Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Three Manta Rays as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act, 8874-8884 [2016-03638]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8874-8884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03638]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No. 160105011-6011-01]
RIN 0648-XE390


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition 
To List Three Manta Rays 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 
three manta rays, identified as the giant manta ray (Manta birostris), 
reef manta ray (M. alfredi), and Caribbean manta ray (M. c.f. 
birostris), range-wide or, in the alternative, any identified distinct 
population segments (DPSs), as threatened or endangered under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA), and to designate critical habitat 
concurrently with the listing. We find that the petition and 
information in our files present substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for 
the giant manta ray and the reef manta ray. We will conduct a status 
review of these 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 these 
two species from any interested party. We also find that the petition 
and information in our files does not present substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that the Caribbean manta ray is a 
taxonomically valid species or subspecies for listing, and, therefore, 
it does not warrant listing at this time.

DATES: Information and comments on the subject action must be received 
by April 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, information, or data on this 
document, identified by the code NOAA-NMFS-2016-0014, 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-2016-0014. Click the ``Comment Now'' icon, 
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Maggie Miller, NMFS 
Office of Protected Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East-West Highway, Silver 
Spring, MD 20910, 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 NMFS. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business 
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily 
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous 
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain 
anonymous).
Copies of the petition and related materials are available on our Web 
site at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/manta-ray.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maggie Miller, Office of Protected 
Resources, 301-427-8403.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On November 10, 2015, we received a petition from Defenders of 
Wildlife to list the giant manta ray (M. birostris), reef manta ray (M. 
alfredi) and Caribbean manta ray (M. c.f. birostris) as threatened or 
endangered under the ESA throughout their respective ranges, or, as an 
alternative, to list any identified DPSs as threatened or endangered. 
The petition also states that if the Caribbean manta ray is determined 
to be a subspecies of the giant manta ray and not a distinct species, 
then we should consider listing the subspecies under the ESA. However, 
if we determine that the Caribbean manta ray is neither a species nor a 
subspecies, then the petition requests that we list the giant manta 
ray, including all specimens in the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and 
southeastern United States, under the ESA. The petition requests that 
critical habitat be designated concurrently with listing under the ESA. 
Copies of the petition are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

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 it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information 
in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a 
``positive 90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a 
review of the status of the species concerned during which we will 
conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and 
commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a 
finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted 
within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the 
12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available 
information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day 
stage, a ``may be warranted'' finding does not prejudge the outcome of 
the status review.
    Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which 
is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, 
any 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,

[[Page 8875]]

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 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; 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.

Taxonomy of the Petitioned Manta Rays

    The petition identifies three manta ray ``species'' as eligible for 
listing under the ESA: The giant manta ray (M. birostris), reef manta 
ray (M. alfredi), and Caribbean manta ray (M. c.f. birostris). Manta is 
one of two genera under the family Mobulidae, the second being Mobula 
(commonly referred to as ``devil rays''). Collectively, manta and devil 
rays are referred to as mobulid rays and are often confused with one 
another. Until recently, all manta rays were considered to be a single 
species known as Manta birostris (Walbaum 1792). However, in 2009, 
Marshall et al. (2009) provided substantial evidence to support 
splitting the monospecific Manta genus into two distinct species. Based 
on new morphological and meristic data, the authors confirmed the 
presence of two visually distinct

[[Page 8876]]

species: Manta birostris and Manta alfredi (Krefft 1868). Manta 
birostris is the more widely distributed and oceanic of the two 
species, found in tropical to temperate waters worldwide and common 
along productive coastlines, particularly off seamounts and pinnacles 
(Marshall et al. 2009; CITES 2013). Manta alfredi is more commonly 
observed inshore in tropical waters, found near coral and rocky reefs 
and also along productive coastlines. It primarily occurs throughout 
the Indian Ocean and in the eastern and south Pacific, with only a few 
reports of the species in Atlantic waters (off the Canary Islands, Cape 
Verde Islands and Senegal).While both species are wide-ranging, and are 
even sympatric in some locations, Marshall et al. (2009) provides a 
visual key to differentiate these two species based on coloration, 
dentition, denticle and spine morphology, size at maturity, and maximum 
disc width. For example, in terms of coloration, M. birostris can be 
distinguished by its large, white, triangular shoulder patches that run 
down the middle of its dorsal surface, in a straight line parallel to 
the edge of the upper jaw. The species also has dark (black to charcoal 
grey) mouth coloration, medium to large black spots that occur below 
its fifth gill slits, and a grey V-shaped colored margin along the 
posterior edges of its pectoral fins (Marshall et al. 2009). In 
contrast, M. alfredi has pale to white shoulder patches where the 
anterior margin spreads posteriorly from the spiracle before curving 
medially, a white to light grey mouth, small dark spots that are 
typically located in the middle of the abdomen, in between the five 
gill slits, and dark colored bands on the posterior edges of the 
pectoral fins that only stretch mid-way down to the fin tip (Marshall 
et al. 2009). The separation of these two manta species appears to be 
widely accepted by both taxonomists (with Marshall et al. (2009) 
published in the international animal taxonomist journal, Zootaxa) and 
international scientific bodies (Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and Food and 
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); see CITES (2013) 
and FAO (2013)), and, as such, we consider both M. birostris and M. 
alfredi to be taxonomically distinct species eligible for listing under 
the ESA.
    The petitioners identify a third manta ray species, which they 
refer to as M. cf. birostris, or the ``Caribbean manta ray,'' based on 
their interpretation of data from Clark (2001). Clark (2001) is a 
Master's thesis that examined the population structure of M. birostris 
from the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. This study was conducted prior to 
the splitting of the monospecific Manta genus, and, as such, all of the 
manta rays identified in the study are referred to as M. birostris. 
However, the petitioners argue that the genetic differences between 
populations discussed in Clark (2001) provide support for the 
differentiation of the Caribbean manta ray from M. birostris. Clark 
(2001) examined sequences of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 18 manta 
ray individuals and calculated the genetic divergence among haplotypes. 
Based on these estimates, Clark (2001) divided the 18 individuals into 
three operational taxonomic units: A Western Pacific unit (which 
included samples from Hawaii, French Frigate Shoals, Yap, and Fiji; 
n=5), a Baja unit (which included samples from two individuals from the 
Gulf of Mexico; n=10), and a Gulf of Mexico unit (n=3). The results 
showed low genetic divergence among samples from the Western Pacific 
(0.038-0.076 percent sequence divergence), hence their taxonomic 
grouping. Based on findings and distribution maps from Marshall et al. 
(2009), these samples were all likely taken from M. alfredi 
individuals. Similarly, the Baja samples were likely all from M. 
birostris individuals. Clark (2001) notes that the mtDNA haplotypes 
from the five individuals collected in the Gulf of Mexico formed two 
groups with percent sequence divergence values that were similar in 
magnitude to estimates obtained from geographically distinct samples. 
In other words, the mtDNA haplotypes from three of the Gulf of Mexico 
individuals were as distant genetically from the other two Gulf of 
Mexico individuals (0.724-0.80 percent sequence divergence) as samples 
from the Western Pacific unit were compared to the Baja unit (0.609-
0.762 percent). Furthermore, the two Gulf of Mexico samples, which had 
identical sequences, were similar genetically to haplotype samples from 
Baja (0.076-0.228 percent sequence divergence), with phylogenetic 
analysis strongly supporting the pooling of these samples with the Baja 
taxonomic unit. The other Gulf of Mexico group (n=3) showed percent 
sequence divergence values ranging from 0.647-0.838 percent when 
compared to the Baja taxonomic unit and to the Western Pacific unit. 
The most parsimonious tree representing the phylogenic relationship 
among the mtDNA haplotypes had three well-supported clades that 
differed from one another by at least 14 nucleotide substitutions: A 
clade consisting of clustered western Pacific samples, the three Gulf 
of Mexico samples as another clade, and the third clade represented by 
the samples from Baja and the two genetically similar Gulf of Mexico 
samples.
    The petitioners argue that the Gulf of Mexico clade, noted above, 
represents a third, distinct species of manta ray, which they identify 
as Manta c.f. birostris. While the genetic divergence between the Gulf 
of Mexico population and the Baja population (assumed to be M. 
birostris) was high relative to the intrapopulation values, this 
analysis was based on an extremely low sample size, with only three 
samples from the Gulf of Mexico, and thus cannot be reasonably relied 
upon to support the identification of a new species of manta ray. It is 
also important to note that this study analyzed only mtDNA. At best, 
this mtDNA evidence suggests that M. birostris females in the Gulf of 
Mexico may be philopatric (i.e., returning or remaining near its home 
area); however, mtDNA does not alone describe population structure. 
Because mtDNA is maternally inherited, differences in mtDNA haplotypes 
between populations do not necessarily mean that the populations are 
substantially reproductively isolated from each other because they do 
not provide any information on males. As demonstrated in previous 
findings, in species where female and male movement patterns differ 
(such as philopatric females but wide-ranging males), analysis of mtDNA 
may indicate discrete populations, but analysis of nuclear (or bi-
parentally inherited) DNA could show homogenous populations as a result 
of male-mediated gene flow (see e.g., loggerhead sea turtle, 68 FR 
53947, September 15, 2003, and sperm whale, 78 FR 68032, November 13, 
2013). Although very little is known about the reproductive behavior of 
the species, the available information suggests that M. birostris is 
highly migratory, with males potentially capable of reproducing with 
females in different populations. Manta birostris is a cosmopolitan 
species, and in the western Atlantic has been documented as far north 
as Rhode Island and as far south as Uruguay. Marshall et al. (2009) 
note that the available information indicates that M. birostris is more 
oceanic than M. alfredi, and undergoes significant seasonal migrations. 
In a tracking study of six M. birostris individuals from off Mexico's 
Yucatan peninsula, Graham et al. (2012) calculated a maximum distance 
travelled of 1,151 km (based on cumulative straight line distance

