Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 57431 

substantial information on several 

factors affecting wood storks in the 

southeastern United States, including: 

Impacts of habitat modification and 

disruption of water regimes (Factor A); 

predation (Factor C); and contaminants, 

harmful algal blooms such as red tide 

events, electrocution mortalities from 

power lines, road kill, invasion of exotic 

plants and animals, human disturbance, 

and stochastic events (Factor E). 

Of the five listing factors, Factor A 

(habitat destruction and modification) 

continues to be the leading threat to 

wood stork recovery. However, 

magnitude of this threat may be reduced 

due to the increase in wood storks and 

expansion of the breeding range from 

Florida into Georgia, South Carolina, 

and North Carolina. There are a number 

of regulatory mechanisms implemented 

by Federal and State agencies to protect 

wood storks and conserve their habitat. 

Whether habitat protection and 

conservation regulatory mechanisms are 

inadequate can only be assessed in 

terms of the wood stork population, and 

recent trends indicate that the range is 

still expanding and the breeding 

population has increased, suggesting 

that current conservation measures are 

sufficient to allow population growth. 

Other threats such as disease and 

predation and other natural or manmade factors (i.e., contaminants, 

electrocution, road kill, invasion of 

exotic plants and animals, disturbance, 

and stochastic events) are known to 

occur but are not significant. We believe 

that the conclusions of the 5-year review 

regarding the listing factors and the 

recommended change in status of the 

species from endangered to threatened, 

as presented in the petition and as 

modified by any information in our 

files, still apply. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats, we must look beyond 

the mere exposure of the species to the 

factor to determine whether the species 

responds to the factor in a way that 

causes actual impacts to the species. If 

there is exposure to a factor, but no 

response, or only a positive response, 

that factor is not a threat. If there is 

exposure to a factor and the species 

responds negatively, the factor may be 

a threat and we then attempt to 

determine how significant a threat it is. 

If the threat is significant, it may drive 

or contribute to the risk of extinction of 

the species such that the species may 

warrant listing as threatened or 

endangered as those terms are defined 

by the Act. This does not necessarily 

require empirical proof of a threat. The 

combination of exposure and some 

corroborating evidence of how the 

species is likely impacted could suffice. 

The mere identification of factors that 

could impact a species negatively may 

not be sufficient to compel a finding 

that listing may be warranted. The 

information must contain evidence 

sufficient to suggest that these factors 

may be operative threats that act on the 

species to the point that the species may 

meet the definition of threatened or 

endangered under the Act. 

Because we have found that the 

petition, as well as other information in 

our files, presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that reclassifying the wood stork in the 

southeastern United States to threatened 

may be warranted, we are initiating a 

status review to determine whether 

reclassifying the wood stork in the 

southeastern United States to threatened 

under the Act is warranted. We will 

issue a 12-month finding as to whether 

the petitioned action is warranted. As 

part of our status review, we will 

examine newly available information on 

the threats to the species and make a 

final determination on a 12-month 

finding on whether the species should 

be listed as endangered or threatened 

under the Act. To ensure the status 

review is complete, we are requesting 

scientific and commercial information 

regarding the wood stork throughout its 

entire range (as described under the 

Request for Information section). 

The ‘‘substantial information’’ 

standard for a 90-day finding differs 

from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and 

commercial data’’ standard that applies 

to a status review to determine whether 

a petitioned action is warranted. A 90- 

day finding does not constitute a status 

review under the Act. In a 12-month 

finding, we will determine whether a 

petitioned action is warranted after we 

have completed a thorough status 

review of the species, which is 

conducted following a substantial 90- 

day finding. Because the Act’s standards 

for 90-day and 12-month findings are 

different, as described above, a 

substantial 90-day finding does not 

mean that the 12-month finding will 

result in a warranted finding. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Jacksonville Ecological Services Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

staff of the Jacksonville Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: August 23, 2010. 

Wendi Weber, 

Acting Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23138 Filed 9–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

[Docket No. 100903415–04–02] 

RIN 0648–XW96 

Listing Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants; 90–Day Finding on 

a Petition to List Atlantic Bluefin Tuna 

as Threatened or Endangered under 

the Endangered Species Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: 90–day petition finding; request 

for information. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90– 

day finding for a petition to list Atlantic 

bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) as 

endangered or threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to 

designate critical habitat concurrently 

with a listing. We find that the petition 

presents substantial scientific 

information indicating the petitioned 

action may be warranted. We will 

conduct a status review of Atlantic 

bluefin tuna to determine if the 

petitioned action is warranted. To 

ensure that the review is 

comprehensive, we solicit information 

pertaining to this species from any 

interested party. 

