Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Thorny Skate as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act, 65175-65183 [2015-27147]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
This request is intended to refresh the
record in this proceeding, and to
provide parties with the opportunity to
update or add to their comments, as
well as allowing parties who have not
filed comments in this proceeding
previously to do so.
Submit comments on or before
November 25, 2015, and replies on or
before December 10, 2015.
DATES:
You may submit comments,
identified by IB Docket No. 06–123, by
any of the following methods:
D Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
D People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
ADDRESSES:
This is a
summary of the Public Notice in IB
Docket No. 06–123, DA 15–1147,
adopted October 7, 2015, and released
October 7, 2015. The full text of this
document is available for inspection
and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445
12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
The document also is available for
download over the Internet at https://
transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_
Business/2015/db1007/DA-15-114
7A1.pdf.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Synopsis
On May 2, 2007, the Commission
proposed rules in a Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) to
mitigate ground path interference. The
ground path interference issues in this
proceeding have been considered and
discussed among the interested parties
previously. Since considerable time has
passed, however, since the release of the
FNPRM, the Commission asks the
public to provide any updates for the
record and any additional comments on
the proposed rules for ground path
interference mitigation in 17/24 GHz
reverse-band BSS operations presented
in the FNPRM.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen Duall or Sean O’More,
International Bureau, FCC, (202) 418–
2453 or via the email to: Stephen.Duall
@fcc.gov and Sean.O’More@fcc.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:00 Oct 23, 2015
Jkt 238001
Comment Filing Procedures
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
D Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/
ecfs/.
D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number.
Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
D Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
D U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This document does not contain
proposed information collection
requirements required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–
13. It also does not impose information
collection burdens for small business
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
65175
concerns with fewer than 25 employees
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Federal Communications Commission.
Sarah Van Valzah,
Assistant Bureau Chief for Management,
International Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2015–27154 Filed 10–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 150901797–5914–01]
RIN 0648–XE163
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List
the Thorny Skate as Threatened or
Endangered Under the Endangered
Species Act
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: 90-day petition finding, request
for information.
AGENCY:
We, NMFS, announce a 90day finding on a petition to list a
‘‘Northwest Atlantic Distinct Population
Segment’’ (DPS) or ‘‘United States DPS’’
of thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) as
threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find
that the petition to list thorny skate
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We will conduct a review of the status
of the species 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 this species from any
interested party.
DATES: Information and comments on
the subject action must be received by
December 28, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
information, or data on this document,
identified by NOAA–NMFS–2015–0120,
by either any of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;
D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0120. Click the
‘‘Comment Now’’ icon, complete the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
65176
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
required fields, and enter or attach your
comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Julie Crocker, NMFS Greater Atlantic
Regional Fisheries Office, Protected
Resources Division, 55 Great Republic
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, USA.
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 us. 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. We will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
Copies of the petition and related
materials are available on our Web site
at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/
species/fish/thorny-skate.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie
Crocker, Protected Resources Division,
978–281–9328, or Marta Nammack,
NMFS–HQ, Protected Resources Office,
(301) 427–8469.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 28, 2015, we received a
petition from Defenders of Wildlife and
Animal Welfare Institute to list a
‘‘Northwest Atlantic DPS’’ of thorny
skate as threatened or endangered under
the ESA, or, as an alternative, to list a
‘‘United States DPS’’ as threatened or
endangered. The petition also requests
that we designate critical habitat for
thorny skate. Copies of the petition are
available from us (see ADDRESSES,
above) and can be found at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/
thorny-skate.html.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy
Provisions and Evaluation Framework
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
requires, to the maximum extent
practicable, that within 90 days of
receipt of a petition to list a species as
threatened or endangered, the Secretary
of Commerce make a finding on whether
that petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted, and to promptly
publish such finding in the Federal
Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When
we find that substantial scientific or
commercial information in a petition
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:00 Oct 23, 2015
Jkt 238001
indicates the petitioned action may be
warranted (a ‘‘positive 90-day finding’’),
we are required to promptly commence
a review of the status of the species
concerned, during which we will
conduct a comprehensive review of the
best available scientific and commercial
information. In such cases, within 12
months of receipt of the petition, we
must conclude the review with a finding
as to whether, in fact, the petitioned
action is warranted. Because the finding
at the 12-month stage is based on a more
thorough review of the available
information, as compared to the narrow
scope of review at the 90-day stage, a
‘‘may be warranted’’ finding does not
prejudge the outcome of the status
review.
Under the ESA, a listing
determination may address a species,
which is defined to also include
subspecies and, for any vertebrate
species, any 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
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. In evaluating
whether substantial information is
contained in a petition, the Secretary
must consider whether the petition: (1)
Clearly indicates the administrative
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 finding stage, we
evaluate the petitioners’ 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 petitioners’
sources and characterizations of the
information presented if they appear to
be based on accepted scientific
principles, unless we have specific
information in our files that indicates
the petition’s information is incorrect,
unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise
irrelevant to the requested action.
Information that is susceptible to more
than one interpretation or that is
contradicted by other available
information will not be dismissed at the
90-day finding stage, so long as it is
reliable and a reasonable person would
conclude it supports the petitioners’
assertions. In other words, conclusive
information indicating the species may
meet the ESA’s requirements for listing
is not required to make a positive 90day finding. We will not conclude that
a lack of specific information alone
negates a positive 90-day finding if a
reasonable person would conclude that
the unknown information itself suggests
an extinction risk of concern for the
species at issue.
To make a 90-day finding on a
petition to list a species, we evaluate
whether the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating the subject
species may be either threatened or
endangered, as defined by the ESA.
First, we evaluate whether the
information presented in the petition,
along with the information readily
available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ‘‘species’’
eligible for listing under the ESA. Next,
we evaluate whether the information
indicates that the species faces an
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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
(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 indicating 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
nongovernmental organizations, such as
the International Union on the
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/pdf/
NatureServeStatusAssessmentsListingDec%202008.pdf). Additionally, species
classifications under IUCN and the ESA
are not equivalent, and data standards,
criteria used to evaluate species and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:00 Oct 23, 2015
Jkt 238001
treatment of uncertainty are also not
necessarily the same. 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.
Distribution and Life History of Thorny
Skate
The thorny skate occurs on both sides
of the Atlantic. In the western North
Atlantic, it ranges from western
Greenland to South Carolina, and in the
eastern North Atlantic, it ranges from
Iceland to the southwestern coasts of
Ireland and England (Bigelow and
Schroeder, 1953). This species is
characterized by a row of 11 to 19 large
thorns running down the midline of the
back and tail (Bigelow and Schroeder,
1953; Collette and Klein-MacPhee,
2002). Thorny skate are generally brown
dorsally with a white ventral surface.
They may reach lengths of over 39
inches (991 mm), but maximum size
varies over its range.
According to Collette and KleinMacPhee (2002), females deposit a
single fertilized egg capsule, which
ranges in size from 2 to 4 inches (48 to
96 mm) in length and 1.33 to 3 inches
(34 to 77 mm) in width. While females
with fully formed egg capsules are
captured year round, the percentage of
mature females with capsules is highest
during the summer (Collette and KleinMacPhee, 2002). Thorny skate feed on
benthic invertebrates and fish. Thorny
skates are found over a wide variety of
substrates including sand, broken shell,
gravel, pebbles, and soft mud and are
primarily found from 20 to 3,900 feet
(18 to 1200 m) deep (Collette and KleinMacPhee, 2002). They appear to make
seasonal migrations that have been
noted on the Scotian Shelf and the
Grand Banks, but specific details on the
spatial patterns and timing are lacking
(NEFSC, 2003). Kulka and Miri (2003)
report a change in the spring and fall
distributions resulting in a higher
density and greater proportion of
biomass being found in deeper waters
during the spring. These aggregations,
they note, appear to be correlated with
warmer relative temperatures.
Sulikowski et al. (2005) aged thorny
skate in the Gulf of Maine and estimated
the oldest age to be 16 years for both
males and females. For females, 50
percent maturity occurred at
approximately 11 years and 875 mm
(34.5 inches) total length (TL); while for
males, approximately 10.9 years and
865 mm (34 inches) TL (Sulikowski et
al., 2006).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
65177
Analysis of Petition and Information
Readily Available in Our Files
We have determined, based on the
information provided in the petition
and readily available in our files, that
substantial information is presented in
the petition indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. The
petition contains a recommended
administrative measure, provides the
scientific and common name, contains a
detailed narrative justification for the
recommended measure, provides
information on the status of the species,
and includes supporting
documentation. Below is a synopsis of
our analysis of the information provided
in the petition and readily available in
our files to determine whether a
reasonable person would conclude that
an endangered or threatened listing may
be warranted as a result of any of the
factors listed under section 4(a)(1) of the
ESA.
Population Trends
The petitioners state that the IUCN
lists the U.S. population of thorny
skates as ‘‘Critically Endangered’’ and
the Canadian population as
‘‘Vulnerable’’ throughout its range in the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean. They
conclude that the IUCN categorization
proves that reasonable people have
determined that the best available
scientific evidence shows that the
species is likely to be endangered or
threatened as those terms are defined in
the ESA. They state that the IUCN
classification of the U.S. population of
thorny skates as ‘‘Critically
Endangered’’ means that the species is
as close to extinction in the wild as
possible. However, species
classifications by the IUCN and under
the ESA are not equivalent. We will
evaluate the information that the IUCN
classification is based upon in light of
the ESA’s standards on extinction risk
and impacts or threats discussed
previously.
The IUCN reviewed the status of
thorny skate in 2004 and concluded that
the extent of decline warranted an
assessment of vulnerable globally, but
critically endangered in U.S. waters.
They noted that the species was
relatively stable in recent years in
Canada and the Northeast Atlantic yet
declining in the United States. The
species was assessed as ‘‘Least Concern’’
in the Northeast Atlantic. They also
noted that the overall abundance
(whether divided among subpopulations
or not) still constitutes several hundred
million individuals. The minimum
biomass for the Northwest Atlantic was
estimated at 100,000 tons, which has
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65178
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
been stable or increasing slightly over
the last 15 years. The reasons cited for
the IUCN’s critically endangered
classification for U.S. waters include
low relative abundance (below the
fisheries limit reference point), the longterm population decline, lack of
population increase despite strict
management laws, and the inability to
monitor species-specific landings.
The petitioners cite the 2008 Skate
Stock Assessment and Fishery
Evaluation (SAFE) Report prepared by
the Northeast Fisheries Science Center
(NEFSC) as demonstrating a precipitous
decline in thorny skate abundance and
biomass in United States waters since
the late 1970s. Skate biomass has been
monitored annually by the NEFSC
bottom trawl survey since 1963. The
survey occurs from Cape Lookout to the
Scotian Shelf. Currently, this survey is
the only long-term, comprehensive
source of information on the relative
abundance of thorny skates in U.S.
waters, which are primarily distributed
in the Gulf of Maine. Based on this
information, the survey biomass index
of thorny skates has steadily declined
from a high 3-year average of 6.17 kg/
tow in 1969 to 1971, to a low of 0.12 kg/
tow in 2011 to 2013. The petition notes
that when the Northeast skate complex
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) was
implemented by us in 2003, thorny
skate was determined to be ‘‘overfished’’
because the biomass index that year
(0.74 kg/tow) was below the established
biomass threshold (2.2 kg/tow) and
below the biomass target (4.41 kg/tow).
The petitioners correctly note that the
current biomass threshold and biomass
target are 2.06 and 4.13 kg/tow,
respectively. The petitioners correctly
state that the most recent 3-year average
mean biomass survey from 2011–2013
(0.12 kg/tow) is the lowest in the time
series and that we have determined that
overfishing is occurring. A stock that is
subject to overfishing has a harvest rate
higher than the rate that produces its
‘‘maximum sustainable yield’’ (MSY).
MSY is the largest long-term average
catch that can be taken from a stock
under prevailing environmental and
fishery conditions. A stock that is
overfished has a population size that is
too low and would jeopardize the
stock’s ability to produce its MSY.
‘‘Overfished’’ can be the result of many
factors, including, but not limited to,
overfishing.
The petitioners further state that
Canadian indices of thorny skate have
also demonstrated a precipitous decline
over the past four decades. They
reference a report by Canada’s
Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 2012)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:00 Oct 23, 2015
Jkt 238001
noting that thorny skate dominates
Canadian catches of skate species,
composing approximately 90 percent of
rajids caught in survey trawls
(COSEWIC 2012). In 2012, COSEWIC,
which was established as a legal entity
under Canada’s Species at Risk Act,
published an assessment of the status of
thorny skate in Canada and classified
thorny skate as a ‘‘species of special
concern;’’ COSEWIC assessments are
considered advice to the Government of
Canada on the status of wildlife species,
but it is up to the Governor in Council
(a subcommittee of federal cabinet
ministers), on the recommendation of
the Minister of the Environment, to
decide whether such species should be
added to the List of Wildlife Species at
Risk. A COSEWIC assessment of
‘‘species of special concern’’ means that
thorny skate may become ‘‘a threatened
or an endangered species because of a
combination of biological characteristics
and identified threats.’’ COSEWIC made
this designation because the species has
undergone severe population declines
over the southern part of its distribution
in Canada (specifically, the Scotian
Shelf/Bay of Fundy and Georges Bank
areas), its range has contracted, and
declines have continued in spite of a
reduction in fishing mortality. However,
the report also notes that the abundance
of mature individuals in the northern
part of its range has been increasing and
is approaching 1970s abundance levels.
The report indicates that on the Scotian
Shelf and Bay of Fundy, the abundance
of immature skates has declined over 76
percent from 1970 to 2010 and that the
rate of decline for mature skates was 95
percent over the same period. The
authors note that there is no evidence
that these declines are due to
individuals moving north. The report
also indicates that the abundance of
juvenile thorny skates on Georges Bank
declined by 40 percent from 1987–2008,
and the abundance of adults declined by
85 percent over the same period. In the
southern Gulf of St. Lawrence,
abundance of thorny skate of all sizes
has fluctuated between 1971 and 2010
and was lower at the end of the time
series. The report notes that adults
declined by 95 percent from 1971–2010
and that this matches increases in
natural mortality over this period (citing
Benoit and Swan 2011). The rate of
decline for juveniles over this period
was 32 percent, although there was an
increase from 2003–2010. They note the
uncertainty with how an apparently
large number of juveniles could be
produced by so few adults. Abundance
trends could not be calculated for the
Baffin Bay/Davis Strait/Ungava Bay
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
region. Based on limited data, the report
concludes that thorny skate abundance
in the Grand Banks to Labrador Shelf
area has fluctuated without trend
between 1978 and 2010. On the
southern Labrador Shelf, thorny skate
declined until 1995 and then stabilized
or increased thereafter. For example,
adults declined by 91 percent from 1997
to 1994 but subsequently increased by
821 percent from 1995 to 2008. Similar
patterns of decline and then increased
abundance are reported for the Grand
Banks.
The petitioners state that since the
mid-1980s, the range of the thorny skate
on the Grand Banks has been
contracting (Kulka and Miri 2003). They
cite evidence of a hyper-aggregation
with 80 percent of the biomass now
concentrated in 20 percent of the area
along the southwest slope of the Grand
Banks (Kulka et al. 2007). As noted by
Kulka et al. (2006), in the early 1980s,
thorny skates were distributed over the
entire Grand Banks in moderate to high
concentrations, but by the late 1990s,
much of the biomass was concentrated
in the southwest. The proportion of the
surveyed area containing no skates
increased from about 2 percent in 1980
to 1988 to 22 percent in 2004 to 2005.
During 1980 to 1988, about 57 percent
of the biomass was located within 20
percent of the survey area, by 2001 to
2005, 78 percent of the biomass was
concentrated into 20 percent of the
survey area. Therefore, the area
occupied by thorny skates has
decreased, and the population has
become increasingly more concentrated
in a smaller area where bottom
temperatures are warmest. A very
similar pattern of aggregation was
observed for northern cod just prior to
its collapse (Rose and Kulka 1999).
Kulka and Miri (2003) state that
aggregation and reduced area of
occupancy led to the cod being
increasingly more vulnerable to
exploitation and they state this is very
similar to what is happening to thorny
skate. They do acknowledge that it is
unknown whether these spatial
dynamics are an indication of a skate
stock under stress. The 2007 update by
Kulka and Miri noted that the species
had shown a minor re-expansion in its
distribution in the past 3 to 4 years.
Kulka and Miri (2006) noted that the
average weight of thorny skate had
declined from 2 kg in the early 1970s to
1.2 kg in 1996 with the majority of this
decline occurring in the 1990s
concurrent with the decline in biomass.
They reported that average size had
increased to about 1.6 kg since that
time. They note that the decline of
thorny skate, particularly on the
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
northern Grand Banks, is concurrent in
space and time with the decline of many
other demersal species and occurred
during a period when bottom
temperatures were below average.
In conclusion, in the southern part of
its range in Canada, and in the United
States, we find evidence suggesting that
population abundance of thorny skate
has continued to decline, and in the
northern part of its range thorny skate
may be stable at a diminished
abundance. While data are still limited
with respect to population size and
trends, we find the petition and our files
contain sufficient information on thorny
skate trends and status to indicate that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
Analysis of DPS Information
The petition requests that we list the
thorny skate population in the
Northwest Atlantic as a threatened or
endangered DPS and presents
arguments that thorny skate in the
Northwest Atlantic meet the criteria to
be considered a DPS, as described in the
1996 joint NMFS and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service DPS policy (61 FR
4722; February 7, 1996). Alternatively,
the petition requests that we list the
thorny skate population in the United
States as a threatened or endangered
DPS and presents arguments that thorny
skate in U.S. waters meet requirements
for being identified as a DPS eligible for
listing. Our 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 species to which it
belongs. A population segment of a
vertebrate species may be considered
discrete if it satisfies either one of the
following conditions: (1) It is markedly
separated from other populations of the
same taxon as a consequence of
physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors—quantitative
measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence of
this separation; or (2) it is delimited by
international governmental boundaries
within which differences in control of
exploitation, management of habitat
conservation status, or regulatory
mechanisms exist that are significant in
light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. If
a population segment is considered
discrete under one or more of the above
conditions, its biological and ecological
significance will then be considered in
light of Congressional guidance (see
Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st
Session) that the authority to list DPSs
be used ‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:00 Oct 23, 2015
Jkt 238001
the conservation of genetic diversity. In
carrying out this examination, the
Services will consider available
scientific evidence of the discrete
population segment’s importance to the
taxon to which it belongs. This
consideration may include, but is not
limited to, the following: (1) Persistence
of the discrete population segment in an
ecological setting unusual or unique for
the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the
discrete population segment would
result in a significant gap in the range
of a taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete
population segment represents the only
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon
that may be more abundant elsewhere as
an introduced population outside its
historic range; or (4) evidence that the
discrete population segment differs
markedly from other populations of the
species in its genetic characteristics.
The petitioners state the Northwest
Atlantic thorny skate population,
encompassing Canadian and U.S.
waters, satisfies both the ‘‘discrete’’ and
‘‘significant’’ requirements for DPS
identification. They state that the
Northwest Atlantic population is
discrete because it is markedly
separated from other populations due to
physical and biological factors.
The petitioners describe the results of
tagging studies (Templeman 1984,
Templeman 1987, Walker et al. 1997)
and suggest that thorny skate are a
relatively sedentary species in both the
Northwest and Northeast Atlantic. They
use the maximum distance traveled
from a tagging location (386 km;
Templeman 1984), the small portion of
the tagged individuals that traveled
more than 161 km (13 percent;
Templeman 1984) in the Northwest
Atlantic, the small portion of tagged
individuals that traveled more than 93
km in the North Sea (15 percent; Walker
et al. 1997), and the conclusions of
Templeman (1987) that ‘‘large scale
migrations did not occur’’ between the
Grand Banks and Labrador Shelf to
conclude that long distances may hinder
thorny skates from embarking on long
enough migrations to travel between the
Northeast and Northwest Atlantic. The
petitioners claim that there is no
indication that a significant portion of
the populations travel between the
Northeast and Northwest Atlantic.
These studies rely solely on
conventional tagging data and only
report the distance between the tagging
location and the location of recapture. It
is unknown if the maximum distances
reported between tagging and recapture
location are in fact reflective of the
maximum normal or maximum possible
migration distance. However, as noted
in the 2015 petition, if this is
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
65179
interpreted to mean that the maximum
migration is 386 km, this is not far
enough to allow for trans-Atlantic
migration, and this could support the
petitioner’s claim that separate, isolated
Northwest and Northeast Atlantic
populations of thorny skate exist.
The petitioners present some
information on available genetic studies
of thorny skate. They state that the
findings of Coulson et al. (2011) suggest
that genetic diversity may exist in
thorny skate and that this is indicative
of population structure. The petitioners
also address the findings of Chevolet et
al. (2007) and question the validity of
Chevolet et al.’s conclusions. The
results of Coulson et al. (2011) indicate
that thorny skate showed the highest
level of within-species divergence (0.8
percent) across all skate species from
Atlantic Canada examined, but this was
largely due to a single individual,
collected off the Gulf of Maine, with 3–
4 percent sequence divergence from the
other thorny skates examined. Coulson
et al. (2011) also note that, with the
exception of one other species (for
which only two samples were tested),
thorny skate showed the highest levels
of both haplotype and nucleotide
diversity; this was true even when the
Gulf of Maine sample was excluded.
The petitioners interpret Chevolet et
al. (2007) to note that the near absence
of genetic differentiation in thorny skate
over the North Atlantic does not
conform to predictions based on life
history characteristics, and they
acknowledge that the lack of power
related to small sample size and the use
of only one molecular marker might
explain this. However, the authors note
that a parallel study using the same
marker for another skate species did
find strong and highly significant
structure at the ocean basin scale. The
petitioners claim that this is not credible
because the other study (Chevolet 2006)
deals with a different skate species with
different phylogeographic and
population genetic structure patterns
and because it does not minimize the
problems associated with a small
sample size. The only other information
in our files is a study (Ostrow et al.
2008) that concluded there was no
significant population structuring
between phenotypically different thorny
skate within the Gulf of Maine or
between thorny skate samples from the
Gulf of Maine and Canada. This suggests
that mixing may occur between thorny
skate in the Gulf of Maine and Canada.
The authors also concluded that the
number of migrants between the Gulf of
Maine and Canada indicated large
amounts of gene flow suggesting that
genetic isolation had not occurred
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65180
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
between any of the groups. The
petitioners also note a statement in
COSEWIC (2012) that states that large
morphological and reproductive
differences among thorny skates in
different areas in conjunction with
indications of minimal migration
suggest that there could be spatial
variation in population structure.
The available genetic studies present
conflicting information on the potential
for significant differences between
populations of thorny skate. We
conclude that, viewed together, the
genetics and tagging information
presented in the petition combined with
the information in our files present
sufficient evidence that the DPS policy’s
criterion for discreteness may be met for
the Northwest Atlantic population of
thorny skate.
The petitioner argues that thorny
skate in the Northwest Atlantic are
significant because the loss of this
population would result in a significant
reduction in the species’ range with no
significant evidence that populations
outside of this range could recolonize
these waters. While not clearly stated,
we presume the petitioners based this
on the tagging information presented in
their arguments for discreteness. The
petitioners also claim that the separate
assessments and classifications of the
Northwest and Northeast Atlantic stocks
of thorny skate by the IUCN are
evidence that the populations are
discrete and significant. The petitioners
do not present any analysis to support
the claim that the IUCN stock
determination is equivalent to a
determination that a population meets
the significance criterion in the DPS
policy. However, based on the tagging
information, we conclude that the
petition presents sufficient evidence
that the DPS policy’s criterion for
significance, particularly the
‘‘significant gap’’ consideration, may be
met for the Northwest Atlantic
population of thorny skate. Because the
Northwest population of thorny skate
may qualify as a DPS, we will consider
it a potentially listable entity for
purposes of this 90-day finding, and
whether the Northwest Atlantic
population of thorny skate constitutes a
DPS will receive further analysis in the
status review.
The petition claims the thorny skate
population in U.S. waters also satisfies
the discreteness and significance criteria
for DPS designation. The petition claims
that the U.S. population is discrete,
because it is delimited by international
governmental boundaries (delineating
the United States and Canada) and
significant differences exist in the
control of exploitation, conservation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:00 Oct 23, 2015
Jkt 238001
status, and regulatory mechanisms. The
petition presents information on
differences in management regimes
between the United States and Canada,
notably that possession and landing of
thorny skate is prohibited in the United
States and a directed fishery occurs for
thorny skate in Canada and suggests that
regulatory mechanisms in Canada are
inadequate. The petition also describes
management by the Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries Organization (NAFO), which
sets catch limits for thorny skate in the
Northwest Atlantic. The petitioners
claim that evidence suggests that the
U.S. DPS may be discrete because it is
markedly separated from the Canadian
population as a consequence of physical
and/or ecological factors. To support
this, the petitioners point to the hyperaggregated population along the
southwest slope of the Grand Banks in
Canadian waters (Kulka et al. 2007) and
the relatively concentrated populations
of thorny skates in the Gulf of Maine
and Georges Bank offshore strata in U.S.
waters (NEFMC 2009). The petitioner
argues that the thorny skate population
in the United States is also significant
because the loss of this population
would result in a significant gap in the
species’ range. We find that the petition
presents substantial evidence that the
DPS policy’s criteria for discreteness
and significance may be met for the U.S.
population of thorny skate. Because the
U.S. population of thorny skate may
qualify as a DPS, we will consider it a
potentially listable entity for purposes
of this 90-day finding, and whether the
U.S. population of thorny skate
constitutes a DPS will receive further
analysis in the status review.
Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors
The petition provides information on
all five factors but asserts that the
continued survival of the thorny skate is
endangered by three of the five factors
specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA:
(B) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (D) inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other
natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence.
Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
Skates are harvested in two different
fisheries, one for lobster bait and one for
wings for food. The fishery for lobster
bait is a more historical and directed
skate fishery, involving vessels
primarily from Southern New England
ports that target a combination of little
skates and to a much lesser extent,
juvenile winter skates. The fishery for
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
skate wings evolved in the 1990s as
skates were promoted as an
underutilized species. The wing fishery
involves a larger number of vessels
located throughout the region. Vessels
tend to catch skates when targeting
other species like groundfish, monkfish,
and scallops and land them if the price
is high enough (NEFMC 2009).
Thorny skates in the Atlantic U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone have been
managed under authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by the New
England Fishery Management Council’s
fishery management plan for the
Northeast (NE) Skate Complex (Skate
FMP) since September 2003. Since that
time, possession and landing of thorny
skates has been prohibited, but the
survey biomass index has continued to
decline. It is important to note that
based on the limited productivity of this
species (long-lived, late maturity, low
fecundity, etc.), rebuilding to target
levels (4.12 kg/tow) was estimated to
take at least 25 years (i.e., 2028)
(NEFMC 2009). The thorny skate’s low
productivity makes it vulnerable to
exploitation, but also suggests that the
population is inherently slow to
respond to fishery management efforts.
The petition states that population
estimates for the thorny skate in
Canadian waters indicate stable, but not
increasing numbers, and in the waters of
the United States, biomass indices have
been declining for decades, despite the
federal ban on the landing and
possession of thorny skates since 2003.
The petition claims that thorny skate
populations have been historically
exploited at unsustainable rates. They
state that participation in the
commercial skate wing fishery in the
Northwest Atlantic has grown
dramatically over the past 30 years.
They cite the initiation of a directed
skate fishery in Canada in 1994 and an
increase in skate landings in U.S. waters
between the early 1980s and 2007. The
petitioners note that biomass indices in
Canada indicate that the species is
maintaining relatively stable population
numbers at very low levels. They claim
the thorny skate population in U.S.
waters continues to decline and state
that the lack of regulation prior to 2003
reduced the population. The petitioners
claim that current, and historical,
overfishing has deleterious effects on
the species population in U.S. waters
and is a significant factor in the species’
continued decline.
The petitioners claim that reports of
illegal thorny skate landings suggest that
thorny skates are being exploited in the
commercial wing market. They state
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
that in the United States prior to August
2014, skate landings were not required
to be reported by species. They cite
NEFMC (2009), reporting that thorny
skate wings composed 6.7 percent and
3 percent of the sampled dockside
landings of skate wings in
Massachusetts and Maine, respectively,
from 2006–2007. However, according to
port sampler data provided by the
NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office’s Analysis and Program
Support Division, the occurrence of
thorny skates in skate wing landings has
been significantly reduced since 2006.
Out of 50,653 skate wings sampled
between 2007 and 2010, only 353 (0.7
percent) were identified as thorny skate
wings. The available information does
not suggest that illegal landings are
impacting thorny skate populations to a
degree that raises concern that the
species may be at risk of extinction.
The petitioners acknowledge that in
contrast to Canada’s directed thorny
skate fishery, in the United States,
thorny skates are primarily taken as
bycatch in groundfish trawl fisheries.
They also acknowledge that the
prohibition on retention of the species
means fishermen are banned from
possessing or landing thorny skates or
their parts, and Federal regulations
mandate the discard of any incidentally
caught thorny skates. The petition cites
the 2009 and 2010 Standardized
Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM;
Wigley et al. 2011) reports, which
indicate that roughly 70 percent of all
skates caught in various fisheries were
discarded. We reviewed the SBRM
reports for later years (Wigley et al.
2015, 2014, 2013 and 2012); these
reports indicate that 49–63 percent of
skates caught between July 2010 and
June 2014 were discarded. The
petitioners claim the possibility of
egregious mis- and under-reporting of
skate discards. However, other than
noting that only 10 percent of selected
otter trawl vessel total trips were
observed under the Northeast Fisheries
Observer Program, the petitioners
provide no substantial information to
support this claim of mis-reporting or
under-reporting of skate discards. The
available information does not suggest
that mis-reporting or under-reporting is
impacting thorny skate populations to a
degree that raises concern that the
species may be at risk of extinction.
The petitioners cite an estimate of
3,594 tons of thorny skate discarded
from otter trawl fisheries in U.S. waters
from 2003–2010. The petitioners claim
that post-discard mortality for thorny
skate is high and exacerbates the thorny
skate’s population decline and critically
threatens stock rebuilding efforts. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:00 Oct 23, 2015
Jkt 238001
petitioners cite Mandleman et al. (2013)
as support for their claim of high postdiscard mortality. This study indicates
that while 72-hour post-discard
mortality of a sample of individuals
retained in captivity following cage
trials was only 22 percent, the condition
of many of the individual thorny skate
was poor (52 percent injury rate at time
of capture; most with listless
appearance and lack of vigor at the end
of the 72-hour period) and 7 day
mortality was 66 percent. The authors
note that the species may be less
resilient than indicated by the 22
percent 72-hour mortality rate and
cautions against the use of the 22
percent mortality rate in management.
The effects of captivity on these
mortality rates are unknown. Further
review is necessary to determine if this
level of fishery-related mortality is a
threat to thorny skate, but we cannot
discount it as a possible threat to the
species.
