Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 10 Species of Skates and Rays and 15 Species of Bony Fishes as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act, 10104-10125 [2014-03942]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10104-10125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03942]



[[Page 10104]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Docket No. 140113029-4029-01]
RIN 0648-XD080


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition 
To List 10 Species of Skates and Rays and 15 Species of Bony Fishes 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: 90-day petition finding, request for information.

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

SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list 10 
species of skates and rays and 15 species of bony fishes as threatened 
or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the 
petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for 
five species of skates and rays: Dasyatis margarita, Electrolux 
addisoni, Okamejei pita, Pastinachus solocirostris, and Trygonorrhina 
melaleuca. We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted for five species of skates and rays: Bathyraja griseocauda, 
Raja undulata, Rhinobatos cemiculus, R. horkelii, and R. rhinobatos. We 
also find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted for ten species of bony fishes: Argyrosomus hololepidotus, 
Azurina eupalama, Chaetodontoplus vanderloosi, Colpichthys hubbsi, 
Enneapterygius namarrgon, Halichoeres socialis, Paraclinus magdalenae, 
Paraclinus walkeri, Paralabrax albomaculatus, and Tomicodon abuelorum. 
And we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted for five species of bony fishes: Latimeria chalumnae, 
Mycteroperca fusca, Mycteroperca jordani, Pterapogon kauderni, and 
Scarus trispinosus. Therefore, we will conduct a status review of the 
10 species of skates and rays and bony fishes to determine if the 
petitioned action is warranted. To ensure that the status review is 
comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information 
pertaining to these petitioned species from any interested party. In 
addition to the petitions to list these species, the petitioner has 
requested that we list the coelacanth Latimeria menadoensis based on 
similarity of appearance to Latimeria chalumnae. If we determine that 
L. chalumnae warrants listing under the ESA, we will make a 
determination on the petitioner's request to list L. menadoensis based 
on similarity of appearance at a later date.

DATES: Information and comments on the subject action must be received 
by April 25, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, information, or data on this 
document, identified by the code NOAA-NMFS-2014-0021, by any of the 
following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0021, click the ``Comment Now!'' icon, 
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business 
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily 
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous 
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain 
anonymous), although submitting comments anonymously will prevent NMFS 
from contacting you if NMFS has difficulty retrieving your submission. 
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, 
Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
    Copies of the petition and related materials are available upon 
request from the Director, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East 
West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or online at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/petition81.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marta Nammack, Office of Protected 
Resources, 301-427-8469.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 15, 2013, we received a petition from the WildEarth 
Guardians to list 81 marine species as threatened or endangered under 
the ESA and to designate critical habitat under the ESA. Copies of this 
petition are available from us (see ADDRESSES). This finding addresses 
25 of the fish species (10 skates and rays and 15 bony fishes) 
identified as part of this petition. The 10 skates and rays considered 
in this finding are: Bathyraja griseocauda (graytail skate), Dasyatis 
margarita (ray), Electrolux addisoni (ornate sleeper ray), Okamejei 
pita (pita skate), Pastinachus solocirostris (roughnose stingray), Raja 
undulata (undulate ray), Rhinobatos cemiculus (blackchin guitarfish), 
Rhinobatos horkelii (Brazilian guitarfish), Rhinobatos rhinobatos 
(common guitarfish/violinfish), and Trygonorrhina melaleuca (magpie 
fiddler ray). The 15 bony fishes considered in this finding are: 
Argyrosomus hololepidotus (Madagascar kob/Madagascar meager), Azurina 
eupalama (Gal[aacute]pagos damsel), Chaetodontoplus vanderloosi (coral 
reef fish), Colpichthys hubbsi (Delta silverside), Enneapterygius 
namarrgon (lightning man triplefin), Halichoeres socialis (social 
wrasse), Latimeria chalumnae (coelacanth/gombessa), Mycteroperca fusca 
(comb grouper/island grouper), Mycteroperca jordani (Gulf grouper), 
Paraclinus magdalenae (Magdalena blenny), Paraclinus walkeri (reef 
fish), Paralabrax albomaculatus (camotillo), Pterapogon kauderni 
(Banggai cardinalfish), Scarus trispinosus (greenback parrotfish), and 
Tomicodon abuelorum (grandparents clingfish).
    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 
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

[[Page 10105]]

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 DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint 
NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (jointly, ``the Services'') 
policy (DPS Policy) clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the 
phrase ``distinct population segment'' for the purposes of listing, 
delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (61 FR 4722; 
February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is ``endangered'' if 
it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range, and ``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 
1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing 
regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered 
based on any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) 
factors: the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or 
predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other 
natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 
1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
    ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 
CFR 424.14(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 lack of 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 non-
governmental organizations, such as the International Union for 
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or 
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk 
classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or 
state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may 
not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. 
For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a 
species' conservation status do ``not constitute a recommendation by 
NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because 
NatureServe assessments ``have different criteria, evidence 
requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of 
endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of 
lists should not be expected to coincide'' (https://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a petition cites such 
classifications, we will evaluate the source of information that the 
classification is based upon in light of the standards on extinction 
risk and impacts or threats discussed above.
    With respect to the 25 fish species discussed in this finding, the 
petitioner relies almost exclusively on the risk classifications of the 
IUCN as the source of information on the status of each petitioned 
species. All of the petitioned species are listed as ``endangered'' or 
``critically endangered'' on the IUCN

[[Page 10106]]

Redlist, and the petitioner notes this as an explicit consideration in 
offering petitions on these species. Species classifications under the 
IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent, and the data standards, evaluation 
criteria, and treatment of uncertainty are also not necessarily the 
same. Thus, we instead consider the information on threats identified 
by the petitioners, as well as the data on which they are based, as 
they pertain to each petitioned species.

Species Descriptions

    Fishes exhibit enormous diversity in their morphology, in the 
habitats they occupy, and in their biology, and they include a vast 
array of distantly related vertebrates, including hagfish, lamprey, 
lungfish, and flatfish (Nelson, 1976). Of the 81 species or populations 
petitioned for listing, 50 are fishes: 3 hagfishes of the Order 
Myxiniformes; 32 cartilaginous fishes (15 sharks of the Order 
Lamniformes, 7 sharks of the Order Squaliformes, and 10 skates and rays 
of the Order Rajiformes); and 15 bony fishes (1 of the Order 
Coelacanthiformes, 1 of the Order Atheriniformes, 12 of the Order 
Perciformes, and 1 of the Order Gobiesociformes). We have already 
published 90-day findings for the hagfishes (78 FR 66676; November 6, 
2013) and sharks (78 FR 69376; November 19, 2013), so this finding will 
describe our analysis of the petitioned rays and bony fishes.

Skates and Rays

    The 10 petitioned species of skates and rays belong to the Order 
Rajiformes (Rajoids) and are in the following five families: 
Arhynchobatidae (softnose skates, 1 species: Bathyraja griseocauda, or 
graytail skate), Dasyatidae (stingrays, 2 species: Dasyatis margarita, 
or daisy stingray; Pastinachus solocirostris, or roughnose stingray), 
Narkidae (sleeper rays, 1 species: Electrolux addisoni, or ornate 
sleeper ray), Rajidae (skates, 2 species: Okamejei pita, or Pita skate; 
Raja undulata, or undulate ray), and Rhinobatidae (guitarfishes, 4 
species: Rhinobatos cemiculus, or blackchin guitarfish; Rhinobatos 
horkelii, or Brazilian guitarfish; Rhinobatos rhinobatos, or common 
guitarfish; Trygonorrhina melaleuca, or magpie fiddler ray). The Order 
Rajiformes includes skates and rays with a dorso-ventrally flattened 
body, five ventral gill openings, eyes and well-developed spiracles on 
top of the head, and no anal fin or nictitating membrane (a transparent 
or translucent third eyelid present in some animals that can be drawn 
across the eye for protection and to moisten it while maintaining 
visibility).
    Most species have enlarged, thorn-like dermal denticles 
(structurally homologous with vertebrate teeth) on the skin, often with 
a row of large denticles along the spine. The pectoral fins are large 
but not clearly demarcated from the body, and together with the body 
are known as the disc. They start from the side of the head in front of 
the gill openings and end at the caudal peduncle (narrow part of a 
fish's body to which the caudal or tail fin is attached). There are up 
to two dorsal fins but no anal fin. There is a slender tail clearly 
demarcated from the disc. The caudal fin varies in size between species 
and the rays have a whip-like tail with no caudal fin.
    Rajiformes are found throughout the world's oceans, from Arctic and 
Antarctic waters, from shallow coastal shelves, open seas and abyssal 
regions. A few are found in rivers and some in estuaries but most are 
marine, living near the seabed at depths down to 3,000 m or more.
    In most rajoids, water for breathing is taken in through the 
spiracles rather than through the mouth and exits through the gill 
slits. Most species swim by undulating their enlarged pectoral fins, 
but the guitarfish propel themselves through the water with sideways 
movements of their tail and caudal fin. Most species are carnivores 
feeding on molluscs and other invertebrates on the seabed, and small 
fish. Some species are viviparous, others ovoviviparous (both giving 
birth to live young), but the skates lay eggs in horny cases known as 
mermaid's purses. Most species are benthic, resting on the sandy or 
muddy seabed, sometimes undulating their pectoral fins to stir up 
sediment and bury themselves shallowly.

Bony Fishes

    The 15 petitioned species of bony fishes belong to four orders: 
Atheriniformes (1 species), Coelacanthiformes (1 species), 
Gobiesociformes (1 species), and Perciformes (12 species).
    The Order Atheriniformes includes fishes with dorsal, anal, and 
pelvic fins placed far back on the body, no spines in fins, a single 
dorsal fin, and pelvic fins with 6 rays. Colpichthys hubbsi, or the 
Delta silverside, is the one species of this order (Family 
Atherinopsidae) included in the petition.
    The Order Coelacanthiformes includes fishes with external nostrils 
and a caudal fin consisting of 3 lobes. Latimeria chalumnae, or the 
coelacanth/gombessa, is the one species of this order (Family 
Latimeriidae) included in the petition. The petitioner also requested 
that we list Latimeria menadoensis based on similarity of appearance 
(ESA section 4(e)).
    The Order Gobiesociformes includes fishes with no scales on their 
heads or bodies, 5 to 7 branchiostegal rays, and no swim bladder. 
Tomicodon abuelorum, or the grandparents clingfish, is the one species 
of this order (Family Gobiosocidae) included in the petition.
    Finally, the Order Perciformes is a diverse order with many 
families, and it includes fishes with 2 dorsal fins and with spines in 
the fins. The twelve Perciformes included in this petition belong to 
nine families: (1) Apogonidae: Pterapogon kauderni, or Banggai 
cardinalfish; (2) Labridae: Halichoeres socialis, or social wrasse; (3) 
Labrisomidae: Paraclinus magdalenae, or Magdalena blenny; and 
Paraclinus walkeri, or reef fish; (4) Pomacanthidae: Chaetodontoplus 
vanderloosi, or coral reef fish; (5) Pomacentridae: Azurina eupalama, 
or Gal[aacute]pagos damsel; (6) Scaridae: Scarus trispinosus, or 
greenback parrotfish; (7) Scianidae: Argyrosomus hololepidotus, or 
Madagascar kob; (8) Serranidae: Mycteroperca fusca, or comb grouper/
island grouper; Mycteroperca jordani, or Gulf grouper; and Paralabrax 
albomaculatus, or camotillo; and (9) Tripterygiidae: Enneapterygius 
namarrgon, or lightning man triplefin.

Analysis of the Petition

    The petition clearly indicates the administrative measure 
recommended and gives the scientific and common names of the species 
involved. Based on the information presented in the petition, along 
with the information readily available in our files, we find that each 
of the 25 petitioned species constitutes a valid ``species'' eligible 
for listing under the ESA as each is considered a valid taxonomic 
species (though, as the petitioner notes, there is a possibility that, 
with more information, Trygonorrhina melaleuca could be a mutant form 
of Trygonorrhina fasciata, the southern fiddler ray). With the 
exception of Mycteroperca jordani, which occurs off southern 
California, as well as in the Gulf of California, the petitioned fishes 
are found exclusively in foreign waters. The petition contains a 
narrative justification for the recommended measures and provides 
limited information on the species' geographic distribution, habitat, 
and threats. For the skates and rays, little information is provided 
regarding the ten species' past or present numbers, or population 
status and trends for all or a significant portion

[[Page 10107]]

of the species' ranges. For some of the bony fishes, some past and 
present relative abundance data and provisional abundance data are 
provided. Supporting documentation is provided, mainly in the form of 
IUCN species assessments. We had no information in our files for any of 
the petitioned skates and rays, but did have some limited information 
on one of the bony fishes, Pterapogon kauderni (Banggai cardinalfish). 
A synopsis of our analysis of the information provided in the petition 
and readily available in our files is provided below. Following the 
format of the petition, we first discuss the introductory information 
presented for each group of species and then discuss the species-
specific information.

Threats to the Skates and Rays

    The ten skate and ray species petitioned for listing are currently 
listed as either ``endangered'' or ``critically endangered'' on the 
IUCN Red List. The petition asserts that these species are being 
threatened with extinction by four of the five ESA section 4(a)(1) 
factors--habitat destruction, overutilization, inadequacy of regulatory 
mechanisms, and natural factors--which we discuss in turn below.
    In terms of habitat destruction, the petition focuses on human 
population growth and associated consequences (e.g., pollution, rapid 
coastal development, climate change) as the main drivers of the 
destruction of skate and ray habitat. The petition states, ``Increased 
economic growth in coastal cities is a major cause of ocean habitat 
destruction'' and ``Climate change is expected to further magnify these 
coastal pollution problems.'' Some of the associated consequences of 
human population growth are discussed further; however, specific 
information to link these general threats to skate and ray habitats or 
impacts to skate and ray habitat is lacking. For example, the petition 
discusses the increase in the number and size of ``dead zones'' (i.e., 
areas of very low levels of dissolved oxygen) worldwide, but no 
information is provided to indicate whether and to what extent any dead 
zones overlap with or affect the habitats of the petitioned species.
    In terms of overutilization, the petition asserts that both bycatch 
and commercial harvest present threats to the ten skates and rays 
petitioned for listing under the ESA. Some information is presented on 
the extent of harvest and bycatch of some of the ten skate and ray 
species. The fate of by-caught skates and rays is not discussed. The 
petition notes that fishing that negatively affects these species is 
often unregulated or under-regulated and often uses unsustainable 
practices such as targeting pregnant females at predictable 
aggregations. The petition states that at least some of the petitioned 
species are subject to recreational fishing.
    The petition states that no conservation measures are in place for 
nearly all of the petitioned skates and rays and that ESA listings are 
needed to prevent their extinction. It notes that several fisheries 
limit catch or effort on petitioned rays and skates (e.g., Bathyraja 
griseocauda), but that these limitations are often ignored, 
unmonitored, or based on insufficient stock status assessments. It also 
states that two marine reserves (Banc d'Arguin in Mauritania, and 
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Bijagos archipelago, the PNO 
marine reserve, and the PNMJVO marine reserve in Guinea-Bissau) that 
cover a portion of the range of two Rhinobatoid species do not provide 
sufficient protection because, despite a ban on targeted elasmobranch 
fishing in the first, and a prohibition on commercial fishing in the 
second, fishing for other species still occurs, resulting in bycatch. 
Also, the petition asserts that under-enforcement is a problem, and no 
information exists on the efficacy of these MPAs. We do not necessarily 
consider a lack of species-specific protections a threat to the 
particular species. For example, management measures that regulate 
other species, activities (e.g., commercial fisheries), or areas may 
indirectly function to minimize threats to the petitioned species. As 
stated previously, we look for substantial 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.
    The petition specifically points to the lack of a listing under 
CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of 
Wild Fauna and Flora) for any of these species as a threat to the 
petitioned skates and rays. We agree with the statement in the petition 
that the absence of a CITES listing for a given species is not evidence 
that the same species does not warrant the protections of the ESA. 
However, we find nothing to substantiate the statement in the petition 
that ``. . . the absence of CITES listing is problematic'' for the ten 
skate and ray species. CITES is a tool to manage and regulate 
international trade in situations where trade has been identified as a 
threat to the particular species' survival in the wild. No specific 
information on international trade of any of the petitioned skates and 
rays is presented in the petition or available to us, though the 
petition states, ``skate landings have been increasing considerably in 
Argentina due to international demand,'' and we do not have any 
information in our files regarding direct harvest of these skate and 
ray species.
    Lastly, the petition asserts that the ten skate and ray species are 
threatened as a result of their K-selected strategy (large size, low 
productivity, late age at maturity) because they are currently 
experiencing the type of rapid, chaotic change that makes their K-
selected life history pattern a liability. The life history strategy of 
a species is an important factor to consider when evaluating a species' 
risk of extinction; however, it does not by itself indicate the 
likelihood of extinction of that species, nor does it constitute 
substantial information that listing under the ESA may be warranted. To 
determine whether listing of such a species may be warranted, there 
must also be substantial information indicating it is both exposed to 
and responding in a negative fashion to a threat such that the species 
may be threatened with extinction.
    Overall, the broad statements and generalizations of threats for 
all petitioned skate and ray species do not constitute substantial 
information indicating that listing may be warranted for any of the 
petitioned species. There is little information in this introductory 
section indicating that particular petitioned species may be responding 
in a negative fashion to any of the discussed threats. While some of 
the information in this introductory section suggests concern for the 
status of many marine species generally, its broadness, generality, 
and/or speculative nature, and the failure of the petitioner to make 
logical and reasonable connections to the status of the individual 
petitioned species means that we cannot find that this information 
reasonably suggests that one or more of these threat factors may be 
operative threats that act or have acted on any of the petitioned 
species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. We 
will consider the few instances in the introductory section that 
specifically link threats to a particular petitioned skate or ray 
species in our discussion of threats to that particular species. 
Information for each species is from the IUCN assessment cited in the 
petition for that species, unless otherwise noted, and we cite that 
IUCN assessment in the first sentence of each species account below. 
References cited in the IUCN assessments are also cited below; however, 
many of these

[[Page 10108]]

references were not available for us to review, and, therefore, these 
were taken at face value. We searched, but we found no information in 
our files on any of the petitioned skate and ray species.

Bathyraja griseocauda

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for B. 
griseocauda, this benthic species occurs in the Southwest Atlantic, off 
Argentina and the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, and in the Southeast 
Pacific, off Chile (McCormack et al., 2012). It is a large (at least to 
156 cm total length (TL)), oviparous, slow growing, late maturing 
(around 15 years of age (Agnew et al., 2000)) skate that occurs at 
depths between 82 and 941 m in the Southwest Atlantic (Menni and 
Stehmann, 2000) and 137 and 595 m off Chile (J. Lamilla pers. comm., 
2006). Size at maturity has been estimated at around 120 cm TL for 
males (citing Stehmann et al., unpubl. data). It has a very low 
tolerance for changes in water temperature and water salinity levels 
(Figueroa et al., 1999). During research trawls around the Falkland/
Malvinas Islands, B. griseocauda were more abundant in deeper trawls 
(200 and 350 m) and formed only a small part of the catch in shallow 
trawls (150 m) (Wakeford et al., 2004). Length frequency data for 
individuals captured around the Falkland/Malvinas Islands showed that 
all sizes of B. griseocauda were present, with smaller individuals 
found in deeper water (Wakeford et al., 2004). There is no evidence for 
large spatial or temporal movements, and the population off the 
Falkland/Malvinas Islands may complete its entire life cycle within 
Falkland Island waters (Wakeford et al., 2005). Small individuals feed 
opportunistically on benthic isopods, and larger specimens are 
predominantly piscivorous on Patagonotothen ramsayi.
    Population size of B. griseocauda is unknown, though decreases have 
been detected around the Falkland Islands (Agnew et al., 2000; Wakeford 
et al., 2004).
    The petitioner asserts that rising ocean temperatures, coupled with 
the species' low tolerance for changes in water temperature and water 
salinity levels and seeming inability to move to new areas, could mean 
that all of its current habitat will be unsuitable in the near future 
as anthropogenic climate change progresses and continues to heat the 
ocean. However, the information provided is speculative, and the fact 
that there is no evidence of large spatial or temporal movements for 
this species does not mean that individuals could not move if they 
needed to find cooler habitat.
    The petitioner asserts that the main threat to this species is 
fishing. In Argentina, skate landings have been increasing considerably 
because of international demand. ``Prior to 1994, skate captures were 
less than 1,000 t[ons annually], however, since that year skate 
landings [have] increased considerably, reaching'' more than 17,000 
tons in 2003 (Massa et al., 2004). B. griseocauda is a regular bycatch 
in bottom trawl fisheries for bony fishes. The petitioner stated that 
``Catches have been so high that there was a 15-59% decline in the 
biomass of the Graytail Skate captured between 45[deg] and 55[deg]S 
just from 1998 to 1999,'' but this appears to combine B. griseocauda 
catch in the fishery-independent investigations for hake with captures 
of rays by the deep sea fishing fleet, which isn't appropriate. 
McCormack et al. (2007) actually stated that, during fishery-
independent investigations for hake (Merluccius hubbsi) and other 
species, Garcia de la Rosa et al. (2000) reported a 59 percent decline 
in the biomass of B. griseocauda captured from 45[deg]S to 55[deg]S 
from 1998 to 1999; they acknowledged, however, that during the second 
phase of the investigations, new gear was used which likely reduced the 
capture of rays. The petitioner failed to note this change in gear, 
which makes the 59 percent decline estimate unreliable. McCormack et 
al. (2007) also stated that captures of rays by the deep sea fishing 
fleet decreased by around 15 percent from 1998 to 1999 (Garc[iacute]a 
de la Rosa et al., 2000). It is not clear how the petitioner came up 
with the 15-59 percent decline range for graytail skate, since the 15 
percent figure seems to apply to catches of all ray species. B. 
griseocauda is also taken in the Dipturus chilensis directed skate 
fishery off Argentina, which currently comprises a single vessel. The 
petitioner noted that, at greater depths, B. griseocauda comprised up 
to 18 percent of the processed catch in this fishery (Colonello et al., 
2002); however, the petition failed to mention that species-specific 
bycatch data are not generally collected for this fishery. While this 
likely means that the actual catch of B. griseocauda was greater than 
stated in the petition, without estimates of total catch size from the 
single vessel or biomass of B. griseocauda in this region, we cannot 
determine whether this catch level is enough to cause the species to be 
at a significant risk of extinction.
    This species is also taken in the multispecies skate trawl fishery 
around the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, operating since 1989. The fishery 
initially operated over two main areas, one located on the shelf edge 
to the north of the Islands, and the other to the south of the Islands. 
The petitioner and the IUCN assessment assert that this species was the 
dominant species of skate caught by finfish and ray-licensed vessels in 
1993, especially in a ray ``hot spot'' to the south of the Islands 
where it comprised around 70 percent of the catch (Agnew et al., 2000). 
However, they go on to state that the proportion of the catch 
comprising B. griseocauda in the southern Falklands catch had fallen to 
around 5 percent by 1993. They state that the proportion of this 
species in catches north of the Islands also fell. Since they elaborate 
that total catches of the species fell from around 1,500 t to around 
100 t between 1993 and 1995 in the south, and from over 1,000 t to 
around 250 t in the northern areas between 1993 and 1997 (Agnew et al., 
2000), we can only guess that they meant to say that the proportion of 
the catch comprising B. griseocauda in the southern Falklands catch had 
fallen to around 5 percent by 1995. The mean disc width of B. 
griseocauda also decreased from 52.18 cm in 1993 to 38.08 cm in 1997. 
Following declines in the early 1990s, the southern fishing area (south 
of 52[deg]S) was closed to the ray fleet in 1996. An assessment of the 
northern ray population indicated that the catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) 
of this species declined from 100 kg/hr to less than 50 kg/hr from 1992 
to 2001, but the petition failed to note that data quality was 
relatively poor and, because the data had to be grouped into discrete 
time periods rather than as a continuous variable, this low level of 
precision should be taken into consideration (D. Wakeford pers. comm., 
2006). No studies have been conducted to determine the abundance of 
this species in the southern area since the skate fishery closure, but 
it is still caught as bycatch by finfish trawlers that operate around 
the Falkland/Malvinas Islands and within the closure area. While these 
trawlers cannot target rajids, a small bycatch (below 10 percent) is 
allowed. Despite the problems associated with the information presented 
in the petition, the likely decline in catches and the decrease in mean 
disc width discussed above may contribute to the extinction risk of B. 
griseocauda.
    This species is also taken in the directed skate fishery off Chile, 
which primarily targets Dipturus chilensis but also lands other skate 
species. Of the six rajids caught in this fishery, B. albomaculata, B. 
brachyurops, B. griseocauda, and Rajella sadowskii make up 5 percent 
(Lamilla et al., 2001,

[[Page 10109]]

2002). Overall biomass of the target species (D. chilensis and D. 
trachydermus) has declined by 51 percent since fishing began in 1979 
(Quir[oacute]z, 2005), so the petition argues that declines are thus 
also likely to have occurred for bycatch species. However, the 
petitioner has not provided any information on catchability of the 
target species compared to catchability of B. griseocauda to support 
such an assumption. B. griseocauda is also taken as bycatch in the 
artisanal Patagonian toothfish longline fishery operating at depths of 
300 to 2,500 m between Iquique (20[deg]S) and Ladrillero Gulf 
(49[deg]S) (Lamilla, 2003). It is not clear from this information what 
impact this fishery has on B. griseocauda because no data on abundance 
or catch are provided.
    Some regulatory mechanisms are in place within the range of B. 
griseocauda. In Argentine waters, total allowable catches, minimum 
sizes, and overall annual quotas are used for managing numerous 
elasmobranch species, but little attention is paid to these, and there 
is no regular monitoring by authorities. The petitioner states that in 
Chile, an annual quota for Dipturus spp. has been in place since 2005. 
The petitioner also notes that there is a seasonal fishery closure for 
the entire Chilean coast between December 1 and February 28 to protect 
the reproductive season of Dipturus spp., but it is unknown whether 
this latter measure also protects the reproductive season of B. 
griseocauda. However, as discussed above, there is no reliable 
information presented in the petition to suggest that B. griseocauda 
may be at risk of extinction in Argentina or in Chile. As we have 
stated above, we look for substantial 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.
    The Falkland/Malvinas Islands multispecies skate fishery is managed 
by limiting fishing effort, but limits are not based on species-
specific information. All licensed vessels are required to provide 
daily catch and effort details, including discards of commercial and 
non-commercial species to the Falkland Island Fisheries Department; 
however, there is no requirement to report species-specific 
information. Vessels fishing under general finfish licenses are 
prohibited from targeting skates, although a small bycatch below 10 
percent is allowed (Agnew et al., 2000). The petitioner contends that 
the regulations' focus on fishing effort instead of catch limits and 
the lack of species-specific reporting result in insufficient 
protection for B. griseocauda, especially for a species that should not 
be targeted. Because the information in the petition indicates that B. 
griseocauda catches have declined and mean disc width has decreased in 
the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, inadequate regulatory mechanisms in this 
region may be negatively impacting this species.
    The petitioner asserts that the late maturation of B. griseocauda, 
coupled with evidence of drastically decreasing average size and 
numbers, indicates that mature individuals are being removed at a rate 
faster than they are being replenished, and that this is another threat 
to its continued existence.
    Based on the best available information, we find that the threats 
of overutilization by fisheries, inadequate existing regulatory 
mechanisms, and other natural factors may be impacting B. griseocauda 
to a degree that raises concerns of a risk of extinction, with 
significant population decline in the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. We 
conclude that the petition presents substantial scientific information 
indicating that the petitioned action of listing B. griseocauda as 
threatened or endangered may be warranted.

Dasyatis margarita

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for D. 
margarita, this tropical species is endemic to the eastern-central and 
southeast Atlantic along the West African coast from Senegal to Congo 
(Compagno and Marshall, 2009). Records from outside this range (from 
Angola to Mauritania and the Canary Islands) may be based on D. 
margaritella, which has been confused with this species. As a result, 
this distribution of D. margarita may prove to be smaller than 
described here (Compagno and Roberts, 1984). Its life history and 
biology are largely unknown, other than it is ovoviviparous, with 1-3 
pups per litter, and it has a reported maximum size of 100 cm disc 
width (Stehmann, 1981). Its population size is unknown, though 
according to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment, catches by local 
fishers have declined recently, with the species now reportedly 
uncommon in catches.
    The petitioner asserts that habitat modification and degradation 
from agricultural chemicals and light industry development are 
negatively impacting this species in some areas of its range. However, 
neither the IUCN assessment nor the petition provides any supporting 
information (or references) for this statement, such as information on 
the level of development in the area, the amount of chemicals entering 
the waters off West Africa, or evidence that the species is responding 
in a negative fashion to this threat. Citing the IUCN assessment, the 
petitioner states that fishing pressure mainly by artisanal and small 
scale commercial fisheries using trammel nets, bottom trawls, and beach 
seines (Stehmann, 1981) within its limited range is the main threat to 
Dasyatis margarita, as inshore rays are particularly susceptible to a 
wide range of fishing gear, and this species is targeted and marketed 
for human consumption. However, the petitioner provides no additional 
information, references, or data on these fisheries, such as their 
areas of operation or data on catch and bycatch. It is unclear how the 
petitioner came to the conclusion that these fisheries are negatively 
affecting the abundance of D. margarita. The petitioner also notes that 
there are no specific conservation measures in place to protect this 
species. Finally, the petitioner notes that this species is at 
increased risk of extinction because it is a K-selected species.
    As stated previously, broad statements about generalized threats or 
identification of factors that could negatively impact a species do not 
constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. We 
look for substantial information within the petition and within our own 
files indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a 
certain factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative 
fashion, and then we assess the potential significance of that negative 
response. We had no information on D. margarita or threats to the 
species in our own files. After evaluating the species-specific 
information presented in the petition, we find that the petition does 
not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that listing may be warranted for D. margarita.

Pastinachus solocirostris

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for P. 
solocirostris, this species is endemic to the western-central Pacific 
and known only from Malaysian Borneo and Indonesia. (Fahmi et al., 
2009). It occurs primarily in mangrove estuaries and turbid coastal 
marine habitats. While it most commonly occurs in very shallow water at 
less than 10 m depth, it has been recorded as deep as 30 m. The only 
pregnant female observed to date contained only one pup, suggesting low 
fecundity. The size at birth is about 22-23 cm disc width, with maximum 
size

[[Page 10110]]

at maturity at least 72 cm disc width. Its population size and 
population trend are unknown.
    The petitioner contends that, because this species is known to be 
associated with mangrove habitat in very shallow water, it is highly 
vulnerable to destruction of this habitat. Extensive areas of mangrove 
forest have been lost in Indonesia (1,300,000 hectares from 1980 to 
2005) and Malaysia (110,000 hectares from 1980 to 2005) through 
conversion of land for shrimp farms, excessive logging, urban 
development, and, to a lesser extent, conversion of land to agriculture 
or salt pans (FAO, 2007). Indonesia and Malaysia, therefore, have lost 
more than 30 percent of its combined overall mangrove area in 25 years. 
However, the petitioner does not provide information on the location of 
the mangrove loss, and the species is known to also occur in non-
mangrove habitat in deeper water up to 30 m. Further, Malaysia has a 
very long tradition of sustainable management, plantation and 
afforestation programs in mangroves, and other protection plantation 
activities are being undertaken in Indonesia (FAO, 2007). As with other 
species accounts, the petitioner also cites Zamora-Arroyo et al. (2005) 
to support its assertion that, ``[i]n the case of habitat destruction 
resulting from coastal development, the severity of impacts is high 
with low reversibility.''
    According to the petitioner, the other major threat to P. 
solocirostris is overfishing by local fisheries, as its restricted 
range and habitat have been heavily exploited during recent decades. 
This species is targeted, along with other rays, using bottom longlines 
in Indonesia, and it is also caught occasionally by bottom trawl and 
demersal gillnet fisheries operating off Sumatra and Borneo (White et 
al., 2006). The petitioner notes that the level of exploitation on its 
shallow water habitat is very high and it is considered to be at a very 
high level of threat throughout its range. However, the petitioner 
provides no additional information, references, or data on these 
fisheries, such as their areas of operation or data on catch and 
bycatch. It is unclear how the petitioner came to the conclusion that 
these fisheries are negatively affecting the abundance of P. 
solocirostris. The petitioner asserts that no conservation measures are 
currently in place for this species, and that this appears to be a low 
fecundity species, making it more vulnerable to extinction.
    As stated previously, broad statements about generalized threats or 
identification of factors that could negatively impact a species do not 
constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. We 
look for substantial information within the petition and within our own 
files indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a 
certain factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative 
fashion, and then we assess the potential significance of that negative 
response. We had no information on P. solocirostris or threats to the 
species in our own files. After evaluating the species-specific 
information presented in the petition, we find that the petition does 
not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that listing may be warranted for P. solocirostris.

Electrolux addisoni

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for E. 
addisoni, this conspicuous species is restricted to ``sandy patches of 
very limited inshore reef habitat off Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal 
coasts of South Africa (Compagno, 2009).'' It is known from only five 
localities from dive sites (Coffee Bay, Eastern Cape; Manaba Beach, the 
type locality near Margate, S. Africa; Protea Banks, near Margate; 
Aliwal Shoal; Tee Barge north of Durban off Virginia Beach), and it 
occurs in 50 m or less depth. Manaba Beach is the only place where it 
has been seen on more than one occasion, and it is likely restricted to 
a range of less than 10 km\2\. It occurs in warm-temperate or 
subtropical waters along a very narrow continental shelf in subtidal 
environments in sandy and gravely patches on rocky reefs. It is the 
largest known member of the family Narkidae, with adult males measuring 
50-52 cm TL. Only adult males have been collected to date. It feeds on 
infauna or meiofauna and lies motionless when not feeding. When 
threatened by predators (mainly large sharks), it arches its back and 
curls its disk and raises its tail. It has electric organs. This 
species is apparently very rare, with few confirmed records from 1984 
to present. It may be more wide-ranging than presently known, but 
offshore and inshore areas on the east coast of South Africa have been 
relatively well sampled. Its population size and trend are unknown.
    The petitioner asserts that this species is possibly threatened by 
pollution and habitat degradation in its very limited range, as it 
occurs on a heavily utilized narrow strip of habitat with heavy and 
increasing human utilization including recreational diving and sport 
and commercial fishing, runaway coastal housing development, boating, 
commercial shipping, holiday-making, beach utilization, shark netting, 
and extensive pollution and habitat degradation of inshore 
environments. As stated previously, broad statements about generalized 
threats or identification of factors that could negatively impact a 
species do not constitute substantial information that listing may be 
warranted. We look for substantial information within the petition and 
within our own files indicating that not only is the particular species 
exposed to a certain factor, but that the species may be responding in 
a negative fashion, and then we assess the potential significance of 
that negative response. No such information was provided in the 
petition.
    The petitioner asserts that the limited removals for scientific 
purposes and potential harassment and disturbance by divers of this 
species are a threat to a species that is so rare. However, while the 
condition of being rare is an important factor to consider when 
evaluating a species' risk of extinction, it does not by itself 
indicate the likelihood of extinction of that species, nor does the 
condition of being rare constitute substantial information that listing 
under the ESA may be warranted. To determine whether listing of a rare 
species may be warranted, there must also be substantial information 
indicating the rare species is both exposed to and responding in a 
negative fashion to a threat such that the species may be threatened 
with extinction. The petitioner did not provide such information.
    The petitioner also notes that there are no known conservation 
measures for this species, and that the species' limited range (10 
km\2\ or less) makes it vulnerable to localized stochastic events. 
While a very small range may increase the extinction risk of a species, 
we do not consider this factor alone to constitute substantial 
information indicating that listing under the ESA may be warranted. 
There must be additional information to indicate that the species may 
be exposed to and respond in a negative fashion to a threat. We had no 
information on E. addisoni or threats to the species in our own files. 
After evaluating the species-specific information presented in the 
petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing may be 
warranted for E. addisoni.

Okamejei pita

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for O. pita, 
this species is endemic to the western Indian Ocean and is known from 
only one confirmed female specimen from the

[[Page 10111]]

northernmost corner of the Persian/Arabian Gulf at Fao, Iraq (Moore and 
Jawad, 2009). It is probably limited to mud bottoms along the Iraqi and 
part of the Iranian coast of the Persian/Arabian Gulf, possibly 
including Kuwaiti waters. It is presumably oviparous, though nothing 
else is known about its biology. Its population size and trend are 
unknown, and no species-specific surveys have been conducted (though 
there was survey/fisheries work done in Iraqi waters prior to the 
conflict in the 1980s).
    The IUCN assessment notes that the IUCN Red List Guidelines state 
that if a taxon is only known from its type locality and any 
significant threats can be identified, then an IUCN rank of Critically 
Endangered under the IUCN's B and C criteria may be appropriate. As we 
noted above, species classifications under the IUCN and the ESA are not 
equivalent, and data standards, criteria used to evaluate species, and 
treatment of uncertainty are also not necessarily the same. Therefore, 
we must consider the information on threats identified by the 
petitioners, as well as the data on which they are based, as they 
pertain to each species. While the condition of being rare is an 
important factor to consider when evaluating a species' risk of 
extinction, it does not by itself indicate the likelihood of extinction 
of that species, nor does the condition of being rare constitute 
substantial information that listing under the ESA may be warranted. To 
determine whether listing of a rare species may be warranted, there 
must also be substantial information indicating the rare species is 
both exposed to and responding in a negative fashion to a threat such 
that the species may be threatened with extinction.
    The petitioner asserts that the area of O. pita occurrence is 
subject to habitat loss, degradation and deteriorating water quality, 
destructive fishing practices, hydrocarbon pollution, and radiological, 
chemical or biotic contamination (Al-Saadi and Arndt, 1973; Hussain et 
al., 2001; Hussain et al., 1999; Douabul, 1984; Abaychi and Al-Saad, 
1988; Al-Saad, 1990; Al-Saad, 1995; Al-Saad et al., 1995; Al-Saad et 
al., 1996; Al-Saad and Altimari, 1993; DouAbul et al., 1987; Carroll, 
2005; Birdlife International, 2006). Also, extensive damming of the 
Tigris-Euphrates river system in Turkey and the drainage of the Iraqi 
marshes during the 1990s and rapid coastal development of previously 
pristine and uninhabited areas, such as Bubiyan Island in Kuwait, may 
also have had negative impacts on the species. As in other species 
accounts, the petitioner cites Zamora-Arroyo et al. (2005) to support 
its assertion that, ``[i]n the case of habitat destruction resulting 
from coastal development, the severity of impacts is high with low 
reversibility.'' The petitioner does not provide specific information 
indicating that these threats are indeed negatively impacting O. pita. 
As stated previously, broad statements about generalized threats or 
identification of factors that could negatively impact a species do not 
constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. We 
look for substantial information within the petition and within our own 
files indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a 
certain factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative 
fashion, and then we assess the potential significance of that negative 
response. No such information was provided in the petition.
    The petitioner asserts that the main threat to this species is 
thought to be overfishing. Levels of fishing-related mortality are 
unknown, though overfishing and illegal fishing occurs in this region. 
Longline, driftnet, baited mesh cage trap, intertidal skate-net trap, 
and trawl are the main fishing methods used in the area. For religious 
reasons, local Shia Muslims in southern Iraq do not consume 
elasmobranch fishes, so this species is likely discarded if captured. 
The petitioner states that fishing pressure in the area is increasing, 
and Iraqi fisheries are expanding southwards and apparently operating 
illegally in Kuwaiti and Iranian waters (Morgan, 2006). These expanding 
trawl and gillnet fisheries are totally unregulated, and no known 
conservation measures are currently in place for this species. 
Therefore, the petitioner argues, given this species' restricted range 
and already low population, it is highly likely that O. pita is 
especially vulnerable to fishing pressure within its range. However, as 
noted above, levels of fishing mortality are unknown, and the 
petitioner provides no information or references on catchability of O. 
pita or data on catch and bycatch. It is unclear how the petitioner 
came to the conclusion that these fisheries are negatively affecting 
the abundance of O. pita. As noted previously, though the petitioner 
contends that there is a complete lack of protections in place for this 
species, we do not necessarily consider a lack of species-specific 
protections as a threat to the species. For example, management 
measures that regulate other species or fisheries operations may 
indirectly help to minimize threats to the petitioned species and may 
be adequate to prevent its extinction. Again, we look for substantial 
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.
    We had no information on O. pita or threats to the species in our 
own files. After evaluating the species-specific information presented 
in the petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing may be 
warranted for O. pita.

Raja undulata

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for R. 
undulata, this species has a patchy distribution in the eastern 
Atlantic, including the Mediterranean, with discrete areas where it may 
be locally common, including southwest Ireland, eastern English 
Channel, and southern Portugal (Coelho et al., 2009). In the northeast 
and eastern central Atlantic, it occurs from southern Ireland and 
southwestern England to the Gulf of Guinea, including the Canary 
Islands. In the Mediterranean, it occurs mostly in the west. It occurs 
in shelf waters to about 200 m depth, on sandy and muddy substrates, 
and it appears to be more common in shallow waters. Smaller specimens 
can be found in coastal lagoons (sheltered habitats may be nursery 
areas). This species is oviparous, and it reproduces during periods of 
colder water. Females first mature at 8.98 years, males at 7.66 years. 
Size at first maturity ranges from 76.2 cm for females in the southern 
region to 83.8 cm for females in the western region. A discrete 
population occurs in Tralee Bay, Ireland, with angling records showing 
a peak in 1981-82, followed by lower but stable catches since then 
(ICES, 2007). Its population size is unknown, and it has a decreasing 
trend.
    The petitioner contends that the main threat to this species is 
commercial utilization from fishing. Raja undulata is a common bycatch 
of trawl, trammel nets, and other demersal fisheries operating with its 
range. It has a patchy distribution, and declines have been documented 
in areas where it was formerly considered locally abundant. Tralee Bay 
catches declined from 80-100 in 1981 to 20-30 annually in the mid-
1990s, followed by a slight population increase in the early 2000s. 
Catches now appear to be declining again, with less than 20 recorded in 
2005 (though they fluctuate each year) (ICES, 2007). The species has

[[Page 10112]]

traditionally been observed in English beam trawl surveys in the 
eastern English Channel, but has been absent for the most recent 2 
years (2007-2008) (ICES, 2008). ICES current advice (2008) is no target 
fishing in the North Sea, English Channel, and Celtic Seas. The species 
is captured in large quantities as bycatch in the mixed species trammel 
net fishery off the southern coast of Portugal; it is retained and 
marketed for human consumption (Coelho et al., 2002). It is mainly 
captured in shallow waters, with catch-per-unit-effort from 1.91 
specimens/1000 m of net at 10-30 m depth to 0.03 specimens/1000 m of 
net at more than 90 m depth (Coelho et al., 2005). Landings of Raja 
spp. in the southern region of Portugal decreased by 29.1 percent 
between 1988 and 2004 (DGPA, 1988-2004). Raja undulata is the most 
common skate species in this area, and its size makes it more 
vulnerable to depletion than smaller skate species; therefore, the 
petitioner argues, these declines in Raja spp. may under-reflect 
changes in the population of this species (Erzini et al., 2001; Coelho 
et al., 2005). Raja undulata is also a known bycatch of the Spanish 
demersal trawl fleet operating in the Cantabrian Sea, southern Bay of 
Biscay, which targets a mixture of gadoids and flatfish at depths of 
100-300 m over the continental shelf (ICES, 2007). Species-specific 
French landings data for the Celtic Seas report 12 t of R. undulata in 
1995, 6 t in 1996, 10 t in 1997, after which landings fell to 2 t in 
1998, 1 t in 1999, to 0 t in 2000-2001 (ICES, 2007). This species' 
preference for shallow waters places it within the range of intensive 
artisanal coastal fisheries operating off the western coast of Africa 
(Walker et al., 2005); while there are no species-specific catch data 
for these catches, this species is presumably a utilized bycatch of 
these artisanal fisheries, as well as demersal trawl fisheries 
operating in this area. Exploitation of the continental shelf is also 
high in the Mediterranean Sea (Massuti and Moranta, 2003).
    The petitioner asserts that there are no species-specific 
conservation measures in place for this species, and the species' life 
history characteristics (delayed age at maturity, long generation time 
of 14-15 years), and low fecundity) may increase the risk of extinction 
to R. undulata.
    The petitioner has presented substantial information indicating 
that this species is negatively affected by fishing throughout its 
range, the lack of regulatory mechanisms, and potentially the species' 
K-selected life history. Based on the best available information, we 
find that the threats of overutilization by fisheries, inadequate 
existing regulatory mechanisms, and other natural factors may be 
impacting R. undulata to a degree that raises concerns of a risk of 
extinction, with significant population declines throughout its range. 
We conclude that the petition presents substantial scientific 
information indicating that the petitioned action of listing R. 
undulata as threatened or endangered may be warranted.

Rhinobatos cemiculus

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for R. 
cemiculus, this species occurs in marine and brackish waters in 
subtropical areas of the Atlantic, from the northern coast of Portugal 
to Angola, and it is also found throughout coastal Mediterranean waters 
(Notarbartolo di Sciara et al., 2007a). It is demersal, living over 
sandy or muddy substrates in shallow waters to about 100 m depth. It 
swims slowly over the bottom or partially buries itself under the 
substrate. Its maximum size varies (TL up to 192 cm for males, 230 cm 
for females), and its diet is composed primarily of prawn, crab, and 
other crustaceans and fish. It was once regarded as common within the 
southern Mediterranean, especially in the Gulf of Gab[eacute]s on the 
east coast of Tunisia. However, preliminary surveys indicate 
populations have since diminished substantially. Few or no specimens 
were observed during several trawl surveys from the mid-1970s through 
the early 1980s in its African range. Its population size is unknown, 
and it has a decreasing trend.
    The fins of this species are highly prized in western Africa (100 
Euro/kg), so this species is a major target species of artisanal 
fisheries. Abundance and size of individuals have decreased throughout 
its West African range. It is caught as bycatch by the shrimp trawl 
fishery in shallow inshore waters, and this has caused large decreases 
in catch and probable extirpation in some areas. In Senegal, for 
example, landings have decreased from 4,050 tons per year in 1998 to 
821 tons per year in 2005; the actual fishing pressure on this species 
is likely to be higher because of the lack of reporting in artisanal 
fisheries in West Africa and the number of foreign vessels fishing 
legally and illegally within this region. It used to be a typical 
resident in the Balearic Islands, but now has become extinct locally, 
and it appears to be locally extirpated from the Alboran to the Aegean 
Sea. Rhinobatos cemiculus is one of the main targets of specialized 
fishing teams in Guinea-Bissau. Even in areas outside the closure 
areas, the reduction in size has continued, indicating catches of 
younger specimens. Within the closed areas this species is still caught 
as bycatch in teleost gillnet fisheries. In Guinea-Conakry, fishing is 
allowed year-round, and catches are higher during the species' birthing 
and mating season, when they congregate. Gravid females are 
specifically targeted for the large size of their fins, and finning of 
embryos has been reported.
    No active conservation measures are in place in the Mediterranean 
for R. cemiculus. In Mauritania, the species has been protected since 
2003 as part of a ban on directly targeted elasmobranch fishing in the 
Banc d'Arguin, and in Guinea-Bissau, three marine protected areas have 
been established. However, R. cemiculus is still caught as bycatch in 
other fisheries in these areas. No species-specific regulations exist 
for the management of shark and shark fisheries in the Sierra Leone.
    While the petitioner presents little species-specific fisheries 
catch data, it presents substantial information that fishing pressure 
is high on this species, and that this pressure has already led to 
declines in population, declines in size, and local extirpations in 
certain areas. The targeted fishing during the mating and spawning 
times of this species may present a significant threat to this species. 
Species-specific conservation measures and regulations are lacking. 
Therefore, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific 
information indicating that the petitioned action of listing R. 
cemiculus as threatened or endangered may be warranted.

