Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Humphead Wrasse as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act, 13614-13617 [2013-04718]
Download as PDF
13614
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(22) Projects, as defined in 23 U.S.C.
101, that would take place entirely
within the existing operational right-ofway. The operational right-of-way
includes those portions of the right-ofway that have been disturbed for an
existing transportation facility or are
regularly maintained for transportation
purposes. This area includes the
features associated with the physical
footprint of the transportation facility
(including the roadway, bridges,
interchanges, culverts, drainage, fixed
guideways, substations, etc.) and other
areas regularly maintained for
transportation purposes such as clear
zone, traffic control signage,
landscaping, any rest areas with direct
access to a controlled access highway,
or park and ride lots with direct access
to an existing transit facility. It does not
include portions of the existing right-ofway that are not currently being used or
not regularly maintained for
transportation purposes.
(23) Federally funded projects that do
not require Administration actions other
than funding, and:
(i) That receive less than $5,000,000
of Federal funds; or
(ii) With a total estimated cost of not
more than $30,000,000 and Federal
funds comprising less than 15 percent of
the total estimated project cost.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 771.118 by adding
paragraphs (c)(12) and (c)(13) to read as
follows:
§ 771.118
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(12) Projects, as defined in 23 U.S.C.
101, that would take place entirely
within the existing operational right-ofway. The operational right-of-way
includes those portions of the right-ofway that have been disturbed for an
existing transportation facility or are
regularly maintained for transportation
purposes. This area includes the
features associated with the physical
footprint of the transportation facility
(including the roadway, bridges,
interchanges, culverts, drainage, fixed
guideways, substations, etc.) and other
areas regularly maintained for
transportation purposes such as clear
zone, traffic control signage,
landscaping, any rest areas with direct
access to a controlled access highway,
or park and ride lots with direct access
to an existing transit facility. It does not
include portions of the existing right-ofway that are not currently being used or
not regularly maintained for
transportation purposes.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Feb 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
Title 49—Transportation
PART 622—ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
AND RELATED PROCEDURES
4. The authority citation for part 622
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 49
U.S.C. 303, 5301 and 5323; 23 U.S.C. 139 and
326; Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144, sections
6002 and 6010; 40 CFR parts 1500–1508; 49
CFR 1.51; and Pub. L. 112–141, 126 Stat. 405,
sections 1315, 1316 and 1317.
Issued on: February 22, 2013.
Victor M. Mendez,
Administrator, Federal Highway
Administrator.
Peter Rogoff,
Administrator, Federal Transit
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013–04678 Filed 2–27–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
FTA categorical exclusions.
*
(13) Federally funded projects that do
not require Administration actions other
than funding, and:
(i) That receive less than $5,000,000
of Federal funds; or
(ii) With a total estimated cost of not
more than $30,000,000 and Federal
funds comprising less than 15 percent of
the total estimated project cost.
*
*
*
*
*
[Docket No. 121204680–3387–01]
RIN 0648–XC387
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List
the Humphead Wrasse 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, request for information.
AGENCY:
We (NMFS) announce a 90day finding on a petition to list the
humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus)
as threatened or endangered and
designate critical habitat under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find
that the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted. Accordingly, we will
conduct a review of the status of this
species to determine if the petitioned
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
action is warranted. To ensure that the
status review is comprehensive, for 60
days we are soliciting information
pertaining to this species from any
interested party.
DATES: Information and comments on
the subject action must be received by
April 29, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit
information, identified by the code
NOAA–NMFS–2013–0001, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic information via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal https://
www.regulations.gov. Go to
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;
D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0001, click the
‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the
required fields, and enter or attach your
comments.
• Mail: NMFS, Pacific Islands
Regional Office, Regulatory Branch
Chief, 1601 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite
1110, Honolulu, HI 96814.
• Hand delivery: You may hand
deliver written information to our office
during normal business hours at the
street address given above.
Instructions: All information received
is a part of the public record and may
be posted to https://www.regulations.gov
without change. All personally
identifiable information (for example,
name, address, etc.) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be
publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information. We will accept anonymous
submissions. Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word, Excel, Corel WordPerfect, or
Adobe PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Krista Graham, NMFS Pacific Islands
Regional Office, 808–944–2238; or Lisa
Manning, NMFS Office of Protected
Resources, 301–427–8466.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 31, 2012, we received a
petition from the WildEarth Guardians
to list the humphead wrasse (Cheilinus
undulatus) as threatened or endangered
under the ESA and to designate critical
habitat concurrent with the listing
under the ESA. Copies of this petition
are available from us (see ADDRESSES,
above).
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
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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 the 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, which includes conducting a
comprehensive review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information. Within 12 months of
receiving the petition, we must
conclude the review with a finding as to
whether, in fact, the petitioned action is
warranted. Because the finding at the
12-month stage is based on a
significantly more thorough review of
the available information, a ‘‘may be
warranted’’ finding at the 90-day stage
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,
the determination of whether a species
is threatened or endangered shall be
based on any one or a combination of
the following five section 4(a)(1) factors:
the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat
or range; overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; disease or predation;
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; and any other natural or
manmade factors affecting the species’
existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR
424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued
jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Feb 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
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. When
evaluating whether substantial
information is contained in a petition,
we must consider whether the petition:
(1) Clearly indicates the administrative
measure recommended and gives the
scientific and any common name of the
species involved; (2) contains detailed
narrative justification for the
recommended measure, describing,
based on available information, past and
present numbers and distribution of the
species involved and any threats faced
by the species; (3) provides information
regarding the status of the species over
all or a significant portion of its range;
and (4) is accompanied by the
appropriate supporting documentation
in the form of bibliographic references,
reprints of pertinent publications,
copies of reports or letters from
authorities, and maps (50 CFR
424.14(b)(2)).
At the 90-day stage, 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 that it supports the
petitioner’s assertions. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13615
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.
Humphead Wrasse Species Description
The humphead wrasse is a large, longlived, slow growing, and naturally rare
species of the Indo-West Pacific. Known
by several other common names,
including Napoleon wrasse, giant
wrasse, and Maori wrasse, it is the
largest species within its family,
Labridae; and one of the largest of all
reef fishes (Donaldson and Sadovy,
2001). Humphead wrasse are thought to
reach sizes of over 200 cm; however,
records of fish greater than 150 cm (fork
length) are apparently lacking (Choat et
al., 2006). Humphead wrasse reach
sexual maturity at 5–7 years and 35–85
cm total length (TL), and can live at
least 30 years (Sadovy de Mitcheson et
al., 2010; Sadovy et al., 2003; Donaldson
and Sadovy, 2001). The humphead
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13616
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
wrasse is a carnivorous predator with a
diet that includes a variety of reefassociated animals, including molluscs,
crustaceans, sea urchins, fishes, and
starfishes—including the toxic crownof-thorns starfish (Donaldson and
Sadovy, 2001). They are generally
solitary, but can occur in small groups
and are known to congregate to form
spawning aggregations. Spawning
activity is tidally influenced and,
depending on location, occurs during
multiple months or every month of the
year (Colin, 2010; Sadovy et al., 2003).
Humphead wrasse undergo changes
in body form, color, and sex as they
grow and mature. Small juveniles are
pale with black markings; larger
juveniles become pale green with black
markings. Adults are a striking blue/
green with large scales, intricate
markings around the eyes, and a yellow
margin on the caudal fin. Large adults
also develop a large bump on their
forehead and thickened, prominent lips.
As with other wrasses and some other
reef fish species, humphead wrasse are
protogynous hermaphrodites, meaning
males start out as females and undergo
a sexual transition (Choat et al., 2006;
Sadovy et al., 2003).
The humphead wrasse ranges
throughout the tropical and sub-tropical
Indo-Pacific, from Egypt, the eastern
coast of Africa, and Madagascar,
throughout all of Southeast Asia; north
to southern Japan; south to northern
Australia; and eastward to Fiji, the
Marshall Islands, and the Cook Islands
(Russell, 2004; Sadovy et al., 2003).
Within U.S. waters, humphead wrasse
occur in American Samoa, Guam,
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (CNMI), and the Line Islands
(Russell, 2004; Sadovy et al., 2003).
Within this range, distribution of the
fish is patchy.
Humphead wrasses are typically
associated with well-developed coral
reefs. Adult humphead wrasse are
thought to prefer steep outer reef edges,
channels, and lagoon reef slopes at
about 2–60 m depth (Sadovy et al.,
2003; Donaldson and Sadovy, 2001).