[[Page 8877]]

between locations), further confirming that the species is capable of 
fairly long-distance migrations. As such, it does not seem unreasonable 
to suggest that males from one M. birostris population may breed with 
females from other populations. We highlight the fact that all of the 
Gulf of Mexico samples from the Clark (2001) study were taken from the 
same area, the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, 
indicating significant overlap and potential for interchange of 
individuals between M. birostris populations, at least in the western 
Atlantic. In other words, without nuclear DNA analyses, or additional 
information on the mating and reproductive behavior of the species, we 
cannot confidently make conclusions regarding the genetic discreteness 
or reproductive isolation of the M. birostris populations in the 
western Atlantic. Therefore, at this time, we do not find that the 
petition's interpretation of the Clark (2001) results is substantial 
scientific or commercial information to indicate that M. c.f. birostris 
is a distinct species under the ESA. Furthermore, based on the 
conclusions from the widely accepted recent manta ray taxonomy 
publication (Marshall et al. 2009), to which we defer as the authority 
and best available scientific information on this topic, there is not 
enough information at this time to conclude that M. c.f. birostris is a 
distinct manta ray species. While Marshall et al. (2009) noted the 
possibility of this third, putative species, the authors were similarly 
limited by sample size. The authors examined only one physical specimen 
(an immature male killed in 1949) and concluded that ``further 
examination of specimens is necessary to clarify the taxonomic status 
of this variant manta ray.'' The authors proceed to state:

    At present there is not enough empirical evidence to warrant the 
separation of a third species of Manta. At minimum, additional 
examination of dead specimens of Manta sp. cf. birostris are 
necessary to clarify the taxonomic status of this variant manta ray. 
Further examinations of the distribution of Manta sp. cf. birostris, 
as well as, studies of its ecology and behaviour within the Atlantic 
and Caribbean are also recommended (Marshall et al. 2009).

We would also like to note that Clark (2001) was cited by Marshall et 
al. (2009), and, as such, we assume the authors reviewed this paper 
prior to their conclusions regarding the taxonomy of the manta ray 
species. Given the above information and analysis, we do not find that 
information contained in our files or provided by the petitioner 
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that M. c.f. birostris, referred to as the ``Caribbean manta ray'' in 
the petition, is a valid manta ray species for listing under the ESA. 
As such, we will consider the information presented in the petition for 
the Caribbean manta ray as pertaining to the species M. birostris, as 
requested by the petitioner. We, therefore, proceed with our evaluation 
of the information in the petition to determine if this information 
indicates that M. birostris (referred henceforth as the giant manta 
ray) and M. alfredi (referred henceforth as the reef manta ray) may be 
warranted for listing throughout all or a significant portion of their 
respective ranges under the ESA.

Range, Distribution and Life History

Manta birostris

    The giant manta ray is a circumglobal species found in temperate to 
tropical waters (Marshall et al. 2009). In the Atlantic, it ranges from 
Rhode Island to Uruguay in the west and from the Azores Islands to 
Angola in the east. The species is also found throughout the Indian 
Ocean, including off South Africa, within the Red Sea, around India and 
Indonesia, and off western Australia. In the Pacific, the species is 
found as far north as Mutsu Bay, Aomori, Japan, south to the eastern 
coast of Australia and the North Island of New Zealand (Marshall et al. 
2011a; Couturier et al. 2015). It has also been documented off French 
Polynesia and Hawaii, and in the eastern Pacific, its range extends 
from southern California south to Peru (Marshall et al. 2009; Mourier 
2012; CITES 2013).
    The species is thought to spend the majority of its time in deep 
water, but migrates seasonally to productive coastal areas, oceanic 
island groups, pinnacles and seamounts (Marshall et al. 2009; CITES 
2013). Giant manta rays have been observed visiting cleaning stations 
on shallow reefs (i.e., locations where manta rays will solicit cleaner 
fish, such as wrasses, shrimp, and gobies, to remove parasitic copepods 
and other unwanted materials from their body) and are occasionally 
observed in sandy bottom areas and seagrass beds (Marshall et al. 
2011a). While generally known as a solitary species, the giant manta 
ray has been sighted in large aggregations for feeding, mating, or 
cleaning purposes (Marshall et al. 2011a). In parts of the Atlantic and 
Caribbean, there is evidence that some M. birostris populations may 
exhibit differences in fine-scale and seasonal habitat use (Marshall et 
al. 2009).
    The general life history characteristics of the giant manta ray are 
that of a long-lived and slow-growing species, with extremely low 
reproductive output (Marshall et al. 2011a; CITES 2013). The giant 
manta ray can grow to over 7 meters (measured by wingspan, or disc 
width (DW)) with anecdotal reports of the species reaching sizes of up 
to 9 m DW, and longevity estimated to be at least 40 years old 
(Marshall et al. 2009; Marshall et al. 2011a). Size at maturity for M. 
birostris varies slightly throughout its range, with males estimated to 
mature around 3.8-4 m DW and females at around 4.1-4.7 m DW (White et 
al. 2006; Marshall et al. 2009). Generally, maturity appears to occur 
at around 8-10 years (Marshall et al. 2011a; CITES 2013). The giant 
manta ray is viviparous (i.e., gives birth to live young), with a 
gestation period of 10-14 months. Manta rays have among the lowest 
fecundity of all elasmobranchs, typically giving birth to only one pup 
on average every 2-3 years, which translates to around 5-15 pups total 
over the course of a female manta ray's lifetime (Couturier et al. 
2012; CITES 2013).
    Manta rays are filter-feeders that feed almost entirely on 
plankton. In a tracking study of M. birostris, Graham et al. (2012) 
noted that the species exhibited plasticity in its diet, with the 
ability to switch between habitat and prey types, and fed on three 
major prey types: Copepods (occurring in eutrophic waters), 
chaetognaths (predatory marine worms that feed on copepods), and fish 
eggs (occurring in oligotrophic waters). Because manta rays are large 
filter-feeders that feed low in the food chain, they can potentially be 
used as indicator species that reflect the overall health of the 
ecosystem (CITES 2013).

Manta alfredi

    The reef manta ray is primarily observed in tropical and 
subtropical waters. It is widespread throughout the Indian Ocean, from 
South Africa to the Red Sea, and off Thailand and Indonesia to Western 
Australia. In the western Pacific, its range extends from the Yaeyama 
Islands, Japan in the north to the Solitary Islands, Australia in the 
south, and as far east as French Polynesia and the Hawaiian Islands 
(Marshall et al. 2009; Mourier 2012). Reef manta rays have not been 
found in the eastern Pacific, and are rarely observed in the Atlantic, 
with only a few historical reports or photographs of M. alfredi from 
off the Canary Islands, Cape Verde Islands, and Senegal (Marshall et 
al. 2009).
    In contrast to the giant manta ray, M. alfredi is thought to be 
more of a resident species, commonly observed inshore, around coral and 
rocky reefs,

[[Page 8878]]

productive coastlines, tropical island groups, atolls, and bays 
(Marshall et al. 2009). According to Marshall et al. (2009), the 
species tends to exhibit smaller home ranges, philopatry, and shorter 
seasonal migrations compared to M. birostris. However, recent tracking 
studies, while showing evidence of site fidelity (Couturier et al. 
2011; Deakos et al. 2011), also indicate that M. alfredi travels 
greater distances than previously thought (e.g., >700 km), with 
distances similar to those exhibited by M. birostris (Convention on 
Migratory Species (CMS) 2014). Braun et al. (2014) also observed diel 
behavior in M. alfredi whereby the manta rays occupy shallower waters 
(such as reef cleaning stations and feeding grounds; <10 m depths) 
during daylight hours and move toward deeper, offshore pelagic habitats 
throughout the night. It is thought that this behavior, which has also 
been reported for M. birostris (CMS 2014), is associated with feeding, 
with mantas exploiting emergent reef and pelagic plankton that move 
into the photic zone at night (Braun et al. 2014). The authors also 
confirmed the capability of M. alfredi to conduct deep-water dives (up 
to 432 m), the purpose of which has not yet been understood.
    The reef manta ray has a similar life history to that of the giant 
manta ray; however, M. alfredi grows to a smaller size than M. 
birostris. Based on observations from southern Mozambique, reef manta 
rays can grow to slightly over 5 m DW (Marshall et al. 2009). Maturity 
estimates range from around 2.5-3.0 m DW for males, and 3.0-3.9 m DW 
for females, which corresponds to around 8-10 years of age (Marshall et 
al. 2009; Deakos 2010; Marshall and Bennett 2010; Marshall et al. 
2011b). Longevity is unknown but is thought to be at least 40 years 
(Marshall et al. 2011b). The reef manta ray is also viviparous, with a 
gestation period of around 12 months, and typically gives birth to only 
one pup on average every 2 years; however, there are reports of 
individuals reproducing annually in both the wild and captivity 
(Marshall and Bennett 2010).
    Using estimates of known life history parameters for both giant and 
reef manta rays, and plausible range estimates for the unknown life 
history parameters, Dulvy et al. (2014) calculated a maximum population 
growth rate of Manta spp. and found it to be one of the lowest values 
when compared to 106 other shark and ray species. Specifically, the 
median maximum population growth rate (Rmax) was estimated 
to be 0.116, which is among the lowest calculated for chondrichthyan 
species and is actually more similar to those estimates calculated for 
marine mammal species (Croll et al. 2015). Productivity (r) was 
calculated to be 0.029 (Dulvy et al. 2014). When compared to the 
productivity parameters and criteria in Musick (1999), manta rays can 
be characterized as having ``very low'' productivity (<0.05). Overall, 
given their life history traits and productivity estimates, manta ray 
populations (discussed in more detail below) are extremely susceptible 
to depletion and vulnerable to extirpations (CITES 2013).

Analysis of Petition and Information Readily Available in NMFS Files

    The petition contains information on the two manta ray species, 
including their taxonomy, description, geographic distribution, 
habitat, population status and trends, and factors contributing to the 
species' declines. According to the petition, all five causal factors 
in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA are adversely affecting the continued 
existence of both the giant and reef manta ray: (A) The present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors.
    In the following sections, we summarize and evaluate the 
information presented in the petition and in our files on the status of 
M. birostris and M. alfredi and the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors that 
may be affecting these species' risks of global extinction. Based on 
this evaluation, we determine whether a reasonable person would 
conclude that an endangered or threatened listing may be warranted for 
these two manta ray species.

Status and Population Trends

    The global abundance of either manta species is unknown, with no 
available historical baseline population data. Worldwide, only 10 
subpopulations of M. birostris and 14 subpopulations of M. alfredi have 
been identified and studied, and in most cases are comprised of fewer 
than 1,000 individuals (see Annex V; CITES 2013). An additional 25 more 
subpopulations are known to exist, and although species-level 
information is unavailable, these subpopulations are also assumed to 
consist of very small aggregations. Given this information, it can be 
inferred that global population numbers of both M. birostris and M. 
alfredi are likely to be small (CITES 2013).
    For M. birostris, the small subpopulations are thought to be 
sparsely distributed. In the 10 studied subpopulations mentioned above, 
the number of recorded individuals ranges from 60 to around 650 (Annex 
V; CITES 2013). The only subpopulation estimate available is from the 
aggregation site off southern Mozambique, where 5 years of mark and 
recapture data (2003-2008) were used to estimate a local subpopulation 
of 600 individuals (CITES 2013 citing Marshall 2009).
    Reef manta ray subpopulations are also thought to be small and 
geographically fragmented. The number of individuals recorded from the 
monitored aggregation sites mentioned above range from 35 to 2,410 
(Annex V; CITES 2013). Estimates of subpopulations are available from 
five aggregation sites, ranging from around 100 individuals in Yap, 
Micronesia to 5,000 in the Republic of Maldives, which, presently, is 
the largest known aggregation of manta rays (CITES 2013). Based on 
mark-recapture data, subpopulations in southern Mozambique and western 
Australia are estimated to be on the order of around 890 and 1,200-
1,500 individuals, respectively, and the subpopulation found off Maui, 
Hawaii is estimated to comprise around 350 individuals (Annex V; CITES 
2013).
    Given the small, sparsely distributed, and highly fragmented nature 
of these subpopulations, even a small number of mortalities could 
potentially have significant negative population-level effects that may 
lead to regional extirpations (CITES 2013; CMS 2014), increasing these 
species' risks of global extinction. In fact, information from known 
aggregation sites suggests global abundance may already be declining, 
with significant subpopulation reductions (as high as 56-86 percent) 
for both Manta species observed in a number of regions (see Annex VI; 
CITES 2013). [Note: As the Manta genus was split in 2009, information 
prior to this year is lumped for both species. Where possible (i.e., in 
locations where the two species are allopatric or where species is 
described or assumed), we identify the likely species to which the 
dataset applies.] For example, based on annual landings data from 
Lamakera, Indonesia, Manta spp. landings fell from 1,500 individuals in 
2001 to only 648 in 2010, a decline of 57 percent in 9 years. Fishing 
effort was also noted to have increased over those years, from 30 boats 
in 2001 to 40 boats in 2011, with no other change to gear or fishing 
practices (CITES 2013), indicating that the observed decline in Manta 
spp. could likely be attributed to a decrease in abundance of the 
subpopulation. Similarly, a 57 percent decline in Manta

[[Page 8879]]

spp. landings in Lombok, Indonesia over the course of 6-7 years was 
also observed, based on market surveys and fishermen and dealer 
interviews conducted between 2001-2005 and 2007-2011. In the 
Philippines, artisanal fishermen indicate declines of up to 50 percent 
in Manta spp. landings over the course of 30 years.
    Anecdotal reports and professional diver observational data also 
suggest substantial declines from historical numbers, with 
significantly fewer diver sightings and overall sporadic observations 
of manta rays in areas where they were once common (CITES 2013). For 
example, off southern Mozambique, scuba divers reported an average of 
6.8 mantas (likely M. alfredi) per dive, but by 2011, this figure had 
dropped to less than 1, a decline of 86 percent (CITES 2013 citing 
Rohner et al. in press). Off the Similan-Surin Islands in Thailand, 
sightings of manta rays (likely M. birostris) fell from 59 in 2006-2007 
to only 14 in 2011-2012, a decline of 76 percent in only 5 years (CITES 
2013). Declines were also observed off Japan, with manta ray numbers 
(likely M. alfredi) sighted by divers dropping from 50 in 1980 to 30 in 
1990 (CITES 2013 citing Homma et al. 1999). In Cocos Island National 
Park, a Marine Protected Area (MPA), White et al. (2015) used diver 
sighting data to estimate a decline of 89 percent in M. birostris 
relative abundance, although the authors noted that giant manta rays 
were observed ``only occasionally'' in the area over the course of the 
study. Additionally, in the Sea of Cortez, the subpopulation (of likely 
M. birostris) is thought to have completely collapsed, with manta rays 
rarely seen despite being present on every major reef and frequently 
observed during dives back in the early 1980s (CITES 2013). Anecdotal 
reports from Madagascar, India, and the Philippines reflect similar 
situations, with scuba divers and fishermen noting the large declines 
in the manta ray populations over the past decade and present rarity of 
the species (CITES 2013).
    Not all subpopulations are declining, though, with information to 
suggest that those manta ray aggregations not subject to fishing or 
located within protected areas are presently stable. These include the 
manta ray aggregations found off Micronesia, Palau, Hawaii, and 
currently the largest known aggregation off the Maldives (CITES 2013). 
However, given these species' sensitive life history traits and 
demographic risks, including small, sparsely distributed, and highly 
fragmented subpopulations (which inhibit recruitment and recovery 
following declines), we find that the declining and unknown statuses of 
the remaining 43 subpopulations to be a concern, especially as it 
relates to the global extinction risk of these two manta ray species, 
and thus, further investigation is warranted.

Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors

    While the petition presents information on each of the ESA Section 
4(a)(1) factors, we find that the information presented, including 
information within our files, regarding the overutilization of these 
two species for commercial purposes is substantial enough to make a 
determination that a reasonable person would conclude that these 
species may warrant listing as endangered or threatened based on this 
factor alone. As such, we focus our below discussion on the evidence of 
overutilization for commercial purposes and present our evaluation of 
the information regarding this factor and its impact on the extinction 
risk of the two manta ray species.

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Information from the petition and in our files suggests that the 
primary threat to both M. birostris and M. alfredi is overutilization 
by fisheries. Because both species exhibit affinities for coastal 
habitats and aggregate in predictable locations, they are especially 
vulnerable to being caught in numerous types of fishing gear and are 
both targeted and taken as bycatch in various commercial and artisanal 
fisheries (CITES 2013; Croll et al. 2015). They have historically been 
a component of subsistence fishing for decades, primarily fished with 
simple fishing gear (CITES 2013); however, international demand for 
manta ray gill rakers (sometimes referred to as ``gill plates''--thin, 
cartilage filaments used to filter plankton out of the water) has led 
to a significant increase in fishing pressure on both species. The gill 
rakers are used in Asian medicine and are thought to have healing 
properties, from curing chicken pox to cancer, with claims that they 
also boost the immune system, purify the body, enhance blood 
circulation, remedy throat and skin ailments, cure male kidney issues, 
and help with fertility problems (Heinrichs et al. 2011). The use of 
gill rakers as a remedy, which was widespread in Southern China many 
years ago, has recently gained renewed popularity over the past decade 
as traders have increased efforts to market its healing and immune 
boosting properties directly to consumers (Heinrichs et al. 2011). As a 
result, demand has significantly increased, incentivizing fishermen who 
once avoided capture of manta rays to directly target these species 
(Heinrichs et al. 2011; CITES 2013). According to Heinrichs et al. 
(2011), it is primarily the older population in Southern China as well 
as Macau, Singapore, and Hong Kong, that ascribe to the belief of the 
healing properties of the gill rakers; however, the gill rakers are not 
considered ``traditional'' or ``prestigious'' items (i.e., shark fins) 
and many consumers and sellers are not even aware that gill rakers come 
from manta or mobula rays (devil rays). Meat, cartilage, and skin of 
manta rays are also utilized, but valued at significantly less than the 
gill rakers, and usually enter local trade or are kept for domestic 
consumption (Heinrichs et al. 2011; CITES 2013).
    In terms of the market and trade of gill rakers, Guangzhou, 
Guangdong Province in Southern China is considered to be the 
``epicenter'' for trade and consumption, comprising as much as 99 
percent of the global gill raker market (Heinrichs et al. 2011). Gill 
rakers specifically from giant manta rays comprise a large proportion 
of this trade. Based on market investigations (see Annex VIII; CITES 
2013), around 30 percent of the gill raker stock in stores consisted of 
``large'' gill rakers attributed to M. birostris, and had an average 
sale price in Guangzhou of $251/kg (with some selling for up to $500/
kg). Small gill rakers attributed to Manta spp. (including juvenile M. 
birostris) comprised 4 percent of the stock but sold for the fairly 
high average price of $177/kg. In total, about 61,000 kg of gill rakers 
(from both mobula and manta rays) are traded annually. While Manta spp. 
made up about a third of this total, in terms of total market value, 
they comprised almost half (45 percent; around $5 million) of the total 
value of the trade. This indicates the higher value placed on manta ray 
gill rakers compared to mobula ray gill rakers (Annex VIII; CITES 
2013). While this trade does not significantly contribute to the 
Chinese dried seafood or Traditional Chinese Medicine industries (and 
amounting to less than 3 percent of the value of the shark fin trade), 
the numbers of manta rays traded annually, estimated at 4,653 
individuals (average), are around three times higher than the vast 
majority of known subpopulation and aggregation estimates for these two 
species (CITES 2013). In other words, the amount of manta rays killed 
every year for the gill raker trade is equivalent to removing multiple 
subpopulations of these species, and given their demographic risks of 
extremely low

[[Page 8880]]

productivity, evidence of declining population abundances, and low 
spatial structure and connectivity, we conclude that this level of 
utilization for the gill raker trade is a threat that may be 
significantly contributing to the extinction risk of M. birostris and 
M. alfredi and requires further investigation.
    The three countries presently responsible for the largest 
documented fishing and exporting of Manta spp. are Indonesia, Sri 
Lanka, and India. These countries account for an estimated 90 percent 
of the world's Manta spp. catch, yet, prior to 2013, when the species 
complex was added to Appendix II of CITES, lacked any sort of landings 
restrictions or regulations pertaining to manta rays (CITES 2013). 
Furthermore, the fact that there is no documented domestic use of gill 
rakers within these countries, with reports that income from directed 
fisheries for Manta spp. is unlikely to even cover the cost of fuel 
without the gill raker trade, further points to the significant and 
lucrative incentives of the gill raker trade as the primary driver of 
directed manta ray fisheries (CITES 2013). In fact, prior to the rapid 
growth of the gill raker trade, fishermen in Sri Lanka would avoid 
setting nets in known Manta spp. aggregation areas, and release any 
incidentally caught manta rays alive (Heinrichs et al. 2011). However, 
with the increase in the international demand and high value for gill 
rakers, fishermen are now landing all Manta spp. and CITES (2013) warns 
that directed and opportunistic fisheries may develop elsewhere.
    In the Pacific, directed fisheries for manta rays already exist (or 
existed) in many areas, including China, Tonga, Peru, and Mexico. In 
Zhejiang, China, Heinrichs et al. (2011) (citing Hilton 2011) estimate 
that fisheries currently targeting manta rays land around 100 
individuals per year (species not identified). While subpopulation 
estimates in this area are unknown, it is likely that this level of 
fishing mortality is contributing to local population declines as 
evidenced by the fact that sightings of manta rays (likely M. alfredi) 
at nearby Okinawa Island, Japan, have fallen by over 70 percent since 
the 1980s (CITES 2013). Directed fisheries in the eastern Pacific may 
also likely be contributing to the overexploitation of manta ray 
subpopulations. Heinrichs et al. (2011), citing to a rapid assessment 
of the mobulid fisheries in the Tumbes and Piura regions of Peru, 
reported estimated annual landings of M. birostris on the order of 100-
220 rays. The petition asserts that this estimate is based on limited 
data and interviews and, as such, should be viewed as an absolute 
minimum for the region. Of concern, in terms of risk of extirpations 
and extinction of M. birostris, is the fact that this assumed minimum 
level of take is equivalent to about one third of the estimate of the 
closest known, largest, but also protected aggregation of giant manta 
rays off the Isla de la Plata, Ecuador. While the manta rays targeted 
by the Peruvian fishermen may comprise a separate subpopulation, given 
the seasonal migratory behavior of M. birostris, it is also possible 
that the take consists of animals from the protected aggregation as 
they migrate south (Heinrichs et al. 2011). Regardless, given the very 
small estimated sizes of M. birostris aggregations (range 60-650 
individuals) coupled with the species' sensitive life history traits, 
even low levels of fishing mortality can quickly lead to depletion of 
subpopulations and drive overall population levels down to functional 
extinction. In fact, evidence of the rapid decline of M. birostris from 
directed fishing efforts in the eastern Pacific is most apparent in the 
Sea of Cortez, Mexico. Prior to the start of targeted fishing (which 
began in the 1980s), the giant manta ray was reportedly common on every 
major reef in the area. In 1981, a filmmaker reported seeing three to 
four manta rays during every dive while filming; however, in a follow-
up project, conducted only 10 years later, not a single giant manta ray 
was observed (CITES 2013). Within a decade of the start of directed 
manta ray fishing, the M. birostris population in the Sea of Cortez had 
collapsed, and reportedly still has not recovered (CITES 2013), despite 
a 2007 regulation prohibiting the capture and retention of the species 
in Mexican waters (NOM-029-PESC-2006).
    Manta rays may also be at risk of extinction in the Indo-Pacific 
region, where the number of fisheries directly targeting manta species 
has substantially increased over the past decade, concurrent with the 
rise in the gill raker trade. This targeted fishing has already led to 
substantial declines in the numbers and size of Manta populations, 
particularly off Indonesia. Many shark fishermen have also turned to 
manta ray targeted fishing following the collapse of shark populations 
throughout the region (CITES 2013 citing Donnelly et al. 2003). As 
recently as 2012, Manta spp. fisheries were noted in Lamalera, Tanjung 
Luar (Lombok), Cilacap (Central Java), Kedonganan (Bali), and the Wayag 
and Sayan Islands in Raja Ampat, Indonesia (Heinrichs et al. 2011; 
CITES 2013). In Lamakera, as technology improved and fishermen replaced 
their traditional dugout canoes with motorized boats, catch rates of 
Manta spp. increased by an order of magnitude above historical levels 
(CITES 2013 citing Dewar 2002). This intense fishing pressure on a 
species that is biologically sensitive to depletion subsequently led to 
noticeable declines in populations. In Lombok, for example, a survey of 
fishermen and local processing facilities indicated that manta ray 
catches have declined in recent years (around 57 percent), with the 
average size of a manta ray now less than half of what it was 
historically, a strong indication of overutilization of the species 
(Heinrichs et al. 2011). Based on data from 2001-2012, Indonesian 
landings were estimated to be around 1,026 per year, the largest for 
any country, and attributed to M. birostris, although M. alfredi are 
also present in this region (Annex VII; CITES 2013). Given the observed 
declines in both size and catch of manta rays throughout the region, in 
relatively short periods of time (over 9 years in Lamakera; 6-7 years 
in Tanjung Luar, Lombok) that are notably less than one generation (~25 
years) for either species, we find that the available information 
indicates that overutilization of manta rays in this region may be a 
significant threat to both species and is cause for concern.
    Similarly, in the Philippines, recent exploitation of manta rays 
through targeted fishing efforts has also contributed to significant 
and concerning declines. Artisanal fishermen note that directed fishing 
on Manta species (likely M. birostris) in the Bohol Sea started in the 
1960s, but really ramped up in the early 1990s and consequently led to 
population declines of up to 50 percent by the mid-1990s (CITES 2013 
citing Alava et al. 2002). Similar declines were observed for the local 
population of manta rays (species not identified; although petition 
refers to them as M. alfredi) in the Sulu Sea off Palawan Island, with 
estimates of between 50 and 67 percent over the course of 7 years (from 
the 1980s to 1996) (CITES 2013). Although there is presently a ban on 
catching and selling manta rays in the Philippines, Heinrichs et al. 
(2011) reports that enforcement varies, with locals continuing to eat 
manta ray meat in line with their cultural practices. Furthermore, in 
2011, Hong Kong traders identified the Philippines as a supplier of 
dried gill rakers, indicating that fishermen may still be actively 
targeting the species for trade (Heinrichs et al. 2011). Manta rays

[[Page 8881]]

are now considered rare throughout the Philippines (CITES 2013), and, 
as such, any additional mortality on these species, either through 
incidental fishing or illegally directed fishing, may have significant 
negative effects on the viability of giant and reef manta ray 
populations.
    In the Indian Ocean, directed fisheries for manta rays exist in Sri 
Lanka, India, Thailand, and are known from several areas in Africa, 
including Tanzania and Mozambique. As mentioned previously, Sri Lanka 
is one of the top three nations in terms of manta ray landings, with 
estimates totaling around 1,055 M. birostris individuals per year 
(Heinrichs et al. 2011; CITES 2013), the second highest amount behind 
Indonesia. Historically, fishermen in Sri Lanka would catch manta rays 
primarily as bycatch or avoid them altogether; however, as the gill 
raker market took shape and demand increased (with reports of gill 
rakers selling for as much as 250 times the price of meat), fishermen 
gained incentive to actively target mobulids (both manta and devil 
rays) (Heinrichs et al. 2011). As direct targeting of manta rays 
increased, a corresponding decrease in catches was reported by 
fishermen, particularly over the past 3-5 years (Heinrichs et al. 
2011). Of concern, as it relates to the extinction risk of particularly 
the giant manta ray, is the fact that a large proportion of the 
identified M. birostris landings are reportedly immature. Based on 
available data from Negombo and Mirissa fish market surveys, at least 
87 percent (possibly up to 95 percent; CITES 2013) of the M. birostris 
sold in the markets are juveniles and sub-adults (Heinrichs et al. 
2011). Although the proportion of these fish markets to total Sri 
Lankan manta ray landings is not provided, the direct targeting and 
removal of immature manta rays can have negative impacts on the 
recruitment of individuals to the populations, and may likely explain 
the decrease in catches observed by Sri Lankan fishermen in recent 
years. Furthermore, these data also suggest that fishermen in Sri Lanka 
are potentially exploiting a ``nursery'' ground for manta rays, which, 
if found to be true, would be the first identified juvenile aggregation 
site in the world (Heinrichs et al. 2011). In fact, aggregations 
consisting of primarily immature individuals are extremely rare, with 
only one other subpopulation identified (off Egypt's Sinai Peninsula) 
where observations of immature manta rays outnumber adults (CITES 
2013). Given the predominance of immature manta rays and recent 
decreases in catches, we find that present utilization levels and the 
impacts of this potential nursery ground exploitation, particularly on 
the manta ray populations in this area (especially M. birostris 
populations, although M. alfredi is also noted in this region but not 
identified in the available information), are threats contributing to a 
risk of extinction that is cause for concern.
    In India, which has the second largest elasmobranch fishery in the 
world, Heinrichs et al. (2011) report manta ray landings of around 690 
individuals per year (based on data from 2003-2004). However, the 
authors also caution that these landings data from the Indian trawl and 
gillnet fleets targeting sharks, skates, and rays, are likely largely 
underreported given the limited oversight of these fisheries. Although 
the exact extent of utilization of manta ray species in Indian waters 
is unknown, decreases in overall mobulid catches have been observed in 
several regions, including Kerala, along the Chennai and Tuticorin 
coasts, and Mumbai (CITES 2013). These declines are despite increases 
in fishing effort, suggesting that abundance of mobulids has likely 
decreased in these areas as a result of heavy fishing pressure and 
associated levels of fishery-related mortality (CITES 2013).
    Harpoon fisheries that target Manta spp. also exist on both coasts 
of India, but landings data are largely unavailable. Despite the lack 
of data, anecdotal reports suggest that the level of utilization by 
these fisheries may also be contributing to the decline of these 
species within the region. For example, prior to 1998, landings of 
manta rays (thought to be M. alfredi) were reportedly abundant in a 
directed harpoon fishery operating at Kalpeni, off Lakshadweep Islands; 
however, based on personal communication from a local dive operator, 
this harpoon fishery no longer operates because manta ray sightings 
around the Lakshadweep Islands are now a rare occurrence. Similarly, 
dive operators in Thailand have observed increased fishing for Manta 
spp. off the Similan Islands, including within Thai National Marine 
Parks, with corresponding significant declines in sightings (Heinrichs 
et al. 2011). Specifically, during the 2006-2007 season, professional 
dive operators sighted 59 Manta individuals; however, 5 years later, 
sightings had fallen by 76 percent, with only 14 Manta individuals 
spotted during the 2011-2012 season (CITES 2013).
    Across the Indian Ocean, manta rays are also likely at risk of 
overutilization; however, data are severely lacking. Off Mozambique, 
Marshall et al. (2011b) estimate that subsistence fishermen, alone, 
catch around 20-50 M. alfredi annually in a 100 km area/length of 
coast. This area corresponds to less than five percent of the 
coastline; however, fisheries in this region are widespread and, 
therefore, the actual landings of manta rays are likely significantly 
more (Marshall et al. 2011b). In fact, based on a study on the 
abundance of manta rays in southern Mozambique, Rohner et al. (2013) 
(cited by Croll et al. (2015)) provides evidence of the impact of the 
current level of utilization on manta ray species. From their findings, 
the authors report declines of up to 88 percent in the abundance of the 
heavily fished M. alfredi over the past 8 years (Heinrichs et al. 2011; 
CITES 2013; Croll et al. 2015), but a relatively stable abundance trend 
in the un-targeted M. birostris. These data further confirm the extreme 
vulnerability of the manta ray species to depletion from fisheries-
related mortality in relatively short periods of time, and raise 
significant cause for concern for the species' viability in areas where 
they are being directly targeted or landed as bycatch.
    In the Atlantic, the only known directed fishing of Manta spp. 
occurs seasonally off Dixcove, Ghana, where the meat is consumed 
locally, but manta rays have also been reported as targets of the mesh 
drift gillnet fishery that operates year-round in this area (Heinrichs 
et al. 2011; CITES 2013). Manta spp. are also reportedly illegally 
caught off Mexico's Yucatan peninsula (Graham et al. 2012; CITES 2013), 
but without additional information, the extent of utilization of the 
species in this region is unknown.
    In addition to the threat from directed fisheries, manta rays are 
susceptible to being caught as bycatch in many of the international 
fisheries operating throughout the world, with present utilization 
levels contributing to their extinction risk that may be cause for 
concern. According to Croll et al. (2015), mobulids (manta and devil 
rays) have been reported as bycatch in 21 small-scale fisheries in 15 
countries and 9 large-scale fisheries in 11 countries. In terms of the 
estimated impact of bycatch rates on extinction risk, the commercial 
tuna purse seine fisheries are thought to pose one of the most 
significant threats to mobulids, given the high spatial distribution 
overlap of tunas and mobulids coupled with the global distribution and 
significant fishing effort by the tuna purse seine fisheries (Williams 
and Terawasi 2011; Croll et al. 2015). Based on extrapolations of 
observer data, Croll et al. (2015) estimated an average annual capture 
of

[[Page 8882]]

2,774 mobulids in the Eastern Pacific, 7,817 in the Western and Central 
Pacific, 1,936 mobulids in the Indian Ocean, and 558 in the Atlantic 
Ocean.
    While the above data are lumped for all mobulids, specific observer 
data on manta rays suggest that present bycatch levels may have 
potentially serious negative population-level impacts on both manta ray 
species. In the Atlantic Ocean, for example, observer data from 2003-
2007 showed manta rays (presumably M. birostris) represented 17.8 
percent of the total ray bycatch in the European purse seine tuna 
fishery operating between 10[deg] S. and 15[deg] N. latitude off the 
African coast (Amand[egrave] et al. 2010). While only 11 total giant 
manta rays were observed caught over the study period, observer 
coverage averaged a mere 2.9 percent (Amand[egrave] et al. 2010), 
suggesting the true extent of M. birostris catch may be significantly 
greater. In fact, within the Mauritanian exclusive economic zone (EEZ) 
alone, Zeeberg et al. (2006) estimated an annual removal rate of 
between 120 and 620 mature manta rays by large foreign trawlers 
operating off the western coast of Africa, which the authors deemed 
likely to be an unsustainable rate. This removal rate is especially 
troubling in terms of its impact on the extinction risk of both 
species, given that the only known populations of M. alfredi in the 
Atlantic Ocean occur within this region (off Senegal, Cape Verde and 
Canary Islands), and that this level of take is equivalent to the 
subpopulation sizes of M. birostris (estimates of 100-1000) and M. 
alfredi (100-1500, with the exception of 5,000 in Maldives) found 
throughout the world. As such, utilization of manta ray species at this 
level may likely be contributing to population declines in this region 
for giant manta rays and could easily lead to the extirpation of reef 
manta rays from the Atlantic Ocean, if this has not already occurred. 
(Based on information in the petition and in our files, we could not 
verify the year of the most recent observations of M. alfredi off Cape 
Verde or the Canary Islands. The evidence of M. alfredi off Senegal is 
based on historical reports and photos from 1958; (Marshall et al. 
(2009) citing Cadenat (1958))).
    In the Indian Ocean, manta rays are reportedly taken in large 
numbers as bycatch in the Pakistani, Indian, and Sri Lankan gillnet 
fisheries where their meat is used for shark bait or human consumption 
and their gill rakers are sold in the Asian market. Manta rays have 
also been identified in U.S. bycatch data from fisheries operating 
primarily in the Central and Western Pacific Ocean, including the U.S. 
tuna purse seine fisheries (likely M. birostris; estimates of 1.14 mt 
in 1999) (Marshall et al. 2011a citing Coan et al. 2000) and the 
Hawaii-based deep-set and shallow-set longline fisheries for tuna (with 
2010 bycatch estimates of 8,510 lbs (3,860 kg) of M. birostris and 
2,601 lbs (1,180 kg) of unidentified Mobulidae) (NMFS 2013). While 
manta rays may have a fairly high survival rate after release (based on 
1.4 percent hooking mortality rate in longline gear (Coelho et al. 
2012) and 33.7 percent mortality rate in protective shark nets 
(Marshall et al. (2011a) citing Young 2001)), significant debilitating 
injuries from entanglements in fishing gear (e.g., gillnets and 
longlines) have been noted (Heinrichs et al. 2011). The likelihood of 
bycatch mortality significantly increases when fishing pressure is 
concentrated in known manta ray aggregation areas. For example, in a 
major M. birostris aggregation site off Ecuador, researchers have 
observed large numbers of manta rays with life-threatening injuries as 
a result of incidental capture in illegal wahoo (Acanthocybium 
solandri) trawl fisheries operating within Machalillia National Park 
(Heinrichs et al. 2011; Marshall et al. 2011a). Similarly, off 
Thailand, a significantly higher proportion of manta rays show net and 
line injuries compared to anywhere else in the world, with the 
aforementioned exception off Ecuador (Heinrichs et al. 2011). Off Papua 
New Guinea, manta rays (presumably M. alfredi) are reported as bycatch 
in purse seines, and from 1994 to 2006 comprised an estimated 1.8 
percent of the annual purse seine bycatch. While the condition of the 
manta rays in these purse seines was not described, by 2005/2006, a 
sharp decline in the catches of manta rays was observed in these 
waters, suggesting the population may have been unable to withstand the 
prior bycatch mortality rates (Marshall et al. 2011b). For the most 
part, though, manta rays are almost never recorded down to species in 
bycatch reports, and more often than not tend to be lumped into broader 
categories such as ``Other,'' ``Rays,'' and ``Batoids.'' As such, the 
true extent of global manta ray bycatch and associated mortality 
remains largely unknown.
    Although there are a number of both national and international 
regulations aimed at protecting manta rays from the above threat of 
overutilization by fisheries, the petition asserts that these existing 
regulatory measures, both species-specific and otherwise, do not 
adequately protect the manta rays. In fact, as of 2013, neither India 
nor Sri Lanka, two of the top manta ray fishing countries, had 
implemented any landings restrictions or population monitoring programs 
for manta ray species (CITES 2013). In terms of national protections, 
the petition states that due to the recent splitting of the genus, many 
of the pre-2009 national laws define ``manta ray'' as a single species, 
M. birostris, and, therefore, those associated protections fail to 
protect the newly identified reef manta ray. Furthermore, even where 
protections exist, there are noted enforcement difficulties in many 
areas, with the lucrative trade in manta gill rakers driving the 
illegal fishing of the species. For example, although Indonesia 
prohibited fishing for manta rays throughout its entire EEZ in 2014, 
only 2 years prior, it was ranked as likely the most aggressive fishing 
nation for manta rays (based on landing estimates; see CITES 2013). 
Based on evidence of enforcement difficulties of prior regulations 
(particularly relating to manta rays), and citing to examples of 
illegal fishing in Indonesian waters, the petitioners note that the 
financial incentive of targeting manta rays will continue to drive 
their exploitation. In a study on the movement of manta rays between 
manta ray sanctuaries in Indonesia, Germanov and Marshall (2014) also 
recognized the inadequacy of existing regulatory measures, noting that 
although the prohibition was implemented in 2014, ``[I]n reality, 
however, it may be a long time before all manta ray fisheries in 
Indonesia are completely shut down.'' Illegal fishing, landings and 
trade of manta rays have also been reported from the Philippines, 
Ecuador, Mexico, and Thailand (Heinrichs et al. 2011; Graham et al. 
2012; CITES 2013); however, the true extent of the global illegal trade 
in manta species is not known (CITES 2013).
    In terms of regulations pertaining to the legal international trade 
in the species, all manta ray species (Manta spp.) were listed in 
Appendix II of CITES (with listing effective on September 14, 2014). 
CITES is an international agreement between governments that regulates 
international trade in wild animals and plants. It encourages 
governments to take a proactive approach and the species covered by 
CITES are listed in appendices according to the degree of endangerment 
and the level of protection provided. For example, Appendix I includes 
species threatened with extinction; trade in specimens of these species 
is permitted only in exceptional circumstances. Appendix II includes 
species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but for

[[Page 8883]]

which trade must be controlled to avoid exploitation rates incompatible 
with species survival. Appendix III contains species that are protected 
in at least one country that has asked other CITES Parties (i.e., those 
countries that have ``joined'' CITES) for assistance in controlling the 
trade.
    The listing of manta rays on Appendix II of CITES provides 
increased protection for both species, but still allows legal and 
sustainable trade. Export of any part of a manta ray requires permits 
that ensure the products were legally acquired and that the CITES 
Scientific Authority of the State of export has advised that such 
export will not be detrimental to the survival of that species. This is 
achieved through the issuing of a ``Non-Detriment Finding'' or ``NDF.'' 
The petition argues, however, that there are no clear standards for 
making this CITES NDF. Furthermore, the petition states that given the 
limited population information for the manta ray species, it will be 
difficult to even determine sustainable harvest, and coupled with the 
lack of adequate scientific capacity in many CITES member countries, 
the determinations with respect to manta ray exports will be 
inconsistent and unreliable. Ward-Paige et al. (2013) remark that 
despite these efforts by CITES, no international management plans have 
been put in place to ``ensure the future of mobulid populations,'' and 
with manta ray species only recently subject to the management of only 
one Regional Fishery Management Organization (RFMO) (the Inter-American 
Tropical Tuna Commission; Resolution C-15-04), as Mundy-Taylor and 
Crook (2013) state, ``it is expected that it will be particularly 
challenging for countries and/or territories that harvest M. birostris 
[and potentially also M. alfredi] on the high seas to carry out NDFs 
for such specimens.'' Based on the information provided in the petition 
and in our files, we are presently unable to speak to the current 
effectiveness of the CITES Appendix II listing in protecting manta ray 
species from levels of trade that may contribute to the overutilization 
of both species. Overall, we find that further evaluation of existing 
regulatory measures is needed to determine if these regulations are 
inadequate to protect the giant and reef manta ray from threats that 
are significantly contributing to their extinction risks.
    While the petition identifies numerous other threats to the two 
species, including habitat destruction and modification from coral reef 
loss, climate change, and plastic marine debris, recreational 
overutilization by the manta ray tourism industry, and predation from 
shark and orca attacks, we find that the petition and information in 
our files suggests that overutilization for commercial purposes, in and 
of itself, may be a threat impacting the giant and reef manta ray to 
such a degree that raises concern that these two species may be at risk 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their 
respective ranges. We note that the information in our files and 
provided by the petitioner does indicate that a few identified 
subpopulations of reef manta rays appear to be stable, particularly 
those which receive at least some protection from fisheries, including: 
Subpopulations in Hawaii (Maui subpopulation estimate = 350; CITES 2013 
citing personal communication), where harvest and trade of manta rays 
are prohibited (H.B. 366); the Maldives (subpopulation estimate = 
5,000; CITES 2013 citing personal communication), where export of all 
ray species has been banned since 1995, where most types of net fishing 
are prohibited, and where two MPAs have been created to protect 
critical habitat for the Maldives populations (Anderson et al. 2011; 
CMS 2014); Yap (subpopulation estimate = ~100), with a designated Manta 
Ray Sanctuary that covers 8,234 square miles (21,326 square km) (CMS 
2014); and Palau (estimate = 170 recorded individuals). With the 
passage of Micronesia's Public Law 18-108 in early 2015 (which created 
a shark sanctuary in the Federated States of Micronesia EEZ, 
encompassing nearly 3 million square kilometers in the western Pacific 
Ocean), a Micronesia Regional Shark Sanctuary now exists that prohibits 
the commercial fishing and trade of sharks and rays and their parts 
within the waters of the Republic of Marshall Islands, Republic of 
Palau, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the 
Federated States of Micronesia and its four member states, Yap, Chuuk, 
Pohnpei, and Kosrae. However, these protections cover only a small 
portion of the migratory giant and reef manta ray ranges. Additionally, 
manta rays are not confined by national boundaries and, for example, 
may lose certain protections as they conduct seasonal migrations (or 
even as they move around to feed; Graham et al. (2012)) if they cross 
particular national jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., between the 
Maldives and Sri Lanka or India), move outside of established MPAs, or 
enter into high seas.
    Overall, when we consider the number of manta ray subpopulations 
throughout the world where, based on the available information in the 
petition and in our files, their statuses are either unknown or in 
rapid decline, and yet both species appear to continue to face heavy 
fishing pressure (due to the high value of gill rakers in trade) and 
have significant biological vulnerabilities and demographic risks 
(i.e., extremely low productivity; declining abundance; small, 
fragmented, and isolated subpopulations), we find that the information 
in the petition and in our files would lead a reasonable person to 
conclude that both M. birostris and M. alfredi may warrant listing as 
threatened or endangered species throughout all or a significant 
portion of their ranges.

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 the giant manta 
ray and the reef manta ray as threatened or endangered species may be 
warranted. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA 
and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(3)), we will 
commence a status review of these two species. We also find that the 
petition did not present substantial scientific information to indicate 
that the Caribbean manta ray (identified as Manta c.f. birostris) is a 
taxonomically valid species eligible for listing under the ESA. 
However, if during the course of the status review of the giant and 
reef manta ray we find new information to suggest otherwise, we will 
self-initiate a status review of the Caribbean manta ray, announcing 
our intention in the Federal Register.
    During the status review, we will determine whether the particular 
manta ray species is in danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to 
become so (threatened) throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. We now initiate this review, and thus, both M. birostris and M. 
alfredi are considered to be candidate species (69 FR 19975; April 15, 
2004). Within 12 months of the receipt of the petition (November 10, 
2016), we will make a finding as to whether listing the giant manta ray 
and the reef manta ray as endangered or threatened species is warranted 
as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. If listing is found to be 
warranted, we will publish a proposed rule and solicit public comments 
before developing and publishing a final rule.

[[Page 8884]]

Information Solicited

    To ensure that the status review is based on the best available 
scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information on 
whether the giant manta ray and reef manta ray are endangered or 
threatened. Specifically, we are soliciting information in the 
following areas: (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance 
of these species throughout their respective ranges; (2) historical and 
current population trends; (3) life history in marine environments, 
including identified nursery grounds; (4) historical and current data 
on manta ray catch, bycatch and retention in industrial, commercial, 
artisanal, and recreational fisheries worldwide; (5) historical and 
current data on manta ray discards in global fisheries; (6) data on the 
trade of manta ray products, including gill rakers, meat, and skin; (7) 
any current or planned activities that may adversely impact either of 
these species; (8) any impacts of the manta ray tourism industry on 
manta ray behavior; (9) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and 
restore these species and their habitats; (10) population structure 
information, such as genetics data; and (11) management, regulatory, 
and enforcement information. We request that all information be 
accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, 
bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and 
(2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or 
business that the person represents.

References Cited

    A complete list of references is available upon request to the 
Office of Protected Resources (see ADDRESSES).

Authority

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

    Dated: February 16, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-03638 Filed 2-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P