Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Notices 15947 

The program will satisfy the Regional 

Water Quality Control Board 

requirement to monitor mercury in 

waters downstream of historic 

quicksilver mines in the Guadalupe 

River watershed. Increased information 

regarding CCC steelhead habitat use and 

preference and proper management of 

mercury loads in this watershed are 

benefits associated with this research 

program. 

This notice is provided pursuant to 

section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will 

evaluate the application, associated 

documents, and comments submitted to 

determine whether the application 

meets the requirements of section 10(a) 

of the ESA and Federal regulations. The 

final permit decision will not be made 

until after the end of the 30-day 

comment period. NMFS will publish 

notice of its final action in the Federal 

Register. 

Dated: March 16, 2011. 

Angela Somma, 

Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office 

of Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6731 Filed 3–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[Docket No. 110309187–1185–01] 

RIN 0648–XA105 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 

Notice of 90-Day Finding on a Petition 

To List the Caribbean Electric Ray as 

Threatened or Endangered Under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a 90- 

day finding on a petition to list the 

Caribbean electric ray (Narcine 

bancroftii) as threatened or endangered 

under the ESA. We find that the petition 

does not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and 

related materials are available upon 

request from the Chief, Protected 

Resources Division, Southeast Regional 

Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, 

St. Petersburg, FL 33701, or online from 

the Southeast Regional Office-Protected 

Resources Division Web site: http://

sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

ListingPetitions.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Herndon, NMFS Southeast 

Region, 727–824–5312, or Marta 

Nammack, NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources, 301–713–1401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 7, 2010, we received a 

petition from WildEarth Guardians to 

list the Caribbean electric ray as 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA. The petitioner asserts that the 

species has declined 98 percent since 

1972 in the northern Gulf of Mexico and 

that it faces threats from incidental 

taking as shrimp trawl bycatch and also 

from habitat degradation, including the 

BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. 

ESA Statutory and Regulatory 

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 (Secretary) 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 shall 

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 distinct population 

segment (DPS) that interbreeds when 

mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint 

NOAA–U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) policy clarifies the agencies’ 

interpretation of the phrase ‘‘distinct 

population segment’’ for the purposes of 

listing, delisting, and reclassifying a 

species under the ESA (61 FR 4722; 

February 7, 1996). A species, 

subspecies, or DPS is ‘‘endangered’’ if it 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range, and 

‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) 

and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 

1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA 

and our implementing regulations, we 

determine whether species are 

threatened or endangered because of 

any one or a combination of the 

following five 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; and (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 (jointly, 

‘‘the Services’’) (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)). 

Court decisions have clarified the 

appropriate scope and limitations of the 

Services’ review of petitions at the 90- 

day finding stage, in making a 

determination that a petitioned action 

‘‘may be’’ warranted. As a general matter, 

these decisions hold that a petition need 

not establish a ‘‘strong likelihood’’ or a 

‘‘high probability’’ that a species is either 

threatened or endangered to support a 

positive 90-day finding. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
15948 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Notices 

We evaluate the petitioner’s request 

based upon the information in the 

petition including its references, and the 

information readily available in our 

files. We do not conduct additional 

research, and we do not solicit 

information from parties outside the 

agency to help us in evaluating the 

petition. We will accept the petitioner’s 

sources and characterizations of the 

information presented, if they appear to 

be based on accepted scientific 

principles, unless we have specific 

information in our files that indicates 

the petition’s information is incorrect, 

unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise 

irrelevant to the requested action. 

Information that is susceptible to more 

than one interpretation or that is 

contradicted by other available 

information will not be dismissed at the 

90-day finding stage, so long as it is 

reliable and a reasonable person would 

conclude it supports the petitioner’s 

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 at issue faces extinction risk 

that is cause for concern; this may be 

indicated in information expressly 

discussing the species’ status and 

trends, or in information describing 

impacts and threats to the species. We 

evaluate any information on specific 

demographic factors pertinent to 

evaluating extinction risk for the species 

at issue (e.g., population abundance and 

trends, productivity, spatial structure, 

age structure, sex ratio, diversity, 

current and historical range, habitat 

integrity or fragmentation), and the 

potential contribution of identified 

demographic risks to extinction risk for 

the species. We then evaluate the 

potential links between these 

demographic risks and the causative 

impacts and threats identified in section 

4(a)(1). 

Information presented on impacts or 

threats should be specific to the species 

and should reasonably suggest that one 

or more of these factors may be 

operative threats that act or have acted 

on the species to the point that it may 

warrant protection under the ESA. 

Broad statements about generalized 

threats to the species, or identification 

of factors that could negatively impact 

a species, do not constitute substantial 

information that listing may be 

warranted. We look for information 

indicating that not only is the particular 

species exposed to a factor, but that the 

species may be responding in a negative 

fashion; then we assess the potential 

significance of that negative response. 

Many petitions identify risk 

classifications made by other 

organizations or agencies, such as the 

International Union on the Conservation 

of Nature, 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 the 

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’’ 

(http://www.natureserve.org/

prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). 

Thus, when a petition cites such 

classifications, we will evaluate the 

source information that the 

classification is based upon, in light of 

the standards on extinction risk and 

impacts or threats discussed above. 

Information on Species Status and 

Extinction Risk 

The petition describes a few 

demographic factors specific to the 

Caribbean electric ray that could be 

indicative of its extinction risk, 

including: the abortion of embryos by 

gravid females when stressed, low 

survival rates of incidentally caught 

individuals, the species’ relative rarity, 

and a critically low population count. 

The petition also states that the species’ 

declines in the Gulf of Mexico and 

South Atlantic and habitat degradation 

are additional factors indicating the 

species is imperiled. These two factors 

are discussed in the ESA section 4(a)(1) 

factor analysis section below. 

The majority of the other 

demographic factors are discussed in 

the World Conservation Union’s (IUCN) 

synopsis of the threats to the species, 

which the petitioner relies heavily upon 

to support the assertion that the 

Caribbean electric ray is imperiled. The 

IUCN provides the following rationale 

for assigning a critically endangered 

classification to the Caribbean electric 

ray: ‘‘Electric rays are sluggish 

swimmers, with small home ranges, 

highly localized within an area and 

concentrating in surf zones adjacent to 

barrier beaches and on offshore sand 

bars in warm months and moving 

offshore in winter (Rudloe, 1989), 

making them susceptible to localized 

population depletion. The species is 

captured as bycatch by inshore shrimp 

trawl and other fisheries. It does not 

appear to be utilized and is discarded at 

sea, but survivorship rates are thought 

to be very low. Furthermore, abortion of 

embryos by captured gravid females is 

of concern. While specific catch data are 

lacking over most of the species’ range, 

declines to 2 [percent] (95% confidence 

intervals 0.5 to 5%) of its baseline 

abundance in 1972 have been 

demonstrated in the Northern Gulf of 

Mexico. Shrimp trawl fishing is intense 

in that area and while the 

implementation of Turtle Exclusion 

Devices and Bycatch Reduction Devices 

has lowe[re]d overall bycatch rates, 

these mitigation measures are thought to 

be ineffective for this species due to it[s] 

size and sluggish swimming ability. 

Given the species’ very low age at 

maturity it would take a very intense 

fishery to locally eliminate this species; 

however, this has been demonstrated in 

the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Further 

data showing declines of a similar 

magnitude are available from the U.S. 

east coast and Florida. While specific 

data are lacking, fishing activities, both 

artisanal and commercial in nature are 

generally intense and most often 

unregulated in shallow inshore waters 

of the remainder of the species’ range. 

Given that large declines have been 

documented in U.S. waters where data 

are available, there is no reason to 

suspect that similar declines have not 

also occurred elsewhere across the 

species’ range. The species is therefore 

globally assessed as Critically 

Endangered, based on observed declines 

in U.S. waters and inferred declines 

throughout the rest of the species’ range. 

Information from outside U.S. waters is 

a priority (Carvalho et al., 2007).’’ 

The IUCN could not identify a 

population trend for the Caribbean 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Notices 15949 

electric ray. The petition cites the 

decline in species abundance in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico reported in 

Shepherd and Myers (2005) as evidence 

the population is in decline. Population 

decline can result in extinction risk that 

is cause for concern in certain 

circumstances (e.g., if the decline is 

rapid and/or below a critical minimum 

population threshold and the species 

has low resilience for recovery from a 

decline) (Musick, 1999). While the 

petitioner provides some evidence that 

the Caribbean electric ray population, at 

least in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, 

may have declined relatively rapidly, it 

fails to provide substantial information 

that the species is at a critically low 

population level or has a low resilience 

for recovery. An analysis of the apparent 

population decline is discussed below 

in the Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors section. 

