Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on Two Petitions To List White Marlin as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act, 6299-6303 [2013-02008]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Notices should be submitted to Jim Simondet, Klamath Branch Supervisor, NMFS Northern California Office, 1655 Heindon Rd, Arcata, CA 95521. Comments may also be submitted via fax (707) 825–4840, or you may transmit your comment as an attachment to the following email address: NMFS.SWR.NCO.IronGateHGMP@ noaa.gov. Copies of the draft EA and HGMP are available for public review during regular business hours from 9:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the NMFS Arcata office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521, (707) 825–5171. The permit application may be viewed online at: https:// apps.nmfs.noaa.gov/preview/preview_ open_for_comment.cfm. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Jim Simondet, Klamath Branch Supervisor, NMFS, telephone (707) 825–5171, email: jim.simondet@noaa.gov. SUMMARY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On Jan 8, 2013 NMFS published a Notice (78 FR 1201) that NMFS had received an application for a permit for scientific purposes and to enhance the propagation and survival of a listed species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. NMFS also announced the availability for public review and comment of a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) regarding issuance of the permit, which involves take of coho salmon listed as threatened under the ESA. The dates that these documents were to become available to the public were incorrect, and this correction clarifies when the documents will be available for public viewing and comment on the above mentioned Internet address. In addition, the email address to where comments could be submitted and has been corrected and the correct email address is not provided above in the addresses section. Dated: January 24, 2013. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2013–01940 Filed 1–29–13; 8:45 am] mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLING CODE 3510–22–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:43 Jan 29, 2013 Jkt 229001 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 120418011–2011–01] RIN 0648–XB141 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on Two Petitions To List White Marlin as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding. AGENCY: We (NMFS) announce a 90day finding on two petitions to list white marlin (Kajikia albidus) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petitions do not present substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. ADDRESSES: Copies of the petitions and related materials are available upon request from the Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, or online at: https://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ ListingPetitions.htm FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Stephania Bolden, NMFS Southeast Region, 727–824–5312, or Margaret Miller, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 301–427–8403. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 9, 2012, we received a petition from Mr. James Chambers to list white marlin (Kajikia albidus) as threatened or endangered under the ESA. We received a separate petition to list white marlin from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) on April 3, 2012. Copies of these petitions are available from us (see ADDRESSES, above). The joint USFWS/NMFS petition management handbook 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. Given that, this 90-day finding addresses petitions from both Mr. Chambers and CBD requesting us to list white marlin under the ESA. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 6299 We have previously reviewed the status of the white marlin for ESA listing as a result of a petition and legal action from these petitioners. In 2001, we received our first petition from Mr. Chambers, and the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, requesting us to list the white marlin as a threatened or endangered species. We convened a status review team to assess the species status and the degree of threat and prepared a status review report (Atlantic White Marlin Status Review Document, WMSRT, 2002). We published our determination on September 9, 2002, that white marlin did not warrant ESA listing (67 FR 57204). In 2006, per a settlement agreement between NMFS, CBD, and the Turtle Island Restoration Network, we revisited the status of the white marlin following the 2006 stock assessment by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). On December 21, 2006, we announced the initiation of a white marlin status review and solicited information regarding the status of and threats to the species (71 FR 76639) and convened a new biological review team (BRT) to commence a status review. The report (Atlantic White Marlin Status Review, AWMSR, 2007) prepared by the BRT was peer reviewed and the final document incorporated peer review comments. After considering the AWMSR, we determined the white marlin was neither threatened or endangered (73 FR 843; January 4, 2008). ESA Statutory and Regulatory Provisions and Evaluation Framework Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When we find that substantial scientific or commercial information in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a ‘‘positive 90-day finding’’), we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species concerned during which we will conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial information. In such cases, we are to conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted within 12 months of receipt E:\FR\FM\30JAN1.SGM 30JAN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 6300 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Notices of the petition. Because the finding at the 12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day stage, a ‘‘may be warranted’’ finding does not prejudge the outcome of the status review. Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a ‘‘species,’’ which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NOAA–U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) policy clarifies the agencies’ interpretation of the phrase ‘‘distinct population segment’’ for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (‘‘DPS Policy’’; 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is ‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and ‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively; 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered because of any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species’ existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)). ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR 424.14(b)) define ‘‘substantial information’’ in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. In evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, the Secretary must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides information regarding the status of the species over VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:43 Jan 29, 2013 Jkt 229001 all or a significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)). Court decisions clarify the appropriate scope and limitations of the Services’ review of petitions at the 90day finding stage, in making a determination whether a petitioned action ‘‘may be’’ warranted. As a general matter, these decisions hold that a petition need not establish a ‘‘strong likelihood’’ or a ‘‘high probability’’ that a species is either threatened or endangered to support a positive 90-day finding. We evaluate the petitioner’s request based upon the information in the petition including its references, and the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioner’s sources and characterizations of the information presented, if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition’s information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude it supports the petitioner’s assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA’s requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone negates a positive 90-day finding, if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown information itself suggests an extinction risk of concern for the species at issue. To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a ‘‘species’’ eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 indicates that the species at issue faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species’ status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species at issue (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1). Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response. Many petitions identify risk classifications made by other organizations or agencies, such as the International Union on the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society (AFS), 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. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species’ conservation status do ‘‘not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act’’ because NatureServe assessments ‘‘have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide’’ (https:// www.natureserve.org/prodServices/ statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a petition cites such classifications, we will evaluate the source information E:\FR\FM\30JAN1.SGM 30JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with that the classification is based upon, in light of the standards on extinction risk and impacts or threats discussed above. Species Description The white marlin is a billfish (Family Istiophoridae) that inhabits the tropical and temperate waters of the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas. White marlin is considered to be a panmictic species: individuals move about freely within the Atlantic Ocean, over thousands of miles, and breed freely with other members of the population. Molecular markers have demonstrated that white marlin move significantly among regions (Graves and McDowell, 2003; Wells et al., 2010). White marlin exhibit sexually dimorphic growth patterns with females growing faster and achieving larger sizes than males. There is little information regarding the age and growth of white marlin as billfish are extremely difficult to age. Data limited to a single location found that the sex ratio (proportion of females to males) increased steadily with size and nearly all fish larger than 2,000 cm were female (Arocha and Barrios, 2009). White marlin are primarily general piscivores, but also feed on squid and other prey items (Nakamura, 1985). Spawning activity occurs during the spring (March through June) in northwestern Atlantic tropical and subtropical waters marked by relatively high surface temperatures (20°–29°C) and salinities (>35 ppt). The presence of white marlin larvae suggests there are at least five spawning areas in the western north Atlantic Ocean: Northeast of Little Bahama Bank off the Abaco Islands; northwest of Grand Bahama Island; southwest of Bermuda; the Mona Passage, east of the Dominican Republic; and the Gulf of Mexico (AWMSR, 2007). White marlin, along with other billfish and tunas, are managed internationally by the member nations of the ICCAT. ICCAT, through the Standing Committee for Research and Statistics (SCRS), conducts regular stock assessments for species under its purview: white marlin stock assessments were conducted in 2002, 2006, and 2012. Both white marlin and roundscale spearfish (Tetrapturus georgii) are taken as bycatch on longline fishing gear targeting tuna and swordfish (AWMSR, 2007). White marlin are also targeted in recreational fishing tournaments along the U.S. east coast, which also often land roundscale spearfish (AWMSR, 2007). White marlin and the roundscale spearfish are sympatric and morphologically very similar. Roundscale spearfish were validated as VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:43 Jan 29, 2013 Jkt 229001 a genetically distinct species in 2006 (Shivji et al., 2006). Species misidentification of the roundscale spearfish and the white marlin has likely occurred given the complexity of accurate identification (AWMSR, 2007). Little is known about the life history of roundscale spearfish. Beerkricher et al. (2009) examined the proportion of spearfish in the total catch identified as white marlin and found it ranged between 0 and 100 percent (n=1443, mean = 27 percent) per set observed in the western north Atlantic, with high variability across geographic areas. Roundscale spearfish were found more frequently offshore compared to nearshore. Given the misidentification problems between white marlin and roundscale spearfish, the SCRS working group decided prior to the 2012 stock assessment that white marlin and roundscale spearfish would be combined as a mixed stock until more accurate species identification and differentiation of species catches are available (SCRS, 2011). Total catch of white marlin peaked in the mid 1960’s (AWMSR, 2007). Total catch of white marlin remained relatively stable through the 1980s and into the early 1990s. In the mid 1990s there was a marked decline in white marlin catch. ICCAT responded by adopting numerous resolutions protective of white marlin, including a reduction in landings and a rebuilding program (AWMSR, 2002; WMSRT, 2007). Both the 2002 and the 2007 white marlin status reviews discussed this marked decline in total catch and described protective measures adopted by ICCAT (WMSRT, 2002; AWMSR, 2007). White marlin catch has remained relatively stable in recent years (SCRS, 2011; 2012). Relative fishing mortality has been declining over the past ten years, it is now most likely to be below the fishing mortality rate expected to yield maximum sustainable yield (Fmsy), and it is highly likely to remain below Fmsy (SCRS, 2012). The BRT concluded that the current regulatory mechanisms are sufficient to prevent continued stock decline (AWMSR, 2007). Analysis of the Petition We evaluated whether the petitions presented the information indicated in 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2). Both petitions stated the administrative measures recommended for the white marlin. Neither petition included the scientific name of the species. Both petitions included a narrative justification for the recommended measure, including some information on numbers of the species, historical geographic occurrences of the PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 6301 species, and threats faced by the species. Both petitions utilize information from the 2011 ICCAT Blue Marlin Stock Assessment and While Marlin Data Preparatory Meeting (SCRS, 2011). Only the CBD petition included supporting references. White marlin is recognized as a taxonomically-distinct species and is therefore an eligible entity for listing under the ESA. We previously determined the Atlantic white marlin constitutes a single species throughout the Atlantic Ocean and there are no populations that warrant consideration of ESA listing (73 FR 843; January 4, 2008). The Chambers petition, seeking protection of the ‘‘North Atlantic subpopulation of the white marlin,’’ included information summarizing spatial and temporal difference in spawning north and south of the equator that in turn indicates ‘‘two entirely distinct sub-populations which do not interbreed’’ and a graph showing total catch of white marlin north of the equator by gear with live and dead discards from 1956–2010 (SCRS, 2011). The Chambers petition did not include any information supporting white marlin population structure that was not previously considered by us. Therefore the best available information indicates white marlin are a single species throughout its range without separation into populations. Information on Impacts and Threats to the Species We evaluated whether the information in the petitions and information in our files concerning the extent and severity of one or more of the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors suggest these impacts and threats may be posing a risk of extinction for white marlin that is cause for concern. Collectively, the petitions state that three of the five causal factors in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA are adversely affecting the continued existence of white marlin: (A) Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial and recreational purposes; and (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. In the following sections, we use the information presented in the petition and in our files to determine whether the petitioned action may be warranted. Present and Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range The CBD petition stated the range of the white marlin has been reduced between the 1960s and the 1990s per Worm and Tittensor (2011). Other E:\FR\FM\30JAN1.SGM 30JAN1 6302 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Notices information provided by CBD contradicts this range reduction and shows Worm and Tittensor’s (2011) finding to be obsolete: Lynch et al. (2011) includes a figure summarizing distribution of white marlin in the Atlantic Ocean from 2000 to 2006 that indicates white marlin occur in all the areas identified as absent by Worm and Tittensor (2011). Information in our files (SCRS, 2011; 2012) also indicates the range has not contracted. Therefore we conclude the petition does not provide substantial information indicating the range of the white marlin has been constricted and further note that a slight variation in range of a species that occurs across the Atlantic Ocean and 70 degrees latitude would not alone constitute an extinction risk. The CBD petition states ‘‘studies have found that billfish, such as white marlin, are sensitive to water quality conditions, which are rapidly changing as a result of climate change and ocean acidification’’ and refers to Lynch et al. (2011). We reviewed Lynch et al. (2011) and did not find statements supporting CBDs’ assertions. Further, neither CBD nor Lynch et al. (2011) provide any explanation or connection of how water quality condition, climate change, or ocean acidification are operative threats to the continued existence of the white marlin. We did not find information in our files indicating how presumed changes in water quality from climate change and ocean acidification would be an extinction risk of concern to white marlin. In summary, information presented in the two petitions and in our files does not constitute substantial information indicating that the present and threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range may be causing extinction risk of concern for white marlin. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with Overutilization for Commercial and Recreational Purposes The CBD petition quotes from Beerkircher et al. (2009) that white marlin are among ‘‘the most overexploited pelagic fishes.’’ The CBD petition also attributes other statements to ICCAT (SCRS, 2011) including ‘‘white marlin populations have failed to rebuild, and they have also continued to decline and landings indicate this continued decline and the catch-perunit-effort shows instability in the population.’’ We reviewed SCRS (2011) and could not substantiate or find support for the statements. In addition, the CBD petition did not provide any explanation on how these statements correspond to extinction risk. VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:43 Jan 29, 2013 Jkt 229001 The Chambers petition says the status of the white marlin population ‘‘is well below the level at which there is a danger of recruitment failure which is considered to begin at 50 percent of MSY,’’ and, ‘‘Passing such a threshold means there are becoming too few breeders to replace the population which can then spiral ever faster towards extinction.’’ The Chambers petition did not provide any supporting information for these claims. It included no information or explanation on how this threshold corresponds to extinction risk. The petition did not provide information on recruitment failure or the number of current breeders. We are unaware of data, and did not find information in our files, to support this claim. The CBD petition did provide some information on white marlin population size, somewhat relevant to Mr. Chambers’ claims. It cites the decline in B/Bmsy from 1.02 in 1970 to 0.44 in 2010 (Collette et al., 2011) as evidence of overutilization of white marlin. B/ Bmsy is a relative abundance metric in fishery management that expresses a stock’s biomass as a proportion of the biomass that would support the continuous, maximum harvest of that stock. Although it provides B/Bmsy figures for white marlin, the CBD does not provide any rationale why a B/Bmsy of 0.44 causes an extinction risk of concern. We do not believe 0.44 B/Bmsy alone is a cause for concern, as it represents fishing potential rather than absolute abundance, and does not necessarily have any relationship to a species’ extinction risk. In addition, we interpret the B/Bmsy trend presented in Collette et al. (2011) as declining between 1970 and 1990, followed by a stable or increasing, but not decreasing, stock size from 1990 through 2010. The Chambers petition states white marlin abundance has ‘‘fallen to about 2 percent of an unfished level of abundance by the end of 2007.’’ While population decline can result in extinction risk that is cause for concern in certain circumstances, the decline described in the Chambers petition appears to have been derived from reported landings. Although a decline in reported landings can oftentimes indicate a decrease in total abundance, in this case it is likely this decline in landings is a result of the regulations ICCAT has instituted since 1995 to reduce white marlin landings. Therefore, we conclude landings data do not indicate a decline in white marlin abundance and do not indicate that white marlin is being negatively impacted by overutilization. We are unaware of any data suggesting that PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 white marlin have declined to the level Mr. Chambers claims, which would correspond to a B/Bmsy value of 0.04 or one eleventh the value presented in the CBD petition. The CBD petition cites the ‘‘vulnerable’’ status classification made by IUCN to support listing white marlin as threatened or endangered under the ESA, and includes Collette et al. (2011) as a reference. As discussed above, risk classifications by other organizations or agencies (e.g., IUCN) do not alone provide rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. However we have evaluated the IUCN source information for white marlin relative to the ESA standards of extinction risk and we find the IUCN classification does not present information that was not already considered in the 2007 status review (e.g., the 2006 ICCAT stock assessment) or that was not included by CBD in their petition and discussed herein (e.g., range constriction as described by Worm and Tittensor, 2011 and catch composition per Beerkircher et al., 2009). The CBD petition discusses how roundscale spearfish reported in the white marlin catch can affect ICCAT stock assessments and requests a new assessment. Citing Beerkircher et al. (2009), the CBD petition suggests we adopt a proportion of roundscale spearfish to white marlin in the total catch between 21 and 42 percent and reevaluate our prior finding. As previously discussed, the proportion of spearfish in the total catch identified as white marlin was highly variable and spatially limited (Beerkircher et al., 2009). In evaluating the findings from Beerkircher et al. (2009), ICCAT subsequently concluded reliable estimates on the proportion of roundscale spearfish reported as white marlin in the catch rates were not available, and elected to perform a mixed stock assessment until more accurate species identification and differentiation of species catch were available (SCRS, 2011). Specifically, ICCAT determined a comprehensive Atlantic-wide sampling program, as well as a large-scale retrospective analysis, would be required for a reliable population-level estimate of roundscale spearfish reported as white marlin (SCRS, 2011). All white marlin biological material sampled prior to 2006 is currently presumed to contain unknown proportions of roundscale spearfish (SCRS, 2012). We acknowledge it is important to consider the ratio of roundscale spearfish reported in the white marlin catch, however we concur with ICCAT that it is not possible at this time. E:\FR\FM\30JAN1.SGM 30JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with The CBD petition referenced the simulations performed by Beerkircher et al. (2009) and stated they were an indication of population decline. The CBD petition does not include any additional information indicating how these simulations indicate extinction risk. We carefully reviewed the simulations; we noted they include the period 1955 through 1999 when the marked decline in white marlin catch occurred, and do not project through subsequent years when bycatch was stabilized and reduced. Therefore we do not find this simulated decline in roundscale spearfish concurrent with white marlin surprising, as the simulations are partitioning the noted decline in one species’ (white marlin) catch rates that occurred through the 1990s across two species (white marlin and roundscale spearfish). We conclude the simulations do not provide relevant information regarding the extinction risk of white marlin or information on the current status of the white marlin. In summary, the petitions do not present information regarding the decline of white marlin catches in the 1990s that we have not already considered in prior determinations as discussed (see ‘‘Species Description’’). There is no information in our files to suggest our prior conclusions regarding the 1990s decline in white marlin catch were incorrect or insufficient. We conclude the characterization of continuing population decline in the petitions is unsubstantiated. The petitions did not provide substantial information that white marlin populations are unstable or that species misclassification poses an extinction risk. Therefore we conclude the petitions do not present substantial scientific information indicating that listing may be warranted due to overutilization for commercial and recreational purposes. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms The CBD petition states Lynch et al. (2011) ‘‘demonstrates that existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to prevent the decline of white marlin.’’ We carefully reviewed Lynch et al. (2011) and could not find statements supporting CBDs’ assertions. In fact, Lynch et al. (2011) states measures already implemented are likely beneficial to some degree; in combination, reductions in landing and live release ‘‘should slow and possibly reverse downward population trends * * * some evidence of population response to these management strategies may already be observable.’’ The Chambers petition states that ICCAT is VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:43 Jan 29, 2013 Jkt 229001 not managing the white marlin to produce the maximum sustainable yield, but does not explain how this leads to extinction risk of concern. Fishery management targets, such as maximum sustainable yield, and statuses, are based on different criteria than that required by the ESA and, thus, do not necessarily have any relationship to a species’ extinction risk. There is no information in our files that indicates the current regulatory mechanisms are insufficient to prevent endangerment of the white marlin. The petitions did not present other information to indicate how the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is an extinction risk to the white marlin. While the petitions state additional regulations are required to ensure rebuilding of the marlin populations, they do not provide any explanation on how the existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to prevent endangerment of the white marlin. In summary we find the petitions, and information readily available in our files, do not present substantial information to suggest the existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate and may be causing an extinction risk for white marlin. After reviewing the information contained in the petitions, as well as information readily available in our files, we conclude these petitions do not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted. References Cited A complete list of all references is available upon request from the Protected Resources Division of the NMFS Southeast Regional Office (see ADDRESSES). Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Dated: January 25, 2013. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2013–02008 Filed 1–29–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 6303 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648–XC300 Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. AGENCY: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces its intent to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that would include an analysis of the environmental impacts of issuing Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Incidental Take Authorizations (ITAs) to the oil and gas industry for the taking of marine mammals incidental to offshore exploration activities (e.g., seismic surveys and exploratory drilling) in Federal and state waters of the U.S. Chukchi and Beaufort Seas off Alaska. The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the North Slope Borough are cooperating agencies on this EIS. The Environmental Protection Agency is serving as a consulting agency, and NMFS is coordinating with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission pursuant to our co-management agreement under the MMPA. DATES: Effective January 30, 2013. ADDRESSES: Information on this project can be found on the Office of Protected Resources Web page at: https:// www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/eis/ arctic.htm. SUMMARY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Payne, Jolie Harrison, or Candace Nachman, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of proposed E:\FR\FM\30JAN1.SGM 30JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6299-6303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02008]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Docket No. 120418011-2011-01]
RIN 0648-XB141

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on Two
Petitions To List White Marlin as Threatened or Endangered Under the
Endangered Species Act

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

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a 90-day finding on two petitions to list
white marlin (Kajikia albidus) as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petitions do not present
substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petitions and related materials are available
upon request from the Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected
Resources Division, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue
South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, or online at: https://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ListingPetitions.htm

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Stephania Bolden, NMFS Southeast
Region, 727-824-5312, or Margaret Miller, NMFS Office of Protected
Resources, 301-427-8403.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 9, 2012, we received a petition from Mr. James Chambers
to list white marlin (Kajikia albidus) as threatened or endangered
under the ESA. We received a separate petition to list white marlin
from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) on April 3, 2012. Copies
of these petitions are available from us (see ADDRESSES, above). The
joint USFWS/NMFS petition management handbook 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. Given that, this 90-day finding addresses petitions from
both Mr. Chambers and CBD requesting us to list white marlin under the
ESA.
We have previously reviewed the status of the white marlin for ESA
listing as a result of a petition and legal action from these
petitioners. In 2001, we received our first petition from Mr. Chambers,
and the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, requesting us to list the white
marlin as a threatened or endangered species. We convened a status
review team to assess the species status and the degree of threat and
prepared a status review report (Atlantic White Marlin Status Review
Document, WMSRT, 2002). We published our determination on September 9,
2002, that white marlin did not warrant ESA listing (67 FR 57204). In
2006, per a settlement agreement between NMFS, CBD, and the Turtle
Island Restoration Network, we revisited the status of the white marlin
following the 2006 stock assessment by the International Commission for
the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). On December 21, 2006, we
announced the initiation of a white marlin status review and solicited
information regarding the status of and threats to the species (71 FR
76639) and convened a new biological review team (BRT) to commence a
status review. The report (Atlantic White Marlin Status Review, AWMSR,
2007) prepared by the BRT was peer reviewed and the final document
incorporated peer review comments. After considering the AWMSR, we
determined the white marlin was neither threatened or endangered (73 FR
843; January 4, 2008).

ESA Statutory and Regulatory Provisions and Evaluation Framework

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days
of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered,
the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly publish
such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When we
find that substantial scientific or commercial information in a
petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a ``positive
90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a review of the
status of the species concerned during which we will conduct a
comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial
information. In such cases, we are to conclude the review with a
finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted
within 12 months of receipt

[[Page 6300]]

of the petition. Because the finding at the 12-month stage is based on
a more thorough review of the available information, as compared to the
narrow scope of review at the 90-day stage, a ``may be warranted''
finding does not prejudge the outcome of the status review.
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a ``species,''
which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate
species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NOAA-U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) policy clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the
phrase ``distinct population segment'' for the purposes of listing,
delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (``DPS Policy'';
61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is
``endangered'' if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and ``threatened'' if it is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20),
respectively; 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our
implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened
or endangered because of any one or a combination of the following five
section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease
or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any
other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50
CFR 424.14(b)) define ``substantial information'' in the context of
reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. In
evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition,
the Secretary must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates
the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any
common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative
justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on
available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the
species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides
information regarding the status of the species over all or a
significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the
appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic
references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or
letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
Court decisions clarify the appropriate scope and limitations of
the Services' review of petitions at the 90-day finding stage, in
making a determination whether a petitioned action ``may be''
warranted. As a general matter, these decisions hold that a petition
need not establish a ``strong likelihood'' or a ``high probability''
that a species is either threatened or endangered to support a positive
90-day finding.
We evaluate the petitioner's request based upon the information in
the petition including its references, and the information readily
available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we
do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us
in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioner's sources and
characterizations of the information presented, if they appear to be
based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific
information in our files that indicates the petition's information is
incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the
requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one
interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information
will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is
reliable and a reasonable person would conclude it supports the
petitioner's assertions. In other words, conclusive information
indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is
not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude
that a lack of specific information alone negates a positive 90-day
finding, if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown
information itself suggests an extinction risk of concern for the
species at issue.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we
evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating the subject species may be either
threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate
whether the information presented in the petition, along with the
information readily available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under
the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the
species at issue faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this
may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species'
status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to
the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic
factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species at
issue (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial
structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical
range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential
contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the
species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic
risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section
4(a)(1).
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to
the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these
factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species
to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad
statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification
of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute
substantial information that listing may be warranted. We look for
information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed
to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative
fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative
response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by other
organizations or agencies, such as the International Union on the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society (AFS), 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. For
example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species'
conservation status do ``not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe
for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because NatureServe
assessments ``have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes
and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and
threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not
be expected to coincide'' (https://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a petition cites such
classifications, we will evaluate the source information

[[Page 6301]]

that the classification is based upon, in light of the standards on
extinction risk and impacts or threats discussed above.

Species Description

The white marlin is a billfish (Family Istiophoridae) that inhabits
the tropical and temperate waters of the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent
seas. White marlin is considered to be a panmictic species: individuals
move about freely within the Atlantic Ocean, over thousands of miles,
and breed freely with other members of the population. Molecular
markers have demonstrated that white marlin move significantly among
regions (Graves and McDowell, 2003; Wells et al., 2010). White marlin
exhibit sexually dimorphic growth patterns with females growing faster
and achieving larger sizes than males. There is little information
regarding the age and growth of white marlin as billfish are extremely
difficult to age. Data limited to a single location found that the sex
ratio (proportion of females to males) increased steadily with size and
nearly all fish larger than 2,000 cm were female (Arocha and Barrios,
2009).
White marlin are primarily general piscivores, but also feed on
squid and other prey items (Nakamura, 1985). Spawning activity occurs
during the spring (March through June) in northwestern Atlantic
tropical and sub-tropical waters marked by relatively high surface
temperatures (20[deg]-29[deg]C) and salinities (>35 ppt). The presence
of white marlin larvae suggests there are at least five spawning areas
in the western north Atlantic Ocean: Northeast of Little Bahama Bank
off the Abaco Islands; northwest of Grand Bahama Island; southwest of
Bermuda; the Mona Passage, east of the Dominican Republic; and the Gulf
of Mexico (AWMSR, 2007).
White marlin, along with other billfish and tunas, are managed
internationally by the member nations of the ICCAT. ICCAT, through the
Standing Committee for Research and Statistics (SCRS), conducts regular
stock assessments for species under its purview: white marlin stock
assessments were conducted in 2002, 2006, and 2012. Both white marlin
and roundscale spearfish (Tetrapturus georgii) are taken as bycatch on
longline fishing gear targeting tuna and swordfish (AWMSR, 2007). White
marlin are also targeted in recreational fishing tournaments along the
U.S. east coast, which also often land roundscale spearfish (AWMSR,
2007).
White marlin and the roundscale spearfish are sympatric and
morphologically very similar. Roundscale spearfish were validated as a
genetically distinct species in 2006 (Shivji et al., 2006). Species
misidentification of the roundscale spearfish and the white marlin has
likely occurred given the complexity of accurate identification (AWMSR,
2007). Little is known about the life history of roundscale spearfish.
Beerkricher et al. (2009) examined the proportion of spearfish in the
total catch identified as white marlin and found it ranged between 0
and 100 percent (n=1443, mean = 27 percent) per set observed in the
western north Atlantic, with high variability across geographic areas.
Roundscale spearfish were found more frequently offshore compared to
nearshore. Given the misidentification problems between white marlin
and roundscale spearfish, the SCRS working group decided prior to the
2012 stock assessment that white marlin and roundscale spearfish would
be combined as a mixed stock until more accurate species identification
and differentiation of species catches are available (SCRS, 2011).
Total catch of white marlin peaked in the mid 1960's (AWMSR, 2007).
Total catch of white marlin remained relatively stable through the
1980s and into the early 1990s. In the mid 1990s there was a marked
decline in white marlin catch. ICCAT responded by adopting numerous
resolutions protective of white marlin, including a reduction in
landings and a rebuilding program (AWMSR, 2002; WMSRT, 2007). Both the
2002 and the 2007 white marlin status reviews discussed this marked
decline in total catch and described protective measures adopted by
ICCAT (WMSRT, 2002; AWMSR, 2007). White marlin catch has remained
relatively stable in recent years (SCRS, 2011; 2012). Relative fishing
mortality has been declining over the past ten years, it is now most
likely to be below the fishing mortality rate expected to yield maximum
sustainable yield (Fmsy), and it is highly likely to remain below Fmsy
(SCRS, 2012). The BRT concluded that the current regulatory mechanisms
are sufficient to prevent continued stock decline (AWMSR, 2007).

Analysis of the Petition

We evaluated whether the petitions presented the information
indicated in 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2). Both petitions stated the
administrative measures recommended for the white marlin. Neither
petition included the scientific name of the species. Both petitions
included a narrative justification for the recommended measure,
including some information on numbers of the species, historical
geographic occurrences of the species, and threats faced by the
species. Both petitions utilize information from the 2011 ICCAT Blue
Marlin Stock Assessment and While Marlin Data Preparatory Meeting
(SCRS, 2011). Only the CBD petition included supporting references.
White marlin is recognized as a taxonomically-distinct species and
is therefore an eligible entity for listing under the ESA. We
previously determined the Atlantic white marlin constitutes a single
species throughout the Atlantic Ocean and there are no populations that
warrant consideration of ESA listing (73 FR 843; January 4, 2008). The
Chambers petition, seeking protection of the ``North Atlantic sub-
population of the white marlin,'' included information summarizing
spatial and temporal difference in spawning north and south of the
equator that in turn indicates ``two entirely distinct sub-populations
which do not interbreed'' and a graph showing total catch of white
marlin north of the equator by gear with live and dead discards from
1956-2010 (SCRS, 2011). The Chambers petition did not include any
information supporting white marlin population structure that was not
previously considered by us. Therefore the best available information
indicates white marlin are a single species throughout its range
without separation into populations.

Information on Impacts and Threats to the Species

We evaluated whether the information in the petitions and
information in our files concerning the extent and severity of one or
more of the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors suggest these impacts and
threats may be posing a risk of extinction for white marlin that is
cause for concern. Collectively, the petitions state that three of the
five causal factors in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA are adversely
affecting the continued existence of white marlin: (A) Present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range; (B) overutilization for commercial and recreational purposes;
and (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. In the following
sections, we use the information presented in the petition and in our
files to determine whether the petitioned action may be warranted.

Present and Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Habitat or Range

The CBD petition stated the range of the white marlin has been
reduced between the 1960s and the 1990s per Worm and Tittensor (2011).
Other

[[Page 6302]]

information provided by CBD contradicts this range reduction and shows
Worm and Tittensor's (2011) finding to be obsolete: Lynch et al. (2011)
includes a figure summarizing distribution of white marlin in the
Atlantic Ocean from 2000 to 2006 that indicates white marlin occur in
all the areas identified as absent by Worm and Tittensor (2011).
Information in our files (SCRS, 2011; 2012) also indicates the range
has not contracted. Therefore we conclude the petition does not provide
substantial information indicating the range of the white marlin has
been constricted and further note that a slight variation in range of a
species that occurs across the Atlantic Ocean and 70 degrees latitude
would not alone constitute an extinction risk.
The CBD petition states ``studies have found that billfish, such as
white marlin, are sensitive to water quality conditions, which are
rapidly changing as a result of climate change and ocean
acidification'' and refers to Lynch et al. (2011). We reviewed Lynch et
al. (2011) and did not find statements supporting CBDs' assertions.
Further, neither CBD nor Lynch et al. (2011) provide any explanation or
connection of how water quality condition, climate change, or ocean
acidification are operative threats to the continued existence of the
white marlin. We did not find information in our files indicating how
presumed changes in water quality from climate change and ocean
acidification would be an extinction risk of concern to white marlin.
In summary, information presented in the two petitions and in our
files does not constitute substantial information indicating that the
present and threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range may be causing extinction risk of concern for white
marlin.

Overutilization for Commercial and Recreational Purposes

The CBD petition quotes from Beerkircher et al. (2009) that white
marlin are among ``the most overexploited pelagic fishes.'' The CBD
petition also attributes other statements to ICCAT (SCRS, 2011)
including ``white marlin populations have failed to rebuild, and they
have also continued to decline and landings indicate this continued
decline and the catch-per-unit-effort shows instability in the
population.'' We reviewed SCRS (2011) and could not substantiate or
find support for the statements. In addition, the CBD petition did not
provide any explanation on how these statements correspond to
extinction risk.
The Chambers petition says the status of the white marlin
population ``is well below the level at which there is a danger of
recruitment failure which is considered to begin at 50 percent of
MSY,'' and, ``Passing such a threshold means there are becoming too few
breeders to replace the population which can then spiral ever faster
towards extinction.'' The Chambers petition did not provide any
supporting information for these claims. It included no information or
explanation on how this threshold corresponds to extinction risk. The
petition did not provide information on recruitment failure or the
number of current breeders. We are unaware of data, and did not find
information in our files, to support this claim.
The CBD petition did provide some information on white marlin
population size, somewhat relevant to Mr. Chambers' claims. It cites
the decline in B/Bmsy from 1.02 in 1970 to 0.44 in 2010 (Collette et
al., 2011) as evidence of overutilization of white marlin. B/Bmsy is a
relative abundance metric in fishery management that expresses a
stock's biomass as a proportion of the biomass that would support the
continuous, maximum harvest of that stock. Although it provides B/Bmsy
figures for white marlin, the CBD does not provide any rationale why a
B/Bmsy of 0.44 causes an extinction risk of concern. We do not believe
0.44 B/Bmsy alone is a cause for concern, as it represents fishing
potential rather than absolute abundance, and does not necessarily have
any relationship to a species' extinction risk. In addition, we
interpret the B/Bmsy trend presented in Collette et al. (2011) as
declining between 1970 and 1990, followed by a stable or increasing,
but not decreasing, stock size from 1990 through 2010.
The Chambers petition states white marlin abundance has ``fallen to
about 2 percent of an unfished level of abundance by the end of 2007.''
While population decline can result in extinction risk that is cause
for concern in certain circumstances, the decline described in the
Chambers petition appears to have been derived from reported landings.
Although a decline in reported landings can oftentimes indicate a
decrease in total abundance, in this case it is likely this decline in
landings is a result of the regulations ICCAT has instituted since 1995
to reduce white marlin landings. Therefore, we conclude landings data
do not indicate a decline in white marlin abundance and do not indicate
that white marlin is being negatively impacted by overutilization. We
are unaware of any data suggesting that white marlin have declined to
the level Mr. Chambers claims, which would correspond to a B/Bmsy value
of 0.04 or one eleventh the value presented in the CBD petition.
The CBD petition cites the ``vulnerable'' status classification
made by IUCN to support listing white marlin as threatened or
endangered under the ESA, and includes Collette et al. (2011) as a
reference. As discussed above, risk classifications by other
organizations or agencies (e.g., IUCN) do not alone provide rationale
for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. However we have evaluated
the IUCN source information for white marlin relative to the ESA
standards of extinction risk and we find the IUCN classification does
not present information that was not already considered in the 2007
status review (e.g., the 2006 ICCAT stock assessment) or that was not
included by CBD in their petition and discussed herein (e.g., range
constriction as described by Worm and Tittensor, 2011 and catch
composition per Beerkircher et al., 2009).
The CBD petition discusses how roundscale spearfish reported in the
white marlin catch can affect ICCAT stock assessments and requests a
new assessment. Citing Beerkircher et al. (2009), the CBD petition
suggests we adopt a proportion of roundscale spearfish to white marlin
in the total catch between 21 and 42 percent and re-evaluate our prior
finding. As previously discussed, the proportion of spearfish in the
total catch identified as white marlin was highly variable and
spatially limited (Beerkircher et al., 2009). In evaluating the
findings from Beerkircher et al. (2009), ICCAT subsequently concluded
reliable estimates on the proportion of roundscale spearfish reported
as white marlin in the catch rates were not available, and elected to
perform a mixed stock assessment until more accurate species
identification and differentiation of species catch were available
(SCRS, 2011). Specifically, ICCAT determined a comprehensive Atlantic-
wide sampling program, as well as a large-scale retrospective analysis,
would be required for a reliable population-level estimate of
roundscale spearfish reported as white marlin (SCRS, 2011). All white
marlin biological material sampled prior to 2006 is currently presumed
to contain unknown proportions of roundscale spearfish (SCRS, 2012). We
acknowledge it is important to consider the ratio of roundscale
spearfish reported in the white marlin catch, however we concur with
ICCAT that it is not possible at this time.

[[Page 6303]]

The CBD petition referenced the simulations performed by
Beerkircher et al. (2009) and stated they were an indication of
population decline. The CBD petition does not include any additional
information indicating how these simulations indicate extinction risk.
We carefully reviewed the simulations; we noted they include the period
1955 through 1999 when the marked decline in white marlin catch
occurred, and do not project through subsequent years when bycatch was
stabilized and reduced. Therefore we do not find this simulated decline
in roundscale spearfish concurrent with white marlin surprising, as the
simulations are partitioning the noted decline in one species' (white
marlin) catch rates that occurred through the 1990s across two species
(white marlin and roundscale spearfish). We conclude the simulations do
not provide relevant information regarding the extinction risk of white
marlin or information on the current status of the white marlin.
In summary, the petitions do not present information regarding the
decline of white marlin catches in the 1990s that we have not already
considered in prior determinations as discussed (see ``Species
Description''). There is no information in our files to suggest our
prior conclusions regarding the 1990s decline in white marlin catch
were incorrect or insufficient. We conclude the characterization of
continuing population decline in the petitions is unsubstantiated. The
petitions did not provide substantial information that white marlin
populations are unstable or that species misclassification poses an
extinction risk. Therefore we conclude the petitions do not present
substantial scientific information indicating that listing may be
warranted due to overutilization for commercial and recreational
purposes.

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

The CBD petition states Lynch et al. (2011) ``demonstrates that
existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to prevent the decline of
white marlin.'' We carefully reviewed Lynch et al. (2011) and could not
find statements supporting CBDs' assertions. In fact, Lynch et al.
(2011) states measures already implemented are likely beneficial to
some degree; in combination, reductions in landing and live release
``should slow and possibly reverse downward population trends * * *
some evidence of population response to these management strategies may
already be observable.'' The Chambers petition states that ICCAT is not
managing the white marlin to produce the maximum sustainable yield, but
does not explain how this leads to extinction risk of concern. Fishery
management targets, such as maximum sustainable yield, and statuses,
are based on different criteria than that required by the ESA and,
thus, do not necessarily have any relationship to a species' extinction
risk. There is no information in our files that indicates the current
regulatory mechanisms are insufficient to prevent endangerment of the
white marlin. The petitions did not present other information to
indicate how the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is an
extinction risk to the white marlin.
While the petitions state additional regulations are required to
ensure rebuilding of the marlin populations, they do not provide any
explanation on how the existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to
prevent endangerment of the white marlin. In summary we find the
petitions, and information readily available in our files, do not
present substantial information to suggest the existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate and may be causing an extinction risk for
white marlin.
After reviewing the information contained in the petitions, as well
as information readily available in our files, we conclude these
petitions do not present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted.

References Cited

A complete list of all references is available upon request from
the Protected Resources Division of the NMFS Southeast Regional Office
(see ADDRESSES).

Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: January 25, 2013.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and
duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-02008 Filed 1-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.