Small, post-settled humphead wrasse
have been observed in branching hard
and soft corals, coral rubble, and
seagrasses (Tupper, 2007; Sadovy et al.,
2003). Juveniles are more cryptic than
adults and are often associated with
denser coral reefs and thickets, coral
rubble, bushy macroalgae, and
seagrasses (Tupper, 2007; Sadovy et al.,
2003). Juveniles typically occur inshore,
while larger fish are more common in
deeper, outer reefs or lagoons (Sadovy et
al., 2003).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Feb 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
Analysis of the Petition
The petition contains a detailed
narrative justification for the
recommended measure and provides
information on the species’ taxonomy,
geographic distribution, habitat
characteristics, population status and
trends, and threats. The petition is
accompanied by appropriate supporting
documentation. Below is a synopsis of
our analysis of the information provided
in the petition and readily available in
our files.
Humphead Wrasse Status
The petitioner acknowledges that data
on total numbers, globally or nationally,
are not available for this species;
however, humphead wrasse densities
are provided by several studies cited in
the petition. In general, these studies
indicate that densities of humphead
wrasse are low (less than 20 per 10,000
square meters), even within preferred
habitats (Gillet, 2010; Sadovy et al.,
2003). Biennial surveys conducted by
NOAA’s Pacific Islands Fisheries
Science Center (PIFSC) during 2002–
2012 at 32 U.S. Pacific islands indicate
that the species is not common at any
of the survey sites (PIFSC, unpublished
data). The exception is Wake Atoll,
where humphead wrasse are more
abundant and more frequently
encountered in surveys (PIFSC,
unpublished data; NOAA, 2009). Wake
Atoll is very isolated, relatively pristine
and, as of 2009, part of the Pacific
Remote Islands Marine National
Monument, where commercial fishing is
banned out to 50 nautical miles.
The petitioner cites studies that show
humphead wrasse densities are lower in
areas that are fished, and very low or
zero in areas with high fishing pressure
and/or large human populations (Gillet,
2010; Sadovy et al., 2003). Results of 24
underwater visual census surveys from
11 range states were reviewed by
Sadovy et al. (2003) and show that there
is a decline in both density and body
size of humphead wrasse in areas of
higher fishing pressure. Landings data
are limited, but severe declines in
humphead wrasse landings have been
reported from some locations, such as
Borneo and Malaysia, over relatively
short time scales (Scales et al., 2007;
Sadovy et al., 2003). Interviews
conducted in various locations
throughout the species’ range, including
CNMI, Philippines, Australia, Malaysia
and Fiji, indicate widely shared
perceptions among elder fishers that
abundance of humphead wrasse has
declined and that this decline is largely
attributed to fishing pressure (CNMI
Final Grant Report, 2010; Sadovy et al.,
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2003). Humphead wrasse are also
considered extirpated or nearly
extirpated from some locations at the
edge of its range, including parts of Fiji,
southwestern Indian Ocean and the
South China Sea (Sadovy et al., 2003).
Threats to Humphead Wrasse
The petition identifies overutilization
and inadequate protections as major
threats to this species. Other threats
identified in the petition but not
explicitly linked to humphead wrasse
status include destruction and
degradation of coral reef habitat, human
population growth, climate change, and
ocean acidification. The petitioner also
cites natural rarity as a factor
contributing to the species’ risk of
extinction.
The humphead wrasse is highly
prized within the Indo-Pacific region as
a luxury food fish, primarily in Hong
Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore (Sadovy et
al., 2003; Erdmann and Pet-Soede,
1997), and garners the highest price of
all fishes in the live reef fish food trade
(Sadovy de Micheson et al., 2010).
Demand for this fish is expected to
remain high, and fishing efforts are
likely to continually extend into new
areas as local populations are fished out
(Sadovy et al., 2003; Burke et al., 2002;
Barber and Pratt, 1997).
The petitioner provides references
that suggest this species is vulnerable to
fishing pressure. For example, Scales et
al. (2007) documented exponential
declines in relative abundance of
humphead wrasse in under a decade in
northern Borneo and suggest that serial
depletion is occurring. Additionally, the
humphead wrasse has been noted to
experience a greater than 50 percent
decline over the last three generations in
locations where data are available
(Russell, 2004). This decline is
predicted to continue or even accelerate
with the expected growth of the live reef
fish food trade (Russell, 2004). Also, the
international live-fish fishery appears to
be largely focused on juveniles (fish
under 500 mm TL), which are then held
in cages until they grow to market size
(Sadovy de Micheson et al., 2010). This
practice exacerbates the potential for
overexploitation because fish are
removed from the wild prior to
reproducing.
The petition discusses how, in
addition to other general threats to coral
reefs, humphead wrasse fishing
practices are posing a threat to
humphead wrasse habitat. Stunning and
capturing humphead wrasse by
applying sodium cyanide to reefs, a
common method of live-capture,
damages corals and other reef organisms
(Bryant et al., 1998; Barber and Pratt,
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
1997). This practice is prohibited in
many areas but is still used in some
areas for collecting humphead wrasse
for the live reef fish food trade (Sadovy
et al, 2003; Bryant et al., 1998; Barber
and Pratt, 1997).
The petition proposes that
exploitation threats to this species are
not being addressed, a result of the lack
of protective measures in most countries
and the inadequacy of regulatory
mechanisms where they do exist.
Although this species receives some
protections through local fishing
restrictions, Sadovy et al. (2003)
indicates that, with few exceptions,
protective legislation is largely
ineffective due to the lack of
enforcement or permitted exemptions.
Additionally, despite international trade
concerns and protections granted with
the species’ listing in Appendix II of the
Convention on International Trade of
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES), there is a body of
evidence indicating illegal, unregulated,
and unreported fishing and trade of the
humpback wrasse (CITES Workshop
Report, 2010).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Petition Finding
After reviewing the petitioner’s
information and the information in our
files, we have determined there is
substantial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
The low natural densities and other life
history characteristics of humphead
wrasse, coupled with evidence of
declines in abundance, overutilization,
and apparent inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms and protections
for this species and its coral reef habitat
are cause for concern. Because we have
found that substantial information was
presented on the above factors, we will
commence a status review of the
species. During our status review, we
will fully address all five of the factors
set out in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. At
the conclusion of the status review, we
will determine whether the petitioned
action is warranted. As previously
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Feb 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
13617
noted, a ‘‘may be warranted’’ finding
does not prejudge the outcome of the
status review.
period we are seeking information
related to the status of humphead
wrasse throughout its range.
Information Solicited
As required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of
the ESA and NMFS’ implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we
are to commence a review of the status
of the species and make a determination
within 12 months of receiving the
petition as to whether the petitioned
action is warranted. We intend that any
final action resulting from this review
be as accurate and as effective as
possible. Therefore, we are opening a
60-day public comment period to solicit
information from the public,
government agencies, the scientific
community, industry, and any other
interested parties on the status of
humphead wrasse throughout its range
including: (1) Historical and current
abundance, distribution, and population
trends; (2) biological information (life
history, population genetics, population
connectivity, etc.); (3) status of
historical and current habitat, including
spawning aggregation sites; (4)
regulatory mechanisms and
management measures, including
enforcement thereof, designed to
manage fishing or protect habitats; (5)
any current or planned activities that
may adversely impact the species; and
(6) ongoing or planned efforts to protect
and restore the species and their
habitats. We request that all information
be accompanied by: (1) supporting
documentation such as maps,
bibliographic references, or reprints of
pertinent publications; and (2) the
submitter’s name, address, and any
association, institution, or business that
the person represents. Section 4(b)(1)(A)
of the ESA and NMFS’ implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.11(b)) require
that a listing determination be made
solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data, without
consideration of possible economic or
other impacts of the determination.
During the 60-day public comment
Peer Review
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with
the USFWS, published a series of
policies regarding listings under the
ESA, including a policy for peer review
of scientific data (59 FR 34270). The
intent of the peer review policy is to
ensure listings are based on the best
scientific and commercial data
available. The Office of Management
and Budget issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review on
December 16, 2004. The Bulletin went
into effect June 16, 2005, and generally
requires that all ‘‘influential scientific
information’’ and ‘‘highly influential
scientific information’’ disseminated on
or after that date be peer reviewed.
Because the information used to
evaluate this petition may be considered
‘‘influential scientific information,’’ we
solicit the names of recognized experts
in the field that could take part in the
peer review process for this status
review (see ADDRESSES). Independent
peer reviewers will be selected from the
academic and scientific community,
tribal and other native groups, Federal
and state agencies, the private sector,
and public interest groups.
References Cited
A complete list of references is
available upon request from the Pacific
Islands Regional Office, Protected
Resource Division (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: February 22, 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. 2013–04718 Filed 2–27–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13614-13617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04718]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 121204680-3387-01]
RIN 0648-XC387
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition
To List the Humphead Wrasse 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, request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the
humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) as threatened or endangered and
designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We
find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.
Accordingly, we will conduct a review of the status of this species to
determine if the petitioned action is warranted. To ensure that the
status review is comprehensive, for 60 days we are soliciting
information pertaining to this species from any interested party.
DATES: Information and comments on the subject action must be received
by April 29, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information, identified by the code NOAA-
NMFS-2013-0001, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic information
via the Federal eRulemaking Portal https://www.regulations.gov. Go to
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0001, click the
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or
attach your comments.
Mail: NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office, Regulatory
Branch Chief, 1601 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814.
Hand delivery: You may hand deliver written information to
our office during normal business hours at the street address given
above.
Instructions: All information received is a part of the public
record and may be posted to https://www.regulations.gov without change.
All personally identifiable information (for example, name, address,
etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly
accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or
otherwise sensitive or protected information. We will accept anonymous
submissions. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, Corel WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats
only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krista Graham, NMFS Pacific Islands
Regional Office, 808-944-2238; or Lisa Manning, NMFS Office of
Protected Resources, 301-427-8466.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 31, 2012, we received a petition from the WildEarth
Guardians to list the humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) as
threatened or endangered under the ESA and to designate critical
habitat concurrent with the listing under the ESA. Copies of this
petition are available from us (see ADDRESSES, above).
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
[[Page 13615]]
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
the 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, which includes conducting a
comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial
information. Within 12 months of receiving the petition, we must
conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in fact, the
petitioned action is warranted. Because the finding at the 12-month
stage is based on a significantly more thorough review of the available
information, a ``may be warranted'' finding at the 90-day stage 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, the determination of whether a species is
threatened or endangered shall be based on any one or a combination of
the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range;
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors
affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR
424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50
CFR 424.14(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. When
evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition,
we must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the
administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any
common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative
justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on
available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the
species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides
information regarding the status of the species over all or a
significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the
appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic
references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or
letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
At the 90-day stage, 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 that it supports the petitioner's assertions.
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.
Humphead Wrasse Species Description
The humphead wrasse is a large, long-lived, slow growing, and
naturally rare species of the Indo-West Pacific. Known by several other
common names, including Napoleon wrasse, giant wrasse, and Maori
wrasse, it is the largest species within its family, Labridae; and one
of the largest of all reef fishes (Donaldson and Sadovy, 2001).
Humphead wrasse are thought to reach sizes of over 200 cm; however,
records of fish greater than 150 cm (fork length) are apparently
lacking (Choat et al., 2006). Humphead wrasse reach sexual maturity at
5-7 years and 35-85 cm total length (TL), and can live at least 30
years (Sadovy de Mitcheson et al., 2010; Sadovy et al., 2003; Donaldson
and Sadovy, 2001). The humphead
[[Page 13616]]
wrasse is a carnivorous predator with a diet that includes a variety of
reef-associated animals, including molluscs, crustaceans, sea urchins,
fishes, and starfishes--including the toxic crown-of-thorns starfish
(Donaldson and Sadovy, 2001). They are generally solitary, but can
occur in small groups and are known to congregate to form spawning
aggregations. Spawning activity is tidally influenced and, depending on
location, occurs during multiple months or every month of the year
(Colin, 2010; Sadovy et al., 2003).
Humphead wrasse undergo changes in body form, color, and sex as
they grow and mature. Small juveniles are pale with black markings;
larger juveniles become pale green with black markings. Adults are a
striking blue/green with large scales, intricate markings around the
eyes, and a yellow margin on the caudal fin. Large adults also develop
a large bump on their forehead and thickened, prominent lips. As with
other wrasses and some other reef fish species, humphead wrasse are
protogynous hermaphrodites, meaning males start out as females and
undergo a sexual transition (Choat et al., 2006; Sadovy et al., 2003).