The petitioner claims the Caribbean 

electric ray has such a critically low 

population count that ‘‘it is increasingly 

vulnerable to extirpation from stochastic 

events.’’ To determine that there is 

substantial information indicating that 

the species may be in danger of 

extinction now or in the foreseeable 

future due to small population size or 

stochastic events, information provided 

in the petition or existing in our files 

should be specific to the species and 

should reasonably suggest that these 

factors may be operative threats that act 

on the species to the point that it may 

warrant protection under the ESA. 

Broad statements about a generalized 

threat to species with small populations 

do not constitute substantial 

information that listing may be 

warranted. There is no information in 

our files indicating the species is at risk 

due to small population size or 

stochastic events, and the petition fails 

to provide any species specific 

information to that effect. Presumably, 

the petitioner believes the 98 percent 

decline in trawl abundance from 1972 to 

2002 in the Northern Gulf of Mexico has 

reduced the population of the Caribbean 

electric ray to a critically low level (see 

the discussion under the Other Natural 

or Manmade Threats section for more on 

this decline). However, while a decline 

in relative catch per unit effort during 

fisheries independent monitoring (FIM) 

surveys likely does imply a decline in 

abundance, relative to 1972 levels, there 

are no estimates of abundance in the 

petition or in our files. Thus, the claim 

of a critically low population count is 

unsupported. Data in our files, which is 

a continuation of the same dataset 

analyzed by Shepherd and Myers 

(2005), show that since 2002 Caribbean 

electric rays have been documented in 

FIM cruises every year through 2010. 

Further, the Caribbean electric ray was 

the fifth (out of 31) most common 

species recorded in the data presented 

in Shepherd and Myers (2005). While 

we do not have an estimate of 

population numbers, the data does 

indicate that the species is relatively 

common, and it occurs in high enough 

abundance to be detected repeatedly 

during annual sampling. Species that 

are vulnerable to stochastic events 

generally have small ranges (endemism), 

fractured ranges, or dependence on 

limited habitat features that are 

themselves vulnerable to stochastic 

events. The petition and the information 

in our files do not provide any support 

that vulnerability to stochastic events 

may be an extinction risk concern for 

the Caribbean electric ray. 

Outside the United States and the 

Northern Gulf of Mexico, shrimp fishing 

may be catching Caribbean electric rays, 

but beyond general statements on the 

quantities of bycatch produced during 

shrimp trawling, the petition fails to 

provide any information on what impact 

those fisheries may be having on the 

species. While we acknowledge that 

bycatch in foreign shrimp fisheries may 

be affecting the Caribbean electric ray, 

the petition provides no evidence that 

those interactions have somehow 

reduced Caribbean electric ray 

populations to critically low levels. 

There is also no information within our 

files to indicate that bycatch in foreign 

shrimp fisheries is having an effect on 

the Caribbean electric ray. 

While the onus of determining what 

a critically low population count may be 

for the Caribbean electric ray should not 

necessarily fall on the petitioner, the 

petitioner must provide at least some 

information on what a critically low 

population count may be. Otherwise, 

the statements that the Caribbean 

electric ray populations are critically 

low are nothing more than an 

unsupported conclusion. The petition 

fails to provide substantial evidence that 

the Caribbean electric ray’s population 

is critically low throughout its range. 

Data in the petition and in our files 

suggest that in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico the Caribbean electric ray is 

relatively common and regularly 

encountered (NMFS unpublished data, 

Shepherd and Myers 2005). 

The petition also cites the abortion of 

embryos by gravid females caught in 

shrimp trawls as another characteristic 

that imperils the species by lowering its 

reproductive output. The petition 

provides no information on the rate at 

which gravid females are caught or what 

percent of gravid female actually abort 

embryos. Without such information it is 

impossible to determine what effect this 

trait has on the population. In slower 

maturing species, with small brood sizes 

and long gestation periods, the abortion 

of embryos could be particularly 

harmful because of the time and energy 

needed to produce another litter, 

potentially reducing the species’ 

resiliency for recovery. However, unlike 

other ray and shark species, the 

Caribbean electric ray matures relatively 

early (females at approximately 2 years 

of age (Carvalho et al., 2007)), has a 

short gestation period, has relatively 

large litters, and has an estimated 

population doubling time ranging from 

4.5–14 years (Froese and Pauly, 2010). 

Thus, the Caribbean electric ray has a 

relatively high resiliency for recovery. 

The petition states that ‘‘Electric Rays 

are generally discarded at sea, and 

survivorship rates are believed to be 

quite low,’’ citing the IUCN’s assessment 

of the species (i.e., Carvalho et al., 

2007). Review of that assessment 

provided no additional information, and 

we have no information in our files on 

the survivorship of incidentally caught 

Caribbean electric rays. Beyond the 

IUCN statement, the petition provides 

no additional information on the 

survival rates of Caribbean electric rays 

incidentally caught in shrimp trawls. 

Providing only a single reference and no 

additional information regarding the 

survivorship of discarded Caribbean 

electric ray does not represent 

substantial information that the species 

warrants listing under the ESA. 

The petition references the Reef 

Environmental Education Foundation’s 

(REEF) database sightings of the 

Caribbean electric ray as evidence that 

‘‘sightings of the Electric ray are 

extremely rare in recent years.’’ That 

database indicates the Caribbean electric 

ray is not commonly observed (i.e., less 

than 50 percent of the time), and when 

it is seen, it is usually in low abundance 

(i.e., usually only a single individual). 

As the petition points out, the Caribbean 

electric ray is relatively small (i.e., ∼60 

cm), buries itself in the sand or mud, 

and appears to prefer nearshore sandy 

habitats. Given these characteristics, it 

is not particularly surprising that a 

small, buried animal, commonly found 

away from reef habitats, is not reported 

frequently by divers. Further, there is no 

indication from these data that the 

number of sightings has declined over 

time. Additionally, Shepherd and Myers 

(2005) reported that the Caribbean 

electric ray was the fifth most common 

species encountered. 

While it is unclear how rare the 

species actually is, rarity alone is not an 

indication that a species faces an 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
15950 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Notices 

extinction risk that is cause for concern. 

A species’ rarity could be of concern if 

the species was distributed in small, 

isolated populations, or had a very 

restricted geographic range and was 

subject to specific habitat degradation. 

The information in the petition suggests 

the species is wide-ranging, found from 

North Carolina, through the Gulf of 

Mexico, to the north coast of South 

America, as well as in the Lesser and 

Greater Antilles (Carvalho et al., 2007). 

The petition argues that the Caribbean 

electric ray’s habitat is being degraded, 

but does not provide information on any 

habitat degradation threats that are 

specific to the species (see discussion 

on habitat degradation below). 

Based on the information provided in 

the petition and available in our files on 

demographic factors of the Caribbean 

electric ray, we conclude there is not 

substantial information to indicate the 

species may be facing an extinction risk 

that is cause for concern. 

Information on Threats to the Species 

We next evaluated whether the 

information in the petition concerning 

the extent and severity of one or more 

of the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors 

suggests these impacts and threats may 

be posing a risk of extinction to the 

Caribbean electric ray that is cause for 

concern. The petition states that three of 

the five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors may 

affect the Caribbean electric ray. We 

evaluate those three factors below. 

Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat 

or Range 

The petition states ‘‘[the Caribbean 

electric ray] is threatened by habitat 

destruction from energy development, 

burgeoning human populations, and 

other pressures,’’ claiming that ‘‘though 

the [Caribbean electric ray]’s range is 

relatively large, localized habitat loss 

and degradation are threats to 

significant portions of the species’ 

range.’’ The petition also makes a 

general reference to how coastal areas of 

the United States and other nations are 

being threatened and destroyed, and 

non-specifically references studies 

suggesting these changes are ‘‘affecting 

all species of sharks and rays (Camhi et 

al., 1998).’’ The only specific statement 

provided in the petition regarding the 

extent of habitat degradation is a 

referenced statement from the proposed 

rule to list the largetooth sawfish under 

the ESA (75 FR 25174; May 7, 2010), 

which stated: 

Coastal habitats in the southern [U.S.] Gulf 

of Mexico region have experienced and 

continue to experience losses due to 

urbanization. Wetland losses in the Gulf of 

Mexico region of the U.S. [average] annual 

net losses of 60,000 acres (242.8 km2) of 

coastal and freshwater habitats from 1998 to 

2004. Although wetland restoration activities 

are ongoing in this region of the U.S., the 

losses significantly outweigh the gains. These 

losses have been attributed to commercial 

and residential development, port 

construction (dredging, blasting, and filling 

activities), construction of water control 

structures, modification to freshwater inflows 

(Rio Grande River in Texas), and gas and oil 

related activities. 

The coastal habitats in the United 

States are being impacted by 

urbanization. However, the petition 

characterizes these impacts as 

generalized threats to the species. It fails 

to provide any information beyond 

these broad statements indicating how 

habitat degradation may be affecting the 

Caribbean electric ray to a point where 

it may warrant protection under the 

ESA. The only specific statements in the 

petition regarding habitat degradation 

appear to be almost entirely unrelated to 

the Caribbean electric ray. The species 

description provided in the petition 

states the Caribbean electric ray 

‘‘concentrat[es] in the surf zone adjacent 

to barrier beaches and offshore sand 

bars in warm months and moves 

offshore in winter (Rudloe 1989),’’ and 

‘‘are unable to penetrate fresh water to 

any extent.’’ Given this description, the 

petition fails to demonstrate why or 

how the loss of wetlands and freshwater 

habitats would affect a species 

commonly found in sandy marine 

habitats. Thus, enumeration of these 

threats does not constitute substantial 

information that listing may be 

warranted. 

The petition also discusses impacts 

from oil and gas exploration. It 

specifically mentions the Deepwater 

Horizon (DWH) oil spill, stating that 

following ‘‘the April 2010 [BP] oil spill 

disaster, the threat of habitat 

modification and degradation is now 

more acute for Gulf of Mexico marine 

life, including the Caribbean electric 

ray.’’ The petition concludes that ‘‘the 

current oil spill situation, combined 

with the already-strained ecosystems in 

the Gulf of Mexico and coastal areas 

within the Ray’s range, is a recipe for 

extinction, particularly given its current 

lack of ESA protection.’’ The petition 

further states that ‘‘drilling [for oil and 

gas] * * * subjects marine species, 

including the [Caribbean electric ray], to 

elevated risks.’’ Finally, the petition 

references the IUCN’s statement that 

‘‘pollution and oil exploration may also 

adversely affect the habitat of [the 

Caribbean electric ray], although no 

specific information is available 

(Carvalho et al., 2007),’’ as supporting 

evidence of habitat degradation. 

We also acknowledge oil and gas 

exploration may adversely affect the 

marine environment. The DWH oil spill 

was an unprecedented disaster, likely 

impacting the marine ecosystem in ways 

that may not be fully known for 

decades. However, like the discussion 

regarding the effects of losing coastal 

habitat, the petition fails to provide any 

information on the specific effects to 

Caribbean electric rays beyond broad 

statements on the impacts of oil and gas 

exploration. Thus, these threats do not 

constitute substantial information that 

listing may be warranted. 

Beyond the impacts from habitat loss 

and oil and gas exploration, the petition 

also presents arguments that the 

destruction of coral reef habitats may be 

adversely affecting the Caribbean 

electric ray. The petition states that for 

‘‘localized [Caribbean electric ray] 

populations living in coral reef habitats, 

habitat degradation in the form of coral 

reef destruction is a serious threat.’’ Reef 

habitats in the Gulf of Mexico and 

Caribbean are threatened by multiple 

factors, including: natural abrasion and 

breakage, anthropogenic abrasion and 

breakage, sedimentation, persistent 

elevated sea surface temperature, 

competition, excessive nutrients, and 

sea level rise. However, the petition fails 

to demonstrate to what extent the 

Caribbean electric ray even utilize these 

habitats and how impacts to coral reefs 

would cause specific adverse effects to 

the species such that protection under 

the ESA may be warranted. Thus, these 

broad statements about generalized 

threats to the species do not constitute 

substantial information that listing may 

be warranted. 

The petition also requests that we 

consider ‘‘the effects of Florida red tide 

[in] limiting the range of [Caribbean 

electric ray] around this State and other 

areas.’’ Asserting that ‘‘[r]ed tide 

(Karenia brevia) is a local phenomenon 

in the Gulf of Mexico, along the Florida 

coast, and it impacts many species of 

fish and wildlife.’’ While red tide events 

can cause deaths of aquatic species, 

possibly even the Caribbean electric ray, 

the petition fails to describe how and to 

what extent red tides may be affecting 

the species. More importantly, the 

petition fails to provide any compelling 

evidence regarding how the natural, 

localized phenomenon of red tide is 

threatening to destroy, modify, or curtail 

the habitat or range of the Caribbean 

electric ray. Thus, this does not 

constitute substantial information that 

listing may be warranted. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Notices 15951 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

The petitioner also maintains listing 

is warranted due to the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms. The 

petition presents two basic tenets with 

regard to this claim: (1) There are no 

species specific regulations in place to 

protect the Caribbean electric ray; and 

(2) shrimp trawl bycatch is the primary 

threat to the Caribbean electric ray, and 

the regulations requiring the use of 

turtle excluder devices and bycatch 

reduction devices (TED/BRDs) are 

inadequate to protect the species 

because TED/BRDs do not effectively 

release Caribbean electric rays. 

