65628 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Notices 

set out the specific reasons why a 

hearing on that application would be 

appropriate (see ADDRESSES). Such 

hearings are held at the discretion of the 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

NMFS. 

Application Received 

Permit 14344 Modification 1 

The University of California at Davis, 

Bodega Marine Laboratory (BML) is 

seeking to modify permit (14344) that 

currently authorizes the captive 

maintenance and breeding of captive 

white abalone. The research is designed 

to (1) investigate and overcome barriers 

to propagating endangered white 

abalone in captivity, (2) identify 

reproduction limits in wild white 

abalone, (3) to investigate white abalone 

disease processes and learn how to 

mitigate them, and (4) seek the most 

successful means of recovering these 

animals in the wild. The requested 

modification would allow BML to 

collect wild white abalone from the 

ocean, especially individuals facing 

immediate harm, in order to increase 

the numbers and genetic integrity of 

captive broodstock. We expect and 

intend that the captive breeding 

program will benefit the abalone by 

increasing their numbers, helping to 

stabilize the population, and eventually 

helping to recover them in the wild. The 

researchers do not intend to kill any of 

the animals being captured but a small 

number of them may be killed as an 

inadvertent result of the activities. 

This notice is provided pursuant to 

section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will 

evaluate the applications, associated 

documents, and comments submitted to 

determine whether the applications 

meet the requirements of section 10(a) 

of the ESA and Federal regulations. The 

final permit decisions will not be made 

until after the end of the 30-day 

comment period. NMFS will publish 

notice of its final action in the Federal 

Register. 

Dated: October 29, 2014. 

Angela Somma, 

Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office 

of Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26242 Filed 11–4–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[Docket No. 1206013478–4863–03] 

RIN 0648–XB140 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants: Notice of 12-Month Finding 

on a Petition To List the Queen Conch 

as Threatened or Endangered Under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12- 

month finding and listing determination 

on a petition to list the queen conch 

(Strombus gigas) as threatened or 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). We have completed 

a comprehensive status report for the 

queen conch in response to the petition 

submitted by WildEarth Guardians. 

Based on the best scientific and 

commercial information available, 

including the status report (NMFS, 

2014a), we have determined that the 

species does not warrant listing at this 

time. We conclude that the queen conch 

is not currently in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range nor is it not likely to become 

so within the foreseeable future. 

DATES: This finding was made on 

November 5, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Documents associated with 

this determination and reference list— 

are available by submitting a request to 

the Species Conservation Branch Chief, 

Protected Resources Division, NMFS 

Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th 

Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 

33701–5505, Attn: Queen Conch 12- 

month Finding. The reports are also 

available electronically at: http://sero.

nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/

listing_petitions/index.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Calusa Horn, NMFS, Southeast Regional 

Office (727) 824–5312. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 27, 2012, we received a 

petition from WildEarth Guardians to 

list the queen conch (Stombus gigas) as 

threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973. The 

petitioner also requested that critical 

habitat be designated for this species 

concurrent with listing under the ESA. 

The petition stated that overfishing is 

the greatest threat to queen conch and 

is the principal cause of population 

declines. It also argued that the existing 

regulations are ineffective and unable to 

prevent the unsustainable and illegal 

harvest of queen conch. The petitioner 

asserted that biological characteristics 

(e.g., slow growth, late maturation, 

limited mobility, occurrence in shallow 

waters, and tendency to aggregate) 

render the species particularly 

vulnerable to overharvest, and that 

Allee effects are preventing the recovery 

of overexploited stocks. The petitioner 

also argued that degradation of shallow 

water nursery habitat and water 

pollution, specifically high 

concentrations of zinc and copper, 

reduces juvenile recruitment and causes 

reproductive failure. 

On August 27, 2012, we published a 

90-day finding with our determination 

that the petition presented substantial 

scientific and commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted (77 FR 51763). The 

90-day finding requested scientific and 

commercial information from the public 

to inform a status report of the species. 

We requested information on the status 

of the queen conch throughout its range 

including: (1) Historical and current 

distribution and abundance of this 

species throughout its range; (2) 

historical and current population 

trends; (3) biological information (life 

history, genetics, population 

connectivity, etc.); (4) landings and 

trade data; (5) management, regulatory, 

and enforcement information; (6) any 

current or planned activities that may 

adversely impact the species; and (7) 

ongoing or planned efforts to protect 

and restore the species and its habitat. 

We received information from the 

public in response to the 90-day finding, 

and relevant information was 

incorporated into the status report. 

Listing Species Under the ESA 

We are responsible for determining 

whether queen conch are threatened or 

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

1531 et seq.). To make this 

determination, we first consider 

whether a group of organisms 

constitutes a ‘‘species’’ under Section 3 

of the ESA, then whether the status of 

the species qualifies it for listing as 

either threatened or endangered. Section 

3 of the ESA defines species to include 

‘‘any subspecies of fish or wildlife or 

plants, and any distinct population 

segment [DPS] of any species of 

vertebrate fish or wildlife which 

interbreeds when mature.’’ Thus, as an 

invertebrate, the queen conch can only 

be considered for listing as a taxonomic 

species or subspecies. The species 

diagnosis for the queen conch has been 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Notices 65629 

established since its original taxonomic 

description in Linnaeus (1758). While 

some higher taxonomic changes have 

been considered, the classification as a 

separate species has not been debated. 

Therefore, based on the best information 

available, the queen conch (S. gigas) 

constitutes a ‘‘species’’ under the ESA. 

Section 3 of the ESA also 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.’’ In the 

context of the ESA, NMFS interprets an 

‘‘endangered species’’ to be one that is 

presently at risk of extinction. A 

‘‘threatened species’’ is not currently at 

risk of extinction, but is likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future. 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 followed a step wise 

approach in making this listing 

determination for the queen conch. First 

we conducted a biological review of the 

species’ taxonomy, distribution, 

abundance, life history, biology, and 

available information on threats 

affecting the species’ status was 

compiled into a status report (NMFS, 

2014a). In this report we also defined 

the foreseeable future for our evaluation 

of extinction risk. Then we established 

a group of biologists and marine 

mollusk experts (hereafter referred to as 

the Extinction Risk Analysis (ERA) 

group) to conduct a threats assessment 

for the queen conch, using the 

information in the status report. The 

ERA group was comprised of six ESApolicy experts from NMFS’ Office of 

Protected Resources and the Southeast 

and Southwest Regional Office’s 

Protected Resources Divisions, three 

biologists with fisheries management 

expertise from NMFS’ Southeast 

Region’s Sustainable Fisheries Division 

(SFD), and two marine mollusk 

biologists from NMFS’ Northwest and 

Southeast Fisheries Science Centers. 

The ERA group had expertise in marine 

mollusk biology, ecology, population 

dynamics, ESA-policy, and fisheries 

management. The group members were 

asked to independently evaluate 

severity, scope, and certainty for each 

threat currently and in the foreseeable 

future (15 years from now). 

In addition to the ERA group’s 

assessment, we undertook additional 

analysis to help us better consider the 

species’ current status and extinction 

risk, beyond the information in the 

status report alone. The Southeast 

Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) and 

the Southeast Region’s Sustainable 

Fisheries Division (SFD) provided: (1) 

Queen conch abundance estimates; (2) a 

meta-analysis of factors affecting the 

status and health of queen conch; (3) a 

mapping of queen conch densities and 

oceanographic currents for evaluating 

dispersal and recruitment of queen 

conch; and (4) a sustainability index. 

The ERA group did not take into 

account this information, because it was 

prepared after the extinction risk 

analysis was conducted. Next, we used 

the information generated by the status 

report, the ERA, and other information 

to make a final determination on the 

severity, scope, and certainty of the 

extinction risk of threats across the 

species’ range, now and over the 

foreseeable future. 

Then we determined whether the 

queen conch qualifies for threatened or 

endangered status throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. The 

statute requires us to determine whether 

any species is endangered or threatened 

as a result of any one or a combination 

of the following five factors: The present 

or threatened destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of its habitat or range; 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; disease or predation; the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence (ESA, section 4(a)(1)(A)–(E)). 

After conducting the five factor threat 

analysis we evaluated the available 

information to determine whether there 

is a portion of the species range that is 

‘‘significant’’ in light of the use of the 

term in the definitions of threatened and 

endangered. To do so we followed the 

final policy interpreting the phrase 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’ (79 FR 

37578; July 1, 2014). The policy states 

that a portion of the range of a species 

is significant if the species is not 

currently endangered or threatened 

throughout its range, but the 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. We 

were unable to identify any significant 

portion of the species’ range, where its 

status is different than that we 

identified for the species rangewide. 

Taxonomy 

Strombus gigas is a mollusk in the 

class Gastropoda, order Neotaenioglossa 

and family Strombidae. Synonyms 

include Lobatus gigas (Linnaeus, 1758), 

S. lucifer (Linnaeus, 1758), Eustrombus 

gigas (Linnaeus, 1758), Pyramea lucifer 

(Linnaeus, 1758), S. samba (Clench, 

1937), S. horridus (Smith, 1940), S. 

verrilli (McGinty, 1946), S. 

canaliculatus (Burry, 1949) and 

S.pahayokee (Petuch, 1994). 

The queen conch is a large gastropod 

mollusk that is identified by its large, 

whorl-shaped shell with multiple spines 

at the apex and by the pink interior of 

the shell lip. The outside of the shell 

becomes covered by an organic 

periostracum layer as the queen conch 

matures, which can be much darker 

than the natural color of the shell. Shell 

morphology is highly plastic and 

environmental conditions appear to be a 

strong influence on shell morphology 

and growth (Martin-Mora et al., 1995; 

McCarthy, 2007). Therefore, shells of 

the same age can vary in size due to 

habitat and geographic nuances. 

Characteristics used to distinguish S. 

gigas from other conch in the family 

Strombidae include: (1) Large, heavy 

shell; (2) short, sharp spires; (3) brown 

and horny operculum and; (4) bright 

pink shell interior (Prada et al., 2008), 

as well as differences in geographic 

distribution and maximum size 

(Simone, 2005). 

Distribution 

The geographic distribution of queen 

conch ranges from Bermuda to the 

north, Panama to the south, Barbados to 

the east, and the Gulf Coast of Mexico 

to the west. The queen conch occurs 

throughout the Caribbean Sea and the 

Gulf of Mexico. It has been reported 

from the following countries and 

territories: Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, 

Anguilla, Barbados, Bahamas, Belize, 

Bermuda, Caribbean Netherlands, 

Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Curac ̧ao, 

Dominican Republic, French West 

Indies, Grenada, Haiti, Honduras, 

Mexico, Montserrat, Nicaragua, Panama, 

Puerto Rico, St. Maarten, St. Kitts and 

Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the 

Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, the 

Turks and Caicos, the United States 

(Florida), the U.S. and the British Virgin 

Islands, and Venezuela (Theile, 2001). 

The species has been reported from 

most islands within its geographic range 

at some time (Appeldoorn and Baker, 

2013). 

Diet, Habitat, and Movement 

Queen conch are herbivores and 

benthic grazers (Randall, 1964; CFMC, 

2005) that feed on diatoms, seagrass 

detritus, macroalgae and epiphytes 

(Stoner et al., 1995; Stoner, 2003). 

Adults forage on different types of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

65630 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Notices 

filamentous algae (Ray and Stoner, 

1994; Creswell, 1994). Green algae 

(Batophora oerstedii) may be a preferred 

diet item as higher conch densities are 

correlated with its presence and a conch 

aggregation was noted as modifying 

movement toward it (Stoner and Ray, 

1993). About 60 percent of juvenile 

conch diet is composed of seagrass 

detritus (Stoner, 1989b; Stoner and 

Waite, 1991), with seagrass epiphytes 

providing additional nutrition (Stoner, 

1989a). In sand habitat, juveniles also 

feed on diatoms and cyanobacteria that 

are found in the benthos (Creswell, 

1994; Ray and Stoner, 1995). 

Queen conch change habitats as they 

grow. During the early planktonic life 

stage, queen conch larvae (called 

veligers) feed on phytoplankton in the 

water column. Larvae must receive the 

right amount of nutrition during this 

stage, or development can be delayed 

(Brownell, 1977). Larvae then settle in 

seagrass to metamorphose into 

juveniles. These seagrass nursery areas 

need physical and oceanographic 

processes to ensure larval settlement 

and retention and abundant prey to 

support early development (Stoner et 

al., 1998; Stoner et al., 2003). Larvae 

settle and bury themselves in the sand 

until they approach a year in age, then 

they emerge during warmer summer 

months and disperse throughout 

seagrass (Iversen et al., 1986; Stoner et 

al., 1988; Jones and Stoner, 1997). 

Juveniles occur primarily in back reef 

areas (i.e., shallow sheltered areas, 

lagoons, behind emergent reefs or cays) 

in areas of medium seagrass density, at 

depths between 2 to 4 m, with strong 

tidal currents (at least 50 cm/s; Stoner, 

1989b) and frequent tidal-water 

exchange (Stoner and Waite, 1991; 

Stoner et al., 1996). In experimental 

conditions, juvenile queen conch 

actively selected seagrass plots with 

intermediate densities of seagrass 

biomass. This density of seagrass is 

thought to provide both nutrition and 

protection from predators (Ray and 

Stoner, 1995; Stoner and Davis, 2010). 