The humphead wrasse ranges throughout the tropical and sub-tropical
Indo-Pacific, from Egypt, the eastern coast of Africa, and Madagascar,
throughout all of Southeast Asia; north to southern Japan; south to
northern Australia; and eastward to Fiji, the Marshall Islands, and the
Cook Islands (Russell, 2004; Sadovy et al., 2003). Within U.S. waters,
humphead wrasse occur in American Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and the Line Islands (Russell, 2004;
Sadovy et al., 2003). Within this range, distribution of the fish is
patchy.
Humphead wrasses are typically associated with well-developed coral
reefs. Adult humphead wrasse are thought to prefer steep outer reef
edges, channels, and lagoon reef slopes at about 2-60 m depth (Sadovy
et al., 2003; Donaldson and Sadovy, 2001). Small, post-settled humphead
wrasse have been observed in branching hard and soft corals, coral
rubble, and seagrasses (Tupper, 2007; Sadovy et al., 2003). Juveniles
are more cryptic than adults and are often associated with denser coral
reefs and thickets, coral rubble, bushy macroalgae, and seagrasses
(Tupper, 2007; Sadovy et al., 2003). Juveniles typically occur inshore,
while larger fish are more common in deeper, outer reefs or lagoons
(Sadovy et al., 2003).
Analysis of the Petition
The petition contains a detailed narrative justification for the
recommended measure and provides information on the species' taxonomy,
geographic distribution, habitat characteristics, population status and
trends, and threats. The petition is accompanied by appropriate
supporting documentation. Below is a synopsis of our analysis of the
information provided in the petition and readily available in our
files.
Humphead Wrasse Status
The petitioner acknowledges that data on total numbers, globally or
nationally, are not available for this species; however, humphead
wrasse densities are provided by several studies cited in the petition.
In general, these studies indicate that densities of humphead wrasse
are low (less than 20 per 10,000 square meters), even within preferred
habitats (Gillet, 2010; Sadovy et al., 2003). Biennial surveys
conducted by NOAA's Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC)
during 2002-2012 at 32 U.S. Pacific islands indicate that the species
is not common at any of the survey sites (PIFSC, unpublished data). The
exception is Wake Atoll, where humphead wrasse are more abundant and
more frequently encountered in surveys (PIFSC, unpublished data; NOAA,
2009). Wake Atoll is very isolated, relatively pristine and, as of
2009, part of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument,
where commercial fishing is banned out to 50 nautical miles.
The petitioner cites studies that show humphead wrasse densities
are lower in areas that are fished, and very low or zero in areas with
high fishing pressure and/or large human populations (Gillet, 2010;
Sadovy et al., 2003). Results of 24 underwater visual census surveys
from 11 range states were reviewed by Sadovy et al. (2003) and show
that there is a decline in both density and body size of humphead
wrasse in areas of higher fishing pressure. Landings data are limited,
but severe declines in humphead wrasse landings have been reported from
some locations, such as Borneo and Malaysia, over relatively short time
scales (Scales et al., 2007; Sadovy et al., 2003). Interviews conducted
in various locations throughout the species' range, including CNMI,
Philippines, Australia, Malaysia and Fiji, indicate widely shared
perceptions among elder fishers that abundance of humphead wrasse has
declined and that this decline is largely attributed to fishing
pressure (CNMI Final Grant Report, 2010; Sadovy et al., 2003). Humphead
wrasse are also considered extirpated or nearly extirpated from some
locations at the edge of its range, including parts of Fiji,
southwestern Indian Ocean and the South China Sea (Sadovy et al.,
2003).
Threats to Humphead Wrasse
The petition identifies overutilization and inadequate protections
as major threats to this species. Other threats identified in the
petition but not explicitly linked to humphead wrasse status include
destruction and degradation of coral reef habitat, human population
growth, climate change, and ocean acidification. The petitioner also
cites natural rarity as a factor contributing to the species' risk of
extinction.
The humphead wrasse is highly prized within the Indo-Pacific region
as a luxury food fish, primarily in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore
(Sadovy et al., 2003; Erdmann and Pet-Soede, 1997), and garners the
highest price of all fishes in the live reef fish food trade (Sadovy de
Micheson et al., 2010). Demand for this fish is expected to remain
high, and fishing efforts are likely to continually extend into new
areas as local populations are fished out (Sadovy et al., 2003; Burke
et al., 2002; Barber and Pratt, 1997).
The petitioner provides references that suggest this species is
vulnerable to fishing pressure. For example, Scales et al. (2007)
documented exponential declines in relative abundance of humphead
wrasse in under a decade in northern Borneo and suggest that serial
depletion is occurring. Additionally, the humphead wrasse has been
noted to experience a greater than 50 percent decline over the last
three generations in locations where data are available (Russell,
2004). This decline is predicted to continue or even accelerate with
the expected growth of the live reef fish food trade (Russell, 2004).
Also, the international live-fish fishery appears to be largely focused
on juveniles (fish under 500 mm TL), which are then held in cages until
they grow to market size (Sadovy de Micheson et al., 2010). This
practice exacerbates the potential for overexploitation because fish
are removed from the wild prior to reproducing.
The petition discusses how, in addition to other general threats to
coral reefs, humphead wrasse fishing practices are posing a threat to
humphead wrasse habitat. Stunning and capturing humphead wrasse by
applying sodium cyanide to reefs, a common method of live-capture,
damages corals and other reef organisms (Bryant et al., 1998; Barber
and Pratt,
[[Page 13617]]
1997). This practice is prohibited in many areas but is still used in
some areas for collecting humphead wrasse for the live reef fish food
trade (Sadovy et al, 2003; Bryant et al., 1998; Barber and Pratt,
1997).
The petition proposes that exploitation threats to this species are
not being addressed, a result of the lack of protective measures in
most countries and the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms where they
do exist. Although this species receives some protections through local
fishing restrictions, Sadovy et al. (2003) indicates that, with few
exceptions, protective legislation is largely ineffective due to the
lack of enforcement or permitted exemptions. Additionally, despite
international trade concerns and protections granted with the species'
listing in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade of
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), there is a body of
evidence indicating illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing and
trade of the humpback wrasse (CITES Workshop Report, 2010).
Petition Finding
After reviewing the petitioner's information and the information in
our files, we have determined there is substantial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The low natural
densities and other life history characteristics of humphead wrasse,
coupled with evidence of declines in abundance, overutilization, and
apparent inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms and protections
for this species and its coral reef habitat are cause for concern.
Because we have found that substantial information was presented on the
above factors, we will commence a status review of the species. During
our status review, we will fully address all five of the factors set
out in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. At the conclusion of the status
review, we will determine whether the petitioned action is warranted.
As previously noted, a ``may be warranted'' finding does not prejudge
the outcome of the status review.
Information Solicited
As required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we are to commence a review of the
status of the species and make a determination within 12 months of
receiving the petition as to whether the petitioned action is
warranted. We intend that any final action resulting from this review
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we are opening
a 60-day public comment period to solicit information from the public,
government agencies, the scientific community, industry, and any other
interested parties on the status of humphead wrasse throughout its
range including: (1) Historical and current abundance, distribution,
and population trends; (2) biological information (life history,
population genetics, population connectivity, etc.); (3) status of
historical and current habitat, including spawning aggregation sites;
(4) regulatory mechanisms and management measures, including
enforcement thereof, designed to manage fishing or protect habitats;
(5) any current or planned activities that may adversely impact the
species; and (6) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the
species and their habitats. We request that all information be
accompanied by: (1) supporting documentation such as maps,
bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and
(2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or
business that the person represents. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA and
NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.11(b)) require that a
listing determination be made solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data, without consideration of possible
economic or other impacts of the determination. During the 60-day
public comment period we are seeking information related to the status
of humphead wrasse throughout its range.
Peer Review
On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with the USFWS, published a series
of policies regarding listings under the ESA, including a policy for
peer review of scientific data (59 FR 34270). The intent of the peer
review policy is to ensure listings are based on the best scientific
and commercial data available. The Office of Management and Budget
issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review on
December 16, 2004. The Bulletin went into effect June 16, 2005, and
generally requires that all ``influential scientific information'' and
``highly influential scientific information'' disseminated on or after
that date be peer reviewed. Because the information used to evaluate
this petition may be considered ``influential scientific information,''
we solicit the names of recognized experts in the field that could take
part in the peer review process for this status review (see ADDRESSES).
Independent peer reviewers will be selected from the academic and
scientific community, tribal and other native groups, Federal and state
agencies, the private sector, and public interest groups.
References Cited
A complete list of references is available upon request from the
Pacific Islands Regional Office, Protected Resource Division (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: February 22, 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. 2013-04718 Filed 2-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P