DATES: Information related to this 

petition finding must be received by 

November 22, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 0648–XW96, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail or hand-delivery: Assistant 

Regional Administrator, NMFS, 

Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great 

Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

All comments received are a part of 

the public record and will generally be 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
57432 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

posted to http://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All Personal Identifying 

Information (for example, name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter may be publicly 

accessible. Do not submit Confidential 

Business Information or otherwise 

sensitive or protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments. Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

The petition and other pertinent 

information are also available 

electronically at the NMFS website at 

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/protlres/ 

CandidateSpeciesProgram/csr.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim 

Damon-Randall, NMFS, Northeast 

Regional Office (978) 282–8485 or Marta 

Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected 

Resources (301) 713–1401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 24, 2010, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity (CBD) to list Atlantic bluefin 

tuna (Thunnus thynnus) as threatened 

or endangered under the ESA and 

designate critical habitat concurrently 

with its listing. The petition contains 

information on the species, including 

the taxonomy, historical and current 

distribution, physical and biological 

characteristics of its habitat and 

ecosystem relationships, population 

status and trends, and factors 

contributing to the species’ decline. In 

its petition, CBD references information 

contained in the proposal prepared by 

Monaco for the 15th Conference of the 

Parties (CoP15) to the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES) to list Atlantic bluefin tuna 

under Appendix I. This document is 

referenced in this finding as ‘‘CITES, 

2010.’’ CBD contends that ‘‘Atlantic 

bluefin tuna suffers from 

mismanagement by an ineffective 

international organization, rampant 

illegal fishing as a consequence of 

extraordinary market demand, 

complicated and poorly understood 

population dynamics, and a diversity of 

habitat threats.’’ The petitioner presents 

information in the petition regarding the 

declining trend of both the eastern 

Atlantic/Mediterranean and western 

Atlantic stocks and what it characterizes 

as the lack of management measures 

both nationally and internationally to 

fully address and reverse the declines. 

The petitioner presents genetic 

information and life history 

information, asserting that at least two 

distinct population segments (DPS) of 

Atlantic bluefin tuna exist. CBD also 

contends that the Deepwater Horizon/ 

BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico 

occurred during spawning in the only 

known spawning grounds of the western 

Atlantic stock and is likely to have 

significant long-term effects on bluefin 

tuna, possibly having the potential to 

‘‘devastate the population.’’ 

ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy 

Considerations 

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

U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that we 

make a finding as to whether a petition 

to list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating the 

petitioned action may be warranted. 

ESA implementing regulations define 

substantial information as the amount of 

information that would lead a 

reasonable person to believe the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). In 

determining whether substantial 

information exists for a petition to list 

a species, we take into account several 

factors, including information submitted 

with, and referenced in, the petition and 

all other information readily available in 

our files. To the maximum extent 

practicable, this finding is to be made 

within 90 days of the receipt of the 

petition (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)), and 

the finding is to be published promptly 

in the Federal Register. If we find that 

a petition presents substantial 

information indicating that the 

requested action may be warranted, 

section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA requires 

the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) 

to conduct a status review of the 

species. Section 4(b)(3)(B) requires the 

Secretary to make a finding as to 

whether or not the petitioned action is 

warranted within 12 months of the 

receipt of the petition. The Secretary has 

delegated the authority for these actions 

to the NOAA Assistant Administrator 

for Fisheries. 

The ESA defines an endangered 

species as ‘‘any species which is in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range’’ (ESA 

section 3(6)). A threatened species is 

defined as a species that is ‘‘likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range’’ (ESA 

section 3(19)). Under the ESA, a listing 

determination can address a species, 

subspecies, or a DPS of a vertebrate 

species (16 U.S.C. 1532 (16)). Under 

section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a species may 

be determined to be threatened or 

endangered as a result of any one of the 

following factors: (A) present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 

scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 

disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. Listing 

determinations are made 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 efforts 

made by any state or foreign nation to 

protect such species. 

Life History of the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna 

Atlantic bluefin tuna are found 

throughout the North Atlantic Ocean 

and adjacent seas, including the 

Mediterranean Sea. They are pelagic, 

highly migratory species occupying 

coastal and open ocean areas up to 

depths of 200 meters (m) (SCRS, 2008). 

Based on reproductive isolation due to 

the existence of separate spawning 

grounds and the absence of spawning in 

the middle of the North Atlantic, 

associated genetic differentiation, and 

differing ages at maturity, the 

International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 

manages this highly migratory species 

as two separate stocks the eastern 

Atlantic and western Atlantic (SCRS, 

2008). 

The Atlantic bluefin tuna is the 

largest of the tuna species. Maximum 

lengths can exceed 4 meters (m) (13.1 

feet), and weights of up to 900 kilograms 

(kg) (1,984.2 lb) have been reported in 

various fisheries in the western Atlantic 

and Mediterranean Sea (SCRS, 2008). As 

large predators, bluefin tuna play an 

important role in pelagic ecosystems 

(Rooker et al., 2007). Juveniles prey 

primarily on fish, crustaceans, and 

cephalopods, and adults feed primarily 

on fish such as herring, anchovy, sand 

lance, sardine, sprat, bluefish, and 

mackerel (Fromentin, 2006). 

The western Atlantic stock is believed 

to reach maturity at 8 or more years of 

age while the eastern Atlantic stock is 

believed to mature at 4 to 6 years of age 

(Medina et al., 2002 cited in Fromentin 

and Powers, 2005). The western Atlantic 

stock spawns in the Gulf of Mexico from 

March through May, while in the 

Mediterranean spawning occurs from 

May to June in the eastern portion and 

June to July in the central and western 

portions (Nishikawa et al., 1985; Mather 

et al., 1995; Schaefer, 2001, cited in 

Fromentin and Powers, 2005). Bluefin 

tuna are oviparous (i.e., lay eggs) and 

iteroparous (i.e., spawn regularly), and 

are multiple batch spawners (Schaefer, 

2001, cited in Fromentin and Powers, 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 57433 

2005). According to Teo et al. (2007), 

bluefin tuna appear to spawn in 

consecutive years. Fecundity (i.e., the 

number of eggs produced) is size 

dependent. Fromentin (2006) 

determined that fertilization takes place 

directly in the water column, and 

hatching occurs without parental care 

after 2 days. Larvae are pelagic and 

resorb the yolk sac within a few days 

(Fromentin and Powers, 2005). 

Analysis of Petition and Information 

Readily Available in NMFS Files 

In the following sections, we use the 

information presented in the petition 

and in our files to: (1) describe the 

distribution of Atlantic bluefin tuna; (2) 

determine whether Atlantic bluefin tuna 

populations may meet the criteria for 

being identified as DPSs; and, (3) 

evaluate whether Atlantic bluefin tuna 

populations proposed by the petitioners 

are at abundance levels that would lead 

a reasonable person to conclude that 

listing under the ESA may be warranted 

due to any of the factors listed under 

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

Analysis of DPS Information 

To be considered for listing under the 

ESA, a group of organisms must 

constitute a ‘‘species.’’ A ‘‘species’’ 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.’’ On February 

7, 1996, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (collectively, the 

‘‘Services’’) adopted a policy to clarify 

their interpretation of the phrase 

‘‘distinct population segment of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife’’ (61 

FR 4722). The joint DPS policy 

describes two criteria that must be 

considered when identifying DPSs: (1) 

the discreteness of the population 

segment in relation to the remainder of 

the species (or subspecies) to which it 

belongs; and (2) the significance of the 

population segment to the remainder of 

the species (or subspecies) to which it 

belongs. As further stated in the joint 

policy, if a population segment is 

discrete and significant (i.e., it is a DPS), 

its evaluation for endangered or 

threatened status will be based on the 

ESA’s definition of those terms and a 

review of the five factors enumerated in 

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

Under the DPS policy, a population 

segment may be determined to be 

discrete if: (1) it is markedly separated 

from other populations of the same 

taxon as a consequence of physical, 

physiological, ecological or behavioral 

factors; and/or (2) the population is 

delimited by international boundaries 

within which differences in control of 

exploitation, management of habitat, 

conservation status, or regulatory 

mechanisms exist that are significant in 

light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. As 

noted previously in the petition, CBD 

presents information to support its 

claim that there are at least two DPSs of 

Atlantic bluefin tuna. CBD contends 

that Atlantic bluefin tuna meet at least 

one, if not both, of the discreteness 

criteria. The spawning grounds of the 

eastern and western stocks are separated 

(e.g., Gulf of Mexico and Mediterranean 

Sea), and there are significant genetic 

differences and unique ages of maturity 

(markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon). Bluefin 

tuna in the Mediterranean mature at 

considerably younger ages (e.g., 4 to 6 

years) than fish from the Gulf of Mexico, 

which were described to mature at age 

8 or older and at much larger sizes 

(SCRS, 2008). Fromentin et al. (2005) 

and several other authors have 

confirmed that bluefin tuna exhibits a 

strong homing behavior and strong 

spawning site fidelity. ICCAT manages 

the species as two separate stocks with 

separate Total Allowable Catch (TAC) 

levels for the western stock and eastern 

stock (which are delimited by 

international boundaries within which 

there are significant management 

differences). 

The DPS policy also cites examples of 

potential considerations indicating 

significance, including: (1) persistence 

of the discrete population segment in an 

ecological setting unusual or unique for 

the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the 

discrete population segment would 

result in a significant gap in the range 

of the taxon; (3) evidence that the DPS 

represents the only surviving natural 

occurrence of a taxon that may be more 

abundant elsewhere as an introduced 

population outside its historic range; or, 

(4) evidence that the discrete population 

segment differs markedly from other 

populations of the species in its genetic 

characteristics. 

CBD presents information to support 

its claim that the two discrete 

populations are significant, including 

evidence that: (1) they persist in 

ecological settings that are unusual or 

unique for the taxon; (2) loss of a 

population would result in a significant 

gap in the range of the species; and (3) 

there are significant genetic differences 

between the two stocks. CBD notes that 

the habitat in the Gulf of Mexico is 

unique from that found in the 

Mediterranean. Carlsson et al. (2007) 

provide information on trans-Atlantic 

migrations of the species as well as 

genetic evidence indicating that the two 

populations are genetically diverse. 

According to CBD, the genetic 

differentiation between the two stocks 

supports the assertion that, if one 

population were to be lost, this would 

result in the significant loss of genetic 

diversity and, therefore, a significant 

gap in the range of the taxon. Based on 

the information in the petition, and on 

information readily available in our files 

prior to receipt of the petition, there is 

evidence that the eastern and western 

Atlantic stocks of Atlantic bluefin tuna 

may be discrete and significant. Thus, a 

full DPS analysis will be undertaken. 

Abundance 

CBD asserts that the eastern Atlantic 

bluefin tuna population is critically 

imperiled and faces imminent risk of 

extinction, basing this contention on 

information which suggests that the 

population has declined more than 80 

percent since 1970 (CITES, 2010). CBD 

cites a stock assessment conducted in 

2008 by SCRS who determined that the 

spawning stock biomass (SSB) for the 

eastern Atlantic stock in 2007 was 

78,724 tonnes (t). This contrasts with 

the biomass peak of 305,136 t in 1958 

and 201,479 t in 1997 (CITES, 2010). As 

noted in the petition, CITES (2010) 

indicates that the absolute extent of 

decline over the 50–year historical 

period from 1957 to 2007 is estimated 

to be 74.2 percent, and the majority of 

that decline occurred in the last 10 

years. 

CBD also contends that the western 

Atlantic bluefin tuna population is at 

imminent risk of extinction. According 

to the petition, a history of intense 

fishing pressure has resulted in declines 

of over 80 percent since 1970 (CITES, 

2010). The SSB for the western Atlantic 

stock was estimated in 2007 to be 8,693 

t, declining from 49,482 t in 1970 

(SCRS, 2009). This represents an 82.4 

percent decline over the 38–year 

historical period (SCRS, 2009). Since 

the early 1990s, the SSB has remained 

relatively stable at approximately 15–18 

percent of its pre-exploitation biomass 

(SCRS, 2009). 

CBD notes that at the 2010 CITES 

Conference of the Parties (CoP15), the 

Principality of Monaco proposed to 

include the Atlantic bluefin tuna in 

Appendix I (CBD, 2010). According to 

the CITES definitions, Appendix I lists 

species that ‘‘are the most endangered 

among CITES-listed animals and plants. 

They are threatened with extinction, 

and CITES prohibits the international 

trade in specimens of these species 

except when the purpose of the import 

is not commercial, for instance for 

scientific research.’’ The listing proposal 

did not receive the votes that it needed 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
57434 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

to be adopted at CoP15. While the 

United States voted in favor of Monaco’s 

proposal, its support was based on 

problems with compliance in the 

eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean 

fishery, as well as the fact that the 2010 

quota level adopted by ICCAT for this 

stock was not as low as the United 

States believed was necessary. Without 

improvement in these areas, the United 

States had concerns about the long-term 

viability of the bluefin tuna stock and 

fishery. A ban on the international 

commercial trade of bluefin tuna offered 

an additional tool to reduce fishing 

pressure and improve control of the 

eastern stock in order to enhance its 

conservation in order to meet ICCAT 

objectives (K. Blankenbeker, NMFS, 

personal communication, 2010). 

Also, as noted in the petition, the 

International Union for Conservation of 

Nature (IUCN) has listed western 

Atlantic bluefin tuna as critically 

endangered with an extremely high risk 

of extinction in the wild in the 

immediate future. According to IUCN, 

the population meets the critically 

endangered criteria of having declined 

in excess of 80 percent over the last 10 

years or 3 generations. Eastern Atlantic 

bluefin tuna are classified by IUCN as 

endangered, meaning that this 

population is at very high risk of 

extinction in the wild in the near future 

based on a reduction of at least 50 

percent over the last 10 years or 3 

generations. While the criteria for listing 

species under a CITES appendix or 

under IUCN are different from those 

used under the ESA, the information 

used to make these decisions may be 

informative and will be considered 

during the development of the status 

review where appropriate. 

ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors 

Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat 

or Range 

In the petition, CBD states that 

worldwide habitat loss and degradation 

is one of the primary causes of the 

decline of Atlantic bluefin tuna. It 

indicates that threats to habitat from 

pollution and ocean climate change are 

having significant impacts globally. CBD 

cites information from the NMFS Highly 

Migratory Species (HMS) Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH) assessment in which it is 

stated that habitat for these species is 

comprised of open ocean environments 

occurring over broad geographic ranges, 

and ‘‘large-scale impacts such as global 

climate change that affect ocean 

temperatures, currents, and potentially 

food chain dynamics, are most likely to 

have an impact and pose the greatest 

threat to HMS EFH’’ (NMFS, 2009). CBD 

indicates that effects from climate 

change are already impacting the North 

Atlantic Ocean with increasing water 

temperatures and sea levels, increased 

acidification, and changes in circulation 

patterns and nutrient supplies (Bindoff 

et al. 2007; Beaugrand, 2009). It asserts 

that changing ocean conditions as a 

result of climate change and ocean 

acidification may result in species shifts 

and ecosystem changes that may 

negatively affect Atlantic bluefin tuna. 

CBD states that climate change could 

impact Atlantic bluefin tuna prey 

availability, behavior, and water quality. 

According to CBD, ocean acidification 

may also decrease the sound absorption 

in seawater, which could affect 

spawning habitat, resulting in 

physiological or anatomical effects to 

the auditory systems, potential 

behavioral alterations, and auditory 

masking. 

The petitioners contend that oil and 

gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico pose 

a significant threat to the only known 

spawning grounds for the western 

Atlantic bluefin tuna population. 

According to CBD, the Deepwater 

Horizon/BP oil spill in the Gulf of 

Mexico occurred during spawning in 

the only known spawning grounds of 

the western Atlantic stock and is, 

therefore, likely to have significant longterm effects on bluefin tuna, possibly 

having the potential to devastate the 

population. In response to the oil spill, 

NMFS is examining, among other 

things, the historical distributions of 

spawners and larvae, as well as the 

distributions expected this year based 

on maps of optimal larval habitat, to 

determine the overlap of the oil spill 

with spawning bluefin tuna and their 

progeny (C. Porch, NMFS, personal 

communication, 2010). It is not known 

how long the oil will remain in the Gulf 

and what the long-term effects to fish 

exposed to non-lethal concentrations of 

oil may be; however, the best available 

information on the effects from the oil 

spill to Atlantic bluefin tuna will need 

to be considered during the status 

review, including the results of current 

research and analyses being undertaken 

by NMFS. 

Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific or Education 

Purposes 

In 2008, the ICCAT Standing 

Committee on Research and Statistics 

(SCRS) advised that, unless fishing 

mortality rates on the eastern Atlantic 

and Mediterranean stock of bluefin tuna 

were substantially reduced in the future, 

further reduction of SSB was likely, 

which could lead to a risk of fisheries 

and stock collapse (SCRS, 2009). For the 

eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna 

population, CBD notes that the SCRS 

indicated that continued fishing 

mortality rates at the 2007 levels were 

expected to drive the SSB to very low 

levels (approximately 18 percent of the 

SSB in 1970 and 6 percent of the 

unfished SSB). CBD cites MacKenzie et 

al. (2009) who predicted that the adult 

eastern bluefin tuna population in 2011 

will be 75 percent lower than in 2005 

and that the fishing quotas will permit 

the capture of all remaining adult fish. 

These authors noted that, at these low 

population sizes, reproduction of 

eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna is 

increasingly uncertain and could be 

limited by spawner biomass (MacKenzie 

et al., 2009). They conclude that the 

population is at risk of collapse in the 

next few years, which translates to a 90 

percent decline in adult biomass within 

3 generations (MacKenzie et al., 2009). 

It is important to note that MacKenzie 

et al. (2009) made population 

projections based on the TAC levels 

ICCAT established for 2008 through 

2010 (22,000 t, 19,950 t, and 18,500 t, 

respectively). However, the TAC for 

2010 has been reduced to 13,500 t; 

therefore, the projections that were 

made may not reflect the current fishing 

pressure on the stock and may be overly 

pessimistic (G. Diaz, NMFS, personal 

communication, 2010). 

CBD asserts that the western Atlantic 

bluefin tuna population is also in 

imminent danger of extinction due to 

severe declines and ongoing fishing 

pressures. As stated previously, 

according to CBD, this stock has 

declined over 80 percent since 1970 due 

primarily to overfishing (CITES, 2010). 

The SSB has declined approximately 

82.4 percent over the 38–year historical 

period; however, since the early 1990s, 

it has remained relatively stable at 

approximately 15–18 percent of its preexploitation biomass (SCRS, 2009). In 

2008, the SCRS determined that the 

western Atlantic stock has been below 

the level required to produce the 

maximum sustainable yield (MSY) since 

the mid–1970s, and fishing mortality 

rates have been above that which would 

produce MSY throughout the time series 

used in the stock assessment (which 

started in 1970). The SCRS also 

determined that 10 years after ICCAT 

adopted a rebuilding program (half way 

through the 20–year rebuilding period), 

the 2007 SSB was estimated to be 7 

percent below the level of the rebuilding 

plan’s first year (SCRS, 2008). Since 

1998, the stock has generally stabilized, 

increasing in some years and decreasing 

in others (G. Diaz, NMFS, personal 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 57435 

communication, 2010). According to 

CITES (2010), there is also great 

uncertainty regarding potential 

recruitment of the western Atlantic 

stock. In addition, Safina and Klinger 

(2008) suggest that the western Atlantic 

stock is currently in danger of extinction 

and that a moratorium on fishing this 

stock should be implemented. 

According to the last ICCAT stock 

assessment (2008), the most pessimistic 

recruitment scenario indicates that even 

a closure of the fishery would not 

achieve rebuilding of the stock by 2019. 

However, under different assumptions 

of recruitment, recovery is projected to 

occur within this timeframe (SCRS, 

2009). Fishing mortality of large western 

Atlantic bluefin tuna has declined 

recently, and the TAC was not taken for 

several years primarily because of U.S. 

underharvest, which ranged from 40 to 

80 percent of its national quota in 2006– 

2008 (SCRS, 2009). SCRS has indicated 

that there are two plausible 

explanations for this: (1) the availability 

of fish to the U.S. fishery has been 

abnormally low due to a change in the 

spatial distribution of the stock; and/or 

(2) the overall size of the population in 

the Western Atlantic declined 

substantially from the level of recent 

years (SCRS, 2009). It is important to 

note that U.S. catches have steadily 

increased since 2006, and in 2009, the 

United States caught its entire base 

quota. 

Predation and Disease 

According to CBD, emerging 

environmental stress on Atlantic bluefin 

tuna may make them more vulnerable to 

disease, and tuna ranching may also 

increase the prevalence and spread of 

disease. CBD asserts that confined or 

escaped fish present a threat to wild fish 

from the spread of disease and parasites, 

as confined fish are particularly 

vulnerable to disease. It also notes that 

diseases in confined fish that are 

controlled through the use of antibiotics 

can result in more virulent strains of 

disease that are then resistant to 

antibiotics. While it presents some 

information in the petition regarding 

disease, CBD does state that disease and 

predation are not primary threats 

responsible for the decline of the 

species. 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

CBD states that existing regulatory 

mechanisms for Atlantic bluefin tuna 

are inadequate. The petition indicates 

that the responsibility for overfishing 

and the poor status of Atlantic bluefin 

tuna stocks falls on ICCAT and its 

member countries, and CBD asserts that 

there is consensus that the ICCAT 

process is failing the species. 

In the petition, CBD states that in 

2008, ICCAT failed to adopt the 

measures suggested by ICCAT scientists 

for eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean 

bluefin tuna. Based on the 2008 stock 

assessment, SCRS had advised that the 

maximum TAC for the eastern Atlantic 

stock be set on the order of 15,000 t or 

less. SCRS also advised that a time and 

area closure during the spawning 

months could greatly facilitate the 

implementation and monitoring of 

rebuilding. Additionally, SCRS 

indicated that a moratorium over the 

East Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea 

during 1, 3, or 5 years followed by an 

F0.1 management strategy would 

increase the probability of rebuilding 

the stock by 2023 (SCRS, 2009). In 2008, 

ICCAT established TACs for eastern 

bluefin tuna that declined annually for 

the years 2009 through 2011 (22,000 t, 

19,950 t, and 18,500 t, respectively). 

However, in the petition, CBD did not 

recognize that, in 2009, ICCAT adopted 

new 2010 TAC levels for eastern bluefin 

tuna of 13,500 t, which is within the 

range of scientific advice, and agreed 

that, at its 2010 meeting, it would 

establish TACs for 2011–2013 with the 

goal of achieving biomass at maximum 

sustainable yield (Bmsy) through 2022 

(the end of the eastern/Mediterranean 

bluefin tuna recovery period) with at 

least 60 percent probability, on the basis 

of 2010 SCRS advice (ICCAT, 2009). 

CBD also presents information regarding 

an independent review that ICCAT 

initiated in 2008 in response to 

concerns expressed at the United 

Nations and other international fora 

about the sustainable management of 

high seas fisheries. According to CBD, 

although the review covered all species 

within ICCAT’s management 

jurisdiction, the Executive Summary of 

the final report noted that ICCAT’s 

international reputation ‘‘will be based 

largely on how ICCAT manages fisheries 

on bluefin tuna.’’ They cite that Hurry et 

al. (2008) stated that ‘‘ICCAT’s members’ 

performance in managing fisheries on 

bluefin tuna particularly in the eastern 

Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea is 

widely regarded as an international 

disgrace.’’ The petition indicates that the 

independent review panel concluded 

that the ICCAT Convention Objectives 

were not met for either of the two 

bluefin tuna stocks. The petition goes on 

to state that the panel recommended 

that ICCAT suspend fishing on bluefin 

tuna in the eastern Atlantic and 

Mediterranean until ICCAT members 

fully comply with ICCAT 

recommendations on this stock of 

bluefin tuna, and also that ICCAT 

consider an immediate closure of all 

known bluefin tuna spawning grounds 

at least during known spawning 

periods. According to CBD, ICCAT did 

not follow these recommendations. 

CBD states that ICCAT’s management 

performance for the western Atlantic 

bluefin tuna stock is also poor. 

According to the petition, in 2008, it 

was concluded that the 20–year 

rebuilding plan that was initiated in 

1998 has not resulted in the rebuilding 

that was projected. CBD notes that the 

review panel attributed the slow 

rebuilding of the stock to two potential 

causes: (1) ICCAT’s adoption of quotas 

at levels that fail to meet rebuilding 

goals, and (2) the rate of mixing between 

the two stocks. The SCRS (2008) noted 

that mixing rates are important as even 

a small amount of mixing between the 

larger eastern stock and the smaller 

western stock could have significant 

effects on the recovery of the latter. 

CBD also cites the lack of data as a 

significant problem plaguing the 

management of the eastern bluefin tuna 

stock. It notes that reported catches from 

the mid 1970s to 2007 were inaccurate, 

often underestimating the actual catch. 

Therefore, according to CBD, the extent 

of the Atlantic bluefin tuna decline is 

underestimated. According to the 

petition, this then leads to overfishing 

and severe population decline because 

quotas are not based on the high catch 

that actually occurred, and there are no 

fishery independent data that would 

better characterize the decline. 

CBD contends that U.S. fishery 

management also fails to meet its 

domestic legal obligation to manage 

fisheries in order to attain optimum 

yield. It states that the U.S. management 

measures for western Atlantic bluefin 

tuna in the Consolidated Atlantic 

Highly Migratory Species Fishery 

Management Plan (HMS FMP) are 

ineffective at maintaining stocks and 

meeting the requirements to rebuild the 

population to healthy levels as 

mandated by the Magnuson Stevens 

Act. The petition also references a 

proposed rule that NMFS recently 

published to increase the maximum 

daily retention limit and lengthen the 

season of the General category fishery 

and increase the Harpoon category daily 

incidental retention limit (74 FR 57128; 

November 4, 2009), and indicates that 

these proposals were made despite the 

lack of success of recovery efforts for the 

western Atlantic bluefin tuna stock. It is 

important to note, however, that the 

information available in our files 

indicates that western bluefin tuna 

biomass levels are not in decline at this 

time and have remained stable, at low 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
57436 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

levels, since the 1990s. It is also 

important to note that although NMFS’ 

November 4, 2009, proposed rule was 

intended to more thoroughly utilize the 

available U.S. bluefin tuna quota 

established under the 20–year 

rebuilding program as, in accordance 

with the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act 

(16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.), the United States 

cannot increase or decrease its bluefin 

tuna quota established by ICCAT. To 

date, the rule has not been finalized. 

Finally, the petition claims that there 

are no habitat protections for the 

western Atlantic bluefin tuna stock. It 

notes that NMFS designated an area of 

the Gulf of Mexico as a Habitat Area of 

Particular Concern and identified 

bluefin tuna spawning grounds as 

needing special protection. However, it 

states that NMFS did not implement any 

measures that would actually protect 

the habitat, and, thus, this designation 

has done little to protect the species. 

Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Existence 

Chemical contaminants, such as 

endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) 

and mercury, and offshore aquaculture 

in the Gulf of Mexico are presented by 

CBD as potential threats to Atlantic 

bluefin tuna. CBD cites Storelli et al. 

(2008) and Fossi et al. (2002) who 

warned that EDCs have the potential to 

result in reproductive alterations in 

bluefin tuna as a result of 

bioaccumulation. Storelli et al. (2008) 

concluded that exposure to EDCs over a 

long lifetime might ‘‘create the 

prerequisite for the development of 

pathological conditions’’ in Atlantic 

bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean. CBD 

also states that mercury may accumulate 

in the food chain due to low pH 

resulting from climate change induced 

ocean acidification, which will result in 

increased bioaccumulation in Atlantic 

bluefin tuna. 

The petitioner also suggests that 

offshore aquaculture in the Gulf of 

Mexico is an emerging threat to Atlantic 

bluefin tuna. CBD cites NMFS (2009), 

stating that potential impacts from 

offshore aquaculture include increased 

nutrient loading, habitat degradation, 

fish escapement, competition with wild 

Atlantic bluefin tuna, and spread of 

pathogens. CBD concludes that offshore 

aquaculture will affect Atlantic bluefin 

tuna. 

Petition Finding 

Based on the above information and 

the criteria specified in 50 CFR 

424.14(b)(2), we find that the petition 

presents substantial scientific and 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action concerning 

Atlantic bluefin tuna may be warranted. 

Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, this 

positive 90–day finding requires NMFS 

to commence a status review of the 

species. During our status review, we 

will consider whether there are multiple 

DPSs within the species’ range, whether 

these are threatened or endangered, and 

whether the species is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future. We now 

initiate this review, and thus, the 

Atlantic bluefin tuna is now considered 

to be a candidate species (69 FR 19976; 

April 15, 2004). Within 12 months of 

the receipt of the petition (May 24, 

2011), we will make a finding as to 

whether listing Atlantic bluefin tuna or 

DPSs of Atlantic bluefin tuna as 

endangered or threatened is warranted, 

as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the 

ESA. If warranted, we will publish a 

proposed rule and solicit public 

comments before developing and 

publishing a final determination. 

References Cited 

A complete list of the references used 

in this finding is available upon request 

(see ADDRESSES). 

Information Solicited 

To ensure the status review is based 

on the best available scientific and 

commercial data, we solicit information 

pertaining to Atlantic bluefin tuna. 

Specifically, we solicit information in 

the following areas: (1) historical and 

current distribution and abundance of 

this species throughout its range; (2) 

historical and current condition; (3) 

population status and trends; (4) any 

current or planned activities that may 

adversely impact the species, especially 

as related to the five factors specified in 

section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and listed 

above; (5) ongoing efforts to protect and 

restore the species and its habitat; (6) 

genetic data or other information that 

would help us determine whether any 

population segments of Atlantic bluefin 

tuna meet the DPS policy criteria of 

discreteness and significance; and (7) 

whether any particular portions of the 

range of the Atlantic bluefin tuna 

constitute significant portions of the 

range of the species or of any potential 

DPSs that may exist. We request that all 

information be accompanied by: (1) 

supporting documentation such as 

maps, bibliographic references, or 

reprints of pertinent publications; and 

(2) the submitter’s name, address, and 

any association, institution, or business 

that the person represents. 

Peer Review 

On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

published a series of policies regarding 

listings under the ESA, including a 

policy for peer review of scientific data 

(59 FR 34270). The intent of the peer 

review policy is to ensure listings are 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available. We solicit 

the names of recognized experts in the 

field that could take part in the peer 

review process for this status review. 

Independent peer reviewers will be 

selected from the academic and 

scientific community, tribal and other 

Native American groups, Federal and 

state agencies, the private sector, and 

public interest groups. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. 

Dated: September 14, 2010. 

Eric C. Schwaab, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23486 Filed 9–16–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1