Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Humphead Wrasse as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 57875-57887 [2014-23034]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 187 (Friday, September 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57875-57887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23034]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Docket No. 121204680-4789-03]
RIN 0648-XC387


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-Month 
Finding on a Petition To List the Humphead Wrasse as Threatened or 
Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

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

ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding and availability of a status review 
report.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list 
the humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) as threatened or endangered 
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We have completed a 
comprehensive status review of the humphead wrasse in response to this 
petition. Based on the best scientific and commercial information 
available, including the status review report (Graham et al., 2014), we 
have determined that the species does not warrant listing at this time. 
We conclude that the humphead wrasse is not currently in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and is 
not likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We also announce 
the availability of the humphead wrasse status review report.

DATES: This finding was made on September 26, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The humphead wrasse status review report is available 
electronically at: https://www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/
prdhumpheadwrasse.html. You may also receive a copy by 
submitting a request to the Protected Resources Division, Pacific 
Islands Regional Office, NMFS, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, 
HI 96818, Attention: Humphead Wrasse 12-month Finding.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krista Graham, NMFS, Pacific Islands 
Regional Office, (808) 725-5152; or Lisa Manning, NMFS, Office of 
Protected Resources, (301) 427-8466.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 31, 2012, we received a petition from WildEarth 
Guardians to list the humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) as 
threatened or endangered under the ESA throughout its entire range. The 
petitioners also requested that critical habitat be designated for the 
humphead wrasse under the ESA. On February 28, 2013, we published a 
positive 90-day finding (78 FR 13614), announcing that the petition 
presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
the petitioned action of listing the species may be warranted and 
explained the basis for that finding. We also announced the initiation 
of a status review of the species, as required by section 4(b)(3)(a) of 
the ESA, and requested information to inform the agency's decision on 
whether the species warranted listing as endangered or threatened under 
the ESA.

Listing Species Under the Endangered Species Act

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA requires us to make a finding within 
12-months of the date of receipt of any petition that was found to 
present substantial information indicating that the petitioned action 
may be warranted. The 12-month finding must provide a determination of 
whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted; (b) warranted; or 
(c) warranted but precluded. In this case, we are responsible for 
determining whether the humphead wrasse warrants listing as threatened 
or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To make this 
determination, we first consider whether a group of organisms 
constitutes a ``species'' under section 3 of the ESA, then whether the 
status of the species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or 
endangered. Section 3 of the ESA defines species to include ``any 
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population 
segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds 
when mature.'' On February 7, 1996, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USFWS; together, the Services) adopted a policy describing 
what constitutes a distinct population segment (DPS) of a taxonomic 
species (61 FR 4722). The DPS Policy identifies two elements that must 
be considered when identifying a DPS: (1) The discreteness of the 
population segment in relation to the remainder of the species (or 
subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the 
population segment to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to 
which it belongs.
    Section 3 of the ESA further defines an ``endangered species'' as 
``any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range'' and a ``threatened species'' as one 
``which is likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' Thus, in the context of the ESA, we interpret an ``endangered 
species'' to be one that is presently in danger of extinction. A 
``threatened species'' is not presently at risk of extinction, but is 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future. The key statutory 
difference between an endangered and threatened species is the timing 
of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either presently 
(endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened).
    Section 4 of the ESA and implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 
424 require us to determine whether any species is endangered or 
threatened as a result of any one or a combination of the following 
five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence (ESA section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E)). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of 
the ESA requires us to make listing determinations based solely on the 
best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review 
of the status of the species and after taking into account efforts 
being made by any State or foreign nation or political subdivision 
thereof to protect the species. We also consider the comments received 
in response to issuance of the 90-day finding. In evaluating the 
efficacy of existing protective efforts, we rely on the Services' joint 
Policy on Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing 
Decisions (``PECE''; 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003). The PECE provides 
direction for considering conservation efforts that have not been 
implemented, or have been implemented but not yet demonstrated 
effectiveness.

Status Review

    We appointed an Endangered Species Biologist in the Protected 
Resources Division of the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO) 
to gather and review the best available data and information on the 
life history and ecology, distribution, abundance, and threats to the 
humphead wrasse and to document this review in a status review report. 
Next, we convened a team of

[[Page 57876]]

four biologists (hereinafter referred to as the Extinction Risk 
Analysis (ERA) Team) to conduct an extinction risk analysis for the 
humphead wrasse, using the information in the status review report. The 
ERA Team was comprised of three fishery biologists from NMFS' Pacific 
Island Fisheries Science Center and a fishery biologist with NMFS 
PIRO's Habitat Conservation Division. The ERA Team had expertise in 
reef fish biology and ecology, population dynamics, and stock 
assessment science. The ERA Team documented their evaluation of 
possible DPSs for the humphead wrasse and their professional judgment 
of the extinction risk facing the humphead wrasse in the status review 
report (Graham et al., 2014). The report makes no recommendation as to 
the listing status of the species. The status review report is 
available electronically at https://www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/
prdhumpheadwrasse.html.
    The status review report was then subjected to peer review as 
required by the Office of Management and Budget Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (M-05-03; December 16, 2004). The 
status review report was peer reviewed by three independent specialists 
selected from the academic and scientific community, with expertise in 
reef fish biology, conservation and management, and knowledge of 
humphead wrasse. The peer reviewers were asked to evaluate the 
adequacy, appropriateness, and application of data used in the status 
review as well as evaluate the findings made in the ``Assessment of 
Extinction Risk'' section of the report. All peer reviewer comments 
were addressed prior to dissemination of the final status review report 
and publication of this determination.

Life History, Biology, and Status of the Petitioned Species

    Below we summarize the key life history and species information 
from the status review report (Graham et al., 2014). More detailed 
information is available in the status review report, which is 
available electronically at https://www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/
prdhumpheadwrasse.html.

Species Description

    The humphead wrasse is the largest member of the family Labridae. 
Found throughout the Indo-Pacific Ocean, the humphead wrasse is 
distinguished from other coral reef fishes, including other wrasses, 
due primarily to its large size along with its fleshy lips in adults 
(Myers, 1999), prominent bulbous hump that appears on the forehead in 
larger adults of both sexes, and intricate markings around the eyes 
(Marshall, 1964; Bagnis et al., 1972; Sadovy et al., 2003a).
    The humphead wrasse has a reported maximum length of 229 cm total 
length (TL) (7.5 ft) and weight of 190.5 kg (420 lbs) (Marshall, 1964; 
Myers, 1989; Lieske and Myers, 1994; Donaldson and Sadovy, 2001; 
Westneat, 2001; Sadovy et al., 2003a; Russell, 2004); however, there 
are no confirmed records of this species greater than 150 cm fork 
length (FL) (Choat et al., 2006). (TL is measured from the tip of the 
snout to the tip of the longer lobe of the caudal or tail fin; whereas, 
FL is measured from the tip of the snout to the end of the middle 
caudal fin rays (i.e., where the fork of the tail begins). TL is longer 
than FL). The maximum age of humphead wrasse is estimated to be 30 
years for females and 25 years for males (Sadovy et al., 2003a; Choat 
et al., 2006; Andrews et al., in review).
    The development of the cephalic hump is related to body size and is 
visible at 37 cm TL, with all individuals >=75 cm TL exhibiting a 
distinctive hump, irrespective of sex (Liu and Sadovy de Mitcheson, 
2011). Therefore, C. undulatus does not show obvious sexual dimorphism 
of the forehead extension, meaning that it is not a reliable criterion 
for differentiating males and females. The species has 9 dorsal fin 
spines, 10 dorsal fin rays, 3 anal fin spines, and 8 anal fin rays 
(Sadovy et al., 2003a). Juveniles are pale gray/green with large dark 
spots on some of the scales that produce a series of broad dark bands, 
interspersed with narrower white bands along the length of the body and 
a pair of distinctive parallel black lines before and after the eye 
(Sadovy et al., 2003a). Colin (2006) notes that juvenile C. undulatus 
resemble juvenile C. trilobatus and C. chlorurus, with similar shape, 
some resemblance in coloration, similar swim fashion, and can all occur 
in the same habitat. The author notes that the similarities with these 
two more common species can result in confusion and misidentification 
of juvenile C. undulatus.
    Adults are olive green to blue-green with large scales. A narrow 
dark bar on each scale breaks into irregular dark lines anteriorly on 
the body with growth (Randall, 2005). The head is a blue-green to blue 
with irregularly wavy yellowish lines (Sadovy et al., 2003) with the 
same two slightly oblique black lines extending posteriorly from the 
lower half of the eye, often with two more black lines extending from 
the eye to the rear part of the upper lip (Randall, 2005). These 
distinctive patterns of lines makes identifying individual fish 
possible if the head pattern and spots can be seen or photographed. 
While there is no apparent sexual dichromatism or permanent difference 
in color between sexes (Sadovy et al., 2003a), temporary color 
differences between males and females are seen during reproduction 
(Colin, 2010).