Rhinobatos horkelii

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for R. 
horkelii, this coastal species is distributed along the Brazilian coast 
and farther south to Mar del Plata, Argentina (Lessa and Vooren, 2007). 
Adults migrate to coastal waters with depths of less than 20 m from 
November to March. Litter size is 4 to12 pups, with more pups produced 
by larger mothers. Pregnancy is in two stages (dormancy from April to 
November in deeper, colder water, and embryonic development from 
December to February in warmer shallow waters), with 1-cm embryos 
observed in December and 29-cm embryos in February. Females reach full 
maturity at 9 years of age, males at 6 years of age. Its population 
size is unknown, and it has a decreasing trend.
    Fishing is the main threat to this species. Southern Brazilian 
fisheries show total landings increased from 842 t in 1975 to 1,804 t 
in 1984, then declined continuously to 157 t in 2001.

[[Page 10113]]

The average trawl CPUE of this species in southern Brazil in 1993-1999 
was 17 percent of that observed during the period 1975-1986, indicating 
a decline in abundance of more than 80 percent since 1986 (Miranda and 
Vooren, 2003; Vooren et al., 2005). Catches increased slightly after 
2000, when trawl fleets from southern Brazil exploited refuge area for 
a part of this species' population (Martins and Schwingel, 2003; Vooren 
et al., 2005). After that, CPUE fell again by 31 percent from 2002 to 
2003, and the population is considered to be at critically low levels, 
and it is scarce in coastal waters (Vooren et al., 2005). Catches now 
consist mostly of juveniles with likely only smaller mature individuals 
being caught, meaning fewer pups per reproductive cycle per mature 
guitarfish. Similar to the R. cemiculus, the R. horkelii is targeted by 
artisanal fisheries during its birthing aggregations, with catches 
comprising 98 percent pregnant females during this time.
    Permits for directed fishing are no longer issued, and bycatch must 
be thrown overboard, but these laws are not effectively enforced. 
Regardless, bycaught animals are often dead by the time they are 
brought up to the surface. Trawl fishing within 3 nm of the coast of 
southern Brazil is prohibited, but this represents protection from only 
one of the fishing threats.
    The decrease in CPUE, the species' high age at maturity, the 
correlation between age of females and number of pups, the species' low 
fecundity combined with its vulnerability to fishing because of 
predictable annual mating and birthing aggregations and the lack of 
effective regulatory mechanisms may put this species at risk of 
extinction. Therefore, we find that the petition presents substantial 
scientific information indicating that the petitioned action of listing 
R. horkelii as threatened or endangered may be warranted.

Rhinobatos rhinobatos

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for R. 
rhinobatos, this species is distributed in the Atlantic from the 
southern Bay of Biscay southward to Angola, and in the Mediterranean 
where it prefers the warmer waters of the southern and eastern regions 
(Notarbartolo di Sciara et al., 2007b). It is demersal and found in 
shallow waters in the intertidal zone to depths of 180 m, over sandy, 
muddy, shell and occasionally micro-algal covered substrates. It swims 
slowly along the sea bottom or partially buries itself under the 
substrate, feeding upon benthic invertebrates and fish. It is 
viviparous, with no placenta, and it produces 4 to 6 pups per litter, 
and 1 to 2 litters per year per female, and its gestation period is 4 
months. Neither the age at maturity nor the longevity is known for 
either sex. Its population size is unknown, and it has a decreasing 
trend. While little is known about the population sizes of this 
species, there has been a marked decline in its abundance in the 
northern regions of the Mediterranean.
    The species is likely threatened by habitat degradation in its 
nursery grounds. Fishing occurs throughout most of its range. Like R. 
cemiculus, it was historically common throughout the northern 
Mediterranean, but absent from the recent Mediterranean International 
Trawl Survey, suggesting extirpation there. It is still present in the 
catch in portions of the southern shore, and potentially elsewhere 
along the Mediterranean African coast, but a large proportion of those 
catches are immature juveniles. It is caught as common bycatch of 
shrimp trawl fisheries in the eastern Atlantic. It is also caught in 
artisanal bottom set fisheries in Sierra Leone and dried for export to 
Ghana for human consumption. There is evidence of population declines 
in the eastern Atlantic. In Senegal, for example, the landings of all 
guitarfishes have decreased dramatically, with landings peaking in 1997 
at 4,218 t and gradually decreasing to an estimated 821 t in 2005. In 
Guinea-Bissau, this species is one of the main targets of specialized 
shark fishing teams, and recent surveys indicate that its populations 
have diminished substantially (Fowler et al., 2005). Recent changes in 
mesh net size in the area will result in higher catch of juveniles. It 
is still caught incidentally as bycatch in teleost gillnet fisheries 
and industrial demersal trawl fisheries targeting cephalops and 
crustaceans and coastal teleosts. It is reportedly common in Sierra 
Leone, caught as bycatch of shrimp trawl fisheries operating in shallow 
inshore waters. It is frequently captured in Gambia (A. Mendy pers. 
comm., 2006).
    There are no species-specific conservation measures. In Mauritania, 
there is a ban on directly targeted elasmobranch fishing in the Banc 
d'Arguin, and R. rhinobatos is more abundant there, comprising 2 
percent of the shark catch in 2004. In Guinea-Bissau, three marine 
protected areas have been established. However, the R. cemiculus is 
still caught as bycatch in other fisheries in these areas.
    Given the likely extirpation of this species in the northern 
Mediterranean, evidence of population declines in the eastern Atlantic, 
the continued fishing pressure on the species, and the lack of species-
specific conservation measures, we find that the petition presents 
substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned 
action of listing R. rhinobatos as threatened or endangered may be 
warranted.

Trygonorrhina melaleuca

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for T. 
melaleuca, not much is known about this species, as it is known only 
from a few specimens taken in shallow water in St. Vincent's Gulf in 
Southern Australia, and its extent of occurrence is estimated at less 
than 5,000 km\2\ (Stevens, 2009). The largest specimen measured 90 cm. 
While this species may be a mutant form of the Southern fiddler ray, 
until further systematic studies can be carried out, the two forms are 
considered valid species. Its population size and population trend are 
unknown.
    The petitioner asserts that recreational and commercial fishing 
occur in this species' area of occurrence, and the species is 
susceptible to trawl, hook, and net fisheries. Further, the petitioner 
points out that the species is rare in shallow water, so any bycatch is 
of concern. No conservation measures are in place for this species.
    The condition of being rare is an important factor to consider when 
evaluating a species' risk of extinction; however, it does not by 
itself indicate the likelihood of extinction of that species, nor does 
the condition of being rare constitute substantial information that 
listing under the ESA may be warranted. To determine whether listing of 
a rare species may be warranted, there must also be substantial 
information indicating the rare species is both exposed to and 
responding in a negative fashion to a threat such that the species may 
be threatened with extinction. While the petitioner notes that 
recreational and commercial fishing occur in this species' area of 
occurrence, it provides no catch data, and we have no way of evaluating 
whether the species is impacted by fishing. We had no information on T. 
melaleuca or threats to the species in our own files. After evaluating 
the species-specific information presented in the petition, we find 
that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that listing may be warranted for T. melaleuca.

Threats to the Bony Fishes

    The 15 bony fish species petitioned for listing (Colpichthys 
hubbsi,

[[Page 10114]]

Latimeria chalumnae, Tomicodon abuelorum, Pterapogon kauderni, 
Halichoeres socialis, Paraclinus magdalenae, Paraclinus walkeri, 
Chaetodontoplus vanderloosi, Azurina eupalama, Scarus trispinosus, 
Argyrosomus hololepidotus, Mycteroperca fusca, Mycteroperca jordani, 
Paralabrax albomaculatus, and Enneapterygius namarrgon) are currently 
listed as either ``endangered'' or ``critically endangered'' on the 
IUCN Red List. The petition asserts that these species are being 
threatened with extinction by four of the five ESA section 4(a)(1) 
factors--habitat destruction, overutilization, inadequacy of regulatory 
mechanisms, and natural factors--which we discuss in turn below.
    The introductory threats discussion is general, with only 
occasional references to specific petitioned species, with the threats 
later repeated in the species-specific section (discussed below). Some 
of the general threats discussion is not clearly or causally linked to 
the petitioned species (e.g., discussion of dead zones yet no 
identification that these occur in the petitioned species' ranges; 
discussion of the threat of climate change in general terms without 
showing how it affects particular species; and discussion of mangrove 
removal as causing a species to be threatened or endangered, without 
providing any population size or trend information for the species). 
The petition also references worldwide human population growth as a 
threat for all of the petitioned species. However, a rising human 
population by itself may not necessarily be a threat to a species, if, 
for instance, human activities are managed such that habitat is 
preserved or species are not over-exploited. Similarly, human-mediated 
threats can occur at a level that renders a species in danger of 
extinction in the absence of a growing human population. Thus, 
information that the human population is growing, on its own, does not 
indicate that the growing human population is a threat.
    In the regulatory mechanisms discussion, the petitioner argues that 
there are no adequate regulatory mechanisms for the petitioned bony 
fishes. Only one of the petitioned bony fishes has a stable population 
trend, though it is still subject to significant threats, and none of 
the petitioned bony fishes is characterized as having an increasing 
population.
    The petition notes that only one fish species (Latimeria chalumnae) 
is listed on CITES Appendix I, and it references the limitations 
inherent in CITES listings from the coral section of the petition. 
According to Article I of CITES, species listed on Appendix I are those 
that are the most endangered among CITES-listed animals and plants; 
they are threatened with extinction and CITES prohibits international 
trade in specimens of these species except when the purpose of the 
import is not commercial, for instance, for scientific research. Based 
on the CITES definitions and standards for listing species on Appendix 
I, the species' actual listing on Appendix I is not itself an inherent 
indication that these species may now warrant threatened or endangered 
status under the ESA. Species classifications under CITES and the ESA 
are not equivalent, and criteria used to evaluate species are not the 
same. The petitioner also makes generalized statements about MPAs and 
other measures of protections in this section, mentioning some of the 
limitations of these MPAs for the five petitioned bony fishes with 
portions of their ranges in an MPA (Mycteroperca jordani, 
Chaetodontoplus vanderloosi, Paralabrax albomaculatus, Azurina 
eupalama, Paraclinus walker). We do not consider these general and 
unsubstantiated statements as substantial information that listing may 
be warranted due to an inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms for all of 
the petitioned species. Where the petition provides species-specific 
information on this threat, that information is considered in the 
individual species sections below.
    The petition discusses the very small geographic ranges and limited 
dispersal ability of several petitioned bony fishes (e.g., Halichoeres 
socialis, Latimeria chalumnae), arguing that a very small range 
increases the extinction risk of the species because the entire species 
could be affected by local events and limited dispersal ability can 
decrease the potential for recolonization following the loss of a 
subpopulation or area of habitat. The petition notes that several of 
the petitioned bony fishes are already at risk as low-fecundity or K-
selected species, rendering them even more vulnerable to synergistic 
impacts of multiple threats. Despite this, we do not consider these 
natural factors alone to constitute substantial information that 
listing under the ESA may be warranted. There must be additional 
information to indicate that the species may be exposed to and respond 
in a negative fashion to a threat. For example, in the case of L. 
chalumnae, which we discuss further below, information is presented to 
suggest that the petitioned species may have been extirpated from some 
areas, and estimated population size is low enough to suggest that this 
extirpation, in combination with other threats, may be contributing to 
the extinction risk of this species. These biological and ecological 
factors are examined on a species-specific basis below, if information 
is available.
    Overall, we find that the four major threats discussed for bony 
fishes in the introductory section of the petition are not well 
supported and/or substantiated and do not necessarily constitute 
substantial information that listing any of the 15 species may be 
warranted. While the information in this introductory section is 
otherwise largely accurate and suggests concern for the status of 
fishes in general, the broad statements and generalizations of threats 
for all petitioned bony fish species do not constitute substantial 
information that listing may be warranted for any of the petitioned 
species. There is little information in this introductory section 
indicating that particular petitioned species may be responding in a 
negative fashion to any of the discussed threats. We will consider the 
few instances in the introductory section that specifically link 
threats to a particular petitioned species in our discussion of threats 
to that particular species.

Colpichthys hubbsi

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for C. hubbsi, 
this species is endemic to the Eastern Pacific, found only in the 
uppermost part of the Gulf of California and the Colorado River Delta 
(Findley et al., 2010). Its extent of occurrence is 5,000 km\2\, but 
its area of occupancy is unknown. It occurs in shallow water over mud 
and over muddy sandy substrates, to depths of 4 m. Adults feed on 
crustaceans and gastropods. The petition provides no information on 
population size or trend.
    The petition asserts that this species is threatened by all five of 
the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors. Threats under the first factor, 
``present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range,'' include cessation of flow from the Colorado River, 
coastal development and climate change, sedimentation and general water 
quality, and tidal power development. The petition discusses each of 
these in a general way, but it does not provide information to indicate 
that C. hubbsi is negatively affected by these threats. Since this 
species likely has an extremely restricted geographic range, the 
petition asserts that the lack of flow from the Colorado River 
resulting from dam construction, population growth, and climate change 
has turned the river into a desert,

[[Page 10115]]

endangering dozens of species. The petition states that habitat 
degradation will only get worse as climate change is predicted to 
further reduce runoff by 10-30 percent by 2050 (Waterman, 2012). It 
also states that the El Borrascoso area of the species' northern Gulf 
of California habitat is threatened by planned development that will 
destroy offshore habitat through dredging and destroy geologic outcrops 
with construction activity. The petition also notes that shrimp 
mariculture and increased growth of coastal cities will destroy coastal 
habitat, resulting in an increase in construction projects, dredging of 
harbors and shipping channels, dumping of waste, run-off pollution and 
increased sedimentation, deforestation, and increased tourism. 
According to the petition, climate change is expected to further 
magnify these coastal pollution problems, increasing eutrophication, 
hypoxia, and anoxia and resulting in more ``dead zones.'' Similarly, 
the decreased water quality caused by agricultural runoff and the 
decrease in needed sediments are cited as cause for concern about this 
species' habitat. The petition also notes that potential development of 
tidal power, if implemented, will result in severe impacts and 
irreversible loss of the Upper Gulf habitat. As with other species 
accounts, the petitioner cites Zamora-Arroyo et al. (2005) to support 
its assertion that, ``[i]n the case of habitat destruction resulting 
from coastal development, the severity of impacts is high with low 
reversibility.'' While all of these threats are of concern to an 
ecosystem, nothing in the petition indicates whether or how C. hubbsi 
is affected by these threats.
    Threats under the second section 4(a)(1) factor, ``overutilization 
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes,'' 
include unsustainable trawling and artisanal fishing of C. hubbsi's 
prey (benthic fauna) and shrimp farming that may cause mortality of 
estuarine organisms at water intake screens and increase eutrophication 
from pond effluent discharge into coastal areas. Again, the petition 
provides no information indicating whether or how these threats affect 
C. hubbsi.
    Under the third section 4(a)(1) factor, ``disease or predation,'' 
the petition asserts that shrimp farming in C. hubbsi's range causes 
increased threat of disease when disease and viral pathogens from the 
ponds escape to the open Gulf. Also, this threat is likely to increase 
as development of the coasts adjacent to its range continues. However, 
no information is provided on whether or how disease from shrimp 
farming is affecting the C. hubbsi.
    Under the fourth section 4(a)(1) factor, ``inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms,'' the petition notes that no species-specific 
conservation measures are in place for this species. The species is 
found in the Colorado River Delta Biosphere Reserve, but the petition 
asserts that, while this location does extend the species some level of 
protection, it is inadequate because it does nothing to remove the 
upstream dams stopping water from reaching the Gulf of California, 
increase the amount of water that they release, stop climate change 
from further reducing river flow, or stop shrimp aquaculture projects 
from threatening the species. We do not necessarily consider a lack of 
species-specific protections as a threat to the species or even 
problematic in all cases. Again, we look for substantial 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.
    Finally, under the fifth section 4(a)(1) factor, ``other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence,'' the petition notes 
that the synergistic effects of the aforementioned threats could 
conspire to cause the extinction of the species.
    As stated previously, broad statements about generalized threats or 
identification of factors that could negatively impact a species do not 
constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. We 
look for substantial information within the petition and within our own 
files indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a 
certain factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative 
fashion, and then we assess the potential significance of that negative 
response. We had no information in our files on C. hubbsi or threats to 
the species. After evaluating the information presented in the 
petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing may be 
warranted for C. hubbsi.

