11208 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(4) Install, calibrate, and maintain a 

monitoring device that continuously 

records the volumetric flow rate at the 

control device inlet and monitor and 

record the damper position consistent 

with paragraph (h)(5) of this section. 

(5) The furnace static pressure 

monitoring device(s) shall be installed 

in an EAF or DEC duct prior to 

combining with other ducts and prior to 

the introduction of ambient air, at a 

location that has no flow disturbance 

due to the junctions. 

(6) The volumetric flow monitoring 

device(s) may be installed in any 

appropriate location in the capture 

system such that reproducible flow rate 

monitoring will result. The flow rate 

monitoring device(s) shall have an 

accuracy of ±10 percent over its normal 

operating range and shall be calibrated 

according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions. The Administrator may 

require the owner or operator to 

demonstrate the accuracy of the 

monitoring device(s) relative to EPA 

Methods 1 and 2 of appendix A of this 

part. 

(7) Parameters monitored pursuant to 

this paragraph, excluding damper 

position, shall be recorded as integrated 

block averages not to exceed 15 

minutes. 

(c)(1) When the owner or operator of 

an affected facility is required to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

standards under § 60.272b(a)(3) and at 

any other time that the Administrator 

may require (under section 114 of the 

CAA, as amended), the owner or 

operator shall, during all periods in 

which a hood is operated for the 

purpose of capturing emissions from the 

affected facility subject to paragraph (b) 

of this section, either: 

(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a 

monitoring device that continuously 

records the fan motor amperes at each 

damper position, and damper position 

consistent with paragraph (h)(5) of this 

section; 

(ii) Monitor and record as no greater 

than 15-minute integrated block average 

basis the volumetric flow rate through 

each separately ducted hood; or 

(iii) Install, calibrate, and maintain a 

monitoring device that continuously 

records the volumetric flow rate at the 

control device inlet, and monitor and 

record the damper position consistent 

with paragraph (h)(5) of this section. 

(2) Parameters monitored pursuant to 

this paragraph, excluding damper 

position, shall be recorded as integrated 

block averages not to exceed 15 

minutes. 

(3) The owner or operator may 

petition the Administrator or delegated 

authority for reestablishment of these 

parameters whenever the owner or 

operator can demonstrate to the 

Administrator’s or delegated authority’s 

satisfaction that the affected facility 

operating conditions upon which the 

parameters were previously established 

are no longer applicable. The values of 

the parameters as determined during the 

most recent demonstration of 

compliance shall be the appropriate 

operational range or control set point 

throughout each applicable period. 

Operation at values beyond the accepted 

operational range or control set point 

may be subject to the requirements of 

§ 60.276b(c). 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(9) Parameters monitored pursuant to 

paragraphs (h)(6) through (8) of this 

section shall be recorded as integrated 

block averages not to exceed 15 

minutes. 

■ 13. Amend § 60.276b by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 60.276b Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) Operation at a furnace static 

pressure that exceeds the operational 

range or control setting under 

§ 60.274b(g), for owners and operators 

that elect to install a furnace static 

pressure monitoring device under 

§ 60.274b(f) and either operation of 

control system fan motor amperes at 

values exceeding ±15 percent of the 

value established under § 60.274b(c) or 

operation ranges or control settings 

outside of those established under 

§ 60.274b(c) may be considered by the 

Administrator or delegated authority to 

be unacceptable operation and 

maintenance of the affected facility. 

Operation at such values shall be 

reported to the Administrator or 

delegated authority semiannually. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–02634 Filed 2–13–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 223 

[Docket No. 240208–0042; RTID 0648– 

XR071] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants: Listing the Queen Conch 

as Threatened Under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, are listing the 

queen conch (Aliger gigas, formerly 

known as Strombus gigas) as a 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). We have 

completed a review of the status of 

queen conch, including efforts being 

made to protect the species, and 

considered public comments submitted 

on the proposed listing rule as well as 

new information received since the 

publication of the proposed rule. Based 

on all of this information, we have 

determined that the queen conch is not 

currently in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, but is likely to become so 

within the foreseeable future. Thus, we 

are listing the queen conch as a 

threatened species under the ESA. At 

this time, we conclude that critical 

habitat is not yet determinable because 

data sufficient to perform the required 

analysis are lacking; any critical habitat 

designation would be proposed in a 

separate, future rulemaking. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

March 15, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Public comments that were 

submitted on the proposed rule to list 

queen conch are available at https://

www.regulations.gov identified by 

docket number NOAA–NMFS–2019– 

0141. A list of references cited in this 

final rule and other supporting materials 

are available at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/queenconch, or by submitting a request to the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Southeast Regional Office, Protected 

Resources Division, 263 13th Avenue 

South, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701. 

Information relevant to inform separate 

rulemakings to designate critical habitat 

for queen conch or issue protective 

regulations for queen conch may be 

submitted to this mailing address or to 

the email address indicated below (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Orian Tzadik, NMFS Southeast Regional 

Office, (813) 906–0353–C; or 

Orian.Tzadik@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 27, 2012, we received a 

petition from WildEarth Guardians to 

list the queen conch as threatened or 

endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range under the 

ESA. We determined that the petitioned 

action may be warranted and published 

a positive 90-day finding in the Federal 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11209 

Register (77 FR 51763, August 27, 

2012). After conducting a status review, 

we determined that listing queen conch 

as threatened or endangered under the 

ESA was not warranted and published 

our determination in the Federal 

Register (79 FR 65628, November 5, 

2014). In making that determination, we 

first concluded that queen conch was 

not presently in danger of extinction, 

nor was it likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future. We also evaluated 

whether the species warranted listing 

based on its status in a ‘‘significant 

portion of its range’’ by applying the 

joint U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) and NMFS Policy on 

Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant 

Portion of Its Range’’ (SPR Policy; 79 FR 

37580, July 1, 2014). We concluded that 

available information did not indicate 

any ‘‘portion’s contribution to the 

viability of the species is so important 

that, without the members in that 

portion, the species would be in danger 

of extinction, or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future, throughout all of 

its range.’’ Therefore, we concluded that 

the species did not warrant listing based 

on its status in a significant portion of 

its range. 

On July 27, 2016, WildEarth 

Guardians and Friends of Animals filed 

suit in the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia, challenging our 

decision not to list queen conch as 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA. On August 26, 2019, the Court 

vacated our determination that listing 

queen conch under the ESA was not 

warranted and remanded the 

determination back to the NMFS based 

on our reliance on the SPR Policy’s 

particular threshold for defining 

‘‘significant,’’ which was vacated 

nationwide in 2018 (though other 

aspects of the policy remain in effect). 

See Desert Survivors v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 

2018). 

On December 6, 2019, we announced 

the initiation of a new status review of 

queen conch and requested scientific 

and commercial information from the 

public (84 FR 66885, December 6, 2019). 

We also provided notice and requested 

information from jurisdictions through 

the Western Central Atlantic Fishery 

Commission (WECAFC), Caribbean 

Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM), 

and the Convention on the International 

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora (CITES) Authorities. 

We received 12 public comments in 

response to this request. 

In May 2022, we completed a status 

review that considered all relevant new 

information regarding the status of the 

species. The status review report 

incorporated information received in 

response to our request for information 

(84 FR 66885, December 6, 2019), and 

was peer reviewed by three independent 

specialists selected from the scientific 

community with expertise in queen 

conch biology and ecology, conservation 

and management, and specific 

knowledge of threats to queen conch. 

Peer reviewer comments were addressed 

and incorporated, as appropriate, prior 

to dissemination of the final status 

review report (Horn et al. 2022). 

On September 8, 2022, we published 

a proposed rule to list the queen conch 

as threatened (87 FR 55200, September 

8, 2022). We solicited comments on our 

proposed rule from the public for 95 

days (87 FR 55200, September 8, 2022; 

87 FR 67853, November 11, 2022) and 

held a virtual public hearing on 

November 21, 2022 (87 FR 67853, 

November 11, 2022), at which time we 

also accepted public comments. We are 

basing our listing determination on 

information in the status review report, 

information received from the public, 

and additional materials cited in this 

final rule, which comprise the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information. 

Listing Determinations Under the ESA 

We are responsible for determining 

whether the queen conch is threatened 

or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the 

ESA requires us to make listing 

determinations based solely on the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

after conducting a review of the status 

of the species and after taking into 

account efforts being made by any state 

or foreign nation to protect the species. 

To be considered for listing under the 

ESA, a group of organisms must 

constitute a ‘‘species,’’ which is defined 

in section 3 of the ESA to include ‘‘any 

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, 

and any distinct population segment of 

any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature.’’ 

Because the queen conch is an 

invertebrate, we do not have the 

authority to list individual populations 

as distinct population segments. 

Section 3 of the ESA defines an 

endangered species as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a threatened species as 

one ‘‘which is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ Thus, 

in the context of the ESA, we interpret 

an ‘‘endangered species’’ to be one that 

is presently at risk of extinction. A 

‘‘threatened species,’’ on the other hand, 

is not currently at risk of extinction, but 

is likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future. In other words, a key statutory 

difference between a threatened and 

endangered species is the timing of 

when a species may be in danger of 

extinction, either now (endangered) or 

in the foreseeable future (threatened). 

Additionally, as the definition of 

‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened 

species’’ makes clear, the determination 

of extinction risk can be based on either 

the range-wide status of the species, or 

the status of the species in a ‘‘significant 

portion of its range.’’ A species may be 

endangered or threatened throughout all 

of its range or a species may be 

endangered or threatened within a 

significant portion of its range (SPR). 

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us 

to determine whether any species is 

endangered or threatened as a result of 

any of the following five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence (16 

U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)(A)–(E)). We 

considered the nature of the threats and 

the species’ response to those threats. 

We also considered each threat 

identified, both individually and 

cumulatively. Once we evaluated the 

threats, we assessed the efforts being 

made to protect the species to determine 

if these conservation efforts were 

adequate to mitigate the existing threats 

and alter extinction risk. Finally, we 

considered the public comments and 

additional information received in 

response to the proposed rule. In 

making this finding, we have relied on 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. 

Public Comments and Our Responses 

We requested comments on the 

proposed rule to list the queen conch as 

threatened during a 60-day comment 

period. In response to requests for a 

public hearing, we re-opened the public 

comment period for an additional 35 

days (87 FR 67853, November 10, 2022) 

and held a virtual public hearing on 

November 21, 2022 (87 FR 67853, 

November 10, 2022). 

Public comments were accepted via 

standard mail, at the public hearing, and 

through the Federal eRulemaking portal. 

To facilitate access to the proposed rule, 

we provided English, Spanish, French, 

Dutch, and Creole versions of the 

proposed rule, as well as English and 

Spanish versions of Frequently Asked 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
11210 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Questions on our website in advance of 

the public hearing. All individuals who 

requested a public hearing along with 

representatives from over 30 state, 

Federal, and international organizations 

were contacted to provide direct 

notification of the public hearing. We 

also directly contacted and solicited 

comments from a variety of stakeholder 

groups and fisheries management 

organizations through avenues such as 

the CITES, WECAFC, CRFM, the 

Caribbean Fishery Management Council 

(CFMC), the United States State 

Department, the United States Congress, 

State/Territorial partners, over 6,000 

subscribers to our Fishery Bulletin, and 

others. 

The virtual public hearing included 

live Spanish-language interpretation 

services and closed captioning 

translation options for English, French, 

German, Spanish, and Italian. A total of 

137 people attended the virtual public 

hearing, 10 of whom provided oral 

public comment. Overall, we received 

154 public comments on the proposed 

rule and supporting documents. Of 

these public comments, 56 opposed the 

listing, with 44 providing new 

information that informed our final 

determination. We received five 

comments that were neither supportive 

nor unsupportive of the listing 

determination, but provided additional 

data that were not included in the status 

review report or the proposed rule. The 

remaining 93 comments agreed with our 

proposed determination; many of these 

supportive comments presented general 

information on threats and provided 

supplementary data that were already 

considered or cited, and consequently 

discussed in the proposed rule. Of the 

comments that were supportive of the 

listing, 50 provided documentation, 

such as data or work cited, that 

reinforced the demographic factors and 

threats identified in the proposed rule, 

including population declines, smaller 

maturation sizes, degraded habitats, 

declining population connectivity, and 

declining fecundity estimates. 

The comments we received 

concerning critical habitat and 

protective regulations were not directly 

related to this action. However, such 

comments will be considered and 

addressed during subsequent 

rulemakings on critical habitat and 

protective regulations under section 4(d) 

of the ESA. Due to the direct threat of 

overutilization throughout the range of 

queen conch, we intend to promulgate 

protective regulations pursuant to 

section 4(d) for queen conch in a future 

rulemaking. We solicit further public 

comment to inform future rulemakings 

on critical habitat and development of 

protective regulations for the queen 

conch (see ADDRESSES below). All 

relevant public comments on the 

proposed rule to list queen conch are 

addressed in the following summary 

below. We have categorized comments 

by topic. Where appropriate, we have 

combined similar comments from 

multiple groups or members of the 

public and addressed them together. 

Comments on Available Data, Trends, 

and Analyses 

Comment 1: Several commenters 

provided new, peer-reviewed or agencyproduced empirical data on queen 

conch abundance, density, and landings 

that were not included in the status 

review report (Horn et al. 2022). New 

data were provided for the following 

jurisdictions: Antigua and Barbuda, The 

Bahamas, Belize, Florida, Nicaragua, 

Puerto Rico, San Andres Islands in 

Colombia, St. Vincent and the 

Grenadines, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Some commenters suggested that the 

data provided were indicative of 

healthier queen conch populations in 

their particular jurisdiction than 

indicated by the status review report. 

Response: We thank these 

commenters for the submission of 

additional data to inform status of the 

species and this final rule. The new 

abundance and adult density estimates 

provided by commenters for Antigua 

and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Belize, 

Florida, Nicaragua, San Andres Islands 

in Colombia, St. Vincent and the 

Grenadines, and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

are within the range of previously 

reported abundance and adult density 

estimates summarized in the status 

review report for those jurisdictions (see 

figure 7 in Horn et al. 2022). The new 

data provided for Florida were highly 

variable but indicated that high 

densities of individuals occur in 

specific locations at different times and 

that seasonal shifts in adult densities 

may be occurring (Delgado and Glazer 

2020). Overall, these data were still 

within the adult density estimates that 

were presented in the status review 

report for Florida. Similarly, the new 

commercial landings data provided by 

Belize and the new commercial export 

data provided by St. Vincent and the 

Grenadines were not substantially 

different from the data considered in the 

status review report as the values were 

within the range previously considered 

(see figure 16 in Horn et al. 2022). 

Therefore, although we considered these 

additional data sources, these data did 

not alter the previous conclusions 

presented in the status review report or 

the decision to list this species as 

threatened. 

The new density estimates provided 

for Puerto Rico were derived from CruzMarrero et al. (2020), who used video 

sled sampling to estimate conch 

population densities in Southwestern 

Puerto Rico. Cruz-Marrero et al.’s (2020) 

estimates of adult densities are higher 

than those considered in the status 

review report for Puerto Rico; however, 

the methodology used to generate these 

estimates did not include visual 

inspection to distinguish between live 

conch and empty shells, potentially 

leading to overestimation of density, 

particularly in heavily fished areas 

where shells are discarded. We 

determined the video sled sampling 

method requires additional calibration 

and validation prior to its inclusion in 

our analyses. 

Therefore, we conclude the CruzMarrero et al. (2020) publication does 

not represent the best scientific and 

commercial data available due to 

concerns with the methodology used to 

estimate conch population densities in 

Southwestern Puerto Rico. 

Comment 2: Many commenters, 

including commercial fishers and local 

scientists, stated that local stakeholder 

knowledge should have been solicited 

prior to the publication of the proposed 

rule. 

Response: We announced the 

initiation of a status review for queen 

conch in the Federal Register (84 FR 

66885, December 6, 2019). At that time, 

we asked the public to provide 

information on the queen conch that 

would inform our status review and 

opened a 60-day public comment 

period. We also directly contacted and 

solicited comments from a variety of 

stakeholder groups and fisheries 

management organizations through 

avenues such as the CITES, WECAFC, 

CRFM, CFMC, the United States State 

Department, State/Territorial partners, 

and others. The CFMC further solicited 

comments from stakeholders via written 

comments, District Advisory Panel 

(DAP) meetings, and oral comments. 

Comments were initially solicited at the 

CFMC meeting in December 2019. 

NMFS staff attended the WECAFC 

meeting in Puerto Rico in December 

2019 to notify members of the 

opportunity for public comment to 

inform the status review. General 

updates on the queen conch status 

review were provided during the 

CFMC’s regular meetings held in June, 

August, September, and December of 

2020; April, July, August, and December 

of 2021; February, April, and August of 

2022. General updates on the status of 

the queen conch rulemaking were 

provided during the CFMC’s regular 

meetings held in December of 2022; and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11211 

April, August, and December of 2023. 

We also directly contacted and solicited 

information from numerous scientific 

experts on conch fisheries biology. All 

information received, including 12 

formal public comments, was 

considered, and relevant information 

was incorporated into the status review 

report and the proposed rule. 

Comment 3: Several commenters 

provided anecdotal observations of 

queen conch densities and one fisher 

provided underwater videos in Puerto 

Rico, suggesting that these observations 

were indicative of healthier queen 

conch populations in their jurisdictions 

than indicated by the status review 

report. 

Response: We thank these 

commenters for submitting their videos 

and sharing their knowledge of the 

queen conch population in their 

particular jurisdictions. While these 

data are indeed encouraging, they 

remain difficult to incorporate into the 

status review report as they cannot be 

readily converted into estimates of 

population densities. We acknowledge 

that the available density data can be 

difficult to interpret for several reasons, 

including the fact that survey methods 

varied, surveys were lacking from many 

areas and, in some cases, surveys were 

decades old. In addition, the 

connectivity modeling scenario 

provided density estimates that 

represent jurisdiction-wide medians, 

and the status review team (SRT) 

acknowledges that conch are not 

distributed evenly across space. Even in 

jurisdictions with very low densities, 

there likely exist some areas above the 

critical density threshold where 

reproduction continues to take place 

(Horn et al. 2022). However, cross-shelf 

surveys likely generate the most reliable 

estimates of overall queen conch 

populations, and cross-shelf surveys are 

a widely used monitoring method for 

queen conch stocks (Vaz et al. 2022). By 

contrast, the videos and observations 

provided are limited in their spatial 

inference because they represent a 

relatively small fraction of the overall 

range of the species. As described in the 

proposed rule, there is a clear need to 

improve data collection on this species 

throughout its range, and NMFS looks 

forward to working with all 

stakeholders to improve and standardize 

data collection to promote the recovery 

of the species. 

Comment 4: We received several 

comments requesting that NMFS 

acquire new, additional, or better data 

prior to making a listing determination. 

These commenters suggested that the 

available data and scientific studies do 

not provide sufficient evidence to 

support listing queen conch as a 

threatened species under the ESA. 

Response: As stated above, and as 

described in the proposed rule, NMFS 

acknowledges the need for further 

research and additional and uniform 

data. However, we disagree with the 

commenters’ assertion that the best 

scientific studies available do not 

provide sufficient evidence to support 

our listing determination. As detailed in 

the Listing Determinations under the 

ESA section above, we evaluated all five 

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

and concluded the best scientific and 

commercial data available indicate that, 

while the queen conch is not currently 

in danger of extinction, it will likely 

become so in the foreseeable future, 

therefore warranting listing as a 

threatened species under the ESA. In 

the proposed rule, we concluded that 

the species does not currently have a 

high risk of extinction due to the 

following: the species has a broad 

distribution and still occurs throughout 

its geographic range and is not confined 

or limited to a small geographic area; 

the species does not appear to have been 

extirpated from any jurisdiction and can 

still be found, albeit at low densities in 

most cases, throughout its geographic 

range; and there are several jurisdictions 

that have queen conch populations that 

are currently disproportionately 

contributing to the viability of the 

species, such that the species is not 

presently at risk of extinction. There are 

9 jurisdictions that are estimated to have 

adult queen conch densities greater than 

100 conch/ha, and together these 9 

jurisdictions comprise about 61 percent 

of the estimated queen conch habitat. 

Several of these locations have high 

connectivity values (see figure 13 in 

Horn et al. 2022), indicating that these 

areas facilitate the flow of queen conch 

larvae, allowing for some exchange of 

larvae and maintenance of some genetic 

diversity. 

In addition, we note that the ESA 

requires that we base our listing 

determinations on the best scientific 

and commercial data available (16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A) and does not 

require, nor necessarily allow time for, 

additional studies to gather more data. 

Am. Wildlands v. Kempthorne, 530 F.3d 

991, 998 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (finding that 

the ‘‘best available data’’ requirement in 

section 1533(b)(1)(A) requires not only 

that data be attainable, but that 

researchers in fact have conducted the 

tests); Southwest Ctr. for Biological 

Diversity v. Babbitt, 215 F.3d 58, 60 

(D.C. Cir. 2000) (‘‘The ‘best available 

data’ requirement makes it clear that the 

Secretary has no obligation to conduct 

independent studies.’’); see also, 

Oceana, Inc. v. Ross, 321 F. Supp. 3d 

128, 142 (D.D.C. 2018) (interpreting 

analogous language in section 

1536(a)(2)) (citations omitted); San Luis 

& Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Locke, 

776 F.3d 971, 995 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(holding that the best available science 

standard ‘‘does not require an agency to 

conduct new tests or make decisions on 

data that does not yet exist.’’). The 

ESA’s emphasis on the best available 

information thus requires us to make 

listing determinations based upon what 

is sometimes incomplete information. 

Provided that the best available 

information is sufficient to enable us to 

make a determination as required under 

the ESA, as is the case here, we must 

rely on it even though there is some 

degree of imperfection or uncertainty. 

Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 958 F. 

Supp. 670, 679–81 (D.D.C. 1997) 

(explaining that courts have consistently 

held that the statutory standard 

requiring that listing decisions be made 

on the ‘‘best scientific and commercial 

data available,’’ is less stringent than a 

standard requiring ‘‘conclusive 

evidence’’ or ‘‘absolute scientific 

certainty’’). 

Comment 5: Several commenters 

questioned what data were used to make 

the final listing determination. 

Specifically, commenters from Puerto 

Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Nicaragua 

asked about the recency of the landings 

and adult density data and what studies 

had been used to make the listing 

determination. 

Response: The data and research used 

to inform our listing decision were 

published online concurrently with the 

proposed rule and are summarized in 

the status review report (Horn et al. 

2022). This report considered all 

relevant published and grey literature, 

databases, and reports, as well as any 

relevant information provided during 

the public comment period from our 

previous notice of initiation of a status 

review (84 FR 66885, December 6, 

2019). The status review evaluated data 

from 47 countries and territories (e.g., 

management jurisdictions), assimilating 

approximately 360 references. The 

status review considered the scientific 

literature to determine density 

thresholds for reproductive viability, 

then evaluated these thresholds by 

jurisdiction using the best scientific 

information available for density 

surveys from 2012–2020. Similarly, the 

status review considered fisheries 

landings data (1950–2018) from the 

Food and Agriculture Organization and 

reconstructed landing histories (1950– 

2016) from the Sea Around Us (SAU) 

project. It considered results from recent 

genetic structure studies (e.g., Truelove 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
11212 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

et al. 2017) and published results from 

simulations identifying limiting factors 

for conch reproductive dynamics 

(Farmer & Doerr 2022). It evaluated a 

novel hydrodynamic modeling 

approach to connectivity which 

provided insight into how exchange of 

larvae across the population range has 

been dramatically interrupted by 

overexploitation relative to virgin stock 

patterns (Vaz et al. 2022). The status 

review team organized this information 

and data by jurisdiction and searched 

systematically for information regarding 

conch densities, landings, and 

population trends. Additionally, the 

team systematically evaluated the 

threats to conch across management 

jurisdictions, including overutilization, 

inadequacy of regulations and 

enforcement, and climate change. 

Upon its publication in May 2022, the 

status review report (Horn et al. 2022) 

provided a complete list of citations 

used as well as five supplemental files, 

including the most recently available 

fisheries data by jurisdiction, Food and 

Agriculture Organization (FAO) 

landings data, and population density 

estimates. This information is all 

publically available on our website. The 

landings data alluded to by commenters 

were included through 2018 (see figures 

15, 16, 17, 19, and 20 in Horn et al. 

2022), and all known fishery 

independent surveys were considered as 

well (see table 1 in Horn et al. 2022). 

Specific analyses regarding conch 

population connectivity and 

reproductive dynamics within the status 

review were also published in peer 

reviewed scientific journals (Vaz et al. 

2022; Farmer and Doerr 2022). 

Comment 6: Several commenters cited 

the presence of queen conch 

populations in deep-water habitats that 

act as refuges due to their inaccessibility 

to fishing. In particular, commenters 

from Belize, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, and 

Florida cited local ecological knowledge 

to support the presence of deep water 

populations within their jurisdictions. 

Other commenters suggested that deep 

water populations exist throughout the 

range of the species and that these deepwater populations regularly supply 

recruits to the shallow water 

populations, which are subject to 

fishing. The commenters suggest that 

the presence of these deep water 

populations negate the need for listing 

the species under the ESA, as the 

populations will always replenish 

themselves. 

Response: The population dynamics 

of deep-water queen conch populations 

were evaluated and considered in the 

status review report. All published 

findings on deep-water populations 

were reported, including documentation 

of active fishing and depletion of some 

of these deep-water populations, such as 

those at Glover’s atoll in Belize (Horn et 

al. 2022). The status review assessed all 

known deep-water populations, 

including several in the jurisdictions of 

The Bahamas, Belize, Florida, Jamaica, 

Puerto Rico, and St. Croix, and also 

considered other factors such as 

prevailing currents, and physical 

recruitment dynamics that can influence 

population connectivity (Horn et al. 

2022). The commenters did not provide 

any new scientific information to 

support claims of deep-water 

populations beyond what was already 

considered in the status review, and we 

are unable to determine the direct 

contribution of additional populations 

to local queen conch populations 

without further research. The current 

state of research on deep water 

populations remains limited due to two 

major factors. The first is that in most 

locations, the deep water habitats do not 

seem to be the primary habitat for queen 

conch, and population densities are 

therefore limited. The second is that 

these populations occur at depths below 

safe recreational diving limits, therefore 

necessitating specialized technical 

training and equipment to access them. 

We agree with the commenters that 

there is a need to improve our 

understanding of the deep-water 

populations, and we look forward to 

working with stakeholders on this 

endeavor as we work to promote the 

recovery of the species. 

Comment 7: One commenter stated 

that the proposed listing determination 

arbitrarily relied on reproductive 

capacity and total population to support 

its conclusions instead of density and 

adequacy of regulations, which the 

commenter asserted should be the 

driving metrics for the listing 

determination. 

Response: We appropriately 

considered all relevant biological data 

when assessing extinction risk for those 

portions that warranted further 

investigation based on the initial 

assessment tool. Biological factors 

considered, such as reproductive 

capacity and productivity at viable 

spawning areas (e.g., areas with 

sufficient adult density and total 

population), are directly relevant to 

assessing status of the species now and 

in the foreseeable future. We cannot 

ignore such factors and focus 

exclusively on the factors the 

commenter prefers. 

Comment 8: One commenter stated 

we had erred by not having the SRT 

review the various spatial scales 

considered in the SPR analysis. Another 

commenter claimed that NMFS erred by 

not having the SRT review the ecoregional and macro-regional spatial 

scale approaches to evaluating SPR. 

Response: We disagree. Our analysis 

of whether queen conch is endangered 

within a significant portion of its range 

was informed by the SRT’s work, and 

we applied extensions of the SRT’s 

population-scale approach to our SPR 

analysis. Specifically, we followed the 

SRT’s approach, by applying the same 

quantitative assessment tool to screen 

for ‘‘potentially high risk’’ and 

‘‘potentially significant’’ portions of the 

range. Furthermore, nothing in the ESA 

or our regulations requires that the SRT 

review the agency’s listing decision, 

including its evaluation of potential 

SPRs. 

Comment 9: One commenter stated 

that NMFS should list the queen conch 

as endangered in a significant portion of 

its range, asserting that the SPR analysis 

in the proposed rule was flawed because 

it arbitrarily divided the range of the 

queen conch instead of considering 

those portions where the species is in 

danger of extinction, and that the 

determination is contrary to the best 

available science because the queen 

conch is endangered in a significant 

portion of its range. The commenter 

concluded that our SPR analysis should 

have evaluated the total portion of the 

species’ range where the species is 

below the critical density and in danger 

of extinction. The commenter asserted 

this ‘‘portion’’ is a significant portion of 

the range in which the species is 

endangered. 

Response: We conducted a thorough 

and conservative screening of portions 

of the range as described in the 

proposed rule, assessing 50 different 

portions at 3 different geographic scales. 

Also as explained above, portions of the 

range below the critical density are not 

necessarily ‘‘in danger of extinction.’’ 

While we find that our previous 

analysis was adequate, we undertook 

the additional analysis sought by the 

commenter. 

As suggested by the commenter, we 

identified 11 management jurisdictions 

with empirical measurements of adult 

conch densities (e.g., not borrowed from 

nearest neighbor estimates of density) 

that were below ‘‘critical density’’ (i.e., 

Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, 

Bonaire, Dominican Republic, 

Guadeloupe, Haiti, Martinique, Panama, 

St. Vincent and Grenadines, and 

Venezuela). We further evaluated this 

portion of the species’ range, comprised 

of these 11 jurisdictions, to determine 

whether this portion was, in our 

assessment, at a ‘‘high risk’’ of 

extinction and ‘‘significant.’’ Because 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11213 

both of these conditions must be met, 

regardless of which question is 

addressed first, if a negative answer is 

reached with respect to the first 

question addressed, the other question 

does not need to be evaluated for that 

portion of the species’ range. As with 

our SPR analysis in the proposed rule, 

we elected to address the ‘‘high risk’’ of 

extinction question first. The members 

of the species within the portion may be 

at ‘‘high risk’’ of extinction if the 

members are at or near a level of 

abundance, productivity, spatial 

structure, or diversity that places the 

members’ continued persistence in 

question. Similarly, the members of the 

species within the portion may be at 

‘‘high risk’’ of extinction if the members 

face clear and present threats (e.g., 

confinement to a small geographic area; 

imminent destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat; or disease 

epidemic) that are likely to create 

imminent and substantial demographic 

risks. 

In evaluating whether this portion of 

the species’ range is at high risk of 

extinction, we considered the portion’s 

abundance, productivity, spatial 

structure, and diversity. Although the 

portion contains only 1 percent of the 

contemporary abundance for the 

species, that 1 percent represents nearly 

7 million adult conch. Generally 

speaking, low abundance places a 

population at greater risk for 

perturbation or genetic bottlenecks; 

however, this portion is broadly 

distributed geographically, which 

provides a significant buffer against 

these threats. Although this portion 

comprises only 12 percent of the total 

available habitat for queen conch, it 

contains an estimated 8,753 km2 of 

available habitat. The portion is also 

protected against genetic bottlenecks 

because although it contains 11 

important connectivity nodes for the 

species throughout its range, 13 

additional important connectivity nodes 

outside the portion supply areas within 

the portion with larvae (Vaz et al. 2022). 

For example, within the portion, 

Panama receives most of its conch 

larvae from Costa Rica. The Dominican 

Republic receives larvae from Puerto 

Rico, Cuba, Turks and Caicos, and 

possibly Saint Lucia. Haiti has limited 

connectivity with neighboring islands, 

but may receive some limited input 

from Jamaica and Cuba. Anguilla 

presently receives larvae from multiple 

Leeward Islands. In Venezuela, 

Martinique, Bonaire, and Guadeloupe, 

conch reproduction is thought to be 

nominal, and most upstream supply 

would originate from Saint Lucia. For 

the management jurisdictions of Aruba, 

St. Vincent and Grenadines, Antigua 

and Barbuda, contemporary 

reproductive output is thought to be 

nominal, with a small likelihood of 

receiving larval supply from other 

locations. 

Although this portion has limited 

abundance and productivity is 

constrained by likely reproductive 

failures due to low adult densities 

leading to depensatory effects, the 

portion is distributed over a broad 

geographic area (i.e., the Caribbean 

basin) and is not subject to disease or 

disproportionate habitat destruction 

relative to the species across its range. 

The spatial structure of the portion and 

diversity of the portion are partially 

protected by the remaining 

reproductively viable populations and 

connectivity nodes that exist outside the 

portion. We estimate 685 million adult 

conch in habitats with reproductively 

viable densities outside of this portion. 

A single female conch lays between 7– 

14 egg masses containing between 

500,000–750,000 eggs during a single 

spawning season (Appeldoorn 2020). 

Assuming a 1:1 sex ratio, we estimate 

that the 342 million females in viable 

aggregation densities could produce up 

to 3,591 trillion eggs in a single 

spawning season. Our connectivity 

modeling suggests that a reasonable 

number of these eggs might successfully 

recruit to this portion during a given 

spawning season. Owing to the prolific 

reproductive output of viable conch 

spawning aggregations and the overall 

connectivity remaining within the 

system, including connectivity to this 

portion, we determine that, within this 

portion, queen conch is not currently in 

danger of extinction, but is likely to 

become so within the foreseeable future. 

This finding is consistent with the 

species’ range wide determination, that 

queen conch is not currently in danger 

of extinction, but is likely to become so 

within the foreseeable future. 

Comment 10: Several commenters 

noted that the adult densities described 

in the status review report as thresholds 

for reproduction of individual 

populations were evaluated against 

cross-shelf population densities instead 

of against spawning aggregation 

densities. These thresholds were 

therefore overly conservative estimates 

when discussing the likelihood of 

extinction because the aggregationdensities are far greater than cross-shelf 

densities due to the nature of the queen 

conch spawning aggregation strategies. 

Response: As described in the status 

review report and proposed rule, the 

absence of reproduction in low density 

populations is primarily attributed to a 

low encounter rate and can contribute to 

Allee effects and localized extirpation 

due to reproductive failure. The crossshelf density threshold of 50 adult 

conch/hectare is generally accepted as a 

minimum to achieve some level of 

reproductive success (Appeldoorn 1995; 

Gascoigne and Lipcius 2004; Stephens 

et al. 1999; Stoner and Ray-Culp 2000). 

While we acknowledge that many 

minimum density estimates have been 

suggested in the literature, the threshold 

of 50 adult conch per hectare is lower 

than most recommended thresholds. For 

example, CITES initially proposed a 

minimum threshold of 56 adult conch 

per hectare but then revised their 

threshold to 100 adults per hectare after 

further deliberation (Van Eijs 2014). An 

equivalent threshold of 100 adult conch 

per hectare has been proposed by the 

WECAFC queen conch working group 

and consequently adopted by the United 

Nations Environment Programme 

(UNEP 2012). The reference point used 

in the proposed rule is derived from 

cross shelf data from unfished areas in 

The Bahamas that show that mating and 

spawning plateau at approximately 100 

adult queen conch per hectare (Stoner 

and Ray-Culp 2000; Stoner et al. 2012b). 

As discussed in the status review report 

(Horn et al. 2022), we agree that density 

thresholds may vary over both spatial 

scale and by location, as other studies 

have demonstrated higher thresholds 

needed to ensure reproductive success. 

For example, Delgado and Glazer (2020) 

identified a within-aggregation 

minimum of 204 adult conch/hectare. 

The SRT conducted a comprehensive 

review of the best scientific and 

commercial information available, with 

the goal of compiling robust, cross-shelf 

adult conch density estimates for each 

jurisdiction. To the extent possible, the 

SRT focused on the most recent studies 

where randomized sampling was 

conducted across broad areas of the 

shelf, including a range of habitats and 

depths (see table 2 and file S5 in Horn 

et al. 2022). Given differences in survey 

methodologies and uncertainties in the 

reproductive threshold, the SRT 

evaluated current and temporal trends 

in likely reproductive status by 

jurisdictions under three categories: (1) 

densities greater than 100 adult conch/ 

ha, a density considered to support 

reproductive activity and population 

growth (UNEP 2012); (2) densities of 

50–99.9 adult conch/ha, a density 

associated with reduced reproduction 

(Appeldoorn 1988c; Stoner and RayCulp 2000); and (3) densities below 50 

adult conch/ha, densities associated 

with likely Allee effects and limited 

viable reproduction (Stoner and RayVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
11214 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Culp 2000; Stoner et al. 2012b; UNEP 

2012). The SRT considered these 

uncertainties in their Extinction Risk 

Analysis, and we considered them in 

the development of our proposed rule. 

We acknowledge that the thresholds 

considered by the SRT and discussed in 

the proposed rule (<50 adult conch/ha, 

50–99.9 adult conch/ha, and <100 adult 

conch/ha) may differ from thresholds 

identified by other regulatory agencies, 

regional working groups, or nationallevel policies for some countries within 

the range of the species. However, we 

relied on the best available scientific 

and commercial information, as 

described within the status review 

report, to identify appropriate 

thresholds and to interpret published 

density estimates relative to those 

thresholds, while accounting for 

differences in survey methodologies (see 

‘‘Density Estimates’’ section in Horn et 

al. 2022). The commenters did not 

identify any scientifically-supported 

alternative estimates or thresholds. The 

commenters did not provide 

information on which to base a change 

to the adult density estimate we used in 

our analysis, other than they believe the 

50 adult conch/ha threshold is overly 

conservative for assessing the likelihood 

of extinction of the species. We 

acknowledge that substantial variability 

in the collection of conch density 

estimates by different researchers in 

different jurisdictions through time has 

led to challenges in identifying 

reproductive thresholds and making 

appropriate comparisons to those 

thresholds; however, we feel that the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available supports our 

methods and determination. 

Comment 11: Several commenters 

requested uncertainty estimates be 

provided for data that were used in the 

status review report and the proposed 

rule, particularly for those data 

pertaining to the levels of uncertainty 

for population model estimates and for 

the extinction risk analysis. 

Response: Uncertainty in the 

estimates of population densities, adult 

population sizes, and exploitation rates 

derived from the best available scientific 

and commercial data available are all 

presented in the status review report 

(see figures 5, 9, 18, and 19 in Horn et 

al. 2022). Uncertainty in reproductive 

dynamics are presented in the status 

review report and described further in 

Farmer and Doerr (2022). Multiple 

scenarios of population connectivity are 

presented in the status review report 

and described further in Vaz et al. 

(2022). These scenarios contribute to the 

uncertainty of the population model due 

to the variability of values and of 

sampling methods at each of the 

different nodes in the model. Reported 

versus reconstructed landings are 

presented in figure 15 of Horn et al. 

(2022). Variability in the extinction risk 

analysis is captured in figures 22–24 of 

Horn et al. (2022). Finally, summary 

statistics and raw data associated with 

the extinction risk analysis and density 

estimates are presented in status review 

Supplementary Files 3 and 5, 

respectively. 

Comment 12: One commenter noted 

that the variability in morphometric 

measures, specifically shell lip 

thickness, among locations suggests that 

determination of maturity in queen 

conch is not uniform and can vary by 

location, thereby limiting the utility of 

universal measures of maturity, and 

suggesting that such measures should 

not be applied to all locations equally. 

Response: As described in the 

proposed rule and discussed in the 

status review report (Horn et al. 2022), 

we acknowledge that studies have 

suggested morphometric characteristics 

may differ among localized populations. 

Furthermore, age and size at maturity 

may differ among locations, such that 

morphometric measures, such as shell 

lip thickness, at maturity are not 

consistent among locations. Despite 

local variability, shell lip thickness is 

often used as an indicator of maturity in 

queen conch and in fishery 

management. Therefore, the status 

review report analyzes morphology and 

shell lip thickness carefully. As 

mentioned in the status review report, 

some of these differences (including 

variability in shell lip thickness in 

mature adults) may be driven by 

overutilization of the resource. Growth 

overfishing (i.e., when conch are 

harvested at an average size that is 

smaller than the size that would 

produce the maximum yield per recruit) 

leads to smaller adults within fished 

stocks. In addition, the status review 

report recommends further research on 

the direct effects of environmental 

contaminants, such as heavy metals, 

pesticides, and other pollutants. 

Contaminants and lower quality habitats 

may impact growth, reproduction, and 

morphology. Other than the detrimental 

effects these pollutants are known to 

have on early life stages such as larvae, 

the effects of environmental 

contaminants on queen conch remain 

poorly understood (Horn et al. 2022). 

Despite the variability in 

morphometric characteristics among 

localized population, shell lip thickness 

is the most reliable indicator for 

maturity in queen conch, as described 

in the proposed rule. The best available 

information indicates that shell lip 

thickness for mature queen conch 

ranges from 17.5 to 26.2 mm for females, 

and 13 to 24 mm for males (Stoner et al. 

2012; Bissada 2011; Aldana-Aranda and 

Frenkiel 2007; Avila-Poveda and 

Barqueiro-Cardenas 2006). Boman et al. 

(2018) suggested that a 15 mm 

minimum lip thickness would be an 

appropriate threshold metric for most of 

the Caribbean region. The primary goal 

of a minimum lip thickness is as a 

fishery management metric to ensure 

that at least 50 percent of the queen 

conch population will reach maturity 

prior to being harvested (Boman et al. 

2018). 

While the relationships between shell 

lip thickness, age, and sexual maturity 

vary geographically, the best available 

information demonstrates that the value 

established for minimum shell lip 

thickness by most jurisdictions is 

inadequate to prevent immature conch 

from being harvested. Only six 

jurisdictions (i.e., Colombia, Puerto 

Rico, Nicaragua, U.S. Virgin Islands, 

Cuba, and Honduras) have minimum 

shell lip thickness regulations. Only 

Honduras has a minimum shell lip 

thickness of at least 18 mm, which is 

likely the most effective criteria for 

prohibiting the harvest of immature 

conch; the other five jurisdictions 

require a minimum lip thickness well 

below reported minimum size at 

maturity (i.e., 5 mm, Colombia; 9.5 mm, 

Puerto Rico; 9.5 mm, Nicaragua; and 10 

mm, Cuba). Thus, although several 

jurisdictions have regulations that may 

prohibit harvest of immature conch and 

while measures of maturity may vary 

geographically, our review of minimum 

meat weight, shell length, and flared lip 

regulations indicates that immature 

queen conch are being legally harvested 

in 20 jurisdictions, which is partially 

responsible for observed low densities 

and declining populations. We also note 

that the majority of queen conch 

fisheries (except St. Lucia and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands) do not have 

requirements to land queen conch in the 

shell. Regulations that allow queen 

conch meat to be removed and the shell 

discarded at sea undermine enforcement 

and compliance with regulations for a 

minimum shell length, shell lip 

thickness, and flared shell lip. 

Comment 13: Several commenters 

suggested that demographic and 

exploitation thresholds should not be 

equally applied across all jurisdictions 

due to the nuances of individual 

fisheries. The commenters argued that 

the differences among jurisdictions 

should be accounted for and therefore 

different thresholds should be 

considered for each individual 

jurisdiction. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11215 

Response: The status review report 

used threshold values of population 

densities associated with reproductive 

capacity and harvest levels that are 

generally considered sustainable. Those 

thresholds were compared against the 

available information on population 

density and harvest levels as a tool to 

evaluate the population in each 

jurisdiction; however, we did not use 

these thresholds as definitive measures 

of population status. Instead, thresholds 

were used to flag whether jurisdictions, 

eco-regions, or macro-regions merited 

further evaluation as being potentially at 

higher risk for viable queen conch 

populations. Flagged locations were 

subjected to additional scrutiny 

including evaluation of local and 

regional differences in data collection 

programs, population productivity, 

connectivity, and management regimes. 

In the status review report, the species 

was evaluated across four demographic 

factors for viability (i.e., abundance, 

growth rate/productivity, spatial 

structure/connectivity, and diversity) 

and five major threat categories as 

identified in section 4(a)(1)(A)–(E) of the 

ESA (i.e., present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization of the species for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; disease or 

predation; inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; and other 

natural or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence) across its entire 

range. We evaluated these factors and 

threats across the entire range of the 

species, then within individual 

jurisdictions, and ultimately across 10 

distinct ecoregions within the range of 

the species. This approach ensured that 

all risk factors were evaluated at both 

small and large spatial scales, and no 

single factor was relied upon to 

determine the extinction risk at any one 

location. 

Comment 14: One commenter noted 

that the cause of reproductive failure of 

queen conch in the Florida Keys is 

unknown, and cautioned NMFS to 

consider this issue in the derivation of 

future regulations. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges this 

issue and discusses the phenomenon in 

the status review report and the 

proposed rule (87 FR 55220). Nearshore 

populations seem to be 

disproportionately affected by the 

described phenomenon. Given that 

heavy metals have been documented to 

impair egg-laying in gastropods, several 

experts in the field have speculated that 

the presence of ambient heavy metals in 

the Florida Keys is likely contributing to 

reproductive failure in the nearshore 

environment, however, further research 

is necessary to definitively determine 

causality. We look forward to working 

with stakeholders in the Florida Keys to 

address knowledge gaps and promote 

the recovery of regional queen conch 

populations. 

Comment 15: One commenter noted 

that subpopulations of queen conch 

exist in Florida due to larval settlement 

patterns and barriers to connectivity. In 

particular, the commenter discussed the 

importance of the Hawk Channel in the 

Florida Keys as it represents a unique 

barrier that limits connectivity among 

inshore and offshore populations in the 

Keys that does not exist in other 

jurisdictions. The commenter stated that 

this barrier in the Keys limits the ability 

of individuals from inshore populations 

to migrate based on unfavorable 

environmental conditions. 

Response: Queen conch require 

physical contact to procreate; however, 

their ability to move is hindered by 

various barriers throughout its range, 

such as deep water passages, physical 

features of insular shelves, and 

manmade structures. We agree with the 

commenter that the Hawk Channel is a 

particularly large barrier. The status 

review report and the proposed rule 

note the potential impacts of Hawk 

Channel on connectivity and that it may 

be limiting movement, thereby limiting 

the formation of spawning aggregations 

in the Florida Keys. 

Comment 16: One commenter 

requested that NMFS contact one 

particular researcher that has an 

extensive knowledge of queen conch 

and the fishery throughout the region. 

Response: The publications of the 

researcher in question were used to 

inform the status review. In addition, 

the researcher that was mentioned 

provided public comment on the 

proposed rule, and we have considered 

that comment, which was generally 

supportive of the proposed rule. 

Comment 17: One commenter 

requested that NMFS summarize the 

uncertainty associated with the habitat 

model that was used in the status 

review to estimate total area of queen 

conch habitat throughout its range and 

provide uncertainty estimates. 

Response: NMFS used a habitat model 

published in Vaz et al. (2022) to 

estimate the total area of queen conch 

habitat throughout its range. The habitat 

estimates presented in Vaz et al. (2022) 

were based on coral reef locations from 

the Millennium Coral Mapping Project 

(Spalding et al. 2001; IMaRS–USF 2005; 

IMaRS–USF and IRD 2005; Andre ́foue ̈t 

2008; UNEP–WCMC et al. 2021), and 

restricted to depths of less than 20 m 

(Salley 1986; Berg Jr. et al. 1992; 

Boidron-Metairon 1992; Stoner and 

Sandt 1992; Stoner and Schwarte 1994; 

Delgado and Glazer 2020). Vaz et al. 

(2022) also included known spawning 

sites, including putative deep-water 

spawning locations, in the habitat layer, 

by ground-trutheding the habitat map 

with spawning sites reported in the 

literature (Randall 1964; D’Asaro 1965; 

Brownell 1977; Davis et al. 1984; Weil 

and Laughlin 1984; Coulston et al. 1987; 

Wilkins et al. 1987; Wicklund et al. 

1991; Berg Jr. et al. 1992; Garcı ́a-Escobar 

et al. 1992; Stoner and Sandt 1992; 

Ma ́rquez-Pretel et al. 1994; LagosBayona et al. 1996; Pe ́rez-Pe ́rez and 

Aldana-Aranda 2003; Garcia-Sais et al. 

2012; Cala et al. 2013; de Graaf et al. 

2014; Meijer zu Schlochtern 2014; 

Wynne et al. 2016; Truelove et al. 2017). 

This review led to the inclusion of 13 

shallow-water polygons not initially 

present in the Coral Mapping Projectderived habitat layer. These areas were 

in St. Eustatius, U.S. Virgin Islands 

(USVI), Colombia, Florida, Mexico, 

Jamaica, Saba, Bonaire, and The 

Bahamas (Randall 1964; Coulston et al. 

1987; Garcı ́a-Escobar et al. 1992; 

Ma ́rquez-Pretel et al. 1994; Meijer zu 

Schlochtern 2014; Truelove et al. 2017). 

Vaz et al. (2022) also included 

additional 14 polygons containing 

putative deep spawning sites in waters 

off of Venezuela, Cuba, The Bahamas, 

USVI, Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI), 

Saba, Colombia, Belize, Honduras, 

Puerto Rico and Jamaica (i.e., Pedro 

Bank) (Randall 1964; Brownell 1977; 

Davis et al. 1984; Weil and Laughlin 

1984; Wicklund et al. 1991; Stoner and 

Sandt 1992; Lagos-Bayona et al. 1996; 

Aiken et al. 2006; Garcia-Sais et al. 

2012; Cala et al. 2013; de Graaf et al. 

2014; Truelove et al. 2017). 

Uncertainty associated with the 

habitat area estimates were not reported 

for the data sources used to derive the 

Vaz et al. (2022) habitat model. To 

evaluate uncertainty in their habitat 

categorizations, Vaz et al. (2022) 

compared their habitat model estimates 

to published seagrass habitat cover and 

conch fishing areas (supplemental 

information figure 3 in Vaz et al. 2022), 

including compilations of global 

geomorphic zones (UNEP–WCMC and 

Short 2021; Allen Coral Atlas 2020; 

McKenzie et al. 2020; Schill et al. 2021); 

studies focused on jurisdictions or 

regional levels (Wabnitz et al. 2008; 

Tewfik et al. 2017; Leo ́n-Pe ́rez et al. 

2019); and documented fishing sites 

(compiled in Prada et al., 2017). Overall, 

Vaz et al. (2022) found that estimates of 

seagrass area by jurisdiction were highly 

variable, and estimates of conch fishing 

areas were generally much lower than 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
11216 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

the highest estimates of seagrass cover. 

Vaz et al. (2022) concluded that their 

final habitat model represented a 

conservative measurement of conch 

habitat throughout the Caribbean. 

Comments on Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Comment 18: Several commenters 

stated that local regulations are 

sufficient to recover the queen conch 

population, or that they were already 

effective in preventing the decline of the 

species in local jurisdictions. 

Response: We disagree that existing 

regulatory mechanisms are adequate to 

prevent the decline of queen conch. The 

status review assessed the adequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms in each 

jurisdiction relative to the threats 

impacting the status of queen conch, 

and we concluded that existing 

regulations were unlikely to prevent 

queen conch from becoming in danger 

of extinction within the foreseeable 

future throughout its range. 

We recognize that efforts are being 

made throughout the region to 

responsibly manage the queen conch 

fishery. However, many populations 

continue to decline, particularly in the 

central/southern Caribbean, despite 

these efforts. In addition, the regulatory 

mechanisms in place for minimum 

sizes, harvest rules, and landing 

methods are inadequate in many 

jurisdictions. For example, in many 

jurisdictions, current regulations allow 

the harvest of immature individuals. 

Moreover, as detailed in the proposed 

rule, many jurisdictions lack effective 

enforcement of their existing regulatory 

mechanisms and evidence of illegal, 

unreported, and unregulated (IUU) 

fishing undermines the ability of such 

mechanisms to prevent further declines. 

Only a fraction of the jurisdictions (i.e., 

Belize, The Bahamas, Jamaica, 

Nicaragua, and Colombia) are 

conducting periodic surveys to inform 

their national harvest quotas. Several 

jurisdictions (e.g., Curacao and Trinidad 

and Tobago) have no regulations despite 

having queen conch fisheries. 

Despite some potentially effective 

local efforts to protect conch 

populations, when considering 

management strategies throughout the 

range of the species, most efforts have 

fallen short of their goals. Due primarily 

to a lack of population surveys, 

assessments, and monitoring, and a 

reliance on minimum size-based 

regulations that likely do not prevent 

the harvest of immature conch or 

protect spawning stocks, we conclude 

that existing regulatory mechanisms 

throughout the range of the species are 

inadequate to achieve their purpose of 

protecting the queen conch from 

unsustainable harvest and continued 

populations decline. The commenters 

provided no new information suggesting 

that new regulations have been 

implemented, that regulations exist that 

were not previously considered in 

making our listing determination, or 

that there is evidence that the existing 

regulations are effectively enforced or 

more effective than we considered. 

Comment 19: Several commenters 

mentioned that inadequate enforcement 

of existing regulations is one of the 

primary threats to the queen conch 

population throughout the region. 

Similar comments mentioned that 

overutilization by IUU fishing was a 

significant contributor to the decline of 

the species. 

Response: We agree that inadequate 

enforcement of existing regulations and 

IUU fishing are serious threats to the 

queen conch population throughout its 

range. We discussed these factors in the 

proposed rule and in response to 

comment 18. 

Comment 20: One commenter 

encouraged NMFS to increase support 

for collaborative efforts to address IUU 

fishing throughout the region, because 

this is the largest threat that the queen 

conch is facing. 

Response: As outlined in the status 

review and the proposed rule, NMFS 

recognizes the detrimental impact of 

IUU fishing on the population of queen 

conch as a serious threat throughout the 

region. We plan to work with regional 

stakeholders to foster collaborations and 

address this threat as we strive to 

implement actions that will promote the 

recovery of the species. 

Comment 21: Several commenters 

expressed concern that the ESA listing 

would penalize particular regions or 

jurisdictions that have implemented 

sustainable regulations to protect queen 

conch as a result of detrimental actions 

in other jurisdictions. 

Response: Under section 4(b) of the 

ESA, we are required to base listing 

decision solely on the best scientific and 

commercial data available after 

conducting a review of the status of the 

species, and after taking into account 

conservation efforts to protect the 

species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)). When 

making a listing decision, we cannot 

consider economic impacts or other 

potential impacts that may result from 

a listing. Our decision to list the queen 

conch as a threatened species does not 

automatically result in take 

prohibitions, nor does it automatically 

impose any restrictions on trade in 

queen conch. However, under section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA, listing does result in 

a requirement for Federal agencies to 

ensure that activities they carry out, 

fund, or authorize are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(d)). Section 

4(d) of the ESA also authorizes us to 

issue protective regulations we deem 

necessary and advisable for the 

conservation of threatened species (16 

U.S.C. 1533(d)). Under section 4(d) of 

the ESA, we may also prohibit any of 

the actions that are prohibited under 

section 9(a)(1) of the ESA for 

endangered species, including import 

into and export from the United States 

of the listed species. Protective 

regulations would be tailored 

specifically to prevent further decline 

and facilitate recovery, and would be 

issued through a separate rulemaking 

with further opportunity for public 

comment. 

Because the queen conch is an 

invertebrate, we cannot list this species 

as distinct population segments, and 

therefore we cannot limit this species’ 

listing to certain jurisdictions. Any 

future regulatory impacts associated 

with listing queen conch under the ESA 

apply within the United States, U.S. 

Territories, and any persons subject to 

U.S. jurisdiction. While we encourage 

other jurisdictions to implement actions 

to recover queen conch populations in 

light of this listing determination, we 

cannot enforce regulatory actions in 

foreign jurisdictions. 

Comment 22: Several commenters 

suggested that NMFS consider other 

actions to facilitate the recovery of the 

queen conch population rather than an 

ESA listing, including regional 

collaborations, such as working with 

WECAFC or stricter CITES regulations. 

Response: Section 4 of the ESA 

requires that we make listing 

determinations based solely on the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

after conducting a status review of the 

species and after taking into account 

efforts being made to protect the species 

(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)). In the 

proposed rule, we provided an 

assessment of existing regulations, 

including those associated with the 

CITES Appendix II, as well as other 

conservation measures currently 

underway in the region to account for 

efforts being made by any state or 

foreign nation to protect the species. We 

also evaluated the certainty of whether 

formalized conservation efforts will be 

implemented and will demonstrate 

effectiveness in accordance with the 

Policy for Evaluation of Conservation 

Efforts (68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003). 

The evaluation conducted under this 

policy assesses whether these 

conservation efforts are sufficiently 

certain to be implemented and effective 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11217 

such that that they contribute to making 

it unnecessary to list a species, or to list 

a species as threatened rather than 

endangered. As explained in the 

proposed rule, and further expanded 

upon in comment 20, we concluded that 

existing regulatory mechanisms are 

inadequate to control overutilization of 

the species, and various protective 

efforts are not sufficient to change the 

species’ risk of extinction. We 

acknowledge that the Seafood Import 

Monitoring Program of the United States 

includes the queen conch as one of the 

species monitored to combat IUU 

fishing and therefore promotes 

sustainable harvest. We are also aware 

of restoration efforts being carried out to 

promote population recovery (e.g., 

Florida Atlantic University Queen 

Conch Aquaculture program), as well as 

the recovery of queen conch habitats, 

including coral reefs (e.g., Coral Reef 

Conservation Program) and seagrasses 

(e.g., Restore Act), all of which will in 

turn promote the recovery of the 

species. Despite fishery management 

regulations aimed at controlling 

commercial harvest, poor enforcement, 

inappropriate management measures, 

and significant IUU fishing demonstrate 

that the existing regulatory mechanisms 

throughout much of the range of the 

species are inadequate to control overharvest and therefore are contributing to 

continued population decline. We note 

that the integration of efforts by FAO, 

CFMC, WECAFC, and the Organizacion 

del Sector Pesquero y Acuicola del 

Istmo Centroamericano (OPESCA) to 

coordinate and improve management 

and combat IUU fishing region-wide, is 

an encouraging sign, as their goals are 

to improve fishery data collection and 

establish reliable landings data based on 

scientifically supported conversion 

factors and management measures (Horn 

et al. 2022). 

Comment 23: One commenter 

suggested that NMFS did not account 

for the ability of range states to adapt 

management policies based on their 

own queen conch population 

projections, such as has occurred in The 

Bahamas. According to this commenter, 

The Bahamas has greatly reduced queen 

conch exports in favor of meeting local 

demand due to population survey 

monitoring results. 

Response: The status review report 

summarizes the adequacy of each 

jurisdiction’s specific fisheries 

management regulations, in terms of 

their design and enforcement, on the 

status of queen conch populations 

across the range of the species, and 

includes a detailed Supplemental File 

describing regional management 

strategies (Supplemental File 1 in Horn 

et al. 2022). We understand The 

Bahamas policy referenced by the 

commenter is not an enforceable 

regulation, but rather a suggested policy. 

While we support all strategies that 

have the potential to reduce overexploitation of the species, without data 

to support the effectiveness of such 

strategies, such as increased population 

density or increased reproductive 

output, we cannot rely on them to 

support a decision not to list a species 

that otherwise meets the definition of 

threatened. 

Comment 24: Several commenters 

stated that their particular jurisdictions 

were promoting queen conch recovery 

via CITES management measures 

(including quotas, exploitation rates and 

density thresholds) and CRFM 

legislation, and therefore the ESA listing 

is unnecessary. 

Response: The status review report 

and proposed rule considered existing 

regulations and recovery efforts, 

including those mentioned by the 

commenters (see the Inadequacy of 

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section 

in Horn et al. (2022) for a jurisdiction 

by jurisdiction breakdown of regulatory 

mechanisms). We are encouraged by 

local recovery efforts, and intend to 

partner with local stakeholders to 

complement these types of efforts with 

our own to ultimately promote the 

recovery of the species. 

Comments on Threats 

Comment 25: One commenter asked 

what specifications allow a species to be 

listed under the ESA, whether different 

species have different specifications for 

a listing, whether a species can be listed 

based on loss of habitat, and whether 

overfishing of queen conch in one 

location can lead to a listing even if 

healthy populations exist elsewhere. 

Response: A species is considered 

‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, whereas a 

‘‘threatened’’ species is defined as any 

species which is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. As 

mandated by the ESA, we are required 

to determine whether a species is 

threatened or endangered because of 

any of the factors identified in section 

4(a)(1)(A)-(E) of the ESA. A species may 

be listed as threatened or endangered as 

a result of any one or more of those 

factors (threats). The particular 

circumstances and threats that 

contribute to a particular species’ listing 

under the ESA are highly fact- and casespecific, but each listing determination 

must be based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be 

supported by those data. 

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

(factor A) specifically addresses habitat 

loss as a potential basis for listing. 

However, with regard to queen conch, 

we concluded that at this time, the best 

available information indicates that 

habitat loss and degradation are not 

significantly contributing to the species’ 

extinction risk. As outlined in the status 

review report, factor B, overutilization 

for commercial, recreational, scientific, 

or educational purposes, was identified 

as the primary contributor to the listing 

determination. The extinction risk 

analysis was conducted on the entire 

range of the species, assessing 

demographic trends, including 

productivity and connectivity across 39 

unique jurisdictions. Overall, we 

concluded that overfishing, coupled 

with inadequate regulatory mechanisms 

to control overfishing, in particular 

jurisdictions is having adverse effects 

across the range of the species such that 

the species is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable throughout its range. 

Comment 26: Several commenters 

pointed out that the exploitation rate of 

8 percent for the adult queen conch 

populations referenced in the proposed 

rule was intended as a guideline to be 

used in data-limited situations as 

opposed to a firm threshold that cannot 

be surpassed in data-rich fisheries. 

These commenters suggested that their 

own jurisdictions could in fact surpass 

this threshold given the status of their 

monitoring programs and fishery 

regulations. 

Response: We did not use the 

exploitation rate of 8 percent as a 

definitive threshold to evaluate the 

status of queen conch fisheries across all 

jurisdictions. Instead, we used it as a 

tool to flag areas that exhibited high 

amounts of harvest relative to the local 

population. We evaluated the threat of 

overutilization of conch populations 

across many factors including density 

thresholds, available habitat, and 

exploitation rate. In particular, we note 

that 51 percent of jurisdictions were 

above the 8 percent exploitation rate; 80 

percent of those had densities below 

100 adult conch/hectare and 65 percent 

had densities below 50 adult conch/ 

hectare. 

The commenters have not provided 

any new data or information derived 

from their monitoring programs beyond 

what was considered in the status 

review report and proposed rule. 

Moreover, the commenters did not 

identify better available scientific or 

commercial information that would lead 

us to change our determination. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
11218 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment 27: Fourteen commenters 

recommended listing queen conch as 

endangered; one commenter specifically 

mentioned that the ESA section 4(a) risk 

factors support listing queen conch as 

an endangered species, rather than a 

threatened species. One commenter in 

particular stated that because 

overfishing (factor B) is reducing queen 

conch populations and there is no 

foreseeable reduction in fishing 

pressure, queen conch will continue on 

the path towards extinction, which the 

commenter equates with the standard 

for listing the species as endangered. 

This commenter also stated that existing 

regulatory mechanisms (factor D) over 

the past 30 years have not succeeded in 

recovering queen conch populations. 

According to this commenter, NMFS 

should list the species as endangered 

because once the population falls below 

critical density thresholds, it is at risk 

of extinction, and NMFS should not 

wait to list the species as endangered 

until this threat becomes more severe, 

which the commenter believes will 

occur in less than 30 years. 

Response: We disagree that the queen 

conch should be listed as an endangered 

species. As explained in the proposed 

rule, the key statutory difference 

between a threatened and endangered 

species is the timing of when a species 

may be in danger of extinction, either 

now (endangered) or in the foreseeable 

future (threatened). We have concluded 

that the queen conch is not presently in 

danger of extinction, but is likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future. The 

status review team conducted an 

extinction risk analysis whereby risk 

categories (i.e., low, medium, high) were 

assigned to the threats and the 

demographic risks to the species 

throughout its range. Guided by the 

results of their demographic risk 

analysis and the threats assessment, the 

status review team used their informed 

professional judgement to make an 

overall extinction risk determination for 

the queen conch. The SRT ultimately 

concluded that queen conch is facing a 

moderate risk of extinction, meaning 

that it is on a trajectory that puts it at 

a high level of extinction risk within the 

foreseeable future. 

As stated in the proposed rule and in 

our response above to comment 4, we 

evaluated the SRT’s conclusions 

regarding extinction risk and ongoing 

and planned conservation efforts for 

queen conch. We considered each of the 

statutory factors to determine whether it 

presented an extinction risk to the 

queen conch on its own, now or in the 

foreseeable future, and also considered 

the combination of those factors to 

determine whether they collectively 

contribute to the extinction risk of the 

species, currently or in the foreseeable 

future. Based on our consideration of 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information, as summarized 

here, including the SPR analysis, we 

conclude that while queen conch is not 

currently in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, it is likely to become so within 

the foreseeable future as a result of ESA 

section 4(a)(1) factors: B (overutilization 

for commercial, recreational, scientific, 

or educational purposes); D (inadequacy 

of existing regulatory mechanisms to 

address identified threats); and E (other 

natural or human factors affecting its 

continued existence). 

We conclude that the species does not 

currently have a high risk of extinction 

due to its broad distribution, its 

presence throughout its geographic 

range, and the significant connectivity 

between reproductively viable locations 

and other locations with reduced 

populations throughout the species’ 

range. The commenters did not provide 

any new or better information about any 

threats that NMFS failed to consider in 

reaching its determination that the 

species’ extinction risk is in the 

foreseeable future. Nor did the 

commenters suggest that NMFS relied 

on anything other than the best 

available information in assessing the 

threats. 

Based on our consideration of the best 

data available, and as explained above, 

we do not find that queen conch is 

presently in danger of extinction. We 

also disagree that a species that is 

currently on a path towards extinction 

is necessarily equivalent to a species 

that is currently in danger of extinction. 

A species that is on a path towards 

extinction is, however, consistent with 

our determination in this case that 

queen conch is likely to become 

endangered in the foreseeable future, 

i.e., threatened. 

While we agree with the commenter 

that factor D is a threat to the species, 

we disagree that this threat means the 

species is currently at risk of extinction. 

Our decision to list the species as 

threatened does not mean that we will 

wait until the threats become more 

severe before we undertake actions to 

recover the species. To the contrary, 

after the species is listed, we will work 

on developing a recovery plan that will 

guide future efforts to change the 

species’ trajectory toward recovery. To 

the extent this comment disagrees with 

NMFS’s definition of the foreseeable 

future, we address that comment in 

response to comment 29. 

Thus, while we recognize that the 

commenters would have reached a 

different assessment of the species’ 

extinction risk based on the information 

NMFS relied upon, the commenters did 

not provide any information that would 

change our conclusion that the queen 

conch is not presently in danger of 

extinction, but is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future. 

Comment 28: One commenter stated 

that queen conch should be listed as 

endangered because ocean temperature, 

ocean acidification, and possible 

changes in Caribbean circulation 

patterns, all of which are associated 

with climate change (factor E), represent 

serious threats to the continued viability 

of the queen conch. This commenter 

also stated that because NMFS 

determined that the foreseeable future 

for climate change extends out to the 

year 2100, there may not be sufficient 

levels of queen conch to protect, or 

enough density to continue 

reproducing, given the current decline. 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

commenter that ocean temperature, 

ocean acidification, and changes in 

circulation patterns present threats to 

queen conch. We disagree, however, 

that these climate-change associated 

threats mean the species is currently at 

risk of extinction and thereby warrant 

listing the species as endangered. The 

climate-change associated threats have 

been evaluated for the foreseeable future 

(i.e., to the year 2100), when we expect 

them to present greater challenges to the 

viability of queen conch. If a species is 

at risk of extinction in the foreseeable 

future, but not presently, then a 

threatened listing is warranted instead 

of an endangered one. 

We selected a longer timeframe 

associated with the threat of climate 

change, out to the year 2100, because of 

the availability of long-term predictions 

of increasing climate change and 

associated predicted impacts on queen 

conch. The commenter did not provide 

a scientifically defensible alternative to 

the foreseeable future values that were 

developed and applied in the status 

review report. With respect to the year 

2100 (equal to roughly 8–18 

generations), the commenter is 

concerned that populations of queen 

conch will be too depleted to be 

recovered at that time, if they do not 

receive the protections of an endangered 

status. We also note that by listing 

queen conch as a threatened species, the 

goal is to alleviate the effects of such 

threats before the species becomes 

endangered. Once listed under the ESA, 

we are required to review the status of 

the species every 5 years, thereby 

ensuring that we monitor the status of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11219 

this species and the appropriateness of 

its classification as threatened. 

As explained in response to comment 

27, our determination that the species is 

likely to become in danger of extinction 

in the foreseeable future (i.e., 

threatened) does not mean that we will 

wait until the effects associated with 

climate change occur before undertaking 

actions to recover the species. While the 

commenter disagrees with our 

assessment that 2100 represents the 

foreseeable future as it relates to climate 

change (factor E), the commenter does 

not assert that threats associated with 

climate change represent an imminent 

extinction risk for queen conch. Thus, 

even if the commenter believes NMFS 

should have selected a shorter 

timeframe as the foreseeable future 

associated with climate change, the 

commenter’s acknowledgement that 

climate change presents threat to 

species’ risk of extinction within the 

foreseeable future is consistent with our 

determination to list the species as 

threatened. 

Comment 29: One commenter 

asserted that NMFS erred in limiting the 

foreseeable future as 30 years for factors 

B and D. The commenter stated that 

previous management measures that 

were enacted well over 30 years ago 

have yet to recover populations in 

individual jurisdictions. 

Response: The ‘‘foreseeable future,’’ 

in the context of an ESA status review, 

is the time period over which we can 

reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. After we 

published the proposed rule to list 

queen conch as a threatened species, 

NMFS and the USFWS jointly proposed 

to revise the interpretation of 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ in the definition of 

a ‘‘threatened species,’’ as extending as 

far into the future as we can reasonably 

rely on information about the threats to 

the species and the species’ responses to 

those threats (88 FR 40764, June 22, 

2023). Applying either interpretation, 

we must have a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction based on 

the best available information. 

Regarding listing factors B and D, the 

foreseeable future of 30 years indicates 

that we anticipate both the threats 

associated with those factors and their 

continued impact on queen conch are 

likely to be realized over that period. As 

the commenter points out, restrictions 

that were put in place over 30 years ago 

(equal to roughly 3–6 generations) have 

not resulted in fully recovered 

populations; however, some of those 

specific jurisdictions (e.g., Florida) have 

seen initial signs of recovery which 

have resulted in some of the highest 

densities of aggregating individuals 

(Delgado and Glazer 2020) recorded 

throughout the range of the species. 

Additionally, recovery within a 

particular jurisdiction will depend on 

the larval dynamics associated with that 

sub-population, such that self-recruiting 

populations will have greater benefits 

resulting from no-take prohibitions, 

while other jurisdictions will need to 

rely on upstream sub-populations to 

augment recovery. 

We continue to find that the 

foreseeable future timeframes applied to 

queen conch are appropriate and that 

we can reasonably determine that both 

the threats and the species’ responses to 

the threats are likely to occur within 

those timeframes. 

Comment 30: One commenter 

asserted that NMFS failed to analyze all 

of the statutory factors in ESA section 

4(a)(1)(A)–(E) when determining 

whether queen conch should be listed 

as endangered or threatened. Namely, 

the commenter indicated that NMFS 

failed to analyze factors A (e.g., the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range) and C (e.g., disease or 

predation). The commenter went on to 

assert that the habitat of queen conch 

exhibits destruction and curtailment 

throughout its range, which is likely a 

result of risk factors B, D, and E. The 

commenter further indicated that 

climate change will exacerbate this 

destruction and therefore precautionary 

actions should be taken to acknowledge 

the habitat destruction in the 

jurisdiction of the United States. 

Response: We disagree. We 

considered all five statutory factors 

(ESA section 4(a)(1)(A)–(E)) in reaching 

our determination that the queen conch 

warrants listing as a threatened species 

under the ESA. With respect to factor A, 

the SRT concluded that (i) habitat 

stability, quality, and resilience is 

decreasing in many parts of the 

Caribbean due to anthropogenic 

activities that have led to direct and 

indirect impacts to seagrass and 

substrate, which are important to queen 

conch, (ii) increased pollutants, 

contaminants, and microplastics are 

impacting conch via their habitats, and 

(iii) the severity of these habitat related 

threats depend on the spatial scope and 

temporal persistence of the specific 

activities and the local demographics of 

queen conch populations. Nonetheless, 

the SRT concluded that the best 

available information indicates that 

habitat loss and degradation alone are 

not threatening the species’ persistence. 

Additionally, with respect to factor C, 

we concluded that the best available 

information indicates that an organism, 

which may be parasitic, is prevalent in 

all the sampled conch specimens 

throughout the Caribbean and that 

several studies suggest that the 

organisms are correlated with 

irregularities in reproductive cycles and 

reduced gametogenesis, while other 

studies are contradictory, suggesting 

that the organisms had no negative 

effects on health or reproduction. With 

respect to predation, the SRT concluded 

it is not believed to currently be a factor 

that is influencing the status of queen 

conch. 

As explained in the proposed rule, we 

concluded that the SRT’s findings on all 

five factors in ESA section 4(a)(1)(A)– 

(E), including factors A and C, were 

well-considered and based on the best 

available scientific information. We 

concurred with the SRT’s assessment 

and found that the best available 

information does not indicate that 

factors A and C are operative threats on 

this species (87 FR 55209, September 8, 

2022). 

Comment 31: One commenter 

mentioned that it was contradictory to 

state that ESA section 4(a) risk factor A 

was not significantly contributing to the 

extinction of the species, while also 

acknowledging that specific 

jurisdictions may require habitat 

protections or regulations, adding that 

such measures would not be warranted 

if no threats to the species’ habitat 

existed. 

Response: We disagree that the need 

for measures to protect a species’ habitat 

means that factor A must always be 

significantly contributing to the 

extinction risk of the species. In this 

case, the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the species’ habitat or 

range is not currently a factor 

contributing to the queen conch’s 

overall extinction risk. At the same 

time, there are some areas, such as in 

Bermuda, where regulations aimed at 

protecting local habitat or water quality 

may be warranted. The fact that one 

jurisdiction may need additional 

measures to protect queen conch habitat 

within that jurisdiction does not 

necessarily mean that habitat 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment is contributing to the 

species’ extinction risk throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. 

Comment 32: Several commenters 

asserted that NMFS failed to provide a 

substantive analysis of the cumulative 

impact of the five factors (ESA section 

4(a)(1)(A)–(E)). These commenters 

suggested that the cumulative impact of 

threats to queen conch supports listing 

the queen conch as an endangered 

species, rather than a threatened 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
11220 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

species. The commenter further asserted 

that NMFS failed to provide any 

quantitative or qualitative assessments 

or estimates of the overall extinction 

risk for the queen conch. 

Response: We disagree. NMFS 

considered all five listing factors in 

combination in determining whether to 

list the queen conch under the ESA. The 

analysis in the status review report 

considered and evaluated the species 

overall extinction risk resulting from the 

threats assessment as well as the 

demographic assessment. The overall 

extinction risk analysis ranking 

considers the cumulative impact of all 

identified threats and risks to the 

species. In the proposed rule, we 

describe in detail the relationship 

between the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory measures and enforcement to 

control the threat of overutilization, 

which translates into demographic 

concerns of low reproductive densities 

and disrupted population connectivity. 

Additionally, in our discussion of 

indirect impacts of climate change on 

queen conch (as part of our discussion 

of factor E), we discuss how higher 

temperatures could impact the 

availability of sea grasses and oxygen 

and salinity levels, all of which would 

impact the species habitat, food sources 

and availability of shelter from 

predators. We also discuss how ocean 

acidification could affect shell 

formation, which plays a vital role in 

protection from predators, parasites, and 

unfavorable environmental conditions. 

We acknowledge that more 

information is needed to better 

understand the population 

consequences of multiple stressors, 

especially those associated with 

interactions between long-term climate 

change such as sea level rise and 

increased erosion, turbidity, siltation, 

and severity of tropical storms. These 

threats have the potential to produce 

more widespread impacts, especially as 

they affect key ecological processes 

during early life stages such as larval 

dispersal, growth, and predation and 

whether presence of parasites increases 

the species’ extinction risk. Despite this 

need for more information and as 

explained above in our response to 

comment 27, we disagree that queen 

conch is currently at risk of extinction 

and should be listed as an endangered 

species. We find that the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the species is likely to 

become ‘‘endangered’’ (in danger of 

extinction) ‘‘within the foreseeable 

future,’’ which is consistent with listing 

the species as threatened. 

In support of this listing 

determination, the SRT conducted a 

qualitative assessment of the overall 

extinction risk for the queen conch. This 

assessment is discussed in detail in the 

status review report (Horn et al. 2022). 

There is no requirement under the ESA 

that NMFS conduct a quantitative 

assessment of extinction risk, and 

sufficient data to perform quantitative 

analyses of extinction risk are often not 

available. As we described in the 

proposed rule, based on demographic 

risk factors and threats to the species, 

the SRT evaluated the overall extinction 

risk for queen conch using a ‘‘likelihood 

point’’ (Forest Ecosystem Management 

Assessment Team 1993) method to 

express each team member’s assessment 

of extinction risk across all factors and 

capture their uncertainty in that 

assessment. As discussed in more detail 

in the status review report, each of the 

7 SRT members distributed 10 

‘‘likelihood points’’ among 3 extinction 

risk categories: (1) low risk; (2) moderate 

risk; and (3) high risk. The SRT placed 

59 percent of their likelihood points in 

the ‘‘moderate risk’’ category. Due to 

uncertainty, particularly regarding 

consistent reporting of landings and 

survey methodologies, the SRT also 

placed some of their likelihood points 

in the ‘‘low risk’’ (30 percent) and ‘‘high 

risk’’ (11 percent) categories. Based on 

this analysis, the SRT concluded that 

the queen conch is currently at a 

‘‘moderate risk’’ of extinction. We 

agreed that the SRT’s approach to 

assessing the extinction risk for queen 

conch was appropriate, consistent with 

our agency practice, and based on the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available. After considering 

the SRT’s assessment, we concluded 

that the queen conch is not currently in 

danger of extinction, but is likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. 

Comments on Social, Economic, or 

Cultural Factors 

Comment 33: Several commenters 

provided a social or cultural rationale as 

to why the species should not be listed 

under the ESA. The commenters 

referred to the cultural and social 

importance of queen conch in the form 

of traditional cuisine, subsistence, 

nutrition, and historical cultural values 

and beliefs. 

Response: NMFS is mandated under 

the ESA to determine whether a species 

is an endangered or threatened species 

‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available’’ (16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A). Therefore, we are 

not allowed to consider social, 

economic, or cultural factors when 

deciding whether to list a species under 

the ESA. Within U.S. jurisdiction, the 

listing of listing queen conch as a 

threatened species under the ESA does 

not create additional user regulations 

beyond those that are already in place; 

therefore, this rule is not anticipated to 

impact the cultural or social importance 

of queen conch within the United 

States. The ESA listing will have no 

effect on the citizens of other nations, 

outside the jurisdiction of the United 

States, and thus would not restrict 

traditional uses there. Any potential 

regulations under the authority of the 

ESA for the species would be developed 

through a separate rulemaking process 

under section 4(d) of the ESA, whereby 

NMFS can tailor the rule to specifically 

address conservation needs. Public 

comment would be solicited and 

considered, along with economic and 

social impacts, in the development of 

any future 4(d) regulations. 

Comment 34: Several commenters 

suggested that better outreach and 

educational programs are needed to 

inform stakeholders about how species 

can get listed under the ESA, citing 

concerns over equity and environmental 

justice. Specifically, commenters 

suggested that NMFS coordinate with 

under-served communities to promote 

outreach and education opportunities 

due to unawareness of regulations and 

local management strategies. 

Response: Prior to publication of the 

proposed rule, NMFS sent Spanishspeaking staff to discuss the queen 

conch status review with the CFMC and 

WECFAC working groups. Following 

publication of the proposed rule, NMFS 

provided English, Spanish, French, 

Dutch, and Creole versions of the 

proposed rule; along with English and 

Spanish versions of Frequently Asked 

Questions. Additionally, NMFS 

provided an after-hours virtual public 

hearing presentation and question and 

answer session, with live Spanishlanguage interpretation services and 

English, French, German, Spanish, and 

Italian closed captioning translation 

options. Spanish-speaking staff have 

attended several CFMC and District 

Advisory Panel meetings to provide 

presentations and updates on queen 

conch rulemaking. 

Although NMFS has made good faith 

efforts to engage under-served 

communities in the development of this 

final rule, we recognize there is room for 

improvement. NMFS identified 

outreach and engagement as a core 

component of the new national Equity 

and Environmental Justice (EEJ) strategy 

released in May of 2023 (https://

media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2023-05/ 

NOAA-Fisheries-EEJ-Strategy-Final.pdf). 

The three overarching goals of the 

strategy are to: (1) prioritize 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11221 

identification, equitable treatment, and 

meaningful involvement of underserved 

communities; (2) prioritize equitable 

delivery of services; and (3) prioritize 

EEJ in our mandated and mission work 

with demonstrable progress. Our 

outreach and engagement objective aims 

to build relationships with underserved 

communities to better understand their 

engagement preferences and improve 

information sharing with all 

communities. 

We are currently working to 

operationalize the national EEJ strategy 

in the Southeast Region through the 

development of a Southeast EEJ 

Implementation Plan. That plan is being 

informed by feedback we received in 

response to a public Request for 

Information, along with information we 

obtained through a series of focus group 

meetings conducted with underserved 

community members and liaisons 

throughout the region. We will continue 

to coordinate with underserved 

communities on outreach and education 

initiatives as we work to incorporate EEJ 

into the vital services we provide to all 

communities. 

Comment 35: One commenter 

suggested that NMFS should increase 

outreach and education programs to 

warn fishers of the dangers of IUU 

fishing and overexploitation as there is 

a lack of awareness of local management 

strategies and regulations. 

Response: We agree that increased 

outreach and education programs could 

promote queen conch fishery 

sustainability throughout the region, 

and we look forward to working with 

regional partners to promote such 

programs, as appropriate, to facilitate 

the recovery of the species. 

Comment 36: Several commenters 

requested that the public documents, 

presentations, rulings, listings in the 

Federal Register, and other 

communications put forward by NMFS 

should be provided in Spanish. 

Response: The issue of language 

alternatives was brought to our attention 

early on during the public comment 

period. In response, we provided 

English, Spanish, French, Dutch, and 

Creole versions of the proposed rule; 

English and Spanish versions of 

Frequently Asked Questions and the 

public hearing presentation; and live 

Spanish-language interpretation services 

and English, French, German, Spanish, 

and Italian closed captioning translation 

options for the public hearing. To the 

extent possible, we will similarly 

prepare English, Spanish, French, 

Dutch, and Creole versions of the final 

rule, and we will continue to provide 

English and Spanish versions of 

frequently asked questions and other 

documents that will be developed as a 

part of the recovery planning process. 

Comment 37: One commenter 

suggested that NMFS is undermining 

local stakeholders to ensure that the 

queen conch is listed under the ESA. 

Response: While we disagree with the 

commenter’s assertion, we recognize the 

important role of stakeholders as we 

work together to recover the species. 

NMFS received a petition to list the 

species, and we are carrying out our 

statutory responsibilities under the ESA. 

Listing queen conch as a threatened 

species under the ESA recognizes the 

objectively determined status of the 

species and provides support from the 

Federal Government towards the 

recovery of the species. 

Comment 38: One commenter 

suggested that NMFS is implementing 

‘‘draconian measures’’ on resources in 

the U.S. Caribbean, which equates to 

‘‘institutional racism and 

discrimination.’’ The commenter 

elaborated by mentioning that these 

issues fall under ‘‘equity and 

environmental justice.’’ 

Response: We disagree. By listing a 

species under the ESA, NMFS is 

executing its statutory responsibilities. 

As required by the ESA, we based our 

listing determination solely on the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

regarding the status of the species. Our 

procedures, some prescribed by statute 

and others by Agency regulations or 

policies, are focused on ensuring that 

our decisions are objective and based on 

the best available science. We 

recognized the need for further 

engagement with local stakeholders 

beyond conventional means, 

particularly to solicit input from 

underrepresented, marginalized, and 

underserved communities that may not 

have the technical training, technology, 

or experience needed to provide public 

comment via traditional platform, as 

explained in response to comment 34. 

As we develop further actions related to 

the queen conch, NMFS will continue to 

work to find ways to meaningfully 

engage with local stakeholders to 

promote the recovery of the species. 

Comment 39: One commenter 

referenced the United Nations 

sustainable development goal 10, to 

‘‘Reduce inequality within and among 

countries.’’ The commenter expressed 

concern that the listing determination 

would inadvertently lead to inequality 

and limit inclusion by stakeholder 

groups. 

Response: We disagree that our 

determination to list queen conch as a 

threatened species will lead to 

inequality and limit inclusion by 

stakeholder groups. We note that listing 

of queen conch under the ESA has no 

regulatory effect beyond those required 

through ESA section 7 that Federal 

agencies consult with us on actions they 

authorize, fund, or carry out if those 

actions may affect the listed species or 

designated critical habitat within our 

jurisdiction. Under the ESA, we are also 

required to designate critical habitat for 

listed species to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 

1533(a)(3)(A)(ii). Per our implementing 

regulations, however, we cannot 

designate critical habitat within foreign 

countries or in other areas outside the 

jurisdiction of the United States (50 CFR 

424.12(g)). 

While we acknowledge that 

economic, social, and cultural 

considerations cannot be considered 

during the listing process, we note that 

the listing determination was based on 

the best available science, and we took 

measures to ensure broad and inclusive 

stakeholder participation. Public 

comments were solicited and received 

after the 90-day positive finding (77 FR 

51763, December 6, 2019) and again for 

an extended period after the publication 

of the proposed listing (87 FR 55200, 

September 8, 2022; 87 FR 67853, 

November 10, 2022). As noted above, 

substantial efforts were made to provide 

materials across numerous languages 

and to engage with stakeholders 

throughout the range of the species. Our 

public hearing, held on November 21, 

2022, was formally noticed to 

representatives from over 30 state, 

Federal, and international organizations 

including CITES; WECAFC; CRFM; 

CFMC; the United States Department of 

State; the United States Congress; State/ 

Territorial partners; over 6,000 

subscribers to our Fishery Bulletin, 

including 4,000 in the U.S. Caribbean; 

and many others. 

Should further rulemaking be 

initiated through section 4(d) of the 

ESA, other factors including economic, 

social, and cultural considerations can 

be incorporated into the decision 

making process. This process would 

provide additional opportunities for 

public comment, community 

engagement, and stakeholder inclusion. 

Comment 40: Several commenters 

referenced the economic importance of 

queen conch to their fisheries, and 

commented that any further restrictions 

on catch would hinder economic growth 

and fishing community prosperity. 

Response: NMFS is mandated under 

the ESA to make listing decisions 

‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available,’’ after 

conducting a review of the status of the 

species and taking into account the 

efforts being made by any state or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
11222 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

foreign nation to protect the species. 

While we recognize the economic 

importance of queen conch to fishing 

communities, we cannot consider 

social, economic, or cultural impacts 

that may stem from a species’ listing 

when determining whether to list that 

species under the ESA. Additionally, no 

fishing restrictions are being proposed 

at this time. Listing the species as 

threatened under the ESA does not 

automatically establish any take 

prohibitions, which would apply if the 

species were listed as endangered. 

However, based on our review of the 

current population trends of the species 

and the inadequacy of existing 

regulations to control the ongoing threat 

of overutilization, we intend to propose 

protective regulations pursuant to 

section 4(d) for queen conch in a future 

rulemaking. A future rulemaking on 

protective regulations will include an 

opportunity for additional public 

comment, including any comments 

related to the economic importance of 

queen conch. We will also develop a 

recovery plan for queen conch to 

identify actions and establish goals for 

conserving and recovering the species. 

The development of the recovery plan 

will also include an opportunity for 

public comment. 

Comment 41: Several commenters 

pointed out that exports of queen conch 

out of their jurisdictions are already 

highly regulated and that the level of 

exports comply with CITES regulations 

to ensure sustainable resource use. 

Many of these commenters also 

mentioned that exports were primarily 

distributed to the United States and 

therefore U.S. law should not create any 

additional regulations that will inhibit 

exports of queen conch from their 

jurisdictions. 

Response: In making our listing 

determination, we reviewed the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and ultimately concluded that the 

species warrants listing as a threatened 

species under the ESA. Foreign 

regulatory measures and actions of other 

stakeholders, including a detailed 

analysis of management measures by 

jurisdiction, were considered during our 

determination. In the proposed rule, we 

reviewed existing regulatory measures 

and concluded that existing regulations 

are inadequate to control the ongoing 

threats of overutilization and climate 

change. We determined that despite 

CITES measures to ensure sustainable 

resource use, the species is likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future and therefore 

warrants a threatened listing status. A 

threatened listing under the ESA does 

not automatically establish any 

restrictions on imports into the United 

States. However, as stated in our 

response to comment 40, we recognize 

the threat of overutilization throughout 

the range of queen conch and we intend 

to propose protective regulations 

pursuant to section 4(d) for the queen 

conch in a future rulemaking. Such 

regulations, including any potential 

import restrictions, will be proposed in 

a separate rulemaking that will include 

an opportunity for additional public 

comment. We will also consider any 

comments related to export compliance 

with CITES regulations further in the 

subsequent rulemaking regarding 

protective regulations. 

Comment 42: Several commenters 

mentioned that consumption of queen 

conch within local markets was 

exceptionally low and that their local 

fishery was only profitable by exporting 

their product, while others mentioned 

that local consumption was the only 

queen conch market that exists. These 

commenters assert that fishers within 

local jurisdictions do not apply 

sufficient fishing pressure to 

overharvest the species due to limited 

local demand and harvesting strategies. 

Response: The proposed rule 

identified overutilization of the resource 

in the form of extraction as the primary 

threat to queen conch throughout its 

range. Many commenters provided 

evidence of industrial fishing driven by 

exports while others provided anecdotal 

evidence of high local consumption. We 

agree that industrial-scale fishing is a 

primary threat to the species. As we 

explain in the proposed rule, fishing 

pressure for local consumption remains 

difficult to quantify and varies 

considerably among locations. The high 

degree of impact from industrial fishing 

combined with the uncertainty of 

subsistence fishing efforts supports our 

decision to list the queen conch as 

threatened throughout its range. 

Although the contributions of 

industrial, artisanal, and IUU fishing are 

challenging to discretely quantify, the 

status review report clearly shows that 

overutilization, in aggregate, has 

contributed to declines in reproductive 

densities and fishery failures in many 

jurisdictions. 

Comments on Recovery Planning and 

Recovery Actions 

Comment 43: One commenter 

requested that NMFS implement 

protective measures that incentivize 

good practices instead of punishing 

unsustainable practices, recognizing 

that a collaborative, regional approach is 

essential to recover the species. 

Response: We will consider these 

comments in a subsequent rulemaking 

regarding protective regulations under 

section 4(d), which will include an 

opportunity for additional public 

comment. We will also consider these 

comments when we develop a recovery 

plan under section 4(f) of the ESA. We 

agree that a collaborative, regional 

approach is essential to recover the 

species. 

Comment 44: One commenter 

requested that NMFS take specific 

actions related to the queen conch 

population in Florida. These requests 

include: (1) limit the social, economic, 

and cultural impact of the ESA listing 

to communities that depend on the 

imports, cultural significance, and 

tourism associated with the species, 

such as in the Florida Keys; (2) develop 

criteria to identify sustainable 

commercial fisheries throughout the 

Caribbean to allow for the import, 

export, and sale of commercially 

harvested queen conch in these 

fisheries; (3) coordinate an aquaculture 

program to further develop the capacity 

of existing operations and to promote 

new operations for recovery and 

commercial aquaculture purposes; (4) 

allow for the possession of queen conch 

shells, as it would be impossible to 

determine existing products compared 

to newly extracted ones; and (5) allow 

for conservation activities that are 

currently being carried out to continue 

unhindered. 

Response: The actions requested by 

this commenter go beyond the scope of 

this rule. Subsequent actions, including 

developing a recovery plan, can 

consider these actions requested by this 

commenter. Similarly, any potential 

take prohibitions we might develop 

under the authority of ESA section 4(d) 

can be specifically tailored to consider 

regional needs. Therefore, we will 

consider this comment in the context of 

future actions, including recovery 

planning, and any separate rulemaking 

we may undertake pursuant to ESA 

section 4(d). 

Comment 45: Several commenters 

requested that they be consulted and 

included in strategies to enhance the 

recovery of the species moving forward. 

Response: We thank these 

commenters for identifying their interest 

in the recovery planning process. NMFS 

intends to work with regional 

stakeholders to identify the most 

effective actions and the best strategies 

to promote the recovery of the species. 

This will include consultations with 

stakeholders and recovery planning 

based on the best available information. 

Comment 46: One commenter 

recommended that NMFS establish a 

regional initiative with the following 

components: (1) define and standardize 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11223 

a queen conch assessment method; (2) 

standardize survey designs; (3) develop 

a more robust monitoring design, ideally 

using electronic monitoring; and (4) 

apply the developed initiative in three 

pilot countries to determine 

effectiveness and analyze the results. 

Response: We appreciate these 

suggestions, although they are beyond 

the scope of this rule. The actions 

requested are appropriate for evaluation 

during the recovery planning process. 

During the development of the recovery 

plan, NMFS will consider this comment 

and solicit additional information and 

recommendations from a variety of 

stakeholders to develop effective 

strategies to promote the recovery of 

queen conch throughout its range. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Listing Rule 

We did not receive, nor did we find, 

data or references that presented 

substantial new information that would 

cause us to change our proposed listing 

determination. We did however, receive 

nine sources of new data (see comment 

1), eight of which provided data that fit 

within the range of estimates considered 

in the status review report (Horn et al. 

2022) and proposed rule. As stated 

above, the ninth new data source 

provided data that was derived using 

experimental methodology that has yet 

to be sufficiently validated and is not 

considered the best scientific 

information available. Therefore, while 

the new data contributed to our overall 

understanding of population dynamics 

and provided more refined local density 

estimates for populations in Antigua 

and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Belize, 

Florida, Nicaragua, San Andres Islands 

in Colombia, St. Vincent and the 

Grenadines, and the USVI, they did not 

alter the outcomes of the extinction risk 

analysis nor our interpretation of risk 

factors across the range of the species. 

After the publication of our proposed 

rule (87 FR 55200, September 8, 2022) 

and during our analysis of public 

comments, NMFS adopted a new set of 

guidelines with regards to climate 

considerations during rulemaking 

processes. On May 9, 2023, NMFS 

officially recognized climate scenario 

SSP3–7.0 as the most likely predictor of 

future climate conditions, and therefore 

the climate scenario that should be used 

to evaluate climate change effects under 

the ESA. The proposed rule evaluated 

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

(specifically factor E) using the climate 

scenario SSP5–8.5. Climate scenario 

SSP3–7.0 is characterized by emissions 

and temperatures rising steadily, with 

carbon dioxide emissions roughly 

doubling and average temperatures 

rising by 3.6 °C from current levels by 

2100. While this scenario is more 

optimistic than scenario SSP5–8.5, the 

effects to queen conch and the 

corresponding extinction analysis are 

equivalent, as explained more fully 

below. ESA section 4(a)(1) factor E, 

other natural or man-made factors 

affecting the continued existence of the 

species, was highlighted by the SRT as 

one of the risk factors that was relevant 

to the listing determination in that 

climate change is significantly 

contributing to the species extinction 

risk in the foreseeable future, which in 

this case is the year 2100. The SRT 

highlighted high carbon dioxide levels, 

higher mean sea surface temperature, 

and possible changes to the Caribbean 

Sea circulation patterns as major threats 

to the species. The corresponding effects 

are predicted to include disruption to 

shell formation due to acidic ambient 

water conditions, negative implications 

on reproduction, and impacts to 

population-level connectivity and 

recruitment, respectively. The 

associated extinction analysis under 

climate scenario SSP5–8.5 was also 

conducted with the considerations into 

the foreseeable future (i.e., 2100). 

The climate considerations in the 

proposed rule represent a range of 

values and were used to analyze the 

effects on queen conch biology using 

possible trends that may occur under 

climate scenario SSP5–8.5. The 

environmental changes anticipated 

within the range of the species under 

climate scenario SSP3–7.0 do not alter 

our interpretation of anticipated trends 

in the climate change risk factor, nor do 

they affect our corresponding extinction 

analyses. Specifically, decreases in 

aragonite and larval shell calcification 

can occur at pH levels of 7.6–7.7, which 

are projected to occur by 2100 under 

climate scenario SSP3–7.0 due to 

elevated carbon dioxide levels. The 

anticipated mean sea surface 

temperature increases under scenario 

SSP3–7.0 are within the range evaluated 

in the status review report of 1.1–6.4 °C; 

thus, changes in reproductive biology 

are still anticipated. Additionally, the 

increase in water temperatures and its 

effects on circulation patterns in the 

Caribbean anticipated under climate 

scenario SSP3–7.0 are not substantively 

different from those considered in the 

proposed rule under SSP5–8.5, with 

similar impacts to conch connectivity 

and recruitment. Thus, the conclusions 

contained in the status review and 

determinations based on those 

conclusions in the proposed rule are 

reaffirmed in this final action. 

ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors Affecting 

the Queen Conch 

As stated previously and as discussed 

in the proposed rule (87 FR 55200, 

September 8, 2022), we considered 

whether any one or a combination of the 

five threat factors specified in section 

4(a)(1) of the ESA is contributing to the 

extinction risk of the queen conch. 

Several commenters provided 

additional information related to 

threats, such as overutilization, IUU 

fishing, inadequate regulatory 

mechanisms, and climate 

considerations. The information 

provided was consistent with or 

reinforced information in the status 

review and proposed rule, and thus, did 

not change our conclusions regarding 

any of the section 4(a)(1) factors or their 

interactions. Therefore, we incorporate 

and affirm herein all information, 

discussion, and conclusions regarding 

the factors affecting the queen conch 

from the status review report (Horn et 

al. 2022) and the proposed rule (87 FR 

55200, September 8, 2022). 

Protective Efforts 

In addition to regulatory measures 

(e.g., fishing regulations, seasonal 

closures, spatial closures, etc.), we 

considered other efforts being made to 

protect the queen conch. We assessed 

whether such protective efforts altered 

the conclusions of the extinction risk 

analysis for the species; however, none 

of the information we received on the 

proposed rule affected our prior 

conclusions regarding conservation 

efforts to protect the queen conch. 

Therefore, we incorporate and affirm 

herein all information, discussion, and 

conclusions on the extinction risk of the 

queen conch in the status review report 

(Horn et al. 2022) and proposed rule (87 

FR 55200, September 8, 2022). 

Final Listing Determination 

We reviewed the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

including the information in the status 

review report (Horn et al. 2022). Based 

on the status review report, our 

evaluation of protective efforts, and 

consideration of all public comments, 

we determine that the queen conch 

meets the definition of a threatened 

species under the ESA. We find that the 

queen conch is in danger of extinction 

in the foreseeable future throughout all 

of its range as a result of ESA section 

4(a)(1) factors B, D, and E. We 

summarize the results of our 

determination as follows: (1) The most 

significant threat to queen conch is 

overutilization; (2) Existing regulatory 

mechanisms including morphometric 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
11224 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

and exploitation thresholds, 

compliance, and enforcement are 

insufficient to protect the species from 

growth overfishing and poaching, 

including IUU fishing, throughout the 

Caribbean; (3) The majority of 

jurisdictions are below the minimum 

adult density threshold required to 

support mate finding (i.e., 100 adult 

conch/hectare). These populations are 

not reproductive and unlikely to be 

contributing to recruitment and 

population growth; (4) The species 

currently suffers from low population 

densities and poor recruitment 

throughout a vast majority of its range 

and experiences limited larval dispersal 

and interrupted population 

connectivity; (5) The Caribbean region is 

likely to be impacted by climate change, 

and those adverse impacts, while not 

yet fully realized, could have 

devastating implications for queen 

conch over the next century (i.e., by 

2100). Based on the demographic risks 

and threats under ESA section (4)(1)B, 

D, and E, we have concluded that queen 

conch is likely to become an endangered 

species in the foreseeable future 

throughout its range. However, as stated 

in the proposed rule and reiterated here, 

we concluded that the species does not 

currently have a high risk of extinction 

such that it warrants listing as an 

endangered species due to the 

following: the species has a broad 

distribution and still occurs throughout 

its geographic range and is not confined 

or limited to a small geographic area; 

the species does not appear to have been 

extirpated from any jurisdiction and can 

still be found, albeit at low densities in 

most cases, throughout its geographic 

range; and there are several jurisdictions 

that have queen conch populations that 

are currently disproportionately 

contributing to the viability of the 

species, such that the species is not 

presently at risk of extinction. After 

considering efforts being made to 

protect the species, we conclude that 

existing conservation efforts are 

insufficient to alter the extinction risk. 

We evaluated 51 different portions of 

the species range at 4 different 

geographic scales and determined that 

none are at ‘‘high risk’’ of extinction but 

some are likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future. Therefore, our 

conclusion regarding the species’ 

overall extinction risk does not change 

based on consideration of status of the 

species within portions of the species’ 

range, and thus we find that queen 

conch is not currently in danger, but is 

likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all of its range. Accordingly, we have 

determined that the queen conch 

warrants listing as a threatened species 

under the ESA. 

Effects of Listing 

Conservation measures provided for 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the ESA include the 

development and implementation of 

recovery plans (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); 

designation of critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 

1533(a)(3)(A)); and a requirement that 

Federal agencies consult with NMFS 

under section 7 of the ESA to ensure 

their actions are not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of the species or 

result in adverse modification or 

destruction of designated critical habitat 

(16 U.S.C. 1536). An endangered species 

automatically receives protections 

against ‘‘take’’ under section 9 of the 

ESA. The ESA defines take to mean ‘‘to 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 

to attempt to engage in any such 

conduct.’’ (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The ESA 

section 9 prohibitions do not 

automatically apply to species listed as 

threatened; however, we may extend 

any of these prohibitions to threatened 

species through a regulation issued 

under section 4(d) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1533(d)). Section 4(d) of the ESA also 

directs the Secretary of Commerce to 

develop regulations that the Secretary 

‘‘deems necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of [a 

threatened] species.’’ Recognition of the 

species’ imperiled status through listing 

may also promote conservation actions 

by Federal and state agencies, foreign 

entities, private groups, and individuals. 

Identifying ESA Section 7 Consultation 

Requirements 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1536(a)(2)) and joint NMFS and USFWS 

regulations (50 CFR part 402) require 

Federal agencies to consult with us on 

actions they authorize, fund, or carry 

out if those actions may affect the listed 

species or designated critical habitat. 

Based on currently available 

information, we conclude that examples 

of Federal actions that may affect the 

queen conch include but are not limited 

to: Fishery harvest and management, 

renewable energy projects, discharge of 

pollution from point sources, non-point 

source pollution, contaminated waste 

and plastic disposal, dredging, piledriving, development of water quality 

standards, military activities, beach 

renourishment, coastal construction, 

and shoreline development. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1) the 

specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by a species, at the time 

it is listed in accordance with the ESA, 

on which are found those physical or 

biological features (I) essential to the 

conservation of the species and (II) that 

may require special management 

considerations or protection; and (2) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by a species at the time 

it is listed, if such areas are determined 

to be essential for the conservation of 

the species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the 

use of all methods and procedures 

needed to bring the species to the point 

at which listing under the ESA is no 

longer necessary. Designation of critical 

habitat must be based on the best 

scientific data available and must take 

into consideration the economic, 

national security, and other relevant 

impacts of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat. 

Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 

U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to 

the maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, critical habitat be 

designated concurrently with the listing 

of a species, unless as described in 

section 4(b)(6)(C), critical habitat is not 

then determinable, in which case we 

may take an additional year to publish 

the final critical habitat determination 

(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). In our 

proposal to list the queen conch, we 

requested information on the 

identification of specific features and 

areas in U.S. waters that may meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

queen conch (87 FR 55200, September 

8, 2022). We received and considered 

six comments that specifically provided 

information to inform the determination 

of critical habitat. We conclude that 

critical habitat is not determinable at 

this time for the following reasons: (1) 

Sufficient information and analysis are 

not currently available to assess the 

impacts of designation; and (2) 

Sufficient information and analysis are 

not currently available regarding the 

physical and biological features 

essential to conservation. We will 

continue to evaluate potential critical 

habitat for the queen conch, and we 

intend to consider critical habitat for 

this species in a separate action. 

ESA Section 9 Take Prohibitions 

Because we are listing the queen 

conch as threatened, the prohibitions 

under section 9 of the ESA will not 

automatically apply to this species. As 

described below, ESA section 4(d) 

leaves it to the Secretary’s discretion 

whether, and to what extent, to extend 

the section 9(a) prohibitions to 

threatened species, and authorizes us to 

issue regulations that are deemed 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11225 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of the species. 

Protective Regulations Under Section 

4(d) of the ESA 

As discussed previously, NMFS has 

flexibility under section 4(d) to tailor 

protective regulations based on the 

needs of and threats to the species. 

Section 4(d) protective regulations may 

prohibit, with respect to threatened 

species, some or all of the acts which 

section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits with 

respect to endangered species. We are 

not proposing such regulations at this 

time, but may consider potential 

protective regulations pursuant to 

section 4(d) for the queen conch in a 

future rulemaking. 

Peer Review 

In December 2004, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) issued 

a Final Information Quality Bulletin for 

Peer Review. The primary purpose of 

the Bulletin is to improve the quality 

and credibility of scientific information 

disseminated by the Federal government 

by requiring peer review. To satisfy our 

requirements under the Bulletin, we 

solicited peer review comments on the 

draft status review report from three 

scientists with specific knowledge 

regarding queen conch. We received and 

reviewed comments from these 

scientists, and, prior to publication of 

the proposed rule, their comments were 

incorporated into the status review 

report (Horn et al. 2022), which was 

then made available for public 

comment. Peer reviewer comments on 

the status review report are available at 

https://www.noaa.gov/organization/ 

information-technology/informationquality-peer-review-id425. 

Information Solicited 

Subsequent to this listing, as required 

by ESA, we will evaluate whether any 

locations within U.S. waters meet the 

definition of critical habitat for queen 

conch and designate any critical habitat 

as appropriate. We request interested 

persons to submit relevant information 

related to the identification of critical 

habitat and essential physical or 

biological features for this species, as 

well as economic or other relevant 

impacts of designation of critical habitat 

for the queen conch. Physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species include, but 

are not limited to, features specific to 

queen conch habitats and life history 

characteristics within the following 

general categories: (1) space for 

individual growth and for normal 

behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, 

minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; (3) cover or 

shelter; (4) sites for reproduction and 

development of offspring; and (5) 

habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historical, geographical, and ecological 

distributions of the species. 

In addition, while we are not 

proposing any protective regulations 

under section 4(d) at this time, we 

intend to propose protective regulations 

to conserve queen conch throughout its 

range in the future. These regulations 

may prohibit for the threatened queen 

conch one or more of the acts prohibited 

by section 9(a)(1) of the ESA for 

endangered species. Examples of 

measures that may be included in 

protective regulations include 

prohibiting the import, export, or take of 

the species and also specifying 

conditions under which import, export, 

or take of the species may be allowed. 

We solicit information to inform this 

determination and the development of 

any protective regulations for the queen 

conch. In addition to information on the 

potential conservation benefits of 

particular protective regulations, we 

solicit input on the associated cultural 

and socio-economic impacts that those 

regulatory measures may produce. 

Information on these topics may be 

submitted from the public, other 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party directly to us (see 

ADDRESSES). 

References 

A complete list of the references used 

in this final rule, and the corresponding 

proposed rule, is available upon request, 

and also available at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/queenconch. 

Classification 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

The 1982 amendments to the ESA in 

section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 

information that may be considered 

when assessing species for listing. Based 

on this limitation of criteria for a listing 

decision and the opinion in Pacific 

Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 

825 (6th Cir. 1981), NMFS has 

concluded that ESA listing actions are 

not subject to the environmental 

assessment requirements of the NEPA 

(See NOAA Administrative Order 216– 

6A). 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, and Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

As noted in the Conference Report on 

the 1982 amendments to the ESA, 

economic impacts cannot be considered 

when assessing the status of a species. 

Therefore, the economic analysis 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act are not applicable to the 

listing process. In addition, this final 

rule is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866. This final rule 

does not contain a collection-ofinformation requirement for the 

purposes of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

In accordance with E.O. 13132, 

agencies are required to take into 

account any federalism impacts of 

regulations under development. This 

Executive Order includes specific 

consultation directives for situations 

where a regulation will preempt state 

law, or impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on state and local 

governments (unless required by 

statute). Neither of those circumstances 

is applicable to this final listing 

determination. In keeping with the 

intent of the Administration and 

Congress to provide continuing and 

meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual 

state and Federal interest, the proposed 

rule was provided to the relevant 

agencies in each state in which the 

subject species occurs, and these 

agencies were invited to comment. 

Their comments were addressed with 

other comments in the Public 

Comments and Our Responses section. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Transportation. 

Dated: February 8, 2024. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, we amend 50 CFR part 223 as 

follows: 

PART 223—THREATENED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 223 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; subpart B, 

§ 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 

1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 

§ 223.206(d)(9). 

■ 2. In § 223.102, in the table in 

paragraph (e), under the subheading 

‘‘Molluscs,’’ add an entry for ‘‘Conch, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
11226 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

queen’’ in alphabetical order by 

common name to read as follows: 

§ 223.102 Enumeration of endangered 

marine and anadromous species. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Species 1

Citation(s) for listing determination(s) Critical habitat ESA rules 

Common name Scientific name Description of listed 

entity 

*******

Molluscs 

Conch, queen ............ Aliger gigas ............... Entire species ............ [Insert Federal Register citation] 

February 14, 2024.

NA .................. NA. 

*******

1Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 

1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–02966 Filed 2–13–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1