Distribution

    The humphead wrasse is widely distributed on coral reefs and 
nearshore habitats throughout much of the tropical Indo-Pacific Ocean. 
The biogeographic range of the humphead wrasse spans from 30[deg] N to 
23[deg] S latitude and includes the Red Sea south to Mozambique in the 
Indian Ocean, from southern Japan in the northwest Pacific south to New 
Caledonia in the south Pacific and into the central Pacific Ocean 
including French Polynesia. The humphead wrasse has been recorded from 
many islands of Oceania, but appears to be absent from the Hawaiian 
Islands, Johnston Island, Easter Island, Pitcairn, Rapa, and Lord Howe 
Island with the exception of occasional waifs (Randall et al., 1978). 
In the United States (U.S.), the species is found in the territories of 
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 
(CNMI), and Guam. In the U.S. Pacific Remote Island Areas, the species 
is found in the Line (Palmyra Atoll, Kingman Reef, and Jarvis Island) 
and Phoenix (Howland and Baker) Islands, and at Wake Atoll.

Habitat

    The humphead wrasse is widely distributed in low densities on all 
types of coral reef environments and nearshore habitats throughout much 
of the tropical Indo-Pacific. Both coral reefs and seagrass beds have 
been reported to provide a nursery habitat for post-settlement and 
juvenile humphead wrasse (Sadovy et al., 2003a; Russell, 2004). 
Juveniles are also observed in murky outer river areas with patch 
reefs, shallow sandy areas adjacent to coral reef lagoons, and in 
mangroves (Randall, 1955; Randall et al., 1978; Myers, 1989; Sadovy et 
al., 2003a; Myers, 1999).
    Unlike juveniles, adults are more commonly observed inhabiting 
offshore habitats along steep outer reef slopes, reef drop offs, 
channel slopes, reef passes, reef flats, and lagoonal reefs to depths 
of up to at least 100 m (Randall, 1978; Myers, 1989; Sadovy et al., 
2003a; Zgliczynski et al., 2013). Fish size and abundance are 
correlated with habitat type, with the largest fish and most dense 
groups of humphead wrasses observed on barrier reefs and passes. In 
coastal, middle reefs and lagoon areas,

[[Page 57877]]

smaller fish (< 50 cm TL) are typically observed among branching 
staghorn corals (Acropora spp.) (Sadovy et al., 2003a).

Movement and Behavior

    The numbers of fish found together can vary. According to Sadovy et 
al. (2003a), juveniles are typically solitary, wary, and difficult to 
approach, though they can be found in small groups. Adults are 
typically observed solitary or paired (Myers, 1989; Sadovy et al., 
2003a) but have also been noted in groups of 3-7 individuals 
(Donaldson, 1995; Sadovy et al., 2003a). Additionally, small social 
units can be observed moving together in less heavily fished areas, 
while lone and more wary individuals are more often noted in heavily 
fished areas (Sadovy et al., 2003a).
    Based on mensurative in situ observations, humphead wrasse display 
site fidelity and predictable home ranges with the same individuals, 
identifiable by distinct head markings, observed along the same 
stretches of reef for extended periods, although the lengths of these 
periods are not defined. Additionally, adults often use a consistent 
resting place (i.e., cave or crevice) at night or when threatened 
(Bagnis et al., 1972; Myers, 1989; Thaman, 1998; Myers, 1999; Donaldson 
and Sadovy, 2001; Sadovy et al., 2003a; Chateau and Wantiez, 2007).
    Factors such as sex, age, and size of the fish directly influence 
the home range size of the humphead wrasse, with smaller fish using a 
fraction of the area occupied by adults (Sadovy et al., 2003a citing 
T.J. Donaldson, unpublished data). A single juvenile (45 cm FL) 
humphead wrasse that had been surgically implanted with an ultrasonic 
transmitter in New Caledonia moved at least 20-200 m every day and had 
an estimated home range size of at least 50,000 m\2\ (Chateau and 
Wantiez, 2007). In Palmyra Atoll, 19 acoustically tagged juveniles and 
adults (ranging in length from 27 to 109 cm TL) had home range sizes of 
800 m \2\ to 19,000 m \2\, with the smallest home ranges occupied by 
juveniles, intermediate ranges for adult males, and largest ranges 
occupied for adult females (Weng et al., in press).

Foraging Ecology

    The humphead wrasse is a diurnal carnivore, feeding during the day 
and sleeping at night (Durville et al., 2003; Gillbrand et al., 2007). 
Much of its prey is found in sand or rubble habitats where it feeds on 
a variety of molluscs, small fishes such as gobies, moray eels, sea 
urchins, crustaceans, brittle stars, starfish, and other invertebrates 
(Randall et al., 1978; Myers, 1989; Randall et al., 1997; Thaman, 1998; 
Sadovy et al., 2003a; Choat et al., 2006). Similar to other wrasse 
(Labridae), humphead wrasses forage by turning over or crushing rocks 
and rubble to reach cryptic organisms (Pogonoski et al., 2002; Sadovy 
et al., 2003a citing P.S. Lobel, pers. comm.). The thick fleshy lips of 
the species appear to absorb sea urchin spines, and the pharyngeal 
teeth easily crush heavy-shelled sea snails in the genera Trochus spp. 
and Turbo spp. The humphead wrasse is also one of the few predators of 
toxic animals such as boxfishes (Ostraciidae), sea hares (Aplysiidae), 
and crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) (Randall, 1978; 
Myers, 1989; Thaman, 1998; Sadovy et al., 2003a). Consumption of toxic 
species in certain areas, particularly Tahiti, Tuvalu, New Caledonia, 
the Tuamotu Archipelago (French Polynesia), Marshall Islands, and the 
Federated States of Micronesia can cause the humphead wrasse to be 
ciguatoxic to humans (Randall, 1958; Randall et al., 1978; Randall, 
1979; Lewis, 1986; Myers, 1989; Dalzell, 1992; Dalzell, 1994; Sadovy, 
1998; Myers, 1999; Sadovy et al., 2003b; Sadovy, 2006).

Reproduction and Growth

    Field reports reveal variable humphead wrasse spawning behavior, 
depending on location (Sadovy et al., 2003a; Colin, 2010). Spawning can 
occur between several and all months of the year, coinciding with 
certain phases of the tidal cycle (usually after high tide) and 
possibly lunar cycle (Sadovy et al., 2003a; Colin, 2010). Spawning can 
reportedly occur in small (< 10 individuals) or large (> 100 
individuals) groupings, which can take place daily in a variety of reef 
types (Sadovy et al., 2003a; Sadovy de Mitcheson et al., 2008; Colin, 
2010).
    Data from captive rearing programs indicates that egg diameter 
ranges from 0.62-0.67 mm, and newly hatched larvae are 1.5-1.7 mm TL 
(Slamet and Hutapea, 2005). Eggs are spherical and lack pigment (Sadovy 
et al., 2003 citing P.L. Colin, unpublished data). Little information 
is available regarding larval dispersal in the wild (Poh and Fanning, 
2012). However, in unpublished work P.L. Colin (pers. comm.) found that 
eggs of humphead wrasse moved slowly off the western barrier reef of 
Palau over a few hours in tidal currents, and then stalled before 
moving laterally along the reef. Some eggs are brought back in over the 
barrier reef, while others remain at sea, all in the first 12 hours 
after spawning.
    Humphead wrasse larvae settle out of the plankton at a size of 8 to 
15 mm TL, with a mode of 12 mm TL (at an unspecified larval duration), 
and reach 35 mm TL or greater within 2 to 3 weeks post-settlement 
(Tupper, 2007 citing M. Tupper, unpublished data). Slamet and Hutapea 
(2005), however, indicate that growth of larvae is actually much 
slower. The authors report that captive larvae reach 50-60 mm TL in 6 
months. Settlement varies among habitat types.
    As is common in wrasses, the humphead wrasse is a protogynous 
hermaphrodite, capable of changing sex from female to male around 9 
years of age (Choat et al., 2006; Sadovy de Mitcheson et al., 2010). At 
around 6 months of age, juveniles are approximately 5-6 cm TL (Slamet 
and Hutapea, 2005), reaching 50 cm TL at approximately 7 years of age. 
As females reach sexual maturity growth slows, with few individuals 
observed > 100 cm TL. Male growth rates are approximately double those 
of females, resulting in relatively young but large males (Choat et 
al., 1996; 2006).
    Size at maturity for males and females is difficult to compare 
across studies because some measurements are reported as TL and others 
as FL. Sadovy et al. (2003a) estimates that females reach sexual 
maturity at around 5 years of age and 35-50 cm TL. Other histological 
studies estimate that sexual maturity is reached around 40-60 cm TL, 
which is estimated to be about 5-7 years of age (Pogonoski et al., 2002 
and Russell, 2004 citing Sadovy, unpublished data; Sadovy et al., 
2011). Another study analyzing early gonadal development on 178 
humphead wrasse specimens revealed that minimum body sizes for female 
and male sexual maturation were 65 cm and 84.5 cm TL, respectively 
(Sadovy de Mitcheson et al., 2010). However, the authors note that 
despite the results from this study, based on available information, it 
is suggested that the typical size of female sexual maturation for the 
humphead wrasse occurs at 40-50 cm TL (Sadovy de Mitcheson et al., 
2010). Choat et al. (2006) estimated length at first maturity as 45-50 
cm FL for females (6-7 years) and 70 cm FL (9 years) for males. Despite 
the apparent differences in estimated minimum size of female sexual 
maturation among the different studies and locations, the age at first 
maturity is relatively late, representing about 20% of the female life 
span as opposed to 5-6% of the female life span observed in most other 
reef fishes with life spans in excess of 30 years (Choat and Robertson, 
2002).

[[Page 57878]]

Natural Mortality

    Natural adult mortality is thought to be low (Sadovy et al., 
2003a). As for mortality due to predation, little is known though it is 
thought there is refuge in size. Although adult humphead wrasses are 
most vulnerable during spawning, apex predators including sharks are 
not known to prey on adult humphead during this time (Colin, 2010).

Population Structure

    Very little published genetic research is available on the humphead 
wrasse other than the results of sequencing the mitochondrial genome of 
the species (Qi et al., 2013). Research is currently underway to 
analyze 200 humphead wrasse samples collected from the eastern Indian 
Ocean to Pohnpei and from the Great Barrier Reef to the Marianas 
Islands. Preliminary analyses of mitochondrial DNA from a subset of 
samples from across the range suggest no deep genetic differentiation 
on the scale of ocean basins, though robust conclusions await final 
analyses of the complete dataset (Michael Dawson, pers. comm.). 
Additionally, no tagging or tracking studies of a scale sufficient to 
define population structure have been conducted. Although a number of 
studies have provided abundance estimates based on in situ surveys, 
there are no current studies or references describing population 
structure.

Population Abundance

    There are no historical estimates (pre-1970s) of global or local 
abundance or biomass of humphead wrasse. When limited surveys first 
began on this species in the early 1970s, the species was generally 
characterized as being naturally uncommon to rare in places (Bagnis et 
al., 1972; Galzin et al., 1998; Sadovy et al., 2003a and IUCN, 2008 
citing Galzin, 1985; IUCN, 2008 citing Tropical Research and 
Conservation Centre--Malaysia (TRACC), 2004). For example, in 1972 
Taiaro lagoon, a 9 km\2\ uplifted lagoon (maximum depth of 27 m 
dominated by talus sand and small dispersed patch reefs) of Taiaro 
Atoll in Tuamotu Archipelago, French Polynesia, where this species was 
not fished and fish diversity was high, abundance was estimated to be 
1-2 fish per 10,000 m\2\ (Galzin et al., 1998). This abundance remained 
unchanged during repeat surveys in 1992 and 1994 (Galzin et al., 1998). 
In the Society Islands of French Polynesia, humphead wrasses were also 
reported to be uncommon in the early 1970s (Bagnis et al., 1972; IUCN, 
2008 citing Galzin, 1985).
    Past catch records for some locations, when compared to more 
current catch records, although the data are sparse, indicate that some 
populations were at one time greater than present day (i.e., Australia, 
Fiji, Malaysia, Palau [IUCN, 2008]). However, inferences regarding 
abundance from fishery dependent data are subject to uncertainty from 
effects of fishing methods, size selectivity, fishery participation, 
regulation, and methods of collecting data. Such uncertainty is also 
true in relation to inferences made from underwater surveys when 
habitat information and survey methodology are not known.
    Efforts to estimate abundance and density of humphead wrasse have 
been completed in certain regions within the species' range (e.g., U.S. 
Pacific Islands) using underwater visual census techniques designed to 
quantify the abundance of these relatively rare/uncommon and wide-
ranging fish. Although humphead wrasses are widely distributed, natural 
densities are typically low, even in locations where habitats are 
presumably intact. Unfished or lightly fished areas have densities 
ranging from 2-27 individuals per 10,000 m\2\ of reef (Sadovy et al., 
2003a). For example, at Wake Atoll where there is zero fishing pressure 
for the species, surveys that recorded primarily juveniles (< 30 cm TL) 
reported the naturally low abundance of the species at 13-27 
individuals per 10,000 m\2\ (Sadovy et al., 2003a and IUCN, 2008 citing 
P.S. Lobel, pers. comm., and Lobel and Lobel, 2000). This is the 
highest recorded abundance of any location and one of the most 
protected areas. Abundance of sub-adult and adult humphead wrasse 
observed from towed-diver surveys of fore reef habitats (10-15 m depth) 
at Wake Atoll conducted by NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science 
Center (PIFSC) Coral Reef Ecosystem Division (CRED) in 2005, 2007, 
2009, and 2011 is lower. Four years of biannual surveys from this time 
period report an average of 1.101 large (> 50 cm TL) individuals per 
10,000 m\2\ (NMFS PIFSC CRED, unpublished). Palmyra Atoll, also a U.S. 
Pacific Remote Island Area where the species is completely protected, 
had similarly naturally low abundance levels despite decades of 
complete protection. Abundance of large (> 50 cm TL) humphead wrasse 
observed from towed-diver surveys of fore reef habitats (10-15 m depth) 
of Palmyra Atoll conducted biannually from 2001-2012 is 0.641 
individuals per 10,000 m\2\ (NMFS PIFSC CRED, unpublished).
    At sites near human population centers or at fished areas, 
densities are typically lower by tenfold or more and in some locations 
humphead wrasse are rarely observed (Sadovy et al., 2003a; Colin, 2006; 
Sadovy, 2006b; Unsworth et al., 2007). However, in some areas, such as 
the previously mentioned Tuamotu Archipelago, French Polynesia, 
abundance of humphead wrasse is low to non-existent, even when 
fisheries exploitation is known to be low or non-existent (Galzin et 
al., 1998). Another example is the northernmost uninhabited islands of 
the Marianas Archipelago (Uracus, Maug, and Asuncion), which are part 
of the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument. Here, where commercial 
fishing is prohibited and recreational or subsistence fishing is very 
rare given the distance from most of the southern inhabited areas of 
the island chain, humphead wrasses were not observed. However, in the 
southern inhabited part of the chain where some protections for the 
species exist, large (> 50 cm TL) humphead wrasses are present though 
abundance levels are low (i.e., biannual towed-diver surveys of fore 
reef habitats (10-15 m depth) from 2003-2011 of the entire Marianas 
Archipelago reports an average of 0.059 individuals per 10,000 m\2\ 
(Brainard et al., 2012; NMFS PIFSC CRED, unpublished data)).

Status of the Species

    Other than activities associated with the live reef food fish trade 
(LRFFT), there are few ``directed'' fisheries for the humphead wrasse 
due to its natural rarity and the inherent difficulty of capturing the 
fish (Gillett, 2010). In most countries where the fish occurs, most of 
the catch of this species is for domestic use. Commercially, the 
humphead wrasse is caught in low volume fisheries in different ways 
according to its size and whether it is needed alive or dead (Sadovy et 
al., 2003a). The species is sold for domestic consumption, exported for 
food for the LRFFT, exported for mariculture until the fish is large 
enough for consumption, or exported for aquaria.
    The LRFFT is a highly lucrative industry that involves the capture 
of reef fish that are kept alive for sale and consumption. For about 
three decades, the humphead wrasse has been a small but significant 
component of the commercial LRFFT as one of the highest-valued luxury 
food items (Sadovy et al., 2003a; Sadovy et al., 2003b; Gillett, 2010). 
Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines are the top three exporters of 
humphead wrasse for the LRFFT, respectively. The major importing 
countries for the species are China (especially Hong Kong), Taiwan, and 
Singapore (Sadovy et al., 2003a).

[[Page 57879]]

    In 1996, the humphead wrasse was listed as ``vulnerable'' on the 
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of 
Threatened Species due to concerns over rapidly declining numbers in 
many areas. In 2004, the species was reclassified to ``endangered'' on 
the IUCN Red List. Also in 2004, the species was included in Appendix 
II in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of 
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Appendix II includes species that are 
vulnerable to overexploitation, but not at risk of extinction under 
CITES criteria; trade must be regulated to avoid exploitation rates 
incompatible with species survival.

Distinct Population Segment Analysis

    As described earlier, the ESA's definition of ``species'' includes 
``any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct 
population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which 
interbreeds when mature.'' The petitioners did not request that NOAA 
consider listing a DPS; however, the ERA Team was asked to evaluate 
whether any populations of the species might qualify as DPSs based on 
the elements of discreteness and significance as defined in the DPS 
Policy. The ERA Team found support for discreteness of the humphead 
wrasse population within the ``core-Coral Triangle'' area of Indonesia, 
Malaysia, and the Philippines solely on the basis that the population 
is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 
regulation and governance of threats are different from other portions 
of the species' range. There was no support to conclusively subdivide 
the species into discrete population segments on the basis of genetics, 
morphology, behavior, physical factors, or other biological 
characteristics.
    When evaluating whether the core-Coral Triangle DPS met the 
significance criteria, the team found some support for the 
``persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological 
setting unusual or unique for the taxon.'' According to the Team (see 
Appendix 1 of the Status Review Report), this support was largely based 
on the fact that the three countries within the core-Coral Triangle 
area contain approximately 50 percent of mangroves and 30 percent of 
coral reefs within the species range, both of which provide important 
habitat for various humphead wrasse life stages. However, the team 
acknowledged that because coral reef and mangrove habitats also occur 
outside the range of the proposed DPS, neither of those habitat types 
is unique to the core-Coral Triangle area, nor did they identify any 
other unique habitat features of this area. The ERA Team did consider 
that the humphead wrasse plays a relatively unique ecosystem role in 
the core-Coral Triangle area due to its co-occurrence with two 
significant prey species that likely have interdependent ecological 
roles. However, the humphead wrasse also overlaps with the two 
significant prey species outside the range of the proposed DPS, and 
although the overlap may not be as widespread, the team acknowledged 
that this ecological structure is not truly unique to the core-Coral 
Triangle area. Thus, overall, the significance criterion of the DPS 
Policy is not well supported.
    As stated in the DPS Policy, Congress instructed the Services to 
exercise their authority with regard to DPSs ``. . . sparingly and only 
when the biological evidence indicates that such action is warranted.'' 
Given this direction from Congress and the weak support for the 
significance of the core-Coral Triangle DPS, we declined to consider 
this DPS further and asked the ERA Team to conduct the extinction risk 
analysis on the entire global population of the humphead wrasse.

Assessment of Extinction Risk

    When evaluating whether the humphead wrasse meets the definition of 
threatened or endangered, we considered the best available information 
and applied professional judgment in evaluating the level of risk faced 
by a species. We qualitatively evaluated demographic risks, such as low 
abundance and productivity, along with other threats to the species. A 
quantitative viability analysis (i.e., population modeling) was not 
conducted for the humphead wrasse because of the limited or inadequate 
data on population size, definitive trends in population size or 
apparent abundance, intrinsic rate of increase, mortality rates, or 
size structure. Lastly, as required under section 4(b)(1)(A), we also 
took into account conservation efforts being made to protect the 
species.

Methods

    The term ``foreseeable future'' was defined as the future timeframe 
over which demographic risks and threats can be reliably predicted to 
impact the biological status of the humphead wrasse. The Team took into 
account the life history of the species, including the longevity of the 
species (25-30 years), and assumed 6-7 years for generation time (which 
is defined as the time it takes, on average, for a sexually mature 
female humphead wrasse to be replaced by offspring with the same 
spawning capacity). Considering all of this, the Team agreed that it 
would likely take several generation times for any conservative 
management action to be realized and reflected in population abundance. 
Therefore, the ERA Team chose to project threats in the ``foreseeable 
future'' out to eight generations, or about 50 years.
    Previous NMFS status reviews have involved use of a risk matrix 
method to organize and summarize the professional judgment of a panel 
of knowledgeable scientists. This approach is described in detail by 
Wainright and Kope (1999) and has been used in Pacific salmonid status 
reviews as well as in the status reviews of many other species (see 
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species for links to these reviews). In the 
risk matrix approach, the collective condition of individual 
populations is summarized at the species level according to four 
demographic risk criteria: abundance, growth rate and productivity, 
spatial structure and connectivity, and diversity. These viability 
criteria, outlined in McElhany et al. (2000), reflect concepts that are 
well founded in conservation biology and that individually and 
collectively provide strong indicators of extinction risk. Using these 
concepts, the ERA Team estimated demographic risks by assigning a risk 
score to each of the four demographic criteria. The scoring for the 
demographic risk criteria correspond to the following values: 1--no 
risk, 2--low risk, 3--moderate risk, 4--high risk, and 5--very high 
risk. The Team members also expressed their certainty regarding 
evidence of demographic risk using a ranking of low, medium, and high. 
Detailed definitions of the risk scores can be found in the status 
review report.
    The ERA Team then performed a threats assessment for the humphead 
wrasse by ranking the effect that each threat was having on the 
extinction risk of the species, both now and in the foreseeable future. 
The four threat effect levels ranged from ``no effect,'' ``small 
effect,'' ``moderate effect,'' and ``significant effect'' on the 
extinction risk to the humphead wrasse. To allow individuals to express 
a distribution of risk scores in assessing the impacts of the threats 
to the species, the ERA Team adopted the ``likelihood point'' (FEMAT) 
method using 8 ``likelihood points'' per Team member for the four 
threat effect levels. A similar approach has been used in previous NMFS 
status reviews (e.g., Pacific salmon, Puget Sound rockfish, Pacific 
herring, black abalone, great hammerhead shark) to

[[Page 57880]]

structure the Team's thinking and express levels of risk as a 
distribution in assigning threat risk categories. The scores were then 
tallied (frequency, range, mode, and median) and summarized for each 
threat, and considered in making the overall risk determination. The 
Team members also expressed their certainty regarding evidence of 
potential threats using a ranking of low, medium, and high.
    Guided by the results from the demographics risk analysis as well 
as the threats assessment, the ERA Team members used their informed 
professional judgment to make an overall extinction risk determination 
for the humphead wrasse now and in the foreseeable future (up to 50 
years). For these analyses, the ERA Team defined five levels of overall 
extinction risk: 1--no risk, 2--low risk, 3--moderate risk, 4--high 
risk, and 5--very high risk. Detailed definitions of these risk levels 
can be found in the status review report. Again, the ERA Team adopted 
the FEMAT method, distributing 10 ``likelihood points'' per Team member 
among the five levels of extinction risk. The scores were then tallied 
(frequency, mode, and median for likelihood points, and mean and range 
for certainty) and summarized. The Team members again expressed their 
certainty in a ranking of low, medium, and high.
    Finally, the ERA Team drew scientific conclusions about the overall 
risk of extinction faced by the humphead wrasse under present 
conditions and in the foreseeable future based on an evaluation of the 
species' demographic risks and assessment of threats. The Team did not 
make recommendations as to whether the species should be listed as 
threatened or endangered, or if it did not warrant listing.

Evaluation of Demographic Risks

Abundance

    Currently, there are no formal estimates of population size 
throughout most of the humphead wrasse's range. It is known that this 
species is uncommon to rare throughout most of its range, in some cases 
exhibiting low abundance in areas where no anthropogenic stressors are 
evident. In the CNMI, for example, humphead wrasses appear to be more 
prevalent in the southern populated islands, as compared to the mostly 
uninhabited or lightly populated islands north of Saipan. In this case, 
several factors may influence humphead wrasse abundance such as total 
habitat availability, fishing access to humphead wrasse due to island 
size and/or orientation, and restrictions on fishing effort.
    Declines in abundance appear to be restricted to particular areas 
where the LRFFT has been active for several decades. In some areas 
where no apparent harvest occurs, the species has not demonstrated any 
notable changes between surveys. One aspect lacking in many fishery-
independent surveys is meaningful time series of observations 
incorporating standardized methodological protocols. Without such time 
series, drawing firm conclusions based on temporally and/or spatially 
distinct observations is simply not possible. In addition, surveyed 
locations (i.e., exact locations, habitat type, water depth) and 
methods (i.e., stationary point count, towed-diver surveys) are an 
important descriptor in survey work, as not all areas where the 
humphead wrasse exists are equally accessible for underwater visual 
census surveys. In other words, it is difficult to draw conclusions on 
abundance from survey results across different locations and time 
frames.
    Existing information suggests that humphead wrasse populations are 
most abundant and stable in the Indian Ocean. However, populations in 
the core-Coral Triangle area, where harvest has been significant near 
population centers, appear to remain depressed to a degree that is not 
quantifiable.
    There are ``pockets'' of abundance in Malaysia (e.g., Pulau Layang 
Layang, West of Sabah, and Pulau Sipadan, as well as Hoga Island in 
Wakatobi Marine National Park) where either military or management 
protection exists (IUCN, 2008 citing TRACC, 2004). These pockets of 
abundance in the core-Coral Triangle area should be considered crucial 
as important potential source populations to other core-Coral Triangle 
populations. However, density estimates from these protected locations 
are at least a decade old, and no recent information is available to 
indicate that these densities have remained stable, although there is 
no reason to expect otherwise, especially in designated military bases, 
where access is assumed to be extremely limited.
    There are many other foreign and domestic areas where the species 
has been protected by fishing regulations or reserves, and the species 
continues to be observed throughout the Pacific wherever surveyed. 
Recent relative abundance data suggest that many populations, 
especially those in U.S. waters, are either stable, show no clear 
trend, or may be increasing (Graham et al 2014).
    Based on the very limited abundance information available and its 
natural rarity, along with depressed population sizes in the center of 
the species' range due to overharvest, the ERA Team concluded that the 
demographic factor of abundance had a low-to-moderate likelihood of 
contributing to the humphead wrasse's risk of extinction now, and a 
moderate-to-high likelihood of contributing to the risk of extinction 
in the foreseeable future. The ERA Team was concerned that the species' 
low abundance levels, whether natural or manmade, may pose a risk to 
its continued existence if faced with other demographic risks or 
threats, such as overutilization, because a species that is already at 
naturally low levels may not be able to withstand heavy fishing 
pressure. Of the four demographic factors, abundance was considered by 
the ERA Team to pose the highest demographic risk to the species. Risk 
was found to be higher in the foreseeable future than now simply 
because the increased chance that declines in abundance may become more 
serious with the passage of time, unless regulations are effective and 
enforced. Certainty of abundance affecting the risk of extinction to 
the humphead wrasse now was deemed medium; certainty of abundance 
affecting the risk of extinction to the humphead wrasse in the 
foreseeable future was deemed low.

Growth Rate and Productivity

    Regarding the effect of the humphead wrasses' growth rate and 
productivity on its risk of extinction, the ERA Team expressed less 
concern compared to their concern for abundance. The intrinsic rate of 
increase, or productivity, is a complex function of fecundity, survival 
rates, age at maturity, and longevity of a species. Productivity 
determines a species' ability to recover from low numbers, if extrinsic 
factors are not limiting, as well as the level of harvest that can be 
taken from a population sustainably (Hudson and Br[auml]utigam, 2007). 
For the humphead wrasse, productivity is estimated to be 0.72 per year 
(Fishbase.org). This places the humphead wrasse towards the slow end of 
the slow-to-fast growth continuum of reef fishes. While the humphead 
wrasse may be more productive than other reef fish that are highly 
exploited in the LRFFT, such as the giant grouper (Epinephelus 
lanceolatus), it is not as productive as the leopard coral grouper 
(Plectropomus leopardus) or the mangrove red snapper (Lutjanus 
argentimaculatus), two species which are also highly exploited in the 
LRFFT. The Team recognized that being towards the slow end of the 
continuum creates some extinction risk compared with fish that grow 
faster. As such, the ERA Team

[[Page 57881]]

concluded that the demographic risks of growth rate and productivity 
pose a low risk to the humphead wrasse's continued existence now and a 
moderate risk in the foreseeable future. Certainty of growth rate and 
productivity affecting the risk of extinction to the humphead wrasse 
now was deemed medium; certainty in the foreseeable future was deemed 
low.