Latimeria chalumnae

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for L. 
chalumnae, based on fossil evidence, this species was once global 
(Musick, 2000). It was believed to be extinct until the 20th century, 
when the first live specimen was found in 1938. It is now found off the 
coast of southeastern Africa, primarily at the Comoros Islands, 
northwest of Madagascar and east of Tanzania, with scattered 
populations and individuals found off the northern tip of Tanzania and 
off the coasts of Madagascar, South Africa, and Mozambique. The first 
specimen of another coelacanth species (L. menadoensis) that likely 
shares the same ancestor with L. chalumnae was found in Indonesian 
waters in 1998.
    Latimeria chalumnae inhabits deep-sea caves and overhangs near 
vertical marine reefs, about 200 m below the surface, off newly formed 
volcanic islands, in water temperatures of 18-23 [deg]C. It survives 
only a few hours in captivity or in shallow waters. Its lifespan is 
estimated to be between 80 and 100 years, though another estimate is 60 
years. It is ovoviviparous, and based on two pregnant specimens, its 
fecundity is between 5 and 26 pups. Its long gestation period of 3 
years is the longest of any vertebrate, and its age at maturity is 16 
years for females.
    The Comoran population size was estimated to be about 500 in 2008 
(Dinofish, Undated), though the petition stated it was less than 500. 
According to Browne (1995), Fricke, in a then recent issue of the 
journal Nature, reported that he believed there were about 200 
coelacanths along a 5-mile stretch of the Grande Comore coast, where 
the only known community of substantial size lives. The population 
trend is unknown. However, there is some evidence that over a 3-year 
period (1991-1994), the average number of L. chalumnae per cave off the 
Comoros fell from 20.5 to 6.5 (Browne, 1995, reporting on Fricke's 
annual submersible census of this area that had begun in 1989). The 
petitioner did not provide us with the Fricke report in Nature, nor did 
we have a copy of it in our files to review.
    The petition asserts that this species is threatened by four of the 
five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors. Under the first factor, ``the present 
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or 
range,'' the petition notes that the massive increases in human 
population numbers in East African countries are resulting in degraded 
habitat through damaging agricultural practices, overgrazing, 
deforestation, destruction of wetlands, and mining. All of these 
practices, according to the petition, increase the load of silt moving 
off the coast and into L. chalumnae coastal habitat. The petition goes 
on to note that scientists have established that L. chalumnae 
individual are loyal to a particular home range, living there for over 
14 years (Fricke, 2001), and that this range likely covers a mere 
several kilometers of coastline. This, according to the petition, means 
that L. chalumnae

[[Page 10116]]

individuals are unlikely to be able to leave habitat degraded by 
siltation, and they may experience local extinctions based on this 
impact. Finally, the petition cites Green et al. (2009) as support for 
its statement that bathymetric methods to identify potential habitat 
for L. chalumnae have had disappointing results with little success, 
and therefore, it appears that scientists may have found most or all of 
the existing L. chalumnae and that habitat loss threatening those 
individuals could cause total extinction of the species.
    Under the second ESA section 4(a)(1) factor, ``overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes,'' the 
petition contends that L. chalumnae is being captured for trophies, 
scientific research, televised entertainment, notochordial fluid for 
Asian longevity serums, and accidental capture as bycatch (Froese and 
Palomeres, 1999). Latimeria chalumnae can be sold legally only to the 
Comorian government at an official price of $150, more than 1\1/2\ 
times the average Comorian yearly income (Joyce, 1989). But more 
recently, the black market price for this species is $2,000, more than 
20 years' worth of income for the average Comorian. Even more recently, 
the price seems to have risen to $4,500 per dead specimen. This 
species' meat is unpalatable, but there is evidence of a black market 
trade by private collectors and a market among museums and scientists 
for specimens (Joyce, 1989; SGForums, 2006; Monster Fish Keepers, 2009; 
Maybe Now, Undated; Nicholson, Undated). No individual L. chalumnae has 
survived for more than 20 hours at the surface, given the difference in 
pressure and oxygen present at shallow depths (Prehistoric Wildlife, 
Undated; Joyce, 1989). There was also interest in acquiring this 
species to create a longevity serum from its notochordial fluid; while 
the 1987 study showing that the fluid promoted long life has been 
debunked, it is still possible that the practice continues (Joyce, 
1989; Fricke, 2001). Perhaps the biggest threat to this species is 
bycatch by fishers fishing in known coelacanth habitat (Fricke, 2001) 
because this type of fishing is a substantial industry in these rural 
communities. While there have been efforts to find ways to return L. 
chalumnae individuals to the ocean alive after capture, the actual 
state of affairs is that, because it is illegal to land the fish, 
fishers usually kill it and throw it away (Browne, 1995). Finally, 
because these fish are seen as fish that have come alive from the 
fossil record, they are sought after as a trophy (Froese and Palomeres, 
1999). Therefore, the petition contends that commercial overutilization 
represents a significant threat to this species.
    Under the fourth ESA section 4(a)(1) factor, the petition asserts 
that national, local, and international efforts to protect this species 
are insufficient. The petition states that the Comoros Islands national 
ban on landing L. chalumnae does nothing to prevent bycatch, which is 
fatal. The petition goes on to say that other countries within L. 
chalumnae's range do not have similar regulations. It notes that the 
Islamic Sunni of at least 11 villages on the island of Grand Comoro 
have adopted this species, so anyone who hurts it in any way ``violates 
the code of the Sunni and is shunned by the community'' (Fricke, 2001). 
However, the petition points out that this does not address bycatch of 
the species, nor does it cover other areas of its habitat. Finally, the 
petition asserts that, while this species is listed in CITES Appendix 
1, this listing is neither effective at deterring catches in the rural 
fishing villages near the species' habitat where villagers likely do 
not know of the restriction and may not intend on shipping the captured 
fish out of the country, nor could it deter unintentional bycatch.
    Finally, under the fifth ESA section 4(a)(1) factor, ``other 
natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence,'' the 
petition points to breeding issues resulting from an estimated 
population size of less than 500 individuals. Given L. chalumnae's low 
population size, the petition asserts that the species is threatened by 
stochastic events and the low likelihood of males and females 
encountering each other frequently enough to breed successfully. This 
is exacerbated by the low fecundity of this species and the extremely 
long gestation period (3 years). This, together with the late age at 
first maturity (16 years for females), means that females cannot 
produce a litter of pups until they are about 19 years old. The 
petition contends that these factors exacerbate the species' extinction 
risk.
    Springer (1998) hypothesized that, at some earlier time, the 
ancestor of the present coelacanth species must have had a more-or-less 
continuous distribution that was interrupted later by a barrier. During 
the late Jurassic (ca. 140 Mya), just prior to the beginning of the 
breakup of the southern continents (Audley-Charles et al., 1981, figure 
3.3, as cited in Springer, 1998), Africa, Madagascar, Antarctica, and 
Australia were united, and Africa was linked northwards with the 
Eurasian plate. The distribution of ancestral Latimeria was more-or-
less continuous along the coasts of these massed continental blocks. 
India separated from Madagascar and began its move north in the early 
Cretaceous (140-120 Mya; Audley-Charles et al., 1981, figure 3.4, as 
cited in Springer, 1998), possibly carrying coelacanths with it. 
Madagascar separated from Africa shortly thereafter, but its separation 
ceased by magnetic anomaly 2 (ca. 115 Mya; Besse and Courtillot, 1988, 
as cited in Springer, 1998; however, Rabinowitz et al., 1983, as cited 
in Springer, 1998, propose that Madagascar began separating from Africa 
about 180 Mya and ceased at 120 Mya). India continued its `flight' 
north and began colliding with the Eurasian plate in the Eocene (40-50 
Mya; Audley-Charles et al., 1981, figure 3.8, as cited in Springer, 
1998). Continuous and still continuing movement of India into the 
Eurasian plate caused the building of the Himalayan Mountains, which 
resulted in the formation of many great rivers that flooded into the 
Indian Ocean down both coasts of India and the coast of Burma (e.g., 
the Indus, Ganges, and the Ayeyerwady (Irawaddy)). The heavy siltation 
covered the bottom, both near shore and deeply offshore, and eliminated 
habitats suitable for Latimeria. India thus formed a barrier between 
coelacanth populations in Africa-Madagascar and those in Malaysia-
Indonesia. If this hypothesis is correct, the siltation from the 
damaging agricultural practices, overgrazing, deforestation, 
destruction of wetlands, and mining resulting from an increasing 
population in East African countries could negatively affect L. 
chalumnae habitat.
    While it is possible, as the petition asserts, that most existing 
L. chalumnae individuals have been found, it is not likely. Our review 
of Green et al. (2009) does not leave us with the same impression about 
the success of the efforts to identify potential L. chalumnae habitat. 
In fact, it appears that Green et al. (2009) was able to use 
bathymetric methods to identify several areas where the species is 
likely to be found, as well as identify other areas that should be 
investigated because of the likelihood of finding similar habitat. As 
Green et al. (2009) states,

the extent of the coelacanth distribution in the western Indian 
Ocean covers a considerable area, making the search for further 
elusive coelacanth populations a daunting task. The area of interest 
extends northwards along the eastern coast of South Africa from East 
London to Mozambique and Tanzania--as far north as the Tanzanian-
Kenyan border, and the entire coastline of Madagascar (Green et al., 
2009). Specific target sites for coelacanth habitation using

[[Page 10117]]

geophysical data have been identified for the continental shelf off 
the Port Shepstone-Port St Johns stretch of coastline. Northern 
Mozambique, between Olumbe and Port Amelia, is considered another 
potential target site, based on the similarity of the submarine 
canyons to those of Sodwana Bay. Canyon size, depth of incision and 
the position of the canyon heads, relative to the shelf break, 
mirror those of the Sodwana Bay canyons. As this is a preliminary 
study it is recommended that higher resolution multibeam 
echosounding be undertaken in these areas in order to more 
accurately identify the features considered most likely to support a 
coelacanth population. These would be based on the presence of 
caves, overhangs and notches that coelacanths are known to inhabit. 
It must also be emphasized that despite poor coverage of areas such 
as Tanzania and Madagascar, these should not be excluded as 
potential sites for further, more detailed exploration.

We do not have any information subsequent to Green et al. (2009) to 
indicate whether this work has continued, but given the progress 
reported by Green et al. (2009), we conclude that it is highly unlikely 
that most individuals of L. chalumnae have been found.
    The petition stated that the estimated decline in number of L. 
chalumnae per cave over a period of 3 years (1991-1994) described by 
Brown (1995) indicates a massive reduction in the population, but it 
did not provide census numbers to which we can compare the most recent 
2008 population size estimate of 500 (even though it seems that Fricke 
was conducting annual census surveys beginning in 1989). Therefore, it 
is not clear whether this most recent population size estimate of 500 
is higher, lower, or the same as the 1991 or 1994 population size. If 
the population size of the Comoran population in 1991 was about 500, it 
is possible that the decline noted by Brown (1995) is the result of a 
natural population fluctuation or an emigration of L. chalumnae 
individuals away from the survey area (Brown, 1995). However, even a 
population size of 500 individuals is relatively small. Further, while 
it is possible that more L. chalumnae habitat will be identified and 
more individuals found, it is possible that the population size will 
not be significantly higher. Given the number and level of threats that 
exist (i.e., low population size estimate of 500, likelihood of 
increased siltation loads with increased coastal development in eastern 
Africa, the species' 3-year gestation period, fishing bycatch, the 
curio/trophy trade, and the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms), we 
find that the petition presents substantial scientific information 
indicating that the petitioned action of listing L. chalumnae as 
threatened or endangered may be warranted. The petition also requested 
that, if we list this species as threatened or endangered, we also list 
L. menadoensis based on similarity of appearance. If, after conducting 
a status review of L. chalumnae, we determine that it is threatened or 
endangered under the ESA and list it as such, we will make a 
determination on this ``similarity of appearance'' request at a later 
date.

Tomicodon abuelorum

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for T. 
abuelorum, this species is endemic to the Eastern Central Pacific, 
where it is known from the Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica, to Darien, in 
the Gulf of Panama (Hastings and Dominici-Arosemena, 2010). It is found 
only in areas with Rhizophora mangrove prop roots where it is usually 
attached to root surfaces or moving about and feeding from them at high 
tide. Juveniles have been recorded from floating mangrove leaves, which 
they may use as a dispersal mechanism into the mangrove root systems. 
The diet of T. abuelorum consists of barnacle cirri and barnacle cyprid 
larvae, small oysters and other bivalves, amphipods, and harpacticoid 
copepods. The species is fairly common in suitable mangrove habitat, 
with a mean density of about 0.8-1.4 fish per mangrove root. It is 
found year-round (Szelistowski, 1990). It is a highly fecund species, 
as Szelistowski (1990) found females as small as 18 mm to possess 
paired gonads with developing eggs, and three specimens between 19-26 
mm with ovaries containing 156-211 eggs. However, according to the 
petition and IUCN assessment, this species is currently in decline 
because of extensive mangrove extraction throughout its range 
(Jim[eacute]nez, 1994; FAO, 2007). As of 2000, the area of mangroves 
remaining in Costa Rica and Panama combined was estimated to be only 
about 2,000 km\2\. Further review of FAO (2007) indicates that the 
annual change in mangrove area in Costa Rica during the periods 1980-
1990, 1990-2000, and 2000-2005 was -1.7, -2.4, and -0.4 percent, 
respectively, and in Panama, -2.7, -0.8, and -0.5 percent, respectively 
(FAO, 2007). The petition cites Ferreira et al. (2005) when it includes 
the following quote, ``Surveys in other regions show that the reduction 
of mangroves brought some fish species to extinction * * *'' The 
petition acknowledges that this species' habitat overlaps with several 
MPAs, but despite this, it asserts that the species is still endangered 
with populations decreasing. To assert this population trend, it cites 
the IUCN assessment, which simply states that the population trend of 
this species is decreasing, without providing any references.
    As noted above, the petition provides little support for its 
assertion that the population trend of this species is decreasing, and 
T. abuelorum is fairly common in suitable mangrove habitat. Also, in 
reviewing Ferreira et al. (2005), we did not find the quote that the 
petition cited regarding extinction of a parrotfish in Brazil. Ferreira 
et al. (2005) actually stated, ``Spearfishing of adults has probably 
excerpted [sic] a strong influence on the extirpation of this fish from 
Brazilian reefs. In addition, juvenile S. guacamaia have strong 
functional dependency on mangroves (Mumby et al. 2004). Local 
extinction of S. guacamaia following mangrove removal and overfishing 
in the Caribbean (Mumby et al. 2004) suggests that the same process 
might have facilitated the extinction process in Brazil.'' This paper 
referred to local extirpation, not extinction, and the cause was 
suspected to be a combination of overfishing and mangrove removal, not 
only mangrove removal. The petition provided no information on fishing 
threats that might combine with habitat threats to cause extinction 
risk to T. abuelorum.
    While it appears that T. abuelorum is found only in mangrove areas 
that have undergone significant reductions (1980-2005), the last 5 
years of this data series indicate that mangrove losses in Costa Rica 
and Panama have slowed down (FAO, 2007). We have no information in our 
files on the status or trend of T. abuelorum. As stated previously, 
broad statements about generalized threats or identification of factors 
that could negatively impact a species do not constitute substantial 
information that listing may be warranted. We look for substantial 
information within the petition and within our own files indicating 
that not only is the particular species exposed to a certain factor, 
but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion, and then 
we assess the potential significance of that negative response. After 
evaluating the information presented in the petition, we find that the 
petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that listing may be warranted for T. abuelorum.

Pterapogon kauderni

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for P. 
kauderni, this species has a restricted range and is endemic only to 
the Banggai

[[Page 10118]]

Archipelago, which lies in the Banggai-Sula platform in eastern 
Indonesia (Allen and Donaldson, 2007). Its geographic range is about 
5,500 km\2\, but within this range, maximum potential available habitat 
is much smaller (about 426 km of coastline extending from the shore to 
about 100 m off the coast (so, only about 34 km\2\). It has been 
recorded at 17 of the 20 major islands and at 10 of the 27 minor 
islands. It occurs primarily in shallow sheltered bays and harbors, 
mainly on reef flats with sandy bottoms and sea grass beds, and it is 
found in 0.5-6 m depths, but most commonly found between 1.5-2.5 m 
depths. It is most common in calm habitats on the protected side of 
larger islands. Juveniles associate with sea grasses, sea urchins, sea 
stars, sea anemones, soft corals, and corals; adults shelter between 
the spines of sea urchins but also among anemones, corals, stony 
hydrozoans, rocks and artificial structures such as jetties. According 
to census work, 43.7 percent of the groups are associated with hard 
corals. Pterapogon kauderni is a diurnal carnivore-planktivore that 
feeds principally upon copepods, but also a generalist opportunistic 
species. It has a relatively short life span, matures at an average age 
of 0.8 years, and has a generation length of 1.5 years.
    In early population surveys, this species had been identified on 27 
out of 50 islands. Based on average population density from these 
initial surveys, its total population size was estimated at 2.4 million 
fish in 2004 (Vagelli, 2005). It has the highest degree of population 
structure in a marine fish; this genetic isolation is likely a result 
of the lack of suitable habitats between subpopulations coupled with 
the species' lack of dispersal mechanisms. According to the IUCN 
assessment, P. kauderni has a decreasing trend, based on comparisons of 
density estimates in unprotected sites conducted in 2004 (mean density 
of 0.07 individuals/m\2\) to a historical baseline density of a 
subpopulation localized inside a bay in Southwest Banggai Island which 
has been off limits to all fishing since before the beginning of the 
trade (0.63 individuals/m\2\).
    The petition asserts that local threats to the species include 
habitat degradation (harbor dredging and associated pollution; 
sedimentation; harvest of its habitat (corals and anemones) for the 
aquarium trade; coral bleaching; inability of P. kauderni to move to 
new areas on its own when sea temperature rises; disappearance of 
corals because of global climate change; pollution and contaminants 
that threaten the Luwuk subpopulation), overutilization (aquarium 
trade), disease (4 parasite types; viral disease) and predation, the 
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (e.g., no concerted effort to 
replace wild-caught fish with captive-bred fish for the aquarium 
industry; despite tracking of exported fish by the Indonesian 
government, it is lumped in the ``aquarium fish'' category; local bans 
by private owners of bays and villages offer some protection, but bans 
are seemingly driven by private interests such as pearl collection or 
disputes with outside collectors; lack of CITES listing), and other 
natural or manmade factors (low fecundity; parental care; elevated 
level of energy investment per offspring; direct development; lengthy 
oral incubation period; susceptibility to indiscriminate collecting; 
lack of dispersal mechanisms; frequent earthquakes). The petition adds 
that synergistic effects of these threats also contribute to the 
species' risk of extinction.
    The petition argues that the United States represents one of the 
largest importers of wild-caught P. kauderni, making an ESA listing 
particularly effective.
    Some of the threats identified by the petition are too general and 
not supported with specific information on whether or how the threat 
would affect P. kauderni (harbor dredging and associated pollution; 
sedimentation; harvest of its habitat (corals and anemones) for the 
aquarium trade; disease and predation; frequent earthquakes). Broad 
statements about generalized threats or identification of factors that 
could negatively impact a species do not constitute substantial 
information that listing may be warranted. We look for substantial 
information within the petition and within our own files indicating 
that not only is the particular species exposed to a certain factor, 
but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion, and then 
we assess the potential significance of that negative response. We had 
no information in our files on these threats with regard to P. 
kauderni.
    However, we have additional information in our files, including a 
Species Survival Network fact sheet (undated) that discusses data 
obtained in March 2007 indicating exports from local fishers have 
increased to one million fish annually (Vagelli, 2007), not including 
fish captured by larger fishing boats based in Bali. This evidence 
indicates that a minimum of 55 percent of captured fish die or are 
discarded due to injury or damage prior to international export. Also, 
to demonstrate significant changes in the health and vigor of coral 
populations and fish diversity within reef habitat, this fact sheet 
reports that, during the March 2007 census, extensive areas of coral 
reef habitat were found to be covered with algae, a fungus, or a 
bacteria making them unsuitable as habitat for the Banggai cardinalfish 
and other fish species (Vagelli, 2007). The fact sheet adds that no 
certification system for those collecting the Banggai cardinalfish has 
been established and, according to the Indonesian representative of the 
Marine Aquarium Council, no such system is being contemplated at this 
time (Vagelli, 2007). Finally, the fact sheet notes that, while the 
species can be bred in captivity, no captive breeding projects are in 
place and not a single village in the Banggai Archipelago is presently 
considering such a project (Vagelli, 2007).
    We also have a copy of CoP14 Inf. 37, Additional Information on 
Biological and Trade Criteria in Support of an Appendix-II Listing for 
the Banggai Cardinalfish, Pterapogon kauderni, which includes 
information compiled by the United States through consultations and new 
information gleaned from March 2007 surveys conducted by Dr. Alejandro 
Vagelli (Vagelli, 2007). In discussing extent of trade, the United 
States notes that FAO's estimate that a minimum cumulative catch of 
19.2 million over the duration of the fishery would be required to 
reduce a population of 21.6 million fish to 2.4 million, based on a 
worst case assessment of a population without a density dependent 
response, is unrealistic, as it does not take into account the effects 
of removal of individual fish on overall productivity of each 
subpopulation. Based on a conservative estimate, a single pair could 
produce 500 offspring in a lifetime, of which a maximum of 5-10 percent 
may survive to an adult life stage. Thus, annual removal of 700,000-
900,000 fish will result in a much higher cumulative loss of fish due 
to the effects of this removal on annual production. The United States 
also notes that there are three principal collecting operations with an 
estimated current capture magnitude of at least 900,000 fish per year, 
based on assessments by Vagelli in 2007. This estimate is considerably 
higher than recent estimates as reported in the FAO panel review 
(500,000), and is not indicative of a decline in total harvest as 
suggested by Reksodihardjo-Lilley in the FAO review. While we agree 
with the conclusion that demand for these species may be 50-60 percent 
of the reported capture (500,000), the

[[Page 10119]]

estimates of mortality reported in the FAO review (10 percent) are much 
lower than that reported by collectors and exporters. Interviews with 
fishermen and buyers within the principal collecting operations 
reported mortality estimates of 25-30 percent and rejection of another 
15 percent because of poor health (Vagelli, 2007).
    Finally, we found an undated Defenders of Wildlife Final Report in 
our files that provides details on P. kauderni mortality during 
collection (25-50 percent), holding (50 percent), transportation 
(average of 25-30 percent, though occasionally as high as 50 percent), 
and rejection by buyers due to injury and damage to specimens (15 
percent). This report also notes that, in captivity, P. kauderni 
commonly die from epidemics of iridoviruses (Megalocytivirus) (Weber et 
al., 2009), and captured P. kauderni sold in the United States 
experience high infection levels of this virus (Weber et al., 2009), 
with infection occurring post-capture at either export or import 
centers (Weber et al., 2009). The high rate of injury, disease, and 
death creates a positive feedback loop driving more and more collection 
to compensate for supply-chain losses.
    This report also summarizes new field survey information. 
Specifically, populations from Masoni Island, monitored since 2001, 
have experienced dramatic reductions (Vagelli, 2008). As of 2007, only 
37 fish were found in the 4,800 m\2\ Masoni Island survey area and only 
150 fish could be found on the entire island (Vagelli, 2008). At Peleng 
Island, monitored since 2002, only 27 fish remained (Vagelli, 2008). At 
Bakakan Island the population size dropped from 6,000 individuals in 
2001 to just 350 fish in the most recent surveys (Vagelli, 2008). Limbo 
Island has possibly experienced the most severe declines. In 2001, only 
0.02 fish per m\2\ could be located at Limbo Island (Vagelli, 2008). 
Almost no fish remained at Limbo Island by 2004 and the population has 
not recovered since then (Vagelli, 2008). By 2007 P. kauderni 
populations had been reduced by about 90 percent across the survey area 
(Vagelli, 2008). In addition to the threats posed by overfishing, P. 
kauderni have experienced population declines from several of the other 
problems imperiling Indonesia's coral reefs. Although P. kauderni is 
not targeted for collection by destructive fishing practices, its 
habitat is commonly degraded by dynamite fishing and cyanide fishing of 
other fish species (Indrawan, 1999; Lilley, 2008).
    The petition presents a valid argument to show that densities of 
numerous subpopulations have decreased, and that P. kauderni may be 
threatened by overfishing and international trade pressure. Also, the 
population has apparently declined from 21.6 million fish to 2.4 
million fish. Further, the estimated maximum potential available 
habitat within this range (34 km\2\) is relatively small compared to 
its geographic range (5,500 km\2\). Given these factors, the number and 
level of threats that exist (overfishing for the aquarium trade; 
inability of P. kauderni to move to new areas on its own when sea 
temperature rises; potential disappearance of corals because of global 
climate change; the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms; and other 
natural or manmade factors such as low fecundity, parental care, 
elevated level of energy investment per offspring, lengthy oral 
incubation period, susceptibility to indiscriminate collecting, and 
lack of dispersal mechanisms), and the additional information in our 
files, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific 
information indicating that the petitioned action of listing P. 
kauderni as threatened or endangered may be warranted.

Halichoeres socialis

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for H. 
socialis, this species is found only in the Pelican Keys, Belize, and 
it has an extremely small estimated range of less than 10 km\2\ (Rocha 
et al., 2010). Adults are reef associated, while juveniles are mangrove 
and shallow reef dependent. It is commonly found in shallow coral reefs 
over coral, sand, rubble, or sea grass substrata to a depth of 10 m. 
Juveniles feed on zooplankton and form evasive, compact schools when 
threatened. The petitioner did not provide any information on 
population size or trend. Juveniles are abundant where they occur, but 
adults are rarely observed.
    The petitioner asserts that habitat destruction (continued 
extensive mangrove and coral removal and dredging for coastal resort 
development) is threatening this species, citing Zamora-Arroyo et al. 
(2005) to highlight that the severity of these coastal development 
impacts is high with low reversibility. Pelican Key, where this species 
occurs, is a World Heritage Site, but the petitioner contends that 
there is no actual protection afforded this species. The petitioner 
also notes that the lack of adult specimens observed likely means that 
there are few opportunities to breed, increasing the species' 
vulnerability to extinction. As stated previously, broad statements 
about generalized threats or identification of factors that could 
negatively impact a species do not constitute substantial information 
that listing may be warranted. We look for substantial information 
within the petition and within our own files indicating that not only 
is the particular species exposed to a certain factor, but that the 
species may be responding in a negative fashion, and then we assess the 
potential significance of that negative response. We had no information 
in our files on H. socialis or any specific threats it may face.
    Upon review of Randall and Lobel (2003), cited by the petitioner, 
we note that these authors, who described this new species discovered 
in 1997, speculate that it had not been discovered before because of 
its occurrence in the limited area of reef and mangrove islet habitat 
confined to the Pelican Cays of Belize. Randall and Lobel (2003) expect 
it may be found at other comparable sheltered environments elsewhere 
along continental shores of the Caribbean Sea. They add that 
ichthyologists have not given this environment the same attention as 
they have other habitats such as coral reefs. Further, they note, 
because of its small size (less than 40 mm standard length), H. 
socialis may be easily mistaken with the juvenile phase of H. pictus 
(another labrid fish in the Caribbean Sea that is zooplanktivorous) by 
anyone not familiar with all labrids and their color morphs. Finally, 
Randall and Lobel (2003) note that this species is difficult to collect 
because it forms evasive schools instead of seeking shelter in the 
substratum. When the second author returned to the Pelican Cays to 
collect specimens of this species, he set up a barrier net and 
collected 102 specimens. Of the 49 fish used for the description, 46 
were mature. We note that the petitioner stated adult individuals are 
rarely observed. There was no indication that it was difficult to 
collect this number or that efforts to collect more were made or were 
unsuccessful. For all these reasons, we find that it is likely that the 
species is more widespread than the petitioner contends, and it may be 
fairly abundant.
    After evaluating the information presented in the petition, we find 
that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that listing may be warranted for H. socialis.

Paraclinus magdalenae

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for P. 
magdalenae, this species has a restricted range (1,131 km\2\), and it 
is known only from a few

[[Page 10120]]

specimens found in the immediate vicinity of Magdalena Bay, Baja 
California, Mexico (McCosker et al., 2010). Rosenblatt and Parr (1969) 
made 60 or more collections at appropriate depths between Cape San 
Lucas and Los Angeles Bay, Lower California, and did not find any 
specimens of this species in any of these areas. Based on this dated 
information, P. magdalenae is found at depths of 7-21 m, on rocky 
substrates. Upon review of Rosenblatt and Parr (1969), which was cited 
by the petitioner, it is interesting to note that the authors noted 
that the maximum depth of occurrence of this species is unknown, since 
diving techniques at the time allowed only very limited bottom time at 
depths much below 100 ft (30.5 m), and deep rocky areas therefore 
remained relatively unknown. They concluded that much more collecting 
would be necessary before confident statements could be made concerning 
the distribution of fishes characteristic of rocky shores at moderate 
depths, such as P. magdalenae. We have no information to indicate that 
any further sampling in this area or the areas nearby has taken place 
in the 45 years since Rosenblatt and Parr (1969) conducted their 
sampling. The petitioner provided no population information, but noted 
that the trend of this species is stable.
    The petitioner asserts that habitat loss from coastal development, 
urban and industrial pollution, massive tourism development and various 
potentially harmful extractive activities in the Magdalena Bay Area 
poses a serious risk of extinction to this species because of its 
restricted range (Hastings and Fischer, 2001). Also, effluent, 
including untreated domestic sewage and industrial waste, is discharged 
directly into Magdalena Bay, and intertidal nearshore and wetland areas 
are being degraded (School for Field Studies, 2004). The petitioner 
again cites Zamora-Arroyo et al. (2005) to highlight the high severity 
of these impacts that have low reversibility. Localized human 
population growth, according to the petitioner, has a substantial 
negative effect on fish populations, especially human populations 
located near the coasts. The citations provided to support the 
petitioner's assertion that large number of people live close to the 
coastline, dead zones are increasing from urban pollution, and climate 
change is expected to further magnify these coastal pollution problems 
are not specific to the Magdalena Bay region or to P. magdalenae. 
Finally, the petitioner notes that there are no species-specific 
conservation measures in place for P. magdalenae, and this puts the 
species at increased risk of extinction.
    While all of these threats are of concern to an ecosystem, nothing 
in the petition or its cited references indicates whether or how P. 
magdalenae is affected by these threats. For example, the Hastings and 
Fischer (2001) paper discusses management priorities for Magdalena Bay, 
given the current lack of a working resource management plan there, 
with little information on natural resources in the area; they do not 
mention P. magdalenae. As stated previously, broad statements about 
generalized threats or identification of factors that could negatively 
impact a species do not constitute substantial information that listing 
may be warranted. Further, we do not necessarily consider a lack of 
species-specific protections as a threat to the species or even 
problematic in all cases. We look for substantial information within 
the petition and within our own files indicating that not only is the 
particular species exposed to a certain factor, but that the species 
may be responding in a negative fashion, and then we assess the 
potential significance of that negative response. We had no information 
in our files on P. magdalenae numbers or threats to the species. After 
evaluating the species-specific information presented in the petition, 
we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted for P. 
magdalenae.

Paraclinus walkeri

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for P. walkeri, 
this species is endemic to the Eastern Pacific, known only from the 40 
km\2\ in Bahia San Quint[iacute]n, Baja CA Sur, Mexico (Hastings and 
McCosker, 2010). It is found in shallow tide pools and upper reef flat 
to depths of 6 m, and it is considered to be very rare, though it was 
formerly considered to be common. No population or trend information is 
available.
    The petitioner asserts that this species is threatened by habitat 
loss and degradation due to agricultural runoff and coastal development 
throughout its restricted range and cites Zamora-Arroyo et al. (2005) 
to highlight the high severity of these impacts that have low 
reversibility. While the species is located in protected habitat (Bahia 
de San Quint[iacute]n), the petitioner asserts that this protection has 
been inadequate to protect the species, as evidenced by its rarity now. 
The petitioner notes that this is understandable because the protected 
habitat appears to include only the lagoon itself, whereas the threats 
to the species originate on land. Also, the location of the entire 
population in one small area leaves P. walkeri extremely vulnerable to 
localized events, further threatening the species, according to the 
petitioner.
    While all of these threats are of concern to an ecosystem, nothing 
in the petition or its cited references indicates whether or how P. 
walkeri is affected by these threats. As stated previously, broad 
statements about generalized threats or identification of factors that 
could negatively impact a species do not constitute substantial 
information that listing may be warranted. Further, we do not 
necessarily consider a lack of species-specific protections as a threat 
to the species or even problematic in all cases. We look for 
substantial information within the petition and within our own files 
indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a certain 
factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion, 
and then we assess the potential significance of that negative 
response. We had no information in our files on P. walkeri numbers or 
threats to the species. Because Rosenblatt and Parr (1969), which is a 
description of the taxonomy, distribution, and variations of the eleven 
Pacific species of Paraclinus, was cited as support for the petition to 
list P. magdalenae (though not cited as support for the petition to 
list P. walkeri), that paper is now in our files; we note that these 
authors pointed out that none of the eleven Pacific species of 
Paraclinus have extensive bathymetric distributions. After evaluating 
the species-specific information presented in the petition, we find 
that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that listing may be warranted for P. walkeri.

Chaetodontoplus vanderloosi

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for C. 
vanderloosi, this angelfish species has one of the smallest ranges of 
all known Indo-Pacific coral reef fish, only 275 km\2\ between Samarai 
Island and the southeastern corner of Basilaki Island near Papua New 
Guinea (Allen, 2010). Its estimated area of occupancy is even smaller 
(about 15 km\2\). Allen (2010) states, ``Despite extensive searching in 
other parts of Milne Bay Province (which includes approximately 265,000 
km\2\ of ocean) during five visits, it was only seen in a small area.'' 
According to Allen (2010), there has been a definite decline in 
population observed over the past 25 years (G. Allen pers. comm., 
2010). Allen (2010) states that the total

[[Page 10121]]

population is thought to be less than 1,500 individuals, with 
decreasing trend, though we could not find any support for this 
estimate in the petition or in Allen (2010). Nor is any information on 
the extent of the ``definite decline in population'' available.
    The petitioner asserts that this species is apparently associated 
with relatively cool temperatures, as Allen (1998) reported the 
occurrence of exceptionally low water temperatures (22-24 [deg]C) in 
Milne Bay Province, compared to 26-28 [deg]C in other parts of Milne 
Bay Province. While the petition notes that the threats to this species 
are not well understood, it states that the species is clearly 
dependent on a pattern of cool-water upwelling from the deep ocean, and 
climate-associated changes in ocean circulation and increasing 
temperatures may be responsible for the observed decrease in this 
species. Allen (2010) speculates that strong currents that sweep 
southward through narrow passes between islands may cause displacement 
of surface waters and consequent upwelling of colder water from below. 
The petitioner cites Brainard et al. (2011) to support its statement 
that ocean surface temperature will continue to rise. The petitioner 
also notes that no conservation measures are in place to protect C. 
vanderloosi.
    It is not clear how much of a decline this species has undergone in 
the last 25 years. Nor is it clear how the petition or Allen (2010) 
came up with a population size estimate of less than 1,500 for C. 
vanderloosi. While it appears that this species prefers cooler 
temperatures, it is not clear that ocean warming will affect C. 
vanderloosi negatively. For example, Brainard et al. (2011, at p. 48) 
reported that, in comparing climate observations to models, ``Wentz et 
al. (2007) found that global and tropical ocean winds have been 
increasing over the last 20 years (though slower in the tropics), in 
contrast to models that indicate winds will weaken. Along with these 
changes in winds, models and observations both show an increase in 
atmospheric water vapor and precipitation (Wentz et al., 2007). 
Although these findings suggest that tropical wind-driven ocean 
currents will continue changing, the details about future directions 
and speeds of these surface currents remain insufficiently understood 
to adequately predict the potential influences to coral reefs generally 
or to the 82 candidate coral species in particular.'' Brainard et al. 
(2011, at p. 49) also state, ``The conflicting patterns of circulation 
under future warming makes it difficult to assess the likelihood of 
various future circulation scenarios, mainly owing to poorly 
constrained model parameterizations and uncertainties in the response 
of ocean currents to greenhouse warming (McMullen and Jabbour, 2009).'' 
We are convinced that surface water temperatures will increase with 
future global climate change. However, as is evident from these quotes 
from Brainard et al. (2011), we cannot predict ocean circulation 
patterns that will result from future climate changes, let alone how 
these changes might affect C. vanderloosi.
    As stated previously, broad statements about generalized threats or 
identification of factors that could negatively impact a species do not 
constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. 
Further, we do not necessarily consider a lack of species-specific 
protections as a threat to the species or even problematic in all 
cases. We look for substantial information within the petition and 
within our own files indicating that not only is the particular species 
exposed to a certain factor, but that the species may be responding in 
a negative fashion, and then we assess the potential significance of 
that negative response. We had no information in our files on C. 
vanderloosi numbers or threats to the species. After evaluating the 
species-specific information presented in the petition, we find that 
the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that listing may be warranted for C. 
vanderloosi.

Azurina eupalama

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for A. 
eupalama, this species is endemic to the eastern Pacific Ocean, found 
only in waters around the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands (Allen et al., 
2010). It has apparently disappeared following the intense 1982-1983 El 
Ni[ntilde]o event, when greatly increased sea temperatures had strong 
adverse effects on the islands' marine fauna and flora. Recent targeted 
searches have not encountered any individuals. Because its sister 
species, A. hirundo, occurs in a similar environment, the 
Revillagigedos Islands, near the northern limit of the Eastern Tropical 
Pacific, Allen et al. (2010) speculate that populations of A. eupalama 
may still exist on islands off Peru with warm temperate conditions, 
such as the Lobos Islands.
    This species may already be extinct (Robertson and Allen, 2006). It 
was considered `occasional' in 1977, and prior to the 1982-1983 El 
Ni[ntilde]o event, it was recorded from Floreana, Espa[ntilde]ola, 
Isabela, Marchena, Santiago, San Cristobal, Santa Cruz, and Santa Fe 
Islands in the Gal[aacute]pagos Archipelago. Numbers of this species 
were greatly reduced during the 1982-1983 El Ni[ntilde]o, and there 
have been no sightings since that time. Oceanographic environmental 
changes associated with the 1982-1983 El Ni[ntilde]o event are 
presumably responsible for the apparent disappearance of this species 
from the Gal[aacute]pagos.
    No conservation measures are in place for this species. It has 
historically been present in the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands MPA, but that 
protection did not stop these precipitous declines. Therefore, the 
petitioner argues that this species should be protected under the ESA, 
especially because the frequency and duration of ENSO events in this 
region of the Eastern Tropical Pacific appears to be increasing.
    The purpose of the ESA is to conserve species that are in danger of 
or threatened with extinction. The definition of an endangered species 
is ``any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range'' (Section 3(6)). Species that are 
already extinct are not protected by the ESA. The best available 
scientific information suggests that A. eupalama is not known to be 
alive or exist in the wild and may already be extinct; therefore, we 
find that this species does not qualify for listing as endangered or 
threatened under the ESA.

Scarus trispinosus

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for S. 
trispinosus, this species is endemic to Brazil with a range from Manoel 
Luiz Reefs on the northern Brazilian coast to Santa Catarina on the 
southeastern Brazilian coast (Ferreira et al., 2010). It is reef-
associated, usually found in seagrass, coral reefs, on algal and rocky 
reefs and on algal beds at depths of 1-45 m. It is an important 
excavator that often feeds on live coral.
    The petitioner and Ferreira et al. (2010) cited Rocha and Rosa 
(2001) to assert that, during the period 1996-1998, S. trispinosus was 
the second most abundant species in Manoel Luis State Marine Park 
(northeastern Brazil), being reported in 69 percent of underwater 
visual census surveys. We reviewed Rocha and Rosa (2001), and we note 
that the species reported in 69 percent of underwater visual census 
surveys is actually S. coelestinus, the midnight parrotfish, not S. 
trispinosus. Regardless, the petitioner did not assert that the 
population had declined in Manoel Luis State Marine Park.
    According to the petitioner, S. trispinosus populations have, 
however,

[[Page 10122]]

declined in two areas of Brazil: Abrolhos Bank off eastern Brazil, and 
Arraial do Cabo in the southeastern part of its range. Ferreira et al. 
(2010) assert that on the Abrolhos Bank, which is the largest coral 
reef in the south Atlantic, S. trispinosus represented about 28 percent 
of total fish biomass in 2001, and showed a 50-percent decline in the 
``past 5 years'' (Francini-Filho and Moura, 2008). Upon reviewing 
Francini-Filho and Moura (2008), we confirmed that S. trispinosus was 
the most abundant target species in the region in 2001, comprising 28.3 
percent of total fish biomass. While we could not confirm the 50-
percent decline, the petitioner also cited Francini-Filho (2005) to 
support this assertion. We could not confirm this because the 
petitioner did not provide a citation for this paper in the list of 
references. For the purposes of this finding, we will assume the 
petitioner is citing accurate information. According to a personal 
communication (B. Ferreira pers. comm., 2008) cited in Ferreira et al. 
(2010), S. trispinosus biomass has declined by 60-70 percent over the 
last 15 years in the southeastern part of its range (Arraial do Cabo). 
Population size is not known, but the trend is decreasing.
    Approximately 78 percent of mixed habitat parrotfishes such as S. 
trispinosus are experiencing greater than 30 percent loss of coral reef 
area and habitat quality. Coral reef loss and declining habitat 
conditions are particularly worrying for some corallivorous excavating 
parrotfishes that play major roles in reef dynamics and sedimentation. 
The petitioner asserts that the extensive loss of S. trispinosus 
habitat that is already occurring, and that will likely occur in the 
future as a result of anthropogenic climate change and other human-
related impacts, qualifies this species for protection under the ESA. 
The petitioner contends that the species is primarily threatened by 
spearfishing, net, and trap fishing throughout its range. Based on 
measured declines of S. trispinosus in at least two significant parts 
of its range (Abrolhos Bank in eastern Brazil, and Arraial do Cabo in 
the southeastern part of its range), along with observations that large 
individuals have become very rare, Ferreira et al. (2010) estimate that 
at least 50 percent of the global population has declined over the past 
20-30 years.
    Further review of Francini-Filho and Moura (2008) provides some 
information about the effectiveness of marine protected areas in 
protecting S. trispinosus and other reef-associated fishes. Using a 
nested stationary visual census technique adapted from Bohnsack and 
Bannerot (1986), these researchers showed that S. trispinosus biomass 
increased sharply between 2001 and 2002 on a newer no-take reserve and 
on a multiple-use area, soon after initiation of protection in the 
former and the banning of the parrotfish fishery in the latter. This 
increase was followed by a sharp decline from 2003 on, after poaching 
levels increased in the no-take reserve and local fishermen decided to 
reopen the parrotfish fishery in the multiple-use area. The authors 
concluded that these results indicate that legal protection alone, 
without effective enforcement and continued engagement from the local 
fishing communities on the implementation of regulations, is not enough 
to guarantee the success of MPAs.
    Further, the petitioner argues that the number of protected areas 
within its range does not include a large proportion of this species' 
population or habitat. There are no species-specific conservation 
measures in place for this species. Finally, the petitioner notes that 
even protected coral reefs will not be spared the damaging effects from 
anthropogenic climate change.
    Based on the best available information, we find that the threats 
of habitat destruction (coral reefs), overutilization by fisheries, 
inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms, and anthropogenic climate 
change may be impacting S. trispinosus to a degree that raises concerns 
of a risk of extinction, with significant population decline in two 
significant parts of its limited range. We conclude that the petition 
presents substantial scientific information indicating that the 
petitioned action of listing S. trispinosus as threatened or endangered 
may be warranted.

Argyrosomus hololepidotus

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for A. 
hololepidotus, this species is endemic to the southeast coast of 
Madagascar, with an area of occupancy of less than 500 km\2\ (Heemstra, 
2007). It is a large sciaenid, meaning it has ``drumming muscles'' for 
producing rudimentary vocalizations, and it is a benthic carnivore, 
feeding on other fish, crustaceans, and mollusks. While its generation 
length is unknown, similar large members of the same family have 
relatively long lifespans and long generation lengths, according to 
Heemstra (2007).
    The population is estimated to possibly number less than 10,000 
mature individuals, all in a single population that is undergoing 
continuing decline. Current declines are suspected to be about 10 
percent over the last 3 generations (Heemstra, 2007). Despite noting 
that the species is undergoing continuing decline, Heemstra (2007) 
state that the population trend is unknown.
    The petitioner asserts that pollutants resulting from the expanding 
human population in the region are increasingly negatively impacting 
the inshore areas and estuaries that form this species' nursery areas. 
While fisheries data and fishery-independent data appear to be non-
existent for this species, the petitioner argues that it is likely 
caught both deliberately and accidentally as bycatch, since local 
people eat this species, primarily for subsistence (though there 
apparently is some documented trade). The petitioner argues that any 
level of fishing is inappropriate for a species with such a small 
population. There are no conservation measures in place for this 
species. Finally, the petitioner contends that this species has a low 
capacity to tolerate environmental impacts without suffering 
irreversible change, increasing the likelihood that anthropogenic 
impacts will subject A. hololepidotus to extinction.
    Species classifications under the IUCN and the ESA are not 
equivalent, and data standards, criteria used to evaluate species, and 
treatment of uncertainty are also not necessarily the same. Thus, as we 
noted in an early section of this finding, we instead consider the 
information on threats identified by the petitioners, as well as the 
data on which they are based, as they pertain to each petitioned 
species. A population size of 10,000 mature individuals and a 10 
percent decline over 3 generations do not indicate that a species is 
threatened or endangered under the ESA. And, as stated previously, 
broad statements about generalized threats or identification of factors 
that could negatively impact a species do not constitute substantial 
information that listing may be warranted. Further, we do not 
necessarily consider a lack of species-specific protections as a threat 
to the species or even problematic in all cases. We look for 
substantial information within the petition and within our own files 
indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a certain 
factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion, 
and then we assess the potential significance of that negative 
response. We had no information in our files on A. hololepidotus 
numbers or threats to the species. After evaluating the species-
specific information presented in the petition, we find that the 
petition does not present substantial scientific or

[[Page 10123]]

commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted for A. 
hololepidotus.

Mycteroperca fusca

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for M. fusca, 
this species has a limited range (eastern Atlantic around the Azores 
and Madeira, Portugal, and Cape Verde and the Canary Islands, Spain) 
(Rocha et al., 2008). It is a demersal species that occurs in rocky 
areas at depths from 1-200 m. Juveniles are also found in tide pools. 
This species was previously abundant, but now locally rare. Researchers 
have observed local extinctions in the most intensively fished areas in 
the islands of the Canary Archipelago. The population size is unknown, 
but the trend is decreasing. Individuals are rarely observed greater 
than 40 cm total length, which is about half of its known maximum size.
    The major threat to M. fusca is fishing pressure that targets 
spawning aggregations. This has led to population declines, altered sex 
ratios, and extirpation of spawning aggregations for other serranids. 
This species has shown one of the strongest responses to variations in 
fishing intensity and human population among the Canary Islands, which 
supports the hypothesis that major human intervention has affected the 
abundance and biomass of this species in the Canary Islands (Tuya et 
al., 2006). Specific areas of occurrence and the condition of the M. 
fusca population in these areas include: Santa Maria (Azores) at Baixa 
do Norte, where a reproductive aggregation is known and monitored 
annually; Sao Miguel (Azores) at Ilheus dos Mosteiros, where adults are 
very rare; Terceira (Azores) at Ilheus da Mina, where adults are very 
rare; Faial (Azores) at Baixa do Castelo Branco, where formerly the 
largest known reproductive aggregation in the Northeast Atlantic 
occurred, but where it is now totally extirpated by overfishing; MAP of 
Garajau (Madeiras), where it is very common, including adults, but it 
is presently unknown whether reproductive aggregations occur; and North 
Coast of Porto Santo Island (Madeiras), where it is very rare, but 
adults are regularly seen at depths below 30 m (Barreiros, J.P., pers. 
comm., UAC/IMAR). Several MPAs cover this species' range, but the 
petitioner contends that it needs protection throughout its range.
    Based on the best available information, we find that the threats 
of overutilization by fisheries, inadequate existing regulatory 
mechanisms, and the species' vulnerability caused by its spawning 
aggregations may be impacting M. fusca to a degree that raises concerns 
of a risk of extinction, with extirpations and population declines in 
different areas of its range. We conclude that the petition presents 
substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned 
action of listing M. fusca as threatened or endangered may be 
warranted.

Mycteroperca jordani

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for M. jordani, 
this species has a restricted range, in the Eastern Central Pacific 
from southern La Jolla, CA, to Mazatl[aacute]n, Mexico, and into the 
Gulf of California (Craig et al., 2008). It is found on rocky reefs and 
in kelp beds. Adults are common in shallow water from southern 
California to Mexico. Juveniles are unknown in California waters, and 
few large adults are taken there. Large adults feed on other fish and 
have been reported feeding on juvenile hammerhead sharks. This species 
is large, with a recorded maximum size of nearly 2 m and maximum weight 
of 91 kg. Mycteroperca jordani is currently in ``severe decline'' 
throughout the Gulf of California, with fishers indicating a 50-70 
percent decline in catch rates since 1950 in the Gulf of California. It 
was abundant in central Baja California and probably dominated the 
rocky-reef fish community in terms of biomass, but it declined 
dramatically in the 1970s and is now scarce. Based on changes in the 
number of individuals within spawning aggregations, the population 
decline from the 1940s to the present could be greater than 99 percent. 
The species comprised 45 percent of total state finfish production in 
1960, but fell to only 6 percent by 1972. Recent estimates suggest that 
it comprises less than 1 percent of total finfish catch now. The 
population size is unknown, though there is a decreasing trend. Much of 
the information on the significant declines since the 1940s is from 
Saenz-Arroyo et al. (2005), cited by the petitioner. Saenz-Arroyo et 
al. (2005) discuss the ``shifting baseline'' syndrome that can affect 
the stock assessment of a vulnerable species by masking real population 
trends and thereby put marine animals at serious risk. These authors 
reviewed historical evidence and naturalists' observations and 
systematically documented fishers' perceptions of trends in the 
abundance of M. jordani to show that it has dramatically declined. 
Population abundance dropped rapidly after the 1970s, long before 
fishery statistics were formally developed for this area, making 
historical tools valuable for understanding historical abundance of M. 
jordani and the extent of the fishery.
    The petitioner asserts that all five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors 
threaten the survival of M. jordani. Under the first section 4(a)(1) 
factor, ``overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes,'' the petitioner asserts that coastal development 
in the northern Gulf of California (particularly Bahia La Cholla 
Marina) is expected to promote reef habitat destruction and that 
planned development threatens the El Borrascoso area of the Gulf of 
California habitat through dredging; destruction of geologic outcrops; 
and modification of coastal lagoons for shrimp mariculture, resulting 
in damage from construction and pollution from effluents. As with other 
species accounts, the petitioner also cites Zamora-Arroyo et al. (2005) 
to support its assertion that, ``[i]n the case of habitat destruction 
resulting from coastal development, the severity of impacts is high 
with low reversibility.'' The petitioner adds that increased human 
population growth in coastal cities means more construction, dredging, 
dumping of waste, runoff pollution, sedimentation, deforestation, and 
increased tourism, and asserts that urban pollution contributes to 
increasing ``dead zones.'' Also, climate change is expected to further 
magnify these coastal pollution problems, resulting in mass fish 
mortality from multiple algal blooms. Finally, the petitioner contends 
that potential tidal power development, if implemented, will result in 
severe impacts and irreversible loss of the Upper Gulf habitat.
    Under the second section 4(a)(1) factor, ``overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes,'' the 
petitioner notes that this species is heavily targeted by recreational 
and sub-national fisheries throughout its range and incidentally caught 
by shrimp trawlers in the Gulf of California. The petitioner also 
asserts that the species' spawning aggregations, which are restricted 
to the Mexican northwest, are heavily fished, and this is problematic 
because it makes it much easier for population-level numbers of M. 
jordani to be effectively targeted by fishers at easily identifiable 
locations and times. Thus, higher numbers of specimens can be easily 
taken, and spawning can be interrupted, leading to additional declines 
in overall M. jordani numbers. U.S. recreational fishers also target 
these same areas.
    Under the third section 4(a)(1) factor, ``disease or predation,'' 
the petitioner points to shrimp farming as an increased threat of 
disease, from the ``escape of disease and viral pathogens from the 
ponds to the open Gulf.'' This

[[Page 10124]]

threat may increase as coastal lagoons adjacent to newly developed 
areas could be modified for shrimp mariculture, according to the 
petitioner.
    Under the fourth section 4(a)(1) factor, ``the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms,'' the petitioner notes that, while this 
species occurs partially within the Alto Golfo Biosphere Reserve, it 
offers nominal or minimal protection because enforcement is lacking.
    Finally, under the fifth section 4(a)(1) factor, ``other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence,'' the petitioner 
asserts that the skewed sex ratio (females outnumber males 
significantly) decreases the likelihood of reproduction and increases 
the likelihood that the species will go extinct if the disparity 
continues. The petitioner also notes that the species is vulnerable to 
extinction in part because of its K-selected life history (large, low 
productivity, low numbers of mature adults), which makes it susceptible 
to the rapid, chaotic change it is experiencing. Finally, the 
petitioner contends that, because M. jordani is threatened by multiple 
stressors and is a K-selected species, these multiple threats are 
likely to cause extinction pressure greater than the mere additive 
pressure of each threat alone (synergistic effects).
    The threats under the first (habitat degradation) and third factor 
(disease and predation) are general, and the petitioner provides no 
specific information on whether or how they are affecting M. jordani. 
As stated previously, broad statements about generalized threats or 
identification of factors that could negatively impact a species do not 
constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. We 
look for substantial information within the petition and within our own 
files indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a 
certain factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative 
fashion, and then we assess the potential significance of that negative 
response. No such information on these threats was provided in the 
petition.
    However, the petitioner provides convincing evidence to support the 
assertion that the second (overutilization), fourth (inadequacy of 
regulatory mechanisms), and fifth (other natural or manmade factors) 
factors may be affecting M. jordani in a negative way. The likelihood 
that M. jordani has undergone a severe decline since the 1940s, 
combined with the high fishing pressure, the lack of regulatory 
mechanisms to control this fishing pressure, and the species' habit of 
congregating in large numbers for spawning may all contribute to an 
increased risk of extinction. Based on the best available information, 
we find that the threats of overutilization by fisheries, inadequate 
existing regulatory mechanisms, and other natural factors may be 
impacting M. jordani to a degree that raises concerns of a risk of 
extinction. We conclude that the petition presents substantial 
scientific information indicating that the petitioned action of listing 
M. jordani as threatened or endangered may be warranted.

Paralabrax albomaculatus

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for P. 
albomaculatus, this species is found only in the Gal[aacute]pagos 
Islands (Robertson et al., 2010). It is a reef-associated fish that 
inhabits rocky reefs and nearby sand patches. It is found in depths of 
10 to 75 m, and it prefers cooler water (Reck, 1983). It preys on 
mobile benthic crustaceans, octopus, squid, and cuttle fishes. 
Estimated age at first maturity is 1-2 years and longevity 10-12 years, 
based on other similar species; therefore, generation length is 
estimated to be about 5 years. No population size information is 
available, though a substantial decline (about 70 percent) in 
population numbers occurred between 1998 and 2001, as inferred from 
fish landings, with no evidence of a decrease in fishing effort 
(Danulat and Edgar, 2002). It has a decreasing trend, according to the 
petition. Upon review of Danulat and Edgar (2002), however, it appears 
that the petitioner neglected to include the first year of data from 
the time series analyzed by Danulat and Edgar (2002). Danulat and Edgar 
(2002) analyzed handline catch data from the M. olfax (bacalao) fishery 
in the Gal[aacute]pagos from 1997 through 2001. While M. olfax was by 
far the most abundant in this fishery, the fishery captured five other 
species, including M. albomaculatus. The catches of M. albomaculatus 
were 12, 23, 16, 16, and 9.7 tonnes live weight in 1997, 1998, 1999, 
2000, and 2001, respectively. Even if we use only the data from the 
years 1998 through 2001, it is not clear how the petitioner arrived at 
an approximately 70-percent decline from 1998 through 2001. Using the 
catches reported in Table 5 (p. 51) by Danulat and Edgar (2002), we 
come up with a 58-percent decline for this portion of the time series. 
Regardless, the decline is actually a 19-percent decline when the 
entire time series is included, and 19 percent does not seem to 
represent a substantial decline. In fact, Danulat and Edgar (2002) 
speculated that the warmer temperatures associated with the 1997-1998 
El Ni[ntilde]o event contributed to the larger sizes, higher abundance, 
and larger proportion of M. olfax captured during the period 1997-1998. 
This El Ni[ntilde]o event could have very well contributed to the 
higher numbers of M. albomaculatus in 1998. Or, the differences in 
catches during the 5-year period could have been the result of a 
natural population fluctuation.
    The petitioner states that P. albomaculatus will lose habitat at 
its preferred depths as surface ocean temperatures rise with climate 
change. Further, while its entire range is within an MPA, it is still 
subject to commercial fishing. The frequency and duration of ENSO 
events in this region appears to be increasing, and the petitioner 
states that juveniles of this cool water species, observed primarily in 
relatively shallow water, may be negatively affected by increased 
temperatures during severe ENSO events. The petitioner does not provide 
any specific information indicating whether or how these threats are 
affecting M. albomaculatus.
    As stated previously, broad statements about generalized threats or 
identification of factors that could negatively impact a species do not 
constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. 
Further, we do not necessarily consider a lack of species-specific 
protections as a threat to the species or even problematic in all 
cases. We look for substantial information within the petition and 
within our own files indicating that not only is the particular species 
exposed to a certain factor, but that the species may be responding in 
a negative fashion, and then we assess the potential significance of 
that negative response. We had no information in our files on M. 
albomaculatus numbers or threats to the species. After evaluating the 
species-specific information presented in the petition, we find that 
the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that listing may be warranted for M. 
albomaculatus.

Enneapterygius namarrgon

    According to the petitioner and the IUCN assessment for E. 
namarrgon, this coastal species is endemic to the bauxite rocks of Gove 
Peninsula, south of Cape Arnhem in the Northern Territory of Australia 
(Fricke et al., 2010). It is distributed across a very small area of 
approximately about 317 km\2\. The petition provides no population 
information or trend information.
    The petitioner asserts that bauxite is the most important aluminum 
ore and over 85 percent of the bauxite mined

[[Page 10125]]

globally is converted to alumina for the production of aluminum metal. 
Further, Australia is the world's leading producer of bauxite, 
accounting for 36 percent of world production, and this mine contains 
the highest-grade bauxite deposits in the world. The petitioner also 
notes that it is predicted that the resource life for existing bauxite 
operations is around 70 to 75 years. There are currently no species-
specific conservation measures in place for this species.
    The petitioner provides no information on whether and how E. 
namarrgon is being affected by bauxite mining. As stated previously, 
broad statements about generalized threats or identification of factors 
that could negatively impact a species do not constitute substantial 
information that listing may be warranted. Further, we do not 
necessarily consider a lack of species-specific protections as a threat 
to the species or even problematic in all cases. We look for 
substantial information within the petition and within our own files 
indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a certain 
factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion, 
and then we assess the potential significance of that negative 
response. We had no information in our files on E. namarrgon numbers or 
threats to the species. After evaluating the species-specific 
information presented in the petition, we find that the petition does 
not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that listing may be warranted for E. namarrgon.

Petition Finding

    After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well 
as information readily available in our files, including the sections 
of the petition applicable to all of the petitioned species as well as 
the species-specific information, we conclude the petition in its 
entirety does not present substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted for 5 of 
the 10 species of skates and rays (Dasyatis margarita, Electrolux 
addisoni, Okamejei pita, Pastinachus solocirostris, and Trygonorrhina 
melaleuca), and 10 of the 15 species of bony fishes (Colpichthys 
hubbsi, Tomicodon abuelorum, Halichoeres socialis, Paraclinus 
magdalenae, Paraclinus walkeri, Chaetodontoplus vanderloosi, Azurina 
eupalama, Argyrosomus hololepidotus, Paralabrax albomaculatus, and 
Enneapterygius namarrgon). However, as described above, we find that 
there is substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
the petitioned action may be warranted for 5 of the 10 species of 
skates, and rays and 5 of the 15 species of bony fishes, and we hereby 
announce the initiation of a status review for each of these species to 
determine whether the petition action is warranted. These 5 skates and 
rays are Bathyraja griseocauda, Raja undulata, Rhinobatos cemiculus, R. 
horkelii, and R. rhinobatos, and the 5 bony fishes are Latimeria 
chalumnae, Pterapogon kauderni, Scarus trispinosus, Mycteroperca fusca, 
and Mycteroperca jordani.

Information Solicited

    To ensure that the status review is based on the best available 
scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information relevant 
to whether the 10 species we believe may be warranted for listing 
(Bathyraja griseocauda, Raja undulata, Rhinobatos cemiculus, R. 
horkelii, R. rhinobatos, Latimeria chalumnae, Pterapogon kauderni, 
Scarus trispinosus, Mycteroperca fusca, and Mycteroperca jordani) are 
threatened or endangered. Specifically, we are soliciting information, 
including unpublished information, in the following areas: (1) 
Historical and current distribution and abundance of each species 
throughout its range; (2) historical and current population trends; (3) 
life history information; (4) data on trade of these species, including 
products such as fins and notochords; (5) historical and current data 
on catch, bycatch, retention, and discards in fisheries; (6) ongoing or 
planned efforts to protect and restore these species and their 
habitats; (7) any current or planned activities that may adversely 
impact these species; and (8) management, regulatory, and enforcement 
information. 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.

References Cited

    A complete list of references is available upon request to the 
Office of Protected Resources (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 18, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-03942 Filed 2-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P