Given the evidence of historical
exploitation of the species and
subsequent population declines, the
continued bycatch of thorny skate, and
the potentially high post-discard
mortality rate, the information in the
petition and in our files leads a
reasonable person to conclude that the
petitioned action may be warranted.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms
The petitioners claim that a general
lack of species-specific identification,
both on-boat and at landing, poses a
significant threat to the thorny skate’s
survival in U.S. waters and that because
thorny skate are a prohibited species,
the likelihood that the landings are
underreported is strong. They also state
that misidentification and mislabeling is
a problem. The petitioner states that
positive species identification at landing
is hindered because current regulations
allow vessels to possess and/or land
skates as wings only (wings removed
from the body of the skate and the
remaining carcasses discarded). The
petitioners also state that the
designation of thorny skates as
‘‘prohibited’’, ‘‘overfished’’ and ‘‘subject
to overfishing’’ allows room for
inconsistent enforcement of the law.
The petition states that the existing
regulatory mechanisms provided for in
the 2003 FMP are ineffective.
As noted in the petition, in 2013, we
determined that overfishing is occurring
for thorny skate. The determination that
overfishing is occurring is made when
there is a decrease of more than 20
percent between two consecutive
moving averages of the biomass index.
The 2011–2013 3-year average biomass
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
65181
index (0.12 kg/tow) is only 3 percent of
the species’ biomass target. This 3-year
average index represents an
approximately 33 percent decrease from
the 2010–2012 3-year moving average
(0.18 kg/tow). While not noted in the
petition, in an August 2014
memorandum (August 22, 2014 memo
from NEFSC to GARFO) we determined
that based on new survey data collected
through autumn 2013/spring 2014,
thorny skate remained overfished and
overfishing was still occurring. Because
thorny skate are a long lived species, the
species may be slow to respond to
management measures. However, the
determination that overfishing is
occurring suggests that, despite the ban
on possession or landing, fishing
mortality is a threat that may warrant
further consideration.
As noted in the petition, the
framework for the FMP for the Northeast
skate complex was adjusted in 2014 to
implement a 30 percent reduction in the
skate Acceptable Biological Catch
(ABC). However, as noted in the
petition, the Federal Register notice
announcing the availability of
Framework Adjustment 2 acknowledges
that while these reductions in catch
limits are expected to address the
current overfishing status for winter
skates (not its overfished condition), the
New England Fishery Management
Council intends to develop a new skate
action in 2014 to address overfishing
and rebuild overfished thorny skates.
The petition correctly notes that the
Framework Adjustment 2 was not
designed to address overfishing of
thorny skates and correctly notes that as
of the date of the petition, no new
management action for thorny skate has
been proposed.
While the determinations that thorny
skate is overfished and that overfishing
is occurring do not alone indicate that
the species may be at risk of extinction,
thorny skate biomass in the United
States continues to decline and appears
to be at historically low levels, and
information was presented suggesting
that fishing may be a contributing factor
to this decline. Based on the
information presented in the petition as
well as information in our files, we find
that further evaluation of the adequacy
of existing regulatory measures in the
United States is needed.
While the historical lack of speciesspecific trends in landings and discards
has hampered stock assessment efforts,
recent data collection efforts have
greatly improved our understanding of
the species composition of the landings.
As noted in the petition, in August
2014, the reporting standard was
changed. Framework Adjustment 2 to
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65182
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
the Northeast Skate FMP requires all
landings be reported by one of the seven
specific skate species or by ‘‘little/
winter skate’’ if an unknown mix of the
two species exists. Thorny skate wings
are easily distinguishable from legal
winter skate wings with a minimal
amount of training, and port samplers
and enforcement agents have received
this training. Landing of thorny skates
may have been more frequent in the
past, but it has been dramatically
curtailed since the prohibition on
possession went into effect. Mislabeling
of skate products does not appear to be
widespread at U.S. ports, but port agents
and enforcement agents have been
trained to correct mislabeling if they
observe it. The only information on
mislabeling presented in the petition
was about one specimen from a seafood
show in Brussels, Belgium, which we
view as not relevant to a potential
listing in the United States. We
conclude that the petition does not
present sufficient information to
determine that issues with landings
data, misidentification or mislabeling
are impacting thorny skate populations
to a degree that raises concern that the
petitioned action may be warranted.
The petition also states that regulatory
mechanisms in Canada are inadequate
to protect thorny skate. They claim that
by adopting NAFO’s suggested total
allowable catch (TAC) limits for skate,
Canada has implemented regulations
that have not successfully promoted
stock rebuilding. Finally, the petition
also states that Canada lacks substantive
protective regulatory mechanisms for
thorny skate and has not afforded a
conservation status by COSEWIC. As
reported in the petition, thorny skate
abundance indices have stabilized in
Canadian waters in recent years while
biomass indices have gradually
increased (DFO 2013), but both indices
are at historically low levels. The
petitioners argue that while the average
reported annual catch from NAFO
Division 3LNO from 2009–2011 is less
than half the current TAC, there has
been minimal to no rebuilding of the
stock during this period. The petitioners
claim there are no indications the stock
is recovering since it was brought under
management and argue that both the
current TAC (reported by the petitioners
as 7,000 tons, citing NAFO 2012) and
the reported average skate catches are
too high to promote any stock recovery.
The most recent stock assessment of
thorny skate in NAFO Subdivision 3PS
(inside Canada’s 200-mile limit)
indicates the TAC has been continually
reduced since 2004 (13,500 tons) and is
currently at 8,500 t (DFO 2013). The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:00 Oct 23, 2015
Jkt 238001
Canadian research survey abundance for
Subdivision 3Ps was relatively stable
from 1993–2012, while the survey
biomass index indicated a gradually
increasing trend (DFO 2013). In NAFO
divisions 3LNO, Canadian research
survey indices declined rapidly until
the early 1990s; abundance indices were
relatively stable in 1993–2012, while the
survey biomass indices have generally
been increasing (DFO 2013). DFO 2013
acknowledges that since the 1980s,
thorny skate has undergone substantial
changes in its distribution and has
become increasingly aggregated in
subdivision 3Ps, and on the southern
part of the Grand Banks. They state that
this results in a decreasing area of
occupancy and increasing catch rates in
commercial fisheries occurring in those
aggregation areas. The report also
indicates that discarding of skate
bycatch at sea remains unreported by
Canadian and other fishers, which
results in higher removals of thorny
skate than available fisheries statistics
indicate and that commercial skate
landings from Canada’s EEZ are not
required to be reported by species. The
report concludes that despite a number
of years of reduced commercial
landings, there was no recovery of
thorny skate in the 3LNOPs stock area
despite apparently stable abundance in
the 3Ps portion and that biomass and
abundance indices for the entire
division 3LNO and subdivision 3Ps
thorny skate stock area remain at
relatively low levels. Based on the
information presented in the petition as
well as information in our files, we find
that further evaluation of the adequacy
of existing regulatory measures outside
of the United States is needed. Given
the information presented above, the
information in the petition and in our
files leads a reasonable person to
conclude that the petitioned action may
be warranted.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Existence
The petition claims that global
warming poses a long-term threat to
Northwest Atlantic thorny skates and
their recovery from depletion. They
state that the documented global ocean
warming trend could result in a change
in species composition in northern
waters which could adversely affect the
thorny skate’s predator-prey dynamics
or introduce new pathogens that could
harm thorny skates. The petitioners
provide information on sea surface
temperatures and hydrography in the
Gulf of Maine and state that one
outcome will be reductions in
phytoplankton productivity. While they
state that changes at the lower levels of
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the food web may have consequences to
animals at higher trophic levels, they
provide no information on the impacts
of these changes on thorny skate. The
petitioners have not provided
substantial information indicating that
potential impacts to lower levels of the
food web are causing detrimental effects
to thorny skate or may be contributing
or may, in the foreseeable future,
contribute significantly to population
declines of thorny skate to the point
where the petitioned action may be
warranted.
They also state that global warming
could result in a contraction of the range
of cold-water species such as the thorny
skate. They speculate that a range
contraction could be a potential factor
in the decrease in thorny skate biomass
in the Gulf of Maine and that the
amount of thermal habitat in the 5 to 15
°C range has decreased over the past two
decades. The petitioners state that the
majority of thorny skates are not capable
of journeys of more than 96 km and the
farthest an individual has been
documented traveling is 386 km (citing
Templeman 1984) and that, as such, a
large-scale northern migration to move
away from warming waters in the
southern portion of their range appears
unlikely. As noted above, it is unclear
what the actual maximum migratory
distance for a thorny skate is. The
petitioners also claim that thorny skate
have experienced a northward shift in
the center of their biomass. More
research is necessary to investigate if
there is a correlation between Gulf of
Maine water temperatures and thorny
skate biomass, but the available
information on thorny skate temperature
preferences suggests that this could be
a possibility.
There is uncertainty regarding the role
of temperature in driving or
contributing to the historical and
current distribution and abundance of
thorny skate and even greater
uncertainty regarding potential future
impacts of climate change. Impacts from
climate change to habitat availability or
suitability could pose particular
problems for U.S. populations of thorny
skate as they are at the southern extent
of the range of the species and are at
historically low levels of abundance.
Further review is necessary to
determine if climate change is a threat
to thorny skate. Given the evidence of
range contraction and the uncertainty
regarding the role of warming ocean
waters, we conclude that the
information in the petition and in our
files suggests that climate change, and
warming ocean waters specifically, may
be impacting thorny skate to a degree
that raises concern over their continued
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
persistence and that should be further
evaluated in a status review.
The petitioners claim that hypoxia
(oxygen deficiency) has increased in
frequency, duration, and severity in
coastal waters and that this decreases
the abundance and diversity of benthic
macrofauna (citing CSIS 2011). They
also claim that the combination of
hypoxia and increased water
temperature would reduce the quality
and size of suitable habitat for aerobic
organisms whose suitable habitat is
restricted by water temperature and
claim that thorny skate is such a
species. While acknowledging that any
prediction of the effects of hypoxic
zones on thorny skates is speculative,
the petitioners state that any adverse
impact on the species or on the
abundance/distribution of its predators
or prey will severely hinder the species’
ability to recover. However, neither the
petitioners nor the information in our
files indicate that thorny skate are
impacted by hypoxia or that hypoxia
may be contributing significantly to
population declines in thorny skates to
the point where the species may be at
a risk of extinction. As such, we
conclude that the information presented
in the petition on the threat of hypoxia
does not provide substantial
information indicating that hypoxia may
be impacting thorny skate to a degree
that the petitioned action may be
warranted.
The petitioners state that the life
history characteristics of thorny skate
place the species at risk of adverse
effects resulting from natural stochastic
events. However, neither the petitioners
nor the information in our files indicate
that natural stochastic events are
causing detrimental effects to the
species or may be contributing
significantly to population declines in
thorny skates to the point where the
species may be at a risk of extinction.
As such, we conclude that the
information presented in the petition on
the threat of natural stochastic events
does not provide substantial
information indicating that such events
may be impacting or may, in the
foreseeable future, impact thorny skate
to a degree that the petitioned action
may be warranted. However, given all of
the information presented above on
other natural and manmade factors,
particularly the warming of oceans, the
information in the petition and in our
files does lead a reasonable person to
conclude that the petitioned action may
be warranted, and it is necessary to
consider the impacts from other natural
and manmade factors in a status review.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:00 Oct 23, 2015
Jkt 238001
65183
Summary of ESA Section 4(a)(1)
Factors
provisions regarding the designation of
critical habitat.
We conclude that the petition
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
a combination of three of the section
4(a)(1) factors (overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; inadequate
existing regulatory mechanisms; and
other natural or manmade factors) may
be causing or contributing to an
increased risk of extinction for thorny
skate which needs to be further
evaluated in a review of the status of the
species.
Information Solicited
Petition Finding
After reviewing the information
contained in the petition, as well as
information readily available in our
files, and based on the above analysis,
we conclude the petition presents
substantial scientific information
indicating the petitioned action of
listing a Northwest Atlantic or United
States DPS of thorny skate as threatened
or endangered may be warranted.
Therefore, in accordance with section
4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS’
implementing regulations (50 CFR
424.14(b)(2)), we will commence a
review of the status of the species.
During our status review, we will first
determine whether one of the
populations identified by the petitioners
meets the DPS policy criteria, and if so,
whether it is threatened or endangered
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. We now initiate this review,
and thus, the Northwest Atlantic
population of the thorny skate is
considered to be a candidate species
(see 69 FR 19975; April 15, 2004). To
the maximum extent practicable, within
12 months of the receipt of the petition
(May 28, 2016), we will make a finding
as to whether listing either of the
populations identified by the petitioner
as DPSs as endangered or threatened is
warranted as required by section
4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. If listing a DPS is
found to be warranted, we will publish
a proposed rule and solicit public
comments before developing and
publishing a final rule. The petitioners
request that we designate critical habitat
for thorny skates. ESA Section 4(a)(3)(A)
and its implementing regulations state
that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary shall,
concurrently with listing a species as
endangered or threatened, designate any
critical habitat for that species. If a
thorny skate population were to be
listed as a DPS, we would follow the
relevant statutory and regulatory
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
To ensure that the status review is
based on the best available scientific
and commercial data, we are soliciting
information on the thorny skate.
Specifically, we solicit information in
the following areas: (1) Historical and
current distribution and abundance of
this species in the Northwest Atlantic;
(2) historical and current population
status and trends; (3) any current or
planned activities that may adversely
impact the species, especially as related
to the five factors specified in section
4(a)(1) of the ESA and listed above; (4)
ongoing efforts to protect and restore the
species and its habitat; and (5) genetic
data or other information related to
possible population structure of thorny
skate. 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 (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: October 16, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch, III.
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–27147 Filed 10–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 224
[Docket No. 150209121–5941–02]
RIN 0648–XD760
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;
12-Month Finding on a Petition To
Identify and Delist a Saint John River
Distinct Population Segment of
Shortnose Sturgeon Under the
Endangered Species Act
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 206 (Monday, October 26, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65175-65183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27147]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 150901797-5914-01]
RIN 0648-XE163
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition
To List the Thorny Skate 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 a
``Northwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment'' (DPS) or ``United
States DPS'' of thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the
petition to list thorny skate presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted. We will conduct a review of the status of the species 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 this species from any interested
party.
DATES: Information and comments on the subject action must be received
by December 28, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, information, or data on this
document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0120, by either any of the
following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0120. Click the ``Comment Now'' icon,
complete the
[[Page 65176]]
required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Julie Crocker, NMFS
Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, Protected Resources
Division, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, USA.
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 us. 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. We will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
Copies of the petition and related materials are available on our
Web site at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/thorny-skate.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Crocker, Protected Resources
Division, 978-281-9328, or Marta Nammack, NMFS-HQ, Protected Resources
Office, (301) 427-8469.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 28, 2015, we received a petition from Defenders of Wildlife
and Animal Welfare Institute to list a ``Northwest Atlantic DPS'' of
thorny skate as threatened or endangered under the ESA, or, as an
alternative, to list a ``United States DPS'' as threatened or
endangered. The petition also requests that we designate critical
habitat for thorny skate. Copies of the petition are available from us
(see ADDRESSES, above) and can be found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/thorny-skate.html.
ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions and Evaluation
Framework
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90
days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or
endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly
publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)).
When we find that substantial scientific or commercial information in a
petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a ``positive
90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a review of the
status of the species concerned, during which we will conduct a
comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial
information. In such cases, within 12 months of receipt of the
petition, we must conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in
fact, the petitioned action is warranted. Because the finding at the
12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available
information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day
stage, a ``may be warranted'' finding does not prejudge the outcome of
the status review.
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which
is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species,
any 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 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. In
evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition,
the Secretary must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates
the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any
common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative
justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on
available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the
species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides
information regarding the status of the species over all or a
significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the
appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic
references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or
letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
At the 90-day finding stage, we evaluate the petitioners' 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 petitioners' sources and characterizations of the
information presented if they appear to be based on accepted scientific
principles, unless we have specific information in our files that
indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable,
obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information
that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is
contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at
the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable
person would conclude it supports the petitioners' assertions. In other
words, conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's
requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day
finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone
negates a positive 90-day finding if a reasonable person would conclude
that the unknown information itself suggests an extinction risk of
concern for the species at issue.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we
evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating the subject species may be either
threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate
whether the information presented in the petition, along with the
information readily available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under
the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the
species faces an
[[Page 65177]]
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 (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 indicating 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
nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union on the
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/pdf/NatureServeStatusAssessmentsListing-Dec%202008.pdf).
Additionally, species classifications under 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, 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.
Distribution and Life History of Thorny Skate
The thorny skate occurs on both sides of the Atlantic. In the
western North Atlantic, it ranges from western Greenland to South
Carolina, and in the eastern North Atlantic, it ranges from Iceland to
the southwestern coasts of Ireland and England (Bigelow and Schroeder,
1953). This species is characterized by a row of 11 to 19 large thorns
running down the midline of the back and tail (Bigelow and Schroeder,
1953; Collette and Klein-MacPhee, 2002). Thorny skate are generally
brown dorsally with a white ventral surface. They may reach lengths of
over 39 inches (991 mm), but maximum size varies over its range.
According to Collette and Klein-MacPhee (2002), females deposit a
single fertilized egg capsule, which ranges in size from 2 to 4 inches
(48 to 96 mm) in length and 1.33 to 3 inches (34 to 77 mm) in width.
While females with fully formed egg capsules are captured year round,
the percentage of mature females with capsules is highest during the
summer (Collette and Klein-MacPhee, 2002). Thorny skate feed on benthic
invertebrates and fish. Thorny skates are found over a wide variety of
substrates including sand, broken shell, gravel, pebbles, and soft mud
and are primarily found from 20 to 3,900 feet (18 to 1200 m) deep
(Collette and Klein-MacPhee, 2002). They appear to make seasonal
migrations that have been noted on the Scotian Shelf and the Grand
Banks, but specific details on the spatial patterns and timing are
lacking (NEFSC, 2003). Kulka and Miri (2003) report a change in the
spring and fall distributions resulting in a higher density and greater
proportion of biomass being found in deeper waters during the spring.
These aggregations, they note, appear to be correlated with warmer
relative temperatures.
Sulikowski et al. (2005) aged thorny skate in the Gulf of Maine and
estimated the oldest age to be 16 years for both males and females. For
females, 50 percent maturity occurred at approximately 11 years and 875
mm (34.5 inches) total length (TL); while for males, approximately 10.9
years and 865 mm (34 inches) TL (Sulikowski et al., 2006).
Analysis of Petition and Information Readily Available in Our Files
We have determined, based on the information provided in the
petition and readily available in our files, that substantial
information is presented in the petition indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted. The petition contains a recommended
administrative measure, provides the scientific and common name,
contains a detailed narrative justification for the recommended
measure, provides information on the status of the species, and
includes supporting documentation. Below is a synopsis of our analysis
of the information provided in the petition and readily available in
our files to determine whether a reasonable person would conclude that
an endangered or threatened listing may be warranted as a result of any
of the factors listed under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
Population Trends
The petitioners state that the IUCN lists the U.S. population of
thorny skates as ``Critically Endangered'' and the Canadian population
as ``Vulnerable'' throughout its range in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean.
They conclude that the IUCN categorization proves that reasonable
people have determined that the best available scientific evidence
shows that the species is likely to be endangered or threatened as
those terms are defined in the ESA. They state that the IUCN
classification of the U.S. population of thorny skates as ``Critically
Endangered'' means that the species is as close to extinction in the
wild as possible. However, species classifications by the IUCN and
under the ESA are not equivalent. We will evaluate the information that
the IUCN classification is based upon in light of the ESA's standards
on extinction risk and impacts or threats discussed previously.
The IUCN reviewed the status of thorny skate in 2004 and concluded
that the extent of decline warranted an assessment of vulnerable
globally, but critically endangered in U.S. waters. They noted that the
species was relatively stable in recent years in Canada and the
Northeast Atlantic yet declining in the United States. The species was
assessed as ``Least Concern'' in the Northeast Atlantic. They also
noted that the overall abundance (whether divided among subpopulations
or not) still constitutes several hundred million individuals. The
minimum biomass for the Northwest Atlantic was estimated at 100,000
tons, which has
[[Page 65178]]
been stable or increasing slightly over the last 15 years. The reasons
cited for the IUCN's critically endangered classification for U.S.
waters include low relative abundance (below the fisheries limit
reference point), the long-term population decline, lack of population
increase despite strict management laws, and the inability to monitor
species-specific landings.
The petitioners cite the 2008 Skate Stock Assessment and Fishery
Evaluation (SAFE) Report prepared by the Northeast Fisheries Science
Center (NEFSC) as demonstrating a precipitous decline in thorny skate
abundance and biomass in United States waters since the late 1970s.
Skate biomass has been monitored annually by the NEFSC bottom trawl
survey since 1963. The survey occurs from Cape Lookout to the Scotian
Shelf. Currently, this survey is the only long-term, comprehensive
source of information on the relative abundance of thorny skates in
U.S. waters, which are primarily distributed in the Gulf of Maine.
Based on this information, the survey biomass index of thorny skates
has steadily declined from a high 3-year average of 6.17 kg/tow in 1969
to 1971, to a low of 0.12 kg/tow in 2011 to 2013. The petition notes
that when the Northeast skate complex Fishery Management Plan (FMP) was
implemented by us in 2003, thorny skate was determined to be
``overfished'' because the biomass index that year (0.74 kg/tow) was
below the established biomass threshold (2.2 kg/tow) and below the
biomass target (4.41 kg/tow). The petitioners correctly note that the
current biomass threshold and biomass target are 2.06 and 4.13 kg/tow,
respectively. The petitioners correctly state that the most recent 3-
year average mean biomass survey from 2011-2013 (0.12 kg/tow) is the
lowest in the time series and that we have determined that overfishing
is occurring. A stock that is subject to overfishing has a harvest rate
higher than the rate that produces its ``maximum sustainable yield''
(MSY). MSY is the largest long-term average catch that can be taken
from a stock under prevailing environmental and fishery conditions. A
stock that is overfished has a population size that is too low and
would jeopardize the stock's ability to produce its MSY. ``Overfished''
can be the result of many factors, including, but not limited to,
overfishing.
The petitioners further state that Canadian indices of thorny skate
have also demonstrated a precipitous decline over the past four
decades. They reference a report by Canada's Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 2012) noting that thorny skate
dominates Canadian catches of skate species, composing approximately 90
percent of rajids caught in survey trawls (COSEWIC 2012). In 2012,
COSEWIC, which was established as a legal entity under Canada's Species
at Risk Act, published an assessment of the status of thorny skate in
Canada and classified thorny skate as a ``species of special concern;''
COSEWIC assessments are considered advice to the Government of Canada
on the status of wildlife species, but it is up to the Governor in
Council (a subcommittee of federal cabinet ministers), on the
recommendation of the Minister of the Environment, to decide whether
such species should be added to the List of Wildlife Species at Risk. A
COSEWIC assessment of ``species of special concern'' means that thorny
skate may become ``a threatened or an endangered species because of a
combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.''
COSEWIC made this designation because the species has undergone severe
population declines over the southern part of its distribution in
Canada (specifically, the Scotian Shelf/Bay of Fundy and Georges Bank
areas), its range has contracted, and declines have continued in spite
of a reduction in fishing mortality. However, the report also notes
that the abundance of mature individuals in the northern part of its
range has been increasing and is approaching 1970s abundance levels.
The report indicates that on the Scotian Shelf and Bay of Fundy, the
abundance of immature skates has declined over 76 percent from 1970 to
2010 and that the rate of decline for mature skates was 95 percent over
the same period. The authors note that there is no evidence that these
declines are due to individuals moving north. The report also indicates
that the abundance of juvenile thorny skates on Georges Bank declined
by 40 percent from 1987-2008, and the abundance of adults declined by
85 percent over the same period. In the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence,
abundance of thorny skate of all sizes has fluctuated between 1971 and
2010 and was lower at the end of the time series. The report notes that
adults declined by 95 percent from 1971-2010 and that this matches
increases in natural mortality over this period (citing Benoit and Swan
2011). The rate of decline for juveniles over this period was 32
percent, although there was an increase from 2003-2010. They note the
uncertainty with how an apparently large number of juveniles could be
produced by so few adults. Abundance trends could not be calculated for
the Baffin Bay/Davis Strait/Ungava Bay region. Based on limited data,
the report concludes that thorny skate abundance in the Grand Banks to
Labrador Shelf area has fluctuated without trend between 1978 and 2010.
On the southern Labrador Shelf, thorny skate declined until 1995 and
then stabilized or increased thereafter. For example, adults declined
by 91 percent from 1997 to 1994 but subsequently increased by 821
percent from 1995 to 2008. Similar patterns of decline and then
increased abundance are reported for the Grand Banks.
The petitioners state that since the mid-1980s, the range of the
thorny skate on the Grand Banks has been contracting (Kulka and Miri
2003). They cite evidence of a hyper-aggregation with 80 percent of the
biomass now concentrated in 20 percent of the area along the southwest
slope of the Grand Banks (Kulka et al. 2007). As noted by Kulka et al.
(2006), in the early 1980s, thorny skates were distributed over the
entire Grand Banks in moderate to high concentrations, but by the late
1990s, much of the biomass was concentrated in the southwest. The
proportion of the surveyed area containing no skates increased from
about 2 percent in 1980 to 1988 to 22 percent in 2004 to 2005. During
1980 to 1988, about 57 percent of the biomass was located within 20
percent of the survey area, by 2001 to 2005, 78 percent of the biomass
was concentrated into 20 percent of the survey area. Therefore, the
area occupied by thorny skates has decreased, and the population has
become increasingly more concentrated in a smaller area where bottom
temperatures are warmest. A very similar pattern of aggregation was
observed for northern cod just prior to its collapse (Rose and Kulka
1999). Kulka and Miri (2003) state that aggregation and reduced area of
occupancy led to the cod being increasingly more vulnerable to
exploitation and they state this is very similar to what is happening
to thorny skate. They do acknowledge that it is unknown whether these
spatial dynamics are an indication of a skate stock under stress. The
2007 update by Kulka and Miri noted that the species had shown a minor
re-expansion in its distribution in the past 3 to 4 years.
Kulka and Miri (2006) noted that the average weight of thorny skate
had declined from 2 kg in the early 1970s to 1.2 kg in 1996 with the
majority of this decline occurring in the 1990s concurrent with the
decline in biomass. They reported that average size had increased to
about 1.6 kg since that time. They note that the decline of thorny
skate, particularly on the
[[Page 65179]]
northern Grand Banks, is concurrent in space and time with the decline
of many other demersal species and occurred during a period when bottom
temperatures were below average.
In conclusion, in the southern part of its range in Canada, and in
the United States, we find evidence suggesting that population
abundance of thorny skate has continued to decline, and in the northern
part of its range thorny skate may be stable at a diminished abundance.
While data are still limited with respect to population size and
trends, we find the petition and our files contain sufficient
information on thorny skate trends and status to indicate that the
petitioned action may be warranted.
Analysis of DPS Information
The petition requests that we list the thorny skate population in
the Northwest Atlantic as a threatened or endangered DPS and presents
arguments that thorny skate in the Northwest Atlantic meet the criteria
to be considered a DPS, as described in the 1996 joint NMFS and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service DPS policy (61 FR 4722; February 7,
1996). Alternatively, the petition requests that we list the thorny
skate population in the United States as a threatened or endangered DPS
and presents arguments that thorny skate in U.S. waters meet
requirements for being identified as a DPS eligible for listing. Our
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
species to which it belongs. A population segment of a vertebrate
species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the
following conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical,
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors--quantitative measures
of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this
separation; or (2) it is delimited by international governmental
boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation,
management of habitat conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms
exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA.
If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of the
above conditions, its biological and ecological significance will then
be considered in light of Congressional guidance (see Senate Report
151, 96th Congress, 1st Session) that the authority to list DPSs be
used ``sparingly'' while encouraging the conservation of genetic
diversity. In carrying out this examination, the Services will consider
available scientific evidence of the discrete population segment's
importance to the taxon to which it belongs. This consideration may
include, but is not limited to, the following: (1) Persistence of the
discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique
for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population
segment would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon; (3)
evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; or
(4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from
other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
The petitioners state the Northwest Atlantic thorny skate
population, encompassing Canadian and U.S. waters, satisfies both the
``discrete'' and ``significant'' requirements for DPS identification.
They state that the Northwest Atlantic population is discrete because
it is markedly separated from other populations due to physical and
biological factors.
The petitioners describe the results of tagging studies (Templeman
1984, Templeman 1987, Walker et al. 1997) and suggest that thorny skate
are a relatively sedentary species in both the Northwest and Northeast
Atlantic. They use the maximum distance traveled from a tagging
location (386 km; Templeman 1984), the small portion of the tagged
individuals that traveled more than 161 km (13 percent; Templeman 1984)
in the Northwest Atlantic, the small portion of tagged individuals that
traveled more than 93 km in the North Sea (15 percent; Walker et al.
1997), and the conclusions of Templeman (1987) that ``large scale
migrations did not occur'' between the Grand Banks and Labrador Shelf
to conclude that long distances may hinder thorny skates from embarking
on long enough migrations to travel between the Northeast and Northwest
Atlantic. The petitioners claim that there is no indication that a
significant portion of the populations travel between the Northeast and
Northwest Atlantic. These studies rely solely on conventional tagging
data and only report the distance between the tagging location and the
location of recapture. It is unknown if the maximum distances reported
between tagging and recapture location are in fact reflective of the
maximum normal or maximum possible migration distance. However, as
noted in the 2015 petition, if this is interpreted to mean that the
maximum migration is 386 km, this is not far enough to allow for trans-
Atlantic migration, and this could support the petitioner's claim that
separate, isolated Northwest and Northeast Atlantic populations of
thorny skate exist.
The petitioners present some information on available genetic
studies of thorny skate. They state that the findings of Coulson et al.
(2011) suggest that genetic diversity may exist in thorny skate and
that this is indicative of population structure. The petitioners also
address the findings of Chevolet et al. (2007) and question the
validity of Chevolet et al.'s conclusions. The results of Coulson et
al. (2011) indicate that thorny skate showed the highest level of
within-species divergence (0.8 percent) across all skate species from
Atlantic Canada examined, but this was largely due to a single
individual, collected off the Gulf of Maine, with 3-4 percent sequence
divergence from the other thorny skates examined. Coulson et al. (2011)
also note that, with the exception of one other species (for which only
two samples were tested), thorny skate showed the highest levels of
both haplotype and nucleotide diversity; this was true even when the
Gulf of Maine sample was excluded.
The petitioners interpret Chevolet et al. (2007) to note that the
near absence of genetic differentiation in thorny skate over the North
Atlantic does not conform to predictions based on life history
characteristics, and they acknowledge that the lack of power related to
small sample size and the use of only one molecular marker might
explain this. However, the authors note that a parallel study using the
same marker for another skate species did find strong and highly
significant structure at the ocean basin scale. The petitioners claim
that this is not credible because the other study (Chevolet 2006) deals
with a different skate species with different phylogeographic and
population genetic structure patterns and because it does not minimize
the problems associated with a small sample size. The only other
information in our files is a study (Ostrow et al. 2008) that concluded
there was no significant population structuring between phenotypically
different thorny skate within the Gulf of Maine or between thorny skate
samples from the Gulf of Maine and Canada. This suggests that mixing
may occur between thorny skate in the Gulf of Maine and Canada. The
authors also concluded that the number of migrants between the Gulf of
Maine and Canada indicated large amounts of gene flow suggesting that
genetic isolation had not occurred
[[Page 65180]]
between any of the groups. The petitioners also note a statement in
COSEWIC (2012) that states that large morphological and reproductive
differences among thorny skates in different areas in conjunction with
indications of minimal migration suggest that there could be spatial
variation in population structure.
The available genetic studies present conflicting information on
the potential for significant differences between populations of thorny
skate. We conclude that, viewed together, the genetics and tagging
information presented in the petition combined with the information in
our files present sufficient evidence that the DPS policy's criterion
for discreteness may be met for the Northwest Atlantic population of
thorny skate.
The petitioner argues that thorny skate in the Northwest Atlantic
are significant because the loss of this population would result in a
significant reduction in the species' range with no significant
evidence that populations outside of this range could recolonize these
waters. While not clearly stated, we presume the petitioners based this
on the tagging information presented in their arguments for
discreteness. The petitioners also claim that the separate assessments
and classifications of the Northwest and Northeast Atlantic stocks of
thorny skate by the IUCN are evidence that the populations are discrete
and significant. The petitioners do not present any analysis to support
the claim that the IUCN stock determination is equivalent to a
determination that a population meets the significance criterion in the
DPS policy. However, based on the tagging information, we conclude that
the petition presents sufficient evidence that the DPS policy's
criterion for significance, particularly the ``significant gap''
consideration, may be met for the Northwest Atlantic population of
thorny skate. Because the Northwest population of thorny skate may
qualify as a DPS, we will consider it a potentially listable entity for
purposes of this 90-day finding, and whether the Northwest Atlantic
population of thorny skate constitutes a DPS will receive further
analysis in the status review.
The petition claims the thorny skate population in U.S. waters also
satisfies the discreteness and significance criteria for DPS
designation. The petition claims that the U.S. population is discrete,
because it is delimited by international governmental boundaries
(delineating the United States and Canada) and significant differences
exist in the control of exploitation, conservation status, and
regulatory mechanisms. The petition presents information on differences
in management regimes between the United States and Canada, notably
that possession and landing of thorny skate is prohibited in the United
States and a directed fishery occurs for thorny skate in Canada and
suggests that regulatory mechanisms in Canada are inadequate. The
petition also describes management by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Organization (NAFO), which sets catch limits for thorny skate in the
Northwest Atlantic. The petitioners claim that evidence suggests that
the U.S. DPS may be discrete because it is markedly separated from the
Canadian population as a consequence of physical and/or ecological
factors. To support this, the petitioners point to the hyper-aggregated
population along the southwest slope of the Grand Banks in Canadian
waters (Kulka et al. 2007) and the relatively concentrated populations
of thorny skates in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank offshore strata
in U.S. waters (NEFMC 2009). The petitioner argues that the thorny
skate population in the United States is also significant because the
loss of this population would result in a significant gap in the
species' range. We find that the petition presents substantial evidence
that the DPS policy's criteria for discreteness and significance may be
met for the U.S. population of thorny skate. Because the U.S.
population of thorny skate may qualify as a DPS, we will consider it a
potentially listable entity for purposes of this 90-day finding, and
whether the U.S. population of thorny skate constitutes a DPS will
receive further analysis in the status review.
Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors
The petition provides information on all five factors but asserts
that the continued survival of the thorny skate is endangered by three
of the five factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA: (B)
Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Skates are harvested in two different fisheries, one for lobster
bait and one for wings for food. The fishery for lobster bait is a more
historical and directed skate fishery, involving vessels primarily from
Southern New England ports that target a combination of little skates
and to a much lesser extent, juvenile winter skates. The fishery for
skate wings evolved in the 1990s as skates were promoted as an
underutilized species. The wing fishery involves a larger number of
vessels located throughout the region. Vessels tend to catch skates
when targeting other species like groundfish, monkfish, and scallops
and land them if the price is high enough (NEFMC 2009).
Thorny skates in the Atlantic U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone have
been managed under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by the New
England Fishery Management Council's fishery management plan for the
Northeast (NE) Skate Complex (Skate FMP) since September 2003. Since
that time, possession and landing of thorny skates has been prohibited,
but the survey biomass index has continued to decline. It is important
to note that based on the limited productivity of this species (long-
lived, late maturity, low fecundity, etc.), rebuilding to target levels
(4.12 kg/tow) was estimated to take at least 25 years (i.e., 2028)
(NEFMC 2009). The thorny skate's low productivity makes it vulnerable
to exploitation, but also suggests that the population is inherently
slow to respond to fishery management efforts.
The petition states that population estimates for the thorny skate
in Canadian waters indicate stable, but not increasing numbers, and in
the waters of the United States, biomass indices have been declining
for decades, despite the federal ban on the landing and possession of
thorny skates since 2003. The petition claims that thorny skate
populations have been historically exploited at unsustainable rates.
They state that participation in the commercial skate wing fishery in
the Northwest Atlantic has grown dramatically over the past 30 years.
They cite the initiation of a directed skate fishery in Canada in 1994
and an increase in skate landings in U.S. waters between the early
1980s and 2007. The petitioners note that biomass indices in Canada
indicate that the species is maintaining relatively stable population
numbers at very low levels. They claim the thorny skate population in
U.S. waters continues to decline and state that the lack of regulation
prior to 2003 reduced the population. The petitioners claim that
current, and historical, overfishing has deleterious effects on the
species population in U.S. waters and is a significant factor in the
species' continued decline.
The petitioners claim that reports of illegal thorny skate landings
suggest that thorny skates are being exploited in the commercial wing
market. They state
[[Page 65181]]
that in the United States prior to August 2014, skate landings were not
required to be reported by species. They cite NEFMC (2009), reporting
that thorny skate wings composed 6.7 percent and 3 percent of the
sampled dockside landings of skate wings in Massachusetts and Maine,
respectively, from 2006-2007. However, according to port sampler data
provided by the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office's
Analysis and Program Support Division, the occurrence of thorny skates
in skate wing landings has been significantly reduced since 2006. Out
of 50,653 skate wings sampled between 2007 and 2010, only 353 (0.7
percent) were identified as thorny skate wings. The available
information does not suggest that illegal landings are impacting thorny
skate populations to a degree that raises concern that the species may
be at risk of extinction.
The petitioners acknowledge that in contrast to Canada's directed
thorny skate fishery, in the United States, thorny skates are primarily
taken as bycatch in groundfish trawl fisheries. They also acknowledge
that the prohibition on retention of the species means fishermen are
banned from possessing or landing thorny skates or their parts, and
Federal regulations mandate the discard of any incidentally caught
thorny skates. The petition cites the 2009 and 2010 Standardized
Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM; Wigley et al. 2011) reports, which
indicate that roughly 70 percent of all skates caught in various
fisheries were discarded. We reviewed the SBRM reports for later years
(Wigley et al. 2015, 2014, 2013 and 2012); these reports indicate that
49-63 percent of skates caught between July 2010 and June 2014 were
discarded. The petitioners claim the possibility of egregious mis- and
under-reporting of skate discards. However, other than noting that only
10 percent of selected otter trawl vessel total trips were observed
under the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program, the petitioners provide
no substantial information to support this claim of mis-reporting or
under-reporting of skate discards. The available information does not
suggest that mis-reporting or under-reporting is impacting thorny skate
populations to a degree that raises concern that the species may be at
risk of extinction.
The petitioners cite an estimate of 3,594 tons of thorny skate
discarded from otter trawl fisheries in U.S. waters from 2003-2010. The
petitioners claim that post-discard mortality for thorny skate is high
and exacerbates the thorny skate's population decline and critically
threatens stock rebuilding efforts. The petitioners cite Mandleman et
al. (2013) as support for their claim of high post-discard mortality.
This study indicates that while 72-hour post-discard mortality of a
sample of individuals retained in captivity following cage trials was
only 22 percent, the condition of many of the individual thorny skate
was poor (52 percent injury rate at time of capture; most with listless
appearance and lack of vigor at the end of the 72-hour period) and 7
day mortality was 66 percent. The authors note that the species may be
less resilient than indicated by the 22 percent 72-hour mortality rate
and cautions against the use of the 22 percent mortality rate in
management. The effects of captivity on these mortality rates are
unknown. Further review is necessary to determine if this level of
fishery-related mortality is a threat to thorny skate, but we cannot
discount it as a possible threat to the species.
Given the evidence of historical exploitation of the species and
subsequent population declines, the continued bycatch of thorny skate,
and the potentially high post-discard mortality rate, the information
in the petition and in our files leads a reasonable person to conclude
that the petitioned action may be warranted.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petitioners claim that a general lack of species-specific
identification, both on-boat and at landing, poses a significant threat
to the thorny skate's survival in U.S. waters and that because thorny
skate are a prohibited species, the likelihood that the landings are
underreported is strong. They also state that misidentification and
mislabeling is a problem. The petitioner states that positive species
identification at landing is hindered because current regulations allow
vessels to possess and/or land skates as wings only (wings removed from
the body of the skate and the remaining carcasses discarded). The
petitioners also state that the designation of thorny skates as
``prohibited'', ``overfished'' and ``subject to overfishing'' allows
room for inconsistent enforcement of the law. The petition states that
the existing regulatory mechanisms provided for in the 2003 FMP are
ineffective.
As noted in the petition, in 2013, we determined that overfishing
is occurring for thorny skate. The determination that overfishing is
occurring is made when there is a decrease of more than 20 percent
between two consecutive moving averages of the biomass index. The 2011-
2013 3-year average biomass index (0.12 kg/tow) is only 3 percent of
the species' biomass target. This 3-year average index represents an
approximately 33 percent decrease from the 2010-2012 3-year moving
average (0.18 kg/tow). While not noted in the petition, in an August
2014 memorandum (August 22, 2014 memo from NEFSC to GARFO) we
determined that based on new survey data collected through autumn 2013/
spring 2014, thorny skate remained overfished and overfishing was still
occurring. Because thorny skate are a long lived species, the species
may be slow to respond to management measures. However, the
determination that overfishing is occurring suggests that, despite the
ban on possession or landing, fishing mortality is a threat that may
warrant further consideration.
As noted in the petition, the framework for the FMP for the
Northeast skate complex was adjusted in 2014 to implement a 30 percent
reduction in the skate Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC). However, as
noted in the petition, the Federal Register notice announcing the
availability of Framework Adjustment 2 acknowledges that while these
reductions in catch limits are expected to address the current
overfishing status for winter skates (not its overfished condition),
the New England Fishery Management Council intends to develop a new
skate action in 2014 to address overfishing and rebuild overfished
thorny skates. The petition correctly notes that the Framework
Adjustment 2 was not designed to address overfishing of thorny skates
and correctly notes that as of the date of the petition, no new
management action for thorny skate has been proposed.
While the determinations that thorny skate is overfished and that
overfishing is occurring do not alone indicate that the species may be
at risk of extinction, thorny skate biomass in the United States
continues to decline and appears to be at historically low levels, and
information was presented suggesting that fishing may be a contributing
factor to this decline. Based on the information presented in the
petition as well as information in our files, we find that further
evaluation of the adequacy of existing regulatory measures in the
United States is needed.
While the historical lack of species-specific trends in landings
and discards has hampered stock assessment efforts, recent data
collection efforts have greatly improved our understanding of the
species composition of the landings. As noted in the petition, in
August 2014, the reporting standard was changed. Framework Adjustment 2
to
[[Page 65182]]
the Northeast Skate FMP requires all landings be reported by one of the
seven specific skate species or by ``little/winter skate'' if an
unknown mix of the two species exists. Thorny skate wings are easily
distinguishable from legal winter skate wings with a minimal amount of
training, and port samplers and enforcement agents have received this
training. Landing of thorny skates may have been more frequent in the
past, but it has been dramatically curtailed since the prohibition on
possession went into effect. Mislabeling of skate products does not
appear to be widespread at U.S. ports, but port agents and enforcement
agents have been trained to correct mislabeling if they observe it. The
only information on mislabeling presented in the petition was about one
specimen from a seafood show in Brussels, Belgium, which we view as not
relevant to a potential listing in the United States. We conclude that
the petition does not present sufficient information to determine that
issues with landings data, misidentification or mislabeling are
impacting thorny skate populations to a degree that raises concern that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
The petition also states that regulatory mechanisms in Canada are
inadequate to protect thorny skate. They claim that by adopting NAFO's
suggested total allowable catch (TAC) limits for skate, Canada has
implemented regulations that have not successfully promoted stock
rebuilding. Finally, the petition also states that Canada lacks
substantive protective regulatory mechanisms for thorny skate and has
not afforded a conservation status by COSEWIC. As reported in the
petition, thorny skate abundance indices have stabilized in Canadian
waters in recent years while biomass indices have gradually increased
(DFO 2013), but both indices are at historically low levels. The
petitioners argue that while the average reported annual catch from
NAFO Division 3LNO from 2009-2011 is less than half the current TAC,
there has been minimal to no rebuilding of the stock during this
period. The petitioners claim there are no indications the stock is
recovering since it was brought under management and argue that both
the current TAC (reported by the petitioners as 7,000 tons, citing NAFO
2012) and the reported average skate catches are too high to promote
any stock recovery. The most recent stock assessment of thorny skate in
NAFO Subdivision 3PS (inside Canada's 200-mile limit) indicates the TAC
has been continually reduced since 2004 (13,500 tons) and is currently
at 8,500 t (DFO 2013). The Canadian research survey abundance for
Subdivision 3Ps was relatively stable from 1993-2012, while the survey
biomass index indicated a gradually increasing trend (DFO 2013). In
NAFO divisions 3LNO, Canadian research survey indices declined rapidly
until the early 1990s; abundance indices were relatively stable in
1993-2012, while the survey biomass indices have generally been
increasing (DFO 2013). DFO 2013 acknowledges that since the 1980s,
thorny skate has undergone substantial changes in its distribution and
has become increasingly aggregated in subdivision 3Ps, and on the
southern part of the Grand Banks. They state that this results in a
decreasing area of occupancy and increasing catch rates in commercial
fisheries occurring in those aggregation areas. The report also
indicates that discarding of skate bycatch at sea remains unreported by
Canadian and other fishers, which results in higher removals of thorny
skate than available fisheries statistics indicate and that commercial
skate landings from Canada's EEZ are not required to be reported by
species. The report concludes that despite a number of years of reduced
commercial landings, there was no recovery of thorny skate in the
3LNOPs stock area despite apparently stable abundance in the 3Ps
portion and that biomass and abundance indices for the entire division
3LNO and subdivision 3Ps thorny skate stock area remain at relatively
low levels. Based on the information presented in the petition as well
as information in our files, we find that further evaluation of the
adequacy of existing regulatory measures outside of the United States
is needed. Given the information presented above, the information in
the petition and in our files leads a reasonable person to conclude
that the petitioned action may be warranted.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Existence
The petition claims that global warming poses a long-term threat to
Northwest Atlantic thorny skates and their recovery from depletion.
They state that the documented global ocean warming trend could result
in a change in species composition in northern waters which could
adversely affect the thorny skate's predator-prey dynamics or introduce
new pathogens that could harm thorny skates. The petitioners provide
information on sea surface temperatures and hydrography in the Gulf of
Maine and state that one outcome will be reductions in phytoplankton
productivity. While they state that changes at the lower levels of the
food web may have consequences to animals at higher trophic levels,
they provide no information on the impacts of these changes on thorny
skate. The petitioners have not provided substantial information
indicating that potential impacts to lower levels of the food web are
causing detrimental effects to thorny skate or may be contributing or
may, in the foreseeable future, contribute significantly to population
declines of thorny skate to the point where the petitioned action may
be warranted.
They also state that global warming could result in a contraction
of the range of cold-water species such as the thorny skate. They
speculate that a range contraction could be a potential factor in the
decrease in thorny skate biomass in the Gulf of Maine and that the
amount of thermal habitat in the 5 to 15 [deg]C range has decreased
over the past two decades. The petitioners state that the majority of
thorny skates are not capable of journeys of more than 96 km and the
farthest an individual has been documented traveling is 386 km (citing
Templeman 1984) and that, as such, a large-scale northern migration to
move away from warming waters in the southern portion of their range
appears unlikely. As noted above, it is unclear what the actual maximum
migratory distance for a thorny skate is. The petitioners also claim
that thorny skate have experienced a northward shift in the center of
their biomass. More research is necessary to investigate if there is a
correlation between Gulf of Maine water temperatures and thorny skate
biomass, but the available information on thorny skate temperature
preferences suggests that this could be a possibility.
There is uncertainty regarding the role of temperature in driving
or contributing to the historical and current distribution and
abundance of thorny skate and even greater uncertainty regarding
potential future impacts of climate change. Impacts from climate change
to habitat availability or suitability could pose particular problems
for U.S. populations of thorny skate as they are at the southern extent
of the range of the species and are at historically low levels of
abundance. Further review is necessary to determine if climate change
is a threat to thorny skate. Given the evidence of range contraction
and the uncertainty regarding the role of warming ocean waters, we
conclude that the information in the petition and in our files suggests
that climate change, and warming ocean waters specifically, may be
impacting thorny skate to a degree that raises concern over their
continued
[[Page 65183]]
persistence and that should be further evaluated in a status review.
The petitioners claim that hypoxia (oxygen deficiency) has
increased in frequency, duration, and severity in coastal waters and
that this decreases the abundance and diversity of benthic macrofauna
(citing CSIS 2011). They also claim that the combination of hypoxia and
increased water temperature would reduce the quality and size of
suitable habitat for aerobic organisms whose suitable habitat is
restricted by water temperature and claim that thorny skate is such a
species. While acknowledging that any prediction of the effects of
hypoxic zones on thorny skates is speculative, the petitioners state
that any adverse impact on the species or on the abundance/distribution
of its predators or prey will severely hinder the species' ability to
recover. However, neither the petitioners nor the information in our
files indicate that thorny skate are impacted by hypoxia or that
hypoxia may be contributing significantly to population declines in
thorny skates to the point where the species may be at a risk of
extinction. As such, we conclude that the information presented in the
petition on the threat of hypoxia does not provide substantial
information indicating that hypoxia may be impacting thorny skate to a
degree that the petitioned action may be warranted.
The petitioners state that the life history characteristics of
thorny skate place the species at risk of adverse effects resulting
from natural stochastic events. However, neither the petitioners nor
the information in our files indicate that natural stochastic events
are causing detrimental effects to the species or may be contributing
significantly to population declines in thorny skates to the point
where the species may be at a risk of extinction. As such, we conclude
that the information presented in the petition on the threat of natural
stochastic events does not provide substantial information indicating
that such events may be impacting or may, in the foreseeable future,
impact thorny skate to a degree that the petitioned action may be
warranted. However, given all of the information presented above on
other natural and manmade factors, particularly the warming of oceans,
the information in the petition and in our files does lead a reasonable
person to conclude that the petitioned action may be warranted, and it
is necessary to consider the impacts from other natural and manmade
factors in a status review.
Summary of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors
We conclude that the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that a combination of three of the
section 4(a)(1) factors (overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; inadequate existing regulatory
mechanisms; and other natural or manmade factors) may be causing or
contributing to an increased risk of extinction for thorny skate which
needs to be further evaluated in a review of the status of the species.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well
as information readily available in our files, and based on the above
analysis, we conclude the petition presents substantial scientific
information indicating the petitioned action of listing a Northwest
Atlantic or United States DPS of thorny skate as threatened or
endangered may be warranted. Therefore, in accordance with section
4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR
424.14(b)(2)), we will commence a review of the status of the species.
During our status review, we will first determine whether one of the
populations identified by the petitioners meets the DPS policy
criteria, and if so, whether it is threatened or endangered throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. We now initiate this review,
and thus, the Northwest Atlantic population of the thorny skate is
considered to be a candidate species (see 69 FR 19975; April 15, 2004).
To the maximum extent practicable, within 12 months of the receipt of
the petition (May 28, 2016), we will make a finding as to whether
listing either of the populations identified by the petitioner as DPSs
as endangered or threatened is warranted as required by section
4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. If listing a DPS is found to be warranted, we
will publish a proposed rule and solicit public comments before
developing and publishing a final rule. The petitioners request that we
designate critical habitat for thorny skates. ESA Section 4(a)(3)(A)
and its implementing regulations state that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall, concurrently with
listing a species as endangered or threatened, designate any critical
habitat for that species. If a thorny skate population were to be
listed as a DPS, we would follow the relevant statutory and regulatory
provisions regarding the designation of critical habitat.
Information Solicited
To ensure that the status review is based on the best available
scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information on the
thorny skate. Specifically, we solicit information in the following
areas: (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance of this
species in the Northwest Atlantic; (2) historical and current
population status and trends; (3) any current or planned activities
that may adversely impact the species, especially as related to the
five factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and listed above;
(4) ongoing efforts to protect and restore the species and its habitat;
and (5) genetic data or other information related to possible
population structure of thorny skate. 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 (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: October 16, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch, III.
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-27147 Filed 10-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P