Spatial Structure/Connectivity and Diversity

    The species' population depends on dispersal dynamics of 
individuals as well as habitat quality and existing spatial structure. 
Connectivity is through spawning and planktonic larval dispersal 
processes. Spatial structure and genetic diversity are important as 
they affect the species' ability to survive in diverse environments and 
enable the population to respond to and survive long-term environmental 
changes.
    The humphead wrasse is known to occur in waters around 48 
countries, from the Red Sea, east through the tropical Indian and 
Pacific Oceans, to French Polynesia. This geography includes tens-of-
thousands of islands with diverse and varying bathymetry (e.g., shallow 
coral reefs) along mainland coasts, most within close proximity and 
presumed easy dispersal reach of pelagic larvae of this species.
    Essentially very little is known regarding the spatial structure 
and genetic diversity of the humphead wrasse. It is not known if there 
are any manmade or ecological factors that could significantly alter 
gene flow in the species, nor is it known if the humphead wrasse 
consists of more than one population throughout its range or if any 
genetically distinct populations exist. Without definitive genetic 
information, the Team assumed that the species does not appear to be at 
risk of a genetic bottleneck, meaning that the humphead wrasse is 
likely able to adapt overtime to changing environments.
    Although data are either completely lacking or inadequate, it can 
be reasonably presumed that, across its entire range, the 
characteristics of spatial structure/connectivity and genetic 
diversity, by themselves, are unlikely to contribute to an extinction 
risk for the humphead wrasse. Therefore, the ERA Team concluded that 
the demographic factor of spatial structure and connectivity posed no-
to-low risk to the humphead wrasse's continued existence both now and 
in the foreseeable future, with certainty deemed low for both 
timeframes. The Team also concluded that diversity posed a low risk to 
the humphead wrasse's continued existence both now and in the 
foreseeable future, with certainty deemed low for both timeframes.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Humphead Wrasse

    As described above, section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS 
implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) state that we must determine 
whether a species is endangered or threatened because of any one or a 
combination of the following five ESA factors: (A) The present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or man-made 
factors affecting its continued existence. The ERA Team evaluated 
whether and the extent to which each of the foregoing factors 
contributed to the overall extinction risk of the global humphead 
wrasse population. This section briefly summarizes the ERA Team's 
findings and our conclusions regarding threats to the humphead wrasse. 
More details can be found in the status review report (Graham et al., 
2014).

(A) The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of its Habitat or Range

    The ERA Team evaluated habitat destruction as a potential threat to 
the humphead wrasse and found this threat may have a small effect on 
the extinction risk of the humphead wrasse now, meaning that it is 
unlikely that it is presently increasing the species' risk of 
extinction. In the foreseeable future, the Team found that it is 
moderately likely that this threat is increasing the species' 
extinction risk. Certainty of the potential effects of habitat 
destruction on the extinction risk of the species was deemed medium for 
both now and in the foreseeable future.
    With regard to destructive fishing practices, cyanide fishing is 
the major practice that is used to target this wrasse, although a 
relatively small number of mostly small-sized fish of this species 
might occasionally be killed incidentally during blast fishing for 
other reef fishes in open-reef environments. The intent in using 
cyanide is to stun juvenile wrasse and capture them alive for 
subsequent grow-out for sale in the LRFFT; however, some and perhaps a 
substantial proportion of cyanide-fished wrasse die prior to actually 
contributing product to the industry. Cyanide fishing is still a major 
fishing method in Southeast Asia, but cyanide fishing is presently much 
less of a concern throughout the rest of the Indo-Pacific region 
(Sadovy de Mitcheson and Yin, in press), and thus of less concern to 
the species throughout its range. In addition to its deleterious 
effects on humphead wrasse, the cyanide released into and near the reef 
substrate has substantial acute mortality and delayed health effects on 
other fishes in and near the reef and on the non-fish motile, sessile, 
and other biota including corals.
    Regarding the loss and modification of juvenile nursery areas, 
burgeoning coastal development and poor land management (e.g., 
sedimentation) in developing tropical countries appears to be the major 
threat to the seagrass and branching coral and macroalgal habitats that 
provide juvenile nursery habitat. The cutting of mangroves for firewood 
used to fuel open-fire cooking stoves is another increasing problem 
reflecting exponential human population growth in many of these 
developing countries. Approximately one-third of all mangroves 
worldwide have been lost in the past 50 years.
    Regarding the loss and modification of adult habitat, the major 
threat to the primary habitat of forereef and open-lagoons appears to 
be climate change-induced coral bleaching and acidification, both of 
which are impacting corals and other organisms with carbonate 
skeletons, although at varying degrees according to susceptibility. 
Although adult humphead wrasses use caves and other structures in rock 
and dead coral limestone substrates to a great extent and are not 
directly dependent on living corals, humphead wrasses are most numerous 
near abundant live coral. Moreover, in geological time even 
consolidated dead coral limestone substrates will decline because of 
weathering if the replenishment rates of stony corals decline. Concern 
over this factor and coastal development over a longer term was 
influential in the conclusion that habitat loss could have moderate 
effects on extinction risk in the foreseeable future.
    Based on the best available information, we do not find that 
habitat destruction, modification, or curtailment are threats that are 
presently, or in the foreseeable future, placing the species at an 
increased risk of extinction. Cyanide has recently been banned in a 
number of countries throughout the species' range, and illegal use 
appears to be waning and is much less of a concern outside of the Coral 
Triangle region. The magnitude of direct and indirect threats to 
juvenile and adult habitats is variable with no

[[Page 57882]]

evidence of substantial or widespread habitat loss or destruction.

(B) Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or 
Educational Purposes

    The ERA Team identified overutilization as a threat with a small-
to-moderate effect on the extinction risk of the humphead wrasse now, 
and a moderate effect on the extinction risk to the species in the 
foreseeable future. Certainty of the potential effects of 
overutilization on the extinction risk of the species was deemed medium 
for now and low for the foreseeable future.
    Estimates of overutilization have been hampered by a dearth of 
information regarding landings data and illegal, unregulated, and 
unreported fishing. Fisheries that land humphead wrasse appear to lack 
detailed temporal information pertaining to fishing effort, fishing 
power, harvest location, seasonal changes in landings, as well as the 
institution of management protocols. For example, IUCN (2008) notes a 
10-fold decrease in market landings from Palau from the mid 1980s to 
mid-1990s, though fails to note that scuba spearfishing was banned in 
the early 1990s and may be directly linked to that stated decline. 
Although declines in landings were noted in some jurisdictions, 
information indicating no changes in landings is either not noted or 
not available. This may be a result of humphead wrasse representing a 
minor component of most coral reef fisheries throughout its range 
because of its natural rarity.
    Anecdotal evidence, in particular from within LRFFT participating 
countries, indicates that areas where at some past time period humphead 
wrasses were observed to have been present in naturally low densities 
are no longer found since the start of the LRFFT.
    Although overutilization appears to be an issue in some 
jurisdictions and locales (e.g., core-Coral Triangle area) (Sadovy et 
al., 2003a; IUCN, 2008), amounting to moderate effects on extinction 
risk now and in the foreseeable future, it cannot be considered a 
significant or overriding impact on the species throughout its entire 
range in either time frame. In jurisdictions where scuba spearfishing 
has been banned (Fiji, Palau, the U.S. jurisdictions of American Samoa 
and CNMI), there is reasonable expectation that older and larger fish 
benefit from depth refugia. In the CNMI, scuba spearfishing is banned; 
it is still permitted in Guam. As a result, there exists considerable 
disparity in the size frequency distributions of landed humphead wrasse 
between the jurisdictions, which falls in line with the conclusions of 
Lindley et al. (2014) that the banning of scuba spearfishing results in 
depth refugia for many coral reef fish species.
    While there is some concern for overutilization of the species, 
particularly for commercial purposes resulting in population declines 
in some areas such as the Coral Triangle region, the current evidence 
indicates that many populations are either stable, show no clear trend, 
or may be increasing. The current global population size is likely 
sufficient to maintain population viability into the foreseeable 
future. Based on the best available information, we do not find that 
overutilization of the species is presently, or in the foreseeable 
future, placing the species at an increased risk of extinction.

(C) Disease or Predation

    The ERA Team evaluated disease and predation as potential threats 
to the humphead wrasse, but noted that available information on either 
threat is sparse. The ERA Team found that the little information 
available indicates that this threat may have a small effect on the 
extinction risk of the species, meaning that it is unlikely that 
disease or predation are increasing the extinction risk to the species, 
either now or in the foreseeable future. Certainty of the potential 
effects of disease or predation on the extinction risk of the species 
was deemed medium for both time frames.
    Very little is known about diseases of the humphead wrasse other 
than fish leech infestation (Hirundinea spp.), parasitic infestations 
(protozoa, worms, etc.), and bacterial infections that have been 
documented. Parasitic infestations have been reported as occurring in 
the fins, gill operculum, body surface, eyes, and mouth cavity 
(Koesharyani et al., 2005; Zafran et al., 2005). Zafran et al. (2005) 
report that cryptocaryoniosis, or white spot disease because it causes 
numerous white spots on the body surface, is the most dangerous 
parasitic disease in many marine fishes in aquaria or mariculture 
facilities. This disease, which can spread rapidly to other healthy 
fish and lead to a high mortality, has been documented at the Gondol 
Research Station in Indonesia. The Gondol Research Station has also 
reported the presence of the parasitic disease oodiniasis (Amyloodinium 
ocellatum, a dinoflagellate protozoan) infecting captive humphead 
wrasse at their facility (Zafran et al., 2005), as well as capsalid 
monogenean, or so-called skin flukes, which are the most common 
external parasites in mariculture finfish (Koesharyani et al., 2005). 
Vibriosis, the most common bacterial disease in marine finfish, has 
also been documented in broodstock and young humphead wrasse at the 
Gondol Research Station. The infected fish were those that were 
captured with cage traps and transported to the station; mortality 
occurred within a week after the transportation (Zafran et al., 2005).
    Wada et al. (1993) documented the first known report of a 
simultaneous infection with an acid-fast bacterium (Mycobacterium sp.) 
and an imperfect fungus in a humphead wrasse that was captured in 
Indonesia and reared in a commercial fish dealer's concrete aquarium in 
Japan. They speculate that the male fish became infected while in 
captivity. No other information has been found to indicate that 
disease, particularly in the wild, is a factor influencing mortality of 
humphead wrasse.
    There are no known major predators of adult humphead wrasse, even 
in vulnerable locations such as at spawning aggregations. Colin (2010) 
reports that no instances of predation on spawning adults were observed 
despite the presence of grey reef (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos) and 
white tip (Trianodon obesus) reef sharks. Additionally, few other 
piscivorous reef fishes are capable of taking even a moderate-sized 
humphead wrasse (Colin, 2010). The predators of juvenile humphead 
wrasse are unknown but likely to be sharks and other large-bodied 
piscivorous species such as grouper (Serranidae), Jacks (Carangidae), 
and snapper (Lutjanidae) that are commonly found on Indo-Pacific coral 
reefs.
    Based on the best available information, we agree that neither 
disease nor predation is increasing the species' extinction risk 
presently, or in the foreseeable future.

(D) The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The ERA Team evaluated existing regulatory mechanisms to determine 
whether they may be inadequate to address threats to the humphead 
wrasse. Existing regulatory mechanisms may include Federal, state, and 
international regulations. Below is a brief description and evaluation 
of current and relevant domestic and international management measures 
that affect the humphead wrasse. More information on these domestic and 
international management measures can be found in the status review 
report (Graham et al., 2014).
    Across the wide Indo-Pacific range of the humphead wrasse, there 
exists a

[[Page 57883]]

diversity of regulations. In U.S. waters, most jurisdictions have 
regulations that afford partial to complete protection for the species, 
and these are, in general, reliably enforced. These include Federal 
annual catch limits based on what little is known of abundance, 
prohibitions on non-selective and destructive fishing gear (e.g., 
American Samoa and CNMI both ban scuba spearfishing, while Guam 
presently does not but is considering such a ban), an assortment of no-
take marine protected areas (MPAs) around CNMI and Guam, and full 
prohibition on take around American Samoa and the Pacific Remote Island 
Areas.
    Internationally, of the 48 countries where humphead wrasses occur, 
only about 18 have implemented regulations. This lack of consistent 
regulation may be due to abundance data being unknown, undocumented, or 
not attended to (e.g., Cambodia, Egypt, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, 
Sudan, etc.), or the country does not participate in the legal 
international trade (e.g., Djibouti, Eritrea, Israel, Madagascar, 
Mayotte, Myanmar). Of countries that have regulations, most prohibit 
non-selective and destructive gear types, regulate minimum size limits, 
significantly reduce or ban export quotas, and/or have tightened 
enforcement loopholes--all within the last few years (Gillett, 2010; 
Sadovy, 2010; IUCN, 2013; Sadovy, unpublished). Only 12 countries are 
known to participate (or have participated) in the legal trade of the 
species, while the number of countries participating in the illegal 
trade is unquantified. International regulation and effectiveness was 
the primary concern in finding that inadequate existing regulations 
have a moderate effect on extinction risk of the species.
    Other international regulatory authorities include CITES, which 
lists the humphead wrasse under Appendix II with the following 
provisions: Legal trade is regulated, an export permit is required to 
show fish were legally acquired and harvesting is not detrimental to 
survival of the species, and the exporting country must have a 
functional management plan and associated monitoring. In addition, the 
importing country must closely monitor its imports. Sanctions or 
complete bans on exports provide strong incentive to comply. 
Additionally, the IUCN lists the humphead wrasse as ``endangered'' 
while affording no regulatory protection; the hope is to promote 
awareness of the status of the species.
    As previously mentioned, 12 countries report legally trading the 
species, ranging from live humphead wrasse to bodies, derivatives, and 
meat; of these 12 countries, only 10 countries report exporting live 
humphead wrasse. According to CITES (2014) trade data, from 2005-2011, 
81,848 live humphead wrasse were legally traded by 10 countries, 
whereas in 2012, only 1,691 live humphead wrasse were legally traded, 
and only by 5 of the countries. Zero bodies, meat, or derivatives of 
the species were traded in 2012 (CITES, 2014).
    Legal trade has significantly decreased due to reduced or zero 
export quotas, especially from the main exporting countries of 
Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. For example, Indonesia 
decreased their export quota of humphead wrasse from 8,000 in 2005 to 
1,800 in 2012 (IUCN, 2013), and legally traded only 1,653 in 2012 
(CITES, 2014). In 2010, Malaysia reached and has maintained a zero 
export quota of the species (Sadovy, 2010; IUCN, 2013; CITES, 2014). 
This is significant since Malaysia legally exported ~53,000 live 
humphead wrasse from 2007-2009 (CITES, 2014). Moreover, Hong Kong is 
now believed to be better controlling trade where it checks imports and 
re-exports, and coordinates verification of permits with Malaysia and 
Indonesia (Sadovy, 2010). Additionally, countries that formerly 
exported for the LRFFT have now banned the export of the species (e.g., 
Australia, Federated States of Micronesia, New Caledonia, Niue, and 
Palau) (Gillett, 2010). In other countries, national regulations have 
been tightened (e.g., Palau and Fiji), helping to close enforcement 
loopholes (Sadovy, 2010). In Indonesia, recent field surveys at seven 
``baseline'' sites found increased densities of humphead wrasse at four 
sites 4-5 years later. Most fish were juveniles, but the increase in 
numbers is encouraging and has occurred in areas where fishing pressure 
has evidently declined (IUCN, 2013). At least a decade is believed to 
be a conservative time scale for these heavily exploited populations to 
begin recovery from fishing pressure following adequate protection 
(Colin, 2010).
    In the geographic center of the species' range--the Coral Triangle 
Region--the humphead wrasse is one of the most valuable species in the 
LRFFT, and has been for the past few decades. Countries within the 
Coral Triangle region are characterized by large and growing 
populations, particularly in coastal areas, where many consider fishing 
an occupation of last resort. Many nearshore fish stocks are heavily 
harvested, and recent declines in humphead wrasse landings probably 
reflect this fact more so than effectiveness of new regulations. In 
areas of this region where the LRFFT is not currently operating, any 
catch of this species would bring a good price at local markets. Local 
regulations to manage the trade that are contradictory to national 
regulations also exist in the area and where illegal export is 
reportedly rampant (e.g., Philippines).
    Misreporting continues to be an illegal, unregulated, and 
unreported fishing issue for the LRFFT in Southeast Asia, including 
mislabeled fish or fish hidden in exports (CITES, 2010a; CITES, 2010b; 
Sadovy et al., 2011). Undocumented shipments continue through 
Singapore. However, Hong Kong, the largest importer, has recently 
committed to controlling imports, re-exports, and possession within the 
territory, thus enabling a more secure system of trade (CITES, 2010a). 
Additionally, most countries ban the use of cyanide, though it does 
continue in areas due to lack of enforcement and corruption (Erdman and 
Pet-Soede, 1997; Pet and Pet-Soede, 1999; Yan, 2011).
    Numerous MPAs exist throughout the range of the humphead wrasse. If 
adequately enforced, these sufficiently large MPAs might help reduce 
threats from the loss and modification of adult or juvenile habitat, 
destructive fishing practices, and overutilization. For example, in 
areas including Australia, Maldives, and Wake Atoll where some degree 
of protection for the species is afforded (e.g., take and possession 
prohibited, ban on exports, etc.) and adequately enforced, the risk of 
local ``stock'' depletion has been reduced and abundance of humphead 
wrasse in the area is stable or increasing (Sadovy et al., 2003 citing 
Sluka, 2000; NMFS PIFSC CRED, unpublished data).
    In summary, when considered across the entire range of the species, 
it is reasonably likely that the various existing regulatory measures 
will continue to benefit the humphead wrasse globally by appreciably 
reducing the threats to the species, presuming they are adequately 
enforced. The greatest threat--the LRFFT--appears to have decreased 
substantially, according to recent CITES trade data available through 
2012 (CITES, 2014). This reduction in legal trade may be due to either 
reduced or zero export quotas, or reduced population sizes of humphead 
wrasse stocks within the three main exporting countries of Indonesia, 
Malaysia, and Philippines. It can be hoped that with time more 
countries will follow suit, implement, and effectively enforce 
regulatory mechanisms to prevent the decline of the species and allow 
any overexploited

[[Page 57884]]

populations to rebuild. However, it is believed that much illegal and 
unreported trade still continues, particularly in the several countries 
of the Coral Triangle region. In spite of local pockets of questionable 
regulatory compliance, we agree that based on the best available 
information, it is unlikely that inadequate existing regulatory 
mechanisms alone contribute more than moderately to the extinction risk 
for the humphead wrasse across its wide Indo-Pacific range either now, 
or in the foreseeable future. The recent implementation of, increased 
adherence to, and enforcement of existing regulatory mechanisms 
throughout the species' range appear effective in addressing the most 
important threat to the species, which is overharvest. Certainty of the 
potential effects of inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms on the 
extinction risk of the species was deemed medium for now and low in the 
foreseeable future. Accordingly, we do not find that inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms is presently, or in the foreseeable 
future, placing the species at an increased risk of extinction.

(E.) Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    The Status Review Report describes the life history 
characteristics, information on competition, and substantial concerns 
with regard to climate change and pollution considered by the ERA Team. 
The Team concluded that other natural or manmade threats would likely 
have some small effects on the extinction risk of the species now and 
moderate effects over the foreseeable future, the latter due to 
concerns of increased climate change and pollution-related impacts on 
the species. Certainty of the potential effects of other natural or 
manmade factors on the extinction risk of the species was deemed medium 
for now and low in the foreseeable future.
    The humphead wrasse may be susceptible to natural and human 
perturbations due to particular life history characteristics that 
include slow growing, long-lived, and delayed reproductive development 
(Choat et al., 2006; Tupper, 2007; Sadovy de Mitcheson et al., 2008; 
Colin, 2010). Additionally, adults often occupy consistent home ranges, 
have predictable sleeping sites, have discrete spawning locations, and 
may form mass aggregations during spawning (Sadovy et al., 2003a).
    As for competition with other species for prey, humphead wrasses 
are opportunistic diurnal carnivores with a wide-ranging diet. As 
previously mentioned, much of its prey is found in sand or rubble 
habitats where it feeds on a variety of molluscs, small fishes such as 
gobies, moray eels, sea urchins, crustaceans, brittle stars, starfish, 
and other invertebrates (Randall et al., 1978; Myers, 1989; Randall et 
al., 1997; Thaman, 1998; Sadovy et al., 2003a; Choat et al., 2006). As 
generalists, the humphead wrasse is less susceptible to competition for 
prey from other predators or fisheries with more specialized diets.
    Large-scale impacts such as global climate change may pose a threat 
to the humphead wrasse because the species uses inshore habitats and 
coral reefs out to depths of up to at least 100 m (Randall, 1978; 
Sadovy et al., 2003a; Russell, 2004; Zgliczynski et al., 2013). The 
Status Review Report describes the potential threats, including ocean 
acidification, increased ocean temperatures, sea level rise, and 
extreme weather, in detail. These threats are summarized below.
    Although the impacts of ocean acidification specifically to 
humphead wrasse are unknown, the threat is anticipated to be greatest 
to marine taxa that build skeletons, shells, and tests of biogenic 
calcium carbonate such as coral (e.g., Fabry et al., 2008; Guinotte and 
Fabry, 2008; Pandolfi et al., 2011). In a meta-analysis, abundances of 
species reliant on live coral for food or shelter consistently declined 
(e.g., Wilson et al., 2006; Pratchett et al., 2008), while abundance of 
some species that feed on invertebrates, algae and/or detritus 
increased (e.g., Wilson et al., 2006). As previously discussed, 
branching corals are one of several important habitats to various 
stages of the humphead wrasse life cycle. Vulnerability of a coral 
species to a threat is a function of susceptibility and exposure, 
considered at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales. With regard 
to localized variability, recent papers identify various mechanisms 
that can offset or buffer changes in seawater pH around coral reefs 
from ocean acidification, such as photosynthetic uptake of 
CO2 by sea grasses and macroalgae in adjacent areas 
(Palacios and Zimmerman, 2007; Manzello et al., 2012; Anthony et al., 
2013), and biogeochemical processes within coral reef communities 
(Andersson et al., 2013). Other papers identify mechanisms that can 
exacerbate changes in seawater pH around coral reefs from ocean 
acidification, such as diurnal variability, that can amplify 
CO2 in seawater around coral reefs (Shaw et al., 2013). 
Ultimately, the future effects of ocean acidification on coral reefs 
will be highly variable across coral taxa, space, and time.
    Other direct and indirect linkages of ocean acidification effects 
to the humphead wrasse remain tenuous. The adult humphead wrasse does 
not appear to be food limited or space limited in any portions of its 
range. The species also appears to be adaptable to a variety of biotic 
and abiotic conditions given its wide geographic range and observations 
of it residing (foraging, sleeping) in both shallow and deep water. 
Additionally, some researchers have pointed out that increased 
CO2 (lower pH) leading to ocean acidification could enhance 
seagrass productivity (Palacios and Zimmerman, 2007; Guinotte and 
Fabry, 2008; Poloczanska et al., 2009), which may benefit juvenile 
humphead wrasse that rely on seagrass beds as nursery areas.
    Increased ocean temperatures on large spatial and temporal scales 
could generally impact current flow, productivity, physiological 
performance and behavior of coral reef fishes and survival of corals. 
For example, larval production and survival rates could be negatively 
impacted (e.g., Lo-Yat et al., 2010). However, small temperature 
increases might accelerate larval development and competency to settle, 
though larger temperature increases may be detrimental (Munday et al., 
2008).
    Brainard et al. (2011) discusses how coral adaptation and 
acclimatization to increased ocean temperatures is possible; that there 
is intra-genus variation in susceptibility of coral to bleaching, ocean 
acidification, and sedimentation; that at least some coral species have 
already expanded their range in response to climate change; and that 
not all coral species are seriously affected by ocean acidification. 
Such adaptation and acclimation could reduce the impact of warming 
temperatures and allow populations to persist across their current 
range (Donelson et al., 2011; Logan et al., 2013). The exceptional 
complexity, extent, and diversity of coral reef habitat defy simplistic 
modeling of reef responses to climate change threats. Likewise, many 
aspects of the biology of reef-building corals contribute to complex 
responses to ocean warming. This includes capacity for acclimatization 
and adaptation to ocean warming, range expansion in response to ocean 
warming (Yamano et al., 2011; Yara et al., 2011), and contrasting 
ecological interactions resulting from ocean warming (Hughes et al., 
2012; Cahill et al., 2013). All of these contribute to highly variable, 
complex and uncertain responses of reef-building coral species and in 
turn, coral reefs to

[[Page 57885]]

climate change threats like ocean warming.
    The impacts of sea level rise to coral reef ecosystems also remains 
uncertain. Theoretically, a rise in sea level could potentially provide 
additional habitat for corals living near the sea surface. There are 
now studies documenting that during periods of higher water levels, 
coral cover increases on reef flats (Brown et al., 2011; 
Scop[eacute]litis et al., 2011). On the other hand, if coral growth is 
unable to keep pace with sea level rise, there will most likely be 
negative consequences.
    As for the effects of climate change to prey species of the 
humphead wrasse, direct and indirect effects are again variable and 
complex. Climate change can affect marine organisms both directly via 
physiological stress and indirectly via changing relationships among 
species (Harley, 2011). Shifts in distribution and abundance of prey 
can potentially be driven by changes in temperature and ocean chemistry 
(Harley et al., 2006). Although humphead wrasses do not feed directly 
on corals, many of their prey do rely on corals, sea grass beds, or 
mangroves for their own food or shelter. The wide variety of humphead 
wrasse prey is found in various habitats and across a vast depth range 
of a few meters to at least 100 m. Coral communities found at greater 
depths have shown thermal refuge from increased temperatures while 
those found in more shallow areas are more impacted (e.g., Graham et 
al., 2008; Bridge et al., 2014). For example, sea urchin fertilization 
may be compromised by warmer temperatures (Byrne et al., 2009). While 
urchins found in more shallow areas may have reduced or compromised 
fertilization and development, urchins found at deeper depths may be 
less impacted. Urchins are also less susceptible to increased ocean 
acidification (Byrne et al., 2009). In another example of variable 
impacts, Harley (2011) conducted an experiment and found that prey 
species were able to occupy a hot, extralimital site if predation 
pressure was experimentally reduced. As a result, local species 
richness more than doubled, suggesting that anthropogenic climate 
change can alter interspecific interactions and produce unexpected 
changes in species distribution, community structure, and diversity 
(Harley, 2011). Overall, some humphead wrasse prey may likely be 
negatively impacted by climate change; however, not all prey will be 
impacted equally. Given that humphead wrasse are foraging generalists 
and feed on a wide variety of prey found in various habitats and 
depths, impacts are likely to be less than if they were foraging 
specialists like other reef fish species (i.e., bumphead parrotfish) 
that feed primarily on corals.
    In summary, the extent of potential direct and indirect effects of 
climate change on the humphead wrasse are unknown or speculative as the 
threats described in the literature are broad and general, and 
typically use another species as a proxy to infer vulnerability.
    Lastly, contaminants such as fuel and crude oil from spills, land-
based pollution from agriculture, etc. that find its way into the 
marine environment, sewage effluent from areas with insufficient 
sanitation systems, and marine debris from discarded or lost fishing 
gear are all potential sources of pollution that could directly and 
indirectly affect the humphead wrasse. However, such events including 
oil and sewage spills are typically episodic and localized. Other types 
of pollution such as land-based contaminants and marine debris may also 
impact the humphead wrasse, but the direct extent of the effects to the 
humphead wrasse and its habitat are speculative at this time. As such, 
the Team determined that these other natural and manmade factors 
collectively would likely have some small effects on the extinction 
risk of the species now and moderate effects over the foreseeable 
future.
    Therefore, based on the best available information, although the 
Team identified the threat of other natural or manmade factors, such as 
climate change and pollution, as having a small-to-moderate effect on 
the species' risk of extinction, we do not find that other natural or 
manmade factors are presently, or in the foreseeable future, placing 
the species at an increased risk of extinction.

Significant Portion of Its Range

    The definitions of both ``threatened'' and ``endangered'' under the 
ESA contain the term ``significant portion of its range'' (SPOIR) as an 
area smaller than the entire range of the species that must be 
considered when evaluating a species' risk of extinction. With regard 
to SPOIR, the Services proposed a ``Draft Policy on Interpretation of 
the Phrase `Significant Portion of Its Range' in the Endangered Species 
Act's Definitions of `Endangered Species' and `Threatened Species' '' 
(76 FR 76987; December 9, 2011), which is consistent with our past 
practice as well as our understanding of the statutory framework and 
language. The Draft Policy was recently finalized on July 1, 2014, (79 
FR 37578), and the Services are now to consider the interpretations and 
principles contained in the Final Policy as binding guidance in making 
individual listing determinations, while taking into account the unique 
circumstances of the species under consideration. However, the policy 
remained in the draft form when the ERA Team discussed whether the data 
indicated if any portion of the humphead wrasse's range is more 
significant than another portion.
    The ERA Team considered whether a portion of the species' range is 
more important than any other portion, and that without that portion, 
the species would be in danger of extinction. With this in mind, the 
ERA Team agreed that of the entire range of the species, the primary 
region that has exhibited a decline of the humphead wrasse, which 
comprises the three countries in the core-Coral Triangle area, might 
meet the definition of a SPOIR. These countries are Indonesia, 
Malaysia, and the Philippines, and have large and growing human 
populations with coincident agricultural expansion and coastal 
development impacts on humphead wrasse habitat. As this area is the 
center of the species' range, the Team also discussed physical, 
ecological, and behavioral factors in relation to recruitment between 
the potential SPOIR area and the rest of the species' range. The Team 
concluded that local extinction of humphead wrasse in these three 
countries would not cause the remainder of the species to become in 
danger of extinction. Islands and archipelagoes outside the core-Coral 
Triangle area (i.e., Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands in the 
east or Australia to the south) are comparatively healthy with fewer 
impacts to the species. Humphead wrasse in these other areas are not 
dependent on aggregations in Indonesia, Malaysia, or the Philippines 
for larval recruitment or other aspects of survival; in fact, the ERA 
Team concluded that these nearby areas could provide recruits to 
recolonize the core-Coral Triangle portion of the range in the event 
that local extirpations were to occur inside that area. Thus, the 
status of the rest of the species was not considered to be dependent on 
the continued existence of the population in these three countries of 
Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. The main purpose for improved 
conservation in this core area of the species' range would be the 
recovery of the populations located there, and not the status of the 
rest of the population. Therefore, after a review of the best available 
information, the ERA Team concluded, and we agree, that data do not 
indicate any portion of the

[[Page 57886]]

humphead wrasse's range meets the definition of a SPOIR. As such, when 
considering the overall extinction risk of the species, we considered 
it throughout the species' entire range.
    Under the Final SPOIR Policy, the definition of ``significant'' has 
been revised to a lower threshold and now states ``A portion of the 
range of a species is `significant' if the species is not currently 
endangered or threatened throughout its range, but the portion's 
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, 
without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout 
all of its range'' (emphasis added). Despite this revision, we continue 
to find that the data do not indicate any portion of the humphead 
wrasse's range meets the definition of a SPOIR. Thus, the overall 
extinction risk of the species is considered throughout the species' 
entire range.

Overall Risk Summary

    As a final step in their analysis, the ERA Team voted on the 
overall risk of extinction to the humphead wrasse based on the 
information the Team reviewed in its demographic risk analysis, as 
modified by the information reviewed in the threats assessment. 
Likelihood points attributed to the current level of extinction risk 
categories were as follows, with the first number representing the 
total votes by Team members and the second number representing the 
total possible votes, which was 40: No Risk (25/40), Low Risk (13/40), 
Moderate Risk (2/40). None of the Team members placed a likelihood 
point in either the ``High Risk'' or ``Very High Risk'' categories, 
indicating their strong consensus that the species is not currently at 
a high or very high risk of extinction. Thus, the Team found, and we 
agree, that the species is not presently at risk of extinction. The 
Team expressed this view with a high relative certainty with regard to 
the available information.
    For the level of extinction risk of the humphead wrasse in the 
foreseeable future, the ERA Team found, and we agree, that the species 
would be at low overall risk of extinction. Likelihood points 
attributed to each risk category in the foreseeable future were as 
follows: No Risk (15/40), Low Risk (18/40), Moderate Risk (7/40). 
Again, none of the Team members placed a likelihood point in either the 
``High Risk'' or ``Very High Risk'' categories, indicating their strong 
consensus that the species will not be at a high or very high risk of 
extinction in the foreseeable future. The Team viewed the certainty of 
information for the foreseeable future as being low.
    Overall, there was a high degree of consensus among the members of 
the Team, and we agree, that the humphead wrasse's risk of extinction 
presently and in the foreseeable future is no-to-low risk. Although the 
humphead wrasse is naturally rare throughout its range and in some 
places abundance has declined, this no-to-low risk of extinction is 
based primarily on the species' sustained widespread distribution 
throughout most of its known range, and its recent effective protection 
from exploitation at a variety of localities under both U.S. and 
foreign jurisdiction.

Final Determination

    Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that NMFS make listing 
determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data 
available after conducting a review of the status of the species and 
taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or 
foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and 
conserve the species. We have independently reviewed the best available 
scientific and commercial information including the petition, public 
comments submitted on the 90-day finding (78 FR 13614; February 28, 
2013), the status review report (Graham et al., 2014), and other 
published and unpublished information, and have consulted with species 
experts and individuals familiar with humphead wrasse. We considered 
each of the five ESA statutory factors to determine whether it 
presented an extinction risk to the species on its own. Additionally, 
we do not find that the combination of factors poses an extinction 
risk. As required by the ESA, section 4(b)(1)(a), we also took into 
account efforts to protect humphead wrasse by territories, foreign 
nations, and others and evaluated whether those efforts provide a 
conservation benefit to the species. As previously explained, no 
portion of the species' range is considered significant and we did not 
find biological evidence that would indicate that any population 
segment of the humphead wrasse would qualify as a DPS under the DPS 
Policy. Therefore, our determination set forth below is based on a 
synthesis and integration of the foregoing information, factors and 
considerations, and their effects on the status of the species 
throughout its entire range.
    We conclude that the humphead wrasse is not presently in danger of 
extinction, nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range. We summarize the factors supporting this 
conclusion as follows: (1) The species is made up of a single 
population over a broad geographic range, with no barrier to dispersal; 
(2) its current range is unaltered from the range identified by surveys 
since the 1970s and although there are some concerns related to the 
species' habitat, there is no evidence of substantial or widespread 
habitat loss or destruction; (3) although the species has predictable 
home ranges and sleeping sites, and possesses life history 
characteristics that may increase its vulnerability to impacts of 
fishing in reef fish assemblages, its risk of extinction due to low 
productivity is not of significant concern; (4) the best available 
information indicates that abundance is naturally low across the 
species' range, and although populations have declined in some areas 
because of fishing mortality, many populations, especially those in 
U.S. waters, are either stable, show no clear trend, or may be 
increasing; (5) although there is no formal estimate on the current 
global population size, it is likely sufficient to maintain population 
viability into the foreseeable future; (6) the main threat to the 
species is overutilization in the live reef food fish trade; however, 
legal trade of the species has decreased substantially over recent 
years due to reduced or zero export quotas, especially from the three 
main exporting countries within the Coral Triangle region; (7) there is 
no evidence that disease or predation is contributing to increasing the 
risk of extinction of the species; (8) recent implementation of, 
increased adherence to, and enforcement of existing regulatory 
mechanisms throughout the species' range appear effective in addressing 
the most important threat to the species (overharvest); and (9) 
although there is some concern with regard to effects from other 
natural or manmade factors, such as climate change and pollution, the 
evidence does not suggest that the species is at risk of extinction 
from these factors.
    Based on these findings, we conclude that the humphead wrasse is 
not presently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range nor is it likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future. Accordingly, the humphead wrasse does not meet the 
definition of a threatened or endangered species and therefore the 
humphead wrasse does not warrant listing as threatened or endangered at 
this time. However, it will remain on our Species of Concern list and 
we will encourage research on the status of the species for use in 
future status reviews.

[[Page 57887]]

References

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authority

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

    Dated: September 22, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch, III.,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-23034 Filed 9-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P