The simple lack of species specific 

regulations does not necessarily mean a 

species’ listing is warranted. To 

conclude that listing may be warranted 

because of inadequate regulatory 

mechanisms, there must be evidence 

that the lack of regulations has actually 

caused or is a contributing factor to the 

potential endangerment of the 

Caribbean electric ray. The petition fails 

to provide any supporting information 

on how the lack of species specific 

regulations has actually contributed to 

the endangerment of the Caribbean 

electric ray. 

The petition also claims that existing 

regulations requiring TED/BRDs are 

inadequate to protect the Caribbean 

electric ray because TED/BRDs are 

ineffective in releasing Caribbean 

electric rays. However, the petition fails 

to provide substantial information 

specific to the species regarding the 

release or retention rates of Caribbean 

electric rays in shrimp nets equipped 

with TED/BRDs. Instead, the petitioner’s 

claim that TED/BRDs are ineffective is 

based on broad statements about finfish 

swimming ability related to size. 

Specifically, the petition states that 

‘‘[d]evices intended to reduce bycatch 

are ineffective for this species due to 

it[s] size and slow speed (Steele et al., 

2002 at p. 349). As these researchers 

explain, this is because ‘larger fish were 

more likely to escape [shrimp trawl 

nets] than smaller fish, probably 

because swimming ability is positively 

associated with size in fishes.’’’ 

However, this statement is misleading 

as written. The Steele et al. (2002) study 

did not catch any ray species and did 

not comment on whether TED/BRDs 

would be effective in releasing the 

Caribbean electric ray. The entire quote 

reads: ‘‘[w]ith some exceptions, larger 

fish were more likely to escape than 

smaller fish, probably because 

swimming ability is positively 

associated with size in fishes (Wardle, 

1993)’’ (Steele et al., 2002); the quote is 

not specific to the Caribbean electric 

ray. Beyond this non-specific statement, 

the petition fails to present any 

information to suggest that TED/BRDs 

are ineffective in releasing Caribbean 

electric ray. 

Conversely, information from the 

NMFS technical experts who develop 

and test TED/BRDs indicate that TED/ 

BRDs could be effective in releasing 

smaller animals depending on their 

orientation (J. Mitchell NMFS, to A. 

Herndon NMFS, pers. comm., 2010). 

NMFS’ research on the effectiveness of 

TED/BRDs has not collected length 

frequency data for rays captured and 

released during those tests. However, 

NMFS scientists involved in that 

research indicate that for an animal the 

size of the Caribbean electric ray (i.e., 

∼60 cm), the exclusion rate might be as 

high as 75 percent for a bottom opening 

TED, but likely lower (i.e., less than 35 

percent) for a top opening TED (J. 

Mitchell NMFS, to A. Herndon NMFS, 

pers. comm., 2010). However, no 

specific data are available on the 

effectiveness of TED/BRDs in releasing 

Caribbean electric rays from shrimp 

trawls. 

The petition also fails to acknowledge 

any potential beneficial effects from the 

implementation of TED requirements in 

most shrimp fisheries in the mid-1990s. 

Given the information available, 

mandatory TED requirements likely 

have had at least some beneficial effect. 

Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

The petition states bycatch is the 

primary natural or manmade factor 

affecting the Caribbean electric ray’s 

continued existence. More specifically, 

it states ‘‘[t]he decline of the ray by 98 

[percent] since 1972 in the Northern 

Gulf of Mexico is likely primarily 

caused by shrimp trawling (Carvalho et 

al., 2007),’’ citing ineffective TED/BRDs 

and intense shrimping effort as 

causative factors. However, the 

petition’s conclusion appears to be 

based on misleading statements and 

invalid assumptions. 

The petition asserts that shrimp 

trawling is likely the primary cause of 

the 98 percent decline of the ray since 

1972 in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. 

This statement is misleading. The 

decline referenced by the petition is 

from a study by Shepherd and Myers 

(2005) that estimated the Caribbean 

electric ray’s relative abundance from 

FIM survey data available from 1972 to 

2002. The data presented in that study 

show what appears to be a significant 

decline in mean standardized catch per 

tow (MSCPT) of the Caribbean electric 

ray from 1972 to 1973. However, those 

data also show that from 1973 through 

2002 the MSCPT for the Caribbean 

electric ray appears to remain 

essentially stable. The petitioner’s 

statement regarding the decline of the 

species since 1972 does not mention the 

stable MSCPT from 1973 to 2002. Thus, 

the assertion regarding population 

decline appears to be based on a decline 

solely between two data points from 

1972 to 1973. 

Although questionable, we cannot 

dismiss the petition’s conclusion that 

the decline in MSCPT from 1972 to 

1973 was evidence of a population 

decline. However, the data provided by 

the petitioner also show that no 

additional decline in relative abundance 

appears to have occurred after 1973. The 

data in our files also indicate the 

Caribbean electric ray is still 

encountered consistently during FIM 

trawl projects. Based on this 

information, we do not believe the 

information presented on the decline in 

MSCPT from 1972 to 1973 is evidence 

that the species is currently facing an 

extinction risk that is cause for concern. 

The petition also asserts ‘‘[s]imilar 

high rates of decline, around [a] 95 

[percent] decrease, have occurred in the 

United States coastal areas between 

Cape Canaveral, Florida, and Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina,’’ citing the 

Shepherd and Myers (2005) study. 

However, no such statement could be 

found in the referenced study. 

The petitioner’s statements regarding 

the ineffectiveness of TED/BRDs were 

addressed in the preceding section. 

The petition also provided outdated 

statistics on the total level of shrimp 

fishing occurring annually in the United 

States (4–5 million hours annually; 

Shepherd and Myers (2005)) in support 

of its argument that shrimp fishing is 

intense in areas where the Caribbean 

electric ray is present. While the amount 

of fishing effort reported by Shepherd 

and Myers (2005) may have been 

correct, the petitioner failed to 

acknowledge the drastic changes in the 

shrimp fishery, particularly in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico. Since 2001, 

the total annual amount of shrimp 

fishing effort in the Gulf of Mexico has 

declined each year with the exception of 

2009. Effort has declined from a high of 

approximately 6.7 million hours in 2001 

to approximately 2.1 million hours in 

2008 (NMFS unpublished data); a 

reduction of over 68 percent. Effort 

rebounded slightly in 2009 to 2.6 

million hours (NMFS unpublished 

data), approximately 61 percent less 

effort than was documented in 2001. 

External factors such as low shrimp 

prices, rising fuel costs, competition 

with imported shrimp products, and the 

impacts of hurricanes in the Gulf of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
15952 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Notices 

Mexico (particularly Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita) are all factors that have acted 

to reduce fishing effort (GMFMC, 2007). 

This reduction in effort has likely 

reduced the potential threat of shrimp 

trawling to the Caribbean electric ray. 

Not acknowledging these reductions in 

effort is misleading and 

mischaracterizes the current potential 

threat of shrimp trawling. 

The petitioner also claims that 

‘‘[i]ntense shrimp fisheries exist in 

multiple other countries surrounding 

the Gulf of Mexico as well, within the 

[Caribbean electric ray’s] range.’’ The 

petition concludes that ‘‘[s]ince fishing 

activities are similarly intense and most 

often unregulated in these areas, similar 

declines to that of the United States are 

likely across the species’ range 

(Carvalho et al., 2007).’’ Information 

provided in the petition and readily 

available in our files does not support 

these statements. 

Information provided in the petition 

on the range of the species shows the 

species occurring along the Atlantic 

coasts of Mexico, Belize, Costa Rica, 

Panama, and Colombia, as well as in 

Venezuela, Cuba, Jamaica, and the 

Lesser Antilles. Of the countries listed, 

only Mexico and Venezuela even 

appeared on the Food and Agricultural 

Organization’s list of the top 35 shrimp 

fishing nations from 2000–2005 (Gillet, 

2008). Subsequent to the publication of 

that list, commercial shrimp fishing in 

Venezuela has been banned. Likewise, 

Belize has also recently banned all 

industrial shrimp fishing. While Costa 

Rica, Panama, and Colombia do have 

active commercial shrimp fisheries, they 

fish primarily in the Pacific Ocean 

where the Caribbean electric ray is not 

found. The state of the commercial 

shrimp fishery in Cuba is unknown, but 

the political and economic climate 

within the country makes it unlikely to 

be a source of great fishing effort. In the 

Lesser Antilles, only Trinidad and 

Tobago has a commercial shrimp fishery 

(M. Barnette, NMFS, to A. Herndon, 

NMFS, pers. comm., 2010). 

Based on the preceding information, it 

appears extremely unlikely that the 

Caribbean electric ray is facing intense 

shrimp fisheries in multiple other 

countries within the Caribbean electric 

ray’s range. In fact, statements regarding 

the Caribbean electric ray’s exposure to 

intense shrimp fisheries outside the 

United States are misleading. In the 

Caribbean electric ray’s range, only 

Mexico has a sizeable shrimp fishery. 

The Mexican shrimp fishery has 

experienced the same limiting factors as 

the U.S. fleet, and has declined to a 

similar degree over the last decade (M. 

Barnette, NMFS, to A. Herndon, NMFS, 

pers. comm., 2010). Thus, the petition 

does not accurately represent the 

potential threat posed by shrimp 

trawling throughout the range of the 

species. The available information does 

not indicate that the potential impacts 

from shrimp fisheries have caused 

declines or likely contributed to the 

endangerment of the species throughout 

the rest of its range. Therefore, this 

threat does not constitute substantial 

information that listing may be 

warranted. 

In summary, the petitioner claims that 

shrimp trawling has caused Caribbean 

electric ray declines in the Gulf of 

Mexico and South Atlantic, and is likely 

causing declines elsewhere, primarily 

because of ineffective TED/BRDs and 

intense fishing effort. Based on 

information presented in the petition 

and contained within our files, these 

statements are either unsubstantiated or 

inaccurate representations of the 

available data. Thus, the petition does 

not provide substantial information that 

listing may be warranted. 

In addition to the potential threat 

from shrimp fishing, the petitioner also 

claims that the species is prone to a 

specific type of infection when in 

captivity. While the information 

provided by the petition does suggest 

that the species is prone to infection, the 

petition fails to explain why the species’ 

susceptibility to infection in captivity 

suggests a threat to wild populations. 

Thus, the existence of disease in captive 

animals does not constitute substantial 

information that listing may be 

warranted. 

Petition Finding 

After reviewing the information 

contained in the petition and 

information readily available in our 

files, we conclude the petition fails to 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating the 

petitioned action may be warranted. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references is 

available upon request from the 

Protected Resources Division of the 

NMFS Southeast Regional Office (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: March 17, 2011. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6692 Filed 3–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA310 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The NOAA Fisheries will 

hold a Workshop to discuss the data and 

models that will be used in the 2011 

stock assessments for sablefish, petrale 

sole and Dover sole. 

DATES: The Pre-assessment Workshop 

will be held beginning at 9 a.m., 

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 and end at 5:30 

p.m. or as necessary to complete 

business for the day. The Workshop will 

reconvene on Wednesday, April 6 at 9 

a.m. and will adjourn by 1 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The Pre-assessment 

Workshop for sablefish, Dover sole and 

petrale sole will be held at the Hallmark 

Resort, 744 S.W. Elizabeth Street, 

Newport, OR 97365; telephone: (1–888) 

448–4449. 

Science Center address: DOC, NOAA 

Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center, Newport Research Station— 

Bldg. 955, 2032 S.E. OSU Drive, 

Newport, OR 97365–5275; telephone: 

(541) 867–0500. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Stacey Miller, NMFS Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center; telephone: 

(541) 961–8475; or Dr. Jim Hastie, 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

(NWFSC); telephone: (206) 860–3412. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This PreAssessment Workshop is intended to 

provide a forum for the exchange of 

information and ideas between members 

of the fishing community and other 

members of the public, stock assessment 

authors, and data managers. The 

specific objectives of the workshop are 

to: (1) Discuss the data to be used in the 

sablefish, petrale sole and Dover sole 

stock assessment models; (2) discuss 

approaches for improving stock 

assessment modeling efforts; (3) identify 

anomalies in the data and discuss 

possible explanations; and (4) identify 

data gaps and future research 

possibilities. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in the meeting agenda may 

come before the Workshop participants 

for discussion, those issues may not be 

the subject of formal Workshop action 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES