynamics of queen conch 
populations throughout the Caribbean region. Changes in circulation 
patterns within the Caribbean Sea would have significant implications 
for the species.

Summary of Findings

    The most significant impacts to queen conch resulting from climate 
change are increased ocean temperature, ocean acidification, and 
possible changes in Caribbean circulation patterns. According to 
several studies, previously discussed, an increase in CO2 
expected by the year 2100 is likely to negatively impact shell 
formation, since water conditions will be more acidic and potentially 
dissolve the shells of many mollusks. These studies have also suggested 
that decreases in aragonite and larval shell calcification occur at a 
pH 7.6-7.7, which is projected to occur by 2100 under the very high 
greenhouse gas emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5; IPCC 2021). These changes 
in water parameters are likely to result in significantly weaker and 
thinner shells, which may increase predation rates, thereby 
contributing to another source of mortality for the species in the 
foreseeable future. Similarly, changes to other water parameters (e.g., 
salinity and dissolved oxygen) outside the range of those typically 
experienced by queen conch can impact their growth and survival and 
have negative consequences on the seagrass habitat upon which they 
depend.
    The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
projections indicate that mean sea surface temperature will warm by 
3.55 [deg]C by 2100, with the increase in sea surface temperature 
ranging from 2.45 [deg]C to 4.85 [deg]C. The available information 
indicates that the Caribbean Sea will follow the global mean 
temperature (IPCC 2021; Figure SPM.5). The temperature of the Caribbean 
Sea has warmed to approximately 28 [deg]C at present (Bove et al. 
2022). Thus, based on the IPCC projections for mean sea surface 
temperature, it appears that water temperature may increase by 
approximately 3.55 [deg]C suggesting that Caribbean Sea surface 
temperatures will exceed 31 [deg]C under scenario SSP5-8.5 by 2100 
(IPCC 2021). A mean sea surface temperature in the Caribbean Sea in 
excess of 31 [deg]C may have negative implications for early life 
stages and queen conch reproduction. The impacts of acidification on 
conch larvae could also have significant impacts on recruitment to the 
adult class, including reproductive populations, throughout the 
species' range. In addition, possible changes in Caribbean Sea 
circulation patterns would have significant implications for queen 
conch recruitment processes and reproduction, but the extent of the 
impacts from changes in circulation patterns to queen conch is not well 
understood. Even so, the information is alarming as it indicates that 
the reproduction, growth, and survival of queen conch will likely be 
impacted by climate change in the future.

Assessment of Extinction Risk

    The ESA (section 3) defines an endangered species as ``any species 
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range.'' A threatened species is defined as ``any 
species which is likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' (16 U.S.C. 1532). Implementing regulations in place at the time 
the status review was completed described the ``foreseeable future'' as 
the extending only so far into the future as we can reasonably 
determine that both the future threats and the species' responses to 
those threats are likely. These regulations instructed us to describe 
the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using the best 
available data and taking into account considerations such as the 
species' life-history characteristics, threat-projection timeframes, 
and environmental variability. The regulations also indicated that we 
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period 
of time. Although these regulations were vacated on July 5, 2022, by 
the United States District Court for the Northern District of 
California and are thus no longer in effect, this approach for 
determining the ``foreseeable future'' is consistent with NMFS's 
longstanding interpretation of this term in use prior to the issuance 
of these regulations in 2019 (see 84 FR 45020, August 27, 2019).
    For the assessment of extinction risk for the queen conch, the 
``foreseeable future'' was considered to extend out several decades 
(approximately 30 years). Given the species' life history (i.e., 
density dependent reproduction and longevity estimated to be 30 years), 
it would likely take more than several decades and multiple generations 
for management actions to be reflected in population status. Similarly, 
the impact of present threats to the species could be realized in the 
form of noticeable population declines within this time frame, as 
demonstrated in the available survey and fisheries data. We also 
acknowledge that population recovery is likely dependent on when a 
protective regulatory measure, such as a closure, is implemented and 
the status of the population at the time of the closure. For example, 
Florida, Bermuda, and Aruba prohibited all conch harvest in the mid 
1980's (more than 35 years ago), yet their respective populations have 
yet to recover. Other recovery efforts such as those in Cuba and on 
Colombia's Serrana Bank were started earlier and recoveries occurred 
over a shorter timeframe. In addition, in order to fully assess the 
longer-term threats stemming from climate change and their impacts on 
queen conch, we considered these threats over a time horizon that 
extended out to 2100, which is the timeframe over which both climate 
change threats and impacts to queen conch could be reasonably 
determined, with increasing uncertainty in climate change projections 
over that time period. Thus, while precise conditions during the year 
2100 are not reasonably foreseeable, the general trend in conditions 
during the period of time

[[Page 55226]]

from now to 2100 is reasonably foreseeable as a whole, although less so 
through time.

Demographic Risk Analysis

    In determining the extinction risk of a species, it is important to 
consider not only the current and potential threats impacting the 
species' status but also the species' demographic status and 
vulnerability. A demographic risk analysis is an assessment of the 
manifestation of past threats that have contributed to the species' 
current status and informs the consideration of the biological response 
of the species to present and future threats. The SRT's demographic 
analysis evaluated the viability characteristics and trends available 
for the queen conch (i.e., growth rate and productivity, abundance, 
spatial distribution and connectivity, and diversity) to determine the 
potential risks these demographic factors pose. The SRT considered the 
demographic risk analysis alongside the Threats Assessment to determine 
an overall risk of extinction for the queen conch.
Spatial Distribution and Connectivity
    The connectivity modeling considered by the SRT (Vaz et al. 2022) 
indicates that Allee effects are affecting queen conch dispersal rates 
throughout the Caribbean. Compared to the simulation that showed 
uniform spawning, it is clear that many important connections for queen 
conch dispersal have been lost over the past 30 years (see Figures 12, 
13, in Horn et al. 2022). Many of the larval connections between the 
Leeward Antilles, which include the Windward and Leeward Islands, and a 
portion of the Greater Antilles are no longer occurring due to the 
decreased reproduction, and in some cases, reproductive failure of the 
queen conch populations within those areas. Many of the Leeward 
Antilles that once served as source populations are no longer able to 
contribute to recruitment as their densities are likely too low to 
support reproductive activity. The model simulations show that conch 
populations in waters of the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Colombia, 
Jamaica, and Cuba are integral for larval dispersal and important to 
maintain connectivity throughout the species' range. The loss (or 
significant reduction in larvae contributions) of critical up-current 
source populations (e.g., Leeward Antilles) has placed the species at 
an increased risk of extinction. The Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, 
and Colombia all have populations with cross-shelf densities that are 
below the critical threshold required to support any reproductive 
activity. Therefore, it is likely that these populations that are 
important to facilitate connectivity may be lost in the foreseeable 
future, contributing to an increase in the species' extinction risk by 
significantly altering natural dispersal rates. Furthermore, the best 
available information indicates that historically important source 
populations within many of the Central American reefs (specifically 
Quitasueno Bank, Serrana Bank, Serranilla Bank) are likely 
overexploited, as those populations have low adult densities, and are 
likely experiencing Allee effects. Based on the results from the 
connectivity model (Vaz et al. 2022) and genetic studies (Truelove et 
al. 2017), these Central American reefs appear to be important for 
facilitating connectivity within the Caribbean region. In addition, the 
connectivity model indicates that the eastern Caribbean historically 
functioned as a source of larvae (and genetic exchange) for the western 
Caribbean. However, presently, it appears that only the mesophotic 
population in Puerto Rico is maintaining this connection and is 
currently at densities that put this recruitment and genetic exchange 
at significant risk (Vaz et al. 2022). Populations in Cuba, Jamaica's 
Pedro Bank, Nicaragua, Turks and Caicos, and The Bahamas' Cay Sal Bank 
and Jumentos and Ragged Cays all appear to have queen conch populations 
that achieve some level of reproductive activity, but they also appear 
to be largely self-recruiting, offering limited larval dispersal to 
neighboring jurisdictions, and subsequently providing limited genetic 
exchange (Vaz et al. 2022). While the connectivity model (Vaz et al. 
2022) suggests that genetic exchange still occurs between populations 
within the central and southwestern Caribbean, the continued 
overutilization and inadequacy of existing regulatory measures are 
likely to reduce queen conch connectivity, placing the species at 
increased risk of extinction in the foreseeable future. The SRT 
recognized that there is uncertainty associated with connectivity model 
because it uses some density estimates that are dated or in some cases, 
estimates based on unknown survey methodology, though they were the 
only surveys available (Horn et al. 2022). Thus, the SRT assumed that 
some level of reduced reproduction might continue in areas the 
connectivity model found to have no larval production.
    Overall, depensatory processes are likely limiting queen conch 
reproduction throughout the species' range. The loss of reproductively 
viable queen conch populations appears to have likely occurred in most 
areas throughout the Caribbean. The subsequent reduced larval 
production has likely resulted in the loss of connectivity among many 
queen conch populations, further contributing to declines in those 
populations dependent on source larvae. Thus, based on the best 
available information, the loss of population connectivity throughout 
the species' range is likely significantly contributing to the species 
extinction risk currently and in the foreseeable future.
Growth Rate/Productivity
    As discussed previously, queen conch require an absolute minimum 
density for successful reproduction (see Spawning Density section). 
However, many queen conch populations are presently below the densities 
required to support any reproductive activity due to low adult queen 
conch encounter rates. Based on the available data, it is likely that 
recruitment failure is occurring throughout the species' range. 
Continued declines in abundance and evidence of overfishing suggests 
that population growth rates are below the rate of replacement. Of the 
39 jurisdictions reviewed, 64 percent (25 jurisdictions), consisting of 
approximately 27 percent of the estimated habitat available, are below 
the minimum density threshold required to support any reproductive 
activity (<50 adult conch/ha). Twenty-three percent (9 jurisdictions), 
consisting of approximately 61 percent of estimated habitat, are above 
the 100 adult conch/ha threshold required to support successful 
reproductive activity. The remaining 13 percent (4 jurisdictions), 
consisting of approximately 5.5 percent of estimated habitat, had 
populations with densities that ranged between 50 to 100 adult conch/ha 
and are likely experiencing reduced reproductive activity resulting in 
minimal population growth. In other words, queen conch population 
growth rates in the majority of jurisdictions are likely below 
replacement levels given their lower densities, and thus, are at 
increased risk for negative impacts due to depensatory processes. There 
is also evidence that artificial selection is occurring in some 
jurisdictions (e.g., Belize and The Bahamas) with fishing pressure 
leading to the development of smaller adult queen conch. Smaller adult 
queen conch are thought to be less productive (e.g., lower mating 
frequencies, smaller gonads, and fewer eggs) than larger queen conch. 
Thus, queen conch populations that are

[[Page 55227]]

showing evidence of overfishing, and decreasing adult size will likely 
result in declines in abundance and lower densities, further 
contributing to declines in those populations in the foreseeable 
future. Several SRT members also noted that queen conch could likely 
withstand moderate harvest levels, as the species is very productive 
when at sufficient densities and may have the ability to compensate. 
However, given the extremely high levels of harvest occurring 
throughout the species' range, including high levels of illegal 
fishing, harvesting of juveniles, and evidence of significant 
population declines throughout most of the Caribbean, the majority of 
SRT members concluded, and we agree, that current population growth and 
productivity rates are contributing to the species extinction risk 
currently and in the foreseeable future.
Abundance
    There are no region-wide population estimates for queen conch. To 
assess the species abundance, the SRT considered numerous sources of 
information including abundance estimates, stock assessments, surveys, 
landings and trends, habitat availability, and other biological 
indicators. Total population abundance estimates ranged from 451 
million to 1.49 billion individuals, based on the 10th and 90th 
percentile abundance estimated across jurisdictions. These estimates, 
however, required numerous assumptions, in particular the assumed 
extent of conch habitat. In addition, for many areas, available survey 
data were limited, outdated (may have been collected decades ago), or 
unavailable. In addition, many density estimates were also unavailable 
or unable to be calculated because the survey methods and data 
collected were poorly described (e.g., unknown whether an abundance 
reported adult conch or juvenile and adult conch). These data 
limitations and analytical assumptions contribute to high uncertainty 
in the SRT's abundance estimates.
    Considering these limitations, the best available data suggest 
queen conch populations are experiencing Allee effects, with densities 
that are consistently very low and insufficient to support reproductive 
activity and mate finding. While several populations of queen conch 
appear to remain reproductively active based on the available survey 
data, these populations are limited to St. Lucia, Saba, Jamaica's Pedro 
Bank, Cuba, Turks and Caicos, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, The Bahamas' Cay 
Sal Bank and Jumentos and Ragged Cay, and Colombia's Serrana Bank, and 
the population surveys for some of these locations are outdated or 
unavailable (see Table 2; Figure 7 in Horn et al. 2022). In addition, 
some of the exploitation rates are significantly above the recommended 
maximum harvest rate of 8 percent of the standing stock for population 
densities capable of supporting successful reproduction (i.e., >100 
adult conch/ha). The SRT found that of the 9 jurisdictions that have 
populations above the 100 adult conch/ha threshold, four are 
experiencing exploitation rates that exceed the 8 percent target: 
Jamaica (8.7 percent exploitation rate), Nicaragua (8.8 percent 
exploitation rate), St. Lucia (16 percent exploitation rate), and Turks 
and Caicos (30 percent exploitation rate). Overall, of the 39 
jurisdictions reviewed, approximately 20 jurisdictions (51 percent) had 
exploitation rates significantly above the recommended maximum 8 
percent harvest for healthy populations (see S4 in Horn et al. 2022), 
despite a lack of evidence that those populations are capable of 
supporting successful reproductive activity.
    Moreover, significant harvest levels and regulatory enforcement 
issues (e.g., illegal fishing and harvest of juveniles) will continue 
to negatively impact population growth and recruitment, thereby 
decreasing abundances and potentially leading to extirpations in the 
foreseeable future. Any local disturbances (natural or anthropogenic), 
or environmental catastrophes (e.g., hurricanes) that affect those 
jurisdictions in the future could result in population declines that 
would have extensive negative implications for the species overall 
given the depensatory issues occurring throughout the Caribbean region.
    The SRT's extrapolated abundances are based on density estimates 
and habitat estimates. The SRT made efforts to quantify the uncertainty 
inherent in basing the abundance estimates on survey data reported 
using different methodologies, over a wide time span, and range of 
spatial scales. The majority of the SRT concluded that low and 
declining abundances and densities significantly increases the species' 
extinction risk currently and over the foreseeable future. Members of 
the SRT acknowledged that Cuba, The Bahamas' Cay Sal Bank and Jumentos 
and Ragged Cay, Turks and Caicos, Jamaica's Pedro Bank, and Nicaragua 
likely have populations with higher abundance and densities that 
indicate successful reproductive activity is occurring. However, 
approximately 25 jurisdictions (64 percent) have very low densities 
(<50 adult conch/ha) that are insufficient to support any reproductive 
activity or population growth. While another 5 jurisdictions (13 
percent) have adult queen conch population densities between 50 and 100 
conch/ha and are likely experiencing reduced reproductive activity, 
resulting in minimum population growth. Only 9 jurisdictions (23 
percent) have adult queen conch densities at or greater than 100 conch/
ha, which is required for successful reproduction and recruitment (UNEP 
2012). Thus, the best available information on abundance reveals that 
declines throughout the species' range is likely significantly 
contributing to the species extinction risk currently and in the 
foreseeable future.
Diversity
    As discussed above, early genetic studies of queen conch found a 
high degree of gene flow among populations dispersed over the species' 
geographic distribution, with definitive separation observed only 
between populations in Bermuda and those in the Caribbean basin (Mitton 
et al. 1989). More recent studies have found low genetic 
differentiation among locations in the Mexican Caribbean, the Florida 
Keys and Bimini (P[eacute]rez-Enriquez et al. 2011; Zamora-Bustillos et 
al. 2011; Campton et al. 1992). Mitton et al. (1989) hypothesized that 
the complex ocean currents of the Caribbean may restrict gene flow 
among Caribbean populations, even though larvae may disperse long 
distances throughout the Caribbean during their 16-28 day pelagic 
larval duration. Truelove et al. (2017) identified significant levels 
of genetic differentiation among Caribbean sub regions (e.g., Florida 
Keys, Mesoamerican Barrier Reef, Lesser Antilles, Honduras, Jamaica, 
Greater Antilles, and The Bahamas) and between the eastern and western 
Caribbean regions (Truelove et al. 2017).
    The connectivity model (Vaz et al. 2022) indicates there are 
several important jurisdictions that act as ecological corridors in 
facilitating population connectivity in the Caribbean region. For 
example, loss of Puerto Rico mesophotic populations would likely result 
in the loss of the genetic connectivity between the southeastern and 
western Caribbean. Furthermore, the connectivity model and literature 
suggest that the Nicaraguan rise, which includes the territorial seas 
of Honduras, Nicaragua, Colombia, and Jamaica, is likely to be an 
important region for maintaining population connectivity over larger 
spatial scales. These findings are consistent with those observed in 
Truelove et al. (2017). Many of these

[[Page 55228]]

jurisdictions are currently overexploiting their conch populations. 
However, at this time, the best available information does not suggest 
that significant changes in or loss of phenotypic or genetic traits are 
altering genetic diversity to the extent that it is significantly 
contributing to the species' extinction risk. Therefore, we conclude 
that diversity is unlikely to be significantly contributing to the 
species' extinction risk currently or in the foreseeable future.

Threats Assessment

    As described above, section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS's 
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.11(c)) state that we must 
determine whether a species is endangered or threatened because of any 
one or a combination of the ESA section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E)) factors. We 
provide here our findings and conclusions regarding threats to the 
queen conch described previously in this document, and their impact on 
the overall all extinction risk of the species. More details can be 
found in the status review report (Horn et al. 2022).
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes
    The most significant threat to queen conch is overutilization 
(through commercial, artisanal, and IUU fishing) for commercial 
purposes. Fishing for queen conch substantially increased in the 1970s 
and 1980s, reaching peak landings in the mid 1990s (Horn et al. 2022). 
It was during this time that many of the conch fisheries collapsed due 
to overfishing of the populations. In shallow waters, where conch are 
most accessible to both subsistence and commercial fishing, significant 
depletions have been recorded, with fishermen having to pursue the 
species into progressively deeper waters. Overfishing has caused 
population collapses throughout the range of the conch, contributing to 
known or likely reproductive failure in many locations (i.e., Anguilla, 
Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, central and northern Bahamas, Belize, 
Bermuda, Bonaire, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, portions of 
Colombia, Dominican Republic, Guadeloupe, Haiti, Martinique, Mexico, 
Panama, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin 
Islands, Unities States (Florida), and Venezuela). Only a handful of 
jurisdictions in the Caribbean have conch populations with densities 
high enough to support successful reproduction (i.e., Cuba, Costa Rica, 
Saba, St. Lucia, Turks and Caicos, Nicaragua, Jamaica's Pedro Banks, 
Colombia's Serrana Bank, and The Bahamas' Cay Sal Bank and Jumentos and 
Ragged Cay), with the viability of the species likely dependent on the 
persistence of those queen conch populations. Historically, the Leeward 
Islands (i.e., Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, British Virgin Islands, 
Guadeloupe, Montserrat, Saba, St. Barth[eacute]lemy, St. Martin, St. 
Eustatius, St. Kitts and Nevis, and U.S. Virgin Islands) and Windward 
Islands (i.e., Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Martinique, St. Lucia, St. 
Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago) in the eastern 
Caribbean likely served as important sources of larvae to the central 
and western Caribbean (Vaz et al. 2022). Although recruitment from 
undescribed deep-water populations is possible, queen conch populations 
in the Leeward Islands are unlikely to recover given they are primarily 
self-recruiting and up-current from most larval sources.
    According to the SAU database there are 12 jurisdictions that have 
produced 95 percent of the conch landings from 1950 through present: 
Turks and Caicos, The Bahamas, Honduras, Jamaica, Belize, Nicaragua, 
Dominican Republic, Mexico, Cuba, Antigua and Barbuda, Colombia, and 
Guadeloupe (in order from highest landings producers to lower 
producers) (see Figure 17 in Horn et al. 2022). The exploitation rate 
analysis indicates that queen conch populations in The Bahamas, 
Honduras, Jamaica's Pedro Bank, and Nicaragua are likely exploited very 
near the targeted 8 percent rate of standing stock to maintain a 
healthy population. Of the other top-producing jurisdictions in the 
region, Dominican Republic, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Turks and 
Caicos, and Mexico's landings significantly exceed the 8 percent 
exploitation rate target (see Figure 18 in Horn et al. 2022). For 
example, the estimated exploitation rate for the Turks and Caicos is 30 
percent of the stock, nearly quadruple the recommended rate. These 
unsustainable fishing rates are of particular concern because many of 
these jurisdictions (i.e., Dominican Republic, Antigua and Barbuda, 
Belize, and Mexico) have adult queen conch densities below the minimum 
levels required to support any reproductive activity. Furthermore, we 
share the SRT's concerns about incomplete, inadequate and inconsistent 
data, such as self-reported landings data. Additionally, recreational 
and subsistence fishing are rarely tracked during data collection 
efforts, and the collective impacts of these activities, and IUU 
fishing (discussed below) can at times, be equal to or greater than the 
pressure from commercial fisheries. Without more accurate population 
assessments and harvest level estimates, there is a lack of reliable 
evidence that queen conch populations are fished at sustainable levels.
    Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, in particular, 
is a threat that is significantly contributing to the species' 
extinction risk currently and in the foreseeable future, although there 
is uncertainty regarding the magnitude of this threat. The best 
estimates of IUU fishing are most likely underestimated and may account 
for a significant portion (greater than 15 percent) of total catch. IUU 
fishing of queen conch is a significant problem throughout the range of 
the species, and particularly within Nicaragua, Honduras, Jamaica, the 
Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Colombia (see S1 in Horn et al. 2022). 
Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing has led to declines in 
queen conch abundance and is thought to have prevented recovery of 
several populations (e.g., Bonaire, Cayman Islands, and St. Eustatius). 
In the few jurisdictions with reproductively active queen conch 
populations (adult densities >100 conch/ha), illegal fishing is a 
serious threat as these removals are not considered in the management 
of fishing quotas. Thus, overall harvest levels likely exceed what is 
sustainable for the species.
    The threat posed by IUU fishing on those reproductively active 
populations (densities >100 adult conch/ha) will likely be exacerbated 
by decreasing adult densities and reproductive failure (as observed 
elsewhere) in the long-term. There is no evidence to suggest that IUU 
fishing will decline in the foreseeable future. In fact, it will likely 
intensify as queen conch populations become depleted and more queen 
conch fisheries close.
    Based on the aforementioned assessments, we conclude that 
overutilization is significantly contributing to the species' risk of 
extinction currently and in the foreseeable future. In general, the 
best available information indicates that queen conch harvest data are 
likely underreported due to incomplete and inconsistent data collection 
as well as IUU fishing. These facts, coupled with evidence of 
significant population declines that have resulted in Allee effects 
which limit reproduction and requirement indicate that queen conch are 
overexploited throughout most of its range and will likely continue to 
decline in the foreseeable future.

[[Page 55229]]

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
    Queen conch populations have declined throughout a large portion of 
the species' range, and the best available information indicates that 
many populations continue to decline, particularly in the eastern and 
central southern Caribbean. There are still some jurisdictions 
throughout the species' range that have not implemented any regulatory 
mechanisms, and of those that have, many regulations are insufficient 
to prevent further declines in existing conch stocks (e.g., Dominican 
Republic, Haiti, and Puerto Rico). In general, regulations in most 
jurisdictions are aimed at prohibiting the take, sale, or possession of 
immature queen conch and they rely on a minimum shell length, meat 
weight, shell lip thickness, and flared shell lip criteria or some 
combination of these. As previously discussed, studies conducted on 
established maturation criteria have demonstrated that in most 
jurisdictions the minimum lip thickness value is not set high enough 
prevent the harvest of immature conch. Similarly, minimum shell length 
and meat weight criteria are unreliable because large immature queen 
conch can have larger shells and more meat than adults. In addition, 
the flared shell lip, which occurs at about 3.5 years of age, is 
frequently used as a criteria to ensure that immature conch are not 
harvested. However, the available information indicates that maturity 
lags substantially behind the formation of the flared shell lip (Cala 
et al. 2013; Stoner et al, 2012b; Clerveaux et al. 2005; Appeldoorn, 
1994; Appeldoorn 1988; Buckland 1989; Eglan 1985). Therefore, it is 
unlikely that the flared shell lip criteria is preventing harvest of 
immature conch in most jurisdictions throughout the species' range. 
Moreover, St. Lucia and the U.S. Virgin Islands are the only 
jurisdictions that have regulations requiring queen conch be landed in 
the shell. No other jurisdictions require queen conch to be landed 
whole in its shell, which undermines the effectiveness of existing 
morphometric regulations that cannot be enforced after the shell has 
been discarded at sea.
    The SRT noted that seasonal and area closures can be effective 
regulatory controls if they are established in appropriate habitats, 
encompass reproductive seasons, and are effectively enforced. 
Reproductive seasons vary in timing and duration in different regions 
of the Caribbean, spanning between 4 to 9 month periods between April 
and October, but most often between June and September. Many 
jurisdictions (16) have a closed season for some time during the 
calendar year with the intent to protect spawning and reproduction. 
These seasonal closures range from 2 to 6 months and most occur during 
the months of July, August, and September because these are peak months 
for reproduction (Stoner et al. 2021; Horn et al. 2022). This is 
generally consistent with the recommendation made by Aldana-Aranda et 
al. (2014) that a ``biologically meaningful period for a closed season 
for the entire western central Atlantic would need to incorporate the 
months of June to September, at a minimum, to offer regional protection 
for spawners.'' More recently, Boman et al. (2018) recommended a 
slightly longer region-wide closure from May through September. The 
only jurisdictions with a closed season extending 5 months are the 
Cayman Islands, Cuba, and Jamaica. Several jurisdictions begin closed 
seasons somewhat late (e.g., July), leaving some periods with highest 
reproductive potential vulnerable to harvest (Stoner et al. 2021). In 
addition, evidence suggests in some cases, closed seasons for queen 
conch are decided with respect to closure dates for other species. For 
example, the timing of the Jamaica closed season is not related to peak 
spawning season but is determined by timing of the lobster season.
    SCUBA and hookah gear restrictions provide some auxiliary 
protection for putative deep water populations, but they are often 
triggered by diving accidents and causalities in the queen conch 
fishery. Only a few jurisdictions currently prohibit the use of SCUBA 
gear in their queen conch fishery. Jurisdictions that establish 
appropriate regulations are often plagued by poor enforcement and 
illegal fishing. Queen conch, in particular, tend to be harvested by 
individual divers, and the large shelf habitats and remote fishing 
grounds make it is difficult to patrol these areas to enforce conch 
harvesting regulations. Furthermore, the available jurisdiction-
specific information make significant reference to illegal conch 
fishing, as it is a well-documented problem throughout the Caribbean. 
Illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing is acknowledged by most, 
if not all, regional and international management organizations (CFMC, 
OPSECA, FAO, CITES, etc.).
    In light of the ongoing demand for queen conch, the problems 
identified with the appropriateness of certain morphometric 
regulations, the challenges associated with compliance and enforcement 
of regulations (including IUU), combined with the observed low 
densities and declining trends in most queen conch populations, 
existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to control the harvest 
and overutilization of queen conch throughout its range. Therefore, 
based on the best available information, we conclude that the existing 
regulatory mechanisms are significantly contributing to the species 
extension risk currently and in the foreseeable future.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
    Increasing ocean temperature, ocean acidification, and altered 
circulation patterns are consequences of climate change, that are 
likely to impact queen conch. Queen conch reproduction is dependent on 
temperature, thus changes in water temperature may limit the window for 
successful reproduction. A recent study found that nearly all queen 
conch reproduction stopped when temperatures reached 31 [deg]C. The 
temperature of the Caribbean Ocean at present is approximately 28 
[deg]C (Bove et al. 2022). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change projections for mean sea surface temperature indicates that sea 
surface temperatures are expected to exceed 31 [deg]C by 2100 under 
scenario SSP5-8.5 (IPCC 2021). These findings suggest that future sea 
temperatures will significantly decrease queen conch reproduction. In 
addition, larval growth and mortality are also likely to be impacted by 
the increased sea surface temperatures expected to occur by 2100 (i.e., 
exceeding 31 [deg]C). Laboratory studies showed that increased ocean 
temperatures resulted in high growth rates for queen conch, but also 
higher mortality rates (of up to 76 percent). However, it is difficult 
to predict how queen conch may adapt to these changing environmental 
conditions and whether higher growth rates would partially offset 
increased mortality. In addition, the predicted increased acidity 
associated with oceanic CO2 uptake will likely impact shell 
biomineralization processes as well, potentially leading to weaker, 
thinner shells for queen conch. Recent studies have suggested a 50 
percent decrease in aragonite in the larval shell calcification at 
conditions expected to occur by 2100 (pH 7.6-7.7; IPCC 2021). Weaker 
shells may increase predation rates, thereby increasing mortality for 
the species in the foreseeable future. Higher mortality rates will 
likely have significant implications for conch populations that rely 
significantly on self-recruitment. In addition, the best available 
information indicates climate change will likely influence ocean 
circulation patterns in the Caribbean (van Westen et al. 2020;

[[Page 55230]]

Goni and Johns 2001; Paris et al. 2002), which may have substantial 
consequences for queen conch. While no direct studies have been 
conducted for queen conch, several studies focusing on reef fish and 
corals indicate that changes to ocean circulation have the potential to 
impact marine reef organisms through altered larval dispersal, 
survival, and population connectivity (Munday et al. 2009; Cowen et al. 
2003). Changes to ocean circulation patterns are also likely to 
influence larval supply dynamics, pelagic larval stage survival, as 
well as their condition upon settlement. Information is lacking on how 
changes in circulation patterns will impact local populations or how it 
will alter population connectivity on a regional scale. While there is 
uncertainty surrounding the extent of climate change impacts to the 
species in the foreseeable future, the best available scientific 
information indicates that queen conch will likely be impacted by 
increases in sea surface temperature, ocean acidification, and altered 
circulation patterns resulting from climate change. Thus, we conclude 
that the best available information indicates that climate change is 
significantly contributing to the species extinction risk in the 
foreseeable future.

Overall Extinction Risk Analysis

    Guided by the results from the demographics risk analysis as well 
as threats assessment, the SRT members used their informed professional 
judgment to make an overall extinction risk assessment for the queen 
conch. Here, we first review the SRT's findings and next discuss our 
conclusions regarding the risk of extinction to queen conch. The SRT 
used a ``likelihood point'' (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment 
Team 1993) method to evaluate the overall risk of extinction and 
express uncertainty. Each SRT member distributed 10 ``likelihood 
points'' among three extinction risk categories:
    Low risk: A species is at low risk of extinction if it is not at 
moderate or high level of extinction risk (see ``moderate risk'' and 
``high risk'' below). A species may be at low risk of extinction if it 
is not facing threats that result in declining trends in abundance, 
productivity, spatial structure, or diversity. A species at low risk of 
extinction is likely to show stable or increasing trends in abundance 
and productivity with connected, diverse populations.
    Moderate risk: A species is at moderate risk of extinction if it is 
on a trajectory that puts it at a high level of extinction risk in the 
foreseeable future (see description of ``high risk'' below). A species 
may be at moderate risk of extinction due to current and/or projected 
threats or declining trends in abundance, productivity, spatial 
structure, or diversity. The appropriate time horizon for evaluating 
whether a species is more likely than not to be at high risk in the 
foreseeable future depends on various case- and species-specific 
factors.
    High risk: A species with a high risk of extinction is at or near a 
level of abundance, productivity, spatial distribution/connectivity, 
and/or diversity that places its continued persistence in question. The 
demographics of a species at such a high level of risk may be highly 
uncertain and strongly influenced by stochastic or depensatory 
processes. Similarly, a species may be at high risk of extinction if it 
faces clear and present threats (e.g., confinement to a small 
geographic area; imminent destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
its habitat; or disease epidemic) that are likely to create imminent 
and substantial demographic risks.
    The SRT placed 59 percent of their likelihood points in the 
``moderate risk'' category. Due to uncertainty, particularly regarding 
consistent reporting of landings and survey methodologies, the SRT also 
placed some of their likelihood points in the ``low risk'' (30 percent) 
and ``high risk'' (11 percent) categories. The SRT concluded that the 
queen conch is currently at a ``moderate risk'' of extinction. We 
consider the SRT's approach to assessing the extinction risk for queen 
conch appropriate, consistent with our agency practice, and based on 
the best scientific and commercial information available.
    One of the most critical factors in the long-term survival of the 
species is localized densities of reproductively active adults. The 
results of our analysis revealed that 25 jurisdictions (i.e., Anguilla, 
Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, the central and northern Bahamas, Barbados, 
Belize, Bermuda, Bonaire, British Virgin Islands, Colombia's mainland, 
Quitasue[ntilde]o, and Serranilla Banks, Cura[ccedil]ao, Dominica, 
Dominica Republic, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Haiti, Martinique, Mexico, 
Monserrat, Panama, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Barthelemy, 
Trinidad and Tobago, United States (Florida), Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin 
Islands, and Venezuela) have adult densities below the critical 
threshold of 50 conch/ha required for any reproductive activity. These 
jurisdictions equate to approximately 27 percent (19,625 km\2\) of the 
estimated habitat available in the Caribbean region. Another 5 
jurisdictions (i.e., Cayman Islands, Honduras, St. Eustatius, St. Kitts 
and Nevis, and Puerto Rico's mesophotric reef) have adult densities 
that are below the 100 conch/ha minimum threshold for successful 
reproductive activity. There are 9 jurisdictions (i.e., Costa Rica, 
Cuba, Colombia's Serrana Bank, The Bahamas' Cay Sal Bank and Jumentos 
and Ragged Cays, Jamaica's Pedro Bank, Nicaragua, Saba, St. Lucia, and 
Turks and Caicos) that have adult conch densities (>100 conch/ha) 
sufficient to sustain successful reproductive activity. These 
jurisdictions contain approximately 61 percent (44,589 km\2\) of the 
estimated habitat available in the Caribbean region. Additionally, 
modeling indicates connectivity has been significantly impacted across 
the Caribbean region (Vaz et al. 2022). A number of historically 
important ecological corridors for larval flow are no longer 
functional, and most of the queen conch populations that historically 
served as sources of larvae have collapsed.
    Available density data can be difficult to interpret for several 
reasons, including because survey methods varied, surveys were lacking 
from many areas and, in some cases, surveys were decades old. In 
addition, conch are not distributed evenly across space; even in 
jurisdictions with very low densities there likely exist some areas 
above the critical density threshold where some reproduction continues 
to take place (e.g., Florida). In terms of the extrapolated total 
abundance estimates, which suggest there are millions of conch in the 
Caribbean, the SRT noted that this was primarily based on highly 
uncertain population estimates from 7 jurisdictions (i.e., The Bahamas, 
Jamaica, Turks and Caicos, Cuba, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Mexico), 
which account for 95 percent of all adult conch. Furthermore, density 
is a stronger indicator of a population's status than total abundance, 
as adult conch density directly influences the probability of locating 
a receptive mate. If high numbers of queen conch exist, but are widely 
distributed over a large geographic area, the species' low mobility 
reduces the likelihood of a reproductive encounter between two adults, 
thus limiting overall productivity and sustainability of the 
population. The best available density and abundance information, 
despite its limitations, suggests that there are localized depletions 
in most jurisdictions that have led to near-reproductive failure. 
Therefore, the

[[Page 55231]]

population growth rate is likely below the rate of replacement and 
recruitment failure is likely occurring in most populations.
    Further declines of queen conch are expected into the foreseeable 
future as the species remains at risk due to overutilization and the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Overfishing has been the 
main threat to queen conch for several decades, creating patchy, 
disconnected populations and resulting in low local densities, with 
little indication that existing regulatory measures are capable of 
reversing this trend in the Caribbean region, as many regulations use 
inappropriate morphometric metrics and are poorly enforced. In fact, 
the combination of overutilization and inadequate regulations has led 
to the decline of many queen conch populations, particularly those in 
the eastern and southern parts of the Caribbean, where queen conch 
populations have become so depleted they can no longer support 
fisheries and are likely experiencing recruitment failure. The best 
available information indicates that the viability of the species is 
currently reliant on the queen conch populations predominantly located 
in the central and western parts of the Caribbean, specifically those 
queen conch populations found in Cuba, The Bahamas' Cay Sal Bank and 
Jumentos and Ragged Cay, Turks and Caicos, Jamaica's Pedro Bank, and 
Nicaragua. While these jurisdictions likely support reproductive queen 
conch populations (based on best available adult density estimates), 
they also operate queen conch fisheries that are unlikely to remain 
sustainable over the next 30 years, based on the estimated exploitation 
rates. As these jurisdictions are largely self-recruiting, overfishing 
of these populations will result in further declines, which will have 
significant impacts on the reproductive output, and overall viability 
of the species in the foreseeable future. This is particularly 
concerning as Jamaica's Pedro Bank is an important ecological corridor 
that supports larvae exchange throughout the region. Thus, if Jamaica's 
queen conch population were to become reproductively impaired, it would 
further reduce population connectivity, creating additional 
susceptibilities for the remaining conch populations. In addition, IUU 
fishing contributes to overutilization of the species because there is 
a lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms and enforcement of the 
regulatory measures that are in place, particularly in Colombia, Cuba, 
Dominican Republic, The Bahamas, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, and 
Turks and Caicos. Left unchecked, these additional removals will likely 
accelerate declines in abundance and associated densities over the next 
30 years. As conch fisheries continue to close and populations become 
depleted, IUU will likely continue or increase, and without adequate 
enforcement to halt illegal harvest of conch, the species will continue 
to be on a downward trajectory and at risk of extinction over the next 
30 years. The implementation and enforcement of appropriate management 
measures could reduce the threat of overutilization to the queen conch, 
but existing regulations and, more importantly, the enforcement of 
these regulations are currently either inadequate or lacking altogether 
across the species' range.
    Finally, threats resulting from climate change include increased 
sea surface temperature, ocean acidification, and altered circulation 
patterns. Increased sea surface temperature and ocean acidification may 
result in decreased reproductive activity and increase veliger 
mortality rates, further exacerbating impacts to recruitment for this 
species. Changes in circulation patterns in the Caribbean Sea may 
represent a significant and widespread threat to queen conch larval 
dispersal, survival, and recruitment processes, but the extent to which 
this threat will impact the species survival is not well understood at 
this time. While there is some uncertainty as to the timing of any 
shifts that may occur, as well as the spatial scale over which it will 
occur, we conclude that the best available information indicates 
climate change will significantly contribute to the species' extinction 
risk in the foreseeable future.
    Based on all of the foregoing information, which represents the 
best scientific and commercial data available regarding current 
demographic risks and threats to the species, we conclude that the 
queen conch is not currently in danger of extinction, but is likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. We 
conclude that the species does not currently have a high risk of 
extinction due to the following: the species has a broad distribution 
and still occurs throughout its geographic range and is not confined or 
limited to a small geographic area; the species does not appear to have 
been extirpated from any jurisdiction and can still be found, albeit at 
low densities in most cases, throughout its geographic range; and there 
are several jurisdictions that have queen conch populations that are 
contributing to the viability of the species, such that the species is 
not at imminent risk of extinction. As previously discussed, there are 
9 jurisdictions that are estimated to have adult queen conch densities 
greater than 100 conch/ha and they comprise of about 61 percent of the 
estimated queen conch habitat. Note, if The Bahamas was removed from 
the set of 9 jurisdictions, the habitat estimate would be reduced to 32 
percent. Of the 9 jurisdictions, queen conch populations in Cuba, 
Jamaica, and some of Colombia's banks, have high BC values (see Figure 
13 in Horn et al. 2022), indicating that these areas facilitate the 
flow of queen conch larvae, allowing for some exchange of larvae and 
maintenance of some genetic diversity.

Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the ESA, a species warrants listing if it is in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range (SPR). In 2014, the United 
States Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS finalized a joint Significant 
Portion of its Range Policy (SPR Policy) that provided an analysis 
framework and definition for a ``significant'' portion of a species' 
range (79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014). However, several aspects of this 
joint policy have since been invalidated. Specifically, in Center for 
Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020), the 
court vacated the aspect of the 2014 SPR Policy that provided that the 
Services do not undertake an analysis of significant portions of a 
species' range if the species warrants listing as threatened throughout 
all of its range. In addition, the SPR Policy's definition of 
``significant'' was vacated nationwide in 2018 (See Desert Survivors v. 
U.S. Dep't of Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2018)). 
Therefore, we now conduct SPR analyses even in cases where we reach a 
conclusion that a species is threatened range wide, and we conduct 
species-specific evaluations to determine whether a portion of a 
species' range is ``significant.'' In determining whether a ``portion'' 
qualifies as ``significant,'' we evaluate the biological importance and 
contribution of the species within the portion to the viability of the 
overall species using key principles of conservation biology. In 
particular, we consider the ``portion's'' contribution to the viability 
of the species as a whole in terms of abundance, productivity, 
connectivity, and diversity from past, present, and future perspectives 
to the extent possible and depending upon the best available species-
specific data and information.

[[Page 55232]]

    As discussed in the SPR Policy, theoretically, there are an 
infinite number of ways to divide a species' range into portions; 
however, there is no purpose in evaluating portions that do not have a 
reasonable likelihood of being both ``significant'' and, in this case, 
at ``high risk'' of extinction. Therefore, a screening analysis was 
conducted to identify appropriate portions of the range for further 
evaluation. Because there are multiple levels of biological 
organization by which we could screen portions of the queen conch's 
range for purposes of this analysis, rather than using any one level or 
scale, we considered three different spatial scales: (1) the 
jurisdictional scale, which separately considers the 39 management 
jurisdictions or ``populations'' (as described in Vaz et al. 2022); (2) 
the ecoregional scale, which groups one or more 39 management 
jurisdictions into 10 marine ecoregions (Spaulding et al. 2007); and 
(3) one macroregion (i.e., Lesser Antilles), which groups two of the 10 
marine ecoregions into a single portion. As described in further detail 
in this section, at each of these scales, portions of the species' 
range were screened to determine whether it is potentially at ``high 
risk'' and whether it is potentially ``significant.'' If both screening 
tests were met, the particular portion was evaluated further to 
determine whether the queen conch in that portion are facing a high 
risk of extinction, and if so, whether the portion is ``significant.''

Management Jurisdictional (``Population'') Approach to SPR

    The most granular level used in the SPR analysis is the management 
jurisdiction approach. The SRT felt this approach was appropriate 
because the resolution of management jurisdiction is consistent with 
the level of resolution available for the primary threats to the 
species (i.e., overutilization and inadequacy of regulatory measures) 
and the available data to inform viability of the species, including 
landings data, survey data, and connectivity data (Horn et al. 2022; 
Vaz et al. 2022). The majority of relevant queen conch data (i.e., 
connectivity, density, landings, and exploitation rates) were collected 
or summarized at the jurisdiction level, and the main threats to queen 
conch are managed at the jurisdiction level. Following Vaz et al. 
(2022), the SRT evaluated ``populations'' based on jurisdictional 
boundaries (i.e., populations were defined by jurisdictional 
divisions). At this level of resolution, the SRT found that it could 
more accurately evaluate the risk and potential significance of a 
population.
    Dozens of management jurisdictions needed to be evaluated by the 
SRT and data availability and quality were variable. To streamline the 
analysis, the SRT first screened for any portions of the range for 
which there is substantial information in the record indicating both 
(1) the species is reasonably likely to be at a ``high risk'' in that 
portion; and, (2) the portion is reasonably likely to be significant. 
Areas for which substantial information indicated the jurisdiction met 
both of these tests qualified for further consideration. To conduct 
this initial screening step, the SRT developed a standardized 
assessment tool with specific screening criteria, which provided a 
consistent frame of reference for determining potential risk level and 
significance across management jurisdictions (see S4 in Horn et al. 
2022). The standardized assessment tool focused upon distinguishing 
characteristics for potential risk as denoted by spawning aggregation 
density and potential significance as denoted by potential 
contributions to population viability.
    In the assessment tool, a portion of the species' range was 
potentially at a ``high risk'' of extinction if the jurisdiction had an 
exploitation rate of more than 8 percent, or median adult queen conch 
density less than 50 conch/ha. The assessment tool's decision framework 
flags jurisdictions exceeding the 8 percent target exploitation rate 
because this is a region-wide guideline for establishing sustainable 
queen conch fisheries (i.e., fishing should remove no more than 8 
percent of the biomass of a healthy stock; Prada et al. 2017). Given 
that the goal for the 8 percent exploitation rate is ``sustainability'' 
of queen conch fisheries that have densities capable of supporting 
successful reproductive activity (i.e., at least 100 adult conch/ha), 
flagging jurisdictions exceeding this benchmark is a conservative 
approach for identifying portions where the species is potentially high 
risk. The SRT also considered populations with median adult queen conch 
density below 50 conch/ha as potentially high risk because populations 
with densities below this threshold are at significant risk of 
reproductive failure.
    In the assessment tool, a jurisdiction was considered potentially 
significant if it met one of the two criteria (criterion 1 or criterion 
2) regarding its contribution to the viability of the species, and a 
third criterion (criterion 3) regarding its connectivity to the other 
populations:
    1. Abundance of queen conch in the jurisdiction is greater than 5 
percent of the overall estimated species abundance; or
    2. Habitat in the jurisdiction is greater than 5 percent of all 
available queen conch habitat; and
    3. Jurisdiction was historically important to population 
connectivity, having functioned as an important source population or 
ecological corridor.
    This approach to screening for potentially significant 
contributions to viability considers both the population's contemporary 
contributions to species abundance (criteria 1) and the population's 
historical capacity for carrying a substantial portion of species 
abundance based on available habitat (criteria 2). Available habitat 
was used as a proxy for historical population size following Vaz et al. 
(2022) because in many jurisdictions queen conch have been depleted by 
decades of overfishing and survey data are unavailable to inform 
unfished population sizes. Although the actual densities of conch 
spawning biomass that historically may have been supported within a 
given jurisdiction would be dependent on the particular habitat 
attributes of that area, comprehensive maps of habitat types across the 
Caribbean region, as well as information on the relationships between 
habitat types and their respective conch densities at carrying capacity 
are not available. In the absence of such detailed information, the SRT 
assumed that equal spawning biomass densities and consistent per-capita 
fecundity rate across the region were reasonable approximations for 
understanding relative historical population sizes and relative overall 
connectivity patterns in a pre-exploitation historical scenario.
    The independent consideration of available habitat (criteria 2) 
ensured that populations failing to meet criteria 1 due to declines in 
abundance (i.e., prior overexploitation) could still be considered as 
potentially significant based on their ability to support conch 
populations, as inferred from available habitat. Relatively low 
thresholds (5 percent) were set for criteria 1 and 2 to ensure an 
inclusive evaluation of any potential portion of the species' range 
evaluated at the management jurisdictional scale.
    The final threshold in the SRT's assessment tool for potential 
significance (criteria 3) assessed a jurisdiction's ability to make 
meaningful contributions to the viability of the species as a whole. 
This criterion was screened using a BC value that was above the median 
across all jurisdictions (Vaz et al. 2022). The BC value measures the 
relative influence of

[[Page 55233]]

a jurisdiction's queen conch reproductive output on the flow of larvae 
among every other pair of jurisdictions in the species' range. The SRT 
considered the BC from unexploited scenarios across hydrodynamic models 
simulated in Vaz et al. (2022) to assess each jurisdiction's 
contribution to the viability of the species as a whole. The 
unexploited BC value represents the historical connections between 
populations created by larval dispersal and is an indicator of overall 
potential ``connectedness'' of individuals within each jurisdiction. 
The median was selected to delimit high versus low levels of 
connectivity, as measured by BC. Use of the median as the screening 
statistic is appropriate given the BC values are a relative scale of 
non-normally distributed values (Vaz et al. 2022). If reproductive 
output from jurisdictions with high BC (i.e., above the median) were to 
decline significantly, reduced genetic mixing over the region as a 
whole would be expected, as was reported by Vaz et al. (2022) under 
contemporary exploitation levels. The SRT used BC values from the 
unexploited connectivity scenario (Vaz et al. 2022), which accounts for 
historical spawning potential and is not biased by contemporary 
reductions in reproductive output from overexploited locations. We 
agree with the SRT that using the pre-exploitation BC measure 
represents the ``potential'' of a jurisdiction to contribute to the 
spatial connectivity of the species as a whole. Jurisdictions with a 
high BC value historically functioned as ecological corridors and were 
biologically important to facilitate larval and genetic flows, 
preventing the fragmentation of the range (Vaz et al. 2022). Thus, the 
BC measure (criteria 3) evaluates each jurisdiction's historic 
contributions to viability, especially spatial connectivity, regardless 
of their current status. Additional discussion of the assessment tool 
and methodological details are provided in see Horn et al. (2022).

Results of the Management Jurisdictional (``Population'') Approach to 
SPR

    By using this assessment tool, the SRT identified 30 potentially 
high-risk conch jurisdictions and 3 potentially significant 
jurisdictions (File S4 in Horn et al. 2022). Only the Nicaragua 
jurisdiction met both the potentially high risk and potentially 
significant criteria. No other portions of the species range at the 
jurisdiction level met both the potentially high-risk and potentially 
significant criteria (File S4 in Horn et al. 2022). The SRT concluded, 
by consensus, that no other portions of the species range at the 
jurisdiction level warranted further consideration.
    The SRT further evaluated the Nicaragua portion of the species' 
range to determine whether this jurisdiction was both significant and 
at a ``high risk'' of extinction. Because both of these conditions must 
be met, regardless of which question is addressed first, if a negative 
answer is reached with respect to the first question addressed, the 
other question does not need to be evaluated for that portion of the 
species' range. In undertaking the SPR analysis for queen conch, the 
SRT elected to address the ``high risk'' of extinction question first. 
The members of the species within the portion may be at ``high risk'' 
of extinction if the members are at or near a level of abundance, 
productivity, spatial structure, or diversity that places the members' 
continued persistence in question. Similarly, the members of the 
species' within the portion may be at ``high risk'' of extinction if 
the members face clear and present threats (e.g., confinement to a 
small geographic area; imminent destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of habitat; or disease epidemic) that are likely to create 
imminent and substantial demographic risks.
    As with queen conch throughout its range, the most significant 
threat to Nicaragua's portion of the population is overutilization 
through commercial, artisanal, and IUU fishing. Nicaragua is one of the 
primary producers of queen conch meat in the Caribbean, and its 
landings and fishing quotas have increased substantially since the mid 
1990s. For example, in 2003, Nicaragua set its quota at 45 mt 
(processed meat), but in 2009, the quota had increased to 341 mt 
(processed meat) and 41 mt quota for scientific purposes (bringing the 
total queen conch quota to approximately 382 mt). By 2019, the 
scientific quota was revoked and the processed meat quota almost 
doubled to an annual export quota of 628 mt (FAO Western Central 
Atlantic Fishery Commission 2020). The most recent density estimates, 
conducted in 2016, 2017, and 2018 indicate that densities are 
sufficient to support some recruitment; however, comparisons between 
survey years suggest a declining trend. For example, surveys conducted 
in 2009 recorded approximately 176-267 conch/ha, while surveys 
conducted in October 2016, March 2018, and October 2019 indicated 70-
109 conch/ha suggesting a decline in densities (FAO Western Central 
Atlantic Fishery Commission 2020). No additional information was 
provided on the methodology for the more recent surveys (i.e., no 
location, season, area, or age class were provided).
    Depensatory issues are a major factor limiting the recovery of 
overharvested queen conch populations (Appeldoorn 1995; Stoner et al. 
2012c). In addition, queen conch within the Nicaraguan portion of the 
species' range are likely heavily reliant on self-recruitment (Vaz et 
al. 2022), which means that local depletions would have negative 
implications on its ability to recover. Based on the available 
information, the SRT concluded that the decreasing trend in queen conch 
densities within this jurisdiction, coupled with increasing quotas 
suggests inadequate management of the conch fishery and a likelihood of 
unsustainable fishing of the stock.
    The SRT noted that the current estimated exploitation rate in 
Nicaragua (i.e., 8.8 percent) was only slightly above the 8 percent 
target for sustainable fishing for stocks with a density of at least 
100 adult conch/ha. The best available information suggests that the 
current exploitation levels exceed sustainable levels for the level of 
reproductive activity in Nicaragua. Considering the current 
exploitation rate (and potential for increases in this rate, given the 
trend in the quota-setting over the years), and the declining trend in 
queen conch densities, the SRT concluded that the best available 
information indicates that this subpopulation is not currently at a 
``high risk'' of extinction. We have reviewed the SRT's assessment, 
definitions, and rationale, and agree with its determination. Thus, we 
conclude that the Nicaraguan portion of the species' range is not 
currently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so within 
the foreseeable future. This finding is consistent with the species' 
range wide determination, that queen conch is not currently in danger 
of extinction, but is likely to become so within the foreseeable 
future.

Ecoregional Approach to SPR

    We, NMFS, broadened the SRT's SPR evaluation, and considered 
whether there were additional portions or combinations of portions that 
might be both significant and at ``high risk.'' We extended the SRT's 
approach of evaluating populations at the jurisdictional scale to 
evaluating metapopulations at the broader ecoregional scale. We 
evaluated ten recognized marine ecoregions within the Caribbean Basin, 
Gulf of Mexico and the southwest Sargasso Sea (8-35 [deg]N, 56-98 
[deg]W) as queen conch population portions: (1) the Northern Gulf of

[[Page 55234]]

Mexico, (2) the Southern Gulf of Mexico, (3) the Floridian, (4) 
Bermuda, (5) the Bahamian, (6) the Greater Antilles, (7) the 
Southwestern Caribbean, (8) the Western Caribbean, (9) the Eastern 
Caribbean, and (10) the Southern Caribbean (see Figure 1in Spalding et 
al. 2007). These marine ecoregions represent broad-scale patterns of 
species and communities in the ocean, and were designed as a tool for 
planning conservation across a range of scales and assessing 
conservation efforts and gaps worldwide. These marine ecoregions also 
closely track the connectivity analysis of Vaz et al. (2022), as the 
broad-scale patterns of species and communities used to designate 
ecoregions reflect spatial proximity and hydrodynamic connectivity. 
Using defined marine ecoregions enabled us to use a globally recognized 
approach to group management jurisdictions into larger population 
portions for the SPR analysis that is consistent with our specific 
understanding of queen conch population connectivity and regional 
hydrodynamic processes. As such, the jurisdictions within the ten 
marine ecoregions are similar in regards to their contributions to the 
viability of the species.
    Of the ten marine ecoregions considered, four (i.e., Northern Gulf 
of Mexico, Southern Gulf of Mexico, Floridian, Bermuda) consist of 
single jurisdictions (i.e., Mexico, parts of which make up the Northern 
and Southern Gulf of Mexico ecoregions, Florida and Bermuda) and were 
evaluated by the SRT under the Management Jurisdictional 
(``Population'') approach described above. None of those single 
jurisdictions met both the potentially high risk and potentially 
significant criteria used by the SRT to warrant further evaluation.
    NMFS evaluated the other six marine ecoregions (i.e., the Bahamian, 
the Greater Antilles, the Southwestern Caribbean, the Western 
Caribbean, the Eastern Caribbean, and the Southern Caribbean) to 
determine whether any could be identified as potentially significant 
portions of the range. There are limited differences in terms of 
adequacy of existing regulations or management measures across the 
species' range. In addition, the main threat to the species 
(overutilization) is widespread throughout the species' range. However, 
several portions of the species' range may be facing greater 
demographic risks. As such, following the SRT's screening approach 
described above, we focused our analysis on the percentage of 
jurisdictions within an ecoregion with likely reproductive failure 
(i.e., <50 adults/ha) to determine if an ecoregion was potentially 
``high risk.'' An ecoregion was determined to be potentially at ``high 
risk'' if the majority of jurisdictions within the portion were below 
the 50 adults/ha threshold.
    To determine if an ecoregion was ``potentially significant,'' we 
evaluated contributions to population viability based on habitat 
availability and connectivity similar to criterion 2 and 3 above, but 
at a larger spatial scale. The percentage of available conch habitat 
across all jurisdictions within an ecoregion was easily aggregated. We 
used the available habitat within an ecoregion relative to the total 
habitat within the species' range as a metric for the ecoregion's 
potential historical contribution to population viability. The data for 
connectivity could not be aggregated across jurisdictions within an 
ecoregion; therefore, we focused on the percentage of jurisdictions 
within the ecoregion that were highly connected, as denoted by the 
historical BC values above the median. Highly connected jurisdictions 
within the ecoregion serve (or once served) as important larval 
sources, facilitating gene flow and maintaining population 
connectivity. We considered an ecoregion to be potentially 
``significant'' if the percentage of queen conch habitat within the 
ecoregion exceeded 5 percent of the total available conch habitat 
across the range (criteria 2 from above) and the majority of 
jurisdictions within the ecoregion were highly connected as indicated 
by a high historical BC value (criteria 3 from above). This approach 
allows us to evaluate the ecoregions historical capacity for carrying a 
substantial portion of the species abundance and its ability to make 
meaningful contributions to the viability of the species as a whole in 
determining whether the ecoregion is significant.

Results of the Marine Ecoregional Approach to SPR

1. The Bahamian
    The Bahamian ecoregion consists of The Bahamas and the Turks and 
Caicos. The waters of these two countries represent 30 percent of the 
available queen conch habitat and contain an estimated 118 million 
spawning adult queen conch with densities exceeding 100 conch/ha. 
Neither of these jurisdictions has median adult density estimate below 
50 conch/ha; thus, this ecoregion does not meet the threshold to be 
considered potentially at ``high risk.'' As such, we did not evaluate 
whether this ecoregion might be significant.
2. The Greater Antilles
    The Greater Antilles ecoregion consists of the British Virgin 
Islands, Cuba, the Cayman Islands, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, 
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Half of the jurisdictions in 
the Greater Antilles portion have median adult densities estimates 
below 50 conch/ha; however, an estimated 473 million spawning adults 
remain in jurisdictions with adult queen conch densities greater than 
100 conch/ha. Thus, this portion does not meet the threshold to be 
considered potentially at ``high risk.'' As such, we did not evaluate 
whether this ecoregion might be ``significant.'' We did note that the 
eight jurisdictions in the Greater Antilles ecoregion represents 36 
percent of the total estimated queen conch habitat and 63 percent of 
the jurisdictions within this ecoregion are highly connected.
3. The Southwestern Caribbean
    The Southwestern Caribbean ecoregion consists of Colombia (mainland 
and offshore banks), Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Panama. Together, these 
4 jurisdictions represent 10 percent of the total available queen conch 
habitat, and 75 percent of these jurisdictions were highly connected. 
Only Panama had adult queen conch densities below 50 conch/ha. Within 
the Southwestern Caribbean ecoregional portion, an estimated 89 million 
spawning adults remain at adult densities greater than 100 conch/ha. 
Thus, this ecoregion does not meet the threshold to be considered 
potentially at ``high risk.'' As such, we did not evaluate whether this 
ecoregion might be ``significant.''
4. The Western Caribbean
    The Western Caribbean ecoregion consists of Belize; Honduras; 
Guatemala; and Quintana Roo, Mexico. Of these jurisdictions, Guatemala 
was not evaluated due to lack of data. The jurisdictions in the Western 
Caribbean ecoregion are characterized by low median densities, 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to prevent juvenile 
harvest (Horn et al. 2022; Arzu 2019, Tewfik et al. 2019), and 
continued illegal harvest (Horn et al. 2022; CITES 2012). Of the three 
jurisdictions with data, two (67 percent) have median adult densities 
below 50 conch/ha, and none of the three have median adult densities 
greater than 100 conch/ha. We note, that several surveys in Belize, 
Honduras, and Mexico have identified locations with queen conch 
densities greater than 100 conch/ha; however, many of these density

[[Page 55235]]

estimates included immature conch. There are three surveys in Belize 
and 18 in Mexico that reported adult queen conch densities greater than 
100 conch/ha (Figure 20 in Horn et al. 2022); however, most of these 
surveys were conducted more than a decade ago. We note, that surveys 
near Xel-Ha in Quintana Roo, Mexico recorded adult queen conch 
densities between 405 and 665 conch/ha (Aldana Aranda et al. 2014); 
however, these surveys were conducted in 2012 and the study areas was 
small (1 ha). Thus, because the majority of jurisdictions in the 
Western Caribbean ecoregion have median adult queen conch densities 
less than 50 conch/ha, this ecoregion was identified as potentially at 
``high risk.''
    Having identified the Western Caribbean ecoregion as potentially at 
``high risk,'' we evaluated whether this ecoregion is potentially 
``significant.'' The Western Caribbean ecoregion contains 12 percent of 
the total available conch habitat. Honduras has limited local retention 
of conch larvae (Vas et al. 2022). Historically, Honduras would have 
supplied larvae to Belize and Mexico. Currently, Honduras acts as 
mostly a sink for larvae from Nicaragua and Colombia's Serrana Bank. 
Mexico's conch population has low local larvae retention. With regards 
to connectivity, Belize mostly acts as a sink and has substantial local 
retention. Belize receives a significant supply of larvae from 
Honduras, and to a lesser extent Nicaragua. Historically, Mexico's 
conch population provided larval to the United States (Florida) and 
received larvae from upstream sources. Presently, Mexico does not 
appear to be supporting reproductive activity, but receives larvae from 
Honduras and Colombia's Serrana Bank, and, to a lesser extent, from 
Cuba and the Cayman Islands. Because of the position of the Western 
Caribbean ecoregion, jurisdictions within this ecoregion supply larvae 
to upstream jurisdictions within the ecoregion and to the Florida 
ecoregion. More specifically, queen conch larvae from Quintana Roo, 
Mexico appear to have been an important historical source of larval 
supply to the Floridian ecoregion, which functions as a sink (Vaz et 
al. 2022). Presently, reproduction is thought to be nominal with no 
viable upstream sources of larvae suggesting a limited capacity for 
recovery. Nonetheless, because less than the majority of jurisdictions 
in the Western Caribbean ecoregion (33 percent) are highly connected; 
we determined that the Western Caribbean ecoregion is not 
``significant.''
5. The Eastern Caribbean
    The Eastern Caribbean ecoregion consists of Anguilla, Antigua and 
Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Martinique, 
Montserrat, Saba, Sint-Eustatius, St. Barthelemy, St. Kitts and Nevis, 
St. Lucia, St. Maarten, and St. Vincent and Grenadines. The majority of 
jurisdictions within this ecoregion (73 percent) have adult queen conch 
densities below 50 conch/ha, suggesting this ecoregion is potentially 
at ``high risk.'' This ecoregion represents just 5 percent of the total 
estimated queen conch habitat, but 73 percent of the jurisdictions are 
highly connected, suggesting this ecoregion is potentially 
``significant.''
    We further evaluated the Eastern Caribbean ecoregion to determine 
whether this portion of the species' range is at a ``high risk'' of 
extinction. We determined that an estimated 5 million spawning adults 
remain in jurisdictions (i.e., Saba and St. Lucia) with adult queen 
conch densities greater than 100 conch/ha. A single female conch lays 
between 7-14 egg masses containing between 500,000-750,000 eggs during 
a single spawning season (Appeldoorn 2020). Thus, the approximately 5 
million conch (see S5 in Horn et al. 2022) in viable spawning 
aggregations could produce up to 26 trillion eggs in a single spawning 
season. The Eastern Caribbean ecoregion likely has reasonably high 
levels of self-recruitment (Figures 5, 6, and 8 in Vaz et al. 2022). 
Given the high reproductive capacity of queen conch presently at viable 
spawning aggregation densities in this ecoregion and the capacity for 
self-recruitment within the ecoregion, we determined Eastern Caribbean 
ecoregion is not currently at ``high risk.'' We did note that in Saba, 
there is documented illegal fishing of queen conch in marine parks, 
with no established quotas for queen conch fisheries (van Baren 2013). 
Additionally, in St. Lucia, there is a declining trend in CPUE and 
inadequate enforcement of regulations (Williams-Peter 2021). Thus, we 
conclude that the Eastern Caribbean portion of the species' range is 
not currently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so 
within the foreseeable future, due to the ongoing threats, and the 
declining trends in abundance and productivity in the majority of the 
jurisdictions within the Eastern Caribbean portion of its range. This 
finding is consistent with the species' range wide determination, that 
queen conch is not currently in danger of extinction, but is likely to 
become so within the foreseeable future.
6. The Southern Caribbean
    The Southern Caribbean ecoregion consists of Aruba, Bonaire, 
Curacao, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela. These five jurisdictions 
all have estimated densities less than 50 adults/ha, suggesting this 
ecoregion is potentially at ``high risk.'' Of the five jurisdiction, 
three of them (60 percent) are highly connected. However, the Southern 
Caribbean ecoregion comprises just 2 percent of the total available 
queen conch habitat throughout the species' range. As such, this 
ecoregion's historical ability to contribute to the viability of the 
queen conch species is limited, and this ecoregion does not meet 
potentially ``significant'' threshold for the purposes of our SPR 
evaluation.

Macroregional Approach to SPR

    The Eastern and Southern Caribbean ecoregions, both of which were 
identified as potentially at ``high risk,'' are located upstream of 
most major harvesters of queen conch, and have experienced declines or 
collapses in many regional queen conch fisheries. Given this outcome, 
to ensure a rigorous analysis, we also considered a broader geographic 
scale by combining the Eastern and Southern Caribbean ecoregions into 
the more broadly recognized ``Lesser Antilles'' macroregion. This 
macroregion comprises 21 jurisdictions (i.e., Anguilla, Aruba, Antigua 
and Barbuda, Barbados, Bonaire, Curacao, Dominica, Grenada, Guadeloupe, 
Martinique, Montserrat, Saba, St. Eustatius, St. Barthelemy, St. Kitts 
and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Maarten, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Trinidad 
and Tobago, and Venezuela). These jurisdictions form the eastern 
boundary of the Caribbean Sea where it meets the Atlantic Ocean and 
represent the furthermost upstream source for queen conch larvae in the 
range.
    Based on the marine ecoregional approach described above, we 
analyzed whether the majority of jurisdictions within the Lesser 
Antilles macroregion, have adult queen conch densities below the 50 
conch/ha threshold indicating that the Lesser Antilles macroregion is 
potentially at ``high risk.'' Similarly, we analyzed whether the 
percentage of queen conch habitat within the Lesser Antilles 
macroregion exceeded 5 percent of the total available habitat (criteria 
2 from above), and whether the majority of jurisdictions within the 
macroregion were highly connected (criteria 3 from above) to determine 
if the Lesser Antilles macroregion was potentially ``significant.''

[[Page 55236]]

Results of the Macroregional Approach to SPR

    Of the 21 jurisdictions within the Lesser Antilles macroregion, 17 
(81 percent) have adult queen conch densities below the reproductive 
threshold of 50 conch/ha, suggesting this macroregion is potentially at 
``high risk.'' We note that the density estimates for 8 of the 21 
jurisdictions within the Lesser Antilles macroregion are approximated 
from nearest neighbors due to the lack of surveys in those 
jurisdictions; only 10 of 21 jurisdictions (48 percent) have more 
contemporary jurisdiction-specific adult density estimates that are 
below 50 conch/ha.
    Contemporary abundance of queen conch within the Lesser Antilles 
macroregion is estimated at 19 million adults, with historical capacity 
based on habitat availability estimated to comprise up to 8 percent of 
the unexploited population. For comparison, contemporary estimates 
suggest at least 725 million reproductive adult conch exist outside the 
Lesser Antilles portion (Horn et al. 2022). Of the 21 jurisdictions 
within the Lesser Antilles macroregion, 13 (61 percent) are ``highly 
connected'' based on BC values above the median. Because we estimate 
that the Lesser Antilles macroregion contains 8 percent of the 
available habitat for the species and because the majority of 
jurisdictions within macroregion are highly connected, the Lesser 
Antilles macroregion meets the potentially ``significant'' threshold. 
We note that the majority (10 of 13) of the ``highly connected'' 
jurisdictions within the macroregion have adult queen conch densities 
below 50 conch/ha. However, we also note that the highly connected 
jurisdictions within the macroregion with adult densities below 50 
conch/ha represent only 3 percent of the total available queen conch 
habitat throughout the species' range.
    Because we identified the Lesser Antilles macroregion as 
potentially ``high risk'' and potentially ``significant,'' we further 
evaluated the risk level for this macroregion. The Lesser Antilles 
macroregion is characterized by a lack of an upstream source of larvae 
and a high likelihood of reproductive failure in many jurisdictions. Of 
21 jurisdictions within the macroregion, only two jurisdictions (Saba 
and St. Lucia) have median adult queen conch densities greater than 100 
conch/ha. However, a single female conch lays between 7-14 egg masses 
containing between 500,000-750,000 eggs during a single spawning season 
(Appeldoorn 2020). As noted above, the SRT determined that an estimated 
5 million spawning adults remain in Saba and St. Lucia. Thus, the 
approximately 5 million queen conch at reproductively viable densities 
in this macroregion (see S5 in Horn et al. 2022) could produce up to 26 
trillion eggs in a single spawning season. The jurisdictions within 
this macroregion also have reasonably high levels of self-recruitment 
(Figures 5, 6, and 8 in Vaz et al. 2022). Due to the high reproductive 
capacity of the estimated 5 million adult queen conch presently at 
viable densities within the Lesser Antilles macroregion and the high 
level of connectivity between jurisdictions that facilitate self-
recruitment within the macroregion (Figure 6a, c in Vaz et al. 2020), 
we determined that the Lesser Antilles macroregion is not currently at 
``high risk.'' Thus, we conclude that the Lesser Antilles portion of 
the species range is not currently in danger of extinction, but is 
likely to become so within the foreseeable future, due ongoing threats, 
and declining trends in abundance and productivity in the majority of 
the jurisdictions within the macroregion. This finding is consistent 
with the species' range wide determination, that queen conch is not 
currently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so within 
the foreseeable future.
    Based on our assessment of 39 management jurisdictions, 10 marine 
ecoregions, and one macroregion, we did not identify any portions of 
the species' range that were both ``high risk'' and ``significant.'' 
Therefore, we conclude that there are no significant portions of the 
species' range that are currently in danger of extinction. Our 
conclusion regarding the species' overall extinction risk does not 
change based on consideration of status of the species within these 
portions of the species range, and thus we find that queen conch is not 
currently in danger, but is likely to become an endangered species 
within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

Conservation Efforts

    There are several conservation efforts that have the potential to 
address the threats to the queen conch, including aquaculture and 
fisheries management and conservation plans. We considered ongoing 
queen conch aquaculture efforts being conducted by Florida Atlantic 
University's Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Conservaci[oacute]n 
ConCiencia, and Naguabo Fishing Association. These partners are working 
through a NOAA Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program funded project. The 
goal of the two year project (S-K NOAA Award NA10NMF4270029) is to 
assist with the restoration of queen conch fisheries in Puerto Rico by 
producing queen conch in a fishermen-operated aquaculture facility. 
With the declining conch populations in Puerto Rico and disruption of 
conch habitats from recent hurricanes, queen conch is a prime candidate 
for aquaculture. The facility will be open to fishermen, the local 
community, students and visitors to learn about queen conch 
aquaculture, biology, conservation, and fisheries. This project is 
anticipated to serve as a model that can be replicated in other fishing 
communities in Puerto Rico and elsewhere (Davis and Espinoza 2021).
    In our discretion, we also considered foreign conservation efforts 
to protect and recover queen conch that are either underway, but not 
yet fully implemented, or are only planned, using these overarching 
criteria to determine whether these efforts are effective in 
ameliorating the threats we have identified to the species and thus 
potentially avert the need for listing. The 10-year Regional Queen 
Conch Fishery Management and Conservation Plan (Prada et al. 2017) was 
created following the recommendations of the first meeting of the 
WECAFC/CFMC/OPESCA/CRFM Working Group, held in Panama in 2012. The 
Regional Queen Conch Fishery Management and Conservation Plan was 
formulated with the following specific objectives: (1) improve the 
collection and integration of scientific data needed to determine the 
overall queen conch population status as the basis for the application 
of ecosystem-based management; (2) harmonize measures aimed at 
increasing the stability of the queen conch population and to implement 
best management practices for a sustainable fishery; (3) increase 
coordination and collaboration toward achieving better education and 
outreach, monitoring and research, co-management and strengthening, 
optimizing and harmonizing regional governance arrangements; and (4) 
adopt regional management measures, which incorporate the precautionary 
approach. While these conservation efforts are encouraging, it is 
difficult to assess the expected benefit to the species due to 
uncertainties surrounding their implementation. The management and 
conservation recommendation resulting from the Panama 2012 meeting are 
approximately 10 years old. Where recommendations were incorporated 
into fishery management strategies, we would have anticipated those 
benefits to be at least partially recognized, with improved data 
collection, updated

[[Page 55237]]

population monitoring and assessments, or the implementation 
regulations that promote sustainable harvest. However, in most cases, 
we cannot ascertain whether new management measures have occurred, or 
if they have occurred, we cannot determine whether those benefits have 
been realized, given the information available at this time. In 
addition, the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, in partnership 
with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) 
and CITES, designed a pilot project in 2020 to test the application of 
the revised UNCTAD BioTrade Principles and Criteria in the marine 
environment, focusing on the queen conch value chain in Grenada, St. 
Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines (UNCTAD, 2021). This pilot 
project aims to empower small-scale fisheries to produce and trade 
queen conch products sustainably through the application of Blue 
BioTrade Principles and Criteria. The BioTrade Principles and Criteria, 
developed by UNCTAD, are a set of guidelines for businesses, 
governments, and civil society wishing to support the conservation and 
sustainable use of biodiversity, as well as the fair and equitable 
sharing of benefits through trade (UNCTAD, 2021). If successful, these 
efforts will likely improve some fisheries management and have the 
potential to decrease specific threats in the future. Nonetheless, we 
do not find that these conservation efforts have significantly altered 
the extinction risk for the queen conch to where it would not be at 
risk of extinction in the foreseeable future. However, we seek 
additional information on these and other conservation efforts (see 
Public Comments Solicited below).

Proposed Determination

    Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that NMFS make listing 
determinations based on the best scientific and commercial data 
available after conducting a review of the status of the species and 
taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or 
foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and 
conserve the species. We have independently reviewed the best available 
scientific and commercial information, public comments submitted in 
response to the notice of a status review (84 FR 66685; December 6, 
2019), the status review report (Horn et al. 2022), and other published 
and unpublished information, and we have consulted with species experts 
and individuals familiar with queen conch. We considered each of the 
statutory factors to determine whether it presented an extinction risk 
to the queen conch on its own, now or in the foreseeable future, and 
also considered the combination of those factors to determine whether 
they collectively contribute to the extinction risk of the species, 
currently or in the foreseeable future. Based on our consideration of 
the best available scientific and commercial information, as summarized 
here, including the SPR analysis, we conclude that while queen conch is 
not currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range, it is likely to become so within the foreseeable 
future as a result of ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: B (overutilization 
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes); D 
(inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address identified 
threats); and E (other natural or human factors affecting its continued 
existence). Accordingly, the queen conch meets the definition of a 
threatened species, and thus, we propose to list it as such throughout 
its range under the ESA.

Effects of Listing

    Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the ESA include recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)), 
critical habitat designations (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)), Federal agency 
consultation requirements (16 U.S.C. 1536), and protective regulations 
(16 U.S.C. 1533(d)). Recognition of the species' status through listing 
also promotes conservation actions by Federal and state agencies, 
foreign entities, private groups, and individuals.

Identifying ESA Section 7 Consultation Requirements

    Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS regulations require 
Federal agencies to confer with us on actions likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of species proposed for listing, or likely to 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical 
habitat. If a proposed species is ultimately listed, Federal agencies 
must consult under section 7 on any action they authorize, fund, or 
carry out if those actions may affect the listed species or designated 
critical habitat. Based on currently available information, we conclude 
that examples of Federal actions that may affect queen conch within the 
U.S. jurisdiction include, but are not limited to: fisheries management 
practices, discharge of pollution from point and non-point sources, 
contaminated waste and plastic disposal, development of water quality 
standards, and dredging.

Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the ESA

    We are proposing to list the queen conch as a threatened species. 
For threatened species, ESA section 4(d) leaves it to the Secretary's 
discretion whether, and to what extent, to extend the section 9(a) 
``take'' prohibitions to the species, and also requires us to issue 
regulations the Secretary deems necessary and advisable for the 
conservation of the species. The 4(d) protective regulations may 
prohibit, with respect to threatened species, some or all of the acts 
which section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits with respect to endangered 
species. We are not proposing such regulations at this time, but may 
consider promulgating protective regulations pursuant to section 4(d) 
for the queen conch in a future rulemaking. In order to inform our 
consideration of appropriate protective regulations for the species, we 
seek information from the public on possible measures for their 
conservation.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat cannot be designated within foreign nations. ESA 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(g) specify that critical 
habitat shall not be designated within foreign countries or in other 
areas outside of U.S. jurisdiction.
    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 
1532(5)) as: (1) the specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with 
the ESA, on which are found (a) those physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require 
special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is 
listed upon a determination that such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all 
methods and procedures needed to bring the species to the point at 
which listing under the ESA is no longer necessary. Section 4(a)(3)(a) 
of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to the extent 
prudent and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently 
with the listing of a species. Designations of critical habitat must be 
based on the best scientific data available and must take into 
consideration the economic, national security, and other relevant 
impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. To the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable, we will publish a

[[Page 55238]]

proposed designation of critical habitat for the queen conch in a 
separate rule. We invite submissions of data and information on areas 
in U.S. jurisdiction that may meet the definition of critical habitat 
for the queen conch as well as potential impacts of designating any 
particular areas as critical habitat (see Public Comments Solicited 
below).

Policies on Peer Review

    In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued 
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing 
minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public 
disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public 
participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented under the Information 
Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554) is intended to enhance the quality and 
credibility of the Federal government's scientific information, and 
applies to influential or highly influential scientific information 
disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. To satisfy our requirements 
under the OMB Bulletin, we received peer reviews from three independent 
peer reviewers on the status review report (Horn et al. 2022), which 
are available online (https://www.noaa.gov/organization/information-technology/peer-review-plans). All peer reviewer comments were 
addressed prior to dissemination of the final status review report and 
publication of this proposed rule. We conclude that these experts' 
reviews satisfy the requirements for ``adequate [prior] peer review'' 
contained in the Bulletin (sec. II.2.).

Public Comments Solicited

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate as possible and informed by the best available 
scientific and commercial information. Therefore, we request comments 
or information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, 
the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party 
regarding this proposed rule. In particular we seek comments 
containing: (1) new or updated information regarding queen conch 
landings and IUU fishing; (2) new or updated queen conch fisheries-
dependent or -independent data including stock assessments; (3) new or 
updated information on the status of the species, including surveys, 
density, and abundance information; (4) new or updated information 
regarding queen conch population structure, age structure, and 
connectivity; (5) new or updated information on queen conch range, 
habitat use, and distribution; (6) new or updated on data concerning 
any threats to the queen conch; (7) efforts being made to protect the 
species throughout its range; (8) new or updated queen conch fisheries 
management measures; or (9) other pertinent information regarding the 
species.
    We are also soliciting information on physical and biological 
features that may support designation of critical habitat for queen 
conch within U.S. jurisdiction. Areas outside the occupied geographical 
area should also be identified if such areas themselves are essential 
to the conservation of the species. Physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species may include, but are not 
limited to, features specific to individual species' ranges, habitats 
and life history characteristics within the following general 
categories of habitat features: (1) space for individual growth and for 
normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other 
nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) 
sites for reproduction and development of offspring; and (5) habitats 
that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the 
historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of the species.

References

    A complete list of the references used in this proposed rule is 
available upon request, and also available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/queen-conch.

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act

    The 1982 amendments to the ESA in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. 
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the 
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir. 
1981), NMFS has concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to 
the environmental assessment requirements of the NEPA (See NOAA 
Administrative Order 216-6A).

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the 
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of 
a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. 
In addition, this proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive 
Order 12866.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information 
requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    In keeping with the intent of the Administration and Congress to 
provide continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual state 
and Federal interest, the proposed rule will be provided to the 
relevant agencies in each state or territory in which the subject 
species occurs, and these agencies are invited to comment.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, 
Transportation.

    Dated: August 30, 2022.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend 50 CFR 
part 223 as follows:

PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec.  223.201-202 
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 
Sec.  223.206(d)(9).

0
2. In Sec.  223.102, in the table in paragraph (e), under the 
subheading ``Molluscs,'' add an entry for ``Conch, queen'' in 
alphabetical order by common name to read as follows:


Sec.  223.102   Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous 
species.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

[[Page 55239]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Species \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------  Citation(s) for     Critical
                                                Description of       listing          habitat        ESA rules
         Common name          Scientific name   listed entity   determination(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
                                                    Molluscs
Conch, queen................  Aliger gigas...  Entire species.  [FEDERAL                      NA              NA
                                                                 REGISTER
                                                                 citation and
                                                                 date when
                                                                 published as a
                                                                 final rule].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
  see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
  FR 58612, November 20, 1991).

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-19109 Filed 9-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P