Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Whitespotted Eagle Ray as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act, 28707-28713 [2024-08340]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28707-28713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-08340]



[[Page 28707]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No. 240212-0044; RTID 0648-XR130]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition 
To List the Whitespotted Eagle Ray as Threatened or Endangered Under 
the Endangered Species Act

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

ACTION: Notification of 90-day petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) to list the whitespotted eagle ray 
(Aetobatus narinari) as a threatened or endangered species and to 
designate critical habitat concurrent with the listing. We find that 
the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.

DATES: These findings were made on April 19, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and related materials are available 
from the NMFS website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/negative-90-day-findings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adrienne Lohe, NMFS Office of 
Protected Resources, (301) 427-8442, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 6, 2023, we received a petition from the Defend Them All 
Foundation to list the whitespotted eagle ray, Aetobatus narinari, as a 
threatened or endangered species under the ESA and to designate 
critical habitat concurrent with the listing. The petition asserts that 
this species is threatened by four of the five ESA section 4(a)(1) 
factors: (1) present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial 
and recreational purposes; (3) inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; and (4) other natural or manmade factors. The petition 
requests that if the species is listed as threatened or endangered, we 
promulgate a regulation under section 4(e) of the ESA for species 
similar in appearance to the whitespotted eagle ray, and if we 
determine the whitespotted eagle ray warrants listing as a threatened 
species, we promulgate a protective regulation under section 4(d) of 
the ESA. The petition is available online (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 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)). 
Because the finding at the 12-month stage is based on a more thorough 
review that encompasses all the best 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 any vertebrate distinct 
population segment (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 Services' 
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 
ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (2) overutilization 
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) 
disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 
to address identified threats; or (5) 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(h)(1)(i)) define ``substantial scientific or commercial 
information'' in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, 
or reclassify a species as ``credible scientific or commercial 
information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable 
person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that 
the action proposed in the petition may be warranted.'' Conclusions 
drawn in the petition without the support of credible scientific or 
commercial information will not be considered ``substantial 
information.'' In accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(ii), in reaching 
the initial (90-day) finding on the petition, we will consider the 
information described in subsections 50 CFR 424.14(c), (d), and (g) (if 
applicable).
    Our determination as to whether the petition provides substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned 
action may be warranted will depend in part on the degree to which the 
petition includes the following types of information: (1) information 
on current population status and trends and estimates of current 
population sizes and distributions, both in captivity and the wild, if 
available; (2) identification of the factors under section 4(a)(1) of 
the ESA that may affect the species and where these factors are acting 
upon the species; (3) whether and to what extent any or all of the 
factors alone or in combination identified in section 4(a)(1) of the 
ESA may cause the species to be an endangered species or threatened 
species (i.e., the species is currently in danger of extinction or is 
likely to become so within the foreseeable future), and, if so, how 
high in magnitude and how imminent the threats to the species and its 
habitat are; (4) information on adequacy of regulatory protections and 
effectiveness of conservation activities by states as well as other 
parties, that have been initiated or that are ongoing, that may protect 
the species or its habitat; and (5) a complete, balanced representation 
of

[[Page 28708]]

the relevant facts, including information that may contradict claims in 
the petition. See 50 CFR 424.14(d).
    If the petitioner provides supplemental information before the 
initial finding is made and states that it is part of the petition, the 
new information, along with the previously submitted information, is 
treated as a new petition that supersedes the original petition, and 
the statutory timeframes will begin when such supplemental information 
is received. See 50 CFR 424.14(g).
    We may also consider information readily available at the time the 
determination is made (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(ii)). We are not required to 
consider any supporting materials cited by the petitioner if the 
petitioner does not provide electronic or hard copies, to the extent 
permitted by U.S. copyright law, or appropriate excerpts or quotations 
from those materials (e.g., publications, maps, reports, letters from 
authorities). See 50 CFR 424.14(c)(6).
    The ``substantial scientific or commercial information'' standard 
must be applied in light of any prior reviews or findings we have made 
on the listing status of the species that is the subject of the 
petition (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(iii)). Where we have already conducted a 
finding on, or review of, the listing status of that species (whether 
in response to a petition or on our own initiative), we will evaluate 
any petition received thereafter seeking to list, delist, or reclassify 
that species to determine whether a reasonable person conducting an 
impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in 
the petition may be warranted despite the previous review or finding. 
Where the prior review resulted in a final agency action--such as a 
final listing determination, 90-day not-substantial finding, or 12-
month not-warranted finding--a petitioned action will generally not be 
considered to present substantial scientific and commercial information 
indicating that the action may be warranted unless the petition 
provides new information or analysis not previously considered.
    At the 90-day finding stage, 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 conducting an impartial 
scientific review 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 necessitates a negative 90-day finding if a 
reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would 
conclude that the unknown information itself suggests the species may 
be at risk of extinction presently or within the foreseeable future.
    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, in light of 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 such that listing, delisting, or 
reclassification may be warranted; 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 for 
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or 
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk 
classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or 
state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone will 
not provide a sufficient 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://explorer.natureserve.org/AboutTheData/DataTypes/ConservationStatusCategories). 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 ESA standards on 
extinction risk and impacts or threats discussed above.

Analysis of the Petition

    We have reviewed the petition, the literature cited in the 
petition, and other literature and information readily available in our 
files. In this section, we provide a summary of this information and 
present our analysis of whether this information indicates that the 
petitioned action may be warranted.

Species Description

    The whitespotted eagle ray, A. narinari, is a large (up to 230 
centimeters (cm) disc width (DW)) benthopelagic batoid found in warm-
temperate and tropical coastal waters (Dulvy et al. 2021). The species 
was previously thought to have a circumglobal distribution, although 
morphological, parasitological, and genetic evidence indicates that the 
species is limited to the Atlantic, while eagle rays in the Pacific and 
Indian

[[Page 28709]]

Oceans constitute separate species (Sales et al. 2019). The petition 
cites Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes (Fricke et al. 2020) and Dulvy et 
al. (2021) in its assertion that the species spans the western and 
eastern Atlantic. This contradicts Sales et al. (2019)'s conclusion 
that based on nuclear and mitochondrial markers, A. narinari is 
restricted to the western Atlantic, and samples from South Africa 
formed a monophyletic clade closest to another species of eagle ray, 
Aetobatus ocellatus, found in the Indian Ocean. Despite the apparent 
ongoing scientific debate surrounding the taxonomy of the whitespotted 
eagle ray and the genus as a whole, there is no further discussion of 
the taxonomic status of A. narinari in the petition. The petition 
asserts that the whitespotted eagle ray ranges from Cape Hatteras, 
North Carolina, to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, including the Gulf of 
Mexico, the Bahamas, and the Caribbean Islands, and in the eastern 
Atlantic, from Mauritania south to Angola, and possibly South Africa 
(Dulvy et al. 2021). We accept the petition's characterization of the 
species' taxonomy and distribution because the petition provides recent 
and reputable references for this conclusion, and because we find that 
a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would 
conclude that the petitioners' assertions are reasonably supported.
    Whitespotted eagle rays occur in the neritic zone from the low-tide 
mark to water depths of 60 meters (m), and are often associated with 
coral reefs, lagoons, and estuaries (Cerutti-Pereyra et al. 2018, Dulvy 
et al. 2021). They are highly mobile and display both migratory and 
resident behavior (Bassos-Hull et al. 2014; Sellas et al. 2015; De 
Groot et al. 2021). Whitespotted eagle rays are mid-trophic level 
predators that forage for invertebrates (often bivalves, gastropods, 
and crustaceans) in the seabed sediment, serving as bioturbators 
(Ajieman et al. 2012; Flowers et al. 2021). The species is often 
observed as solitary individuals, but can also be seen in large 
aggregations of up to several hundred individuals (Bassos-Hull et al. 
2014; Tagliafico et al. 2012). Size at maturity has been estimated at 
approximately 115-130 cm DW for males and slightly larger for females 
(Ara[uacute]jo et al. 2022; Bassos-Hull et al. 2014; Taglifico et al. 
2012). Age at maturity is estimated at 4 to 6 years (Cerutti-Pereyra et 
al. 2018). Whitespotted eagle rays exhibit matrotrophic viviparity in 
which embryos are nourished through uterine secretions and born live 
(Ara[uacute]jo et al. 2022). Between one and five young are produced in 
each litter after a gestation period of 12 months (Dulvy et al. 2021). 
Generation length for the species is estimated at 10 years, inferred 
from the slightly larger A. ocellatus which has a generation length of 
12 years (Dulvy et al. 2021).

Population Status and Trends

    The petition asserts that the whitespotted eagle ray has undergone 
dramatic population decline, largely relying on the IUCN Red List 
Assessment of the species as ``endangered'' (Dulvy et al. 2021). This 
assessment concludes that the whitespotted eagle ray ``is suspected'' 
to have experienced a population reduction of 50-79 percent over the 
past three generation lengths (30 years) due to ``actual and potential 
levels of fishing pressure'' (Dulvy et al. 2021).
    Dulvy et al. (2021) use population trend data from baited remote 
underwater videos (BRUVs) in Belize from 2009-2018 (G. Clementi and D. 
Chapman, unpublished data 2019) and a survey in Mexico spanning 2000-
2014 (J-C. P[eacute]rez Jim[eacute]nez unpublished data 2019) to 
perform Bayesian state-space population trend analysis over three 
generation lengths (30 years). The BRUV data from Belize indicated an 
increase in abundance of 7.5 percent annually, while data from Mexico 
indicate a 0.95 percent decrease in abundance annually over the 
respective time series. Additionally, Dulvy et al. (2021) state that in 
the southern Gulf of Mexico, interviews with fishermen indicated catch 
declines from 30-40 rays per night/trip from 1990 to 2000 to 10-15 rays 
per night/trip in 2019 (Cuevas-Zimbr[oacute]n et al. 2011; J-C. 
P[eacute]rez Jim[eacute]nez unpublished data 2019, as cited in Dulvy et 
al. 2021). Considering the two available population trend datasets 
(Belize 2009-2018 and Mexico 2000-2014) and extrapolating over three 
generation lengths, however, Dulvy et al. (2021) found an increasing 
population trend of 1.32 percent per year in the Western Central 
Atlantic.
    Outside of these datasets, there is little information available on 
whitespotted eagle ray population trends. Dulvy et al. (2021) rely on 
the assumption that where the species is known to be targeted in 
artisanal fisheries or bycaught in commercial fisheries (e.g., in 
Colombia, Venezuela, the Guianas; see ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors), it 
is experiencing population declines. In Brazil, personal communications 
cited in Dulvy et al (2021) from 2018 indicate that landings of the 
species in gillnets at Pernambuco have declined by about 80 percent 
since 1995, and that the species has also declined in S[atilde]o Paulo, 
where fishery monitoring between 1996 and 2002 only recorded five 
individuals. Dulvy et al. (2021) write that because unmanaged fisheries 
in Brazil have led to declines in other species, ``. . . there is no 
reason not to suspect that this species has also been reduced in 
numbers in that area.'' Based on suspected high exploitation levels and 
lack of adequate management, their assessment indicates that it is 
``suspected that this species has undergone a population reduction of 
50-79 percent over the past three generation lengths (30 years) in the 
Atlantic South American part of its range'' (Dulvy et al. 2021). It is 
unclear whether the personal communications cited by Dulvy et al. 
(2021) are based on time series data or take into account fishing 
effort or other factors. Therefore, it is unknown how accurately this 
estimate reflects the abundance of whitespotted eagle rays across this 
region. We find that, based on the information presented in the 
petition, a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review 
would conclude that some level of population decline may be occurring 
in the Southwest Atlantic, although there is not sufficient credible 
scientific or commercial information to conclude that the species has 
declined by 50-79 percent.
    Trends specific to A. narinari are unavailable in the Eastern 
Atlantic, and therefore Dulvy et al. (2021) use reported catch levels 
of elasmobranchs as a proxy for whitespotted eagle ray population 
trends here. Dulvy et al. (2021) report the decline in average 
elasmobranch catch per unit effort by 71 percent from 1970-2015 and 
simultaneous increase in average elasmobranch catch by over 250 percent 
across the West Africa region, implying a dramatic increase in fishing 
effort. Trends in elasmobranch landings during this period of 
increasing fishing effort are described for individual countries in the 
region. In Mauritania, landings increased by 246 percent over 1992-
2015; since then effort has been stable and landings continued to 
increase. In Senegal, reconstructed landings (which include an estimate 
of unreported landings data, therefore increasing uncertainty) showed a 
30-80 percent decline from 2001-2016, suggesting population decline. In 
Guinea-Bissau, reconstructed landings declined 22 percent from 2012 to 
2016 after rising since the 1960s. In Cameroon, there has been a 96 
percent decline in reconstructed landings from 2007-2016

[[Page 28710]]

after rising since the 1960s. There have been few recent observations 
of the species in the Republic of Congo, Mauritania, Gabon, Senegal, 
Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon or 
Angola; in certain cases, this is despite sightings of species with 
similar habitat needs and catchability. However, some confounding 
factors are at play; for example, in Ghana there are few shallow 
fishing gears likely to take the species (Dulvy et al. 2021). Dulvy et 
al. (2021) take the above information to indicate that the species has 
largely disappeared from the Eastern Atlantic part of its range. Dulvy 
et al. (2021) conclude ``it is suspected that a population reduction of 
more than 80 percent has occurred in the past three generation lengths 
(30 years)'' (Dulvy et al. 2021). While trends in elasmobranch catch 
and fishing effort are concerning, they do not provide enough species-
specific evidence for us to conclude that the whitespotted eagle ray in 
particular has followed these same trends. Further, neither the 
petition nor Dulvy et al. (2021) provide information on historical 
population sizes in the areas with few recent observations. We find 
that, based on the information presented in the petition, a reasonable 
person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that 
some level of population decline may be occurring in the Eastern 
Atlantic, although there is not sufficient credible scientific or 
commercial information to conclude that the species has declined by 
more than 80 percent.
    Altogether, Dulvy et al. (2021) conclude that the whitespotted 
eagle ray has undergone a population reduction of 50-79 percent over 
the past three generation lengths across its range. However, a 
reasonable person would conclude that this information is not supported 
by credible scientific information and is therefore unreliable given 
the only available quantitative population data for whitespotted eagle 
rays from Belize and Mexico indicate that the population is increasing 
there. Species-specific information on trends is unavailable from the 
Southwest Atlantic, the Eastern Central Atlantic, and Southeast 
Atlantic, although Dulvy et al. (2021) suspect population reductions in 
these areas. While declining elasmobranch landings, few recorded 
sightings of the species, and accounts of reduced catch by artisanal 
fishermen are indicative of potential population declines in these 
areas, we are not able to conclude that this information points to the 
dramatic population declines that Dulvy et al. (2021) infer.
    Outside of the IUCN Red List Assessment (Dulvy et al. 2021), the 
petition discusses just one other relevant study relating to population 
trends for the species. Bassos-Hull et al. (2014) observed a yearly 
decrease in number of whitespotted eagle rays observed in both aerial 
and boat-based surveys in the eastern Gulf of Mexico off southwest 
Florida from 2008-2013. The authors note, however, that without further 
study, it is unclear whether this is due to a true decrease in 
abundance over time or other factors such as sampling bias, a shift in 
range, or a clustering phenomenon in the study area during the 2008-
2009 season (Bassos-Hull et al. 2014).
    In all, we do not find that the information presented in the 
petition constitutes credible scientific information that indicates a 
dramatic decrease in whitespotted eagle ray abundance across its range 
as asserted by the petitioners. In fact, the region with available 
time-series population data shows an increasing population trend for 
the species. Information presented in the petition only points to 
potential abundance decreases in other parts of its range with little 
supporting information; the principal study the petition relies on for 
this assertion is unreliable because it rests on unsupported 
assumptions (i.e., the assumptions that, where the species is known to 
be targeted in artisanal fisheries or bycaught in commercial fisheries, 
it is experiencing population declines; and that, where elasmobranch 
catch rates are declining, the species is experiencing population 
declines) rather than data. Therefore, we do not find that the petition 
offers substantial scientific or commercial information that would 
suggest that the species' current population status and trends may 
warrant the petitioned action.

ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors

    The petition asserts that four of the five factors in section 
4(a)(1) of the ESA are adversely affecting the whitespotted eagle ray: 
(A) present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range; (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. While the petition does not state 
that factor (C), disease or predation, poses a threat to the species, 
it does argue that the species may be more susceptible to disease in 
combination with other stressors. In the following sections, we discuss 
the information presented in the petition, viewed in the context of 
information readily available in our files where applicable, regarding 
threats to this species.
(A) Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
Habitat or Range
    The petition describes the effect of destructive fishing practices, 
specifically bottom trawling, on coastal ocean habitats. Although the 
petition discusses negative impacts of trawling, including damage and 
destruction of biotic and abiotic seabed structures, increased water 
column turbidity, release of contaminants contained in seabed sediment, 
and reduced food availability for bottom-feeders, the petition includes 
no discussion of specific areas where bottom trawling activities occur 
within the range of the whitespotted eagle ray, or the intensity of 
bottom trawling activity. While the impacts of bottom trawling are 
concerning for certain marine habitats generally, the extent to which 
whitespotted eagle rays in particular may be threatened by such impacts 
is not clear based on the information in the petition.
    The petition similarly discusses impacts of coastal development and 
dredging, as well as resulting pollution and suspension of sediment, on 
marine habitats. Suspension of sediment resulting from dredging can 
cause physiological stress and changes in foraging and predation 
behavior in marine fishes (Wenger et al. 2016). Contaminants released 
from disturbed sediment (e.g., metals and persistent organic pollutants 
(POPs) such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated 
biphenyls (PCBs), and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)), have been 
shown to accumulate in, and have further negative impacts on marine 
fishes, including on the reproductive success of adults and development 
of eggs and larvae (Wenger et al. 2016). PCBs, DDT and 
hexachlorobenzene (HCB) were detected in whitespotted eagle rays off 
Australia, sometimes in high enough concentrations to cause possible 
negative long-term impacts (Cagnazzi et al. 2019). Without further 
study, however, it remains unclear whether observed contaminant loads 
lead to lower survival and/or lower reproductive success in 
elasmobranchs (Cagnazzi et al. 2019). The petition also asserts that 
sounds from dredging activity may cause harm to whitespotted eagle rays 
based on a study that found the sound of boat motors to disturb A. 
ocellatus, causing these rays to exhibit

[[Page 28711]]

escape behavior when foraging (Berthe and Lecchini 2016). It is unclear 
whether such disruptions of foraging behavior would lead to population-
level impacts to A. narinari, or whether noise from dredging would 
cause a similar response; neither of these points are addressed in the 
petition. Generally, the whitespotted eagle ray is vulnerable to 
coastal development as it uses shallow, coastal areas for breeding and 
feeding (Dulvy et al. 2021). While coastal development has the 
potential to negatively impact whitespotted eagle rays, specific 
information indicating how and where dredging and development are 
impacting the whitespotted eagle ray's habitat is not provided in the 
petition, and thus the degree to which the population may be threatened 
by this stressor is unclear.
    The petition discusses, and provides references regarding, direct 
and indirect impacts of climate change, including physical and chemical 
changes to ocean habitats (e.g., ocean warming and increasing ocean 
acidity), changes in ocean circulation patterns, declines in primary 
productivity, range shifts, increasing occurrences of extreme weather 
events and harmful algal blooms, and physiological and behavioral 
impairments in certain marine fishes. The specific effects of climate 
change on ray ecology are largely unknown, and few studies have 
investigated the impacts of climate change on the whitespotted eagle 
ray. Specific impacts that may be of concern to the whitespotted eagle 
ray that are discussed in the petition include decreased aragonite and 
calcite availability due to ocean acidification, which can hinder the 
ability of calcifying organisms such as bivalves and corals to build 
their skeletons (Branch et al. 2013; Kroeker et al. 2013). This could 
result in reduced availability of certain prey species and coral reef 
habitat for the whitespotted eagle ray to utilize. The petition cites 
Flowers et al. (2021) in its assertion that range and habitat shifts 
may result in negative effects on ray fitness through decreased ability 
to find food, increased predation risk and increased competition. 
However, the same study points out that vulnerability to climate change 
varies by species, and, in certain cases, climate change may have 
beneficial outcomes for rays (Flowers et al. 2021). The petition also 
points out that sharks and rays in particular exhibit thermotaxis, a 
behavior that involves moving to waters of different temperatures 
throughout the day. Therefore, beyond large-scale geographic range 
shifts that may occur as a result of climate change, changes in such 
small-scale movements may also be significant to the fitness and 
survival of sharks and rays (Vilmar and Di Santo 2022). In an 
assessment of shark and ray behavior in response to gradual increases 
in sea surface temperature as well as acute temperature anomalies 
caused by El Ni[ntilde]o Southern Oscillation over 27 years, A. 
narinari exhibited significantly increased relative abundance at higher 
temperatures in both cases (Osgood et al. 2021). While this study took 
place in the eastern Pacific and taxonomic revisions have limited A. 
narinari to the Atlantic (see Species Description), the results suggest 
that eagle ray species such as A. narinari could be more tolerant of 
temperature extremes than other elasmobranchs (Osgood et al. 2021). 
Although climate change has the potential to adversely impact the 
whitespotted eagle ray, the degree to which whitespotted eagle ray 
individuals or populations have been or will be affected is unclear. 
Therefore, the degree to which climate change threatens the 
whitespotted eagle ray is not clear based on the information in the 
petition.
    In summary, the petition and the references cited therein do not 
comprise substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
there is present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of the whitespotted eagle ray's habitat or range such that 
a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would 
conclude that listing may be warranted.
(B) Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes
    The petition identifies overutilization for commercial purposes as 
the greatest threat to the whitespotted eagle ray. The species is 
captured as incidental bycatch and, less commonly, in targeted 
fisheries (Tagliafico et al. 2012).
    In the Western Central Atlantic, artisanal fisheries targeting the 
species are known to exist (but ``are not well described'') in Mexico, 
Cuba, the Caribbean coast of Colombia, and Venezuela (Dulvy et al. 
2021). In Colombia, the whitespotted eagle ray is taken in gillnet, 
longline, and trawl gears (Dulvy et al. 2021). In both Colombia and 
Venezuela, artisanal fisheries are widespread, intense, and lack 
management (Dulvy et al. 2021). A study of the small, directed fishery 
in northeastern Venezuela found that while the time series analyzed 
(August 2005 to December 2007) is too short to infer changes in 
population abundance, the capture of juvenile, mature, and pregnant 
individuals is of concern (Tagliafico et al. 2012). An artisanal 
fishery targeting A. narinari exists off the coast of the State of 
Campeche in the southern Gulf of Mexico driven by the traditional 
consumption of this species there (Cuevas-Zimbr[oacute]n et al. 2011). 
According to fishermen interviewed, catches of A. narinari have 
declined over recent decades due to overfishing of the species as well 
as its molluscan prey (Cuevas-Zimbr[oacute]n et al. 2011). Data from 
Mexico's National Aquaculture and Fisheries Commission (CONAPESCA) 
indicate that in 2013, A. narinari was the second-most captured batoid 
in the region at about 40 tons each year (Rodriguez-Santiago et al. 
2016). Whitespotted eagle rays have also been caught as bycatch in 
shark gillnet fisheries in the U.S. south Atlantic, and the petition 
asserts that they are among the top bycatch species by abundance in the 
observed catches (Trent et al. 1997). However, according to information 
readily available in our files, which provides important context for 
judging the accuracy and reliability of the information presented in 
the petition, the species hasn't been observed as bycatch in this 
fishery since 2008 (NOAA Fisheries Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 
unpublished data). In all, despite the existence of artisanal fisheries 
targeting the whitespotted eagle ray in this region as well as 
interactions with commercial fisheries, available population data does 
not support the conclusion that these fisheries are causing significant 
population declines. Rather, available data sources indicate an 
increasing population trend in the Western Central Atlantic (see 
Population Status and Trends).
    In the Southwest Atlantic, artisanal fisheries and commercial trawl 
and longline fisheries along the coast of South America can be intense 
and unmanaged, and the petition asserts this has led to the 
disappearance of several elasmobranch species in the region, including 
largetooth sawfish (Pristis pristis), smalltooth sawfish (Pristis 
pectinata), daggernose shark (Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus), and smalltail 
shark (Carcharhinus porosus) (Dulvy et al. 2021). Although fishing 
pressure is heavy and many of the stocks targeted by artisanal 
fishermen are overexploited in this region (Dulvy et al. 2021), the 
petition does not present any information about the specific fisheries 
that interact with the whitespotted eagle ray, or levels of catch of 
the whitespotted eagle ray.
    In the Eastern Central Atlantic, sharks are targeted in artisanal 
fisheries across much of the region due to demand for dried salted 
shark meat (Dulvy et al.

[[Page 28712]]

2021). Specifically, drift gillnets and demersal set gillnets are used 
to target sharks and rays in artisanal fisheries of Mauritania, 
Nigeria, Ghana, and Cameroon (Dulvy et al. 2021). Population reductions 
and some local extinctions of shark and ray species have been observed 
in this region as a result of fishing pressure (Dulvy et al. 2021). The 
petition states that total demersal biomass of inshore stocks in the 
Gulf of Guinea is estimated to have declined by 75 percent since 1982 
as a result of destructive fishing practices (Dulvy et al. 2021). 
Additionally, the number of traditional and industrial fishing boats 
has significantly increased since 1950 (Dulvy et al. 2021). Although 
poorly managed fishing activity in this region is having negative 
impacts on fish stocks generally, the petition presents no information 
relating to the capture or landings of the whitespotted eagle ray in 
particular.
    Little information on the impact of fisheries bycatch on the 
species was provided in the petition. A study examining the 
physiological responses of capture on benthopelagic rays, including A. 
narinari, showed elevated lactate and glucose levels lasting the length 
of time that the rays were confined after capture (Rangel et al. 2021). 
This is indicative of increased physiological stress, and immediate 
release of captured individuals is recommended (Rangel et al. 2021). 
Mortality rates or other sublethal effects of capture on the 
whitespotted eagle ray were not addressed in the petition.
    The petition also discusses other potential sources of 
overutilization. The whitespotted eagle ray is popular in public 
aquarium displays and is collected for this purpose (Dulvy et al. 
2021). No further information on the impact of the aquarium trade on 
the species is included in the petition. The petitioners also assert 
that the species may be vulnerable to negative interactions with 
shellfish farms due to their molluscan diet. Negative interactions have 
been anecdotally reported in the Northwest Atlantic, although confirmed 
interactions generally take place with eagle rays in the Indo-Pacific 
(Dulvy et al. 2021).
    In all, while the petition presents information on fisheries 
targeting the whitespotted eagle ray in the Western Central Atlantic, 
overutilization does not appear to be occurring based on population 
increases indicated in this region. The petition does not provide 
information specific to fisheries affecting the whitespotted eagle ray 
in the Southwest Atlantic or the Eastern Atlantic parts of its range, 
although fishing pressure is generally high in these areas. There is 
little information on other potential sources of overutilization of the 
species such as the aquarium trade. Based on information in the 
petition and readily available in our files, overutilization does not 
appear to be affecting the species to such a point that a reasonable 
person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that 
the petitioned action may be warranted.
(C) Disease or Predation
    Disease and predation are not identified as primary threats to the 
species in the petition. Although the petition asserts that 
whitespotted eagle rays may be more susceptible to disease and 
parasitic infection in the face of other stressors, there is no 
evidence in the petition indicating that disease or predation are 
negatively impacting the species.
(D) Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
    According to the petition, current regulatory mechanisms are 
inadequate to protect the whitespotted eagle ray from threats posed by 
fisheries. Generally, the petition states that the lack of research, 
monitoring plans, protected areas, species management, and education 
(as determined by Dulvy et al. 2021) contribute to the species' 
decline. In the United States, while Florida has prohibited the 
harvest, possession, landing, purchase, sale, or exchange of the 
species in state waters for over two decades, neighboring states do not 
have similar regulatory measures. The petition cites Dulvy et al. 
(2021) in its assertion that similar actions in other states ``could 
contribute to the conservation of the species.'' The petition concludes 
that because harvest is allowed in nearby state and federal waters, 
regulatory measures are inadequate; however, the petition fails to 
discuss why the lack of regulations is inadequate to address the 
threats. As discussed in Population Status and Trends above, the 
species has an increasing population trend in the Western Central 
Atlantic and it is not clear why further regulation would be needed in 
this area. Internationally, 13 of the top 20 shark-fishing nations have 
completed and implemented National Plans of Action for elasmobranchs 
(Dulvy et al. 2021), and the petition argues that this leaves 
whitespotted eagle rays vulnerable to threats globally. It is not clear 
if this statistic is relevant to the whitespotted eagle ray, or where 
in the species' range regulatory actions are lacking. Overall, the 
petition does not provide substantive information regarding the 
existing regulatory mechanisms for the species outside of the United 
States, or on whether they are inadequate to manage fisheries for the 
species. Unsupported conclusions are not considered ``substantial 
information'' under our regulations (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)).
    The petition also argues that current regulatory mechanisms are 
inadequate to protect the whitespotted eagle ray from threats posed by 
climate change. While the petition discusses ways in which domestic and 
international regulatory measures are not sufficient to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions, it remains unclear to what degree climate 
change is impacting or will impact the species in particular, and 
therefore, whether additional regulations are needed to address the 
impact of climate change on the species.
    Altogether, we find that the information presented in the petition 
does not comprise substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating inadequacies of existing regulatory mechanisms such that a 
reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would 
conclude that listing may be warranted.
(E) Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
    Finally, the petition discusses threats of noise, chemical 
pollution, plastic pollution, and human disturbance. We considered 
information provided on the impacts of noise, chemical pollution, and 
human disturbance (development and dredging) under (A) Present or 
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or 
Range, above. We considered information provided on the impact of human 
disturbance through fisheries bycatch/entanglement in fishing gear in 
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes, above. The petition very briefly mentions the 
species' susceptibility to boat strikes as it inhabits coastal waters, 
although, beyond two individual whitespotted eagle rays with scars from 
boat strikes documented by Bassos-Hull et al. (2014), the petition does 
not provide any discussion of the frequency of, or impact of, boat 
strikes on the species.
    Ingestion of microplastics has been shown to result in deleterious 
effects such as inflammation, metabolic disruption, compromised 
intestinal function, and behavioral changes in bony fishes (Pinho et 
al. 2022). Microplastics can also absorb POPs and other contaminants, 
leading to further contaminant exposure when ingested (Pinho et al. 
2022). However, no information is presented in the petition

[[Page 28713]]

on the effect of microplastic ingestion in batoids. While microplastic 
ingestion poses a potential threat to the whitespotted eagle ray, the 
physiological impacts to individual rays and population-level impacts 
on survival and fitness remain unaddressed. We therefore find that 
there is not substantial scientific or commercial information provided 
in the petition indicating that the other natural or manmade factors 
named in the petition are impacting the species to such a degree that a 
reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would 
conclude that listing may be warranted.

Petition Finding

    After thoroughly reviewing the information presented in the 
petition in the context of information readily available in our files, 
we conclude the petition does not present substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted.

References Cited

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

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

    Dated: April 15, 2024.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-08340 Filed 4-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P