In one study, all juveniles were found 

within 5 km of the Exuma Sound inlet, 

Bahamas, emphasizing the importance 

of currents and frequent tidal water 

exchange on both larval supply and 

their algal food (Jones and Stoner, 1997). 

Juveniles have also been found in 

deeper, open shelf areas, but little is 

known of settlement dynamics in these 

deeper waters. Conch nursery areas 

typically occur in shallow seagrass 

meadows of intermediate densities 

(Jones and Stoner, 1997) and support 

juvenile conch in densities of 1,000 to 

2,000 individuals per hectare (Wood 

and Olsen, 1983; Weil and Laughlin, 

1984). 

Juvenile conch are gregarious; solitary 

individuals move toward juvenile 

aggregations, and individuals within 

these aggregations remain there until 

close to adulthood (Stoner and Ray, 

1993). Juvenile queen conch within 

dense aggregations have higher 

survivorship, supporting a predator 

avoidance role of aggregation behavior 

(Stoner and Ray, 1993). Aggregations of 

juvenile conch are found in water 

depths of less than 4 m year-round, 

peaking in March. Well-defined 

aggregations can remain together for at 

least 5 months, but they usually last for 

2 to 3 months (Stoner and Lally, 1994). 

There may be some seasonality in the 

direction of movement (Stoner and 

Lally, 1994). Movement of juvenile 

aggregations increased with low food 

supply, decreased when heavy algal 

mats were encountered, and may 

temporarily stop during high wave 

action and low temperatures which 

occur during winter months (Stoner, 

1989a; Stoner and Lally, 1994). 

Adult queen conch tolerate a wider 

range of environmental conditions 

compared to the specific habitat 

requirements of juveniles (Stoner et al., 

1994). Adults prefer sandy algal flats but 

can also be found in areas of seagrass 

meadows, gravel, coral rubble, smooth 

hard coral, or beach rock bottoms 

(Torres-Rosado, 1987; CFMC, 1996a; 

Acosta, 2001; Stoner and Davis, 2010). 

Adult queen conch are rarely, if ever, 

found on soft bottoms composed of silt 

and/or mud, or in areas with high coral 

cover (Acosta, 2006). Females laying egg 

masses are generally found in coarse 

sandy habitats or patches of bare sand, 

but occasionally in seagrass (Glazer and 

Kidney, 2004; McCarthy, 2008). 

Adult conch are often found in clear 

water of oceanic or near-oceanic 

salinities at depths generally less than 

75 m and usually less than 30 m 

(McCarthy, 2008). It is believed that 

depth limitation is based mostly on light 

attenuation limiting their 

photosynthetic food source (Randall, 

1964; McCarthy, 2008). The average 

home range size for adult queen conch 

has been measured at about 5.98 ha in 

Florida (Glazer et al., 2003), 0.6 to 1.2 

ha in Barbados (Phillips et al., 2011), 

and 0.15 to 0.5 ha in the Turks and 

Caicos Islands (Hesse, 1979). Adult 

males and females have no significant 

difference in movement rate, site 

fidelity, or size of home range (Glazer et 

al., 2003). 

The seasonal movements of adult 

conch are associated with summer 

mating and egg-laying (Stoner and 

Sandt, 1992). During the summer 

months, queen conch move from 

feeding habitats to mating and egglaying habitats in shallow water (Stoner 

and Sandt, 1992). Several studies have 

reported that adult queen conch move to 

nearshore habitats during their 

reproductive season, but return to 

feeding habitats after mating and egglaying (Stoner and Sandt, 1992; Hesse, 

1979; Glazer et al., 2003). These 

movements are well known and are 

associated with factors like change in 

temperature, available food resources, 

and predation. This seasonal movement 

pattern has been documented in 

Venezuela, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and 

the Bahamas (Weil and Laughlin, 1984; 

Coulston et al., 1988; Wicklund et al., 

1988; Stoner et al., 1992). Not all conch 

move into shallow waters during the 

reproductive periods; conch found in 

the deeper waters near Puerto Rico and 

Florida are geographically isolated from 

nearshore shallow habitats and remain 

offshore year round (Glazer et al., 2008; 

Garcia-Sais et al., 2012). 

Reproductive Biology 

Mating occurs in the summer when 

adult conch move to shallower water to 

form mating aggregations and find mates 

as the species is an internal fertilizer 

(Appeldoorn 1988c; Stoner and Sandt, 

1992). Mating success and egg-laying are 

directly related to the density of mature 

conch (Stoner and Ray-Culp, 2000; 

Stoner et al., 2011; Stoner et al., 2012). 

At low densities, the probability of 

encounters between males and receptive 

females is significantly reduced and 

overall reproductive success is impacted 

(Stoner and Ray-Culp, 2000). The effects 

of density on reproduction are 

discussed below. 

Queen conch have a protracted 

mating season, with maximum mating 

and egg laying occurring during summer 

months (Appeldoorn, 1988c; Berg et al., 

1992a). Aggregations form in the same 

location year after year (Posada et al., 

1997; Glazer and Kidney, 2004; Marshak 

et al., 2006). The length of the breeding 

season varies geographically according 

to water temperature, but it generally 

occurs during the months of April to 

October (Avila-Poveda and BaqueiroCardenas, 2009), with conch copulation 

occurring both day and night (Randall, 

1964). 

Females can store fertilized eggs for 

several weeks before laying eggs (David 

et al., 1984), and multiple males can 

fertilize a single egg mass (Medley, 

2008). Egg masses are deposited through 

the egg groove in the shell over 24 to 36 

hours (Randall, 1964). Queen conch are 

highly productive, with each female 

laying millions of eggs each year. When 

adequate food is available, female conch 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Notices 65631 

can lay an average of 13.6 egg masses, 

containing about 750,000 eggs each; 

resulting in about ten million eggs 

produced per individual per 

reproductive season (Appeldoorn, 

1993). Female conch that had less food 

available produced 6.7 egg masses, 

containing 500,000 eggs, resulting in 

about 3.3 million eggs per individual 

per reproductive season (Appeldoorn, 

1993). Egg masses have been found in 

water depths ranging from 3 to 45 m 

(Tewfik et al., 1998; Garcı ́a-Sais et al., 

2012). Clean, low organic content, 

coarse sand flats are the preferred 

habitat for reproduction and egg laying 

(Randall, 1964; Glazer and Kidney, 

2004). Adherence of sand grains to the 

egg mass may provide camouflage and 

discourage predation (Randall, 1964). 

Life Stages and Growth 

Female queen conch deposit eggs in 

strings that hatch after 3 to 5 days as 

veliger larvae (Weil and Laughlin 1984). 

The queen conch veligers have winglike lobes covered with bristly hairs, 

called cilia—which aid in locomotion 

and direct microscopic algae to their 

mouth (FFWCC, 2006). These veligers 

are planktonic for generally 14 to 28 

days, up to 60 days (D’Asaro, 1965). The 

larvae suffer high mortality rates 

(Cha ́vez and Arreguı ́n-Sa ́nchez, 1994). 

These veligers are found primarily in 

the upper few meters of the water 

column (Posada and Appeldoorn, 1994; 

Stoner and Davis, 1994; Stoner, 2003) in 

densities ranging between 0–9.1/100 m3

in the Florida Keys to 2.3–32.5/100 m3

in the Exuma Cays, Bahamas (Stoner et 

al., 1996). Depending on local currents, 

the veligers can settle locally or drift to 

other locations (CFMC, 1999). 

Metamorphosis is known to be induced 

by a chemical cue often associated with 

red algae or a similarly polar molecule 

(Myanmanus, 1988; Davis, 1994). The 

preferred habitat for larval queen conch 

settlement is shallow back reefs areas 

and sand bars near seagrass (Stoner et 

al., 1994). Larval settlement also occurs 

in deeper areas (CRFM, 2004). After 

settling, the post-larvae bury themselves 

into the sediment for about 1 year 

(Stoner, 1989a), after which they emerge 

as juveniles with a shell length around 

60 mm. It is difficult to survey conch 

during this submerged life phase and 

therefore juveniles are often undersampled (Hesse, 1979; Appeldoorn 

1987b). 

Growth of queen conch is seasonal 

and is positively correlated with water 

temperature and food availability. 

Summer growth rates are faster than 

winter growth rates (Stoner and Ray, 

1993). Juvenile growth rates in the 

Bahamas were 4.4 to 16.3 mm per 

month in the summer and 1.8 to 3 mm 

per month for the reminder of the year 

(Iversen et al., 1987). Shell length 

continues to increase until the onset of 

sexual maturation. The queen conch 

reaches sexual maturity at around 3.5 to 

4 years, about the time when the edge 

of the shell lip turns outward to form 

the flared lip (Stoner et al., 2012a). Once 

the shell lip is formed, shell length does 

not increase (Appeldoorn, 1997; Tewfik 

et al., 1998). Appeldoorn (1988b) 

observed that, for thin-lipped males in 

Puerto Rico, true reproductive maturity 

occurred 2 months after the lip flares 

outward, at about 3.6 years of age. Based 

on histological examinations, 

Appeldoorn (1993) found that 100 

percent of conch are not fully mature 

until over a year after complete lip 

formation. Shell thickness of at least 15 

mm seems to be a better indicator of 

sexual maturity than the presence of the 

flared lip (Stoner et al., 2012b; 

Appeldoorn, 1994; Clerveaux et al., 

2005; Stoner et al., 2009; Stoner et al., 

2012b). 

With the onset of sexual maturity, 

growth of somatic tissue within the 

shell will begin to decrease with 

increasing gonadal weight. Eventually, 

the volume inside the shell can no 

longer accommodate somatic tissue 

growth and the tissue weight will start 

to decrease (CFMC, 1999). Stoner et al. 

(2012b) found that both soft tissue 

weight and gonad weight started to 

decrease when shell lip thickness 

reaches 22 to 25 mm. Growth rate and 

shell morphology of queen conch can 

vary depending on sex, depth, latitude, 

food availability food, age class, and 

habitat. On average, female queen conch 

grow more quickly than males 

(Alcolado, 1976), and to a bigger size 

(Randall, 1964). The life span of queen 

conch is about 30 years (McCarthy, 

2007). 

Larval Dispersal and Population 

Connectivity 

Queen conch veligers remain in the 

water column for up to 60 days. They 

are photopositive so they remain in 

surface waters and will be primarily 

distributed by surface currents (Barile et 

al., 1994). Dispersal of the planktonic 

veligers via the currents is the primary 

mechanism for maintaining genetic 

connectivity of queen conch throughout 

the Caribbean Sea (Appeldoorn et al., 

2011). The regional hydrodynamics and 

circulation patterns in the Caribbean are 

complex, with numerous gyres and finescale features. Surface currents in the 

Caribbean Sea generally flow from east 

to west through the Yucatan Strait into 

the Gulf of Mexico and the Florida 

Straits, turning north and moving up the 

east coast of Florida. In addition, some 

current flow occurs from east to west 

along the Greater Antilles and northwest 

through the Turks and Caicos and the 

Bahamas’ (Stoner and Banks 

unpublished, 2013). These current 

patterns are believed to link queen 

conch populations in the Caribbean into 

one large mixed population with little 

or no population structure or mating 

restrictions in the population with some 

local anomalies (Morales, 2004). 

Nonetheless, there are restrictions 

governing larvae transport and 

recruitment. Geographic areas near 

strong currents are dependent on queen 

conch recruits that are susceptible to 

changes in currents. The circulations 

patterns in the Caribbean Sea are 

complex with numerous gyres and finescale features that can restrict larvae 

dispersal, retaining larvae within close 

proximity to the parental stocks, which 

can create patterns of localized selfrecruitment marine species (Cowen et 

al., 2006; Kool et al., 2010). The 

available information on the gene flow 

of queen conch is limited, but some 

studies have shown that queen conch 

populations may be more distinct and 

ecologically separated from one another 

than initially believed. Perez-Enriquez 

et al. (2011) analyzed mitochondrial 

DNA markers among queen conch 

populations in Mexico. This study 

indicated that queen conch at the 

Alacranes Reef were genetically distinct 

from conch populations at Cozumel and 

Banco Chinchorro in Mexico that were 

separated by 450 to 643 km, 

respectively. Similarly, in the Bahamas, 

preliminary data detected genetic 

separation in queen conch populations 

that were located approximately 500 km 

from one another (Banks et al., 2014). In 

addition, two nearby populations of 

queen conch in St. Lucia were found to 

be genetically different from each other, 

most likely a result of the east and west 

currents that prohibit the exchange of 

larvae between the two locations 

(Mitton et al., 1989). 

Numerous patterns of queen conch 

larval dispersal have been described. 

Queen conch larvae can either be 

transported long distances via currents 

(Posada et al., 1997) or can supply local 

recruitment via retention in gyres and 

eddies (Appeldoorn, 1997). Areas that 

supply large numbers of larvae are 

known as sources; areas where large 

numbers of larvae settle are known as 

sinks. Drift vials have been used to 

explore patterns of larval dispersal via 

currents. Delgado et al. (2008) released 

vials along the Yucatan coast and 

suggests that most queen conch larvae 

remained local or were transported 

north. Transport of queen conch veligers 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

65632 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Notices 

from Yucatan to West Palm Beach, 

Florida, could occur based on recovery 

of one drift vial (Delgado et al., 2008). 

Some locations, such as Banco 

Chinchorro, an atoll reef off the 

southeast coast of Quintana Roo, 

Mexico, are known to supply, receive, 

and retain planktonic larvae within 

close proximity to the parental stocks 

(Cowen et al., 2006; Kool et al., 2010). 

Specifically, Banco Chinchorro receives 

queen conch veligers via westerly 

currents from locations to the east such 

as Jamaica and supplies larvae 

westward to Quintana Roo, Mexico, 

with a small percentage moving to 

Florida, Texas, Cuba, and the Bahamas 

(de Jesu ́ s-Navarrete and Aldana Aranda, 

2000; Delgado et al., 2008; Paris et al., 

2008). 

The Windward Islands, Belize, and 

Pedro Bank, Jamaica, have both been 

hypothesized to be sources of queen 

conch larvae (Posada et al., 1997; 

Stoner, 2006). A large-scale gyre in the 

Belize-Honduras bight is thought to 

transport larvae from the deep fore-reef 

and connect queen conch populations 

throughout Belize (CRFM, 2004). 

Annual variations in queen conch larval 

recruitment in Roselind Bank, Colombia 

are influenced by its proximity to the 

Caribbean Current (Regalado, 2012). In 

Colombia, the recovery of queen conch 

on Serrano Bank after a 5-year closure 

is thought to be the result of 

immigration of larvae from Roncador 

Bank (Prada et al., 2008). In the Exuma 

Cays, Bahamas, queen conch larvae 

appear to be local and transported from 

the southeast to the northwest, moving 

through the island passes and settling 

on the west side of the island chain 

(Stoner, 2003). Larval density data from 

the Bahamas support this distribution 

pattern with high densities of early stage 

larvae in the north near Waderick Wells 

and lower densities in the south near 

Cat Island (Stoner et al., 1998), as well 

as high densities at both the northern 

Exuma Cays and south coast of 

Eleuthera (Posada et al., 1997). 

In the eastern Caribbean, a survey by 

Posada and Appeldoorn (1994) found no 

queen conch larval movement between 

the islands of Martinique and St. Lucia 

or between St. Lucia and St. Vincent. 

High concentrations of larvae are found 

in the vicinity of the Grenadines which 

indicates larvae are being retained there. 

Nevis has been identified as a regional 

queen conch larvae settlement sink 

(CFMC, 1999). Elsewhere in the eastern 

Caribbean, local influxes of queen conch 

larvae must occur, given there are no 

possible upstream currents for larvae 

immigration (Stoner, 2006). 

Bermuda, Florida, and Barbados 

represent the range limits of queen 

conch distribution, and they may also 

be areas isolated from external sources 

of larvae. Bermuda, a volcanic sea 

mount, is at the northern extent of the 

range. Most queen conch breeding 

aggregations in Bermuda have been 

located on the edge of the reef platform, 

adjacent to high current that would 

potentially carry the larvae away (Berg 

et al., 1992a). These two factors, 

geographic isolation and limited larval 

recruitment, are thought to have limited 

the recovery of queen conch in 

Bermuda. In Florida, the Gulf Stream 

prevents larval inputs from the Bahamas 

and the Greater Antilles, so there are 

few larval inputs (Posada and 

Appeldoorn, 1994; Delgado et al., 2008), 

except for an occasional eddy of the 

Florida Current that brings in queen 

conch larvae from Belize, Mexico, and 

Honduras (Stoner et al., 1997). Because 

recent data suggest the population in 

Florida is increasing, local recruitment 

may be significant (Delgado et al., 2008; 

Glazer and Delgado, 2012). Barbados, at 

the eastern edge of the range, is thought 

to have a self-sustaining population, 

given its isolation from other breeding 

populations. Queen conch larvae may 

be retained near Barbados, similar to 

damselfish (Cowen and Castro, 1994), 

by local circulation patterns that keep 

marine larvae close to the point of origin 

(Mitton et al., 1989). 

Density and Abundance 

Density is likely the single most 

important criterion affecting conch 

productivity throughout its life-history, 

as it affects growth, successful 

reproduction, and fecundity. Density is 

one of the most easily measured and 

monitored attributes for assessing the 

status of queen conch populations 

(Appeldoorn et al., 2011). Research has 

shown that there is a density-dependent 

effect on reproduction, with low 

densities inhibiting reproduction, and 

potentially causing a decline in 

recruitment. At density levels less than 

the critical threshold discussed below, 

conch mating will not occur at the 

frequency needed to sustain the 

population, which can lead to 

recruitment failure and population 

collapse (Stoner and Ray-Culp, 2000); 

this is known as an Allee effect. 

It is well documented that the density 

of adult queen conch directly impacts 

reproductive success (Appeldoorn, 

1988; Stoner and Ray-Culp, 2000; 

Gascoigne and Lipcius, 2004; Stoner et 

al., 2011; QCEWR, 2012). Stoner and 

Ray-Culp (2000) documented a 

complete absence of mating and 

spawning behavior at densities less than 

56 and 48 adult conch/ha, respectively. 

Recent research suggests that a mean 

density of 56 adult conch/ha is too low 

since mating activity ceased at that 

level, putting recruitment at risk 

(QCEWR, 2012). In 2012, the Queen 

Conch Expert Workshop recommended 

a mean density of 100 adult conch/ha be 

used as a reference point for queen 

conch surveys to ensure that 

populations are not at risk. The expert 

workshop conclusions indicated that 

conch fisheries should manage stocks at 

the higher density of 100 adult conch/ 

ha, finding that there was a significant 

risk to recruitment when densities fell 

below this level (QCEWR, 2012). We 

believe that the best available science 

shows that there is a significant risk to 

recruitment and consequently 

population sustainability when queen 

conch densities fall below the 100 adult 

conch/ha threshold. 

In an effort to assess the species’ 

status throughout its range we compared 

two data sets: (1) Queen conch density 

information; and (2) habitat information 

that was developed using bathometry/

depth contour data. These data were 

available for 40 range States throughout 

the greater Caribbean. In the assessment 

below, the total area of 0 to 30 m depth 

habitat was measured for each range 

State. The assessment assumes that the 

species is evenly distributed between 0 

to 30 m in depth. We realize that the 

species is not spread uniformly in the 0 

to 30 depth range, and is unlikely to 

have ever been. Queen conch naturally 

exist in patches where they are found in 

much greater density than they are in 

other areas, or across the entire range of 

potentially suitable habitat. They prefer 

sandy substrate, algal flats, and seagrass. 

As such, the densities in the surveys 

used in this analysis may not be an 

accurate reflection of the status of the 

species relative to requisite densities. 

Absent additional information on the 

methodologies used in each of the 

individual surveys, there is no way to 

know how representative the densities 

are of actual conch populations. 

Therefore, while the assessment may be 

a useful analytical tool generally, it 

should not be interpreted as a reliable 

indicator of the population status of the 

species in those specific range States. 

Next, the appropriate conch density 

was then assigned to each range state. 

The most recent density information for 

each range State was used. Using each 

range state’s habitat area and each range 

state’s conch density; we were able to 

evaluate the percentage of the species’ 

entire range which falls below or above 

the critical threshold (i.e., 100 adult 

conch/ha) required for successful 

mating, recruitment, and sustainable 

conch populations. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Notices 65633 

The best available information 

showed that 60.81 percent of the 0 to 30 

m habitat is below the critical threshold, 

but as discussed previously, the 

accuracy of the density estimates, from 

which this percentage is derived, is 

highly uncertain. The range states 

whose conch densities are below 100 

adult conch/ha include: Aruba, Antigua 

and Barbuda, Barbados, the Bahamas, 

Belize, the British Virgin Islands, 

Bonaire, Colombia, Costa Rica, Curac ̧ao, 

Dominican Republic, Guadeloupe, Haiti, 

Puerto Rico, Mexico, Martinique, 

Panama, Saba, Turks and Caicos, United 

States (Florida), and Venezuela. 

There are three range states (i.e., 

Jamaica, Nicaragua, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands) that have conch densities above 

100 adult conch/ha. Together they 

comprise 14.08 percent of the 0 to 30 m 

habitat available to the species. 

There are two range states (i.e., Cuba 

and Honduras) that recorded conch 

densities above the 100 conch/ha and 

they comprise 22.55 percent of the 0 to 

30 m habitat. The available information 

did not indicate whether the conch 

recorded during the surveys are adult, 

juvenile, or both. Juvenile conch can 

form dense aggregations that can 

number in the thousands and their 

inclusion (combining adult and 

juvenile) can bias densities by 

increasing the numbers of individuals 

included within the survey (A. Stoner, 

Community Conch, pers. comm. to C. 

Horn, NMFS, March 24, 2014). As a 

result, we are unable to determine 

whether these populations are above or 

below the critical threshold of 100 adult 

conch/ha. 

We were unable to find queen conch 

population density information for the 

Cayman Islands, Grenada, Montserrat, 

Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the 

Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago, 

but all these locations have reported 

population declines. However, we are 

unable to determine whether the 

referenced declines have decreased 

those populations below the critical 

threshold for these locations. These 

range states represent 1.89 percent of 

the 0 to 30 m habitat available to the 

species. 

Lastly, we were not able to find any 

information on the status of queen 

conch populations in Anguilla, 

Dominica, Guatemala, Saint Kitts and 

Nevis, Saint-Maarten, and Saint 

Eustatius. These range states encompass 

0.67 percent of the 0 to 30 m habitat 

available to queen conch. 

The best available conch density data 

indicate that the majority of queen 

conch populations in the greater 

Caribbean region are well below or now 

within the range where negative 

population growth or recruitment 

failure is a significant risk. The sample 

area for conch surveys is restricted by 

the depth limit for SCUBA diving safety 

(less than 30 m), they are generally 

limited to areas which are actively 

fished, and in most cases interviews 

with fishers have been used to define 

the area over which the survey will take 

place (QCEWR, 2012). Consequently 

density can be biased, since unexploited 

parts of a population at depths below 

typical human SCUBA diving limits 

(eggs masses have been found at 45m) 

or unknown to fishers are not counted 

(QCEWR, 2012). However, adult conch 

primarily aggregate to mate and lay eggs 

in waters from 0–30m, and they are also 

depth restricted because their food 

sources are photosynthetic, requiring 

light attenuation (Randall, 1964). 

Therefore, densities at greater depth are 

likely lower. 

An additional source of uncertainty is 

that the density estimates from smaller 

spatial surveys may not be fully 

representative of a range state’s conch 

population, especially if surveys are 

conducted in areas of lesser or greater 

fishing pressure and unexploited parts 

of the population are not counted. In 

comparison, surveys that are repeated 

every few years and are conducted over 

wide-geographic areas are likely to 

provide a more representative density of 

the overall conch population. 

Nevertheless, the information presented 

above is the best available scientific 

information we have on the current 

density of conch throughout its range 

and despite questions raised relative to 

the accuracy of the densities we must 

consider this information in assessing 

the species’ status. 

Now, we will use the information 

generated by the status report, the ERA 

group’s threats assessment, and the 

information provided by the Southeast 

Region’s SDF to evaluate and 

summarize the species’ threats, by the 

five ESA factors listed in section 4(a)(1), 

to determine the severity, scope, and 

certainty of the extinction risk of those 

threats across the species’ range, now 

and over the foreseeable future. 

Threats Evaluation 

As previously explained, the ERA 

group members conducted their 

individual threats assessment. This 

section discusses the methods used to 

evaluate each threat and its effect on the 

species’ extinction risk. As explained 

below, the ERA group did not take into 

account the information provided by the 

Southeast Region’s Sustainable 

Fisheries Division (SFD) because it 

occurred after the threats assessment 

was conducted. We have separately 

taken into account the ERA group’s 

threat assessment and the information 

provided by SFD in evaluating the 

overall extinction risk to the species 

under the five ESA Section 4(a)(1) 

factors. 

For the purpose of the extinction risk 

assessment, the term ‘‘foreseeable 

future’’ was based on 3 queen conch 

generations, or 15 years (a generation 

time is defined as the time it takes, on 

average, for a sexually mature female 

queen conch to be replaced by offspring 

with the same spawning capacity) and 

our ability to reliably predict threats 

that impact the species’ status. After 

considering the life history of the queen 

conch, availability of data, and types of 

threats, we determined that the 

foreseeable future should be defined as 

approximately 15 years. This timeframe 

(3 generation times) takes into account 

aspects of the species’ life history and 

also allows the time necessary to 

provide for the recovery of 

overexploited populations. 

The queen conch is an early-maturing 

species, with a high fecundity and 

population growth rate, and larval 

dispersal over large spatial scales. As 

such it is likely that the results of 

recommended management actions 

being considered by fishery managers, 

developed by several working groups 

and international conferences 

(discussed below), would also be 

realized, and reflected in population 

within a 15-year time period. The 

foreseeable future timeframe is also a 

function of the reliability of available 

data regarding the identified threats and 

extends only as far as the data allow for 

making reasonable predictions about the 

species’ response to those threats. We 

believe that the impacts from the threats 

on the biological status of the species 

can be confidently predicted within this 

timeframe. 

Often the ability to measure or 

document risk factors is limited, and 

information is not quantitative or very 

often lacking altogether. Therefore, in 

assessing extinction risk, it is important 

to include both qualitative and 

quantitative information. In previous 

NMFS status reviews, Biological Review 

Teams and ERA teams have used a risk 

matrix method to organize and 

summarize the professional judgment of 

a panel of knowledgeable scientists. 

This approach is described in detail by 

Wainright and Kope (1999) and has 

been used in Pacific salmonid status 

reviews as well as in the status reviews 

of many other species (sees http://www.

nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ for links to 

these reviews). 

The members of the ERA group were 

asked to provide qualitative scores 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

65634 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Notices 

based on their perceived severity of 

each threat. The members were asked to 

independently evaluate the severity, 

scope, and certainty for these threats 

currently and in the foreseeable future 

(15 years from now). The scoring for 

each threat corresponds to the following 

five levels of extinction risk: (1) no or 

very low risk—unlikely that this threat 

affects species’ overall status; (2) low 

risk—this threat may affect species’ 

status, but only to a degree that it is 

unlikely that this threat significantly 

elevates risk of extinction; (3) moderate 

risk—this threat contributes 

significantly to long-term risk of 

extinction, but does not constitute a 

danger of extinction in the near future; 

(4) increasing risk—present risk is low 

or moderate, but is likely to increase to 

high risk in the foreseeable future if 

present conditions continue; and (5) 

very high risk—this threat indicates 

danger of extinction in the near future. 

The ERA group used the ‘‘likelihood 

point’’ method for ranking the threat 

effect levels to allow individuals to 

express uncertainty. For this approach, 

each member distributed 5 ‘likelihood 

points’ among the five levels of 

extinction risk. If a threat was 

categorized as unknown, all 5 points 

were required to be assigned to that 

category alone. This approach has been 

used in previous NMFS status reviews 

(e.g., Pacific salmon, Southern Resident 

killer whale, Puget Sound rockfish, 

Pacific herring, and black abalone) to 

structure the team’s thinking and 

express levels of uncertainty when 

assigning risk categories. The ERA 

group did not make recommendations 

as to whether the species should be 

listed as threatened or endangered. 

Rather, each member of the ERA group 

drew his or her own scientific 

conclusions, based on the information 

in the status report, about the risk of 

extinction faced by the queen conch 

under present conditions and in the 

foreseeable future based on an 

evaluation and assessment of threats. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Queen Conch 

As described above, section 4(a)(1) of 

the ESA and NMFS implementing 

regulations (50 CFR part 424) state that 

we must determine whether a species is 

endangered or threatened because of 

any one or a combination of the 

following factors: the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; disease or predation; 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. This section briefly 

summarizes the ERA group’s findings, 

the SFD assessment, and our 

conclusions regarding threats to the 

queen conch. 

The Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Its 

Habitat or Range 

Habitat alteration and water pollution 

were considered as threats under this 

factor; this included habitat loss or 

degradation from anthropogenic or 

natural causes (e.g., hurricanes) and the 

threat of water pollution which is 

caused by the introduction of toxic 

chemicals and pollutants into the 

species habitat. The ERA group ranked 

the threat of habitat alteration an 

‘‘increasing risk’’ and the threat of water 

pollution a ‘‘low risk.’’ 

The queen conch’s habitat can be 

negatively affected by destruction of 

near-shore aggregation and juvenile 

nursery areas, as well as degraded water 

quality. Localized nutrient enrichment 

can affect the coastal habitats where 

juvenile conch live. Nutrient loading 

from coastal development, marinas and 

recreational boating, sewage treatment 

and disposal, industrial wastewater and 

solid waste disposal, ocean disposal, 

agriculture, and aquaculture can 

accumulate in the soil and then run off 

into streams and coastal waters. 

Nutrient enrichment is known to 

stimulate overly-rapid growth of 

phytoplankton that subsequently 

consume oxygen as they decay, which 

leads to low dissolved oxygen (i.e., 

eutrophication) that can cause fish kills 

(Correll, 1987; Tuttle et al., 1987; 

Klauda et al., 1991b). Nutrient 

enrichment can also trigger algal blooms 

which can block sunlight from reaching 

submerged aquatic vegetation, including 

seagrass. Seagrass, an important 

component of juvenile conch habitat, 

requires sunlight for photosynthesis. 

Seagrasses die with inadequate sunlight. 

The loss of seagrass would increase the 

vulnerability of juvenile queen conch as 

they rely on seagrass habitat for 

protection from predators. 

The destruction of coastal seagrasses 

can also negatively affect queen conch 

recruitment. Juvenile conch nursery 

areas, which are comprised mainly of 

seagrass habitats, can be destroyed by 

coastal development, prop scarring from 

recreational or commercial boat traffic, 

and boat groundings. Habitat 

destruction was considered a cause for 

the initial decline in conch populations 

in Montserrat (Posada et al., 1997). 

There has been a significant amount of 

seagrass loss on the west and south 

coast of Barbados. This loss likely 

contributed to low conch densities 

(Stoner, 2003; Valles and Oxenford, 

2012). The declines in the queen conch 

populations reported in Saint Kitts and 

Nevis in 2002 have been linked to 

habitat degradation, dredging, and 

hurricane impacts on habitat (CITES, 

2012). Similarly, the declines in queen 

conch populations in the Turks and 

Caicos have been related to habitat 

degradation and two hurricanes that 

impacted the area in 2008 (DEMA, 

2012). 

Seagrass is important to the ecosystem 

because it improves water quality 

(Carter et al., 1991). In addition to 

providing cover and prey for juvenile 

conch, seagrasses transport nutrients 

into the water column and through 

primary production and respiration 

improve dissolved oxygen and carbon 

dioxide concentrations, alkalinity, and 

pH. Seagrass can also improve water 

clarity by binding sediments to the 

benthos. 

Increased sedimentation as a result of 

coastal influxes can impact conch 

habitat. Adult conch aggregation 

habitats are characterized by coarse, low 

organic content sand, and if these 

shallow, coastal areas are subject to 

deposition of fine sediment or sediment 

with high organic content, these habitats 

could become unsuitable (Appeldoorn 

and Baker, 2013). For example, the main 

island of Trinidad does not have a 

significant queen conch population, in 

part because the habitat is unsuitable 

due to the low salinities and high 

turbidity associated with continental 

rivers and streams (CITES 2012). In 

addition, habitat loss was identified by 

Gore and Llewellyn (2005) as a possible 

factor that contributed to the decline of 

queen conch in the British Virgin 

Islands. 

The run off of toxins and chemicals 

from upland areas into coastal waters 

may have negative effects on the 

development of the queen conch’s 

reproductive system. The Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

(FFWCC) and other researchers have 

documented a population of nonreproducing queen conch in the Florida 

Keys (Glazer and Quinterro, 1998; 

Delgado et al., 2004). Several studies 

have demonstrated that the conch found 

in nearshore locations of the Florida 

Keys do not have normal gonadal 

development (FFWCC, 2012). This 

reproductive impairment is limited to 

queen conch in the nearshore waters 

and is theorized to be related to 

exposure to toxins and chemical 

pollutants in their habitat. Specifically, 

Spade et al. (2010) suggested that the 

halt in reproductive maturation of 

queen conch in nearshore areas in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Notices 65635 

Florida Keys was possibly a result of 

exposure to high levels of zinc and 

copper. Other gastropod studies have 

related heavy metal exposure, 

particularly copper and zinc, to reduced 

fecundity (Laskowski and Hopkin, 1996; 

Snyman et al., 2004; Ducrot et al., 2007; 

Coeurdassier et al., 2005). The 

concentration of copper and zinc in the 

Florida Keys nearshore conch 

population’s tissues was found to be 

similar to those found in other 

gastropods studies in other locations 

where fecundity was reduced (Spade et 

al., 2010). In the Florida Keys, queen 

conch with gonad deficiencies were 

experimentally transferred from 

nearshore areas to deeper offshore areas 

where they developed functional 

gonads. Likewise, viable queen conch 

from the deeper offshore areas became 

reproductively incompetent when 

moved inshore, showing that exposure 

to an environmental factor in the 

nearshore environment is causing the 

reproductive damage, and that it is 

reversible (McCarthy et al., 2002; Glazer 

et al., 2008; Spade et al., 2010). 

Impaired reproduction from water 

pollution is a potentially serious threat, 

increasing extinction risk, but the best 

available information indicates that 

these negative effects are only occurring 

in the nearshore waters of the Florida 

Keys, a relatively small proportion of 

the species’ range. We could not find 

any information regarding elevated 

concentrations of zinc or copper 

anywhere else in the Caribbean Sea, so 

we cannot generalize this threat beyond 

a small part of the species’ range. 

Two chemicals associated with 

mosquito control, naled and permethrin, 

were tested in the laboratory on early 

life stages of conch, and both embryos 

and larvae experienced chronic, 

sublethal effects. Larvae exposed to 

these pesticides were slow-growing, 

which in the wild would result in an 

extended pelagic stage with higher total 

mortality before they reached 

recruitment size (Delgado et al., 2007). 

When queen conch embryos and 

competent larvae (i.e., capable of 

undergoing metamorphosis) were 

exposed to concentrations of naled and 

permethrin, development slowed and 

irregularities occurred during 

embryogenesis (McIntyre et al., 2006). 

Defects were positively correlated with 

concentration and resulted in deformed 

embryos that would not be viable 

(FFWCC, 2012). The pesticides may also 

sensitize queen conch larvae to 

metamorphosis-inducing cues, which 

could result in early metamorphosis, 

premature settlement on suboptimal 

habitat, and decreased survival 

(FFWCC, 2012). These lab results 

demonstrate only potential habitatrelated impacts of pesticides on early 

life stages of queen conch; however, 

absent actual exposure information we 

cannot gauge the severity or certainty of 

impacts on wild populations and cannot 

project them to assess population risk. 

The concentrations of naled and 

permethin used in the lab experiments 

were at concentrations used for 

terrestrial mosquito control and did not 

take into consideration the dilution 

effects that would occur with runoff and 

mixing with seawater. Because effects 

were limited to larval development, and 

given the infrequent and limited larval 

recruitment into Florida, potential 

effects of the chemical as an extinction 

risk to the continued existence of the 

species are difficult to realize. 

In summary, the members of the ERA 

group ranked the threat of habitat 

alteration as an ‘‘increasing risk’’ which 

indicates that the members thought that 

the present risk of extinction to queen 

conch resulting from habitat alteration 

is low or moderate, but is likely to 

increase to high risk in the foreseeable 

future if present conditions continue. 

The members of the ERA group ranked 

the threat of water pollution a ‘‘low 

risk.’’ This ranking indicates that the 

group members thought that water 

pollution may affect the queen conch’s 

status, but only to a degree that is 

unlikely to significantly elevate 

extinction risk. Currently, there are 

numerous potential threats to coastal 

habitat as identified above; however, we 

believe that the one most significant 

threat is habitat loss. 

Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The threats of commercial harvest and 

historical harvest include the removal of 

individual conch under the current 

regulatory mechanisms and the effects 

of prior harvest on the current species’ 

status. The ERA group ranked 

overutilization for commercial purposes 

as an ‘‘increasing risk’’ threat, which 

indicates that the members thought that 

the present extinction risk is low or 

moderate, but is likely to increase to a 

high extinction risk in the foreseeable 

future if present conditions continue. 

The threat of historical harvest was 

ranked as a ‘‘moderate risk’’ threat to the 

species, indicating that the members 

thought the threat of historical 

overharvest contributed significantly to 

long-term risk of extinction, but does 

not constitute a danger of extinction in 

the near future. 

The members of the ERA group 

ranked Allee effects and artificial 

selection as ‘‘increasing risk’’ threats, 

which indicates that the members of the 

group thought that the present risk is 

low or moderate, but is likely to 

increase to high risk in the foreseeable 

future (15 years) if present conditions 

continue. These threats are considered 

under Factor B, because they are caused 

by the overexploitation of reproductive 

adult conch and the targeted removal of 

large conch from within a population. 

Subsequently, these two threats are 

related to the principle threats of 

commercial harvest and the inadequacy 

of regulatory mechanism designed to 

control that harvest. As previously 

mentioned, the Allee effect refers to 

biological processes in which the 

viability of a population is reduced as 

population density decreases (e.g., 

through reduced mate finding or 

increased predator vulnerability) and, in 

particular to queen conch, the major 

concern is with the minimum density of 

about 100 adult conch/ha; mate finding 

and recruitment is at risk when conch 

populations decline below this 

threshold. In addition, the artificial 

selection or the targeted removal of large 

conch can change the morphology of 

individuals in a population and is 

related to the primary threats of 

overharvest, as well as the level of 

protection from fishing mortality 

(regulatory measures and law 

enforcement). 

In the Caribbean region, the queen 

conch is one of the most important 

fishery resources, both economically 

and culturally (Brownell and Steven, 

1981; Appeldoorn, 1994; Asprea et al., 

2009). The queen conch fishery 

encompasses the entire Caribbean 

region and consists of both industrial 

and artisanal fleets (Appeldoorn et al., 

2011). The species is primarily 

harvested by free-diving, SCUBA diving, 

or the use of hookah, except in those 

range states where underwater breathing 

apparatus is prohibited. 

The fishery has a long tradition in the 

region and the species has been valued, 

especially for its meat, for several 

centuries dating back to pre-Columbian 

times (Brownell and Stevely, 1981). The 

shells are also used for jewelry and as 

curios, but these uses are of secondary 

economic importance (Mulliken, 1996; 

Chakalall and Cochrane, 1996). 

Commercial harvest records and interisland trade were known from the mid18th century, when dried conch meat 

was shipped from the Turks and Caicos 

Islands to the neighboring island of 

Hispaniola (Theile, 2001). The fishery 

expanded in the early 20th-century with 

advances in freezer technology, causing 

the shift to trade in frozen meat, but 

conch meat continued to be of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

65636 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Notices 

significant local importance until the 

mid-20th century. Since the 1970s the 

commercial harvest has seen a drastic 

increase, largely driven by the increased 

demand overseas, as well as by the 

growing resident population and the fast 

developing tourism industry (Theile, 

2001). Today the majority of queen 

conch meat harvested in the Caribbean 

is supplied to markets in the United 

States and Europe, but it is also 

imported by many Caribbean range 

states where their queen conch 

populations are no longer able to 

support their domestic consumption 

(Theile, 2001; NMFS, 2014a). 

Overharvest to meet current demand is 

considered the primary cause of 

declines that are reported in numerous 

range states throughout the Caribbean 

region. The population decline has 

largely been attributed to overfishing, a 

lack of adequate enforcement, and 

poaching according to a review by the 

seventeenth meeting of the Convention 

on International Trade in Endangered 

Species (CITES) Animals Committee 

(2001). 

As discussed above in the Density and 

Abundance section, many range states 

throughout the greater Caribbean have 

experienced population declines or 

have reported low conch densities over 

the years. These declines are primarily 

due to intensive harvest by commercial 

fisheries. The primary threat to queen 

conch is commercial harvest and the 

related regulatory measures designed to 

control commercial harvest. Other 

threats, such as Allee effects and 

artificial selection are a direct 

consequence of overexploitation by 

fisheries. NMFS considers the queen 

conch fishery to be overfished 

throughout the U.S. Virgin Islands and 

Puerto Rico, and the best available 

information indicates that the queen 

conch is being overfished throughout 

the Caribbean (NMFS, 2014b). 

We evaluated trends in landings, 

minimum population densities, and 

conch habitat (0 to 30 m), either on a 

Caribbean-wide basis or on a country 

basis, when that information was 

available. Literature was searched to 

determine the composition of juveniles 

versus adults in queen conch catches. 

Regulations and regulatory compliance 

were also evaluated to determine their 

adequacy with regard to their ability to 

prevent overharvest and harvest of 

juveniles, and included an evaluation of 

the amount of poaching and illegal 

harvest that may be occurring. These 

data were then used by the SFD to 

create a sustainability index which 

examined queen conch sustainability on 

a country by country basis, as well as 

Caribbean-wide (NMFS, 2014b). 

The index was developed to assess 

the overall ‘sustainability’ of queen 

conch by the top producing Caribbean 

countries. Eleven countries were 

included in this analysis (e.g., Belize, 

the Bahamas, Colombia, Cuba, 

Honduras, Jamaica, Turks and Caicos 

Island, Mexico, Dominican Republic, 

Puerto Rico, Nicaragua). These countries 

were selected because they represented 

92.4 percent of the queen conch 

landings between 1980 and 2011, and 

91.6 percent of the landings from 2000 

to 2011. The sustainability index results 

were weighted by the landings data for 

the period between 2000 and 2011. The 

conch density element received 50 

percent of the total score, given the 

limitations on reproduction at low 

densities (Stoner et al., 2012) that could 

have negative effects on stock 

sustainability unless that stock is 

receiving larvae recruitments from other 

countries or unidentified reproductive 

deep water populations. The remaining 

50 percent of the score was assigned to 

the management and regulations 

components (e.g., minimum size 

restrictions, annual catch limits or 

quotas, seasonal closures or marine 

protected areas (MPAs), prohibitions on 

SCUBA or hookah) and regulatory 

compliance (e.g., illegal harvest and 

poaching). The maximum score for the 

sustainability index was set at 20. 

Scores closer to the maximum 20 score 

indicate greater Caribbean-wide 

sustainability of queen conch and scores 

closer to zero indicate unsustainable 

harvest practices. A score closer to 10 

would indicate that some harvest 

practices may be sustainable for some 

countries and unsustainable for other 

countries. 

The sustainability index found that 

overall across the 11 countries reviewed 

in this assessment (e.g., Belize, the 

Bahamas, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, 

Jamaica, Turks and Caicos Island, 

Mexico, Dominican Republic, Puerto 

Rico, Nicaragua) the index score was 

8.55 of 20 when weighted by landings, 

and 8.90 out of 20 when weighted by 

amount of available habitat from 0 to 30 

m deep. 

The SFD also reviewed Food and 

Agriculture Organization (FAO) queen 

conch landings trends by country from 

1950 through 2011 for the Caribbean 

(NMFS, 2014b). A total of 30 countries 

had reported and/or estimated queen 

conch landings during this time. Only 

two countries had landings for all 62 

years in the time series. In many 

instances, landings were estimated by 

the FAO when a country did not report 

landings, and, for some countries, 

landings were not reported or estimated. 

The estimated landings typically 

represented a small portion of the total 

annual landings (less than 5 percent), so 

this likely does not bias the data or add 

significant variability. There was a rapid 

increase in landings from the mid-1980s 

through the mid-1990s, after which 

landings declined by 47 percent from 

the mid-1990s through 2011 (Garibaldi, 

2012). However, this decline, as well as 

the increase in landings leading up to 

the peak, is confounded by several 

factors. First and foremost, 

improvements in data reporting have 

occurred over time. For example, from 

1980 to 1990 the number of countries 

reporting landings increased from 8 to 

15, including several states and 

territories with significant amounts of 

landings such as Jamaica, Colombia, and 

Puerto Rico. By the early 2000s, 19 

countries were reporting landings. In 

addition, landings for 6 to 7 other 

countries were being estimated by the 

FAO (NMFS, 2014b). Although an 

increase in landings is apparent, this 

increase may not have been as 

substantial if landings were being 

reported by more countries leading up 

to the peak in landings. 

The number of countries with 

reported or estimated landings reached 

a maximum of 24 in 1996 and has 

remained fairly constant since. Based 

solely on available landings, there was 

a 47 percent decline in landings from 

the peak observed in 1995 (40,835 tons) 

through 2011 (21,448 tons). However, 

this decline is confounded by several 

regulatory measures, as well as nonreporting. For instance, there are no 

reported or estimated landings for 

Mexico during 2006 to 2011, yet prior 

to that time Mexico was averaging over 

6,000 tons of annual landings. The 

reason for Mexico not reporting 

landings has yet to be determined, but 

it is not due to a full moratorium on 

harvest as Mexico did not close 

Chinchirro Bank until 2012 (Aldana 

Aranda GCFInet communication). 

Closures off the Yucutan and Quintana 

Roo, Mexico were implemented in the 

late-1980s and early 1990s (CITES, 

2012). Jamaica accounted for the largest 

amount of landings of any country from 

1980 to 2011 (22 percent), but 

overharvest led to more restrictive 

management and implementation of 

harvest quotas or annual catch limits. 

Harvest off Jamaica was unregulated 

until 1994 (Murray et al., 2012). In 1994, 

the first harvest quotas were 

implemented. Jamaica began conducting 

scientific surveys and setting total 

allowable catches based on conch 

abundance that establish a required 

conch density at 70 conch/ha for the 

fishery (Murray et al., 2012). This led to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Notices 65637 

considerably lower landings and fishing 

effort after the mid-1990s in response to 

more sustainable and scientifically 

based harvest practices. Similarly, 

following the Caribbean-wide peak in 

landings in the mid-1990s, two other 

countries saw major declines in 

landings. Landings from Honduras 

decreased in 2003 due to a moratorium 

on harvest imposed by the government 

in response to CITES concerns regarding 

the lack of information, high amount of 

exports, lack of landings records, illegal 

activity, and low population densities. 

Harvest and trade resumed in 2006, but 

only for conch collected through 

scientific surveys. The total allowable 

catch levels are considerably lower now 

than peak Honduran landings. 

CITES also suspended exports from 

the Dominican Republic in 2003 due to 

high landings and a lack of current stock 

information (CITES, 2006). Exports were 

suspended from 2003 through 2012, 

during which time the fishery existed 

mostly for tourism and domestic 

consumption (Torres and Sullivan 

Sealy, 2002b; FAO report, 2012). If the 

landings from Jamaica, Mexico, the 

Dominican Republic, and Honduras are 

excluded due to confounding regulatory 

changes and missing landings, then the 

cumulative trend in landings appear to 

be stable (NMFS, 2014b). In fact, there 

is a stable trend in landings from 1993 

forward, which also corresponds well 

with improvements in data reporting 

(NMFS, 2014b). 

There were other regulatory changes 

that likely affected trends in landings 

from other countries, but none as 

significant as those observed for 

Jamaica, Honduras, Mexico, and the 

Dominican Republic. The above is not 

intended to assess the sustainability of 

queen conch, but merely point out that 

landings should be interpreted with 

caution and should be used with other 

sources of data to assess trends in 

population abundance, as reporting 

levels and regulations confound overall 

trends in landings. Regardless of 

improvements in reporting and 

regulations, landings alone may not be 

a useful indicator of stock health. 

Landings can increase, decrease, or 

remain stable for numerous reasons that 

do not necessarily reflect stock 

abundance or ‘sustainability.’ For 

instance, landings may be increasing 

because of increasing effort, but such 

harvest rates may not be sustainable. 

Similarly, hyper-stability may occur in 

which fishermen over time expend more 

effort to catch the same amount of 

conch. If this occurs, then catch per unit 

effort may decline while landings 

remain stable, leading to reduced 

population abundance. Landings may 

decline due to more sustainable 

harvesting practices, economic factors, 

or reduced stock abundance, so any 

declines should be carefully evaluated 

against fishery survey data and fisherydependent data to determine the root 

cause of the decline. 

Despite the concerns noted relative to 

relying on landings data, the observed 

high levels of relatively stable landings 

over the past two decades are 

inconsistent with the estimates of 

widespread low densities discussed 

previously. If the actual densities in the 

majority of the suitable habitat areas 

were actually below the density 

threshold necessary to support 

successful mating and reproduction, the 

species would be unable to support 

such high landings. Also, with conch 

being very fecund, stability of harvest 

over a long period of time may indicate 

recruitment from areas not fished, such 

as deep water stocks, or from areas with 

conch densities greater than 100 adult 

conch/ha, as larvae can disperse over a 

broad geographic range and can 

replenish overexploited populations. 

In summary, we considered the ERA 

group rankings for those threats 

identified under Factor B. We also 

considered the SFD assessment, which 

reviewed the trends in landings and the 

sustainability of the largest conch 

fisheries (NMFS, 2014b). The 

sustainability index provided by SFD 

found that, overall, across the 11 major 

conch producing countries analyzed, 

the index score was 8.55 of 20 when 

weighted by landings, and 8.90 out of 20 

when weighted by amount of available 

habitat from 0 to 30 m deep. Also, this 

analysis indicates that if the landings 

from Jamaica, Mexico, the Dominican 

Republic, and Honduras are excluded, 

due to confounding regulatory changes 

and missing landings (explained above), 

then the cumulative trend in landings 

appear to be stable (NMFS, 2014b). In 

fact, the analysis showed a stable trend 

in landings from 1993 forward, which 

also corresponds well with 

improvements in data reporting (NMFS, 

2014b). 

Based on this information, we believe 

that overutilization for commercial 

purposes is a significant threat to the 

species. However, based on the 

assessment conducted by the SFD 

(NMFS, 2014b) and restrictions on 

exports (e.g., embargos) of these 

fisheries due to CITES, we have 

determined that the current and 

foreseeable future impacts associated 

with these threats are not affecting the 

queen conch to such an extent that they 

represent a risk to persistence of the 

species. 

Disease and Predation 

Parasites and Predation were 

considered as threats under Factor C; 

this included the effects of parasites on 

various life-history stages and predation 

effects on the population and 

community structure. The ERA group 

ranked both parasites and predation as 

‘‘low risk’’ threats. There is some 

information on the impacts of parasites 

and predation on queen conch, 

specifically related to the effects of a 

coccoidian parasite (apicomplexa) and 

the high rates of predation on the early 

life stages of queen conch. 

Several studies report the presence of 

the coccoidian parasite in queen conch. 

The coccoidian parasite is dispersed 

through the feces of the host and may 

spread through consuming benthic 

detritus (Duszynski et al., 2004). The 

presence of this parasite has been linked 

to reduced gametogenesis and 

irregularities observed in the queen 

conch’s reproductive cycle (Aldana 

Aranda et al., 2009a). The geographic 

distribution and occurrence of the 

parasite was found to be ‘‘generalized 

and intense in various sites around the 

Caribbean’’ (Aldana Aranda et al., 

2007). The infection increased across 

the Caribbean ocean from west to east 

(CITES, 2012). The lowest occurrence 

for this parasite was found in the Gulf 

of Honduras, Mexican Caribbean and 

Campeche Bank, followed by the 

Colombian Archipelago, and Venezuela 

Corridor, with the highest parasitism 

occurring at Martinique, Guadeloupe, 

St. Barthelemy, and Puerto Rico (Aldana 

Aranda et al., 2011). In Florida, the 

parasite was found at every location and 

in every conch sampled (Aldana Aranda 

et al., 2009b), but the median incidence 

of parasites per conch was observed to 

be similar to conch found in the Gulf of 

Honduras, Mexican Caribbean, and 

Campeche Bank (Aldana Aranda et al., 

2009a). In San Andres, Colombia, and in 

Mexico, the presence of the parasite has 

been linked to irregularities in the 

reproductive cycle and reduced 

gametogenesis (Aldana Aranda et al., 

2009a), but no correlation was found 

between the parasite and reproduction 

irregularities in Florida’s offshore queen 

conch population (Aldana Aranda et al., 

2009b). These studies indicate that the 

parasite could be responsible for 

irregularities in the reproductive cycle 

and reduced gametogenesis in queen 

conch, but we caution that it is 

necessary to further investigate the 

relationship (Aldana Aranda et al., 

2009a, 2009b; FAO, 2012). 

Similar to the larval stage of all 

marine organisms, the earlier life stages 

of queen conch are exposed to high rates 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

65638 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Notices 

of predation. The predation rate on 

juvenile conch is estimated to be about 

60 percent annually (Iversen et al., 

1986). Predation decreases as the shell 

grows to about 3.5 inches, when it is too 

strong to be crushed by the majority of 

predators (Davis, 1992), and the types of 

predators decreases to include only 

those able to destroy a strong shell, such 

as sharks, rays, turtles, octopi, and large 

hermit crabs (Brownell and Stevely, 

1981). 

In summary, the ERA group ranked 

the threats of parasites and predation a 

‘‘low risk,’’ which indicates that the 

members thought it is unlikely that 

these threats affect the queen conch’s 

overall status. We acknowledge that 

there are high levels of predation on the 

earlier phases of the queen conch’s lifehistory; however, there is no evidence 

that the current level of predation is 

unnatural or a threat to the species. As 

discussed above, there is a widespread 

disease that is infecting queen conch. 

While information is limited, the best 

available information suggests that 

reproductive problems in some cases 

correspond with the parasite infection, 

but this is not the case in other locations 

(e.g., Florida). At this time, there is 

insufficient information to evaluate the 

effects to queen conch resulting from 

parasites to determine whether it is a 

threat to the species continued 

persistence. 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

The inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms analysis included: 

international trade regulations, foreign 

nation regulations (i.e., domestic laws), 

law enforcement, U.S. Federal laws, and 

U.S. state and territorial laws. The ERA 

group ranked the existing conch fishery 

regulations employed by foreign nations 

to be ‘‘high risk’’ threat, which indicates 

that this threat poses a danger of 

extinction for queen conch in the near 

future. The ERA group rankings indicate 

that the law enforcement of the existing 

fisheries regulations, as well as 

international trade regulations, are 

‘‘increasing risk’’ threats, indicating that 

they thought the present risk to queen 

conch is low or moderate, but is likely 

to increase to high risk in the 

foreseeable future if present conditions 

continue. Lastly the ERA group ranked 

the existing fishery regulations in the 

U.S. Federal and U.S. state and 

territorial regulations as a ‘‘low risk’’ 

threat, which indicates that the 

members thought that this threat may 

affect species’ status, but only to a 

degree that it is unlikely that this threat 

significantly elevates risk of extinction. 

In 1990, the Parties to the Convention 

for the Protection and Development of 

the Marine Environment of the Wider 

Caribbean Region included queen conch 

in Annex II of its Protocol Concerning 

Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife 

(SPAW Protocol) as a species that may 

be used on a rational and sustainable 

basis and that requires protective 

measures. In 1992, queen conch were 

added to Appendix II of CITES, which 

is an international agreement between 

governments established with the aim of 

ensuring that international trade in 

specimens of wild animals and plants 

does not threaten their survival. 

Appendix II includes species that are 

not necessarily threatened with 

extinction, but in which trade must be 

controlled in order to avoid utilization 

incompatible with their survival. 

International trade of Appendix II 

species is permitted when export 

permits are granted from the country of 

origin. In order to issue an export 

permit, the exporting country must find 

that the animals were legally obtained 

and their export will not be detrimental 

to the survival of the species in the wild 

(referred to as a ‘‘non-detriment 

finding’’). 

The fishery management authorities 

(responsible for making non-detriment 

findings) of the states of export have 

found it difficult to make the required 

non-detriment findings necessary for 

issuing export permits under CITES 

Appendix II (Ehrhardt and ValleEsquivel, 2008). The regional biological 

status and trade status of queen conch 

were reviewed by the CITES in 1995 

and 2001 under the Significant Trade 

Review process. The Significant Trade 

Review process is required when there 

is concern about levels of trade in an 

Appendix II species. These reviews 

were initiated because of the continuing 

growth and export of the conch fishery 

and problems with enforcement in 

several range states. The latest review 

(Theile, 2001) concluded that the 

majority of queen conch populations 

were in decline due to overexploitation. Some populations were 

showing little signs of recovery despite 

fishery closures and some showed signs 

of potential recruitment failure. Only a 

few countries had conch populations 

that were considered stable and 

information was lacking for a number of 

countries. The review characterized the 

majority of queen conch populations as 

over-exploited with harvest in some 

areas consisting of juveniles and an 

increasing shift in fishing effort to 

deeper waters. As a result of these 

reviews, queen conch trade was 

suspended for some countries. There are 

several countries whose exports of 

queen conch have been periodically 

banned by CITES: Dominican Republic, 

Honduras, Haiti, Antigua and Barbuda, 

Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, and 

Grenada. Haiti and Grenada are the only 

two countries where suspensions 

remain in place (Meadows and GarciaMoliner, 2012). Poaching and illegal 

trade in queen conch remains a 

significant problem in the wider 

Caribbean region (CITES, 2003; NMFS, 

2014a; NMFS, 2014b). Recently, in a 

separate action, the European Union 

issued a ban on imports from any fish 

caught on Belize vessels, due to the 

country’s inability to stem illegal fishing 

(Nielsen, 2014). 

Although there have been difficulties 

in implementing CITES in relation to 

queen conch, CITES has proven to be a 

useful tool in conch harvest regulation. 

Through CITES a number of trade 

embargos have been implemented. 

These embargos do not stop all harvest 

in the affected countries, as there still is 

poaching and harvest for domestic 

consumption. However, we believe 

these embargos reduced the numbers of 

conch harvested due to limited markets, 

as the United States imports 

approximately 80 percent of the annual 

queen conch catch (Meadows and 

Garcia-Moliner, 2012). CITES, Article IV 

(related to Appendix-II species) states 

that, ‘‘an export permit shall only be 

granted when . . . a scientific authority 

of the State of export has advised that 

such export will not be detrimental to 

the survival of that species.’’ There are 

no requirements regarding how a 

scientific authority should complete a 

‘‘non-detrimental finding.’’ However, in 

making their non-detrimental findings, 

exporting countries should consider 

total conch mortality, which includes 

domestic and export harvest, and illegal, 

unreported, and unregulated (IUU) 

fishing. Therefore, it is important that 

the scientific authorities follow the 

guidance on making non-detrimental 

findings (Rosser and Haywood, 2002), as 

well as documented methodologies, in 

order to facilitate the formulation of 

non-detriment findings, and to make 

more complete and scientifically sound 

the evaluations required to improve the 

implementation of the CITES. A number 

of countries and territories in the queen 

conch’s range have regulatory 

mechanisms that are intended to 

manage harvest. They generally consist 

of minimum size or weight restrictions, 

closed seasons or spatial closures, 

harvest quotas, and gear restrictions, or 

a combination of these (Berg and Olsen, 

1989; Chakalall and Cochrane, 1997). 

The local overexploitation of queen 

conch stocks has resulted in total conch 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Notices 65639 

fishery closures in Aruba, Bermuda, 

Costa Rica, Florida (U.S.), and 

Venezuela. In 2012, the Mexican 

Government closed the Chinchorro 

Banks to conch harvest. This closure 

will remain in effect until February 

2017 (Aldana Aranda GCFInet 

communication). 

We attempted to compile regulations 

specific to queen conch harvest for all 

range countries, but we were unable to 

find regulations specific to queen conch 

harvest for Barbados, Brazil, Montserrat, 

Panama, and Trinidad and Tobago. 

Several patterns emerged from the 

compilation and evaluation of existing 

regulatory mechanisms. First, regulatory 

mechanisms vary between countries, 

with most including: export quotas and 

caps on harvest, ban on SCUBA and/or 

hookah gear, minimum size, minimum 

weight, seasonal and spatial closures or 

some combination of those. Almost all 

the countries with significant conch 

fisheries (e.g., Antigua and Barbuda, 

Belize, the Bahamas, Dominican 

Republic, Jamaica, Nicaragua, and 

Mexico) and some with limited or no 

harvest (The British Virgin Islands, the 

Cayman Islands, Colombia, Cuba, Puerto 

Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands) have 

seasonal closures that vary in duration, 

but generally occurr during mating 

months to protect reproductively active 

stocks. There are a few countries that 

have significant conch fisheries, but do 

not have regulations that include a 

closed season (e.g., Honduras, St. Kitts 

and Nevis). The closed season in the 

Turks and Caicos only prohibits queen 

conch exports during conch mating 

seasons, but not does not ban harvest 

during that time. Several countries with 

limited conch fisheries do not have 

closed seasons (e.g., the Caribbean 

Netherlands, Grenada, Haiti, 

Martinique, St Lucia, and St. Vincent). 

The restriction of SCUBA and hookah 

gear limits the depth of hand harvest 

and consequently protects queen conch 

that may be distributed in deep waters. 

It also limits the time a person can stay 

underwater to harvest conch, reducing 

catch rates. The use of SCUBA and 

hookah gears to harvest queen conch is 

prohibited in the Cayman Islands, 

Colombia, Cuba, and Turks and Caicos. 

There are no regulations that prohibit 

SCUBA or hookah to harvest queen 

conch in Antigua and Barbuda, 

Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, Honduras, 

Dominican Republic, Caribbean 

Netherlands (exception Saba Bank), 

Grenada, St. Lucia, and St Vincent and 

Grenadines. SCUBA is prohibited in 

Jamaica, Belize, and Martinique, but not 

hookah gear. Two countries allow the 

use of SCUBA or hookah, but only by 

permit: the Bahamas and St. Kitts and 

Nevis. Some areas have blanket 

prohibitions for the use of SCUBA or 

hookah in some locations while 

permitting it in others. In the U.S. 

Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, SCUBA 

and hookah are allowed in territorial 

waters, but not Federal waters. The 

British Virgin Islands prohibits SCUBA 

in MPAs and Fishery Priority Areas. 

Seasonal and spatial closures and gear 

restrictions may reduce conch harvest, 

protect reproductively active stocks, and 

potentially conserve unexploited deepwater habitats; however, enforcement 

has been inconsistent to non-existent in 

many jurisdictions, which allows 

significant illegal collection and 

poaching. 

Restricting harvest to only larger 

queen conch conserves reproductive 

capacity by ensuring an individual can 

contribute to at least one reproductive 

season (Stoner et al., 2012b). Minimum 

size regulations for queen conch range 

from 18 to 22.9 cm in shell length across 

the Caribbean, with unprocessed meat 

(i.e., animal is removed from shell; meat 

is not cleaned or filleted) weight from 

about 225 to 280 gr. The size of a queen 

conch is known to vary given the 

species’ highly plastic shell 

morphology, with variable growth rates 

across the range (SEDAR, 2007; 

Ehrhardt and Valle-Esquivel, 2008). 

Consequently, basic dimensions such as 

shell length and weight are not reliable 

indicators of queen conch maturity, and 

based on current literature, the existing 

shell size regulations in many range 

states would allow for the legal harvest 

of conch considered to be juveniles 

(Stoner et al., 2012b). A review of 

fishing regulations concluded that 

minimum sizes set by fishery managers 

are allowing immature queen conch to 

be harvested legally in most Caribbean 

nations, providing at least a partial 

explanation for overexploitation (Stoner 

et al., 2012b). In addition, the ‘‘flared 

lip’’ criterion for legal harvest does not 

guarantee that the conch is mature. 

Harvest of conch with a flared shell lip 

is required in a number of countries to 

ensure conch are mature (British Virgin 

Islands, Caribbean Netherlands, 

Grenada, Jamaica, Nicaragua, 

Martinique, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin 

Island, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. 

Vincent and the Grenadines). Other 

countries require a shell-lip thickness 

between 5 to 10 mm (Antigua and 

Barbuda, Cuba, Martinique, Nicaragua, 

Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands). 

Several studies have found that the 

shell thickness is a better criterion to 

ensure that those harvested are not 

juveniles (Appeldoorn, 1994; Clerveaux 

et al., 2005; Cala et al., in press; Stoner 

et al., 2012b). Recent information 

indicates that shell thickness at 

reproductive maturity is much higher 

than previous estimates. Stoner et al. 

(2012b) found that the minimum shell 

thickness for reproductive maturity was 

12 mm for females and 9 mm for males, 

and 50 percent maturity for a 

population was attained at 26 mm for 

females and 24 mm for males. Based on 

these findings, a shell thickness of at 

least 15 mm was recommended to be set 

throughout the Caribbean region to 

ensure harvested individuals are 

mature. 

The current lip thickness 

requirements in countries that regulate 

based on lip thickness are, therefore, 

less effective at ensuring sustainability 

of the population. Moreover, there are 

no accompanying regulations that 

require queen conch to be landed in 

shell. The majority of range states 

extract the conch from its the shell at 

sea. This makes it difficult to determine 

whether the minimum size 

requirements are adhered to by conch 

fisheries. 

MPAs are another common regulatory 

measure. The level of regulatory 

protection varies by MPA. Reporting on 

the protection of coral reefs globally, 

Mora et al. (2006) reported 5.3 percent 

of global reefs were in MPAs that 

allowed take, 12 percent were inside 

multi-use MPAs that were defined as 

zoned areas including take and no-take 

grounds, and 1.4 percent were in notake MPAs. The term MPA can be 

broadly applied to include a wide range 

of regulatory structures including 

marine reserves, marine parks, and 

protected areas. Many MPAs have now 

been established throughout the world 

with the primary goals of preserving 

natural community and population 

structures while helping to sustain 

harvested species. Specifically, some 

Caribbean countries (e.g., Jamaica, Turks 

and Caicos, Honduras, Belize, the 

Bahamas, and Cuba) that have extensive 

conch harvest have established no-take 

reserves or MPAs (NMFS, 2014b). There 

is evidence that no-take marine reserves 

can be successful fisheries management 

tools. Appeldoorn (2004) suggested that 

the most productive queen conch areas 

be included in MPAs to offer an added 

degree of precaution for stock 

conservation. Many have been shown to 

increase conch populations, either 

relative to areas outside of the reserves 

or to the same area before the reserve 

was established (Stoner and Ray, 1996; 

Tewfik and Bene, 2000; Grabowshi and 

Tewfik, 2000; Roberts et al., 2001; 

Glazer et al., 2003; Chan et al., 2013). 

An increase in abundance within an 

MPA can ‘‘spill over’’ into adjacent 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

65640 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Notices 

areas through emigration (Roberts, 1995; 

Glazer et al., 2003) and may also 

increase larvae supply to sink 

populations (Roberts et al., 2001; Glazer 

et al., 2003). An MPA may function as 

a ‘‘source’’ of recruits by protecting 

reproductive stocks and thereby 

reducing the likelihood of Allee effects 

occurring (Glazer et al., 2003). The 

effectiveness of an MPA depends on the 

implementation and enforcement of 

regulations, but also on reserve location 

(Halpern, 2003). 

In summary, there are numerous 

regulatory strategies used by the various 

jurisdictions in the range of queen 

conch to regulate harvest, including 

seasonal and spatial closures, minimum 

size limits, MPAs and no take zones, 

and gear limits. The ERA group rankings 

indicate that regulatory enforcement 

and the inadequacy of existing fishery 

regulations in foreign countries were 

‘‘increasing risk’’ threats. The members 

of the group also ranked the regulatory 

measures in foreign countries as an 

‘‘increasing risk’’ threat. The ERA group 

ranking indicates that the members 

thought that the existing regulatory 

measures in the U.S. Federal and state 

waters were a ‘‘low risk’’ threat. The 

best available information indicates that 

most of the existing regulations 

designed to regulate conch harvest are 

inadequate and do not prevent 

overharvest or the harvest of juvenile 

conch. It is also difficult to measure 

regulatory compliance; it is likely that 

in some cases, enforcement is nonexistent, which allows for significant 

illegal harvest, juvenile harvest, and 

poaching. 

The creation of MPAs and no take 

zones have benefited queen conch 

stocks by protecting those areas from 

harvest (CITES, 2012). And although 

there have been difficulties in 

implementing CITES in relation to 

queen conch, CITES has proven to be a 

useful tool in conch harvest regulation. 

Through CITES a number of trade 

embargoes have been implemented. 

These embargoes do not stop all harvest 

in the affected countries, as there still is 

poaching and harvest for domestic 

consumption; however, these embargoes 

most certainly reduce the numbers of 

conch harvested. CITES member 

countries are also actively working 

together to improve data gathering and 

reporting and coordinating conservation 

efforts. We believe that the 

implementation of CITES adds an extra 

layer of conservation and protection that 

helps to reduce the impacts of the 

inadequate regulatory mechanisms 

found in countries. 

The ERA group’s ‘‘increasing risk’’ 

ranking indicate that members thought 

that international trade regulations, 

existing fishery regulations in foreign 

countries, and regulatory enforcement 

are significant threats, where the present 

risk is low or moderate, but is likely to 

increase to high risk in the foreseeable 

future if present conditions continue. 

We also believe that the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms is a 

significant threat to queen conch. 

However, based on the seasonal fishery 

closures that protect the reproductive 

adults, the establishment of MPAs and 

no-take zones, and implementation of 

CITES in relation to queen conch, we 

have determined that the current and 

foreseeable future impacts associated 

with these threats are not affecting the 

queen conch to such an extent that they 

represent a risk to persistence of the 

species. 

Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Ocean acidification is a result of 

global climate change and is considered 

here because the effect is a result of 

human activity and affects individual 

animals. The ERA group ranked the 

threat of ocean acidification on the 

queen conch as a ‘‘moderate risk’’ 

indicating that the threat contributes 

significantly to long term risk of 

extinction, but does not constitute a 

danger of extinction in the near future. 

Ocean acidification is a term referring 

to changes in ocean carbonate 

chemistry, including a drop in the pH 

of ocean waters, that is occurring in 

response to the rise in the quantity of 

atmospheric CO2 and the partial 

pressure of CO2 (pCO2) absorbed in 

oceanic waters (Caldeira and Wickett, 

2003). As pCO2 rises, oceanic pH 

declines. Carbonate ions are used by 

many marine organisms to build 

calcium carbonate shells. One wellknown effect of ocean acidification is 

the lowering of calcium carbonate 

saturation states (i.e., the concentration 

of carbonate ions in water needed to 

precipitate out of solution to create a 

shell), which impacts shell-forming 

marine organisms (Doney et al., 2009). 

Some molluscs’ shells are formed with 

a particular calcium carbonate crystal 

called aragonite; the concentration of 

the carbonate ions in the ocean relative 

to this crystal is measured as the 

aragonite saturation state. Decreasing 

pH and aragonite saturation state are 

expected to have a major impact on 

shelled molluscs and other marine 

organisms this century (Fabry et al., 

2008). Current atmospheric CO2 levels 

have resulted in a Caribbean open-ocean 

aragonite saturation state of less than 

3.8. A Caribbean open-ocean aragonite 

saturation state of 4.0 equated to an 

atmospheric CO2 level stabilized at 

approximately 360 ppm, and models 

suggest a saturation state of 3.0 equates 

to an atmospheric CO2 level of 530–570 

ppm (Simpson et al. 2009). 

The queen conch secretes a shell 

comprised of the aragonite form of 

calcium carbonate (Kamat et al., 2000). 

The queen conch begins to develop the 

shell during its larvae life stage; the 

shell thickens as the conch ages. The 

conch’s shell supports its living tissue, 

protects against predators, and excludes 

sediments from entering its mantle 

cavity. The effects of ocean acidification 

on shell growth and production vary 

among molluscs (Gazeau et al., 2013). 

Increasing acidification can affect the 

conch’s shell production in one of two, 

not mutually exclusive, ways. The first 

is by requiring more energy for shell 

formation, at a cost to growth rate 

(Doney, 2006). Alternatively, conch 

could incorporate the less available 

calcium carbonate in their shell, making 

a less dense and weaker shell (Doney, 

2006). 

We were unable to locate information 

related specifically to ocean 

acidification and its effects on queen 

conch, but we were able to locate some 

information on other strombids (e.g., 

Strombus luhuanus and Strombus 

alatis), which also form aragonite shells. 

Reduced shell growth was observed in 

Strombus luhuanus when grown in 560 

ppm CO2 over a 6-month period (Doney 

et al., 2013). Strombus alatis showed no 

effects of pH within the range of 

projected values for the end of the 

century, but significant effects are 

projected to occur by 2300 at pH levels 

between -0.6 and -0.7 below current 

levels (Gazeau et al., 2013). 

Changing climate may also have 

other, more subtle effects that could 

impact queen conch larval dispersal and 

habitat availability. Currents are 

expected to be affected under future 

climates (Liu et al., 2012), which could 

change the rate and direction of larval 

dispersal and population connectivity. 

Effects of these changes are not known; 

results could be either positive or 

negative to conch populations. Habitat 

may change as a result of climate change 

and impact settlement rates. The 

increase in surface water temperature 

could influence the timing of conch 

reproduction. Hurricane activity has 

been found to negatively impact queen 

conch populations in Turks and Caicos 

(DEMA, 2012). If the frequency/

intensity of extreme weather conditions 

increases with sea surface temperatures 

as some predict, reductions in the local 

queen conch populations may occur. 

Life-history characteristics were also 

considered because there are certain 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Notices 65641 

characteristics that can increase the 

queen conch’s vulnerability to threats 

under this factor. The vulnerable life 

history characteristic of most concern 

for queen conch is the proximity of 

adult conch aggregation/mating/egg 

laying and juvenile nursery areas to the 

shore and in shallow waters. The close 

proximity to shore/shallow water 

locations makes the queen conch more 

vulnerable to fisheries during important 

stages of its life history, as these areas 

are accessible and easily exploitable. 

These life-history characteristics 

increase the species’ vulnerability and 

have the potential to result in future, 

further population declines driven by 

the primary threats of overharvest and 

the inadequacy of the regulatory 

mechanisms designed to control 

harvest. 

In summary, the ERA group ranked 

the threat of ocean acidification on the 

queen conch as a ‘‘moderate risk’’ 

indicating that the threat contributes 

significantly to long-term risk of 

extinction, but does not constitute a 

danger of extinction in the near future. 

The impacts from ocean acidification 

and climate change are not projected to 

affect aragonite saturation states to a 

point where queen conch will be 

threatened within the foreseeable future. 

While the threat of ocean acidification 

and climate change could represent a 

potential future threat, at this time, 

ocean acidification and global warming 

are not negatively affecting the species. 

The ERA group ranked the species 

vulnerable life-history characteristics as 

‘‘increasing risk,’’ indicating that, at 

present, the extinction risk to queen 

conch resulting from vulnerable lifehistory characteristics is low or 

moderate, but is likely to increase to 

high risk in the foreseeable future if 

present conditions continue. As 

discussed above, the queen conch has 

some life-history characteristics that 

make it more vulnerable to 

overexploitation, but conversely, the 

species also has some life-history 

characteristics that function as a buffer 

against overexploitation. For example, it 

reaches reproductive maturity relatively 

early in age and is highly productive. 

The queen conch is long lived, up to 30 

years, and reaches reproductive 

maturity relatively early at about 4 years 

of age. The queen conch is also highly 

fecund, producing up to 13 egg masses 

a year, with each egg mass containing 

anywhere from 500,000 to 750,000 eggs. 

In addition, conch larvae are planktonic 

and have high dispersal capabilities; 

which allows them to recruit and 

reestablish overfished populations. 

There are some aspects of the species 

life-history strategy that increase its 

vulnerability to the principle threat of 

commercial harvest, but the species’ 

reproductive rate and larval dispersal 

make them more resilient to this threat. 

Therefore, we have determined that the 

current and foreseeable future impacts 

associated with threats due to other 

natural or manmade factors are not 

affecting the queen conch to such an 

extent that they represent a risk to 

persistence of the species. 

Conservation Efforts 

In May 2012, a Queen Conch Expert 

Workshop was convened to develop 

recommendations for the sustainable 

and legal management of the species. 

The results of the Expert Workshop 

included recommendations on data 

collection, harvest strategies, 

precautionary controls, fishing capacity, 

ecosystem management, decisionmaking and enforcement and 

compliance. In Panama City, Panama, in 

October 2012, these recommendations 

were reviewed and adopted by the 

Working Group on Queen Conch of the 

Western and Central Atlantic Fisheries 

Commission of the FAO (WECAFC), the 

Caribbean Fishery Management Council 

(CFMC), the Organization of the Fishing 

and Aquaculture Sector of Central 

America (OSPESCA) and the Caribbean 

Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM). 

In the Declaration of Panama that 

resulted from the meeting, the group 

made further recommendations, 

including support of the development of 

a regional plan for the management and 

conservation of queen conch. The other 

main recommendation requires 

countries and inter-governmental 

organizations of the region to 

collaborate more closely with CITES to 

support the sustainable and legal 

harvest and trade of the species. 

In March 2013, the Sixteenth Meeting 

of the Conference of the Parties to CITES 

(CoP16) adopted several decisions to 

promote regional cooperation on the 

management and trade of queen conch 

(CITES Decisions 16.141–16.148). 

Among the actions called for in these 

decisions, range states are encouraged to 

adopt the recommendations stemming 

from the meeting of the Working Group 

on Queen Conch (the Declaration of 

Panama) discussed above; participate in 

the development of national, subregional, and regional plans for queen 

conch management and conservation, 

including best practices and guidance 

for making non-detriment findings; 

develop and adopt conversion factors to 

standardize data reported on catch and 

trade of meat and other products of 

queen conch; explore ways to enhance 

traceability of queen conch in trade; and 

collaborate on joint research programs. 

Recently, in March 2014, the 15th 

biennial meeting of the WECAFC was 

convened in Trinidad and Tobago. The 

WECAFC adopted specific management 

measures for queen conch that emulated 

the Declaration of Panama and 

recommended that members implement 

them. The WECAFC members 

considered IUU fishing of queen conch 

a major problem in the region, and 

requested members renew their efforts 

to deter fishers from IUU fishing 

(WECAFC, 2014; Daves, 2014). 

In summary, there are conservation 

efforts and new management measures 

being considered that are expected to 

benefit the species. However, at this 

time, it is not possible to determine any 

future positive benefit to the species 

that may result from efforts currently 

being contemplated by fisheries 

managers. In addition, we cannot 

determine which range states/entities, if 

any, will implement these conservation 

efforts or new management measures. 

Due to uncertainties surrounding their 

implementation we cannot be 

reasonably certain that these benefits 

will occur. 

Significant Portion of Its Range 

The ESA definitions of ‘‘endangered 

species’’ and ‘‘threatened species’’ refer 

to two spatial scales: A species’ entire 

range or a significant portion of its 

range. Our framework initially 

evaluated the queen conch throughout 

its range to determine extinction risk. 

We have found that listing the queen 

conch is not warranted at the spatial 

scale of its entire range, so we must 

consider if a ‘‘significant portion of its 

range’’ is at higher risk, such that it 

elevates the entire species’ status to 

endangered or threatened. However, this 

evaluation can only be conducted if a 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’ where 

the species’ status is more imperiled can 

be identified. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) and NMFS—together, ‘‘the 

Services’’—have jointly finalized a 

policy interpreting the phrase 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’ 

(SPOIR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). The 

SPOIR policy provides that: (1) If a 

species is found to be endangered or 

threatened in only a significant portion 

of its range, the entire species is listed 

as endangered or threatened, 

respectively, and the ESA’s protections 

apply across the species’ entire range; 

(2) a portion of the range of a species is 

‘‘significant’’ if the species is not 

currently endangered or threatened 

throughout its range, and the portion’s 

contributions to the viability of the 

species is so important that, without the 

members in that portion, the species 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

65642 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Notices 

would be in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future, throughout all of its range; and 

(3) the range of a species is considered 

to be the general geographical area 

within which that species can be found 

at the time we make any particular 

status determination. We evaluated 

whether substantial information 

indicated that (i) the portions may be 

significant and (ii) the species 

occupying those portions may be in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so within the foreseeable future (79 FR 

37578; July 1, 2014). Under the SPOIR 

policy, both considerations must apply 

to warrant listing a species as threatened 

or endangered throughout its range 

based upon its status within a portion 

of the range. 

As discussed above, the available 

information on the gene flow of queen 

conch is limited, but there is some 

evidence of possible genetic separation 

occurring between some queen conch 

populations. Queen conch larvae 

transport models show that there is low 

probability of connectivity between 

queen conch in Caribbean Mexico, 

Alacranes Reef in the southern Gulf of 

Mexico, and downstream populations in 

Florida, Cuba, and northwest to the 

Bahamas (Paris et al., 2008). In Mexico 

mitochondrial DNA marker analysis 

showed that queen conch at the 

Alacranes Reef were genetically distinct 

from conch populations at Cozumel and 

Banco Chinchorro in Mexico that were 

separated by 280 and 400 miles, 

respectively (Perez-Enriquez et al., 

2011). Similarly, in the Bahamas, 

preliminary data detected genetic 

separation in queen conch populations 

that were located approximately 310 

miles from one another (Banks et al., 

2014). In addition, two nearby 

populations of queen conch in St. Lucia 

were found to be genetically different 

from each other, most likely a result of 

the east and west currents that prohibit 

the exchange of larvae between the two 

locations (Mitton et al., 1989). However, 

we did not find that the available 

information supported a conclusion that 

the loss of genetic diversity from one 

portion would result in the remaining 

population lacking enough genetic 

diversity to allow for adaptations to 

changing environmental conditions. 

The consequences of decades of 

overharvest have resulted in estimates 

indicating that over 60 percent of 

habitat, in the Caribbean, ranging from 

0 to 30 m, have adult conch densities 

below the 100 individuals/ha threshold. 

However, as noted previously, there are 

significant questions regarding whether 

these densities are reflective of actual 

population status. If accurate, the 

extremely low density conch 

populations in these areas are at risk of 

depensatory processes or Allee effects 

(such as reduced likelihood of finding a 

mate and recruitment success). 

However, the SFD assessment (NMFS, 

2014c) indicates that conch landings 

have remained stable from 2000 through 

2011 at high levels, which is 

inconsistent with the low density 

estimates. Also, with conch being highly 

fecund (i.e., producing 3 to 10 million 

eggs per individual per season), stability 

of harvest over a long term may indicate 

that recruitment is occurring from areas 

that are not fished, such as deep water 

areas, or from areas where mating is 

occurring at a higher rate, because 

conch densities are above the 100 adult 

conch/hectare threshold, and conch 

larval can disperse over a broad 

geographic range. Based on the relative 

genetic homogeneity of the species, high 

fecundity/productivity, and expansive 

larval dispersal capabilities, even areas 

below the 100 adult conch/ha threshold 

are maintaining stable landings. 

Therefore, after a review of the best 

available information, we did not find 

substantial evidence that would indicate 

that the loss of queen conch in any 

portion of the species’ range would limit 

the species to the point where it would 

be in danger of extinction throughout all 

of its range, or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future. In addition, there is 

no evidence that suggests that there is 

a portion of the species’ range which 

encompasses aspects that are important 

to the species’ specific life history 

events, where the loss of that portion 

would severally impact the growth, 

reproduction, or survival of the species 

as a whole. We have evaluated the 

species throughout its range to 

determine if there is a portion that is 

significant and have concluded that the 

information does 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. 

Consequently, we are unable to identify 

a ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ for 

the queen conch that would change the 

determination relative to the status of 

the species rangewide. 

Listing Determination 

Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires 

that NMFS make listing determinations 

based solely on the best scientific and 

commercial data available after 

conducting a review of the status of the 

species and taking into account those 

efforts, if any, being made by any state 

or foreign nation, or political 

subdivisions thereof, to protect and 

conserve the species. We have 

independently reviewed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information including the petition, 

public comments submitted on the 90- 

day finding (77 FR 51763; August 27, 

2012), the status report (NMFS, 2014a), 

and other published and unpublished 

information. We considered each of the 

Section 4(a)(1) factors to determine 

whether it presented an extinction risk 

to the species. As required by the ESA, 

Section 4(b)(1)(a), we also looked at 

whether there are any conservation 

efforts to protect queen conch by states 

or foreign nations. We were unable to 

identify any conservation efforts that 

were reasonably certain to occur that 

would benefit the species. As previously 

explained, we could not identify a 

significant portion of the species’ range, 

where its status is different than that we 

have identified for the species 

rangewide. Therefore, our determination 

is based on a synthesis and integration 

of the foregoing information, factors and 

considerations, and their effects on the 

status of the species throughout its 

entire range. 

We conclude that the queen conch is 

not presently in danger of extinction, 

nor is it likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future throughout its entire 

range. The species is made up of a 

single population over a broad 

geographic range, and its current range 

is indistinguishable from its historical 

range and there is little evidence of 

significant habitat loss or destruction. 

The species possesses life-history 

characteristics that increase its 

vulnerability to harvest, but it also 

possesses life-history characteristics that 

are conducive to population resilience. 

While there are significant questions as 

to the reliability of the density 

estimates, the best available information 

indicates that there are localized 

population declines. The best available 

survey data also shows evidence that 

there are populations which are 

currently suffering from depensatory 

processes (such as reduced likelihood of 

finding a mate and recruitment success). 

Nonetheless, queen conch harvest has 

remained high, as indicated by the 

landings, indicating that conch mating 

and larvae recruitment is occurring, 

which further reinforces the questions 

regarding the accuracy of the density 

estimates. 

The ERA group’s threats assessment 

indicated that the primary threat to 

queen conch is harvest; however, taking 

into account regulatory changes and 

missing landings, the cumulative trend 

in landings appear to be stable (NMFS, 

2014b). In fact, there is a stable trend in 

landings from 1993 forward, which also 

corresponds well with improvements in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Notices 65643 

data reporting (NMFS, 2014b). There are 

existing regulatory mechanisms 

throughout the species’ range—although 

catch limits and seasonal and spatial 

closures appear to be the most effective 

in addressing the primary threat to the 

species (harvest). There are also 

significant concerns related to the 

enforcement of existing regulations; 

however, CITES has embargoed many 

countries for not complying with their 

obligations under the treaty. In some 

cases, CITES references the lack of 

regulatory enforcement as a factor that 

contributed to embargo decisions. In 

addition, despite continued deficiencies 

related to enforcement and regulatory 

compliance in queen conch fisheries, 

this threat does not appear to be 

impacting the species’ continued 

existence, as conch landings trends 

appear to be stable. 

Although the global population has 

likely declined from historical numbers, 

the species still occurs over a broad 

geographic range, has dispersal 

mechanisms that have ensured high 

degrees of genetic mixing, and its 

current range is unchanged from its 

historical range. In addition, there is 

little evidence to suggest that disease or 

predation is contributing to increasing 

the risk of extinction of the species. 

Based on these findings, we conclude 

that the queen conch is not currently in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, nor is it 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future. While ongoing conservation 

efforts could be more effective, since the 

queen conch is not currently in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range or likely 

to become so in the foreseeable future, 

we do not need to rely on the 

effectiveness of conservation efforts to 

make this finding. Accordingly, the 

queen conch does not meet the 

definition of a threatened or endangered 

species, and our listing determination is 

that the queen conch does not warrant 

listing as threatened or endangered at 

this time. 

References 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available upon request (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: October 30, 2014. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26324 Filed 11–4–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew 

Collection 3038–0066, Financial 

Resource Requirements for 

Derivatives Clearing Organizations 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is 

announcing an opportunity for public 

comment on the proposed collection of 

certain information by the agency. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(‘‘PRA’’), Federal agencies are required 

to publish notice in the Federal Register 

concerning each proposed collection of 

information, including each proposed 

extension of an existing collection of 

information, and to allow 60 days for 

public comment. This notice solicits 

comments on reporting requirements 

relating to financial resource 

requirements for derivatives clearing 

organizations. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before January 5, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ‘‘Financial Resource 

Requirements for Derivatives Clearing 

Organizations’’ by any of the following 

methods: 

• The Agency’s Web site, at http://

comments.cftc.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

through the Web site. 

• Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, 

Secretary of the Commission, 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 

20581. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as 

Mail, above. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments through the Portal. 

Please submit your comments using 

only one method. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Eileen Chotiner, Division of Clearing 

and Risk, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 

20581; (202) 418–5467; email: 

echotiner@cftc.gov, and refer to OMB 

Control No. 3038–0066. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

PRA, Federal agencies must obtain 

approval from the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for each collection 

of information they conduct or sponsor. 

‘‘Collection of Information’’ is defined 

in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 

and includes agency requests or 

requirements that members of the public 

submit reports, keep records, or provide 

information to a third party. Section 

3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies 

to provide a 60-day notice in the 

Federal Register concerning each 

proposed collection of information, 

including each proposed extension of an 

existing collection of information, 

before submitting the collection to OMB 

for approval. To comply with this 

requirement, the Commission is 

publishing notice of the proposed 

extension of the collection of 

information listed below. 

Title: Financial Resource 

Requirements for Derivatives Clearing 

Organizations (OMB Control No. 3038– 

0066). This is a request for extension of 

a currently approved information 

collection. 

Abstract: Part 39 of the Commission’s 

regulations establishes financial 

reporting requirements for derivatives 

clearing organizations (‘‘DCOs’’), which 

are required to be registered with the 

Commission. The Commission will use 

the information in the reports to assess 

the DCOs’ compliance with the financial 

resource requirements for DCOs 

prescribed in the Commodity Exchange 

Act and Commission regulations. 

With respect to the collection of 

information, the CFTC invites 

comments on: 

• Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information will have a practical use; 

• The accuracy of the Commission’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

• Ways to enhance the quality, 

usefulness, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and 

• Ways to minimize the burden of 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES