Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on Petition To List the Barndoor Skate, Winter Skate and Smooth Skate Under the Endangered Species Act, 78898-78904 [2011-32530]
Download as PDF
78898
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Notices
reasonable person to conclude that other
natural or manmade factors may cause
thorny skates to be threatened or
endangered at this time.
Critical Habitat
The petitioners request that we
designate critical habitat for thorny
skates, upon finding that the species is
endangered or threatened. They state
that research has found that thorny
skates prefer sand, gravel, broken shells,
and soft mud substrata at depths
between 37 and 108 meters and,
therefore, state that habitat conforming
to these specifications is essential to the
conservation of thorny skates.
Accordingly, the petitioners request that
we designate as critical habitat all areas
along the U.S. coast from the Gulf of
Maine to South Carolina featuring these
characteristics.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Similarity of Appearance Provision of
the ESA
The petitioners state that if we
determine that some of the skate species
included in the petitions warrant listing
while others do not, we should
nonetheless list those species not found
to be threatened or endangered, as well
as other members of the skate complex,
as listed species in accordance with
section 4(e) of the ESA. They argue that
while it is already difficult to
differentiate skates by species, it is even
more difficult to differentiate skate
wings by species. They raise particular
concern over the risk of confusing
juvenile winter skates and little skates,
which they state would make the
enforcement of a prohibition on take of
winter skates extremely difficult. The
petitioners claim that the problems with
species differentiation and enforcement
of species-specific take prohibitions
demonstrate that enforcement will not
be effective unless we treat all members
of the skate complex as subject to the
same regulations.
Conclusion
Scientific information presented by
the petitioners and otherwise available
to us indicates that it is unlikely that the
Northwest Atlantic population of thorny
skates is discrete and significant.
Contrary to the petitioner’s assertions,
there is no evidence of reproductive
isolation of any subpopulation of thorny
skate across the North Atlantic Ocean.
Connectivity across broad geographic
regions reduces the overall risk of
extinction, and buffers the potential
impacts of fishing mortality on thorny
skates. An argument could be made for
discreteness and significance of the U.S.
population of thorny skates if it could
be demonstrated that this population is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:28 Dec 19, 2011
Jkt 226001
delimited by international boundaries
within which differences in control of
exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory
mechanisms exist that are significant in
light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA.
Sufficient time is not available within
the 90-day initial review phase to
conduct a review of international
regulations, so for the purposes of this
review and to err on the side of the
species, we have examined the species
range-wide and as a U.S. population of
thorny skates (assuming that it meets
the DPS policy criteria).
Given this assumption, we have
considered the available information on
biomass. Range-wide, it indicates a
decline, and in the United States,
surveys indicate that the population is
at a historically low level; although the
species may be at a low level and may
have declined from previous historical
levels, sufficient information was not
presented to indicate that it is now
threatened or endangered due to that
low level of abundance. Millions of
thorny skate exist and their distribution
ranges across vast areas on both sides of
the North Atlantic. We have also
examined the five ESA section 4(a)(1)
factors and specifically examined
whether sufficient scientific information
was presented by the petitioners or
otherwise readily available in our files
that indicates that thorny skates are
threatened or endangered due to
overutilization for commercial purposes
or inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms to control harvest
(including discards and illegal
landings). The purported impacts of
illegal fishery landings and high discard
mortality in U.S. waters are not
supported by the most recent fishery
data. In fact, the Skate FMP’s
prohibition on possession of thorny
skates appears to be extremely effective,
and discard mortality rates are relatively
low. While it is reasonable to predict
that climate change will result in some
changes to the habitat of thorny skate,
sufficient information is not presented
or otherwise available to indicate that
climate change, or other natural or
manmade factors, may be causing the
species to be threatened or endangered.
We conclude that the available
information does not lead a reasonable
person to conclude that thorny skates
are threatened or endangered due to one
or more of these factors at this time.
However, to meet stock rebuilding
objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, the Council should be encouraged
to maintain its efforts to reverse the
decline of thorny skates. Additional
research on several key aspects of
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
thorny skate population dynamics could
further inform management, particularly
on the potential impacts of rising ocean
temperatures on their distribution. This
is currently being investigated by the
NEFSC. Additionally, we will retain
thorny skate on our Species of Concern
list and attempt to devote resources to
addressing the data deficiencies. Should
these research efforts yield information
not considered in this finding, we may
initiate a review of the status of this
species in the future.
Petition Finding
Based on the above information and
the criteria specified in 50 CFR
424.14(b)(2), we find that the petitions
and information readily available in our
files do not present substantial scientific
and commercial information indicating
that the petitioned actions concerning
thorny skate may be warranted at this
time. Because we have concluded that
the petitioned action to list thorny
skates is not warranted, we do not need
to explore the need to designate critical
habitat or consider the need to list other
skate species on the basis of similarity
of appearance, as requested by the
petitioner.
References Cited
A complete list of the references used
in this finding is available upon request
(see ADDRESSES).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: December 14, 2011.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–32527 Filed 12–19–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[Docket No. 111205721–1719–01]
RIN 0648–XA741
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;
90-Day Finding on Petition To List the
Barndoor Skate, Winter Skate and
Smooth Skate Under the Endangered
Species Act
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding.
AGENCY:
We, NMFS, announce a 90day finding for a petition to list the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Notices
barndoor skate (Dipturus laevis), winter
skate (Leucoraja ocellata) and smooth
skate (Malacoraja senta) under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find
that the petition does not present
substantial scientific information
indicating the petitioned actions may be
warranted. Accordingly, we will not
initiate a review of the status of these
species at this time.
Kim
Damon-Randall, NMFS, Northeast
Regional Office (978) 282–8485 or
Maggie Miller, NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources (301) 427–8403.
The petition is available electronically
at the NMFS Web site at https://
www.nero.noaa.gov/prot_res/
CandidateSpeciesProgram/csr.htm. A
list of references is available upon
request.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
On August 22, 2011, we received a
petition from WildEarth Guardians and
Friends of Animals (the petitioners)
requesting that we list thorny skate,
barndoor skate, winter skate and smooth
skate as threatened or endangered. In
the alternative, the petitioners request
that we list any and all distinct
population segments (DPSs) of these
species that may exist, and in particular
the petitioners requested that we list the
United States population of thorny skate
as a threatened or endangered DPS.
The joint USFWS/NMFS petition
management handbook (https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/
petition_management.pdf) states that if
we receive two petitions for the same
species and a 90-day finding has not yet
been made on the earlier petition, then
the later petition will be combined with
the earlier petition and a combined 90day finding will be prepared. When we
received the petition from WildEarth
Guardians and Friends of Animals, we
had already received a petition from the
Animal Welfare Institute for thorny
skate. Therefore, we combined the
petitions for thorny skate and issued a
single 90-day finding addressing both
petitions for that species. Given that,
this 90-day finding will address the
remaining three skate species included
in the petition from WildEarth
Guardians and Friends of Animals. The
petitioners state that there can be no
reasonable dispute that the available
information, in particular the
International Union for Conservation of
Nature’s (IUCN) assessment that each of
the petitioned species is ‘‘Critically
Endangered’’ or ‘‘Endangered,’’
indicates that listing these skates as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:28 Dec 19, 2011
Jkt 226001
either threatened or endangered may be
warranted.
ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy
Considerations
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16
U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that we
make a finding as to whether a petition
to list, delist, or reclassify a species
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
ESA implementing regulations define
substantial information as the amount of
information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). In
determining whether substantial
information exists for a petition to list
a species, we take into account several
factors, including information submitted
with, and referenced in, the petition and
all other information readily available in
our files. To the maximum extent
practicable, this finding is to be made
within 90 days of the receipt of the
petition (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)), and
the finding is to be published promptly
in the Federal Register. If we find that
the petition presents substantial
information indicating that the
requested action may be warranted,
section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA requires
the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)
to conduct a status review of the
species. Section 4(b)(3)(B) requires the
Secretary to make a finding as to
whether or not the petitioned action is
warranted within 12 months of the
receipt of the petition. The Secretary has
delegated authority for these actions to
the NOAA Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries.
To be considered for listing under the
ESA, a group of organisms must
constitute a ‘‘species,’’ which is defined
to also include subspecies and, for any
vertebrate species, any DPS that
interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). On February 7, 1996, NMFS
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(collectively, the ‘‘Services’’) adopted a
policy to clarify their interpretation of
the phrase ‘‘distinct population segment
of any species of vertebrate fish and
wildlife’’ (61 FR 4722). The joint DPS
policy describes two criteria that must
be considered when identifying DPSs:
(1) The discreteness of the population
segment in relation to the remainder of
the species (or subspecies) to which it
belongs; and (2) the significance of the
population segment to the remainder of
the species (or subspecies) to which it
belongs. As further stated in the joint
policy, if a population segment is
discrete and significant (i.e., it is a DPS),
its evaluation for endangered or
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
78899
threatened status will be based on the
ESA’s definitions of those terms and a
review of the five factors enumerated in
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
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
‘‘threatened’’ if it is ‘‘likely to become
an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range’’ (ESA
sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16
U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Under section
4(a)(1) of the ESA, a species may be
determined to be threatened or
endangered as a result of any one of the
following factors: (A) Present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
Many petitions, such as this one,
identify risk classifications made by
other organizations or agencies, such as
the IUCN, the American Fisheries
Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of
extinction risk for a species. Risk
classifications by other organizations or
made under other Federal or State
statutes may be informative, but the
classification alone may not provide the
rationale for a positive 90-day finding
under the ESA. Thus, when a petition
cites such classifications, we will
evaluate the source information that the
classification is based upon, in light of
the standards on extinction risk and
impacts or threats discussed above.
Species Description
Barndoor skate are found in the
Northwest Atlantic in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, Gulf of Maine and as far
south as North Carolina. They are most
abundant in offshore Gulf of Maine
(Canadian waters), offshore Georges
Bank, and Southern New England
waters, with very few documented in
inshore waters or in the Mid-Atlantic
Region (New England Fisheries
Management Council (NEFMC), 2009).
Minimum length of barndoor skate
caught in the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center (NEFSC) surveys is 20
cm total length (TL) (8 in) and the
largest individual caught was 136 cm TL
(54 in). It has a broad body with pointed
fins and snout and a relatively short tail
with three rows of spines. Its primary
distinguishing feature is a dark line that
extends from the snout to the base of the
tail. It has been estimated that barndoor
skate reach maturity at 6–7 years of age.
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
78900
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Notices
Smooth skate occur from the Gulf of
St. Lawrence and the Labrador shelf to
as far south as South Carolina in the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean. They are
most abundant inshore and offshore
Gulf of Maine and along the 100 fathom
edge of Georges Bank, with very few
documented in Southern New England
or the Mid Atlantic (NEFMC, 2009).
They are found in water depths of 45 to
900 m. The median length of smooth
skate in the survey catch shows no trend
over the full survey time series and is
currently at about 40 cm TL (16 in). It
has been estimated that they reach
sexual maturity as early as 5 years old
but possibly as late as 8 to 10 years. The
distinctive feature of smooth skate is an
irregular row of small thorns which run
along its back and along the first half of
its tail.
Winter skate occur from the south
coast of Newfoundland and the
southern Gulf of St. Lawrence to Cape
Hatteras. They are most abundant
inshore and offshore Georges Bank and
Southern New England with lesser
amounts in the Gulf of Maine or the
Mid-Atlantic (NEFMC, 2009). They are
found in water depths up to 90 m.
Median length of winter skates
increased from the mid 1990s through
2002 and then declined slightly to about
45 to 52 cm TL (18–20 in). The age at
maturity is estimated at 7 years. The
snout and pectoral fins of the winter
skate are blunt and rounded. Other
common names for winter skate include
big skate, spotted skate and eyed skate.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Analysis of Petition and Information
Readily Available in NMFS Files
In the following sections, we present
information from the petition and
readily available in our files to
determine whether this information
leads a reasonable person to conclude
that listing under the ESA may be
warranted due to any one or more of the
factors listed under section 4(a)(1) of the
ESA. A separate discussion is included
for each of the three skate species
included in the petition.
Abundance
The petition presents limited
information on abundance of the skate
species. It cites the IUCN classifications
and places a great deal of weight on
these. Additional information on
biomass is contained in the discussion
of the second ESA factor, overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific
or educational purposes, for each of the
three species.
Barndoor Skate Abundance
The petition states that the IUCN lists
barndoor skates as ‘‘endangered’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:28 Dec 19, 2011
Jkt 226001
throughout their range. The petitioners
state that the biomass of barndoor skates
declined throughout their range by 96–
99 percent from the 1960s to the 1990s,
most likely as a result of mortality as
bycatch. They state that the population
has experienced a slight increase in
recent years and that the NEFSC has
therefore concluded that it is neither
overfished, nor experiencing
overfishing. They state that although the
potential increase gives conservationists
some reason to be optimistic,
researchers have suggested that it is
difficult to tell whether the data
demonstrate actual population
resurgence. The petitioners cite a
reference from the year 2000 for this
information; however, since 2000,
additional data has become available
from both the NEFSC Spring and
Autumn Bottom Trawl surveys that
show that the population has continued
to increase. The petitioners also state
that while the barndoor skate is not
overfished and not experiencing
overfishing (according to the 2008
NEFSC survey), the 2005 biomass index
is still 50 percent of the peak biomass
observed during the 1960s when the
species was first surveyed. In addition,
the petitioners note that the average
biomass index of barndoor skate is well
below the target biomass index
established by the NEFSC.
The 2008 Stock Assessment and
Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report states
that in the NEFSC spring survey (1968–
2006), the annual total catch of barndoor
skate ranged from 0 fish (several years
during the 1970s and 1980s) to 196 fish
in 2006. The NEFSC autumn survey
(1963–2005) exhibited a similar
increasing trend. Recent spring catches
equated to 0.6 fish or 1.7 kg per tow in
2006 and recent autumn catches
equated to 0.4 fish or 1.0 kg per tow in
2005. The 2008 SAFE Report states that,
given this data, barndoor skate appear to
be in a rebuilding phase that began in
the 1990s. Since 1990, both spring and
autumn survey indices have steadily
increased, with the spring survey at the
highest value in the time series and the
autumn survey nearing the peak values
found in the 1960s. In 2007, the NEFSC
autumn survey showed a decline in
biomass which reduced the 3-year
moving average; however, it remains
above the biomass threshold and thus,
the barndoor skate is not considered to
be overfished. In fact, the survey
biomass index for barndoor skate has
been above the overfished biomass
threshold since 2004. The 2008–2010
NEFSC autumn average survey biomass
index of 1.11 kg/tow is above the
biomass threshold reference point (0.81
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
kg/tow), and thus, the species is not
overfished but is not yet rebuilt to
biomass at maximum sustainable yield
(Bmsy). The 2008–2010 average index is
above the 2007–2009 index by ten
percent; therefore, as indicated
previously, overfishing is not occurring.
In addition, recent catches of barndoor
skate include individuals as large as
those recorded during the peak
abundance of the 1960s, and recent
survey data show an increase in the
number of fish between 40 and 80 cm
TL, common lengths during the 1960s
(NEFMC, 2009).
Previous ESA Action for Barndoor
Skate
On January 15, 1999, we published in
the Federal Register a notification
soliciting comments and reliable
documentation on species we were
considering adding to the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) candidate species list
(64 FR 2629; January 15, 1999). In that
publication, we listed barndoor skates
(Dipturus laevis) as one of the species
under consideration. On March 4, 1999,
we received a petition from GreenWorld
to list barndoor skates as endangered or
threatened under the ESA and to
designate Georges Bank and other
appropriate areas as critical habitat.
GreenWorld requested that they be
listed immediately, as an emergency
matter, as well as similar looking
species of skates to ensure the
protection of barndoor skates. On April
2, 1999, we received a second petition
from the Center for Marine Conservation
(CMC), now the Ocean Conservancy, to
list barndoor skates as an endangered
species. We considered the second
petition a comment on the first petition
submitted by GreenWorld. On June 23,
1999, after considering all available
information, we published our revised
list of candidate species, which
included barndoor skates (64 FR 33466;
June 23, 1999). In that same month, we
published a finding that the petition
action to list barndoor skates under the
ESA might be warranted (64 FR 33040;
June 21, 1999). We then initiated a
review of the status of the species to
determine if listing barndoor skates
under the ESA was warranted. As part
of that review, we conducted a stock
assessment of the species using the
information published in the SAFE
report. Instead of preparing a separate
stand alone status review document, we
referenced the SAFE report as the best
available data on the status of the
species.
On September 27, 2002, after
reviewing the best scientific and
commercial information available, we
published a determination that listing
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Notices
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
barndoor skates as either threatened or
endangered under the ESA was not
warranted (67 FR 61055; September 27,
2002). Survey data showed an increase
in abundance and biomass, expansion of
known areas where barndoor skates
were encountered, an increase in size
range, as well as an increase in small
barndoor skates collected. These data
are not consistent with a species in
danger of extinction. Furthermore, the
most significant identifiable threat to
the species, overfishing, had been
reduced by regulatory measures
affecting several northeast fisheries. In
addition to the regulatory measures
already in place, NMFS was working at
that time with the New England Fishery
Management Council (NEFMC) to
develop the Skate Fishery Management
Plan (FMP). Due to remaining
uncertainties regarding the status and
population structure of barndoor skates,
NMFS determined that retaining the
species on the agency’s list of candidate
species (subsequently, changed to
species of concern list) was warranted
until additional scientific and
commercial data became available (67
FR 61055; September 27, 2002).
Due to new information available
since 2004, a review was initiated in
2009 to present the best scientific and
commercial data available to investigate
the status of the species relative to the
criteria for remaining a species of
concern. The most recent research on
life history characteristics and
population dynamics of barndoor skates
has revealed that the rebuilding estimate
is more rapid and suggests the species
may be more resilient to exploitation
than previously believed (Barndoor
Skate Internal Status Review, 2009). In
addition, the consistent rise in biomass
as well as the large increase in size
ranges, coupled with management in
other fisheries and the Skate FMP,
supports the continued rebuilding of
barndoor skate stocks. Given the newly
acquired information presented above, it
was determined that barndoor skates no
longer met the criteria for a species of
concern and inclusion on the species of
concern list was no longer warranted.
Thus, the species was removed from the
list in 2009.
Smooth Skate Abundance
The petitioners state that the IUCN
has designated smooth skate as
‘‘endangered’’ throughout their range.
The IUCN assessed smooth skate as
‘‘near threatened’’ in U.S. waters in
2004. The petitioners state that the
NEFSC biomass index for smooth skate
has declined continuously from the
1970s to the 1980s, partially as a result
of mortality from bycatch. They state
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:28 Dec 19, 2011
Jkt 226001
that the autumn survey index has
stabilized at about 25 percent of the
peak observed during the 1970s. The
petitioners state that in 2008, the NEFSC
determined smooth skates to be
overfished but not subject to current
overfishing. They state that the threeyear moving average of the biomass
index declined by over 22 percent
between 2004–2006 and 2005–2007.
The data presented by the petitioners for
the most recent 3-year average biomass
are out of date. In addition, the
petitioners compare this out-dated
information to an ‘‘old’’ reference point
(0.31 kg/tow) and not the updated
biomass target and thresholds which
have been adopted by the Data Poor
Stocks Working Group (DPSWG) and
Amendment 3 to the Skate FMP in 2009.
The 2008 SAFE Report states that the
total annual catch of smooth skate in the
NEFSC spring surveys ranged from 30
fish in 2000 to 71 fish in 2006. The total
annual catch of smooth skates in the
NEFSC autumn surveys ranged from 55
fish in 2000 to 44 fish in 2006. Indices
of smooth skate abundance and biomass
from the NEFSC surveys peaked during
the early 1970s for the spring series and
the late 1970s for the autumn series.
NEFSC survey indices declined during
the 1980s before stabilizing during the
early 1990s at about 25 percent of the
autumn and 50 percent of the spring
survey index values of the 1970s. In
2008, smooth skate was determined to
be overfished (in accordance with the
Northeast Skate Complex Fishery
Management Plan, referred to hereafter
as the Skate FMP) based on the 2007
autumn survey data, because the 3-year
moving average dropped below the
threshold. However, overfishing was not
occurring (as defined by the Skate FMP)
because the consecutive 3-year moving
average of the biomass indices did not
exceed the maximum threshold of 30
percent which, according to the FMP,
defines when overfishing is occurring.
Since 2008, new data has become
available which has changed the
overfished status of the smooth skate
species. The 2008–2010 NEFSC autumn
average biomass index of 0.16 kg/tow is
now above the biomass threshold
reference point (0.145 kg/tow) and thus,
the species is not overfished but is not
yet rebuilt to Bmsy. The 2008–2010
index is above the 2007–2009 index by
22 percent; therefore, overfishing is not
occurring. The biomass target for
smooth skate (0.27 kg/tow) is an order
of magnitude lower than most other
skates in the complex.
The smooth skate’s low relative
abundance in U.S. waters is due to the
fact that its center of abundance appears
to be in Canadian waters (Kulka et al.,
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
78901
2006). The species is not distributed
evenly within its global range (IUCN,
2004). Following declines in the 1970s,
the relative abundance of some of these
population concentrations has increased
significantly in recent years, while
others have been stable or slightly
declining (Kulka et al., 2006). Minimum
estimates of smooth skate abundance in
these regions from Canadian trawl
surveys range from 194,000–23,000,000
fish for 1995–2006, depending on the
selected survey (Kulka et al., 2006).
Winter Skate Abundance
The petitioners state that the IUCN
has designated winter skates as
‘‘endangered’’ throughout their range. A
regional ‘‘vulnerable’’ listing was
recommended for the United States. The
petitioners state that the NEFSC
declared winter skate overfished in
2007. They state that although the most
recent survey indicates that winter skate
are not currently subject to overfishing
as defined in the FMP, the 3-year
moving average of winter skate biomass
index has declined steadily over the
past decade and declined four percent
between 2004–2006 and 2005–2007.
The data presented by the petitioners for
the most recent 3-year average biomass
are 3 years out of date. In addition, the
petitioners reference the old biomass
index reference point (6.46 kg/tow) and
not the updated biomass target and
thresholds adopted by the DPSWG and
Amendment 3 to the Skate FMP in 2009.
The petitioners state that the effects of
the directed take for wings and take as
bait, combined with bycatch mortality
from trawling, have led to a dramatic
decline in the winter skate population,
and state that 62 percent of the New
England population has been lost since
the 1980s.
Unlike thorny and smooth skates, the
winter skate’s center of abundance is in
U.S. waters and they range as far south
as North Carolina. Winter skate is the
target species of the Northeast U.S. skate
wing fishery, representing
approximately 95 percent of skate wing
landings (NEFMC, 2009). The
petitioners incorrectly claim that winter
skate biomass is ‘‘currently only 38
percent of the peak biomass observed
during the 1980’s.’’ Based on survey
data through fall 2010, the biomass of
winter skate is actually at its highest
level since the mid-1980s and well
above its target biomass of 5.60 kg/tow.
The petitioners appear to only reference
survey biomass data through 2007,
when winter skate biomass was
significantly lower. NMFS declared
winter skate overfished in 2007, but a
subsequent stock assessment concluded
that the species had not actually
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
78902
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Notices
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
declined below its biomass threshold
(DPWG, 2009). Winter skate biomass
exceeded its target level of 5.60 kg/tow
in 2009, and is currently at 9.64 kg/tow
(72 percent above the target). Winter
skate is not overfished and overfishing
is not occurring as defined in the Skate
FMP. This stock appears to have rebuilt
despite skate landings being at the
highest levels on record (2008–2010
average annual landings = 20,371 mt).
The fact that this stock has increased in
biomass despite increases in harvest,
and continues to support a viable
fishery, suggests that this species is not
at risk of extinction now or in the
future.
In Canadian waters, winter skate is
primarily a bycatch species. In 2005, the
Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) released
a status assessment on four
‘‘designatable units’’ (DU) of winter
skate. Based primarily on life history
characteristics and the low frequency of
occurrences in catches winter skate,
COSEWIC designated the southern Gulf
of St. Lawrence DU as Endangered, the
eastern Scotian Shelf as Threatened, the
Georges Bank-Western Scotian Shelf/
Bay of Fundy as of ‘‘Special Concern’’
and the Northern Gulf-Newfoundland
population as ‘‘Data Deficient’’ (Swain
et al., 2006).
The 2008 SAFE Report examined the
distribution of winter skate in Canadian
waters using research surveys and
commercial fishery data by Simon et al.
(2003). No trend in abundance was
found in the Georges Bank region, and
the series average was 1.9 million
individuals. Declines were evident in
the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and
on the Scotian Shelf. In recent years, in
addition to fishing mortality, natural
mortality from seal predation has begun
to have an impact on winter skates in
Canada (Benoit et al., 2011).
Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors
for Barndoor, Smooth and Winter
Skates
The petition presents information on
the five ESA factors for all three species,
and the petitioners conclude that all
three species are threatened by direct
and indirect exploitation. The
petitioners state that the life history of
these species, which make them
especially vulnerable to exploitation,
argue even more urgently for the
adoption of strong regulatory
protections provided by the ESA.
The petition makes similar arguments
for all three skate species so they will
all be addressed together first, followed
by species-specific information and
analysis. For all three species, the
petitioners claim that the use of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:28 Dec 19, 2011
Jkt 226001
groundfish trawling gear degrades
benthic habitat structure which affects
the availability of the skate’s prey as
well as the skate’s ability to avoid
predators. This is a very general claim
and no information is presented or
otherwise available to us to indicate that
the prey of barndoor, smooth and/or
winter skate has been affected in such
a manner as to pose a significant threat
to the species. The petitioners further
state that because smooth skates are
prey specialists, they may be even more
sensitive to habitat alteration than other
skates. While this may be true, the
petitioners do not present substantial
information indicating that habitat
degradation has caused or will cause
smooth skate to be threatened or
endangered now or in the future.
Regarding overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific or
educational purposes, the petitioners
claim that landings of all three skate
species have grown since the 1980s and
state that the directed skate take will
likely continue to increase as use of
other groundfish becomes more
restricted and less profitable. This claim
does not take into account that
Amendment 3 to the Skate FMP has set
acceptable biological catch and annual
catch targets. It also does not take into
account that in order to land skates, a
fisher must use a groundfish day-at-sea,
and that there have been effort
reductions in the groundfish fleet under
the Multispecies FMP. Groundfish
permit holders that participate in
sectors operate under sector-specific
catch entitlements. The implications of
reduced fishing activity for groundfish
on the catch of skates have not yet been
analyzed.
The petitioners raise concerns over
the discard mortality rate (the
percentage of skates that die after they
are thrown overboard) which they state
could be as high as 56 percent. Research
on the discard mortality rates of winter,
little, thorny, and smooth skates in
bottom trawl gear is currently being
conducted by Drs. John Mandelman
(New England Aquarium) and James
Sulikowski (University of New England)
(NOAA Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant
Program). Preliminary data provided to
NMFS and the Skate Plan Development
Team (PDT) indicate that discard
mortality rates are significantly lower
than the 50 percent previously assumed
by the NEFSC. Based on new research,
the 2008 to 2010 discard mortality rate
for little and winter skates caught by
trawl gear was reduced from 50 percent
to 20 and 12 percent, respectively. As a
result, the skate discard rate (the
percentage of the total annual catch
represented by dead discards) was
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
reduced from 52 to 36 percent. (NMFS,
2011).
The petitioners further state that as
long as the skate bait and wing fishery
continues to target the smaller little and
winter skates, it will continue to
threaten barndoor and smooth skates as
well. This assumes that the fishery
operates in areas where barndoor and
smooth skate occur; however,
Amendment 3 to the Skate FMP shows
that the bait fishery operates in an area
where mostly little and winter skate
occur, and not barndoor and smooth
skate.
The petitioners state that even a
normal rate of predation could have a
significant impact on the already
depleted barndoor, smooth and winter
skates, and they state that we should
fully consider the risks posed to these
species’ populations from predation in
assessing their status. Similarly, the
petitioners state that we should fully
consider the risks posed to the survival
of these three skates by parasitism in
assessing the status of the three species.
Information presented by the petitioner
and otherwise available to us does not
indicate that any of these three species
of skates are threatened or endangered
due to predation or disease.
Regarding inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, the petitioners
state that because the species-specific
reporting requirements are not being
enforced, the prohibition on landing
and possessing barndoor and smooth
skates is essentially meaningless. The
potential impact of the lack of speciesspecific reporting in the skate fishery on
the survival of barndoor and smooth
skates is overstated. While the historical
lack of species-specific trends in
landings and discards has hampered
stock assessment efforts, recent data
collection efforts have greatly improved
our understanding of the species
composition of the landings. Over the
last several years (2005 to 2010), the
prohibitions on thorny, barndoor, and
smooth skates have been estimated to be
approximately 98 percent effective
(NMFS Northeast Region, unpublished
data). The petitioners argue that the
existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to protect smooth skates;
however, port sampling of skate wing
landings conducted by NMFS indicates
that from 2005–2010 prohibited species
occurred in only approximately two
percent of landings. Of 59,879 skate
wings sampled during this period, only
three wings were identified as smooth
skate (NMFS, unpublished data). The
smooth skate’s small body size makes it
generally non-marketable for the skate
wing fishery, and it is not likely to occur
in bait skate landings because this
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Notices
fishery primarily operates in southern
New England waters, south of the
smooth skate’s range. While bycatch and
discards in the Gulf of Maine may be the
primary source of fishing mortality for
this species in U.S. waters, recent
analyses show that the overlap between
fishing effort and smooth skate
distribution is minimal (NEFMC, 2011).
However, overlap is likely more
prevalent in Canadian waters (Kulka et
al., 2006).
Regarding smooth skates, the
petitioners raise particular concern that
the prohibition on landing smooth
skates is limited to the Gulf of Maine
Regulated Mesh Area, which only
covers the Gulf of Maine. While this is
true, it is appropriate because the vast
majority of the U.S. smooth skate
biomass is within the Gulf of Maine
Regulated Mesh Area. Finally, the
petitioners raise concern that the FMP
only requires vessels to report discarded
skate by size category of small or large.
The statement is correct for Vessel Trip
Reports (VTRs). For the purposes of
VTRs, vessels only report the weights of
large and small skates discarded.
However, VTR data are not used to
estimate the magnitude or species
composition of skate discards. This is
done using at-sea observer data to
estimate discard/kept ratios. Species
composition of discards is estimated
through the NMFS stock assessment
process, and combines observer and
trawl survey data for accurate discard
information.
In Canada, when the skate fishery first
occurred in 1994, winter skate
constituted the majority of skates caught
(over 2,000 mt). In Canada, winter skate
landings are under quota control in the
Scotian Shelf (the only directed fishery
in the Northwest Atlantic). The total
allowable catch was reduced from 2000
mt in 1994 to 300 mt in 2001 and 200
mt in 2002 (DFO 2007). This fishery was
closed in April 2006 to protect the
winter skate population.
Regarding other natural or manmade
factors affecting the continued existence
of barndoor, smooth, and winter skates,
the petitioners note that the life history
characteristics of large skates make them
especially vulnerable to exploitation.
They state that because of their life
history characteristics, these skates are
not likely to recover quickly from their
current low levels and are more
susceptible to exploitation. The
petitioners do not present substantial
information to indicate why or how
these factors result in the species
possibly warranting listing as either
threatened or endangered.
As noted above, we conducted a
review of the status of barndoor skate in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:28 Dec 19, 2011
Jkt 226001
2009 and concluded that the most
recent research on life history
characteristics and population dynamics
of barndoor skates illustrated a more
rapid rebuilding estimate and suggested
that the species may be more resilient to
exploitation than previously believed.
In addition, the consistent rise in
biomass and large increase in size
ranges, coupled with the management
measures in other fisheries and the
Skate FMP, support the continued
rebuilding of barndoor skate stocks. The
2008–2010 NEFSC autumn average
survey biomass index of 1.11 kg/tow is
above the biomass threshold reference
point (0.81 kg/tow) and thus, the species
is not overfished but is not yet rebuilt
to Bmsy. The 2008–2010 index is above
the 2007–2009 index by 10 percent;
therefore, overfishing is not occurring.
Consequently, the information available
to us since our 2009 decision to remove
barndoor skate from the species of
concern list, and that which is
presented by the petitioners, does not
indicate that the petitioned action for
barndoor skates may be warranted.
The petitioners cite one study which
they state linked the recent decline in
smooth skate abundance with a decrease
in water temperature (resulting from
climate change), but note that no
corresponding recovery has been
observed with an ensuing increase in
water temperature. They state that this
observation suggests that the smooth
skate population may be adversely
affected by climate change. For smooth
skate, the 2008–2010 NEFSC autumn
average biomass index of 0.16 kg/tow is
above the biomass threshold reference
point (0.145 kg/tow) and thus, the
species is not overfished but is not yet
rebuilt to Bmsy. The 2008–2010 index is
above the 2007–2009 index by 22
percent; therefore, overfishing is not
occurring. While the species may be
impacted by climate change, the fact
that it is not currently overfished,
overfishing is not occurring, and the
biomass is increasing, does not indicate
that climate change or other factors are
causing the species to be threatened or
endangered. We conclude that the
available information does not indicate
that the petitioned action may be
warranted for smooth skates.
For winter skate, the 2008–2010
NEFSC autumn average biomass index
of 9.64 kg/tow is above both the biomass
threshold reference point (2.80 kg/tow)
and the Bmsy proxy (5.60 kg/tow), and
thus, the species is not overfished and
is above Bmsy. The 2008–2010 average
index is above the 2007–2009 index by
18 percent; therefore, overfishing is not
occurring. Given that the winter skate
biomass indices exceed the biological
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
78903
reference point, this species is
considered rebuilt, despite the
occurrence of a directed fishery. The
fact that the species has rebuilt under
existing regulatory mechanisms does
not support the petitioners claim that it
is threatened or endangered due to
direct and indirect exploitation or
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms for fishing. We conclude
that the available information does not
indicate that the petitioned action may
be warranted for winter skates.
Conclusion
The use of groundfish trawling gear
was posed by the petitioners as
degrading benthic habitat structure and
affecting the availability of the skate’s
prey as well as the skate’s ability to
avoid predators; however, current
information was not presented, nor was
it available in our files, to indicate that
this gear is currently having significant
impacts on the skates or will in the
foreseeable future. Although the
petitioners claim that overutilization of
skates for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or education purposes in the
form of direct and indirect exploitation
requires that the species be listed under
the ESA, available information indicates
that overfishing is not currently
occurring in any of the skate species.
The petitioners cite out of date data, but
these data have since been updated and
indicate that the skates are not in danger
of extinction or likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future. In
addition, available information on
disease and predation on skates is
limited, and the petitioners do not
present substantial information
indicating that the petitioned actions of
listing the skates under the ESA due to
disease or predation may be warranted
at this time. Regarding inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms, the
petitioners state that because the
species-specific reporting requirements
are not being enforced, the prohibition
on landing and possessing barndoor and
smooth skates is essentially
meaningless. However, recent data show
the prohibitions on barndoor and
smooth skates have been estimated to be
approximately 98 percent effective, and
prohibited species occurred in only
approximately 2 percent of landings
from 2005–2010. In addition, current
NMFS regulations have been adequate
to prevent overfishing for all three skate
species in the United States. With
regards to other natural or manmade
factors affecting the continued existence
of barndoor, smooth and winter skates,
the petitioners note that the life history
characteristics of large skates make them
especially vulnerable to exploitation as
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
78904
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 / Notices
Dated: December 14, 2011.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
meetings and public hearings
comprising the Pacific Council’s
complete schedule of events for
determining the annual proposed and
final modifications to ocean salmon
fishery management measures. The
agendas for the March and April 2012
Pacific Council meetings will be
published in subsequent Federal
Register documents prior to the actual
meetings.
DATES: Written comments on the salmon
management alternatives must be
received by 11:59 p.m. Pacific Time,
March 26, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Documents will be available
from, and written comments should be
sent to, Mr. Dan Wolford, Chairman,
Pacific Fishery Management Council,
7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101,
Portland, OR 97220–1384, telephone:
(503) 820–2280 (voice) or (503) 820–
2299 (fax). Comments can also be
submitted via email at
PFMC.comments@noaa.gov address, or
through the internet at the Federal
Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments,
and include the I.D. number in the
subject line of the message. For specific
meeting and hearing locations, see
supplementary information.
Council address: Pacific Fishery
Management Council, 7700 NE
Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland,
OR 97220.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Chuck Tracy, telephone: (503) 820–
2280.
[FR Doc. 2011–32530 Filed 12–19–11; 8:45 am]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
Schedule for Document Completion and
Availability
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
February 16, 2012: ‘‘Review of 2011
Ocean Salmon Fisheries’’ will be mailed
to the public and posted on the Council
Web site at https://www.pcouncil.org.
March 1, 2012: ‘‘Preseason Report IStock Abundance Analysis and
Environmental Assessment Part 1 for
2012 Ocean Salmon Fishery
Regulations’’ will be mailed to the
public and posted on the Council Web
site at https://www.pcouncil.org.
March 22, 2012: ‘‘Preseason Report IIProposed Alternatives and
Environmental Assessment Part 2 for
2012 Ocean Salmon Fishery
Regulations’’ and public hearing
schedule will be mailed to the public
and posted on the Council Web site at
https://www.pcouncil.org. The report
will include a description of the
adopted salmon management
alternatives and a summary of their
biological and economic impacts.
does climate change. However, given
the rapid rebuilding of the barndoor
skate, the rebuilt population of the
winter skate, and the lack of available
information on climate impacts on
smooth skate abundance, available
information does not indicate that life
history characteristics or climate change
pose a significant threat to the skate
species. Because we have concluded
that the petitioned action to list
barndoor, winter and/or smooth skates
is not warranted, we do not need to
designate critical habitat or consider the
need to list other skate species on the
basis of similarity of appearance, as
requested by the petitioner.
Petition Finding
Based on the above information and
the criteria specified in 50 CFR
424.14(b)(2), after reviewing the
information contained in the petition
and information readily available in our
files, we conclude that the petition fails
to present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action concerning
barndoor, smooth and/or winter skate
may be warranted.
References Cited
A complete list of the references used
in this finding is available upon request
(see ADDRESSES).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XA878
Pacific Fishery Management Council;
Public Meetings and Hearings
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability of reports;
public meetings, and hearings.
AGENCY:
The Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Pacific Council)
has begun its annual preseason
management process for the 2012 ocean
salmon fisheries. This document
announces the availability of Pacific
Council documents as well as the dates
and locations of Pacific Council
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:28 Dec 19, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
April 20, 2012: ‘‘Preseason Report IIIAnalysis of Council-Adopted Ocean
Salmon Management Measures for 2011
Ocean Salmon Fisheries’’ will be mailed
to the public and posted on the Council
Web site at https://www.pcouncil.org.
May 1, 2012: Federal regulations for
2012 ocean salmon regulations will be
published in the Federal Register and
implemented.
Meetings and Hearings
January 17–20, 2012: The Salmon
Technical Team (STT) will meet at the
Pacific Council office in a public work
session to draft ‘‘Review of 2011 Ocean
Salmon Fisheries’’ and to consider any
other estimation or methodology issues
pertinent to the 2012 ocean salmon
fisheries.
February 21–24, 2012: The STT will
meet at the Pacific Council office in a
public work session to draft ‘‘Preseason
Report I-Stock Abundance Analysis and
Environmental Assessment Part 1 for
2012 Ocean Salmon Fishery
Regulations’’ and to consider any other
estimation or methodology issues
pertinent to the 2012 ocean salmon
fisheries.
March 26–27, 2012: Public hearings
will be held to receive comments on the
proposed ocean salmon fishery
management options adopted by the
Pacific Council. Written comments
received at the public hearings, and a
summary of oral comments at the
hearings will be provided to the Council
at its April meeting.
All public hearings begin at 7 p.m. at
the following locations:
March 26, 2012: Chateau Westport,
Beach Room, 710 W Hancock, Westport,
WA 98595, telephone: (360) 268–9101.
March 26, 2012: Red Lion Hotel,
Umpqua Room, 1313 N Bayshore Drive,
Coos Bay, OR 97420, telephone: (541)
267–4141.
March 27, 2012: Red Lion Eureka,
Evergreen Room, 1929 Fourth Street,
Eureka, CA 95501, telephone: (707)
445–0844.
Although non-emergency issues not
contained in the STT meeting agendas
may come before the STT for
discussion, those issues may not be the
subject of formal STT action during
these meetings. STT action will be
restricted to those issues specifically
listed in this document and to any
issues arising after publication of this
document requiring emergency action
under Section 305(c) of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, provided the public
has been notified of the STT’s intent to
take final action to address the
emergency.
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78898-78904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32530]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 111205721-1719-01]
RIN 0648-XA741
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on Petition To
List the Barndoor Skate, Winter Skate and Smooth Skate Under the
Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding for a petition to list the
[[Page 78899]]
barndoor skate (Dipturus laevis), winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) and
smooth skate (Malacoraja senta) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
We find that the petition does not present substantial scientific
information indicating the petitioned actions may be warranted.
Accordingly, we will not initiate a review of the status of these
species at this time.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Damon-Randall, NMFS, Northeast
Regional Office (978) 282-8485 or Maggie Miller, NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources (301) 427-8403. The petition is available
electronically at the NMFS Web site at https://www.nero.noaa.gov/prot_res/CandidateSpeciesProgram/csr.htm. A list of references is available
upon request.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 22, 2011, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians
and Friends of Animals (the petitioners) requesting that we list thorny
skate, barndoor skate, winter skate and smooth skate as threatened or
endangered. In the alternative, the petitioners request that we list
any and all distinct population segments (DPSs) of these species that
may exist, and in particular the petitioners requested that we list the
United States population of thorny skate as a threatened or endangered
DPS.
The joint USFWS/NMFS petition management handbook (https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/petition_management.pdf) states that if
we receive two petitions for the same species and a 90-day finding has
not yet been made on the earlier petition, then the later petition will
be combined with the earlier petition and a combined 90-day finding
will be prepared. When we received the petition from WildEarth
Guardians and Friends of Animals, we had already received a petition
from the Animal Welfare Institute for thorny skate. Therefore, we
combined the petitions for thorny skate and issued a single 90-day
finding addressing both petitions for that species. Given that, this
90-day finding will address the remaining three skate species included
in the petition from WildEarth Guardians and Friends of Animals. The
petitioners state that there can be no reasonable dispute that the
available information, in particular the International Union for
Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) assessment that each of the petitioned
species is ``Critically Endangered'' or ``Endangered,'' indicates that
listing these skates as either threatened or endangered may be
warranted.
ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy Considerations
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires
that we make a finding as to whether a petition to list, delist, or
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. ESA
implementing regulations define substantial information as the amount
of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may be warranted (50 CFR
424.14(b)(1)). In determining whether substantial information exists
for a petition to list a species, we take into account several factors,
including information submitted with, and referenced in, the petition
and all other information readily available in our files. To the
maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days
of the receipt of the petition (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)), and the
finding is to be published promptly in the Federal Register. If we find
that the petition presents substantial information indicating that the
requested action may be warranted, section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA
requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to conduct a status
review of the species. Section 4(b)(3)(B) requires the Secretary to
make a finding as to whether or not the petitioned action is warranted
within 12 months of the receipt of the petition. The Secretary has
delegated authority for these actions to the NOAA Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries.
To be considered for listing under the ESA, a group of organisms
must constitute a ``species,'' which is defined to also include
subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any DPS that interbreeds
when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). On February 7, 1996, NMFS and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (collectively, the ``Services'') adopted
a policy to clarify their interpretation of the phrase ``distinct
population segment of any species of vertebrate fish and wildlife'' (61
FR 4722). The joint DPS policy describes two criteria that must be
considered when identifying DPSs: (1) The discreteness of the
population segment in relation to the remainder of the species (or
subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the
population segment to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to
which it belongs. As further stated in the joint policy, if a
population segment is discrete and significant (i.e., it is a DPS), its
evaluation for endangered or threatened status will be based on the
ESA's definitions of those terms and a review of the five factors
enumerated in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
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 ``threatened'' if it is ``likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range'' (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16
U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a species
may be determined to be threatened or endangered as a result of any one
of the following factors: (A) Present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (B) overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
Many petitions, such as this one, identify risk classifications
made by other organizations or agencies, such as the IUCN, the American
Fisheries Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a
species. Risk classifications by other organizations or made under
other Federal or State statutes may be informative, but the
classification alone may not provide the rationale for a positive 90-
day finding under the ESA. Thus, when a petition cites such
classifications, we will evaluate the source information that the
classification is based upon, in light of the standards on extinction
risk and impacts or threats discussed above.
Species Description
Barndoor skate are found in the Northwest Atlantic in the Gulf of
St. Lawrence, Gulf of Maine and as far south as North Carolina. They
are most abundant in offshore Gulf of Maine (Canadian waters), offshore
Georges Bank, and Southern New England waters, with very few documented
in inshore waters or in the Mid-Atlantic Region (New England Fisheries
Management Council (NEFMC), 2009). Minimum length of barndoor skate
caught in the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) surveys is 20
cm total length (TL) (8 in) and the largest individual caught was 136
cm TL (54 in). It has a broad body with pointed fins and snout and a
relatively short tail with three rows of spines. Its primary
distinguishing feature is a dark line that extends from the snout to
the base of the tail. It has been estimated that barndoor skate reach
maturity at 6-7 years of age.
[[Page 78900]]
Smooth skate occur from the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Labrador
shelf to as far south as South Carolina in the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean. They are most abundant inshore and offshore Gulf of Maine and
along the 100 fathom edge of Georges Bank, with very few documented in
Southern New England or the Mid Atlantic (NEFMC, 2009). They are found
in water depths of 45 to 900 m. The median length of smooth skate in
the survey catch shows no trend over the full survey time series and is
currently at about 40 cm TL (16 in). It has been estimated that they
reach sexual maturity as early as 5 years old but possibly as late as 8
to 10 years. The distinctive feature of smooth skate is an irregular
row of small thorns which run along its back and along the first half
of its tail.
Winter skate occur from the south coast of Newfoundland and the
southern Gulf of St. Lawrence to Cape Hatteras. They are most abundant
inshore and offshore Georges Bank and Southern New England with lesser
amounts in the Gulf of Maine or the Mid-Atlantic (NEFMC, 2009). They
are found in water depths up to 90 m. Median length of winter skates
increased from the mid 1990s through 2002 and then declined slightly to
about 45 to 52 cm TL (18-20 in). The age at maturity is estimated at 7
years. The snout and pectoral fins of the winter skate are blunt and
rounded. Other common names for winter skate include big skate, spotted
skate and eyed skate.
Analysis of Petition and Information Readily Available in NMFS Files
In the following sections, we present information from the petition
and readily available in our files to determine whether this
information leads a reasonable person to conclude that listing under
the ESA may be warranted due to any one or more of the factors listed
under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. A separate discussion is included for
each of the three skate species included in the petition.
Abundance
The petition presents limited information on abundance of the skate
species. It cites the IUCN classifications and places a great deal of
weight on these. Additional information on biomass is contained in the
discussion of the second ESA factor, overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific or educational purposes, for each of the three
species.
Barndoor Skate Abundance
The petition states that the IUCN lists barndoor skates as
``endangered'' throughout their range. The petitioners state that the
biomass of barndoor skates declined throughout their range by 96-99
percent from the 1960s to the 1990s, most likely as a result of
mortality as bycatch. They state that the population has experienced a
slight increase in recent years and that the NEFSC has therefore
concluded that it is neither overfished, nor experiencing overfishing.
They state that although the potential increase gives conservationists
some reason to be optimistic, researchers have suggested that it is
difficult to tell whether the data demonstrate actual population
resurgence. The petitioners cite a reference from the year 2000 for
this information; however, since 2000, additional data has become
available from both the NEFSC Spring and Autumn Bottom Trawl surveys
that show that the population has continued to increase. The
petitioners also state that while the barndoor skate is not overfished
and not experiencing overfishing (according to the 2008 NEFSC survey),
the 2005 biomass index is still 50 percent of the peak biomass observed
during the 1960s when the species was first surveyed. In addition, the
petitioners note that the average biomass index of barndoor skate is
well below the target biomass index established by the NEFSC.
The 2008 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report
states that in the NEFSC spring survey (1968-2006), the annual total
catch of barndoor skate ranged from 0 fish (several years during the
1970s and 1980s) to 196 fish in 2006. The NEFSC autumn survey (1963-
2005) exhibited a similar increasing trend. Recent spring catches
equated to 0.6 fish or 1.7 kg per tow in 2006 and recent autumn catches
equated to 0.4 fish or 1.0 kg per tow in 2005. The 2008 SAFE Report
states that, given this data, barndoor skate appear to be in a
rebuilding phase that began in the 1990s. Since 1990, both spring and
autumn survey indices have steadily increased, with the spring survey
at the highest value in the time series and the autumn survey nearing
the peak values found in the 1960s. In 2007, the NEFSC autumn survey
showed a decline in biomass which reduced the 3-year moving average;
however, it remains above the biomass threshold and thus, the barndoor
skate is not considered to be overfished. In fact, the survey biomass
index for barndoor skate has been above the overfished biomass
threshold since 2004. The 2008-2010 NEFSC autumn average survey biomass
index of 1.11 kg/tow is above the biomass threshold reference point
(0.81 kg/tow), and thus, the species is not overfished but is not yet
rebuilt to biomass at maximum sustainable yield (Bmsy). The 2008-2010
average index is above the 2007-2009 index by ten percent; therefore,
as indicated previously, overfishing is not occurring. In addition,
recent catches of barndoor skate include individuals as large as those
recorded during the peak abundance of the 1960s, and recent survey data
show an increase in the number of fish between 40 and 80 cm TL, common
lengths during the 1960s (NEFMC, 2009).
Previous ESA Action for Barndoor Skate
On January 15, 1999, we published in the Federal Register a
notification soliciting comments and reliable documentation on species
we were considering adding to the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
candidate species list (64 FR 2629; January 15, 1999). In that
publication, we listed barndoor skates (Dipturus laevis) as one of the
species under consideration. On March 4, 1999, we received a petition
from GreenWorld to list barndoor skates as endangered or threatened
under the ESA and to designate Georges Bank and other appropriate areas
as critical habitat. GreenWorld requested that they be listed
immediately, as an emergency matter, as well as similar looking species
of skates to ensure the protection of barndoor skates. On April 2,
1999, we received a second petition from the Center for Marine
Conservation (CMC), now the Ocean Conservancy, to list barndoor skates
as an endangered species. We considered the second petition a comment
on the first petition submitted by GreenWorld. On June 23, 1999, after
considering all available information, we published our revised list of
candidate species, which included barndoor skates (64 FR 33466; June
23, 1999). In that same month, we published a finding that the petition
action to list barndoor skates under the ESA might be warranted (64 FR
33040; June 21, 1999). We then initiated a review of the status of the
species to determine if listing barndoor skates under the ESA was
warranted. As part of that review, we conducted a stock assessment of
the species using the information published in the SAFE report. Instead
of preparing a separate stand alone status review document, we
referenced the SAFE report as the best available data on the status of
the species.
On September 27, 2002, after reviewing the best scientific and
commercial information available, we published a determination that
listing
[[Page 78901]]
barndoor skates as either threatened or endangered under the ESA was
not warranted (67 FR 61055; September 27, 2002). Survey data showed an
increase in abundance and biomass, expansion of known areas where
barndoor skates were encountered, an increase in size range, as well as
an increase in small barndoor skates collected. These data are not
consistent with a species in danger of extinction. Furthermore, the
most significant identifiable threat to the species, overfishing, had
been reduced by regulatory measures affecting several northeast
fisheries. In addition to the regulatory measures already in place,
NMFS was working at that time with the New England Fishery Management
Council (NEFMC) to develop the Skate Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Due
to remaining uncertainties regarding the status and population
structure of barndoor skates, NMFS determined that retaining the
species on the agency's list of candidate species (subsequently,
changed to species of concern list) was warranted until additional
scientific and commercial data became available (67 FR 61055; September
27, 2002).
Due to new information available since 2004, a review was initiated
in 2009 to present the best scientific and commercial data available to
investigate the status of the species relative to the criteria for
remaining a species of concern. The most recent research on life
history characteristics and population dynamics of barndoor skates has
revealed that the rebuilding estimate is more rapid and suggests the
species may be more resilient to exploitation than previously believed
(Barndoor Skate Internal Status Review, 2009). In addition, the
consistent rise in biomass as well as the large increase in size
ranges, coupled with management in other fisheries and the Skate FMP,
supports the continued rebuilding of barndoor skate stocks. Given the
newly acquired information presented above, it was determined that
barndoor skates no longer met the criteria for a species of concern and
inclusion on the species of concern list was no longer warranted. Thus,
the species was removed from the list in 2009.
Smooth Skate Abundance
The petitioners state that the IUCN has designated smooth skate as
``endangered'' throughout their range. The IUCN assessed smooth skate
as ``near threatened'' in U.S. waters in 2004. The petitioners state
that the NEFSC biomass index for smooth skate has declined continuously
from the 1970s to the 1980s, partially as a result of mortality from
bycatch. They state that the autumn survey index has stabilized at
about 25 percent of the peak observed during the 1970s. The petitioners
state that in 2008, the NEFSC determined smooth skates to be overfished
but not subject to current overfishing. They state that the three-year
moving average of the biomass index declined by over 22 percent between
2004-2006 and 2005-2007. The data presented by the petitioners for the
most recent 3-year average biomass are out of date. In addition, the
petitioners compare this out-dated information to an ``old'' reference
point (0.31 kg/tow) and not the updated biomass target and thresholds
which have been adopted by the Data Poor Stocks Working Group (DPSWG)
and Amendment 3 to the Skate FMP in 2009.
The 2008 SAFE Report states that the total annual catch of smooth
skate in the NEFSC spring surveys ranged from 30 fish in 2000 to 71
fish in 2006. The total annual catch of smooth skates in the NEFSC
autumn surveys ranged from 55 fish in 2000 to 44 fish in 2006. Indices
of smooth skate abundance and biomass from the NEFSC surveys peaked
during the early 1970s for the spring series and the late 1970s for the
autumn series. NEFSC survey indices declined during the 1980s before
stabilizing during the early 1990s at about 25 percent of the autumn
and 50 percent of the spring survey index values of the 1970s. In 2008,
smooth skate was determined to be overfished (in accordance with the
Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan, referred to hereafter
as the Skate FMP) based on the 2007 autumn survey data, because the 3-
year moving average dropped below the threshold. However, overfishing
was not occurring (as defined by the Skate FMP) because the consecutive
3-year moving average of the biomass indices did not exceed the maximum
threshold of 30 percent which, according to the FMP, defines when
overfishing is occurring. Since 2008, new data has become available
which has changed the overfished status of the smooth skate species.
The 2008-2010 NEFSC autumn average biomass index of 0.16 kg/tow is now
above the biomass threshold reference point (0.145 kg/tow) and thus,
the species is not overfished but is not yet rebuilt to Bmsy. The 2008-
2010 index is above the 2007-2009 index by 22 percent; therefore,
overfishing is not occurring. The biomass target for smooth skate (0.27
kg/tow) is an order of magnitude lower than most other skates in the
complex.
The smooth skate's low relative abundance in U.S. waters is due to
the fact that its center of abundance appears to be in Canadian waters
(Kulka et al., 2006). The species is not distributed evenly within its
global range (IUCN, 2004). Following declines in the 1970s, the
relative abundance of some of these population concentrations has
increased significantly in recent years, while others have been stable
or slightly declining (Kulka et al., 2006). Minimum estimates of smooth
skate abundance in these regions from Canadian trawl surveys range from
194,000-23,000,000 fish for 1995-2006, depending on the selected survey
(Kulka et al., 2006).
Winter Skate Abundance
The petitioners state that the IUCN has designated winter skates as
``endangered'' throughout their range. A regional ``vulnerable''
listing was recommended for the United States. The petitioners state
that the NEFSC declared winter skate overfished in 2007. They state
that although the most recent survey indicates that winter skate are
not currently subject to overfishing as defined in the FMP, the 3-year
moving average of winter skate biomass index has declined steadily over
the past decade and declined four percent between 2004-2006 and 2005-
2007. The data presented by the petitioners for the most recent 3-year
average biomass are 3 years out of date. In addition, the petitioners
reference the old biomass index reference point (6.46 kg/tow) and not
the updated biomass target and thresholds adopted by the DPSWG and
Amendment 3 to the Skate FMP in 2009. The petitioners state that the
effects of the directed take for wings and take as bait, combined with
bycatch mortality from trawling, have led to a dramatic decline in the
winter skate population, and state that 62 percent of the New England
population has been lost since the 1980s.
Unlike thorny and smooth skates, the winter skate's center of
abundance is in U.S. waters and they range as far south as North
Carolina. Winter skate is the target species of the Northeast U.S.
skate wing fishery, representing approximately 95 percent of skate wing
landings (NEFMC, 2009). The petitioners incorrectly claim that winter
skate biomass is ``currently only 38 percent of the peak biomass
observed during the 1980's.'' Based on survey data through fall 2010,
the biomass of winter skate is actually at its highest level since the
mid-1980s and well above its target biomass of 5.60 kg/tow. The
petitioners appear to only reference survey biomass data through 2007,
when winter skate biomass was significantly lower. NMFS declared winter
skate overfished in 2007, but a subsequent stock assessment concluded
that the species had not actually
[[Page 78902]]
declined below its biomass threshold (DPWG, 2009). Winter skate biomass
exceeded its target level of 5.60 kg/tow in 2009, and is currently at
9.64 kg/tow (72 percent above the target). Winter skate is not
overfished and overfishing is not occurring as defined in the Skate
FMP. This stock appears to have rebuilt despite skate landings being at
the highest levels on record (2008-2010 average annual landings =
20,371 mt). The fact that this stock has increased in biomass despite
increases in harvest, and continues to support a viable fishery,
suggests that this species is not at risk of extinction now or in the
future.
In Canadian waters, winter skate is primarily a bycatch species. In
2005, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
(COSEWIC) released a status assessment on four ``designatable units''
(DU) of winter skate. Based primarily on life history characteristics
and the low frequency of occurrences in catches winter skate, COSEWIC
designated the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence DU as Endangered, the
eastern Scotian Shelf as Threatened, the Georges Bank-Western Scotian
Shelf/Bay of Fundy as of ``Special Concern'' and the Northern Gulf-
Newfoundland population as ``Data Deficient'' (Swain et al., 2006).
The 2008 SAFE Report examined the distribution of winter skate in
Canadian waters using research surveys and commercial fishery data by
Simon et al. (2003). No trend in abundance was found in the Georges
Bank region, and the series average was 1.9 million individuals.
Declines were evident in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and on the
Scotian Shelf. In recent years, in addition to fishing mortality,
natural mortality from seal predation has begun to have an impact on
winter skates in Canada (Benoit et al., 2011).
Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors for Barndoor, Smooth and
Winter Skates
The petition presents information on the five ESA factors for all
three species, and the petitioners conclude that all three species are
threatened by direct and indirect exploitation. The petitioners state
that the life history of these species, which make them especially
vulnerable to exploitation, argue even more urgently for the adoption
of strong regulatory protections provided by the ESA.
The petition makes similar arguments for all three skate species so
they will all be addressed together first, followed by species-specific
information and analysis. For all three species, the petitioners claim
that the use of groundfish trawling gear degrades benthic habitat
structure which affects the availability of the skate's prey as well as
the skate's ability to avoid predators. This is a very general claim
and no information is presented or otherwise available to us to
indicate that the prey of barndoor, smooth and/or winter skate has been
affected in such a manner as to pose a significant threat to the
species. The petitioners further state that because smooth skates are
prey specialists, they may be even more sensitive to habitat alteration
than other skates. While this may be true, the petitioners do not
present substantial information indicating that habitat degradation has
caused or will cause smooth skate to be threatened or endangered now or
in the future.
Regarding overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific
or educational purposes, the petitioners claim that landings of all
three skate species have grown since the 1980s and state that the
directed skate take will likely continue to increase as use of other
groundfish becomes more restricted and less profitable. This claim does
not take into account that Amendment 3 to the Skate FMP has set
acceptable biological catch and annual catch targets. It also does not
take into account that in order to land skates, a fisher must use a
groundfish day-at-sea, and that there have been effort reductions in
the groundfish fleet under the Multispecies FMP. Groundfish permit
holders that participate in sectors operate under sector-specific catch
entitlements. The implications of reduced fishing activity for
groundfish on the catch of skates have not yet been analyzed.
The petitioners raise concerns over the discard mortality rate (the
percentage of skates that die after they are thrown overboard) which
they state could be as high as 56 percent. Research on the discard
mortality rates of winter, little, thorny, and smooth skates in bottom
trawl gear is currently being conducted by Drs. John Mandelman (New
England Aquarium) and James Sulikowski (University of New England)
(NOAA Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program). Preliminary data provided to
NMFS and the Skate Plan Development Team (PDT) indicate that discard
mortality rates are significantly lower than the 50 percent previously
assumed by the NEFSC. Based on new research, the 2008 to 2010 discard
mortality rate for little and winter skates caught by trawl gear was
reduced from 50 percent to 20 and 12 percent, respectively. As a
result, the skate discard rate (the percentage of the total annual
catch represented by dead discards) was reduced from 52 to 36 percent.
(NMFS, 2011).
The petitioners further state that as long as the skate bait and
wing fishery continues to target the smaller little and winter skates,
it will continue to threaten barndoor and smooth skates as well. This
assumes that the fishery operates in areas where barndoor and smooth
skate occur; however, Amendment 3 to the Skate FMP shows that the bait
fishery operates in an area where mostly little and winter skate occur,
and not barndoor and smooth skate.
The petitioners state that even a normal rate of predation could
have a significant impact on the already depleted barndoor, smooth and
winter skates, and they state that we should fully consider the risks
posed to these species' populations from predation in assessing their
status. Similarly, the petitioners state that we should fully consider
the risks posed to the survival of these three skates by parasitism in
assessing the status of the three species. Information presented by the
petitioner and otherwise available to us does not indicate that any of
these three species of skates are threatened or endangered due to
predation or disease.
Regarding inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, the
petitioners state that because the species-specific reporting
requirements are not being enforced, the prohibition on landing and
possessing barndoor and smooth skates is essentially meaningless. The
potential impact of the lack of species-specific reporting in the skate
fishery on the survival of barndoor and smooth skates is overstated.
While the historical lack of species-specific trends in landings and
discards has hampered stock assessment efforts, recent data collection
efforts have greatly improved our understanding of the species
composition of the landings. Over the last several years (2005 to
2010), the prohibitions on thorny, barndoor, and smooth skates have
been estimated to be approximately 98 percent effective (NMFS Northeast
Region, unpublished data). The petitioners argue that the existing
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect smooth skates; however,
port sampling of skate wing landings conducted by NMFS indicates that
from 2005-2010 prohibited species occurred in only approximately two
percent of landings. Of 59,879 skate wings sampled during this period,
only three wings were identified as smooth skate (NMFS, unpublished
data). The smooth skate's small body size makes it generally non-
marketable for the skate wing fishery, and it is not likely to occur in
bait skate landings because this
[[Page 78903]]
fishery primarily operates in southern New England waters, south of the
smooth skate's range. While bycatch and discards in the Gulf of Maine
may be the primary source of fishing mortality for this species in U.S.
waters, recent analyses show that the overlap between fishing effort
and smooth skate distribution is minimal (NEFMC, 2011). However,
overlap is likely more prevalent in Canadian waters (Kulka et al.,
2006).
Regarding smooth skates, the petitioners raise particular concern
that the prohibition on landing smooth skates is limited to the Gulf of
Maine Regulated Mesh Area, which only covers the Gulf of Maine. While
this is true, it is appropriate because the vast majority of the U.S.
smooth skate biomass is within the Gulf of Maine Regulated Mesh Area.
Finally, the petitioners raise concern that the FMP only requires
vessels to report discarded skate by size category of small or large.
The statement is correct for Vessel Trip Reports (VTRs). For the
purposes of VTRs, vessels only report the weights of large and small
skates discarded. However, VTR data are not used to estimate the
magnitude or species composition of skate discards. This is done using
at-sea observer data to estimate discard/kept ratios. Species
composition of discards is estimated through the NMFS stock assessment
process, and combines observer and trawl survey data for accurate
discard information.
In Canada, when the skate fishery first occurred in 1994, winter
skate constituted the majority of skates caught (over 2,000 mt). In
Canada, winter skate landings are under quota control in the Scotian
Shelf (the only directed fishery in the Northwest Atlantic). The total
allowable catch was reduced from 2000 mt in 1994 to 300 mt in 2001 and
200 mt in 2002 (DFO 2007). This fishery was closed in April 2006 to
protect the winter skate population.
Regarding other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued
existence of barndoor, smooth, and winter skates, the petitioners note
that the life history characteristics of large skates make them
especially vulnerable to exploitation. They state that because of their
life history characteristics, these skates are not likely to recover
quickly from their current low levels and are more susceptible to
exploitation. The petitioners do not present substantial information to
indicate why or how these factors result in the species possibly
warranting listing as either threatened or endangered.
As noted above, we conducted a review of the status of barndoor
skate in 2009 and concluded that the most recent research on life
history characteristics and population dynamics of barndoor skates
illustrated a more rapid rebuilding estimate and suggested that the
species may be more resilient to exploitation than previously believed.
In addition, the consistent rise in biomass and large increase in size
ranges, coupled with the management measures in other fisheries and the
Skate FMP, support the continued rebuilding of barndoor skate stocks.
The 2008-2010 NEFSC autumn average survey biomass index of 1.11 kg/tow
is above the biomass threshold reference point (0.81 kg/tow) and thus,
the species is not overfished but is not yet rebuilt to Bmsy. The 2008-
2010 index is above the 2007-2009 index by 10 percent; therefore,
overfishing is not occurring. Consequently, the information available
to us since our 2009 decision to remove barndoor skate from the species
of concern list, and that which is presented by the petitioners, does
not indicate that the petitioned action for barndoor skates may be
warranted.
The petitioners cite one study which they state linked the recent
decline in smooth skate abundance with a decrease in water temperature
(resulting from climate change), but note that no corresponding
recovery has been observed with an ensuing increase in water
temperature. They state that this observation suggests that the smooth
skate population may be adversely affected by climate change. For
smooth skate, the 2008-2010 NEFSC autumn average biomass index of 0.16
kg/tow is above the biomass threshold reference point (0.145 kg/tow)
and thus, the species is not overfished but is not yet rebuilt to Bmsy.
The 2008-2010 index is above the 2007-2009 index by 22 percent;
therefore, overfishing is not occurring. While the species may be
impacted by climate change, the fact that it is not currently
overfished, overfishing is not occurring, and the biomass is
increasing, does not indicate that climate change or other factors are
causing the species to be threatened or endangered. We conclude that
the available information does not indicate that the petitioned action
may be warranted for smooth skates.
For winter skate, the 2008-2010 NEFSC autumn average biomass index
of 9.64 kg/tow is above both the biomass threshold reference point
(2.80 kg/tow) and the Bmsy proxy (5.60 kg/tow), and thus, the species
is not overfished and is above Bmsy. The 2008-2010 average index is
above the 2007-2009 index by 18 percent; therefore, overfishing is not
occurring. Given that the winter skate biomass indices exceed the
biological reference point, this species is considered rebuilt, despite
the occurrence of a directed fishery. The fact that the species has
rebuilt under existing regulatory mechanisms does not support the
petitioners claim that it is threatened or endangered due to direct and
indirect exploitation or inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
for fishing. We conclude that the available information does not
indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted for winter skates.
Conclusion
The use of groundfish trawling gear was posed by the petitioners as
degrading benthic habitat structure and affecting the availability of
the skate's prey as well as the skate's ability to avoid predators;
however, current information was not presented, nor was it available in
our files, to indicate that this gear is currently having significant
impacts on the skates or will in the foreseeable future. Although the
petitioners claim that overutilization of skates for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or education purposes in the form of direct
and indirect exploitation requires that the species be listed under the
ESA, available information indicates that overfishing is not currently
occurring in any of the skate species. The petitioners cite out of date
data, but these data have since been updated and indicate that the
skates are not in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered
in the foreseeable future. In addition, available information on
disease and predation on skates is limited, and the petitioners do not
present substantial information indicating that the petitioned actions
of listing the skates under the ESA due to disease or predation may be
warranted at this time. Regarding inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms, the petitioners state that because the species-specific
reporting requirements are not being enforced, the prohibition on
landing and possessing barndoor and smooth skates is essentially
meaningless. However, recent data show the prohibitions on barndoor and
smooth skates have been estimated to be approximately 98 percent
effective, and prohibited species occurred in only approximately 2
percent of landings from 2005-2010. In addition, current NMFS
regulations have been adequate to prevent overfishing for all three
skate species in the United States. With regards to other natural or
manmade factors affecting the continued existence of barndoor, smooth
and winter skates, the petitioners note that the life history
characteristics of large skates make them especially vulnerable to
exploitation as
[[Page 78904]]
does climate change. However, given the rapid rebuilding of the
barndoor skate, the rebuilt population of the winter skate, and the
lack of available information on climate impacts on smooth skate
abundance, available information does not indicate that life history
characteristics or climate change pose a significant threat to the
skate species. Because we have concluded that the petitioned action to
list barndoor, winter and/or smooth skates is not warranted, we do not
need to designate critical habitat or consider the need to list other
skate species on the basis of similarity of appearance, as requested by
the petitioner.
Petition Finding
Based on the above information and the criteria specified in 50 CFR
424.14(b)(2), after reviewing the information contained in the petition
and information readily available in our files, we conclude that the
petition fails to present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action concerning barndoor,
smooth and/or winter skate may be warranted.
References Cited
A complete list of the references used in this finding is available
upon request (see ADDRESSES).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: December 14, 2011.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-32530 Filed 12-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P