48948 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 223 

[Docket No. 160614518–7999–02] 

RIN 0648–XE685 

12-Month Finding and Proposed Rule 

To List the Chambered Nautilus as 

Threatened Under the Endangered 

Species Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month 

petition finding; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12- 

month finding on a petition to list the 

chambered nautilus (Nautilus 

pompilius) as a threatened species or an 

endangered species under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). We have 

completed a comprehensive status 

review of the species in response to this 

petition. Based on the best scientific and 

commercial information available, 

including the status review report 

(Miller 2017), and after taking into 

account efforts being made to protect 

the species, we have determined that 

the chambered nautilus is likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout its 

range. Therefore, we propose to list the 

chambered nautilus as a threatened 

species under the ESA. Any protective 

regulations determined to be necessary 

and advisable for the conservation of the 

proposed threatened chambered 

nautilus under ESA section 4(d) will be 

proposed in a separate Federal Register 

announcement. Should the proposed 

listing be finalized, we would also 

designate critical habitat for the species, 

to the maximum extent prudent and 

determinable; however, we have 

determined that critical habitat is not 

determinable at this time. We solicit 

information to inform our final listing 

determination, the development of 

potential protective regulations, and 

potential designation of critical habitat 

in the event the proposed threatened 

listing for the chambered nautilus is 

finalized. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

to list the chambered nautilus must be 

received by December 22, 2017. Public 

hearing requests must be made by 

December 7, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2016–0098, by either of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/#&!docketDetail;

D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0098. Click the 

‘‘Comment Now’’ icon, complete the 

required fields, and enter or attach your 

comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Maggie Miller, NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East 

West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910, USA. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personally 

identifying information (e.g., name, 

address, etc.), confidential business 

information, or otherwise sensitive 

information submitted voluntarily by 

the sender will be publicly accessible. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in the required 

fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

The petition, status review report, 

Federal Register notices, and the list of 

references can be accessed 

electronically online at: http://www.

fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/ 

invertebrates/chambered-nautilus.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maggie Miller, NMFS, Office of 

Protected Resources, (301) 427–8403. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 31, 2016, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity to list the chambered nautilus 

(N. pompilius) as a threatened species or 

an endangered species under the ESA. 

On August 26, 2016, we published a 

positive 90-day finding (81 FR 58895) 

announcing that the petition presented 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted for 

the chambered nautilus. We also 

announced the initiation of a status 

review of the species, as required by 

section 4(b)(3)(a) of the ESA, and 

requested information to inform the 

agency’s decision on whether this 

species warrants listing as endangered 

or threatened under the ESA. 

Listing Species Under the Endangered 

Species Act 

We are responsible for determining 

whether the chambered nautilus is 

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 

subspecies and, for any vertebrate 

species, any distinct population 

segment (DPS) that interbreeds when 

mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Because 

the chambered nautilus is an 

invertebrate, the ESA does not permit us 

to consider listing individual 

populations as DPSs. 

Section 3 of the ESA defines an 

endangered species as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a threatened species as 

one ‘‘which is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ Thus, 

in the context of the ESA, the Services 

interpret 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 (that is, at a later time). The key 

statutory difference between a 

threatened and endangered species is 

the timing of when a species is or is 

likely to become in danger of extinction, 

either presently (endangered) or in the 

foreseeable future (threatened). 

When we consider whether a species 

qualifies as threatened under the ESA, 

we must consider the meaning of the 

term ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ It is 

appropriate to interpret ‘‘foreseeable 

future’’ as the horizon over which 

predictions about the conservation 

status of the species can be reasonably 

relied upon. What constitutes the 

foreseeable future for a particular 

species depends on species-specific 

factors such as the life history of the 

species, habitat characteristics, 

availability of data, particular threats, 

ability to predict threats, and the 

reliability to forecast the effects of these 

threats and future events on the status 

of the species under consideration. 

Because a species may be susceptible to 

a variety of threats for which different 

data are available, or which operate 

across different time scales, the 

foreseeable future is not necessarily 

reducible to a particular number of 

years. 

The statute requires us to determine 

whether any species is endangered or 

threatened throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range as a 

result of any one or a combination of 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48949 

any 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; the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1). We are 

also required to make listing 

determinations based solely on the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, after conducting a review of 

the species’ status and after taking into 

account efforts, if any, being made by 

any state or foreign nation (or 

subdivision thereof) to protect the 

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

Status Review 

A NMFS biologist in the Office of 

Protected Resources conducted the 

status review for the chambered 

nautilus (Miller 2017). The status 

review is a compilation of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information on the species’ biology, 

ecology, life history, threats, and status 

from information contained in the 

petition, our files, a comprehensive 

literature search, and consultation with 

nautilus experts. We also considered 

information submitted by the public in 

response to our petition finding. In 

assessing the extinction risk of the 

chambered nautilus, we considered the 

demographic viability factors developed 

by McElhany et al. (2000). The approach 

of considering demographic risk factors 

to help frame the consideration of 

extinction risk is well accepted and has 

been used in many of our status 

reviews, including for Pacific 

salmonids, Pacific hake, walleye 

pollock, Pacific cod, Puget Sound 

rockfishes, Pacific herring, scalloped, 

great, and smooth hammerhead sharks, 

and black abalone (see http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ for 

links to these reviews). In this approach, 

the collective condition of individual 

populations is considered at the species 

level according to four viable 

population descriptors: abundance, 

growth rate/productivity, spatial 

structure/connectivity, and diversity. 

These viable population descriptors 

reflect concepts that are well-founded in 

conservation biology and that 

individually and collectively provide 

strong indicators of extinction risk 

(NMFS 2015). 

The draft status review report was 

subjected to independent peer review as 

required by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) Final Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (M– 

05–03; December 16, 2004). The draft 

status review report was peer reviewed 

by independent specialists selected 

from the academic and scientific 

community, with expertise in nautilus 

biology, conservation, and management. 

The peer reviewers were asked to 

evaluate the adequacy, appropriateness, 

and application of data used in the 

status review, including the extinction 

risk analysis. All peer reviewer 

comments were addressed prior to 

dissemination and finalization of the 

draft status review report and 

publication of this finding. 

We subsequently reviewed the status 

review report, its cited references, and 

peer review comments, and believe the 

status review report, upon which this 

12-month finding and proposed rule is 

based, provides the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

on the chambered nautilus. Much of the 

information discussed below on the 

species’ biology, distribution, 

abundance, threats, and extinction risk 

is presented in the status review report. 

However, in making the 12-month 

finding determination and proposed 

rule, we have independently applied the 

statutory provisions of the ESA, 

including evaluation of the factors set 

forth in section 4(a)(1)(A)–(E) and our 

regulations regarding listing 

determinations at 50 CFR part 424. The 

status review report is available on our 

Web site (see ADDRESSES section) and 

the peer review report is available at 

http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_

programs/prplans/PRsummaries.html. 

Below is a summary of the information 

from the status review report and our 

analysis of the status of the chambered 

nautilus. Further details can be found in 

Miller (2017). 

Description, Life History, and Ecology 

of the Petitioned Species 

Species Taxonomy and Description 

Nautilus taxonomy is controversial. 

Based on the Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (ITIS), which has a 

disclaimer that states it ‘‘is based on the 

latest scientific consensus available . . . 

[but] is not a legal authority for statutory 

or regulatory purposes,’’ two genera are 

presently recognized within the family 

of Nautilidae: Allonautilus and 

Nautilus. The genus Allonautilus has 

two recognized species: A. perforatus 

and A. scrobiculatus. The genus 

Nautilus has five recognized species: N. 

belauensis (Saunders 1981), N. 

macromphalus (Sowerby 1849), N. 

pompilius (Linnaeus 1758), N. repertus 

(Iredale 1944), and N. stenomphalus 

(Sowerby 1849). However, a review and 

analysis of recent genetic and 

morphological data suggests that 

perhaps only two of these five species 

are valid: N. pompilius and N. 

macromphalus, with the other three 

species more appropriately placed 

within N. pompilius (Vandepas et al. 

2016; Ward et al. 2016). Saunders et al. 

(2017) suggested that consensus may be 

trending towards treating N. pompilius 

as a ‘‘superspecies’’ taxonomically, with 

N. stenomphalus, N. belauensis, and N. 

repertus as subspecies. 

However, because the taxonomy of 

the Nautilus genus is not fully resolved, 

with ongoing debate as to the number of 

species that exist, we follow the latest 

scientific consensus of the taxonomy of 

the Nautilus genus as acknowledged by 

the ITIS, with N. pompilius identified as 

one of five recognized species. 

The chambered nautilus is an 

externally-shelled cephalopod with a 

distinctive coiled calcium-carbonate 

shell that is divided into chambers. The 

shell can range in color from white to 

orange, and even purple, with unique 

color patterns (Barord 2015). Its 

distinctive coiled shell is what makes 

the chambered nautilus a highly sought 

after commodity in international trade 

(Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES) 2016). The body of the 

chambered nautilus is housed in the 

largest chamber within the shell, and 

when the animal is attacked, it can seal 

itself into this chamber, closing the 

opening with a large, fleshy hood (Jereb 

2005). The chambered nautilus also has 

up to 90 tentacles, without suckers, 

which they use to dig in substrate and 

scavenge for food (Barord 2015) and to 

grab on to reef surfaces for rest (CITES 

2016). 

Range, Distribution and Habitat Use 

The chambered nautilus is found in 

tropical, coastal reef, deep-water 

habitats of the Indo-Pacific. Its known 

range includes waters off American 

Samoa, Australia, Fiji, India, Indonesia, 

Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, 

Philippines, Solomon Islands, and 

Vanuatu, and it may also potentially 

occur in waters off China, Myanmar, 

Western Samoa, Thailand, and Vietnam 

(CITES 2016). Additionally, Saunders et 

al. (2017) notes that traps set at Nautilus 

depths in Yap (Caroline Islands), 

Pohnpei and Majuro (Marshall Islands), 

Kosrae (Gilbert Islands), Western 

Samoa, and Tonga failed to catch any 

chambered nautiluses, providing 

‘‘highly suggestive’’ evidence that the 

geographic range of N. pompilius may 

not extend out to these sites. 

Within its range, the chambered 

nautilus has a patchy distribution and is 

unpredictable in its area of occupancy. 

Based on multiple research studies, the 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
48950 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

presence of suitable habitat on coral 

reefs does not necessarily indicate the 

likelihood of chambered nautilus 

occurrence (CITES 2016). Additionally, 

the chambered nautilus is limited in its 

horizontal and vertical distribution 

throughout its range due to 

physiological constraints. 

Physiologically, the chambered nautilus 

cannot tolerate temperatures above 

approximately 25°C or depths exceeding 

around 750–800 meters (m) (Ward et al. 

1980; Carlson 2010). At depths greater 

than 800 m, the hydrostatic pressure 

will cause the shell of the nautilus to 

implode, thereby killing the animal 

(Ward et al. 1980). Based on these 

physiological constraints, the 

chambered nautilus is considered to be 

an extreme habitat specialist, found in 

association with steep-sloped forereefs 

with sandy, silty, or muddy-bottomed 

substrates. Within these habitats, the 

species ranges from around 100 m 

depths (which may vary depending on 

the water temperature) to around 500 m 

depths (CITES 2016). The chambered 

nautilus does not swim in the open 

water column (likely due to its 

vulnerability to predation), but rather 

remains near the reef slopes and bottom 

substrate, and thus can be best 

characterized as a nektobenthic or 

epibenthic species (Barord (Barord et al. 

2014; CITES 2016). 

Nautilus pompilius can travel 

distances of up to 6 kilometers (km) in 

a day facilitated by currents (Dunstan et 

al. 2011c). However, at the depths 

where these animals are generally active 

(>200 m), currents are weak and 

movements are primarily accomplished 

through self-propulsion, with observed 

N. pompilius distances of up to 3.2 km 

per day and maximum speeds of up to 

1.18 km/hour for short periods of time 

(less than 6 hours) (Dunstan et al. 

2011a). 

Despite the apparent temperature and 

depth constraints of the species, largerscale migrations, although rare, have 

occurred. For example, an N. pompilius 

specimen was captured off southern 

Japan in the 1970s and assumed to have 

drifted 2,000 km in the Kuroshio 

Current from the Philippines (Saunders 

2010). Saunders (2010) notes that these 

movements across large stretches of 

either shallow, warm water (< 100 

meters (m), > 25° C) or deep water (> 

800m) would likely be accomplished 

only by drifting or rafting (i.e., moving 

passively with ocean currents) through 

midwater or surface waters. However, 

the author notes that these movement 

events must have occurred ‘‘with 

sufficient frequency’’ to account for the 

species’ distribution across the IndoPacific (Saunders 2010). 

Diet and Feeding 

Chambered nautiluses are described 

as deep-sea scavenging generalists and 

opportunistic predators. As previously 

mentioned, the chambered nautilus uses 

its 90 retractable tentacles to dig in the 

substrate and feed on a variety of 

organisms, including fish, crustaceans, 

echinoids, nematodes, cephalopods, 

other marine invertebrates, and detrital 

matter (Saunders and Ward 2010; 

Barord 2015). The chambered nautilus 

also has an acute sense of olfaction and 

can easily smell odors (such as prey) in 

turbulent waters from significant 

distances (of up to 10 m) (Basil et al. 

2000). 

Growth and Reproduction 

The general life history characteristics 

of the chambered nautilus are that of a 

rare, long-lived, late-maturing, and 

slow-growing marine invertebrate 

species, with likely low reproductive 

output. Circumferential growth rate for 

the chambered nautilus is estimated to 

range from 0.053 mm/day to 0.23 mm/ 

day and slows as the animal approaches 

maturity (Dunstan et al. 2010; Dunstan 

et al. 2011b). However, average size at 

maturity of N. pompilius appears to vary 

among regions, with smaller shell 

diameters noted around the Philippines, 

Fiji, and eastern Australia and larger 

diameters off Indonesia (see Table 1 in 

Miller 2017). Additionally, the species 

exhibits sexual dimorphism, with males 

consistently growing to larger sizes than 

females (Saunders and Ward 2010). 

Chambered nautilus longevity is at 

least 20 years, with age to maturity 

between 10 and 17 years (Dunstan et al. 

2011b; Ward et al. 2016). Very little is 

known regarding nautilus reproduction 

in the wild. Observations of captive 

animals suggest that nautiluses 

reproduce sexually and have multiple 

reproductive cycles over the course of 

their lifetime. Based on data from 

captive N. belauensis and N. 

macromphalus individuals, female 

nautiluses may lay up to 10 to 20 eggs 

per year, which hatch after a lengthy 

embryonic period of around 10 to 12 

months (Uchiyama and Tanabe 1999; 

Barord and Basil 2014; Carlson 2014). 

There is no larval phase, with juveniles 

hatching at sizes of 22 to 23 millimeters 

(mm) in diameter, and potentially 

migrating to deeper and cooler waters 

(Barord and Basil 2014); however, live 

hatchlings have rarely been observed in 

the wild. 

Population Demographics and Structure 

Isolated Populations 

Most of the recent genetic data suggest 

that N. pompilius may actually be 

comprised of unrecognized sibling 

species that are genetically distinct and 

geographically isolated (CITES 2016). 

For example, in a recent examination of 

the genetic structure between an N. 

pompilius population off Western 

Australia and one off the Philippines, 

Williams et al. (2015) concluded that 

very little gene flow exists between 

these two populations. The authors note 

that the absence of migration between 

the Philippines and Western Australia 

indicates that recolonization would not 

be possible if the Philippines 

population were to be extirpated 

(Williams et al. 2015). 

On a smaller geographic/population 

scale, Sinclair et al. (2007) analyzed 

DNA sequence information from N. 

pompilius collected from the Coral Sea 

and the outer edges of the Great Barrier 

Reef in northern Queensland (‘‘Northern 

GBR’’) and found population-specific 

genetic differentiation. Through use of 

Random Amplification of Polymorphic 

DNA (RAPD) analysis and partial 

sequencing of the CoxI gene region, the 

authors determined that there is genetic 

divergence between the geographic 

lineages of ‘‘Northern GBR’’ and ‘‘Coral 

Sea,’’ indicating distinct groups of 

populations and pointing to the 

potential for larger-scale geographic 

divergence of the species. In a follow-up 

study, Sinclair et al. (2011) found an 

even greater degree of genetic variation 

between populations on the east coast of 

Australia (using the ‘‘Northern GBR’’ 

and ‘‘Coral Sea’’ populations) and the 

west coast of Australia (Scott Reef), with 

phylogenetic analyses suggesting three 

genetically divergent populations. 

In addition to genetics, other studies 

have looked at morphological 

differences to examine isolation 

between N. pompilius populations. For 

example, based on biometric analysis of 

N. pompilius from the Philippines and 

Fiji, Tanabe and Tsukahara (2010) 

concluded that the populations are 

morphologically differentiated, finding 

statistically significant differences in 

weight, size at maturity, and slopes of 

allometric relationships of 

morphological characters between the 

two populations. 

While it is thought that deep water 

largely serves as a barrier to movement 

of N. pompilius, explaining the isolation 

of the above populations, results from 

Swan and Saunders (2010) suggest it is 

more likely a combination of both depth 

and geographic distance. In their study, 

Swan and Saunders (2010) examined 

the correlation between morphological 

differences and distances between 

populations in Papua New Guinea, 

including some that were separated by 

deep water (> 1000 m). Their findings 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48951 

showed that adaptive equilibrium had 

not yet been attained, indicating that the 

populations are not completely 

genetically isolated (Swan and Saunders 

2010). As such, the authors surmised 

that there is at least some degree of 

contact and gene flow between the 

Papua New Guinea populations, 

through potentially rafting or midwater 

movements, with the amount inversely 

related to the geographic distance 

between the populations (Swan and 

Saunders 2010). 

Given the above information, it is 

reasonable to assume that populations 

separated by large geographic distances 

and deep water are genetically 

differentiated, with very little to no gene 

flow. 

Diversity 

In terms of genetic diversity, Williams 

et al. (2015) estimated large ancestral 

and current effective population sizes 

for the Philippines (current median size 

= 3,190,920) and Ashmore Reef 

(Western Australia) (current median size 

= 2,562,800) populations, indicating a 

low likelihood of the fixation of alleles 

and no evidence of significant genetic 

drift impacts in either population. 

Additionally, the authors found no 

significant difference in the allelic 

richness between the sampled locations 

in the Philippines and Western 

Australia. In other words, the data tend 

to suggest that the species may have 

high genetic diversity. However, 

Williams et al. (2015) caution that due 

to the low fecundity and long generation 

time of the species, genetic responses to 

current exploitation rates (such as 

decreases in genetic diversity) may not 

yet be detectable. In fact, using CoxI 

sequences from N. pompilius across its 

range and Tajima’s D test to examine 

departures from population equilibrium, 

Vandepas et al. (2016) found significant 

negative Tajima’s D values for the 

populations in Western Australia, New 

Caledonia and Papua New Guinea. 

These results indicate an excess of rare 

alleles or high-frequency 

polymorphisms within the populations, 

suggesting they may be currently 

recovering from possible bottleneck 

events. While not statistically 

significant, the Tajima’s D values for the 

rest of the sampled populations, with 

the exception of Palau and Eastern 

Australia (i.e., Fiji, Indonesia, Vanuatu, 

Philippines and American Samoa), were 

also negative, suggesting that the species 

potentially has low genetic diversity 

across its range. 

Overall, given the available and 

somewhat conflicting information, the 

level of genetic diversity needed to 

maintain the survival of the species and 

the current level of genetic diversity 

across the entire range of the species 

remains highly uncertain. Further 

morphological and genetic tests 

examining differences within and 

among populations are needed. 

Sex-Ratios and Population Structure 

Regarding population structure, the 

available information indicates 

chambered nautilus populations are 

comprised mainly of male and mature 

individuals. Based on trapping data, 

including mark-recapture studies, male 

N. pompilius appear to dominate the 

chambered nautilus catch, with 

proportions of 75 to 80 percent (CITES 

2016). In addition, a large proportion of 

those captured (around 75 percent) are 

mature, with juvenile N. pompilius 

individuals rarely caught (CITES 2016). 

Saunders et al. (2017) state that the 

male-female sex ratio and composition 

of mature individuals in nautilus 

populations provides clues to the 

current stability of the population. In 

the authors’ study, they compared 16 

nautilus populations from ‘‘unfished’’ 

areas (in Papua New Guinea, Australia, 

Indonesia, Fiji, Palau, American Samoa, 

New Caledonia, and Vanuatu) to two 

populations in the Philippines that have 

been subject to decades of uncontrolled 

exploitation and provided an estimate of 

quantitative measures to illustrate 

demographic disturbance, or 

‘‘disequilibrium,’’ in a nautilus 

population. Specifically, Saunders et al. 

(2017) found that the mean percentage 

of mature animals in the unfished 

nautilus populations (n = 16) was 73.9 

percent (standard deviation (SD): 21.8, 

standard error (SE): 5.1) and the mean 

percentage of males was 75.0 percent 

(SD: 16.4, SE: 4.1). The authors 

suggested that these proportions could 

be used as a baseline for determining 

whether a population (of n > 100 

individuals) is at equilibrium (Saunders 

et al. 2017). In contrast, the intensely 

fished Philippine population from 

Tan ̃ on Straits (n = 353 individuals) had 

a male proportion of only 28 percent 

and mature individuals comprised only 

26.6 percent of the population, which 

the authors suggest are levels that signal 

pending collapse of the local fishery 

(Saunders et al. 2017). Ultimately, the 

authors indicate that the ratios obtained 

by examining the sex and maturity 

composition of a nautilus population 

could be used as a basis for determining 

whether management and conservation 

measures are appropriate. However, a 

caveat to this method is that it is unclear 

if the male-biased sex ratio reflects the 

natural equilibrium for chambered 

nautilus populations. Because these 

population studies tend to use baited 

traps to capture chambered nautiluses, 

there may be an aspect of sampling bias 

in terms of the size and sex of 

individuals attracted to the traps. For 

example, laboratory studies by Basil 

(2014) suggest that female N. pompilius 

may repel each other. Potentially, this 

female avoidance of one another may 

explain why fewer females are found in 

the baited-trap field studies. In fact, in 

a study of N. pompilius drift shells that 

were collected between 1984 and 1987 

in Papua New Guinea (n = 1,329), 54 

percent were male, suggesting a much 

different sex ratio than those 

determined from baited studies 

(Saunders et al. 1991). Given the 

conflicting information, further research 

on sex ratios in the wild, as well as a 

better understanding of the population 

structure of the species, is needed before 

definitive conclusions can be drawn on 

this particular point. 

Population Abundance and Trends 

The global abundance of N. pompilius 

is unknown, with no available historical 

baseline population data. In fact, the 

first study to estimate baseline 

population size and density for the 

species in a given area was only recently 

conducted by Dunstan et al. (2011a). 

This study examined the N. pompilius 

population at Osprey Reef, an isolated 

coral seamount off Australia’s 

northeastern coast with no history of 

nautilus exploitation. Based on data 

collected from 2000 to 2006, the authors 

estimated that the population at Osprey 

Reef consisted of between 844 and 4,467 

individuals, with a density estimate of 

14.6 to 77.4 individuals per square 

kilometer (km2) (Dunstan et al. 2011a). 

Subsequent research, conducted by 

Barord et al. (2014), provided 

abundance estimates of nautiluses 

(species not identified) from four 

locations in the Indo-Pacific: The 

Panglao region of the Bohol Sea, 

Philippines, with 0.03 individuals per 

km2, Taena Bank near Pago Pago 

Harbor, American Samoa, with 0.16 

individuals per km2, the Beqa Passage 

in Viti Levu, Fiji, with 0.21 individuals 

per km2, and the Great Barrier Reef 

along a transect from Cairns to Lizard 

Island, Australia, with 0.34 individuals 

per km2 (see Table 2 in Miller 2017). 

With the exception of the Bohol Sea, 

these populations are located in areas 

where fishing for nautiluses does not 

occur, suggesting that nautiluses may be 

naturally rare, or that other unknown 

factors, besides fishing, may be affecting 

their abundance. The authors also 

indicate that the population estimates 

from this study may, in fact, be 

overestimates as they used baited 

remote underwater video systems to 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
48952 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

attract individuals to the observation 

area (Barord et al. 2014). In either case, 

these very low population estimates 

suggest that chambered nautiluses are 

especially vulnerable to exploitation, 

with limited capacity to recover from 

depletion. This theory is further 

supported by the comparison between 

the population density in the Panglao 

region of the Bohol Sea, where nautilus 

fishing is occurring, and the unfished 

sites in American Samoa, Fiji, and 

Australia, with the Bohol Sea density 

less than 20 percent of the smallest 

unfished population (Barord et al. 

2014). 

Recently, Williams et al. (2015) used 

genetic modelling to estimate median 

population sizes for N. pompilius from 

locations in Australia and the 

Philippines. Specifically, the authors 

examined genetic markers and used 

Bayesian clustering methods to estimate 

a median population size for the 

Australian Ashmore Reef population 

(which the authors note may possibly 

contain the entire Australian northwest 

shelf nautilus population) at 2,562,800 

individuals (Williams et al. 2015). Using 

the same methods, Williams et al. (2015) 

estimated a median size for the Palawan 

region, Philippines, population at 

3,190,920 individuals. The authors 

recognize that the use of different 

methods to generate population density 

estimates (such as those used by Barord 

et al. (2014)) will produce ‘‘predictably 

dissimilar abundance data’’ (Williams et 

al. 2015). Additionally, as mentioned 

previously, the authors suggest that the 

large estimates from the genetic 

methods (with no evidence of 

population reduction) may indicate that 

the genetic response to exploitation 

(e.g., a decrease in allelic richness) has 

not had enough time to become 

detectable yet, unlike the trapping data 

from the above studies (Williams et al. 

2015). 

Overall, abundance information is 

extremely spotty and limited to only a 

select number of locations (see Table 3 

in Miller 2017). Based on data from the 

1980s, collected from sites off American 

Samoa, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and 

Vanuatu, the average number of N. 

pompilius individuals caught per trap 

ranged from 1 to 30, depending on the 

site (see Table 3 in Miller 2017). From 

1998 to 2008, an average of 5.7 to 7.9 

N. pompilius individuals were caught 

per trap off Osprey Reef in Australia 

(Dunstan et al. 2011a). However, it is 

difficult to make comparisons between 

these locations using the available 

abundance and catch-per-unit-effort 

(CPUE) information (e.g., number of 

individuals caught per trap) because the 

methods of collecting the data vary 

greatly by study. For example, most 

studies examining abundance of 

nautiluses are based on trapping data 

where multiple traps can be set and left 

over multiple nights, or one trap can be 

set for one night, and the particulars of 

the trapping methods are generally not 

available from the anecdotal or study 

descriptions. As such, the available 

reported data are hard to standardize 

across studies. It should also be noted 

that the majority of the data are over two 

decades old, with no available recent 

trapping estimates. Furthermore, 

although not yet confirmed by research, 

many nautilus experts hypothesize that 

chambered nautiluses likely occur in 

locations where they are not currently 

observed (NMFS 2014), suggesting 

abundance may be underestimated. 

However, these experts agree that 

current abundance estimates cannot be 

extrapolated across the species’ range 

without considering suitable habitat and 

likelihood of nautilus presence (NMFS 

2014), which has yet to be done. 

Regarding current trends in 

abundance, N. pompilius populations 

are generally considered stable in areas 

where fisheries are absent (e.g., 

Australia) and declining in areas where 

fisheries exist for the species; however, 

recent CPUE data from Fiji indicate a 

decline despite no active fishery (FAO 

2016). In the unfished Australian 

Osprey Reef population discussed 

above, Dunstan et al. (2010) used markrecapture methods to examine the trend 

in CPUE of individuals over a 12-year 

period. Analysis of the CPUE data 

showed a slight increase of 28 percent 

from 1997 to 2008, and while this 

increase was not statistically significant, 

the results indicate a stable N. 

pompilius population in this 

unexploited area (Dunstan et al. 2010). 

In locations where fisheries have 

operated or currently operate, anecdotal 

declines and observed decreases in 

catches of nautilus species are reported 

(see Table 4 in Miller 2017). Citing 

multiple personal communications, the 

CITES (2016) proposal (to include all 

species of nautiluses in Appendix II of 

CITES) noted declines of N. pompilius 

in Indian waters, where commercial 

harvest occurred in the past for several 

decades, and in Indonesian waters, 

where harvest is suspected to be 

increasing. In fact, traders in Indonesia 

have observed a significant decrease 

(with estimates up to 97 percent) in the 

number of nautiluses collected over the 

past 10 years, which may be an 

indication of a declining and depleted 

population (Freitas and Krishnasamy 

2016). In the Philippines, Dunstan et al. 

(2010) estimated that the CPUE of 

Nautilus from four main nautilus fishing 

locations in the Palawan region has 

decreased by an estimated average of 80 

percent in less than 30 years. Anecdotal 

reports from fishermen that once fished 

for N. pompilius in the Sulu Sea note 

that the species is near commercial 

extinction, forcing fishermen to move to 

new areas in the South China Sea 

(Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). 

Furthermore, in Tawi Tawi, 

Cayangacillo, and Tan ̃ on Strait/Cebu, 

Philippines, fisheries that once existed 

for chambered nautiluses have since 

been discontinued because of the rarity 

of the species, with Alcala and Russ 

(2002) noting the likely extirpation of N. 

pompilius from Tan ̃ on Strait in the late 

1980s. The fact that the species has not 

yet recovered in the Tan ̃ on Strait, 

despite an absence of nautilus fishing in 

over two decades, further supports the 

susceptibility of the species to 

exploitation and its limited capability to 

repopulate an area after depletion. 

Species Finding 

Based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information described 

above, we find that the latest scientific 

consensus is that N. pompilius is 

considered a taxonomically-distinct 

species and, therefore, meets the 

definition of ‘‘species’’ pursuant to 

section 3 of the ESA. Below, we 

evaluate whether this species warrants 

listing as endangered or threatened 

under the ESA throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Chambered Nautilus 

As described previously, section 

4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS’ 

implementing regulations (50 CFR 

424.11(c)) 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 man-made factors affecting its 

continued existence. We evaluated 

whether and the extent to which each of 

the foregoing factors contribute to the 

overall extinction risk of the chambered 

nautilus. We considered the impact of 

all factors for which information is 

available. For each relevant factor, we 

also considered whether a particular 

impact is having a minor or significant 

influence on the species’ status. A 

‘‘significant’’ contribution is defined, for 

purposes of this evaluation, as 

increasing the risk to such a degree that 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48953 

the factor affects the species’ 

demographics (i.e., abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, diversity) 

either to the point where the species is 

strongly influenced by stochastic or 

depensatory processes or is on a 

trajectory toward this point. 

Demographic stochasticity refers to the 

variability of annual population change 

arising from random events such as 

birth and death rates, sex ratios, and 

dispersal at the individual level. 

Depensatory processes refers to those 

density-dependent processes that result 

in increased mortality as density 

decreases. For example, decreases in the 

breeding population can lead to reduced 

production and survival of offspring. 

This section briefly summarizes our 

findings and conclusions regarding 

threats to the chambered nautilus and 

their impact on the overall extinction 

risk of the species. More details can be 

found in the status review report (Miller 

2017). 

The Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Its 

Habitat or Range 

Chambered nautilus habitat, and in 

particular coral reefs, are impacted by a 

number of human activities. These 

activities include the harvest of coral 

reef species through use of destructive 

or unselective fishing practices, coastal 

development and deep-sea mining that 

can contribute to pollution and 

sedimentation of habitat, and changes in 

water temperature and pH caused by 

climate change. Below we briefly 

describe these various threats to the 

habitat of N. pompilius and evaluate the 

likely impact on the status of the 

species. More details can be found in 

the status review report (Miller 2017). 

Harvest of Coral Reef Species and 

Destructive and Unselective Fishing 

Practices 

Many coral reef species are harvested 

for the aquarium trade and to satisfy the 

high-end Asian food markets (CITES 

2016). In addition to directly 

contributing to the loss of biodiversity 

on the reefs, some of the techniques 

used to obtain coral reef species for 

these industries can cause significant 

destruction to coral reef communities. 

For example, blast and poison fishing 

are two types of destructive and 

unselective fishing practices that are 

used to harvest coral reef species 

throughout much of the range of the 

chambered nautilus (WRI 2011). Figure 

3 in Miller (2017) depicts the extent and 

severity of observed blast or poison 

fishing areas, which are primarily 

concentrated off the Philippines, 

Indonesia, and Malaysia. 

Blast fishing is particularly 

destructive as it not only destroys coral 

reefs but also indiscriminately kills their 

marine inhabitants. A ‘‘typical’’ blast 

will shatter corals and turn them into 

rubble within a 1 to 1.5 m diameter of 

the blast site, and can kill marine 

organisms, including invertebrates, 

within a 20 m radius (Pet-Soede and 

Erdmann 1998; Njoroge 2014). Although 

blast fishing is largely illegal, the use of 

this destructive practice still continues 

in many areas. For example, in a 

September 2016 article in the Jakarta 

Post, Amnifu (2016) reports that blast 

fishing, a common occurrence in East 

Nusa Tenggara waters, and particularly 

around Sumba Island, has recently 

expanded to parts of the Sawu Sea 

National Park’s conservation area. 

Because blast fishing is generally 

conducted in shallow reef waters (e.g., 

5 to 10 m depths) (Fox and Caldwell 

2006), N. pompilius is unlikely to 

experience direct mortality from these 

destructive practices given that they 

generally inhabit much deeper waters. 

However, the indirect impact, such as 

changes in coral reef community 

structure and loss of fish biomass 

(Raymundo et al. 2007), may decrease 

the availability of food resources for the 

scavenging chambered nautilus. Also, 

depending on the extent of the coral reef 

destruction, N. pompilius, because of its 

physiological constraints, may be 

incapable of finding and exploiting 

other suitable habitat with greater prey 

resources. Additional research is needed 

as to the potential effects of blast fishing 

on the deeper-water inhabitants of these 

impacted coral reefs before definitive 

conclusions can be drawn regarding this 

particular factor. 

Another primarily illegal fishing 

practice that destroys coral reefs is the 

use of cyanide, which is primarily 

deployed to stun and capture live reef 

fish. When exposed to cyanide, coral 

respiration rates decrease and can cease 

altogether, with corals observed 

expelling their zooxanthellae, resulting 

in bleaching and mortality events 

(Rubec 1986; Jones 1997). The practice 

of using cyanide to harvest reef fish 

dates back to the 1960s, where it was 

developed and commonly used in the 

Philippines, before spreading to 

Indonesia (CITES 2016). Similar to blast 

fishing, cyanide fishing is unlikely to 

result in direct mortality of N. 

pompilius, given the species’ preferred 

depth range; however, changes in coral 

reef community structure and loss of 

fish biomass (Raymundo et al. 2007) 

might decrease the availability of food 

resources for the chambered nautilus. 

Additional research is needed before 

definitive conclusions can be drawn as 

to the potential effects of cyanide on the 

deeper-water reef habitats and 

inhabitants. 

Overall, given the speculative effects 

of blast and cyanide fishing on nautilus 

populations, and the patchy and largely 

unknown distribution of the species and 

its habitat preferences, the best available 

information does not indicate that 

habitat degradation from the harvest of 

coral reef species and destructive and 

unselective fishing practices are likely 

significant threats to the species. 

Further research is needed before 

definitive conclusions can be drawn 

regarding the extent of nautilus habitat 

degradation and the impacts on the 

status of the species. 

Pollution and Sedimentation 

Evidence of the impacts of pollution 

and sedimentation on chambered 

nautilus habitat and the effects to the 

species is speculative or largely 

unavailable. For example, in their 

review of the nautilus CITES (2016) 

proposal, the fifth Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations 

expert advisory panel (FAO panel) 

hypothesized that an observed 60 

percent decline in a local N. pompilius 

population in Fiji was potentially 

because of pollution of its habitat (FAO 

2016). This assumption was largely 

based on the fact that no known local 

utilization of the species and no 

commercial fishery exists in this area. 

Therefore, the FAO panel speculated 

that the decline was attributed to local 

habitat degradation, as they noted the 

population is in close proximity to a 

major port (Suva) and its potentially 

small and fragmented characteristics 

made it especially vulnerable to habitat 

destruction (FAO 2016). 

Although deep sea mining may also 

contribute to the pollution of chambered 

nautilus habitat, it appears that the 

extent of this pollution, and its 

subsequent impacts on nautilus 

populations, may be largely sitespecific. For example, in a study 

comparing bioaccumulation rates of 

trace elements between nautilus species 

located in a heavily mined location (i.e., 

N. macromphalus in New Caledonia) 

versus a location not subject to 

significant mining (i.e., N. pompilius in 

Vanuatu), Pernice et al. (2009) found no 

significant difference between the 

species for trace elements of Ag, Co, Mn, 

Ni, Pb, Se, V, and Zn. The authors 

concluded that the geographical origin 

of the nautilus species was not a major 

contributor to interspecific differences 

in trace element concentrations (Pernice 

et al. 2009). Additionally, the authors 

noted that, based on the study results, 

the heavy nickel mining conducted in 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
48954 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

New Caledonia does not appear to be a 

significant source of contamination in 

the oceanic habitat of the nautilus, 

suggesting that the lagoons in New 

Caledonia likely trap the majority of the 

trace elements from the intense mining 

activities (Pernice et al. 2009). 

The biological impact of potential 

toxin and heavy metal bioaccumulation 

in chambered nautilus populations is 

unknown. Many of the studies that have 

evaluated metal concentrations in 

cephalopods examined individuals 

outside of the range of the chambered 

nautilus, with results that show that 

metal concentrations vary greatly 

depending on geography (Rjeibi et al. 

2014; Jereb et al. 2015). As such, to 

evaluate the degree of the potential 

threat of bioaccumulation of toxins in 

chambered nautilus, information on 

concentrations of these metals from N. 

pompilius, or similar species that share 

the same life history and inhabit the 

same depth and geographic range of N. 

pompilius, is necessary. For example, 

the study by Pernice et al. (2009), 

mentioned above, examined the 

bioaccumulation rates of trace elements 

between two nautilus species in similar 

depths and geographic ranges. However, 

the authors found no significant 

difference between those nautiluses 

located in areas of intensive mining 

(and, therefore, high heavy metal 

pollutants) compared to nautiluses in 

areas without significant mining 

(Pernice et al. 2009). With the exception 

of this one study, we found no other 

information on the bioaccumulation 

rates of metals in the chambered 

nautilus, including the lethal 

concentration limits of toxins or metals 

in N. pompilius or evidence to suggest 

that current concentrations of 

environmental pollutants are causing 

detrimental physiological effects to the 

point where the species may be at 

increased risk of extinction. As such, 

the best available information does not 

indicate that present bioaccumulation 

rates and concentrations of 

environmental pollutants in N. 

pompilius or their habitat are likely 

significant threats to the species. 

Climate Change and Ocean 

Acidification 

Given the narrow range of 

temperature tolerance of the chambered 

nautilus, warming surface water 

temperatures due to climate change may 

further restrict the distribution of the 

species, decreasing the amount of 

suitable habitat (particularly in 

shallower depths) available for the 

species. Perhaps more concerning may 

be the effects of ocean acidification. In 

terms of ocean acidification, which will 

cause a reduction of pH levels and 

concentration of carbonate ions in the 

ocean, it is thought that shelled 

mollusks are likely at elevated risk as 

they rely on the uptake of calcium and 

carbonate ions for shell growth and 

calcification. However, based on 

available studies, the effects of 

increased ocean acidification on 

juvenile and adult mollusk physiology 

and shell growth are highly variable 

(Gazeau et al. 2013). For example, after 

exposure to severe CO2 levels (pCO2 = 

33,000 matm) for 96 hours, the deep-sea 

clam, Acesta excavata, exhibited an 

initial drop in oxygen consumption and 

intracellular pH but recovered with both 

levels approaching control levels by the 

end of the exposure duration (Hammer 

et al. 2011). No mortality was observed 

over the course of the study, with the 

authors concluding that this species 

may have a higher tolerance to elevated 

CO2 levels compared to other deep-sea 

species (Hammer et al. 2011). This is in 

contrast to intertidal and subtidal 

mollusk species, such as Ruditapes 

decussatus, Mytilus galloprovincialis, 

and M. edulis, which exhibited reduced 

standard metabolic rates and protein 

degradation when exposed to decreases 

in pH levels (Gazeau et al. 2013). 

Regarding the impact of ocean 

acidification on calcification rates, 

which is important for the growth of 

chambered nautiluses, one relevant 

study looked at cuttlebone development 

in the cephalopod Sepia officinalis 

(Gutowska et al. 2010). Similar to 

nautiluses, cuttlefish also have a 

chambered shell (cuttlebone) that is 

used for skeletal support and for 

buoyancy regulation. Results from the 

study showed that after exposure to 615 

Pa CO2 for 6 weeks, there was a sevenfold increase in cuttlebone mass 

(Gutowska et al. 2010). However, it 

should be noted that unlike N. 

pompilius, Sepia officinalis is not a 

deep-sea dwelling species but rather 

found in 100 m depths, and their 

cuttlebone is internal (not an external 

shell). 

While the above were only a few 

examples of the variable impacts of 

ocean acidification on mollusk species, 

based on the available studies, such as 

those described in Gazeau et al. (2013), 

it is clear that the effects are largely 

species-dependent (with differences 

observed even within species). To date, 

we are unaware of any studies that have 

been conducted on N. pompilius and 

the potential effects of increased water 

temperatures or acidity on the health of 

the species. Therefore, given the 

species-specific sensitivities and 

responses to climate change impacts, 

and with no available information on 

chambered nautiluses, we cannot 

conclude that the impacts from climate 

change are currently or will in the 

foreseeable future be significant threats 

to the existence of the species in the 

future. 

Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific or Educational 

Purposes 

Based on the best available 

information, the primary threat to the 

chambered nautilus is overutilization 

for commercial purposes—mainly, 

harvest for the international nautilus 

shell trade. Chambered nautilus shells, 

which have a distinctive coiled interior, 

are traded as souvenirs to tourists and 

shell collectors and also used in jewelry 

and home de ́cor items (where either the 

whole shell is sold as a decorative object 

or parts are used to create shell-inlay 

designs) (CITES 2016). The trade in the 

species is largely driven by the 

international demand for their shells 

and shell products since fishing for 

nautiluses has been found to have no 

cultural or historical relevance (Dunstan 

et al. 2010; De Angelis 2012; CITES 

2016; Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). 

Nautilus meat is also not locally in 

demand (or used for subsistence) but 

rather sold or consumed as a by-product 

of fishing for the nautilus shells (De 

Angelis 2012; CITES 2016). While all 

nautilus species are found in 

international trade, N. pompilius, being 

the most widely distributed, is the 

species most commonly traded (CITES 

2016). 

Although most of the trade in 

chambered nautiluses originates from 

the range countries where fisheries exist 

or have existed for the species, 

particularly the Philippines and 

Indonesia, commodities also come from 

those areas with no known fisheries 

(such as Fiji and Solomon Islands). 

Other countries of origin for N. 

pompilius products include Australia, 

China, Chinese Taipei, India, Malaysia, 

New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, 

Vanuatu, and Vietnam (Freitas and 

Krishnasamy 2016). Known consumer 

markets for chambered nautilus 

products include the Middle East 

(United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia), 

Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, 

Indonesia, Philippines, Hong Kong, 

Russia, Korea, Japan, China, Chinese 

Taipei and India, with major consumer 

markets noted in the European Union 

(Italy, France, Portugal), the United 

Kingdom, and the United States (Freitas 

and Krishnasamy 2016). In fact, between 

2005 and 2014, the United States 

imported more than 900,000 chambered 

nautilus products (CITES 2016). The 

vast majority of these U.S. imports 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48955 

originated from the Philippines (85 

percent of the traded commodities), 

followed by Indonesia (12 percent), 

China (1.4 percent), and India (1.3 

percent) (CITES 2016). 

Because harvest of the chambered 

nautilus is primarily demand-driven for 

the international shell trade, the 

intensive nautilus fisheries that develop 

to meet this demand tend to follow a 

boom-bust cycle that lasts around a 

decade or two before becoming 

commercially nonviable (Dunstan et al. 

2010; De Angelis 2012; CITES 2016). 

Fishing for nautiluses is fairly 

inexpensive and not labor-intensive, 

requiring a fish trap baited with locallyavailable meat (e.g., cow, duck, goat, 

offal, chicken, pufferfish) (Freitas and 

Krishnasamy 2016). These traps are 

usually set at 150 to 300 m depths and 

retrieved after a few hours or left 

overnight (Freitas and Krishnasamy 

2016). Given the fishing gear 

requirements, and the fact that the 

chambered nautilus exists as small, 

isolated populations, harvest of the 

species may continue for years within a 

region, with the fisheries serially 

depleting each population until the 

species is essentially extirpated from 

that region (CITES 2016). 

Commercial harvest of the species is 

presently occurring or has occurred in 

the Philippines, Indonesia, India and 

Papua New Guinea, and also potentially 

in China, Thailand and Vanuatu (CITES 

2016). However, based on the number of 

commodities entering the international 

trade, we find that the best available 

information supports the conclusion 

that the Philippines and Indonesia have 

the largest commercial fisheries for 

chambered nautilus, with multiple 

harvesting sites throughout these 

nations (CITES 2016). Although 

information on specific harvest levels 

and the status of chambered nautilus 

populations within this portion of its 

range is limited, the best available data, 

discussed below, provide significant 

evidence of the negative impact of these 

fisheries and resulting overutilization of 

the species. 

Commercial Harvest 

In the Philippines, the harvesting of 

chambered nautiluses appears to have 

no cultural or historical relevance other 

than as a source of local income for the 

shell trade, with meat either consumed 

by the fishermen or sold in local 

markets (del Norte-Campos 2005; 

Dunstan et al. 2010). Yet, anecdotal 

accounts of fishing for N. pompilius 

indicate that trapping of the species has 

occurred as early as 1900 (Saunders et 

al. 2017). Specifically, these accounts 

suggest trapping in 1900 and 1901 

would yield anywhere from 4–5 

nautiluses per trap to up to 20 animals 

(depending on the duration of the trap 

set) (Saunders et al. 2017). In 1971, 

Haven (1972, cited in Haven (1977)) 

found that Tan ̃ on Strait, Philippines, 

was still an abundant source of N. 

pompilius. From 1971 to 1972, around 

3,200 individuals were captured for 

study (Haven 1977). Prior to this time, 

N. pompilius was, for the most part, 

caught as bycatch in fish traps by 

Filipino fishermen (Saunders et al. 

2017). However, Haven (1977) notes that 

it was during this time when more 

fishermen began targeting Tan ̃ on Strait, 

specifically for nautilus shells, with the 

numbers of fishermen tripling during 

subsequent years. Trap yields in 1972 

were similar to those from the early 

1900s, with fishermen reporting catches 

of zero to 19 nautiluses, with an average 

of 5 animals per trap (Saunders et al. 

2017). However, by 1975, the impact of 

this substantial increase in fishing 

pressure on the species was already 

evident (Haven 1977). Fishermen in 

1975 reported having to move 

operations to deeper water as catches 

were now rare at shallower depths, and 

the number of individuals per trap had 

also decreased (Haven 1977). 

Additionally, although the number of 

fishermen had tripled in those 3 years, 

and therefore fishing effort for the 

species intensified, the catch did not see 

an associated increase, indicating a 

likely decrease in the abundance of the 

species within the area (Haven 1977). 

By 1979, trap yields had drastically 

fallen, to around 2 nautiluses per trap, 

and only a few fishermen remained 

engaged in the fishery (Saunders et al. 

2017). CITES (2016) reports that around 

5,000 chambered nautiluses were 

trapped per year in Tan ̃on Strait in the 

early 1980s and, by 1987, the 

population was estimated to have 

declined by 97 percent from 1971 levels, 

with the species considered 

commercially extinct and potentially 

extirpated from the area (Alcala and 

Russ 2002). Based on 2014 data from 

baited remote underwater video station 

footage in the region, nautilus activity 

remains low, and the population density 

still has yet to recover to pre-1970 levels 

(Saunders et al. 2017). 

Similarly, other nautilus fishing sites 

that were established in the late 1980s, 

including at Tawi Tawi (an island 

province in southwestern Philippines), 

Cagayancillo (an island in the Palawan 

province) and Cebu Strait (east of Tan ̃ on 

Strait), have also seen harvest crash in 

recent decades (Dunstan et al. 2010). 

More recently, in the Central Luzon 

region, Bulacan and Pampanga 

Provinces were formerly collection and 

trade sites for nautilus species; however, 

collectors and traders noted that the last 

shipments from these areas were in 

2003 and 2007, respectively, indicating 

they are likely no longer viable 

harvesting sites (Freitas and 

Krishnasamy 2016). 

The level of historical harvest (5,000 

chambered nautilus individuals/year) 

that appeared to lead to local 

extirpations in Tan ̃ on Strait is being 

greatly exceeded in a number of other 

areas throughout the chambered 

nautilus’ range in the Philippines. In 

Tibiao, Antique Province, in 

northwestern Panay Island, del NorteCampos (2005) estimated annual yield 

of the chambered nautilus at around 

12,200 individuals for the entire fishery 

(data from 2001 to 2002). In the Palawan 

nautilus fishery, 9,091 nautiluses were 

harvested in 2013 and 37,341 in 2014 

(personal communication cited in 

CITES (2016)). This level of harvest is 

particularly concerning given the 

significant declines already observed in 

these fisheries. In fact, in four of the five 

main nautilus fishing areas in this 

province, Dunstan et al. (2010) 

estimated a decline in CPUE of the 

species ranging from 70 percent to 90 

percent (depending on the fishing site) 

over the course of only 6 to 24 years. 

The one main fishing region in Palawan 

that did not show a decline was the 

municipality of Balabac; however, the 

authors note that this fishery is 

relatively new (active for less than 8 

years), with fewer fishermen, and, as 

such, may not yet have reached the 

point where the population crashes or 

declines become evident in catch rates 

(Dunstan et al. 2010). Given that the 

estimated annual catches in the Balabac 

municipality ranged from 4,000 to 

42,000 individuals in 2008 (Dunstan et 

al. 2010), this level of annual harvest, 

based on the trends from the other 

Palawan fishing sites (Dunstan et al. 

2010), will likely lead to similar 

population declines and potential 

extirpations of chambered nautiluses in 

the near future. 

In addition to the declines in harvest 

and CPUE of the species from observed 

fishing sites throughout the Philippines, 

the overutilization of N. pompilius in 

this area is also evident in the available 

trade data. In a personal communication 

cited in CITES (2016), it was stated that 

over the past 5 years, shell traders in 

Palawan Province have seen a decline in 

the number of shells being offered to 

them by local harvesters. Similarly, 

harvesters and traders in the Visayan 

regions have noted increasing difficulty 

in obtaining shells, with this trend 

beginning in 2003 (CITES (2016) citing 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
48956 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

Schroeder (2003)). Based on U.S. trade 

data from the last decade, Philippine 

export and re-export of nautilus 

commodities to the United States has 

decreased by 92 percent since 2005 (see 

Figure 4 in Miller (2017)) (CITES 2016). 

Despite the extensive evidence of 

overutilization of the species throughout 

the Philippines, including the serial 

depletion and potential extirpation of 

local populations, harvest and trade in 

N. pompilius continues, with the 

Philippines still the number one 

supplier of nautilus commodities to the 

United States (based on figures from 

2014). 

Off Indonesia, signs of decline and 

overutilization of chambered nautilus 

populations are also apparent. In fact, 

based on the increasing number of 

chambered nautilus commodities 

originating from Indonesia, it is 

suggested that nautilus fishing has 

potentially shifted to Indonesian waters 

because of depletion of the species in 

the Philippines (CITES 2016). 

According to trade data reported in De 

Angelis (2012), the Philippines 

accounted for 87 percent of the nautilus 

commodities in U.S. trade from 2005 to 

2010, whereas Indonesia accounted for 

only 9 percent. However, with the 

significant decline of nautilus exports 

coming out of the Philippines in recent 

years (2010 to 2014), Indonesia has 

become a larger component of the trade, 

accounting for 42 percent of the nautilus 

commodities in 2014, while the 

Philippines has seen a decrease in their 

proportion, down to 52 percent (CITES 

2016). 

Similar to the trend observed in the 

Philippines, a pattern of serial depletion 

of nautiluses because of harvesting is 

emerging in Indonesia. Both fishermen 

and traders note a significant decline in 

the numbers of chambered nautiluses 

over the last 10 years, despite a 

prohibition on the harvest and trade of 

N. pompilius that has been in place 

since 1999 (CITES 2016; Freitas and 

Krishnasamy 2016). For example, 

fishermen in North Lombok note that 

they historically trapped around 10 to 

15 nautiluses in one night, but currently 

catch only 1 to 3 per night (Freitas and 

Krishnasamy 2016). Similarly, in Bali, 

fishermen reported nightly catches of 

around 10 to 20 nautiluses until 2005, 

after which yields have been much less 

(Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). While 

fishing for chambered nautiluses has 

essentially decreased in western 

Indonesia (likely due to a depletion of 

the local populations), the main trade 

centers for nautilus commodities are 

still located here (i.e., Java, Bali, 

Sulawesi and Lombok). The sources of 

nautilus shells for these centers now 

appear to originate from eastern 

Indonesian waters (including 

northeastern Central Java, East Java, and 

West Nusa Tengarra eastward) where it 

is thought that nautilus populations 

may still be abundant enough to support 

economically viable fisheries, and 

where enforcement of the current N. 

pompilius prohibition appears weaker 

(Nijman et al. 2015; Freitas and 

Krishnasamy 2016). For example, data 

collected from two large open markets 

in Indonesia (Pangandaran and Pasir 

Putih) indicate that chambered 

nautiluses were still being offered for 

sale as of 2013. Over the course of three 

different weekends, Nijman et al. (2015) 

observed 168 N. pompilius shells for 

sale from 50 different stalls in the 

markets (average price was $17 USD/ 

shell). In addition to catering to tourists, 

a wholesaler with a shop in 

Pangandaran noted that he also exports 

merchandise to Malaysia and Saudi 

Arabia on a bimonthly basis (Nijman et 

al. 2015). In total, Nijman et al. (2015) 

found evidence of six Indonesian 

wholesale companies that offered 

protected marine mollusks (and mostly 

nautilus shells) for sale on their 

respective Web sites (with two based in 

East Java, two in Bali, and one in 

Sulawesi). The company in Sulawesi 

even had a minimum order for 

merchandise of 1 metric ton, and a 

company in Java noted that they could 

ship more than one container per 

month, indicating access to a relatively 

large supply of nautilus shells (Nijman 

et al. 2015). 

The available U.S. trade data provide 

additional evidence of the 

overutilization and potential serial 

depletion of populations within 

Indonesia, although not yet as severe as 

what has been observed in the 

Philippines. Overall, based on data from 

the last decade, Indonesian export and 

re-export of nautilus commodities to the 

United States has decreased by 23 

percent since 2005 (see Figure 5 in 

Miller (2017)) (CITES 2016); however, 

large declines were seen between 2006 

and 2009 before smaller increases in the 

following years. As noted above, these 

trends likely reflect the depletion of 

nautilus populations in western 

Indonesian waters and a subsequent 

shift of fishing effort to eastern 

Indonesian waters in recent years to 

support the nautilus trade industry. 

In India, CITES (2016) states that the 

chambered nautilus has been exploited 

for decades and is also caught as 

bycatch by deep sea trawlers. A 2007 

survey aimed at assessing the status of 

protected species in the curio trade in 

Tamil Nadu confirmed the presence of 

N. pompilius shells and found them 

highly valued in the retail domestic 

markets (John et al. 2012). Out of 13 

major coastal tourist curio markets 

surveyed, N. pompilius shells were 

found in 20 percent of the markets (n = 

40 shops) (John et al. 2012). Based on 

estimated sales from these markets, N. 

pompilius was the fourth highest valued 

species (n = 25 total species), 

accounting for 7 percent of the annual 

profit from the protected species curio 

trade (John et al. 2012). During the 

survey, chambered nautilus shells sold, 

on average, for approximately 275 INR 

each (7 USD in 2007 dollars) (John et al. 

2012). 

Interviews with the curio traders 

indicate that the Gulf of Mannar and 

Palk Bay, the island territories of 

Andaman and Lakshadweep, and Kerala 

are the main collection areas for the 

protected species sold in the curio trade 

(John et al. 2012). While the extent of 

harvest of N. pompilius is unknown, the 

fact that the nautilus shells sold in 

markets are nearly half the size of the 

reported common wild size (90 mm vs 

170 mm) (John et al. 2012) suggests that 

this curio trade may be contributing to 

overfishing of the population, causing a 

shift in the local population structure. 

Compared to observed mature shell 

sizes elsewhere throughout the range of 

N. pompilius (average mature shell 

length range: 114 to 200 mm; see Table 

1 in Miller (2017)), the Indian market 

nautilus shells are likely entirely from 

immature individuals. The removal of 

these nautilus individuals before they 

have time to reproduce, particularly for 

this long-lived and low fecundity 

species, could have devastating impacts 

on the viability of the local populations. 

While the authors note that curio 

vendors may strategically stock a larger 

number of undersized shells rather than 

fewer larger shells to meet the demand 

of the tourists, given the relative rarity 

of chambered nautilus shells in Indian 

waters (with only 9 shells sold during 

the 2007 survey) and the fact that larger 

shells generally obtain higher prices, we 

conclude it is at least equally likely that 

curio vendors are stocking whatever is 

available. 

Although trend data are not available, 

the popularity of the species in the curio 

trade as well as information suggesting 

that the marketed shells are significantly 

smaller than wild-caught and, hence, 

likely belong to immature individuals, 

indicate that this level of utilization 

may have already negatively impacted 

the local populations within India. The 

continued and essentially unregulated 

fishing and selling of N. pompilius 

within southern Indian waters will lead 

to overutilization of the species in the 

future, as has been observed in other 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48957 

parts of its range, and potential 

extirpation of these small and isolated 

populations. 

In Papua New Guinea, most of the 

available information indicates that 

trade of chambered nautilus shells is 

primarily supplied from incidental 

collection of drift shells. CITES (2016) 

states that the species may be caught as 

bycatch in some deep-sea fisheries and 

also notes that new nautilus fishing sites 

may have recently become established 

in 2008. The extent of harvest of the 

species in these waters, however, is 

unknown. 

Possible commercial harvest of the 

species has also been identified in East 

Asia (China, Hong Kong, and Chinese 

Taipei), Thailand, Vanuatu, and 

Vietnam. In East Asia, minimal numbers 

of nautilus shells are sold in art markets, 

home de ́cor shops, small stores, and 

airport gift shops, with meat found in 

seafood markets (particularly in the 

south of China on Hainan Island, the 

large coastal cities of Fujian and 

Guangdong Provinces, and Chinese 

Taipei) (Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). 

There is also evidence of a small trade 

in live specimens for aquaria in Hong 

Kong; however, the origin of these live 

specimens is unclear (Freitas and 

Krishnasamy 2016). While the CITES 

(2016) proposal suggests that nautilus 

harvest may occur on Hainan Island, we 

are aware of no information to confirm 

that a fishery exists. 

In Thailand, nautilus experts note that 

targeted chambered nautilus fisheries 

have occurred and are still operating 

(NMFS 2014), with past observations of 

shells found in gift shops (CITES 2016); 

however, we are aware of no published 

information on the current intensity or 

duration of such harvest (or 

confirmation that the fishery is still 

occurring). Nautilus experts also note 

that targeted chambered nautilus 

fisheries have occurred and are 

occurring in Vanuatu (NMFS 2014), 

with shells sold to tourists and 

collectors (Amos 2007). While we are 

aware of no published information 

regarding the current intensity or 

duration of such harvest (or 

confirmation that the fishery is still 

occurring), available information 

suggests the fishery may have begun in 

the late 1980s. From March to June 

1987, the Vanuatu Fisheries Department 

conducted a deep sea fishing trial, 

aimed at testing commercial fishing 

traps on the outer-reef slope of north 

Efate Island, Vanuatu (Blanc 1988). 

Results showed the successful capture 

of N. pompilius, with a CPUE of around 

2.6 nautilus per trap per day, taken at 

depths greater than 300 m (Blanc 1988). 

In total, 94 traps were set and 114 N. 

pompilius were captured (Blanc 1988). 

Those shells that were in good 

condition (approximately two-thirds of 

the total) were sold locally for around 

300 to 500 VUV each ($2.89 to $4.81 

U.S. dollars based on the 1987 

conversion rate) (Blanc 1988). It was 

noted in the report that the capture of 

nautiluses can be a good supplementary 

source of income (Blanc 1988). 

In Vietnam, some of the nautilus 

shells observed for sale may be sourced 

from local harvest of the animal. For 

example, an interview with a 

Vietnamese seller revealed that his 

nautilus shells come from islands in 

Vietnam and that 1,000 shells a month 

are able to be acquired (of 5 to 7 inches 

in size; 127 to 178 mm) (Freitas and 

Krishnasamy 2016). However, the 

species was not identified, nor was it 

clear whether the origin of the shells 

was from Vietnam (indicating potential 

harvest) or if the islands simply serve as 

transit points for the trade. 

In our review of the available 

information, we also found no evidence 

of known local utilization or 

commercial harvest of the chambered 

nautilus in the following portions of the 

species’ range: American Samoa, 

Australia, Fiji, or the Solomon Islands. 

While products that incorporate 

nautilus shells, such as jewelry and 

wood inlays, are sold to tourists in these 

locations, the nautilus parts appear to be 

obtained solely from the incidental 

collection of drift shells. In these areas, 

where the species is not subject to 

commercial harvest, populations appear 

stable (with the exception of Fiji; 

however, the threat in this case was not 

identified as overutilization—see 

Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat 

or Range section). Given that the species 

exists as geographically isolated 

populations, we conclude it is unlikely 

that these local, unfished populations 

will see significant declines as a result 

of overutilization in other portions of its 

range. 

Overall, out of the 10 nations in 

which N. pompilius is known to occur, 

potentially half historically or currently 

have targeted nautilus fisheries. Given 

that this harvest is largely unregulated, 

and has led to the serial depletion and 

extirpation of local N. pompilius 

populations, with no evidence of a 

decline in fishing effort or demand for 

the species, the best available 

information indicates that 

overutilization of N. pompilius is the 

most significant threat to the species 

throughout its range. 

Trade 

As mentioned previously, the 

commercial harvest of the chambered 

nautilus is primarily demand-driven for 

the international shell trade. The 

Philippines and Indonesia appear to 

supply the majority of the nautilus 

products in the trade. In Indonesia, most 

of the networks that aid in the illegal 

trade of marine mollusks originate in 

Java and Bali, with the United States, 

China, and New Caledonia as main 

destinations (Nijman et al. 2015). While 

the extent of export from the 

Philippines and Indonesia is unknown, 

data collected from Indonesia over the 

past 10 years suggest the amounts are 

likely substantial. For example, based 

on seizure data from 2005 to 2013, over 

42,000 marine mollusk shells protected 

under Indonesian law, including over 

3,000 chambered nautiluses, were 

confiscated by Indonesian authorities 

(Nijman et al. 2015). At least two-thirds 

of the shells were meant to enter the 

international trade, with the largest 

volumes destined for China and the 

United States (Nijman et al. 2015). 

Between 2007 and 2010, De Angelis 

(2012), citing a personal 

communication, estimated that around 

25,000 nautilus specimens were 

exported from Indonesia to China for 

the Asian meat market. 

In addition to the United States and 

China, other major consumer 

destinations for nautilus commodities 

include Europe, the Middle East, and 

Australia, with suspected markets in 

South Africa, South America 

(Argentina), and Israel (Freitas and 

Krishnasamy 2016). Freitas and 

Krishnasamy (2016) indicate that, in 

Europe, the trade and sale of nautiluses 

occur at fairly low levels and mainly 

involve whole nautilus shells. Their 

internet research and consultations 

indicate that the majority of Web sites 

selling nautilus products are located in 

France, Germany and the United 

Kingdom; however, details regarding the 

product, including species and origin of 

the nautilus, are often not provided 

(Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). Based 

on interviews with trade experts and 

online sellers, it appears that the 

Philippines is the main source of 

nautilus shells for the European trade 

(Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). Some 

German online sellers indicate that the 

wholesalers also receive imports from 

Thailand (Freitas and Krishnasamy 

2016). 

In the United States, the most recent 

5 years of available trade data (2010 to 

2014) reveal that around 6 percent of the 

imported commodities were whole 

shells (n = 9,076) and less than 1 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
48958 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

percent were live animals, with the 

remaining products primarily 

comprised of jewelry, shell products, 

and trim pieces (CITES 2016). Based on 

trade data from 2010–2013 and using 

rough approximations of individual 

nautilus counts for different commodity 

labels, Freitas and Krishnasamy (2016) 

estimated that between 20,000 and 

100,000 nautilus individuals comprised 

the commodities being imported into 

the United States, representing between 

6,000 and 33,000 individuals annually. 

However, it is important to note that 

even these figures likely underestimate 

the actual trade volumes in the United 

States, as additional nautilus imports 

could have also been lumped under a 

more general category, such as 

‘‘mollusks’’ (De Angelis 2012). This is 

likely true for other countries as well, 

because specific custom codes are 

lacking for nautilus products (with 

nautilus commodities frequently 

lumped as ‘‘coral and similar materials’’ 

and worked or unworked shell 

products) (Freitas and Krishnasamy 

2016). Therefore, estimating the number 

of nautilus individuals traded annually 

around the globe remains extremely 

challenging. Despite these unknowns, 

based on the available trade data from 

the United States, and data garnered 

from seizures and research, it is clear 

that nautilus commodities are in high 

demand and nautilus products are 

globally traded likely in the hundreds of 

thousands (De Angelis 2012). This 

market demand is a significant threat 

driving the commercial harvest and 

overutilization of N. pompilius 

throughout most of its range. 

Disease or Predation 

We are aware of no information to 

indicate that disease is a factor that is 

significantly and negatively affecting the 

status of the chambered nautilus. 

Diseases in nautiluses are not well 

known, nor is there information to 

indicate that disease is contributing to 

population declines of the species. 

However, shells of N. pompilius, like 

other mollusks, are subject to marine 

fouling from a variety of epizoans and 

may also be hosts to parasites. In an 

examination of 631 N. pompilius shells 

from the Philippines and Papua New 

Guinea, Landman et al. (2010) found the 

incidence of encrustation by epizoans 

varied by site. In the N. pompilius shells 

from the Philippines, 12 percent were 

encrusted whereas 49 percent of the 

shells from the Papua New Guinea 

sample showed signs of encrustation. 

However, the encrusted area only 

averaged around 0.5 percent of the shell 

surface, with the maximum encrustation 

at 2.2 percent (Landman et al. 2010). 

Additionally, the authors note that the 

encrusted surface comprised less than 1 

percent of the total shell weight in air, 

which they deemed ‘‘a negligible factor 

in the overall buoyancy of the animal’’ 

(Landman et al. 2010). As such, it is 

likely that the species has some other 

defense against epizoan settlement, with 

encrustation not a significant threat to 

the survival of N. pompilius 

individuals. 

Regarding parasites, Carlson (2010) 

notes that newly collected nautilus 

individuals are usually heavily infested 

with the copepod Anchicaligus nautili; 

however, no information on the effect of 

these infestations on the nautilus animal 

is available. Therefore, based on the 

available data, marine fouling and 

parasitism do not appear to be 

significant threats to the species. 

Chambered nautiluses may serve as 

prey to a number of teleost fish (such as 

triggerfish), octopuses, and sharks; 

however, predation rates appear to vary 

across the species’ range (CITES 2016). 

For example, octopod predation rates on 

live nautiluses have been estimated at 

1.1 percent in the Philippines, 4.5 to 11 

percent in Indonesia, 2 to 8 percent in 

Papua New Guinea, 5 percent in 

American Samoa, and 3.2 percent on 

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, indicating 

that predation by octopuses likely 

occurs throughout the entire species’ 

range (Saunders et al. 1991). 

Recently, Ward (2014) analyzed the 

prevalence of shell breaks in nautiluses 

as an indicator of predation and found 

that those nautilus populations subject 

to fishing had a statistically significant 

higher number of major shell breaks 

compared to unfished populations. 

Specifically, Ward (2014) found that 

over 80 percent of mature N. pompilius 

shells had major shell breaks in the 

fished Bohol, Philippines population (in 

2012 and 2013) and calculated an over 

40 percent rate in the fished New 

Caledonia N. macromphalus population 

in 1984. In contrast, only 30 percent of 

mature shells had major shell breaks in 

the unfished nautilus populations on 

the Great Barrier Reef (based on 2012 

data) (Ward 2014). In the unfished 

Osprey Reef population, this rate was 

around 20 percent (based on 2002 to 

2006 data), and in Papua New Guinea 

and Vanuatu in the 1980s, this rate was 

less than 20 percent (Ward 2014). 

Predation is clearly evident in all 

sampled nautilus populations. It 

appears that predation rates may be 

substantially higher in those 

populations compromised from other 

threats (such as overutilization). This, in 

turn, exacerbates the risk that predation 

poses to those already vulnerable 

chambered nautilus populations, 

contributing significantly to their 

likelihood of decline and to the species’ 

overall risk of extinction. 

The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Based on the available data, N. 

pompilius appears most at risk from 

overutilization in those range states 

supplying the large majority of nautilus 

shells for the international trade. 

Substantial commercial harvest of the 

species in Indonesia, Philippines, and 

India has led to observed declines in the 

local N. pompilius populations. As we 

discuss below, although there are some 

national and international legal 

protections, including a recent listing 

under CITES, poor enforcement of these 

laws and continued illegal fishing 

demonstrate that the existing regulatory 

mechanisms are inadequate to achieve 

their purpose of protecting the 

chambered nautilus from harvest and 

trade. It is too early to conclude that the 

CITES listing will be effective at 

ameliorating the threat of 

overutilization. 

In Indonesia, N. pompilius was 

provided full protection in the nation’s 

waters in 1999 (Government Regulation 

7/1999). While the species was first 

added to Indonesia’s protected species 

list in 1987 (SK MenHut No 12 Kptd/II/ 

1987), the implementing legislation in 

1999 made it illegal to harvest, 

transport, kill, or trade live or dead 

specimens of N. pompilius (CITES 

2016). Despite this prohibition, the 

commercial harvest and trade in the 

species continues (see Overutilization 

for commercial, recreational, scientific, 

or educational purposes). For example, 

in a survey of 343 shops within 6 

Provinces in Indonesia, Freitas and 

Krishnasamy (2016) found that 10 

percent were selling nautilus products, 

with the majority located in East Java. 

Interviews with local suppliers of 

nautilus shells revealed that many are 

aware of the prohibition and therefore 

have found ways to conduct business 

covertly, such as selling more products 

online and purposely mislabeling N. 

pompilius shells as A. perforatus (which 

are not protected) (Freitas and 

Krishnasamy 2016). Nijman et al. (2015) 

observed the sale of chambered nautilus 

shells in two of Indonesia’s largest open 

markets (Pangandaran and Pasir Putih, 

both on Java) and remarked that the 

shells were prominently displayed. In 

interviews with the traders, none 

mentioned the protected status of the 

species (Nijman et al. 2015). 

Additionally, nautilus shells and 

products (such as furniture) are often on 

display by government officials and 

offered for sale in airports (Freitas and 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48959 

Krishnasamy 2016), indicating that 

enforcement of the Indonesian 

regulation protecting the species is very 

weak. Therefore, given the apparent 

disregard of the prohibition, with 

substantial evidence of illegal harvest 

and trade in the species, and issues with 

enforcement, we conclude that existing 

regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 

to protect the species from further 

declines in Indonesia from 

overutilization. 

In the Philippines, shelled mollusks 

are protected from collection without a 

permit under Fisheries Administrative 

Order no. 168; however, it is unclear 

how this is implemented or enforced for 

particular species (CITES 2016). In 

Palawan Province, a permit is also 

required to harvest or trade the 

chambered nautilus, as it is listed as 

‘‘Vulnerable’’ under Palawan Council 

for Sustainable Development Resolution 

No. 15–521 (CITES 2016). Freitas and 

Krishnasamy (2016) report that some 

municipalities in Cebu Province and the 

Panay Islands have local ordinances that 

prohibit the harvest of N. pompilius; 

however, even in these Provinces, there 

is evidence of harvest and trade in the 

species. For example, in a survey of 66 

shops in Cebu, the Western Visayas 

region, and Palawan, 83 percent of the 

shops sold nautilus products. For the 

most part, the harvest and trade of 

nautilus is largely allowed and 

essentially unregulated throughout the 

Philippines (Freitas and Krishnasamy 

2016). Given the significant declines in 

the N. pompilius populations 

throughout this portion of the species’ 

range, existing regulations to protect N. 

pompilius from overutilization 

throughout the Philippines are clearly 

inadequate. 

In India, N. pompilius has been 

protected from harvest and trade since 

2000 when it was listed under Schedule 

I of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act 

of 1972 (John et al. 2012). However, as 

noted in the Overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes section, N. 

pompilius shells were being collected in 

Indian waters and sold in major coastal 

tourist curio markets as recently as 

2007. Interviews with retail vendors (n 

= 180) indicated that a large majority 

were aware of the Indian Wildlife 

Protection Act and legal ramifications of 

selling protected species yet continued 

to sell large quantities of protected 

marine mollusks and corals in the curio 

shops (John et al. 2012). Because there 

is no official licensing system for these 

shops, the annual quantities sold remain 

largely unrecorded and unknown (John 

et al. 2012). The high demand for 

nautilus shells and profits from this 

illegal curio trade, coupled with the lack 

of enforcement of existing laws, 

indicates that overutilization of N. 

pompilius will continue to threaten 

populations within Indian waters. 

In China, N. pompilius is listed as a 

‘‘Class I’’ species under the national 

Law of the People’s Republic of China 

on the Protection of Wildlife, which 

means that harvest is allowed (under 

Article 16) but only with special 

permission (i.e., for purposes of 

scientific research, ranching, breeding, 

exhibition, or ‘‘other’’). Unfortunately, 

enforcement of this law has proven 

difficult, as many nautilus products for 

sale have unknown origin or claim 

origin from the Philippines (Freitas and 

Krishnasamy 2016). While the extent of 

harvest in East Asia remains unclear 

based on the available data, the fact that 

trade is allowed, and the difficulties 

associated with enforcement and 

identifying N. pompilius products and 

origin in the trade, indicate that existing 

regulatory measures are likely 

inadequate to prevent the harvest of the 

species within Chinese waters. 

In areas where trade of N. pompilius 

is prohibited, available data suggest 

smugglers are using other locations as 

transit points for the trafficking and 

trade of the species to circumvent 

prohibitions and evade customs (Freitas 

and Krishnasamy 2016). For example, 

New Caledonia, where only N. 

macromphalus is protected, has become 

a stop-over destination for smuggling 

nautilus shells to Europe (CITES 2016; 

Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). In 2008, 

officials confiscated at least 213 N. 

pompilius shells that were being 

smuggled into New Caledonia from Bali, 

Indonesia (Freitas and Krishnasamy 

2016). At this time, the extent of the 

illegal trade, including transit points for 

smugglers, remains largely unknown; 

however, the impact of this illegal trade 

on the species only contributes further 

to its overutilization. 

Overall, given the ongoing demand for 

chambered nautilus products, the 

apparent disregard of current 

prohibition regulations by collectors 

and traders, lack of enforcement, and 

the observed declining trends in N. 

pompilius populations and crashing of 

associated fisheries, the best available 

information strongly suggests that 

existing regulatory mechanisms are 

inadequate to control the harvest and 

overutilization of N. pompilius 

throughout most of its range, 

significantly contributing to the species’ 

risk of extinction. 

Recognizing that the international 

trade is the clear driving force of the 

intense exploitation of nautiluses, in 

October 2016, the member nations to 

CITES agreed to add all nautilus species 

to Appendix II of CITES (effective 

January 2017). This listing means 

increased protection for N. pompilius 

and the other nautilus species, but still 

allows legal and sustainable trade. 

Export of nautilus products now 

requires CITES permits or re-export 

certificates that ensure the products 

were legally acquired and that the 

Scientific Authority of the State of 

export has advised that such export will 

not be detrimental to the survival of that 

species in the wild (i.e., a ‘‘nondetriment finding’’). Given that the 

international trade is the main driver of 

the threat to the species (i.e., 

overutilization), the CITES listing 

should provide N. pompilius with some 

safeguards against future depletion of 

populations and potential extinction of 

the species. However, given the limited 

information on the present abundance 

of the species throughout its range, it 

may prove difficult for State Authorities 

to determine what level of trade is 

sustainable. As the FAO panel notes, 

based on previous cases for species 

listed under Appendix II with similar 

circumstances where the State 

Authorities’ abilities to make nondetriment findings are limited due to an 

absence of information, the following 

outcomes are likely to occur: (1) 

International trade in products from that 

country ceases; (2) international trade 

continues but without proper CITES 

documentation (‘‘illegal trade’’); and/or 

(3) international trade continues with 

inadequate non-detriment findings 

(FAO 2016). Because this listing only 

recently went into effect (January 2017), 

it is too soon to know which outcome(s) 

will dominate in the various nautilusexporting countries. There is thus not 

yet a body of information on which to 

evaluate the adequacy of the CITES 

listing to reduce the threat of 

overutilization. 

Other Natural or Man-Made Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Ecotourism 

While the status review (Miller 2017) 

discusses ecotourism operations as a 

possible threat to nautilus species, the 

examples of these activities come 

entirely from Palau, where N. pompilius 

does not occur. These ecotourism 

activities tend to involve bringing 

nautiluses to the surface for 

photographic opportunities with 

customers and subsequently releasing 

them into shallow waters (CITES 2016). 

In the daytime, nautiluses are especially 

vulnerable to predation in shallow 

waters, and observations of triggerfish 

feeding on nautiluses as they are 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
48960 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

released suggest that consistent release 

of these animals in a certain location 

may create feeding stations for nautilus 

predators (Carlson 2015). Additionally, 

nautiluses may suffer negative 

physiological effects if released into 

shallow water, including overheating 

and the development of air bubbles that 

can inhibit quick escape movements 

(CITES 2016). We acknowledge the 

potential risks that these ecotourism 

operations may pose to nautilus species; 

however, at this time, there is no 

substantial evidence to indicate that 

there are dive tour operators within the 

N. pompilius range who practice this 

same behavior (i.e., taking photographs 

and releasing the species in shallow 

waters). As such, the best available 

information does not indicate that 

ecotourism is presently a significant 

threat to the species. 

Natural Behavior 

Because of their keen sense of smell 

(Basil et al. 2000), chambered nautiluses 

are easily attracted to baited traps. 

Additionally, field studies indicate that 

nautiluses may also habituate to baited 

sites. For example, in a tag and release 

study conducted in Palau, the 

proportion of previously tagged animals 

over the trapping period increased in 

the baited traps, reaching around 58 

percent in the last trap deployed 

(Saunders et al. in press). Given this 

behavior, nautilus populations, 

including N. pompilius, are likely 

highly susceptible to being caught by 

fisheries. For isolated and small 

populations, this could result in rapid 

depletions of these populations in a 

short amount of time, potentially just 

months (Saunders et al. in press). 

However, Saunders et al. (in press) note 

that this vulnerability to depletion from 

overfishing is likely lower in those 

populations where barriers to movement 

do not exist, such as Papua New Guinea 

and Indonesia. These sites both have 

large swaths of habitat (thousands of 

km) within the optimal nautilus depth 

range that are parallel to coastal areas 

and could serve as natural refugia but 

also allow for the restocking of depleted 

populations (Saunders et al. in press). 

Therefore, the best available information 

suggests that these aspects of the 

species’ natural behavior (i.e., attraction 

and habituation to baited trap sites) are 

likely significant threats to those N. 

pompilius populations that are already 

subject to other threats (e.g., 

overutilization) or demographic risks 

(e.g., spatially isolated, small 

populations). 

Assessment of Extinction Risk 

The ESA (section 3) defines an 

endangered species as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ A threatened species is 

defined as ‘‘any species which is likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range.’’ We 

define ‘‘foreseeable future’’ generally as 

the time frame over which identified 

threats can be reliably predicted to 

impact the biological status of the 

species. As mentioned previously, 

because a species may be susceptible to 

a variety of threats for which different 

data are available, or which operate 

across different time scales, the 

foreseeable future is not necessarily 

reducible to a particular number of 

years. 

For the assessment of extinction risk 

for the chambered nautilus, the 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ was considered to 

extend out several decades (> 40 years). 

Given the species’ life history traits, 

with longevity estimated to be at least 

20 years, maturity ranges from 10 to 17 

years, with very low fecundity 

(potentially 10–20 eggs per year with a 

1-year incubation period), it would 

likely take more than a few decades (i.e., 

multiple generations) for any recent 

management actions to be realized and 

reflected in population abundance 

indices. Similarly, the impact of present 

threats to the species could be realized 

in the form of noticeable population 

declines within this time frame, as 

demonstrated in the available survey 

and fisheries data (see Table 4 in Miller 

2017). As the main potential operative 

threat to the species is overutilization, 

this time frame would allow for reliable 

predictions regarding the impact of 

current levels of fishery-related 

mortality on the biological status of the 

species. Additionally, this time frame 

allows for consideration of the 

previously discussed impacts on 

chambered nautilus habitat from climate 

change and the potential effects on the 

status of this species. 

In determining the extinction risk of 

a species, it is important to consider 

both the demographic risks facing the 

species as well as current and potential 

impacts of external threats that may 

affect the species’ status. To this end, a 

demographic analysis was conducted 

for the chambered nautilus. A 

demographic risk analysis is essentially 

an assessment of the manifestation of 

past threats that have contributed to the 

species’ current status and informs the 

consideration of the biological response 

of the species to present and future 

threats. This analysis evaluated the 

population viability characteristics and 

trends data available for the chambered 

nautilus, such as abundance, growth 

rate/productivity, spatial structure and 

connectivity, and diversity, to 

determine the potential risks these 

demographic factors pose to the species. 

The information from this demographic 

risk analysis was considered alongside 

the information previously presented on 

threats to the species, including those 

related to the factors specified by the 

ESA section 4(a)(1)(A)–(E) (and 

summarized in a separate Threats 

Assessment section below) and used to 

determine an overall risk of extinction 

for N. pompilius. 

Because the available data are 

insufficient to conduct a reliable 

quantitative population viability 

assessment (because there is, for 

example, sporadic abundance data, and 

uncertain demographic characteristics), 

the qualitative reference levels of ‘‘low 

risk,’’ ‘‘moderate risk’’ and ‘‘high risk’’ 

were used to describe the overall 

assessment of extinction risk in the 

Status Review. A species at a ‘‘low risk’’ 

of extinction was defined as one that is 

not at a moderate or high level of 

extinction risk. A species may be at low 

risk of extinction if it is not facing 

threats that result in declining trends in 

abundance, productivity, spatial 

structure, or diversity. A species at low 

risk of extinction is likely to show stable 

or increasing trends in abundance and 

productivity with connected, diverse 

populations. A species is at a ‘‘moderate 

risk’’ of extinction when it is on a 

trajectory that puts it at a high level of 

extinction risk in the foreseeable future. 

A species may be at moderate risk of 

extinction because of projected threats 

or declining trends in abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, or 

diversity. A species with a high risk of 

extinction is at or near a level of 

abundance, productivity, spatial 

structure, and/or diversity that places its 

continued persistence in question. The 

demographics of a species at such a high 

level of risk may be highly uncertain 

and strongly influenced by stochastic or 

depensatory processes. Similarly, a 

species may be at high risk of extinction 

if it faces clear and present threats (e.g., 

confinement to a small geographic area; 

imminent destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat; or disease 

epidemic) that are likely to create 

imminent and substantial demographic 

risks. 

Although the conclusions in the 

status review report do not constitute 

findings as to whether the species 

should be listed under the ESA (because 

that determination must be made by the 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48961 

agency after considering all relevant 

information and after evaluating 

ongoing conservation efforts of any 

state, foreign nation, or political 

subdivision thereof. 16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(1)(A)), a finding of ‘‘moderate 

risk’’ generally indicates that a species 

may qualify for listing as a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ and a finding of ‘‘high risk’’ 

generally indicates that a species may be 

an ‘‘endangered species.’’ 

Demographic Risk Analysis 

Abundance 

The global abundance of the 

chambered nautilus is unknown, with 

no available historical baseline 

population data. The species likely 

exists as small, isolated populations 

distributed throughout its range. 

However, abundance estimates of these 

fragmented populations are largely 

unavailable, as the species is difficult to 

survey. Currently, population size has 

been estimated for N. pompilius off 

Osprey Reef in Australia using baited 

trap techniques (n = 844 to 4,467 

individuals) and for the Palawan region, 

Philippines and Western Australia 

populations using genetic markers 

(median population size for Western 

Australia = 2.6 million individuals; for 

Philippines = 3.2 million individuals). 

Population density estimates 

(individuals/km2) are also available 

from Osprey Reef (13.6 to 77.4), the 

Great Barrier Reef (0.34), American 

Samoa (0.16), Fiji (0.21) and the Panglao 

region, Philippines (0.03). While there 

may be some sampling bias in the baited 

trap technique, we find that the 

population size and density estimates 

from these studies provide a useful 

representation of the current abundance 

of the species because they rely on the 

best available field data. 

If a population is critically small in 

size, chance variations in the annual 

number of births and deaths can put the 

population at added risk of extinction. 

Additionally, when populations are 

very small, chance demographic events 

can have a large impact on the 

population. However, the threshold for 

depensation in the chambered nautilus 

is unknown. 

Populations of N. pompilius are 

assumed to be naturally small, and, 

when not faced with outside threats, 

appear stable (e.g., Osprey Reef 

population increased by 28 percent over 

the course of a decade). However, those 

populations in areas where nautilus 

fishing occurs have experienced 

significant declines in less than a 

generation time for the species, 

indicating a greater risk of extirpation 

because of depensatory processes. 

Saunders et al. (in press) suggest that 

trapping data that result in < 1 to 2 

nautiluses per trap likely reflect a 

minimally viable population level. In 

other words, further removal of 

individuals from those populations 

would likely result in population 

crashes and potential extirpation. Based 

on the available abundance trend data 

(see Table 4 in Miller (2017)), many of 

the populations surveyed in Indonesia 

and the Philippines currently reflect 

this minimally viable level, indicating 

that abundance of these particular 

populations may be close to levels that 

place them at immediate risk of 

inbreeding depression and demographic 

stochasticity, particularly given their 

reproductive isolation. Extirpations of 

these populations would increase the 

risk of extinction for the entire species 

to some degree. 

While overall abundance is highly 

uncertain, the evidence indicates that 

the species exists as small and isolated 

populations throughout its range, 

making them inherently vulnerable to 

exploitation and depletion. Data suggest 

that many of these populations are in 

decline and may be extirpated in the 

next several decades. Taken together, 

this information indicates that N. 

pompilius is not currently at risk of 

extinction throughout its range but will 

likely be at risk of extinction from 

environmental variation or humancaused threats throughout its range 

within the foreseeable future. 

Growth Rate/Productivity 

The current net productivity of N. 

pompilius is unknown because of the 

imprecision or lack of available 

abundance estimates or indices. 

Fecundity, however, is assumed to be 

low (but note that no egg-laying has 

been observed in the wild). Based on 

estimates from other captive Nautilus 

species (i.e., N. macromphalus and N. 

belauensis), the chambered nautilus 

may lay up to 10 to 20 eggs per year, 

with a long incubation period (10 to 12 

months). Given that the chambered 

nautilus is a slow-growing and latematuring species (with maturity 

estimated between 10 and 17 years, and 

longevity at least 20 years), it likely has 

very low productivity and, thus, is 

extremely susceptible to decreases in its 

abundance. 

In terms of demographic traits, 

Saunders et al. (in press) suggest that a 

nautilus population at equilibrium 

would have a higher percentage of male 

(75 percent) and mature (74 percent) 

animals. Ratios that are significantly 

lower than these estimates suggest the 

population is in ‘‘disequilibrium’’ and 

likely portend declines in per capita 

growth rate. Saunders et al. (in press) 

further provides evidence that fished 

nautilus populations tend to show 

significant demographic differences in 

relative age class (i.e., predominance of 

immature individuals) and sex ratios 

(i.e,, no longer male-biased) compared 

to unfished populations. Under the 

current assumption that males are the 

critical sex for population growth, the 

significant change in the population 

demographics for these fished 

populations may portend further 

declines and potential extirpations of 

these populations, inherently increasing 

the risk of extinction for the entire 

species in the foreseeable future. 

However, with the exception of the 

Osprey Reef (Australia), Lizard Island 

(Great Barrier Reef; Australia), and 

Sumbawa Island (Indonesia) 

populations, which showed male 

percentages of 82 to 91 percent and 

mature percentages of 58 to 91 percent 

based on data from the past decade 

(Saunders et al. in press), we have no 

available recent data to assess the 

demographic traits of current N. 

pompilius populations throughout the 

species’ range. 

Spatial Structure/Connectivity 

Chambered nautilus populations are 

extreme habitat specialists. The species 

is closely associated with steeply-sloped 

forereefs and muddy bottoms and is 

found in depths typically between 200 

m and 500 m. Both temperature and 

depth are barriers to movement for N. 

pompilius, which cannot 

physiologically withstand temperatures 

above around 25 °C or depths greater 

than 800 m. Chambered nautiluses are 

bottom-dwelling scavengers and do not 

swim in the open water column. While 

larger-scale migrations have occurred 

(across shallow, warm waters and/or 

depths > 1000 m), these events are 

believed to be extremely rare, with gene 

flow thought to be inversely related to 

the geographic distance between 

populations (Swan and Saunders 2010). 

As such, current chambered nautilus 

populations, particularly those 

separated by large geographic distances, 

are believed to be largely isolated, with 

a limited ability to find or exploit 

available resources in the case of habitat 

destruction. Collectively, this 

information suggests that gene flow is 

likely limited among populations of N. 

pompilius, with available data 

specifically indicating the isolation 

between populations in Fiji and 

Western Australia and those in the 

Philippines. 

Regarding destruction of habitat 

patches, while anthropogenic threats, 

such as climate change and destructive 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
48962 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

fishing practices, have been identified 

as potential sources that could 

contribute to habitat modification for 

the chambered nautilus, there is no 

evidence that habitat patches used by N. 

pompilius are being destroyed faster 

than they are naturally created such that 

the species is at an increased risk of 

extinction. Additionally, there is no 

information to indicate that N. 

pompilius is composed of conspicuous 

source-sink populations where loss of 

one critical population or subpopulation 

would pose a risk of extinction to the 

entire species. 

Diversity 

As noted above, N. pompilius appears 

to exist as isolated populations with low 

rates of dispersal and little gene flow 

among populations, particularly those 

that are separated by large geographic 

distances and deep ocean expanses. 

Given the physiological constraints and 

limited mobility of the species, coupled 

with the selective targeting of mature 

males in the fisheries, connectivity 

among breeding populations may be 

disrupted. Additionally, while it is 

unknown whether genetic variability 

within the species is sufficient to permit 

adaptation to environmental changes, 

the best available information suggests 

that genetic variability has likely been 

reduced due to bottleneck events and 

genetic drift in the small and isolated N. 

pompilius populations throughout its 

range. Because higher levels of genetic 

diversity increase the likelihood of a 

species’ persistence, the current, 

presumably reduced level among 

chambered nautiluses appears to pose a 

risk to the species. 

Threats Assessment 

As discussed above, the most 

significant and certain threat to the 

chambered nautilus is overutilization 

through commercial harvest to meet the 

demand for the international nautilus 

shell trade. Out of the 10 nations where 

N. pompilius is known to occur, 

potentially half have targeted nautilus 

fisheries either historically or currently. 

These waters comprise roughly threequarters of the species’ known range, 

with only the most eastern portion (e.g., 

eastern Australia, American Samoa, Fiji) 

afforded protection from harvest. 

Fishing for nautiluses is fairly 

inexpensive and easy, and the attraction 

of N. pompilius to baited traps further 

increases the likely success of these 

fisheries (compounding the severity of 

this threat on the species). The 

estimated level of harvest from many of 

these nautilus fisheries in the 

Philippines (where harvest data are 

available) has historically led to 

extirpations of local N. pompilius 

populations. Given the evidence of 

declines (of 70 to 94 percent) in the 

CPUE from these Philippine nautilus 

fisheries, and the fact that fished 

populations tend to experience higher 

predation rates (another compounding 

factor that further increases the negative 

impact of fishing on the species), these 

populations are likely on the same trend 

toward local extinction. Serial depletion 

of populations based on anecdotal 

trapping reports is also evident 

throughout nautilus fishing sites in 

Indonesia, with reported declines of 70 

to 97 percent. In India, the 

predominance of immature shells for 

sale in the curio markets suggests 

potential overfishing of these local 

populations as well. Commercial 

harvest of the species is also thought to 

occur in Papua New Guinea, East Asia, 

Thailand, Vanuatu, and Vietnam. Efforts 

to address overutilization of the species 

through regulatory measures appear 

inadequate, with evidence of targeted 

fishing of and trade in the species, 

particularly in Indonesia, Philippines, 

and China, despite prohibitions. 

As fishing for the species has no 

cultural or historical relevance, trade 

appears to be the sole driving force 

behind the commercial harvest and 

subsequent decline in N. pompilius 

populations, with significant consumer 

markets in the United States, China, 

Europe (Italy, France, Portugal, United 

Kingdom), the Middle East, and 

Australia. If international trade were to 

be successfully managed to ensure 

sustainable harvest of N. pompilius, 

then the serial decline of local 

populations could be halted and 

partially depleted populations could 

have time to recover. The CITES 

Appendix II listing aims to achieve 

these conservation outcomes; however, 

given that the listing only recently went 

into effect (i.e, January 2017), it is too 

soon to evaluate the ability and capacity 

of the affected countries (who are 

parties to CITES) to implement the 

required measures and ensure the 

sustainability of their trade. Of concern 

is the illegal selling and trade of the 

species that already exists despite 

domestic prohibitions. Therefore, it is 

unclear whether and how the new 

CITES requirements will be adequately 

implemented and enforced in those 

countries that are presently unable to 

prevent the overutilization of the 

species despite prohibitions (e.g., 

Indonesia, Philippines, China). We note 

that the United States appears to be a 

significant importer of nautilus products 

and, therefore, this CITES listing could 

potentially cut-off a large market (and 

associated demand) for the species if 

adequate non-detriment findings are not 

issued by the exporting countries. 

However, the evidence of illegal trade 

routes (see Figure 7 in Miller (2017)) 

and difficulty with tracking the amount 

and origin of nautilus products suggests 

that it may take some time before the 

extent of the ‘‘ins and outs’’ of the 

nautilus trade are fully understood. 

Therefore, we find that the adequacy of 

the CITES Appendix II listing in 

reducing the threat of overutilization 

(through ensuring sustainable trade) is 

highly uncertain at this time. 

Additional threats to N. pompilius 

that were identified as potentially 

contributing to long-term risk of the 

species include unselective and 

destructive fishing techniques (e.g., 

blast fishing and cyanide poisoning) and 

ocean warming and acidification as a 

result of climate change effects; 

however, because of the significant data 

gaps (such as the effects on nautilus 

habitat and the species’ physiological 

responses), the impact of these threats 

on the status of the species is highly 

uncertain. 

Overall Extinction Risk Summary 

Given the species’ low reproductive 

output and overall productivity and 

existence as small and isolated 

populations, it is inherently vulnerable 

to threats that would deplete its 

abundance, with a very low likelihood 

of recovery or repopulation. While there 

is considerable uncertainty regarding 

the species’ overall current abundance, 

the best available information indicates 

that N. pompilius has experienced 

population declines of significant 

magnitude, including evidence of 

extirpations, throughout most of its 

range, primarily because of fisheriesrelated mortality (i.e., overutilization). 

While stable populations of the species 

likely exist in those waters not subject 

to nautilus fishing (e.g., Osprey Reef, 

Australia and American Samoa), only a 

few populations have actually been 

found and studied. These populations 

appear small (particularly when 

compared to trade figures) and 

genetically and geographically isolated, 

and, therefore, if subject to 

environmental variation or 

anthropogenic perturbations in the 

foreseeable future (such as through 

illegal fishing or climate change), will 

likely be unable to recover. 

Currently, the best available 

information, though not free from 

uncertainties, does not indicate that the 

species is currently at risk of extinction 

throughout its range. The species is still 

traded in considerable amounts 

(upwards of thousands to hundreds of 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48963 

thousands annually), with evidence of 

new sites being established for nautilus 

fishing (e.g., in Indonesia, Philippines, 

Papua New Guinea), and areas of stable, 

unfished populations (e.g., eastern 

Australia, American Samoa). Although 

this continued trading presents a 

moderate threat as has been discussed, 

current overall abundance throughout 

its range is not so low that the species’ 

viability is presently at risk. However, 

the continued harvesting of the species 

for the international nautilus shell trade 

and the subsequent serial depletion of 

populations throughout its range are 

placing the species on a trajectory to be 

in danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future, likely within the next 

couple of decades. The species’ current 

demographic risks, including small and 

isolated populations, low productivity, 

habitat specificity, and physiological 

limitations that restrict large-scale 

migrations, mean that as populations are 

depleted and extirpated, recovery of 

those populations and/or repopulation 

is unlikely. Many of the observed 

populations of the species are already 

on this path, with data indicating 

significant declines in abundance and 

even local extinctions. Further 

exacerbating these declines is the 

evidence of increased predation on 

fished nautilus populations and the 

disruption of population demographics 

(through the attraction of predominantly 

males and mature individuals to baited 

traps). As the unsustainable harvesting 

of nautiluses continues, with fisheries 

that follow a boom-bust cycle, and 

fishing efforts that serially exploit 

populations and then move on to new 

sites as the populations become 

depleted (particularly evident in the 

Philippines and Indonesia), this trend is 

unlikely to reverse in the foreseeable 

future. In fact, despite current domestic 

prohibitions on the harvest and trade of 

the species throughout most of the 

species’ range (and particularly in the 

large exporting range states), these 

regulatory measures are ineffective 

because they are largely ignored or 

circumvented through illegal trade 

networks. Further, although the species 

was recently listed on CITES Appendix 

II, there is as of yet no basis to conclude 

whether that listing will be effective at 

decreasing the threat of overutilization 

to the species through the foreseeable 

future. 

Given the best available information, 

we find that N. pompilius is at a 

moderate risk of extinction throughout 

its range. Although the species is not 

currently at risk of extinction 

throughout its range, it will likely 

become so within the foreseeable future. 

Without adequate measures controlling 

the overutilization of the species, N. 

pompilius is on a trajectory where its 

overall abundance will likely see 

significant declines within the 

foreseeable future eventually reaching 

the point where the species’ continued 

persistence will be in jeopardy. We 

therefore propose to list the species as 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ 

Protective Efforts 

Having found that the chambered 

nautilus is likely to become in danger of 

extinction throughout its range within 

the foreseeable future, we next 

considered protective efforts as required 

under Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA. The 

focus of this evaluation is to determine 

whether these efforts are effective in 

ameliorating the threats we have 

identified to the species and thus 

potentially avert the need for listing. 

As we already considered the 

effectiveness of existing regulatory 

protective efforts, discussed above in 

connection with the evaluation of the 

adequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms, we consider other, less 

formal conservation efforts in this 

section. We identified a non-profit Web 

site devoted to raising the awareness of 

threats to the chambered nautilus (e.g., 

http://savethenautilus.com/about-us/), 

including raising funds to support 

research on the species. Additionally, 

we note that chambered nautiluses are 

found in a number of aquariums 

worldwide where additional research is 

being conducted on the reproductive 

activity of the species. However, 

survival of the species in captivity is 

relatively low compared to its natural 

longevity. Based on a 2014 survey of 

102 U.S. aquariums with nautilus 

species (with 52 responses), Carlson 

(2014) reported that survival rates for 

captive N. pompilius of more than 5 

years was only 20 percent. The rates of 

survival for less than 5 years were as 

follows: 0 to 1 year = 33.3 percent, 1– 

2 years 6.7 percent; 2 to 3 years = 20.0 

percent, 3 to 5 years = 20.0 percent. 

While some of these aquariums have 

successfully bred nautilus species (e.g., 

Waikiki Aquarium (U.S.), Birch 

Aquarium at Scripps (U.S.), Toba 

Aquarium (Japan), Farglory Ocean Park 

(Chinese Taipei) (Tai-lang 2012; 

Blazenhoff 2013; Carlson 2014)), based 

on the results from these efforts, it is 

unlikely that aquaculture or artificial 

propagation programs could 

substantially improve the conservation 

status of the species. On average, 

survival rate after hatching is less than 

1 in 1,000 (Tai-lang 2012) and, to date, 

none of the captive-bred nautiluses have 

obtained sexual maturity (NMFS 2014). 

The process is also costly and timeconsuming (given the year-long 

incubation period of eggs). Therefore, 

captive breeding would not be a feasible 

alternative to help satisfy the trade 

industry or restore wild populations 

(NMFS 2014). Additionally, it should be 

noted that the shells of nautiluses in 

captivity tend to be smaller and 

irregular, with black lines that mar the 

outside of the shells (Moini et al. 2014). 

Therefore, those shells would likely not 

be acceptable as suitable alternatives to 

wild-caught shells in the trade, given 

the preference for large, unblemished 

nautilus shells in the market. 

While we find that these protective 

efforts will help increase the scientific 

knowledge about N. pompilius and 

potentially promote public awareness 

regarding declines in the species, none 

has significantly altered the extinction 

risk for the chambered nautilus to the 

point where it would not be in danger 

of extinction in the foreseeable future. 

However, we seek additional 

information on these and other 

conservation efforts in our public 

comment process (see below). 

Determination 

Section 4(b)(1)(A) 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 (81 FR 58895; August 26, 

2016), the status review report (Miller 

2017), and other published and 

unpublished information, and have 

consulted with species experts and 

individuals familiar with the chambered 

nautilus. 

As summarized above and in Miller 

(2017), we assessed the ESA section 

4(a)(1) factors both individually and 

collectively and conclude that the 

species faces ongoing threats from 

overutilization and that existing 

regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 

to ameliorate that threat. Evidence of the 

continued substantial trade in the 

species, establishment of new N. 

pompilius fishing sites, and areas of 

unfished populations indicate that the 

species has not yet declined to 

abundance levels that would trigger the 

onset of depensatory processes. 

However, the species’ demographic 

risks (including small and isolated 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
48964 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

populations, with substantial reductions 

of 70 to 97 percent and extirpations of 

local chambered nautilus populations 

from waters comprising roughly threequarters of the species’ known range, 

low productivity, habitat specificity, 

and physiological limitations that 

restrict large-scale migration), coupled 

with the ongoing serial exploitation of 

N. pompilius to supply the international 

trade, and evidence of illegal harvest, 

trade, and poorly enforced domestic 

regulatory measures, significantly 

increase the species’ vulnerability to 

depletion and subsequent extinction 

from environmental variation or 

anthropogenic perturbations, placing it 

on a trajectory indicating that it will 

likely be in danger of extinction within 

the foreseeable future throughout its 

range. 

We found no evidence of protective 

efforts for the conservation of the 

chambered nautilus that would 

eliminate or adequately reduce threats 

to the species to the point where it 

would no longer be in danger of 

extinction in the foreseeable future. 

Therefore, we conclude that the 

chambered nautilus is not currently in 

danger of extinction, but likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future 

throughout its range from threats of 

overutilization and the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms. As 

such, we have determined that the 

chambered nautilus meets the definition 

of a threatened species and propose to 

list it is as such throughout its range 

under the ESA. 

Because we find that the chambered 

nautilus is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout its range, 

we find it unnecessary to consider 

whether the species might be in danger 

of extinction in a significant portion of 

its range. We believe Congress intended 

that, where the best available 

information allows the Services to 

determine a status for the species 

rangewide, such listing determination 

should be given conclusive weight. A 

rangewide determination of status more 

accurately reflects the species’ degree of 

imperilment, and assigning such status 

to the species (rather than potentially 

assigning a different status based on a 

review of only a portion of the range) 

best implements the statutory 

distinction between threatened and 

endangered species. Maintaining this 

fundamental distinction is important for 

ensuring that conservation resources are 

allocated toward species according to 

their actual level of risk. We also note 

that Congress placed the ‘‘all’’ language 

before the ‘‘significant portion of its 

range’’ phrase in the definitions of 

‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ This suggests that Congress 

intended that an analysis based on 

consideration of the entire range should 

receive primary focus, and thus that the 

agencies should do a ‘‘significant 

portion of its range’’ analysis as an 

alternative to a rangewide analysis only 

if necessary. Under this reading, we 

should first consider whether listing is 

appropriate based on a rangewide 

analysis and proceed to conduct a 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’ 

analysis if (and only if) a species does 

not qualify for listing as either 

endangered or threatened according to 

the ‘‘all’’ language. We note that this 

interpretation is also consistent with the 

2014 Final Policy on Interpretation of 

the Phrase ‘‘Significant Portion of its 

Range’’ (79 FR 37578 (July 1, 2014)). 

That policy is the subject of pending 

litigation, including litigation against 

the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service in the United States District 

Court for the District of Arizona, which 

ordered the policy vacated and is 

currently considering a motion for 

reconsideration. See Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Jewell, No. CV– 

14–02506–TUC–RM, 2017 WL 2438327 

(D. Ariz. March 29, 2017). Our approach 

in this proposed rule, explained above, 

has been reached and applied 

independently of the Final Policy. 

Effects of Listing 

Measures provided for species of fish 

or wildlife listed as endangered or 

threatened under the ESA include 

development of recovery plans (16 

U.S.C. 1533(f)); designation of critical 

habitat, to the maximum extent prudent 

and determinable (16 U.S.C. 

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

Federal agencies consult with NMFS 

under section 7 of the ESA to ensure 

their actions are not likely to jeopardize 

the species or result in adverse 

modification or destruction of critical 

habitat should it be designated (16 

U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). Certain prohibitions, 

including prohibitions against ‘‘taking’’ 

and import, also apply with respect to 

endangered species under Section 9 (16 

U.S.C. 1538); at the discretion of the 

Secretary, some or all of these 

prohibitions may be applied with 

respect to threatened species under the 

authority of Section 4(d) (16 U.S.C. 

1533(d)). Recognition of the species’ 

plight through listing also promotes 

voluntary conservation actions by 

Federal and state agencies, foreign 

entities, private groups, and individuals. 

Identifying Section 7 Conference and 

Consultation Requirements 

Section 7(a)(4) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(4)) 

of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS 

regulations require Federal agencies to 

confer with us on actions likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

species proposed for listing, or that 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of proposed critical 

habitat. If a proposed species is 

ultimately listed, Federal agencies must 

consult under Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 

1536(a)(2)) on any action they authorize, 

fund, or carry out if those actions may 

affect the listed species or its critical 

habitat and ensure that such actions are 

not likely to jeopardize the species or 

result in destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat should it 

be designated. At this time, based on the 

currently available information, we 

determine that examples of Federal 

actions that may affect the chambered 

nautilus include, but are not limited to: 

alternative energy projects, discharge of 

pollution from point and non-point 

sources, deep-sea mining, contaminated 

waste and plastic disposal, dredging, 

pile-driving, development of water 

quality standards, military activities, 

and fisheries management practices. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

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

The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by a species, 

at the time it is listed in accordance 

with the ESA, on which are found those 

physical or biological features (a) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (b) that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and (2) specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by a 

species at the time it is listed upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use 

of all methods and procedures needed 

to bring the species to the point at 

which listing under the ESA is no 

longer necessary. 16 U.S.C. 1532(3). 

Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, critical habitat be 

designated concurrently with the listing 

of a species. Designations of critical 

habitat must be based on the best 

scientific data available and must take 

into consideration the economic, 

national security, and other relevant 

impacts of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat. At this time, we find 

that critical habitat for the chambered 

nautilus is not determinable because 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48965 

data sufficient to perform the required 

analyses are lacking. Therefore, public 

input on features and areas in U.S. 

waters that may meet the definition of 

critical habitat for the chambered 

nautilus is invited. If we determine that 

designation of critical habitat is prudent 

and determinable, we will publish a 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the chambered nautilus in a separate 

rule. Such designation must be limited 

to areas under United States 

jurisdiction. 50 CFR 424.12(g). 

Protective Regulations Under Section 

4(d) of the ESA 

We are proposing to list the 

chambered nautilus as a threatened 

species. In the case of threatened 

species, ESA section 4(d) gives the 

Secretary discretion to determine 

whether, and to what extent, to extend 

the prohibitions of Section 9 to the 

species, and authorizes us to issue 

regulations necessary and advisable for 

the conservation of the species. Thus, 

we have flexibility under section 4(d) to 

tailor protective regulations, taking into 

account the effectiveness of available 

conservation measures. The 4(d) 

protective regulations may prohibit, 

with respect to threatened species, some 

or all of the acts which section 9(a) of 

the ESA prohibits with respect to 

endangered species. We are not 

proposing such regulations at this time, 

but may consider potential protective 

regulations pursuant to section 4(d) for 

the chambered nautilus in a future 

rulemaking. In order to inform our 

consideration of appropriate protective 

regulations for the species, we seek 

information from the public on the 

threats to the chambered nautilus and 

possible measures for their 

conservation. 

Role of Peer Review 

The intent of peer review is to ensure 

that listings are based on the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available. In December 2004, the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

issued a Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review establishing 

minimum peer review standards, a 

transparent process for public 

disclosure of peer review planning, and 

opportunities for public participation. 

The OMB Bulletin, implemented under 

the Information Quality Act (Public Law 

106–554), is intended to enhance the 

quality and credibility of the Federal 

government’s scientific information, and 

applies to influential or highly 

influential scientific information 

disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. 

To satisfy our requirements under the 

OMB Bulletin, we obtained independent 

peer review of the status review report. 

Independent specialists were selected 

from the academic and scientific 

community for this review. All peer 

reviewer comments were addressed 

prior to dissemination of the status 

review report and publication of this 

proposed rule. 

Public Comments Solicited on Listing 

To ensure that the final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and effective as possible, we 

solicit comments and suggestions from 

the public, other governmental agencies, 

the scientific community, industry, 

environmental groups, and any other 

interested parties. Comments are 

encouraged on all aspects of this 

proposal (See DATES and ADDRESSES).We 

are particularly interested in: (1) New or 

updated information regarding the 

range, distribution, and abundance of 

the chambered nautilus; (2) new or 

updated information regarding the 

genetics and population structure of the 

chambered nautilus; (3) habitat within 

the range of the chambered nautilus that 

was present in the past but may have 

been lost over time; (4) new or updated 

biological or other relevant data 

concerning any threats to the chambered 

nautilus (e.g., landings of the species, 

illegal taking of the species); (5) 

information on the commercial trade of 

the chambered nautilus; (6) recent 

observations or sampling of the 

chambered nautilus; (7) current or 

planned activities within the range of 

the chambered nautilus and their 

possible impact on the species; and (8) 

efforts being made to protect the 

chambered nautilus. 

Public Comments Solicited on Critical 

Habitat 

As noted above, we have determined 

that critical habitat is not currently 

determinable for the chambered 

nautilus. To facilitate our ongoing 

review, we request information 

describing the quality and extent of 

habitat for the chambered nautilus, as 

well as information on areas that may 

qualify as critical habitat for the species 

in waters under U.S. jurisdiction. We 

note that based on the best available 

scientific information regarding the 

range of the chambered nautilus, waters 

of American Samoa may contain the 

only potential habitat for the species 

that is currently under U.S. jurisdiction. 

We request that specific areas that 

include the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species, where such features may 

require special management 

considerations or protection, be 

identified. Areas outside the occupied 

geographical area should also be 

identified, if such areas themselves are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and under U.S. jurisdiction. 

ESA implementing regulations at 50 

CFR 424.12(g) specify that critical 

habitat shall not be designated within 

foreign countries or in other areas 

outside of U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, 

we request information only on 

potential areas of critical habitat within 

waters under U.S. jurisdiction. 

Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the 

Secretary to consider the ‘‘economic 

impact, impact on national security, and 

any other relevant impact’’ of 

designating a particular area as critical 

habitat. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2). Section 

4(b)(2) also authorizes the Secretary to 

exclude from a critical habitat 

designation any particular area where 

the Secretary finds that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

designation, unless excluding that area 

will result in extinction of the species. 

To facilitate our consideration under 

Section 4(b)(2), we also request for any 

area that may potentially qualify as 

critical habitat information describing: 

(1) Activities or other threats to the 

essential features of occupied habitat or 

activities that could be affected by 

designating a particular area as critical 

habitat; and (2) the positive and 

negative economic, national security 

and other relevant impacts, including 

benefits to the recovery of the species, 

likely to result if particular areas are 

designated as critical habitat. We seek 

information regarding the conservation 

benefits of designating areas within 

waters under U.S. jurisdiction as critical 

habitat. See 50 CFR 424.12(g). In 

keeping with the guidance provided by 

OMB (2000; 2003), we seek information 

that would allow the quantification of 

these effects to the extent possible, as 

well as information on qualitative 

impacts to economic values. 

Data reviewed may include, but are 

not limited to: (1) Scientific or 

commercial publications; (2) 

administrative reports, maps or other 

graphic materials; (3) information 

received from experts; and (4) 

comments from interested parties. 

Comments and data particularly are 

sought concerning: (1) Maps and 

specific information describing the 

amount, distribution, and use type (e.g., 

foraging) by the chambered nautilus, as 

well as any additional information on 

occupied and unoccupied habitat areas; 

(2) the reasons why any specific area of 

habitat should or should not be 

determined to be critical habitat as 

provided by sections 3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) 

of the ESA; (3) information regarding 

the benefits of designating particular 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
48966 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

areas as critical habitat; (4) current or 

planned activities in the areas that 

might qualify for designation and their 

possible impacts; (5) any foreseeable 

economic or other potential impacts 

resulting from designation, and in 

particular, any impacts on small 

entities; (6) whether specific 

unoccupied areas may be essential for 

the conservation of the species; and (7) 

individuals who could serve as peer 

reviewers in connection with a 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

including persons with biological and 

economic expertise relevant to the 

species, region, and designation of 

critical habitat. 

References 

A complete list of the references used 

in this proposed rule is available within 

the docket folder under ‘‘Supporting 

Documents’’ (www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016- 

0098) and upon request (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Classification 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in 

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

information that may be considered 

when assessing species for listing. Based 

on this limitation of criteria for a listing 

decision and the opinion in Pacific 

Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d 

829 (6th Cir. 1981), NMFS has 

concluded that ESA listing actions are 

not subject to the environmental 

assessment requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, and Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

As noted in the Conference Report on 

the 1982 amendments to the ESA, 

economic impacts cannot be considered 

when assessing the status of a species. 

Therefore, the economic analysis 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act are not applicable to the 

listing process. In addition, this 

proposed rule is exempt from review 

under Executive Order 12866. This 

proposed rule does not contain a 

collection-of-information requirement 

for the purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

In accordance with E.O. 13132, we 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not have significant federalism effects 

and that a federalism assessment is not 

required. In keeping with the intent of 

the Administration and Congress to 

provide continuing and meaningful 

dialogue on issues of mutual state and 

Federal interest, this proposed rule will 

be given to the relevant governmental 

agencies in the countries in which the 

species occurs, and they will be invited 

to comment. As we proceed, we intend 

to continue engaging in informal and 

formal contacts with the states, and 

other affected local, regional, or foreign 

entities, giving careful consideration to 

all written and oral comments received. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223 

Endangered and threatened species. 

Dated: October 16, 2017. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 223—THREATENED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 223 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

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

§ 223.206(d)(9). 

■ 2. In § 223.102, paragraph (e), add a 

new table subheading for ‘‘Molluscs’’ 

before the ‘‘Corals’’ subheading and 

adding a new entry for ‘‘nautilus, 

chambered’’ under the ‘‘Molluscs’’ table 

subheading to read as follows: 

§ 223.102 Enumeration of threatened 

marine and anadromous species. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Species 1

Citation(s) for listing 

determination(s) 

Critical 

habitat ESA rules 

Common name Scientific name Description of listed 

entity 

*******

Molluscs 

Nautilus, chambered ....... Nautilus pompilius ........... Entire species ................. [Insert Federal Register 

citation and date when 

published as a final 

rule].

NA NA 

Corals 

*******

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

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


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48967 

[FR Doc. 2017–22771 Filed 10–20–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 160229159–7990–01] 

RIN 0648–BF85 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Framework 2 to the Tilefish 

Fishery Management Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to 

implement Framework Adjustment 2 to 

the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan. 

Framework Adjustment 2 was 

developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council to improve and 

simplify the administration of the 

golden tilefish fishery. These changes 

include removing an outdated reporting 

requirement, proscribing allowed gear 

for the recreational fishery, modifying 

the commercial incidental possession 

limit, requiring commercial golden 

tilefish be landed with the head and fins 

attached, and revising how assumed 

discards are accounted for when setting 

harvest limits. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 7, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by NOAA–NMFS–2016–0024, 

by either of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016- 

0024, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional 

Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic 

Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great 

Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

Mark the outside of the envelope: 

‘‘Comments on Tilefish Framework 2.’’ 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are part of the public record 

and will generally be posted to 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted 

via Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, 

WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats 

only. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to the Greater 

Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and 

by email to OIRA_Submission@

omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395–7285. 

Copies of Framework 2, and of the 

draft Environmental Assessment and 

preliminary Regulatory Impact Review 

(EA/RIR), are available from the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council, 

800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, 

DE 19901. The EA/RIR is also accessible 

via the Internet at: 

www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

978–281–9341, Douglas.Potts@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This action proposes regulations to 

implement Framework Adjustment 2 to 

the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP). The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council developed this 

framework to improve and simplify 

management measures for the golden 

tilefish fishery in Federal waters north 

of the Virginia/North Carolina border, 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). The proposed 

management measures contained in 

Framework 2 are summarized below, 

with additional information and 

analysis are provided in the EA (see 

ADDRESSES). 

The Council’s original FMP for the 

golden tilefish fishery became effective 

in 2001 (66 FR 49136; September 26, 

2001). The FMP established Total 

Allowable Landings (TAL) as the 

primary control on fishing mortality, 

and implemented a limited entry 

program with a tiered commercial quota 

allocation of the TAL. Amendment 1 to 

the FMP replaced the previous 

management system with an individual 

fishing quota (IFQ) system that allocated 

the TAL to individual quota 

shareholders rather than different 

permit categories (74 FR 42580; August 

24, 2009). The Council developed this 

action to address several minor issues 

and inefficiencies that have been 

identified since the implementation of 

the IFQ system. 

Proposed Framework Adjustment 2 

Measures 

Interactive Voice Response System (IVR) 

Reporting Requirement Removal 

Commercial fishing vessels that land 

golden tilefish under the IFQ system are 

currently required to report each trip 

within 48 hours of landing through our 

IVR system. The Council originally 

created this reporting requirement when 

the fishery was managed under three 

permit categories, each with a sectorspecific annual landings limit. The IVR 

system provided timely landing reports 

to track quota use and allowed managers 

to close a permit category if the annual 

landings cap was reached. When the 

Council changed the management of the 

fishery to an IFQ system, it retained the 

IVR system to allow additional 

monitoring of landings. Improvements 

in electronic dealer-reported landings 

and other data streams have rendered 

this IVR report redundant, and the data 

are no longer used to monitor quotas. 

We propose to eliminate this 

unnecessary reporting requirement. 

Recreational Fishing Gear Limit 

In recent years, there have been 

reports of recreational fishermen using 

‘‘mini-longline’’ gear with a large 

number of hooks to target tilefish. The 

Council is concerned the use of this gear 

could result in dead discards if 

fishermen catch more than the eight-fish 

per person bag limit using this type of 

gear setup. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 

list of authorized gear types at 50 CFR 

600.75(v) already restricts the 

recreational fishery to rod and reel and 

spear gear. However, to avoid any 

potential confusion and clarify the 

amount of gear allowed, the Council has 

recommended and we propose that rod 

and reel with a maximum of five hooks 

per rod should be the only authorized 

recreational tilefish gear for use in the 

Mid-Atlantic. Anglers could use either a 

manual or electric reel. 

Commercial Golden Tilefish Landing 

Condition 

The commercial tilefish fishery 

typically lands fish in a head-on, gutted 

condition. However, quotas and 

possession limits are in whole (round) 

weight. This requires the fishing 

industry to use a conversion factor to 

change landed weight to whole weight 

to comply with incidental possession 

limits and IFQ allocations. We proposed 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS