Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Notices 66799

SUMMARY: As a result of the smaller proportions of minor elements, Failure to comply is a violation of the determination by the International such as carbon, phosphorus, and sulfur. APO which may be subject to sanctions. Trade Commission (the ITC) that Silicomanganese generally contains by This five-year (sunset) review and revocation of the antidumping duty weight not less than 4 percent iron, notice are in accordance with section (AD) order on silicomanganese from more than 30 percent manganese, more 751(d)(2) of the Act and published Brazil would not be likely to lead to the than 8 percent silicon, and not more pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. continuation or recurrence of material than 3 percent phosphorous. All Dated: November 1, 2012. injury to an industry in the United compositions, forms, and sizes of Paul Piquado, States, the Department of Commerce silicomanganese are included within the (the Department) is revoking this AD Assistant Secretary for Import scope of the order, including Administration. order. silicomanganese slag, fines, and [FR Doc. 2012–27285 Filed 11–6–12; 8:45 am] DATES: briquettes. Silicomanganese is used Effective Date: September 14, BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 2011. primarily in steel production as a source of both silicon and manganese. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Silicomanganese is currently Bryan Hansen or Minoo Hatten, AD/ DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE classifiable under subheading CVD Operations, Import 7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Administration, International Trade National Oceanic and Atmospheric Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Administration, U.S. Department of Administration Some silicomanganese may also Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution currently be classifiable under HTSUS [Docket No. 100322160–2479–02] Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; subheading 7202.99.5040. The order telephone: (202) 482–1690 or (202) 482– covers all silicomanganese, regardless of RIN 0648–XV10 3683 respectively. its tariff classification. Although the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: HTSUS subheadings are provided for Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Background convenience and customs purposes, the and Plants: Notice of 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Bumphead On August 1, 2011, the Department written description of the order remains dispositive. Parrotfish as Threatened or initiated and the ITC instituted sunset Endangered Under the Endangered reviews of the AD orders on Determination Species Act (ESA) silicomanganese from Brazil, the PRC, and Ukraine pursuant to sections 751(c) As a result of the determination by the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries and 752 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as ITC that revocation of the AD order Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and amended (the Act).1 As a result of its would not be likely to lead to Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), reviews, the Department found that continuation or recurrence of material Commerce. injury to an industry in the United revocation of the AD orders would ACTION: Notice of twelve-month finding likely lead to continuation or recurrence States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department is revoking the listing determination and availability of of dumping and notified the ITC of the status review documents. margins of dumping likely to prevail AD order on silicomanganese from were the orders revoked.2 Brazil. Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a On October 31, 2012, the ITC the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the twelve-month finding and listing published its determination, pursuant to effective date of revocation is September determination on a petition to list the section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation 14, 2011 (i.e., the fifth anniversary of the bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon of the AD order on silicomanganese effective date of publication in the muricatum) as threatened or endangered from Brazil would not be likely to lead Federal Register of the most recent under the Endangered Species Act 4 to the continuation or recurrence of notice of continuation of this order). (ESA). We have completed a status material injury within a reasonably The Department will notify U.S. review of the bumphead parrotfish in foreseeable time.3 Customs and Border Protection, 15 days response to the petition submitted by after publication of this notice, to WildEarth Guardians and considered Scope of the Order terminate suspension of liquidation and the best scientific and commercial data The merchandise covered by the order collection of cash deposits on entries of available. The bumphead parrotfish is a is silicomanganese. Silicomanganese, the subject merchandise, entered or coral reef-associated species that occurs which is sometimes called ferrosilicon withdrawn from warehouse, on or after in 45 countries in the Indo-Pacific area, manganese, is a ferroalloy composed September 14, 2011. Entries of subject including some U.S. Territories. After principally of manganese, silicon and merchandise prior to the effective date reviewing the best scientific and iron, and normally contains much of revocation will continue to be subject commercial data available, we have to suspension of liquidation and determined that the bumphead 1 See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 76 antidumping duty deposit requirements. parrotfish is not warranted for listing FR 45778 (August 1, 2011) and Silicomanganese This notice also serves as the only under the ESA because the species still From Brazil, China, and Ukraine Institution of a reminder to parties subject to Five-Year Review Concerning the Antidumping occupies its historical range, although at Duty Orders on Silicomanganese From Brazil, administrative protective order (APO) of a lower and declining abundance, but China, and Ukraine, 76 FR 45856 (August 1, 2011). their responsibility concerning the with biological characteristics and 2 See Silicomanganese From Brazil, the People’s return/destruction or conversion to management measures that support the Republic of China, and Ukraine: Final Results of the judicial protective order of proprietary Expedited Third Sunset Reviews of the population above the viability Antidumping Duty Orders, 76 FR 73587 (November information disclosed under APO in threshold. Based on these 29, 2011). accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). considerations, described in more detail 3 See Silicomanganese From Brazil, China, and in this notice, we conclude that the Ukraine, 77 FR 65906 (October 31, 2012). See also 4 See Silicomanganese from Brazil, Ukraine, and Silicomanganese from Brazil, China, and Ukraine the People’s Republic of China: Continuation of bumphead parrotfish is not currently in (Inv. Nos. 731–TA–671–673 (Third Review), USITC Antidumping Duty Orders, 71 FR 54272 (September danger of extinction throughout all or a Publication 4354, October 2012). 14, 2006). significant portion of its range, and not

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:43 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 66800 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Notices

likely to become so within the public responses to the 90-day Finding; whether any species is endangered or foreseeable future. the information we received was threatened due to any of the following DATES: This finding was made on considered in the comprehensive status five factors: (A) The present or November 7, 2012. review as described below in the threatened destruction, modification, or ADDRESSES: The Bumphead parrotfish Biological Review section. The status curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) status review documents (Biological review of bumphead parrotfish was overutilization for commercial, Review Team Report, Management completed jointly by our Pacific Islands recreational, scientific, or educational Report) are available by submitting a Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) and purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) request to the Regulatory Branch Chief, Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO). A the inadequacy of existing regulatory Protected Resources Division, NMFS Bumphead Parrotfish Biological Review mechanisms; or (E) other natural or Pacific Islands Regional Office, 1601 Team (BRT) comprising Federal manmade factors affecting its continued Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, scientists from the Hawaii Cooperative existence (sections 4(a)(1)(A) through HI 96814, Attn: Bumphead Parrotfish Fishery Research Unit of the United (E)). The BRT Report examined factors 12-month Finding. The reports are also States Geological Survey, and our A, B, C, and E (Kobayashi et al., 2011), available electronically at: http:// Southwest and Pacific Islands Fisheries and the Management Report examined www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/ Science Centers completed a biological factor D and conservation efforts as per prd_esa_section_4.html. report on the species (hereafter ‘‘BRT section 4(b) (NMFS, 2012). Results of Report’’, cited as Kobayashi et al., 2011). the BRT and Management Reports with FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PIRO staff completed a report on the Lance Smith, NMFS Pacific Islands regard to the five factors are regulatory mechanisms and summarized below under Threats Regional Office, (808) 944–258; or conservation efforts affecting the species Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of Evaluation. across its range (hereafter ‘‘Management For the third step, we completed an Protected Resources (301) 427–8403. Report’’, cited as NMFS, 2012). The BRT SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: extinction risk analysis to determine the Report and Management Report together status of the species. We asked the BRT Background constitute the bumphead parrotfish to develop an extinction risk analysis status review. Both reports are available On January 4, 2010, we received a approach based on the best available as described above [see ADDRESSES]. petition from WildEarth Guardians to information for bumphead parrotfish. list the bumphead parrotfish Listing Determinations Under the ESA Extinction risk results in Kobayashi et (Bolbometopon muricatum) as We are responsible for determining al. (2011) are based on factors A, B, C, threatened or endangered under the whether the bumphead parrotfish is and E of section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Endangered Species Act of 1973. The threatened or endangered under the Factor D (‘‘inadequacy of existing petitioner also requested that critical ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Section regulatory mechanisms’’); Federal, state, habitat be designated for this species 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us to and foreign conservation efforts were concurrent with listing under the ESA. make listing determinations based assessed in the Management Report The petition asserted that overfishing is solely on the best scientific and (NMFS, 2012), and not considered by a significant threat to bumphead commercial data available after the BRT in its extinction risk analysis parrotfish and that this species is conducting a review of the status of the for the species. Thus, a final extinction declining across its range and is nearly species and after taking into account risk analysis was done by determining eliminated from many areas. The efforts being made by any state or whether results of the BRT’s extinction petition also asserted that degradation of foreign nation to protect the species. We risk analysis would be affected by coral habitat through coral bleaching have followed a four-step approach in conclusions made based on the contents and ocean acidification threatens this making this listing determination for of the Management Report, thereby species as coral is its primary food bumphead parrotfish: (1) Biological addressing the five 4(a)(1) factors as source. The petition also argued that Review; (2) Threats Evaluation; (3) well as conservation efforts that may biological traits (e.g., slow maturation Extinction Risk Analysis; and (4) Listing mitigate the impacts of threats to the and low reproductive rates), shrinking Determination. species’ status. The Policy for remnant populations and range For the first step, the BRT completed Evaluation of Conservation Efforts reductions, effects from increasing a biological review of the taxonomy, When Making Listing Determinations, human populations, and inadequate distribution, abundance, life history and or PECE policy (68 FR 15100; March 28, regulatory protection all further biology of the species (Kobayashi et al., 2003) provides direction for the contribute to the risk of extinction for 2011). The BRT Report determined if consideration of protective efforts bumphead parrotfish. This species is the bumphead parrotfish is a ‘‘species’’ identified in conservation agreements, listed as vulnerable by the International under the ESA. To be considered for conservation plans, management plans, Union for the Conservation of Nature listing under the ESA, a group of or similar documents (developed by (IUCN; Chan et al., 2007). organisms must constitute a ‘‘species,’’ Federal agencies, state and local On April 2, 2010, we published a 90- which is defined in section 3 of the ESA governments, Tribal governments, day finding with our determination that to include taxonomic species plus ‘‘any businesses, organizations, and the petition presented substantial subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, individuals) that have not yet been scientific and commercial information and any distinct population segment implemented, or have been indicating that the petitioned action [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or implemented but have not yet may be warranted (75 FR 16713). We wildlife which interbreeds when demonstrated effectiveness. The initiated a comprehensive status review mature.’’ The BRT Report’s results are evaluation of the certainty of an effort’s of bumphead parrotfish to determine if summarized below under Biological effectiveness is made on the basis of the species warrants listing under the Review. whether the effort or plan: establishes ESA. The 90-day finding requested For the second step, we assessed specific conservation objectives; scientific and commercial information threats affecting the species’ status. We identifies the necessary steps to reduce from the public to inform a status did this by following guidance in the threats or factors for decline; includes review of the species. We received ten ESA that requires us to determine quantifiable performance measures for

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:43 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Notices 66801

the monitoring of compliance and information received in response to our Dulvy, 2004; Randall, 2005). Adults are effectiveness; incorporates the 90-day finding. primarily olive to blue green or grey in principles of adaptive management; and color with the anterior region near the Biological Review is likely to improve the species’ viability head being yellow to pink in coloration at the time of the listing determination. This section provides a summary of (Randall, 2005). A prominent bulbous In addition, recognition through Federal the BRT Report (Kobayashi et al., 2011). bump on the forehead, from whence the government or state listing promotes The BRT first reviewed the ten public genus name is derived, is also a public awareness and conservation comments received on the 90-day common feature observed in adults. The actions by Federal, state, tribal Finding and found that six of them bump is sexually dimorphic, it slopes governments, foreign nations, private reiterated other materials available to caudal to beak in females but is nearly organizations, and individuals. the BRT. Two comments argued for the parallel with the beak in males, and the For the fourth step, results of the existence of bumphead parrotfish DPSs entire bump is usually larger in males biological review, threats evaluation, in American Samoa and Guam, but no (Munoz et al., 2012). Bumphead and extinction risk analysis are supporting biological information was parrotfish have been observed to reach considered to determine whether the provided. A DPS is evaluated for listing sexual maturity at 55–65 cm TL for bumphead parrotfish qualifies for under the three following elements: (1) females and 47–55 cm TL for males threatened or endangered status. Section Discreteness of the population segment (Hamilton et al., 2007). Consequently, 3 of the ESA defines an endangered in relation to the remainder of the juvenile bumphead parrotfish are species to which it belongs; (2) The species as ‘‘any species which is in defined as any fish less than about 50 significance of the population segment danger of extinction throughout all or a cm TL. Juveniles are greenish brown in to the species to which it belongs; and significant portion of its range’’ and a color with two to three vertical rows of (3) The population segment’s threatened species as one ‘‘which is white spots along the flank (Bellwood conservation status in relation to the likely to become an endangered species and Choat, 1989; Randall, 2005). Act’s standards for listing (i.e., is the within the foreseeable future throughout Bumphead parrotfish are distinguished population segment, when treated as if all or a significant portion of its range.’’ from other parrotfish species by it were a species, endangered or Thus, in the context of the ESA, the possessing two to four median predorsal threatened?) (61 FR 4722: February 7, Services interpret an ‘‘endangered scales, three rows of cheek-scales, 16–17 1996). The BRT found insufficient species’’ to be one that is presently at pectoral-fin rays, 16–18 gill rakers, and information to conclude that a DPS risk of extinction. A ‘‘threatened 12 precaudal vertebrae (Kobayashi et al., designation was warranted for species,’’ on the other hand, is not 2011). bumphead parrotfish. These two English common names include currently at risk of extinction but is comments did, however, provide buffalo parrotfish, bumphead parrotfish, likely to become so. In other words, a information substantiating information double-headed parrotfish, giant key statutory difference between a already available to the BRT regarding humphead parrotfish, green humphead threatened and endangered species is the role of fishing in the decline of parrotfish, and humphead parrotfish. the timing of when a species may be in bumphead parrotfish around heavily Non-English common names in the danger of extinction, either now populated and/or visited areas. Pacific include: Lendeke, Kitkita, Topa, (endangered) or within the foreseeable The two remaining comments Topa kakara, Perroquet bossu vert, future (threatened). Thus, a species may contained information pertinent to Togoba, Uloto’i, Gala Uloto’i, Laea be listed as threatened if it is likely to existing regulatory mechanisms Uloto’i, Loro cototo verde, Berdebed, become in danger of extinction throughout bumphead parrotfish range. Kalia, Kemedukl, Kemeik, and throughout all or a significant portion of This information was provided to the Tanguisson. Several of these names are its range within the foreseeable future. staff compiling the management report. a reflection of the different size ranges Whether a species is ultimately Following are summaries of key of the fish used within a society (Adams protected as endangered or threatened biological information presented in and Dalzell, 1994; ASFIS, 2010; Aswani depends on the specific life history and Kobayashi et al. (2011). and Hamilton, 2004; Hamilton, 2004; ecology of the species, the nature of Hamilton et al., 2007; Helfman and Species Description threats, the species’ response to those Randall, 1973; Johannes, 1981). threats, and population numbers and The bumphead parrotfish is a member Currently, there is no population trends. In determining whether the of a conspicuous group of shallow-water genetic information on bumphead species meets the standard of fishes (parrotfishes in the family parrotfish. Regional variation in endangered or threatened, we must Scaridae, order Perciformes) that are morphology, meristics, coloration, or consider each of the threats identified, closely associated with coral reefs behavior has not been observed. Based both individually and cumulatively. For (Bellwood, 1994; Randall et al., 1997). on modeling of pelagic egg and larvae purposes of our analysis, the mere Currently, 90 species in 10 genera are transport, the species likely has an identification of factors that could recognized in the parrotfish family interconnected population structure impact a species negatively is not (Bellwood, 1994; Parenti and Randall, throughout its current range, with the sufficient to compel a finding that ESA 2000). Parrotfishes are distinguished possible exception of both the eastern listing is appropriate. In considering from other fishes based on their unique and western edges of the current range those factors that might constitute dentition (dental plates derived from (Kobayashi et al., 2011). While this threats, we look beyond mere exposure fusion of teeth), loss of predorsal bones, conclusion is based on a single estimate of the species to the factor to determine lack of a true stomach, and extended of larval duration, this estimate is the whether the species responds, either to length of intestine (Randall, 2005). best available information and is well a single threat or multiple threats in The bumphead parrotfish is the within the range of values reported for combination, in a way that causes actual largest member of the parrotfishes, labrids and scarids (Ishihara and impacts at the species level. In making growing to at least 110 cm total length Tachihara, 2011). Several empirical this finding, we have considered and (TL) (Kobayashi et al., 2011) and a studies did not find a relationship evaluated the best available scientific maximum total length of 130 cm and between pelagic larval duration and and commercial information, including weighing up to 46 kg (Donaldson and genetic population structure (Bay et al.,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:43 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 66802 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Notices

2006; Bowen et al., 2006; Luiz et al., of DPS designation is discussed further Bumphead parrotfish are found in 45 2012) however they and others (Saenz- below in the Listing Determination. countries in the Indo-Pacific as well as Agudelo et al., 2012; Treml et al., 2012) disputed areas in the South China Sea. Habitat and Distribution all found evidence to some degree of The BRT divided this range into 63 relatively long range dispersal in species Adult bumphead parrotfish are found strata, which are primarily country with a pelagic larval stage; as such, primarily on shallow (1–15 m) barrier specific, but include subsections or while pelagic larval duration is likely and fringing reefs during the day and regions within countries in some cases. one of many factors that influence reef rest in caves and shallow sandy lagoon Certain geographic strata are in or near fish dispersal and connectivity, the habitats at night (Donaldson and Dulvy, the overall range polygon, but are not existence of a pelagic larval life stage is 2004). Extensive reef structures on the known to have bumphead parrotfish likely to result in interconnected Great Barrier Reef off the east coast of (e.g., Hawaii, Johnston Atoll, Cook population structure to some degree. Australia with adjacent lagoons appear Islands, Tokelau, Nauru, British Indian More recent work by Faurby and Barber to provide an example of optimal Ocean Territory, etc.). Although data are (2012) asserts that pelagic larval habitat for bumphead parrotfish (Choat, limited, we found no evidence to duration may be a much stronger personal communication). Lihou and conclude that historical range was determinant of realized larval dispersal Herald are two isolated islands in the significantly different from current than suggested in empirical studies due Coral Sea approximately 1000 km from range. We therefore conclude that the to variation and uncertainty associated the Great Barrier Reef with little fishing historical and current ranges are with calculating genetic structure. pressure. Densities of bumphead equivalent (Kobayashi et al., 2011). Without genetic information for parrotfish are over an order of Surveys conducted in northern bumphead parrotfish, it is impossible to magnitude higher on the Great Barrier Tanzania and Bolinao, Philippines both confirm or deny this relationship. Reef compared with these two island reported no bumphead parrotfish Additionally, Treml et al. (2012) found locations (see Figure 3 in Kobayashi et observed, however they were conducted that broad-scale connectivity is strongly al., 2011adapted from Choat, at only a few sites within each country influenced by reproductive output and unpublished data). Thus, differences in and absence is likely based on limited the length of pelagic larval duration abundance between locations may be survey data (see below). McClanahan et across three coral reef species. related, at least in part, to habitat and al. (1999) specifically note that in reef surveys in Tanzania, there was no One year of current data (2009) was biogeographic preferences (Kobayashi et evidence for species losses. chosen for use in the pelagic transport al., 2011). This highlights the simulation; although some interannual importance of exposed outer reef fronts Abundance and Density with high structural complexity along a variability exists in ocean currents, The bumphead parrotfish is thought continuous reef system with adjacent PIFSC data available at Oceanwatch to have been abundant throughout its (http://oceanwatch.pifsc.noaa.gov/ lagoons as preferred habitat. Likely range historically (Dulvy and Polunin, _ equator eof.html) indicate that 2009 limiting factors for bumphead parrotfish 2004). Numerous reports suggest that transitioned between high and low sea abundance are sheltered lagoons for fisheries exploitation has reduced local surface height anomalies and was not recruitment, high energy forereef densities to a small fraction of their likely to be anomalous in any respect for foraging habitat for adults, and historical values in populated or fished the whole year considered. Although nighttime shelter (caves) for sleeping areas (Bellwood et al., 2003; Dulvy and the simulation did not necessarily (Kobayashi et al., 2011). Polunin, 2004; Hamilton, 2004; Hoey account for inter-annual variability of Based on limited information, and Bellwood, 2008). Estimates of current data outside of 2009, its reliance juvenile bumphead parrotfish habitat is abundance throughout the entire on the entire year’s current data, rather thought to consist mainly of mangrove geographic range of bumphead than a time-limited snapshot, increases swamps, seagrass beds, coral reef parrotfish are unavailable. However, our confidence in its projections. lagoons, and other benthic habitats that efforts have been made to document the Sponaugle et al. (2012) provide a provide abundant cover (Kobayashi et abundance of reef fishes, including demonstration of significant agreement al., 2011). Juvenile bumphead parrotfish bumphead parrotfish, at specific between modeled and observed in the Solomon Islands were restricted locations (Jennings and Polunin, 1995; settlement of a coral reef fish. The BRT to the shallow inner lagoon while larger 1996; Dulvy and Polunin, 2004). Among found, and we agree, that the bumphead individuals of adult size classes (>60 cm the non-U.S. sites examined in these parrotfish is a single, well-described TL) occurred predominately in passes studies, Australia’s Great Barrier Reef species that cannot be sub-divided into and outer reef areas (Aswani and had the highest observed densities of DPSs based on the currently available Hamilton, 2004; Hamilton, 2004). bumphead parrotfish with an estimate biological information (Kobayashi et al., Densities of juveniles (< 50 mm Fork of 3.05 fish per km2, followed by the 2011). In addition to the criteria Length (FL)) were an order of magnitude Solomon Islands (1.40 fish per km2), identified supra, DPSs may be delimited higher in the inner lagoon around and Fiji (0.03 fish per km2). Reef fish by international governmental Cocos-Keeling in the Indian Ocean than surveys from northern Tanzania and boundaries within which differences in in the central lagoon; lower numbers of Bolinao in the Philippines did not control of exploitation, management of juveniles occurred on the forereef. Size record any bumphead parrotfish, habitat, conservation status, or distributions of bumphead parrotfish at although it should be noted that in regulatory mechanisms exist that are Cocos-Keeling show a dominance of comparison to other locations for which significant in light of Section 4(a)(1)(D) small individuals in the inner lagoon data are presented, these two studies of the ESA. Because this determination with the mode at 18 mm FL. The mid- represent the lowest amount of survey involves consideration of factors outside lagoon shows a bimodal distribution effort (2 survey transects each) and the the technical and scientific expertise of with a mode of 24 mm FL and another highest levels of exploitation. Studies the BRT, they were not charged with mode at 72 mm FL. The forereef size have also shown that larger individuals determining whether distinguishing distribution consists of larger juveniles of reef fish species began fleeing at great DPSs based on international political with a mode at 66 mm FL (Choat, distances in areas where human activity boundaries is appropriate. This aspect unpublished data). such as spearfishing occurs (e.g.,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:43 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Notices 66803

Kulbicki 1998; Bozec et al. 2011), Fisheries project in 2001–2008 revealed population dynamics, demography, and making them less detectable in visual relatively high numbers of bumphead temporal/spatial variability to use even surveys, whereas in remote and/or parrotfish in Palau with slightly more the most rudimentary of stock protected areas, the large individuals are than 1.5 individuals per station. assessment models. The data simply do relatively easily observed. Bozec et al.’s Numbers in New Caledonia were not exist to allow one to credibly large fish size begin at 30cm, only half approximately half of those observed in estimate changes in population size, or of the average size of bumpheads; Palau. Sites in Papua New Guinea and even the magnitude of population size, however, their results indicate a general the Federated States of Micronesia also structured over space and time in a trend of the larger the fish, the greater recorded modest numbers of proper framework of metapopulation the fleeing distance. Their results also individuals. Low numbers in Tonga, dynamics and demographics’’ for indicate that size and shyness have Fiji, and the Solomon Islands may bumphead parrotfish. The BRT used the combined effects on fishes’ reaction to reflect fishing pressure (e.g., Dulvey and best available information on observers, with large fish tending to be Polunin, 2004; Hamilton, 2004), while population density from recent (1997– more shy. Where surveys focused on their absence from a number of 2009) survey data to develop species of commercial importance, the locations is likely the result of the lack contemporary global estimates of adult corresponding detection profiles of suitable lagoon habitats for bumphead parrotfish abundance. exhibited a marked diver avoidance recruitment (i.e., Niue, Nauru) Contemporary global population since commercial species are usually (Kobayashi et al., 2011). Based on SPC estimates are based on the geographic larger and more likely to be frightened data, the maximum number of range of bumphead parrotfish, amount by divers. Heavy subsistence, artisanal, individuals per school was 120 of suitable adult bumphead parrotfish and commercial fisheries were reported individuals in Palau and 100 habitat within its range, and the density at all locations where bumphead individuals in New Caledonia. Overall, of adult bumphead parrotfish within the parrotfish densities were less that 1 fish the average number of individuals habitat. Population density data were per km2. Interpretation of these results observed per school was 8.17 fish available for 49 of 63 of the strata from is complicated by several additional (Kobayashi et al., 2011). SPC and ReefCheck underwater visual methodological concerns like limited In the U.S. Pacific Islands, abundance surveys. They then used a bootstrap depth range of surveys, comparability of of bumphead parrotfish has been resampling simulation approach to results from different survey methods, assessed since 2000 as part of PIFSC’s estimate global population density by comparability of results collected over a Reef Assessment and Monitoring randomly assigning from the actual 13 year time span, and whether or not Program. Bumphead parrotfish were density estimates one estimate to each surveys conducted can be considered most abundant at Wake Atoll in the stratum in each simulation model representative of the entire species Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIAs) iteration (Kobayashi et al., 2011). ∼ 2 range (Kobayashi et al., 2001). As such, ( 300 fish per km ), followed by Uncertainty and variability are while we have some information on Palmyra Atoll in the PRIAs (5.22 fish 2 incorporated by the use of 5000 bumphead parrotfish abundance from a per km ), Pagan Island in the iterations of the simulation. few areas within the species range, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana results should be interpreted and Islands (1.62 fish per km2), Jarvis Island The BRT used the bootstrap modeling compared cautiously. in the PRIAs (1.26 fish per km2), Ta‘u approach to develop three estimates of Densities of bumphead parrotfish in Island in American Samoa (1.08 fish per global abundance: (1) A ‘‘regular-case’’ the Indian Ocean show a biogeographic km2), and Tutuila Island in American estimate based on the methods density gradient with the highest Samoa (0.41 fish per km2; Kobayashi et described above and resulting in a best densities adjacent to the western al., 2011). estimate of 3.9 million adults (95 Australian coast, and densities In summary, the abundance of percent confidence interval = 69,000– decreasing to the west (Choat, bumphead parrotfish varies widely. 61,000,000 adults); (2) a ‘‘worst-case’’ unpublished data; see Figure 9 in Sites where bumphead parrotfish are estimate which decreased the estimated Kobayashi et al. 2011). Densities at found in abundance (densities as high amount of available habitat and resulted Rowley Shoals off Western Australia are as 300 fish per km2) include portions of in an abundance estimate of 2.2 million similar to high densities observed on the the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park adults (95 percent confidence interval = outer Great Barrier Reef, and highlight (Bellwood et al., 2003), sites in the 28,000–36,000,000 adults); and (3) a the importance of exposed outer reef Seychelles, Wake Atoll and Palmyra ‘‘matched-case’’ estimate where density habitats with adjacent lagoons and low Atoll, U.S. Pacific Islands, Rowley estimates for the 49 strata where surveys population density and utilization. Shoals Marine Park, isolated regions of had occurred were based on those Densities of bumphead parrotfish in the Papua New Guinea, portions of the Red survey data, and estimates for the other western Indian Ocean (East Africa, Sea, protected sites in Palau, and remote 13 strata were based on the Seychelles) are generally lower than sites in the Solomon Islands (Kobayashi randomization process used in the those observed in Australia and the et al., 2011). Alternatively, they are ‘‘regular-case’’ estimate. This third western Pacific, although some areas of relatively uncommon in parts of Fiji, method resulted in an estimated the Seychelles such as Farquhar Atoll Samoa, Guam, Mariana Islands, Tonga, abundance of 4.6 million adults (95 and Cousin Island (Jennings, 1998) are and Solomon Islands, with many other percent confidence interval = 17,000– exceptions to the gradient described areas at intermediate levels of 67,000,000 adults). The BRT concluded, above and support large densities of abundance. Also, the BRT was unable to and we agree, that the regular-case bumphead parrotfish. Also, large find abundance information in many estimate provides the most reliable numbers of bumphead parrotfish are parts of the species’ range (Kobayashi et estimate of current global abundance of found in some areas of Borneo and al., 2011). bumphead parrotfish. However, all Malaysia (e.g., Sipadan; Kobayashi et models involved large confidence al., 2011). Contemporary Global Population intervals, and high uncertainty is Surveys conducted by the Secretariat Abundance associated with all three estimates. of the Pacific Community (SPC) in their The BRT Report warns that ‘‘There are Accordingly, all population estimates Pacific Regional Oceanic and Coastal inadequate data on bumphead parrotfish are to be interpreted with caution.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:43 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 66804 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Notices

Global Abundance Trends modeling results are the best available and the Indo-Pacific region (Brothers Anecdotal accounts abound of past information on historical and current and Thresher, 1985). Choat and abundance and recent declines of bumphead parrotfish population Robertson (2002) estimated maximum bumphead parrotfish in many parts of abundances. In the ‘‘Status of Species’’ age for bumphead parrotfish to be 40 its range (see literature cited in conclusion, the BRT states that the years of age assuming that checks on Kobayashi et al., 2011 and NMFS, global bumphead parrotfish population otoliths are deposited annually, 2012). Data on appropriate spatial and shows ‘‘evidence of a large overall although others have estimated temporal scales for both historical and decline and continuing trend of decline maximum age to range from the upper contemporary abundances are needed to despite lack of strong spatial coherence’’ 20s to mid 30s (Hamilton, 2004). All of quantify historic global abundance (Kobayashi et al., 2011, p. 54). Based on these estimates may be overly trends. As described above, the BRT the BRT’s population modeling results conservative as the largest and provided contemporary global and the uncertainty associated with potentially oldest individuals observed abundance estimates. However, they them, we conclude that adult bumphead may not have been included in the found available historical data on such parrotfish have undergone a decline in analysis (Choat and Robertson, 2002; small spatial (e.g., Palau fisheries data, historical population abundance but we Hamilton, 2004). In New Caledonia, 1976–1990) and temporal (e.g., are unable to quantify, with any degree Couture and Chauvet (1994) determined underwater visual data, 1997-present) of accuracy, the magnitude of that that bumphead parrotfish have a slow decline. growth rate and in their sampling, the scales that historical global population oldest individual was estimated at 16 abundance cannot be quantitatively Future Abundance years. With the exception of the study estimated with any reasonable In order to quantitatively predict from New Caledonia, which used scale confidence. In the absence of historical likely future global abundance trends annuli increments, all ages were quantitative data, the BRT developed for adult bumphead parrotfish, determined using otolith sections; some two estimates of historical global spatially-explicit data on current and concern has been expressed that these abundance of adult bumphead projected levels of the various threats to two age determination methods are not parrotfish based on the available bumphead parrotfish for each strata equally valid. Based on limited sample contemporary survey data and would need to be incorporated into a size, lack of validation and/or assumptions regarding likely historic population model because these threats disagreement between scale and otolith levels of density and that the amount of are variable throughout the species techniques, the potential exists to available habitat was the same as range (e.g., some strata are unfished, misestimate longevity, growth, and currently. One estimate, called the some strata are heavily fished, some natural mortality for the species (Choat ‘‘virgin-case’’, is based on the strata may be trending independently of et al., 2006). assumption that historical density is human impact). These data are not Data collected in the western reflected by the density of bumphead currently available so we cannot reliably Solomon Islands suggest differential parrotfish in the transects surveys that quantify how trends in current and growth between sexes for bumphead had bumphead parrotfish present (7 future human activities and other parrotfish. Studies indicate that males percent of the 6,561 transects), while the threats will impact the population into attain a larger asymptotic size than other estimate, called ‘‘historic- the future. The BRT was not able to females and growth is slow but density’’, assumes that historical density estimate future population trends by continuous throughout life. In contrast, was 3 fish per 1000 m2 which is derived strata, and accordingly, did not attempt females exhibit more determinate from current densities in areas where a future projection. As such, we growth characteristics with asymptotic bumphead parrotfish are considered conclude that future global population size established at around age 15 years abundant. The virgin-case estimate of trends for adult bumphead parrotfish (Hamilton, 2004). historical abundance was 131.2 million are unquantifiable at this time. Age and growth characteristics of adults (95 percent confidence interval = However, based on the information juvenile bumphead parrotfish are less 66.5–434 million adults), while the provided in the BRT Report (Kobayashi well known than those of adults. Pelagic historic-density estimate was 51 million et al., 2011), we conclude that, larval duration was estimated at 31 days (the BRT did not calculate estimates of qualitatively, the available evidence using pre-transitional otolith increments precision for this estimate). suggests a continuing trend of decline in from just one specimen (Brothers and The BRT states that ‘‘the estimates of the global abundance of bumphead Thresher, 1985). virgin abundance and related inferences parrotfish is likely to continue into the The average size of individual about degree of population reduction future. bumphead parrotfish observed from SPC are highly speculative and subject to a surveys was 59.7 cm TL (SD = 20.8), Age and Growth great deal of uncertainty’’ (Kobayashi et with the largest individual being 110 cm al., 2011, p. 50). Uncertainty results The bumphead parrotfish appears to and the smallest being 14 cm. Notable from possible bias in assumed historical have a reasonably well-characterized size differences were observed at densities, lack of historical density data growth curve and approaches its different locations. These size to validate the methodology on any maximum size at approximately 10–20 differences could reflect variable spatial scale, the amount of habitat years of age with a longevity estimated habitat-related growth conditions, available historically may have been at approximately 40 years. Most recruitment problems, or some level of over- or under-estimated, historical individuals seen in adult habitat are population structure, but more likely ecological changes (e.g., reduction in likely older than approximately 5 years reflect differences in the intensity of bumphead parrotfish predators) reduce (Kobayashi et al., 2011). These estimates harvest and the degree to which size reliability, and density-dependant have been developed for bumphead structure of populations has been mechanisms may have affected parrotfish based on several studies from truncated (Kobayashi et al., 2011). bumphead parrotfish populations northeast Australia (Choat and differently in historical times than in Robertson, 2002), the western Solomon Feeding contemporary times (Kobayashi et al., Islands (Hamilton, 2004), New Parrotfishes as a family are primarily 2011; NMFS, 2011). However, the BRT’s Caledonia (Couture and Chauvet, 1994), considered herbivores. A majority of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:43 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Notices 66805

parrotfishes inhabiting areas around and ecology. For example, shifts in research on other species of coral reef rocky substrates or coral reefs use their benthic species composition (changes in fish larvae suggests that a variety of fused beak-like jaws to feed on the the breakdown of hard corals, soft potential cues could be used for active benthic community. Based on corals, coralline algae, fleshy algae, orientation (Leis, 2007). differences in morphology, parrotfishes sponges, bryozoans, tunicates, etc.) Connectivity in bumphead parrotfish are separated into two distinct would likely not adversely affect was examined by the BRT using a functional groups: scrapers and bumphead parrotfish given their computer simulation of larval transport excavators (Bellwood and Choat, 1990; nonselective diet (Kobayashi et al., (Kobayashi et al., 2011). Surface Streelman et al., 2002). Scrapers feed by 2011). currents at a resolution of 1 degree of taking numerous bites, removing latitude and longitude were used with a Movements and Dispersal material from the surface of the simulated pelagic larval duration of 31 substratum, while excavators take fewer Adult bumphead parrotfish days (Brothers and Thresher, 1985) with bites using their powerful jaws to movement patterns are distinct between a settlement radius of 25 km. This remove large portions of both the day and night. Diurnal movement settlement radius estimate was used in substrate and the attached material with patterns are characterized by groups of previous simulation work (Kobayashi, each bite. As a result of even moderate individuals foraging among forereef, reef 2006; Rivera et al., 2011). If propagule levels of foraging, both scrapers and flat, reef pass, and clear outer lagoon survivorship is the main value being excavators can have profound impacts habitats at depths of 1–30 m (Donaldson estimated, settlement distance is on the benthic community. Thus, it is and Dulvy, 2004). The bumphead important as well as swimming widely recognized that parrotfishes play parrotfish is a gregarious species that orientation and other behaviors at the important functional roles as herbivores can be observed foraging during the day settlement stage. However, for and bioeroders in reef habitats in schools of 20 to more than 100 understanding geographic linkages (as (Bellwood et al., 2003; Hoey and individuals (Gladstone, 1986; Bellwood in this application), settlement distance Bellwood, 2008). et al., 2003). Groups of foraging is not a key driver of results. As Bumphead parrotfish are classified as parrotfish are highly mobile and often discussed above, much of the recent excavators feeding on a variety of travel distances of several kilometers literature on the role of pelagic larval benthic organisms including corals, throughout the day. For example, a duration in determining realized epilithic algae, sponges, and other study of adult bumphead parrotfish dispersal distances has resulted in microinvertebrates (Bellwood et al., movements and home ranges in the mixed conclusions. There is support 2003; Calcinai et al., 2005; Randall, Solomon Islands demonstrated that that pelagic larval duration can be a 2005; Hoey and Bellwood, 2008). A adults range up to 6 km (3.7 mi) daily strong predictor of dispersal distances foraging bumphead parrotfish often from nocturnal resting sites (Hamilton, (Shanks et al., 2003) yet a poor predictor leaves distinct deep scars where benthic 2004). At dusk, schools of parrotfish of genetic similarity (Bay et al., 2006; organisms and substrate have been move to nocturnal resting sites found Bowen et al., 2006; Luiz et al., 2011; removed. As such, their contribution as among sheltered forereef and lagoon Weersing and Toonen, 2009). As a major bioeroder is significant. A single habitats. Bumphead parrotfish remain discussed previously, studies have individual is estimated to ingest more motionless while resting, and use caves, shown that multiple factors add to the than 5 tons (27.9 kg per m2) of reef passages, and other protected habitat complexity of understanding larval carbonate each year (Bellwood et al., features as refuges during the night. dispersal but they all provide evidence 2003); hence, even small numbers of Although bumphead parrotfish travel of some level of exchange between sub- bumphead parrotfish can have a large considerable distances while foraging, populations that are far apart, relative to impact on the coral reef ecosystem. they show resting site fidelity and the range of the species in question. Bumphead parrotfish show little consistently return to specific resting Treml et al. (2012) in particular, found evidence of feeding selectivity; sites (Aswani and Hamilton, 2004). that broad-scale connectivity is strongly however, a significant portion (up to 50 Dispersal of bumphead parrotfish influenced by reproductive output and percent) of their diet consists of live occurs primarily by passive dispersal of the length of pelagic larval duration. We coral (Bellwood and Choat, 1990; pelagic fertilized eggs and larvae. Many are aware of no morphological, life Bellwood et al., 2003; Hoey and details of the early life history of the history, or other variation that would Bellwood, 2008). On the Great Barrier species are unknown. In other suggest population structuring. In the Reef, bumphead parrotfish are parrotfishes, eggs are pelagic, small, and absence of information on complicating considered major coral predators. One spindle shaped (1.5–3 mm long and 0.5– factors for bumphead parrotfish, the study documented removal of up to 13.5 1 mm wide; Leis and Rennis, 1983). BRT’s simulation of pelagic larval kg per m2 of live coral per year, but also Time to hatching is unknown, but is dispersal is the best available that slightly more foraging activity was likely between 20 hours and 3 days, as information with regard to population directed towards algae than living coral for other reef fishes observed spawning connectivity for this species. (Bellwood et al., 2003). Thus, adult on the shelf-edge (Colin and Clavijo, Single-generation and multi- bumphead parrotfish are not obligate 1988). Bumphead parrotfish pelagic generation connectivity probabilities corallivores but rather generalist benthic ecology is unknown, but successful were tested. A number of sites appear to feeders. Juvenile bumphead parrotfish settlement appears to be limited to have significant potential as stepping diet is not well documented but likely shallow lagoon habitats characterized by stones with a broad range of input and also includes a broad spectrum of softer low-energy wave action and plant life output strata interconnected in a multi- benthic organisms. Live coral may be (e.g., mangroves, seagrass, or plumose generational context. Most sites with relatively unimportant due to the lack of algae) (Kobayashi et al., 2011). High significant seeding potential are located high densities of corals in some juvenile relief coral heads (e.g., Turbinaria) in in close proximity to other sites (e.g., habitats. Generally, bumphead sheltered areas also seem to be suitable east Africa, central Indo-Pacific). The parrotfish appear to be opportunistic juvenile habitat (Kobayashi et al., 2011). BRT concluded that bumphead foragers and would likely cope with Mechanisms by which settling parrotfish likely have an interconnected ecosystem shifts in the coral reef bumphead parrotfish larvae find these population structure due to community, based upon their behavior locations are unknown, although recent oceanographic transport of pelagic eggs

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:43 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 66806 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Notices

and larvae, with this effect being most dominant male displayed bright green Carrying Capacity pronounced near the center of the coloration during spawning. The There is no evidence regarding species range, but with some degree of evidence that males grow to larger sizes limiting factors for bumphead parrotfish isolation in both the eastern and than females (Hamilton, 2004) supports population growth, particularly under western edges of the species range the existence of a nonrandom mating pristine conditions. Some likely limiting (Kobayashi et al., 2011). system where a reproductive advantage factors for past, present, and/or future Reproductive Biology is conferred to larger dominant males bumphead parrotfish population growth (Ghiselin, 1969; Kobayashi et al., 2011). include settlement and recruitment Unlike most parrotfishes which are Warner and Hoffman (1980) showed protogynous (sequential) limitation factors (Doherty, 1983; Sale, mating system and sexual composition 2004), juvenile habitat, adult sleeping hermaphrodites, bumphead parrotfish in two parrotfish relatives is density appear to be gonochoristic (unisexual). habitat, requisite abundance of dependent. Munoz et al. (2012) have conspecifics for successful group Females reach sexual maturity over a documented male-male head-butting broad size range. While they begin to foraging or reproduction, and human encounters that may serve to establish harvest. Most of these factors are likely reach sexual maturity at about 500 mm mating territories or dominance and TL, 100 percent of females attain to become more limiting over time confirm the presumed function of the (Kobayashi et al., 2011). maturity by about 700 mm TL and age larger bumps in males. 11 yrs. The size at which 50 percent of Threats Evaluation females have reached maturity is Settlement and Recruitment estimated at 550–650 mm TL at age 7– Threats Evaluation is the second step As with many other aspects of 9 yrs (Hamilton, 2004; Hamilton et al., in the process of making an ESA listing bumphead parrotfish biology, little is 2007). Males also reach maturity over a determination for bumphead parrotfish known about the processes following wide size range similar to females, but as described above in ‘‘Listing settlement of larvae in the benthic males begin maturing at smaller sizes Determinations Under the ESA’’. This environment. Juveniles appear to and younger ages than females. For step follows guidance in the ESA that gradually work their way towards adult example, the smallest mature male requires us to determine whether any habitats on the forereef areas, but timing observed in age and growth studies was species is endangered or threatened due and duration of this movement are 470 mm TL and age 5 yrs., while the to any of the following five factors: (A) unknown. The smallest size at which smallest mature female was 490 mm TL The present or threatened destruction, and age 6 yrs (Hamilton, 2004; Hamilton bumpheads enter the adult population modification, or curtailment of its et al., 2007). on forereef areas is approximately 40 cm habitat or range; (B) overutilization for Spawning may occur in most months TL. These large juveniles are not often commercial, recreational, scientific, or of the year. Hamilton et al. (2007) found seen in surveys and may remain cryptic educational purposes; (C) disease or ripe males and females every month of until adopting the wide-ranging predation; (D) the inadequacy of an August through July sampling period swimming and foraging behavior of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) in the Solomon Islands. However, adults. Certain areas, for example the other natural or manmade factors females with hydrated ova, indicative of Great Barrier Reef, do not appear to affecting its continued existence imminent spawning, were only found receive significant recruitment (sections 4(a)(1)(A) through (E)). from February to July. Spawning may (Bellwood and Choat, 2011). Adults on The BRT Report assessed 14 specific have a lunar periodicity, with most the Great Barrier Reef are thought to threats according to factors A, B, C, and spawning occurring in the early originate from elsewhere (north), which E as follows: for factor (A), the BRT morning around the full moon in reef may explain the latitudinal trend of identified three threats: adult habitat passage habitats (Gladstone, 1986). decreasing abundance toward southern loss or degradation, juvenile habitat loss Hamilton et al. (2007) found hydrated portions of the area (Kobayashi et al., or degradation, and pollution; for factor ova (Colin et al., 2003) in females 2011). (B), the BRT assessed harvest or harvest- captured from reef passages and along Ecosystem Considerations related adult mortality, and capture or the outer reef. Bumphead parrotfish are capture-related juvenile mortality; for serial spawners with undocumented but Despite typically low abundance, factor (C), the BRT identified five presumably very large batch fecundity, bumphead parrotfish can have a threats: competition, disease, parasites, considering the large body and gonad disproportionately large impact on their predation, and starvation; and for factor size coupled with small egg size ecosystem as a result of their size and (E), the BRT discussed four threats: (Kobayashi et al., 2011). trophic role. Their role as non-selective, global warming, ocean acidification, low Observations of spawning have excavator feeders is likely important for population effect, and recruitment involved a single male and female. In maintaining species diversity of corals limitation or variability. The BRT other parrotfishes, Thresher (1984) and other benthic organisms. For determined the severity, scope, and describes the establishment of example, certain species of coral (i.e., certainty for these threats at three points temporary spawning territories by plate-forming) and algae can quickly in time—historically (40–100 years ago males, with females being courted by monopolize substrate if unchecked. or as otherwise noted in the table), males as they passed through spawning Non-selective feeding prevents any one currently, and in the future (40–100 territories, and an assemblage of organism from dominating the benthic years from now; Kobayashi et al., 2011). individuals acting as a spawning school. ecosystem. Hence the species may be a Each threat/time period combination Although Gladstone (1986) described a classic example of a keystone species. was ranked as high/medium/low simple mobile group of bumphead The role of bumphead parrotfish in severity with plus or minus symbols parrotfish individuals from which pair bioerosion and sand generation is also appended to indicate values in the spawning took place, others have of notable importance; this effect is upper or lower ends of these ranges, described what appeared to be a clearly seen by the persistence of dead respectively. dominant male spawning with females coral skeletons in areas where Of the 14 threats, the BRT Report and smaller sneaker males attempting to excavating herbivores have been determined that five had insufficient participate in spawning. The putative reduced (Bellwood et al., 2004). data to determine severity, scope, or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:43 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Notices 66807

certainty at any of the three points in harvest pressure, among other larger, spans a wider geographic range, time (competition, disease, parasites, anthropogenic pressures. The juvenile and is typically a more open starvation, and low population effect). habitat specificity of bumphead environment (Kobayashi et al., 2011). We agree that sufficient information is parrotfish highlights this phase of the B. Overutilization for Commercial, not available to determine the severity life history as highly vulnerable Recreational, Scientific, or Educational of these threats. The remaining nine (Kobayashi et al., 2011). Purposes threats are described below by factor. In contrast to juvenile habitat, the Factor D threats (related to BRT concluded that adult habitat loss The BRT rated harvest of adults as inadequacy of existing regulatory and/or degradation is not a high priority one of the two most severe threats mechanisms), were assessed in the concern, rating its severity as ‘‘medium’’ (along with juvenile habitat loss) to Management Report (NMFS, 2012). Two both currently and over a 40–100 year bumphead parrotfish, with severity public comments received in response future time horizon (with a historical rated as ‘‘high’’ historically, currently, to the 90-Day Finding contained rating of low). Drastic morphological and over a 40–100 year future time information relevant to existing changes to coral reefs might impact horizon. In contrast to adult harvest, the regulatory mechanisms that was bumphead parrotfish if high-energy BRT concluded that juvenile harvest is considered in the Management Report. zones were reduced or wave energy was less of a concern, rating its severity as One comment provided information on diffused or if nocturnal resting/sleeping ‘‘medium’’, both currently and over a cultural significance, harvest methods, locations were no longer available 40–100 year future time horizon (rated and the importance of Marine Protected (Kobayashi et al., 2011). Both are quite as ‘‘nil’’ historically). While the BRT Areas (MPAs) and remote areas with possible under some scenarios for rated the threat of harvest differently by limited access that may provide refuge climate change where coral reef life stage, we first discuss general for the species within a narrow portion structures can’t keep up with sea level harvesting issues applicable to both life of its range. The second comment rise and also die or experience stages, then consider specific provided information pertaining to decreased growth from increased justifications for the different rankings. existing regulatory mechanisms in some temperature and then degrade and fail Bumphead parrotfish are highly parts of the species range and the to be replaced by similar three- prized throughout their range. In effectiveness of MPAs in providing dimensional structure that creates both addition to their commercial value, some benefit to the species. In the the high energy zones (reef crests) and bumphead parrotfish are culturally Management Report, we summarized sleeping structures. Adult bumphead significant for many coastal existing regulatory mechanisms in each parrotfish appear to be opportunistic communities and used in feasts for of the 46 areas where bumphead foragers and would likely cope with specialized ceremonial rites (Severance, parrotfish occur, including fisheries ecosystem shifts in the coral reef pers. comm.; Riesenberg, 1968). As regulations and MPAs. Additionally, we community, based on their behavior and such, fisheries for this species have been developed a comprehensive catalog of ecology. For example, shifts in benthic in place since human inhabitation of protected areas containing coral reef and species composition (e.g., changes in the these coastal regions (Johannes, 1978; mangrove habitat within the range of the breakdown of hard corals, and the 1981). Following are descriptions of life species (NMFS 2012, Appendix A–1 relative abundance of soft corals, history characteristics of the species that and A–2) and evaluated how the MPA coralline algae, fleshy algae, sponges, affect vulnerability to harvest, harvest network addresses threats to the species bryozoans, tunicates, etc.) would gears and methods, and summaries of (NMFS 2012, Sections 2.1.2.1–46 and 4). probably not adversely affect bumphead harvest data from the few locales where The Management Report authors did not parrotfish given their nonselective diet. available. determine the severity, scope, and Some components of the coral reef Life History Characteristics Relevant to certainty for Factor D threats at three ecosystem are likely more affected by Harvest points in time—historically, currently, the presence or absence of bumphead and in the future—as did the BRT. They parrotfish than bumpheads are Immature bumphead parrotfish (40– compiled information on the presence dependent on those ecosystem 50 cm TL, sub-adults) recruit to adult of international, national, and local components. habitat (coral reef forereefs); thus, the scale regulations and then discussed The BRT concluded that pollution is following descriptions of life history general themes and patterns that not a high priority concern, rating its characteristics and methods/gears relate emerged in order to assess whether the severity as ‘‘low’’ both historically and to sub-adults and adults. Several life inadequacy of existing regulatory currently, and ‘‘medium -’’ over a 40– history characteristics increase the mechanisms is a factor that changes the 100 year future time horizon. Pollution vulnerability of sub-adult and adult extinction risk analysis results provided events (e.g., oil spills) can be bumphead parrotfish to harvest such as by the BRT. catastrophic to coral reef ecosystems. nocturnal resting behavior, diurnal However, such events remain episodic, feeding behavior, large size and A. The Present or Threatened rare, and are usually localized in the conspicuous coloration. At night, Destruction, Modification, or context of a widely-distributed, mobile bumphead parrotfish frequently remain Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range species. Habitat modification as a result motionless while resting in refuge sites Juvenile habitat loss or degradation of pollution is most likely to be an issue and they consistently return to specific was rated by the BRT as one of the two with juvenile habitat since it is more resting sites. Unlike other parrotfish (along with adult harvest) most severe exposed to anthropogenic impacts species, bumphead parrotfish do not threats to bumphead parrotfish, rating because of proximity, shallowness, and excrete a mucus cocoon to rest within. its severity as ‘‘medium’’ historically tendency to be more contained (e.g., Thus, resting in shallow water in large and as ‘‘high’’ both currently and over lagoons, as opposed to open coastal groups and returning to the same a 40–100 year future time horizon. As waters). The BRT Report expressed high unprotected resting sites all increase described by the BRT, shallow concern about the effects of pollution on vulnerability of adult bumphead mangrove, seagrass, and coral reef the quantity and quality of juvenile parrotfish to harvest at night (NMFS, lagoon habitats are susceptible to habitat, but expressed less concern 2012). Adult bumphead parrotfish pollution, modification, and increased about adult habitat since adult habitat is schools effectively announce their

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:43 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 66808 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Notices

presence by loud crunching noises parrotfish, though efforts have been harvest of bumphead parrotfish was associated with feeding activity, which made over the past 30 years to obtain 0.63 metric tons. Fish caught ranged can be heard at least several hundred fisheries harvest information at a few from 28.5 to 102.0 cm TL with a mean meters away underwater. In addition, sites in the central and western Pacific. size of 62.7 cm TL; very few individuals bumphead parrotfish may form However, most of the available harvest were larger than 100 cm TL. There is spawning aggregations during the data combine all parrotfish species into currently a ban on harvest of any daytime. Thus, foraging in shallow one category, making it difficult to species while using SCUBA; however, water in schools, conspicuous foraging identify bumphead parrotfish harvest there are no restrictions on the harvest noise, and spawning behavior also all amounts. Harvest data specific to of bumphead parrotfish using other increase the vulnerability of adult bumphead parrotfish exist for Palau extraction methods (FAO, 2006). bumphead parrotfish to harvest (NMFS, (Kitalong and Dalzell, 1994), Guam Harvest data for Fiji are based on the 2012). (NOAA, The Western Pacific Fisheries results of a fisheries development It is likely that juvenile bumphead Information Network), Solomon Islands program at Kia Island carried out by the parrotfish are more vulnerable to (Aswani and Hamilton, 2004; Hamilton, Fiji Department of Agriculture in 1970 harvest in populated regions based on 2003), Fiji (Dulvy and Polunin, 2004), and from the 1990 Fiji Fisheries their aggregating behavior and tendency and Papua New Guinea (Wright and Division Annual Report (Adams, 1969; to inhabit shallow lagoon environments. Richards, 1985). Richards et al., 1993). During the period They suffer the same vulnerability from In Palau, efforts to assess commercial of the fisheries development program, night time harvest as adults and sub- landings of reef fishes were made from bumphead parrotfish accounted for 70 adults as they also use traditional 1976 to 1990 (Kitalong and Dalzell, percent of the total reef fisheries catch nocturnal resting refuge sites. 1994). All harvest data were collected at and yielded 22.3 metric tons. In 1990 the main commercial landing site and it bumphead parrotfish accounted for 5 Harvest Methods and Gears is estimated that these data accounted percent of total commercial landings Historically, fishing for bumpheads for 50–70 percent of the total and yielded 230 metric tons (Dulvy and typically took place at night while fish commercial catch. Overall, bumphead Polunin, 2004). were motionless in their nocturnal parrotfish represented 10 percent of reef In Papua New Guinea, harvest data resting sites. Fishermen armed with fisheries landings in Palau, making it were obtained from an assessment of a hand spears would paddle wooden the second most important commercial small-scale artisanal fishery conducted canoes or simply walk across shallow reef fish. It was estimated that an in the Tigak Islands (Wright and reef habitats using a torch assembled average of 13 metric tons of bumphead Richards, 1985). Harvest data were from dried coconut fronds in search of parrotfish were sold annually during the collected from the only commercial site resting fish (Dulvy and Polunin, 2004). study. The highest landings were for selling fish in Kavieng, New Ireland. With the advent of dive lights, SCUBA, recorded in the mid-1980s, with a A total of 636 bumphead parrotfish were freezers, and more sophisticated spears maximum of 34 metric tons sold in collected during the survey period (13 and spear guns, the ability to exploit 1984. Declines in total catch were months starting in November 1980) and bumphead parrotfish has increased observed following the mid-1980s, represented 5 percent of total fisheries dramatically over the last several creating concern over the conservation catch. The mean size of fish harvested decades (Hamilton, 2003; Aswani and status of bumphead parrotfish stocks. As was 57 cm TL. Hamilton, 2004). a result, restrictions were put on the Data pertaining to harvest of juvenile Current Indo-Pacific coral reef harvest of bumphead parrotfish in 1998 bumphead parrotfish are sparse. The fisheries are nearly as diverse as the and it is now illegal to export, harvest, BRT rated the severity of the threat of species they target, and include many buy or sell with the intent to export juvenile harvest as ‘‘medium’’ both subsistence, commercial, and sport/ bumphead parrotfish of any size in the currently and in the future because they recreational fisheries employing a vast waters of Palau. define a ‘‘medium’’ level of certainty as array of traditional, modern, and hybrid Harvest data for Guam from creel having ‘‘some published and methods and gears (Newton et al., 2007; surveys and commercial purchase unpublished data to support the Wilkinson, 2008; Armada et al., 2009; records were obtained from the NOAA conclusion this threat is likely to affect Cinner et al., 2009; NMFS, 2012). This Western Pacific Fisheries Information the species with the severity and tremendous increase in fisheries using Network. Creel survey data were geographic scope ascribed’’. In other both selective and non-selective gears is collected from 1982 to 2009. Based on words, they felt that harvest is a a significant factor in the high severity the results of the creel surveys, a total legitimate threat for all size classes, of threat to adult bumphead parrotfish. of 10 bumphead parrotfish (0.12 metric however there is more evidence to In addition, even though many tons) were harvested in Guam during support the conclusion that adult destructive gears and methods are the survey period. No landings have harvest is a high severity threat to the illegal in most countries with coral reef been reported since 2001 from creel species both currently and in the future, habitat within their jurisdiction, they surveys. Data pertaining to commercial as opposed to the lack of information are still used within the range of sales of parrotfish are provided for available to make the same conclusion bumphead parrotfish. Examples include individual sales and, it is assumed, about juvenile harvest. blast fishing using explosives to kill or correspond to the same time period. As Bumphead parrotfish can be found in stun fish, and the use of poisons like such, commercial sale data estimated a great local abundance at sites isolated bleach or cyanide. Blast fishing is very harvest of 9 fish or 0.45 metric tons from from population centers or protected damaging to coral reef habitat and can 1982 to 2009. from exploitation (Dulvy and Polunin, result in significant time required for Solomon Islands (New Georgia Group) 2004). Observations at remote sites, with recovery (Fox and Caldwell, 2006). creel survey harvest data were obtained minimal to no harvest, are not restricted from August 2000 and July 2001 to one specific geographic region but Summary of Harvest Data (Hamilton, 2003; Aswani and Hamilton, span across the geographic range of Data pertaining to harvest are sparse, 2004). Bumphead parrotfish accounted bumphead parrotfish. Sites with high incomplete, or lacking for a majority of for 60 percent of reef fish catch in human population densities and regions across the range of bumphead Roviana lagoon (Kalikoqu). Total associated fisheries exploitation have

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:43 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Notices 66809

lower densities of bumphead parrotfish is not much known about egg/larval and adults and large juveniles. As such, compared to remote and uninhabited juvenile biology, but it is likely that regulatory mechanisms for harvest locations (Kitalong and Dalzell, 1994; predation on these earlier phases of the methods are not separated into methods Dulvy and Sadovy, 2003; Donaldson life-history may be a more significant specific to adult harvest and juvenile and Dulvy, 2004; Chan et al., 2007; issue than for adults. harvest, unless specifically noted. Thus, Hoey and Bellwood, 2008). Although all types of fisheries regulations that D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory fisheries harvest data are sparse, the may apply to bumphead parrotfish were Mechanisms implication is that lower densities of researched and compiled both inside bumphead parrotfish in more heavily Of the nine threats that the BRT was and outside protected areas, with populated areas may be due to fishing able to assess, regulatory mechanisms particular emphasis on spearfishing, the and other human activities. Munoz et al. have limited relevance to one of them primary gear type for directed fishing (2012) provide the first scientific (recruitment limitation or variability (NMFS, 2012). documentation of aggressive under Factor E below), because Loss and degradation of juvenile headbutting behavior between male regulation cannot directly control this habitat may be caused by a wide variety bumphead parrotfish. They propose that threat or its root cause. However, of activities because juveniles inhabit this dramatic aspect of the species’ regulatory mechanisms are relevant to mangrove swamps, seagrass beds, coral social and reproductive behavior has the other threats. For the purposes of reef lagoons, and likely other coastal gone unnoticed until now for one of two evaluating Factor D, these eight threats habitats. Although adults typically reasons: because low population are grouped and referred to as follows: occur in coral reefs, many of the impacts densities resulting from overfishing Habitat (juvenile habitat loss/ that exist for juvenile habitat also apply reduce competition for resources, or degradation, adult habitat loss/ in adult habitat areas. Regulations because headbutting contests are degradation, pollution); Harvest (adult related to the two primary habitats used common, but negative responses to harvest, juvenile harvest, predation by the species, mangrove swamps and humans in exploited populations (harvest regulation of potential coral reefs, were also researched and preclude observations of natural bumphead parrotfish predators)); and compiled both inside and outside of behavior. However, this behavior has Climate Change (global warming, ocean protected areas. Pollution as a threat is not been reported in many other well- acidification). Habitat Loss/Degradation relevant to habitat loss and degradation studied areas with densities and Harvest threats are regulated much for both juveniles and adults and is approaching or exceeding that of this differently than Climate Change threats, assessed within existing regulations for study site, so there is not enough and thus regulatory mechanisms for specific habitat types. Because seagrass information to conclude in what ways these are assessed and discussed beds are found in or near mangroves this behavior may be related to separately. and coral reefs, they are not considered population density, if any. Assessment of Existing Regulatory separately (NMFS, 2012). Harvest Conclusion Mechanisms Relevant to Habitat and Overall Patterns and Summary for Given their vulnerability based on life Harvest Threats Existing Regulatory Mechanisms history characteristics and the sparse This section summarizes the Several overall patterns emerged from data on harvest, the BRT concluded that assessment of regulatory mechanisms the compilation and evaluation of the severity of threat from harvest was for Habitat Loss/Degradation and existing regulatory mechanisms medium for juveniles and high for Harvest threats from the Management addressing Harvest and Habitat Loss/ adults. Report (NMFS, 2012). Degradation threats to bumphead Because habitat and harvest threats parrotfish. C. Disease and Predation are generally due to localized human A wide array of regulatory There is very little information on the activities, and therefore controllable by mechanisms exists within the 46 areas impacts of competition, disease, regulatory mechanisms at the national in bumphead parrotfish range that are parasites, and predation on bumphead or local levels, relevant regulatory intended to address the threats of parrotfish. The BRT only had enough mechanisms (laws, decrees, regulations, habitat loss/degradation and harvest for information to rate the threat of etc., for the management of fisheries, the species. Australia, Fiji, Maldives, predation, rating its severity as ‘‘low’’ coastal habitats, and protected areas) Micronesia, Palau, and Samoa all have historically and ‘‘low—’’ both currently were assessed for the 45 countries (and fisheries regulations pertaining and over a 40–100 year future time disputed areas) within the range of specifically to parrotfish species, in horizon. The lack of habitat specificity bumphead parrotfish. These some cases specifically bumphead or diet specificity by this species would mechanisms were grouped into two parrotfish. These range from prohibition likely reduce the role of competitive categories: (1) Regulatory mechanisms of take for all parrotfish, to size and bag processes. An exception might be for fisheries and coastal management; limits, to seasonal restrictions, to listing competition for adult sleeping habitat if and (2) Additional regulations within as an Endangered Species (Fiji). These other large organisms (sharks, wrasses, MPAs and other relevant protected areas six countries together represent 26 other parrotfishes, etc.) are vying for the (e.g., mangroves). Generally, the first percent of total coral reef habitat and same nighttime shelters. Occasional category encompasses a broad array of 13.1 percent of mangrove habitat in the predation by sharks has been discussed laws and decrees across many 46 areas within bumphead parrotfish in several parts of this report, but this jurisdictional scales from national to range. is not thought to be important for local, whereas the second level consists Twenty-four out of the 46 areas have bumphead parrotfish population of additional regulations that may apply some sort of regulations pertaining to dynamics. There is insufficient within MPAs/protected areas within spearfishing. These include prohibiting information to conclude that any of each jurisdiction (NMFS, 2012). spearfishing altogether, prohibiting these issues will play a significant role Although adult harvest is better fishing with SCUBA, prohibiting fishing individually or cumulatively in the documented than juvenile harvest, with lights (limiting night spearfishing), short- or long-term outlook for many of the gear types discussed area closures, permit requirements, or bumphead parrotfish populations. There previously may be used to harvest both various combinations of those. Some

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:43 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 66810 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Notices

regulations may only apply in some (2012) asserts that customary marine some level of extraction (IUCN, 2010). areas within a country or jurisdiction tenure, or traditional resource Within bumphead parrotfish range, 20 and some only within marine protected management by indigenous cultures, percent of coral reef areas are in areas (MPAs). Those 24 areas combined has high social acceptance and Australia, most of which are within the represent 63.6 percent of total coral reef compliance and may work fairly well Great Barrier Reef Marine Park habitat within the 46 areas in bumphead for fisheries management and (GBRMP); more than 33 percent of the parrotfish range, although in some cases conservation where it is still strong. GBRMP areas are known as ‘‘green regulations do not apply throughout the Marine protected areas simplify zones’’ within which fishing is entirely entire area of coral reef habitat. management and reduce enforcement prohibited (GBRMPA, not dated). A different set of 24 out of the 46 costs for fish populations where little Additionally, Fiji (3.1 percent of coral areas within the species range have biological information is available reef area in bumphead range) and the some sort of regulatory mechanisms in (Bohnsack, 1998), which makes them an Maldives (2.5 percent of coral reef in place that offer some protection to attractive and viable option for reef bumphead range) prohibit take of mangrove habitat. These regulations fishery management and conservation, parrotfish, so coral reef areas within include prohibition on mangrove especially in developing countries those jurisdictions are essentially no- harvest and/or sale, inclusion of (Russ, 2002). There has been recent take areas for bumpheads. When mangroves in protected areas, and rapid growth in coral reef and coastal combined, a minimum estimate of coral sustainable harvest and/or restoration MPAs. In 2000, there were 660 reef habitat that can be considered no- requirements. Combined, these 24 areas protected areas world-wide that take within bumphead parrotfish range account for 94.8 percent of mangrove included coral reefs (Spalding et al., is 12.2 percent (minimum because there habitat in the 46 areas within the range 2001). Mora et al. (2006) compiled a may be additional no-take marine of bumphead parrotfish. database in 2006 with 908 MPAs reserves among the rest of the 1,874 Spearfishing regulations exist in a covering 18.7 percent of the world’s MPAs within bumphead range but Mora majority (17 out of 24) of the areas coral reefs. The Reefs at Risk Revisited et al. (2006) were unable to within the area defined by the BRT as report (Burke et al., 2011) indicates that systematically identify and calculate the significant portion of the species now 2,679 MPAs exist (a four-fold those areas). Of note here is a recently range (SPOIR). Regulations providing increase in one decade),covering 27 proposed network of MPAs including a some level of protection for mangrove percent of coral reefs worldwide, over large percentage of no-take areas habitat exist in an even larger majority 1,800 of which occur within the range throughout Australia’s EEZ, in addition (19 out of 24) of areas within SPOIR. of bumphead parrotfish (NMFS 2012, to the GBRMP. Known as the Customary governance and Appendix A–1). An estimated 25 Commonwealth Marine Reserves management remain important in many percent of coral reef area within Network, if finalized, this action would areas throughout bumphead parrotfish bumphead parrotfish range is within greatly increase the area of marine range and may confer conservation MPAs. Additionally, over 650 protected protected zones and maintain about 1 3 benefits to the species. After intensive ⁄ areas have been established throughout of all marine protected areas as no-take efforts by governments in the past to the range that include mangrove habitat centrally manage coastal fisheries, there zones throughout the MPA network in (Spalding et al., 2010; NMFS, 2012). Australia’s EEZ (Commonwealth of has been a shift in government policies MPA is a broad term that can include Australia, 2012). No-take marine from a centralized or ‘‘top-down’’ a wide range of regulatory structures. reserves simplify management and approach to restore resources to a According to Mora et al. (2006), 5.3 reduce enforcement costs for fish ‘‘bottom-up’’ or community-based percent of global reefs were in extractive approach. This community-based MPAs that allowed take, 12 percent populations where little biological management approach is more were inside multi-use MPAs that were information is available (Bohnsack, widespread in Oceania today than any defined as zoned areas including take 1998) which makes them an attractive other tropical region in the world and no-take grounds, and 1.4 percent and viable option for reef fishery (Johannes, 2002). We found were in no-take MPAs, although this management and conservation, documentation that at least 16 of the 46 information is now outdated. MPAs that especially in developing countries areas within bumphead parrotfish range occur within the range of the bumphead (Russ, 2002). employ traditional governance systems parrotfish certainly represent different On a global scale, Selig and Bruno based on customary and traditional levels of protection from no-take zones (2010) found that MPAs can be a useful resource management practices to limited restrictions on fishing and tool for maintaining coral cover and that throughout all or part of the country, other activities. There is evidence that benefits resulting from MPA most of which are explicitly recognized no-take marine reserves can be establishment increase over time. The and supported by their national successful fisheries management tools Reefs at Risk Revisited report from 2011 governments. Notably, the national and many have been shown to increase offers effectiveness ratings for 30 government in Indonesia recognizes that fish populations relative to areas outside percent of the 2,679 MPAs compiled customary law and/or traditional of the reserves or the same area before therein. Within bumphead parrotfish management is adapted to local areas the reserve was established (Mosquera range, 25 percent of total reef area and therefore more effective than a et al., 2000; Gell and Roberts, 2003). within rated MPAs are in MPAs rated as homogeneous national law. As such, Mosquera et al. (2000) note in particular ‘‘effective’’, defined as managed coral reef fisheries management is that parrotfishes responded positively to sufficiently well that local threats are decentralized and delegated to the 503 protection, and species with large body not undermining natural ecosystem Districts where District laws and size and those that are the target of function; 44 percent of reef area within regulations are based on customary law fisheries (both of which describe rated MPAs are in MPAs rated as and/or traditional management. bumphead parrotfish) respond ‘‘partially effective’’, defined as Indonesia accounts for 40 percent of particularly well. It is noted, however, managed such that local threats were mangrove habitat and 18.5 percent of that a very small proportion of global significantly lower than adjacent non- coral reef habitat in the 46 areas within MPAs are no-take reserves that allow no managed sites, but there still may be bumphead parrotfish range. Fenner fishing while the majority allow for some detrimental effects on ecosystem

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:43 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Notices 66811

function; 30.6 percent of total reef area While a body of literature exists on even if these MPAs are positively within rated MPAs are in MPAs rated as MPA effectiveness, reserve size, and affecting the species, there is no ‘‘not effective’’, defined as unmanaged design, Ban et al. (2011) found that the documentation to reflect these changes. or where management was insufficient majority of these studies originate from The combination of local MPA to reduce local threats in any developed countries and/or present establishment and customary meaningful way. Sixty-nine percent of theoretical models; as such, generally governance and enforcement, along with reef areas within MPAs are in MPAs accepted recommendations on MPA the trend toward integrating local that are unrated. reserve design and management need to management regimes into regional scale Effectiveness of protected areas be adapted to the needs of developing planning in developing countries, is depends not only on implementation countries. Sixty-six percent of coral reef encouraging for conservation. Based on and enforcement of regulations, but also habitat in bumphead parrotfish range is these factors, along with the existence of on reserve design; reserves are not in fact in developing countries (as regulatory mechanisms and marine always created or designed with an defined by the Human Development protected areas in developed countries understanding of how they will affect Index; http://hdr.undp.org/en/ with more capacity for enforcement, we biological factors or how they can be countries/). Despite the demonstrated believe that regulatory mechanisms designed to meet biological goals more effectiveness of no-take zones, the throughout bumphead parrotfish range effectively (Halpern, 2003). Even results broader definition of MPA to include may confer some conservation benefit to from the same regulatory scheme can other management regimes (time/area the species, although unquantifiable, differ between species within the closures, gear restrictions, zoning for and the inadequacy of regulatory protected ecosystem. As such, global controlled use and limitations) better mechanisms is not a contributing factor assessments are only moderately incorporates essential social aspects of to increased extinction risk for the informative and do not reflect important communities in developing coral reef species. considerations in MPA effectiveness on countries (Ban et al., 2011). MPA critics often point to problems Assessment of Existing Regulatory a regional or local scale. The results of with compliance and enforcement. MPA Mechanisms Relevant to Climate one study on Guam demonstrate that a size can affect both its effectiveness at Change Threats reduction in fishing pressure had a conserving the necessary space/ In terms of coral reef protection, even positive effect on the demography of resources for species to recover and if countries participating in the current Lethrinus harak through the significant compliance rates. Kritzer (2003) found international agreements to reduce accumulation of older individuals in that noncompliance is more prevalent greenhouse gases were able to reduce certain areas (Taylor and McIlwain, around the boundaries of an MPA, and emissions enough and at a quick enough 2010). Lethrinus harak is a reef fish that, a single large MPA provides much rate to meet the goal of capping similar to bumphead parrotfish, greater stability in both protected increasing average global temperature at constitutes an important part of many population size and yield at high fishing 2°C above pre-industrial levels, there inshore artisanal, commercial, and mortality rates as noncompliance would still be moderate to severe recreational fisheries (Carpenter and increases. As discussed previously, consequences for coral reef ecosystems Allen, 1989). This species is easily customary governance systems exist in (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999; Bernstein et al., targeted by fishers and heavily many countries where bumpheads are 2007; Eakin, 2009; Leadley et al., 2010). exploited. On Saipan, the abundance of found. The nature of a customary Existing regulatory mechanisms and L. harak increased 4-fold (on average) governance system would likely result conservation efforts targeting reduction from 2000 to 2005 (Starmer et al., 2008); in many smaller MPAs as individual in greenhouse gases are therefore Taylor and McIlwain (2010) attribute villages would manage their local inadequate. However, the BRT Report this increase not only to the recent ban marine areas; however, customary concludes, and we agree, that climate on certain fishing methods (SCUBA governance is likely to have high change threats are not thought to be spearfishing and gill, drag, and compliance (Fenner, 2012). Integrating primary drivers of bumphead parrotfish surround nets) but also the presence of local scale management into larger population dynamics, either now or well enforced MPAs. In Western regional planning schemes can further over a 40–100 year future time horizon Australia, contrasting effects of MPAs add to the effectiveness of MPAs. (Kobayashi et al., 2011; NMFS, 2012). were observed on the abundance of two Examples of where this combination of Overall Conclusions Regarding exploited reef fishes; a species of wrasse traditional institution of marine did not appear to respond to protection, Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory protected or marine managed areas and Mechanisms while the coral trout (a sea bass) showed integration of local approaches into a significant increase in abundance after regional or national regulation has Overall, existing regulatory eight years of protection at two MPA occurred within the range of bumphead mechanisms throughout the species’ sites (Nardi et al., 2004). The authors parrotfish include Fiji (Tawake et al., global range vary in effectiveness in note that, while MPAs are clearly an 2001; Gell and Roberts, 2003; Ban et al., addressing the most serious threats to effective tool for increasing the local 2011; Mills et al., 2011;), Philippines the bumphead parrotfish. In many abundance of some reef fishes, the (Eisma-Osorio et al., 2009; Ban et al., regions, a broad array of national spatial and temporal scales required for 2011), Solomon Islands (Game et al., regulatory mechanisms, increase in their success may vary among species. 2010; Ban et al., 2011) American Samoa MPAs, and resurgence of customary McClanahan et al. (2007) studied the (Tuimavave, 2012) and Yap State in the management may be effective by recovery of coral reef fishes through 37 Federated States of Micronesia (Gorong, addressing the two greatest threats to years of protection at four marine parks 2012). the species, including adult harvest, as in Kenya and found that parrotfish A detailed evaluation of the 1,874 described above under factor B, and loss biomass initially recovered rapidly, but MPAs within the range of bumphead and degradation of juvenile habitat, as then exhibited some decline, primarily parrotfish was beyond the scope of the described above under factor A. We due to competition with more steadily management report. Population note, however, that because many of increasing taxonomic groups and a monitoring data are so scarce for this these regulatory mechanisms are decline in smaller individuals. species across most of its range that relatively new, their effectiveness

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:43 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 66812 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Notices

remains to be demonstrated. Moreover, The other threat considered under mechanisms. A variety of regulatory regulatory mechanisms are not deemed Factor E for which the BRT had enough mechanisms including a recent increase effective in addressing the threat of information to rank severity was in protected areas (as described above) climate change, although this threat is recruitment limitation or variability. are in place throughout the range of less important to bumphead parrotfish, The BRT Report evaluated the severity bumphead parrotfish that may confer as described below under factor E. In of this threat as ‘‘low’’ historically, conservation benefit to the species by conclusion, we find that existing ‘‘medium’’ currently, and ‘‘medium +’’ addressing this threat. regulatory mechanisms are likely to over a 40–100 year future time horizon. Conservation Efforts have a positive, if undetermined, effect Areas of the Great Barrier Reef, for on the conservation of species, and are example, appear to be lacking juveniles. As described above, Section 4(a)(1) of not a contributing factor to increased Both local retention and incoming the ESA requires the Secretary to extinction risk for bumphead parrotfish. propagules may be demographically consider factors A through E above in a important, although their relative listing decision. In addition, Section E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors importance is unknown. It remains 4(b)(1)(A) requires the Secretary to Affecting Its Continued Existence unclear whether any shortages of consider these five factors based upon Climate Change threats to bumphead juveniles reflect shortages of egg/larval the best available data ‘‘after taking into parrotfish include global warming and supply, or instead are indicative of account those efforts, if any, being made ocean acidification. The BRT Report bottlenecks in older life history stages. by any State or foreign nation * * * to states that overall, climate change Since recruitment limitation is protect such species, whether by threats ‘‘are not thought to be plausible commonly documented in other reef predator control, protection of habitat drivers of bumphead parrotfish fish species, this is a plausible limiting and food supply, or other conservation population dynamics, either now or in factor for population growth of this practices.’’ Section 4(b)(1)(A) authorizes the foreseeable future’’. species (Kobayashi et al., 2011). us to more broadly take into account The BRT rated the severity of global conservation efforts of States and warming as ‘‘low’’ historically, Synergistic Effects foreign nations including laws and ‘‘medium’’ currently, and ‘‘medium +’’ In the status review, we evaluated the regulations, management plans, over a 40–100 year future time horizon. five factors individually and in conservation agreements, and similar The BRT assigned a medium + ranking combination to determine the risk to the documents, to determine if these efforts for global warming threat severity in the species. The BRT determined that, with may improve the status of the species future, because of the potential impact respect to factors A, B, C, and E, there being considered for ESA listing. The of warmer seawater temperatures on are no data to draw conclusions or even PECE policy (described above) applies pelagic life history stages. Seawater speculate on synergistic effects among to conservation efforts that have yet to temperature increases may affect the factors. Given the lack of such data, be fully implemented or have yet to fertilized eggs and larvae in the pelagic it would be precautionary to assume demonstrate effectiveness. environment by exceeding biological that any combination of hazards will One purpose of the Management tolerances, and/or indirect ecological work together with a net effect greater Report (NMFS, 2012) was to describe effects, e.g., increasing oligotrophic than the sum of their separate effects. and assess conservation efforts for the areas (Kobayashi et al., 2011). The BRT recognizes that this species is bumphead parrotfish throughout its The BRT rated the severity of ocean extremely data poor and should be the range. For the purposes of the status acidification as ‘‘nil’’ historically, ‘‘nil focus of continued study. review, conservation efforts are defined +’’ currently, and ‘‘low –’’ over a 40–100 Existing regulatory mechanisms under as non-regulatory or voluntary year future time horizon. The impacts of Factor D can have impacts that interact conservation actions undertaken by both ocean acidification on coral abundance with existing threats under the other governmental and non-governmental and coral reefs are increasingly four factors by potentially reducing the organizations (NGOs, e.g., conservation recognized (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., impacts of those threats and conferring groups, private companies, academia, 2007). However, since the bumphead some conservation benefit to the species etc.) that are intended to abate threats parrotfish is not an obligate corallivore, by regulating the human activities described in the BRT Report or are it may not be directly affected by ocean posing the threat. Harvest is a threat that incidentally doing so. Conservation acidification. This is because adult may be alleviated by existing regulatory efforts with the potential to address bumphead parrotfish do not appear to mechanisms like fisheries regulations threats to bumphead parrotfish include, be food-limited or space-limited in any and protected areas. Harvest of adults but are not limited to: fisheries portion of its range. The species also was considered in the BRT Report to be management plans, coral reef appears to be adaptable to a variety of one of the two most important threats to monitoring, coral reef resilience biotic and abiotic conditions, given its the short- and long-term status of research, coral reef education and/or wide geographic range. The existing bumphead parrotfish, but the BRT did outreach, marine debris removal nearshore variability and the nearshore not fully consider implications of projects, coral reef restoration, and acid buffering capability both serve to existing regulatory mechanisms in the others. These conservation efforts may reduce the effects of climate change and 46 areas within the current range of be conducted by countries, states, local ocean acidification on bumphead bumphead parrotfish addressing governments, individuals, NGOs, parrotfish. Short- or long-term changes historical, current, or future harvest- academic institutions, private in ocean acidification are unlikely to related threats to the species. These companies, individuals, or other have a strong impact on bumphead regulatory mechanisms may provide entities. They also include global parrotfish populations unless it is via important conservation benefits when conservation organizations that conduct some unknown direct or indirect effect considering the significance of the coral reef and/or marine environment on three dimensional refuge sites or egg/ current and future impact of harvest- conservation projects, global coral reef larval survival and subsequent related threats to bumphead parrotfish, monitoring networks and research recruitment dynamics, as noted above although they are unquantifiable. projects, regional or global conventions, for global warming (Kobayashi et al., Similarly, habitat degradation may be and education and outreach projects 2011). alleviated or mitigated by regulatory throughout the range of bumphead

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:43 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Notices 66813

parrotfish. After taking into account danger of going extinct throughout a These 5 important ecological these conservation efforts, as more fully significant portion of its range, the components were used in an additive discussed in the management report entire species is subject to listing and fashion to construct a composite SPOIR (NMFS, 2012), our evaluation of the must be protected everywhere. index, the median value of which was Section 4(a)(1) factors is that the The first step the BRT took in 0.4506 over all geographic strata. Of 63 conservation efforts identified may developing an approach for bumphead strata used by the BRT for the current confer some conservation benefit to the parrotfish extinction risk analysis was to range of bumphead parrotfish, 32 strata species, although the amount of benefit define these spatial (SPOIR) and had a SPOIR index greater than the is undetermined. The conservation temporal scales for application to the median value. These 32 strata were efforts do not at this time positively or analysis. Next the BRT defined a Critical defined as SPOIR by the BRT, and negatively affect our evaluation of the Risk Threshold against which the status include American Samoa, Andaman and Section 4(a)(1) factors or our of the species would be compared over Nicobar, Australia, Papua New Guinea, determination regarding the status of the these spatial and temporal scales Cambodia, China, Christmas Island, bumphead parrotfish. The Management (Kobayashi et al., 2011). These three key Comoro Islands, East Timor, India, Report also considered conservation definitions are described below. Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, efforts that have yet to be fully The ESA does not define the terms Malaysia, Maldives, Mayotte, implemented or have yet to demonstrate SPOIR or ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ In Micronesia, Mozambique, Myanmar, effectiveness (under the PECE policy) application, a portion of a species’ range Timor Leste, Palau, Papua New Guinea, and found that these conservation is generally considered ‘‘significant’’ if Paracel Islands, Philippines, Seychelles, efforts do not at this time positively or its contribution to the viability of the Solomon Islands, Spratly Islands, Sri negatively affect the species status. species is so important that, without Lanka, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, and Vietnam (Kobayashi et al., 2011). Extinction Risk Analysis that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction. Or put another Following the completion of the BRT The Extinction Risk Analysis is the way, we would not consider the portion report, USFWS and NMFS published a third step in the process of making an Draft Policy on Interpretation of the of the range at issue to be ‘‘significant’’ ESA listing determination for bumphead Phrase ‘‘Significant Portion of Its if there is sufficient resiliency, parrotfish. For this step, we completed Range’’ in the Endangered Species Act’s redundancy, and representation an extinction risk analysis to determine Definitions of Endangered Species and elsewhere in the species’ range that the the status of the species. We asked the Threatened Species (76 FR 76987; species would not be in danger of BRT to develop an extinction risk December 9, 2011). The Draft Policy has extinction throughout its range if the analysis approach based on the best not yet been finalized as the Services population in that portion of the range available information for bumphead continue to evaluate comments and in question disappeared. When parrotfish. The extinction risk results in information received during the public analyzing portions of a species’ range, the BRT Report (Kobayashi et al., 2011) comment period. While the policy are based on statutory factors A, B, C, we consider the importance of the remains in draft form, the Services are and E listed under section 4(a)(1) of the individuals in that portion to the to consider the interpretations and ESA. Factor D (‘‘inadequacy of existing viability of the species in determining principles contained in the Draft Policy regulatory mechanisms’’) was assessed whether a portion is significant, and we as non-binding guidance in making in the Management Report (NMFS, consider the status of the species in that individual listing determinations, while 2012) and this finding (above), and not portion. taking into account the unique considered by the BRT in its extinction For purposes of the bumphead circumstances of the species under risk analysis for the species. Thus, a parrotfish, the BRT analyzed SPOIR consideration. Accordingly, we have final extinction risk analysis was done based on an ecological index consisting analyzed the BRT’s findings in light of by determining whether the results of of five criteria, summarized as: (1) the Draft Policy to determine whether the BRT’s extinction risk analysis would Distance from the center of Indo-Pacific this affects the SPOIR determination. be affected by the incorporation of marine shore fish biodiversity to We apply the following principles Factor D, thereby addressing the five account for the underlying from the Draft Policy to this status 4(a)(1) factors. Following are results of biogeographic pattern; (2) adult habitat review. First, if a species is found to be the BRT’s extinction risk analysis based area to account for adult habitat endangered or threatened in only a on factors A, B, C, and E (Kobayashi et availability importance; (3) juvenile significant portion of its range, the al., 2011), our determination with habitat area to account for juvenile entire species is listed as endangered or regard to extinction risk based on factor habitat availability importance; (4) a threatened, as appropriate, and the Act’s D (NMFS 2011a), and a final extinction connectivity measurement of outgoing protections apply across the species’ risk determination for bumphead contributions to all other geographic entire range. Second, the range of a parrotfish based on all five factors. strata to account for demographic species is considered to be the general importance; and (5) a connectivity geographical area within which that Definitions measurement of incoming contributions species can be found at the time of the There are two situations in which from all other geographic strata to particular status determination. While NMFS determines that a species is further account for demographic lost historical range is relevant to the eligible for listing under ESA: (1) Where importance (Kobayashi et al., 2011). analysis of the status of the species, it the species is in danger of extinction, or Analyzing the significance of the does not constitute a significant portion is likely to become in danger of portion of the species’ range in terms of of a species’ range. Third, if the species extinction in the foreseeable future, its biological importance to the is not endangered or threatened throughout all its range; or (2) where the conservation of the species is consistent throughout all of its range, but it is species is in danger of extinction, or is with NMFS’ past practices as well as the endangered or threatened within a likely to become in danger of extinction Draft Policy on Interpretation of the significant portion of its range, and the in the foreseeable future, throughout a Phrase ‘‘Significant Portion of Its population in that significant portion is significant portion of its range (SPOIR). Range’’ (76 FR 76987; December 9, a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather Accordingly, as long as the species is in 2011). than the entire taxonomic species or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:43 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 66814 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Notices

subspecies. Finally, a portion of the Our next step in this evaluation under review of a concentrated threat of species’ range is significant if its the Draft Policy was to review all of the harvest in any portion of the species’ contribution to the viability of the available information used in range. species is so important that without that completing this status review to identify The geographic scope for juvenile portion, its abundance, spatial any portions of the range of the species habitat loss and degradation was rated distribution, productivity, and diversity that warrant further consideration (76 by the BRT as ‘‘Moderate’’, defined as would be so impaired that the species FR 77002; December 9, 2011). We likely to be occurring at more than some would be in danger of extinction, either evaluated whether substantial to many, but not all, areas in its scope currently or in the foreseeable future. information indicated ‘‘that (i) the and to affect the species at a number of Under the Draft Policy, the portions may be significant [within the locations within its range. Again, determination of a portion’s meaning of the Draft Policy] and (ii) the specific locations or portions of the ‘‘significance’’ emphasizes its biological species [occupying those portions] may range where this threat may be importance and contribution to the be in danger of extinction or likely to concentrated were not identified by the conservation of the species. When become so within the foreseeable BRT and we found no further evidence determining a portion’s biological or future’’ (76 FR 77002; December 9, that the threat of juvenile habitat loss is conservation importance, we consider 2011). Under the Draft Policy, both acutely concentrated in any specific the species’ resiliency, or those considerations must apply to warrant portions of the species’ range. We characteristics that allow it to recover listing a species as endangered or acknowledge that there are likely from periodic disturbances. We also threatened throughout its range based variations in the severity of threats consider the species’ redundancy upon threats within a portion of the throughout the species’ range but we (having multiple aggregations range. In other words, if either have insufficient information to distributed across the landscape, consideration does not apply, we would conclude that any specific portion of the abundance, spatial distribution) as a not list a species based solely upon its range warrants further consideration measure of its margin of safety to status within a significant portion of its due to acute or concentrated threats. Finally, the BRT clarified that its withstand catastrophic events. Finally, range. qualitative method was only a we consider its representation (the range Thus, in addition to the evaluation of preliminary delineation of SPOIR for of variation found in a species; spatial ecological and biological significance of this species, and that the tool was distribution, and diversity) as a measure portions of the range completed by the primarily useful as a relative reference of its adaptive capability. BRT, we considered whether there are because the ‘‘absolute magnitude of this We have reconsidered the BRT’s portions of the range in which threats SPOIR is not ecologically interpretable conclusions in light of the non-binding are so concentrated or acute as to place in present form.’’ We acknowledge that guidance of the Draft Policy. As the species in those portions in danger the BRT’s approach in determining indicated above, the BRT determined of extinction, and if so, whether those SPOIR is a predictive judgment based SPOIR first by identifying and portions are significant. No information on the best available—albeit limited— qualitatively scoring five ecologically presented in the BRT report, science, and therefore must be used significant components, and then by management report, or that has with caution. The BRT also identifying the SPOIR from those strata otherwise been identified indicates a acknowledges that the selection of all that scored higher than the median high concentration of harvest or habitat strata with a SPOIR index above the value. We believe that the BRT’s five degradation threats in one or more median value for inclusion in SPOIR ecologically significant components are specific portions within bumphead was a conservative approach; the consistent with the Draft Policy’s parrotfish range. The BRT rated the species is able to persist in most, if not emphasis on identifying those biological geographic scope of each threat all, of the geographic strata presented, factors that are necessary to contribute identified; adult harvest was rated as therefore concerns of underestimating to species viability—that is, abundance, ‘‘Localized’’, defined as ‘‘likely to be the actual minimum threshold would spatial distribution, productivity, and confined in its scope and to affect the appear unlikely; i.e., there is no diversity. For example, the identified species in a limited portion of its compelling evidence to suggest that the SPOIR considered spatial structure that, range’’. The BRT did not identify any SPOIR index threshold should be if removed, would result in isolated and portions of the range where this threat greater than the median, and is more fragmented remaining bumphead may be concentrated and this rating likely lower than the median, hence it populations. It also considered likely reflects the limited information is suggested that SPOIR was biologically important microhabitat available specific to bumphead conservatively delineated in this characteristics and connectivity of parrotfish harvest. Data pertaining to exercise. subareas to adjacent portions of range, harvest are sparse, incomplete, or With respect to this relatively which are necessary to ensure lacking for a majority of regions across numerous, widely dispersed, and continued productivity and diversity to the range and in most cases bumpheads interconnected species, we consider the respond to future environmental are not distinguished in the records BRT’s approach to be an appropriate changes. from other parrotfish species. Of known tool for evaluating the biological We note that the BRT’s additive fisheries assessments, harvest importance of those range portions that, approach may not capture all possible information specific to bumphead if removed, would so impair the combinations of demographic and parrotfish is available for only five of abundance, spatial distribution, population changes and concentrations the 63 strata evaluated by the BRT. The productivity, and diversity of the of threats that occur currently and might records that exist for these five strata do species that it would be in danger of occur in the future. The BRT in fact not indicate any area of exceptionally extinction. Our additional evaluation of acknowledged that a combinational intensive harvest, and it is not possible portions of the range that may warrant approach may be more useful to to compare these strata with other further consideration due to determine SPOIR, but that it was not portions of the species range that lack concentrated threats does not support possible with the limited information similar information. We found no the delineation of any additional or currently available. further evidence during the status different portions of the species range as

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:43 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Notices 66815

significant. Accordingly, our SPOIR future status of this species. For current range at 40 years in the analysis remains the same when Accordingly, while it was appropriate future, the largest proportion (56 considered in light of the non-binding for the BRT to consider a time frame of percent) of the BRT’s total votes fell into guidance of the Draft Policy. up to one hundred years to gauge the Category 1 (0–33 percent likelihood of The BRT selected time frames over sensitivity of its extinction analysis, for falling below CRT), 40 percent fell into which identified threats are likely to purposes of our determination, we Category 2 (33–66 percent likelihood of impact the biological status of the believe that a 40-year foreseeable future falling below CRT), and 4 percent fell species and can be reasonably is more reliable for evaluating the future into Category 3 (66–100 percent predicted. The appropriate period of conservation status of the species. likelihood of falling below CRT; time corresponding to the foreseeable Accordingly, we adopt this 40-year Kobayashi et al. 2011). future depends on the particular kinds period as the species’ foreseeable future. For current range at 100 years in the of threats, life-history characteristics, The BRT used a qualitative approach future, the largest proportion (48 and specific habitat requirements for the that characterizes extinction risk in percent) of the BRT’s total votes again species under consideration. The terms of the certainty that the species’ fell into Category 1 (0–33 percent bumphead parrotfish BRT selected 40 condition will decline below a Critical likelihood of falling below CRT), 46 years as a working time frame, which is Risk Threshold (CRT) within a certain percent fell into Category 2 (33–66 the approximate maximum age of time period because data allowing for a percent likelihood of falling below individuals of this species, keeping in quantitative approach were not CRT), and 6 percent fell into Category 3 mind the age at which most females available. The CRT is defined as a (66–100 percent likelihood of falling spawn is approximately 10 years, so that threshold below which the species is of below CRT; Kobayashi et al. 2011). this reference point spans such low abundance or so spatially For SPOIR at 40 years in the future, approximately four bumphead fragmented that it is at risk of the largest proportion (52 percent) of the parrotfish generations. As a means of extinction. The CRT is not defined as a BRT’s total votes again fell into Category evaluating the sensitivity of this period, single abundance number, density, 1 (0–33 percent likelihood of falling an independent vote was taken spatial distribution or trend value; it is below CRT), 42 percent fell into examining 100 years (approximately 10 a qualitative description encompassing Category 2 (33–66 percent likelihood of bumphead parrotfish generations; multiple life-history characteristics and falling below CRT), and 6 percent fell Kobayashi et al., 2011). other important ecological factors. into Category 3 (66–100 percent Under the ESA, the determination of Establishing the CRT level involves likelihood of falling below CRT; the foreseeable future is to be made on consideration of all factors affecting the Kobayashi et al. 2011). a species-by-species basis through an risk of bumphead parrotfish extinction, For SPOIR at 100 years in the future, analysis of the time frames applicable to including depensatory processes, 46 percent of the BRT’s total votes fell the threats to the particular species at environmental stochasticity, and into Category 1 (0–33 percent likelihood issue, including the interactive effect catastrophic events. Depensatory of falling below CRT), 48 percent fell among those threats. Each threat may processes include reproductive failure into Category 2 (33–66 percent have a different time frame associated from low density of reproductive likelihood of falling below CRT), and 6 with it over which we can reliably individuals and genetic processes such percent fell into the Category 3 (66–100 predict impacts to the species. Our as inbreeding. Environmental percent likelihood of falling below CRT; conclusion regarding the future status of stochasticity represents background Kobayashi et al. 2011). the species represents a synthesis of environmental variation. Catastrophes To summarize the BRT’s extinction different time frames associated with result from severe, sudden, and risk analysis results for the four spatial- different threats. deleterious environmental events temporal scales, in three of the four Although available data for threats (Kobayashi et al., 2011). scenarios examined, the largest related to climate change allow for proportion of the BRT’s votes were cast reasonable projections over one Extinction Risk Analysis Results into Category 1 (0–33 percent likelihood hundred years, our ability to make The BRT used a structured decision- of falling below the CRT) and in one reliable predictions over this period making process of expert elicitation to scenario (SPOIR at 100 years) the largest based on existing data for other threats assess the extinction risk for bumphead proportion of their votes fell into affecting bumphead parrotfish, parrotfish. To account for uncertainty in Category 2 (33–66% likelihood of falling including the most serious threats to the the extinction risk analysis, each of the below CRT). species (loss of juvenile habitat and five BRT members distributed 10 votes The BRT’s extinction risk results are adult harvest) involves considerable in three categories representing based only on the statutory factors A, B, uncertainty. We note that the BRT likelihood of the species falling below C, and E listed under section 4(a)(1) of identified significant levels of the CRT. The three categories were 0– the ESA (Kobayashi et al., 2011). The uncertainty regarding all aspects of 33 percent, 33–66 percent, and 66–100 most significant threats to bumphead bumphead parrotfish biology. Although percent likelihood of the species falling parrotfish are adult harvest and juvenile the BRT evaluated extinction risk over below the CRT. The average vote habitat loss/degradation, while juvenile distinct 40- and 100-year time horizons, distribution amongst the 3 categories for harvest, adult habitat loss/degradation, the BRT analyzed the severity of future all five BRT members combined pollution, global warming, and ocean impacts from identified threats and the represents the BRT’s opinion of acidification were considered by the certainty with which they could make extinction risk. Extinction risk was BRT to be of medium threat (Kobayashi those conclusions over a combined 40- evaluated at four spatial-temporal scales et al., 2011). Factor D (‘‘inadequacy of to 100-year time horizon. Our (two time frames over both current existing regulatory mechanisms’’) was determination of the foreseeable future range and in SPOIR): (1) Current range assessed in the Management Report necessarily involves consideration of at 40 years in the future; (2) current (NMFS 2012) and summarized in the most appropriate way to manage range at 100 years in the future; (3) section D of the Threats Evaluation known risks, and is bounded by the SPOIR at 40 years in the future; and (4) above. Based on the information point where we can no longer make SPOIR at 100 years in the future presented in the Management Report, reliable predictions as to the likely (Kobayashi et al., 2011). we conclude that the inadequacy of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:43 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 66816 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Notices

regulatory mechanisms is not a factor Key Conclusions From Biological discrete based on international political contributing to increased extinction risk Review boundaries within which differences in for bumphead parrotfish. Extensive The species is made up of a single control of exploitation, management of fisheries and coastal management laws population over its entire geographic habitat, conservation status, or and decrees in the 46 areas within the range. As indicated above, the ESA regulatory mechanisms exist that are current range of the bumphead requires us to determine whether any significant. Even assuming discreteness parrotfish exist. In addition, up to 25 species warrants listing as endangered based on significant differences in percent of adult and juvenile habitats or threatened. A species includes any management or conservation status are within protected areas. Ideally, some species, subspecies, ‘‘and any distinct defined by political boundaries for proponents of marine reserve design population segment (DPS) of any bumphead parrotfish, there is recommend at least 20 to 30 percent or species of vertebrate fish or wildlife insufficient information to conclude more of habitat be protected as a no-take which interbreeds when mature.’’ Under that the loss of any segment of the areas (Bohnsack et al., 2000; Airame et the joint USFWS–NOAA ‘‘Policy population defined by those boundaries al., 2003; Fernandes et al., 2005; Regarding the Recognition of Distinct would be significant to the taxon as a Gladstone 2007; Gaines et al., 2010), Vertebrate Population Segments Under whole. Significance is evaluated based although the actual area depends on the the Endangered Species Act’’ (61 FR on a variety of factors, including goal in mind. Considering the entire 4722; February 7, 1996) two elements whether the DPS persists in an range of bumphead parrotfish as one are considered when evaluating whether ecological setting unusual or unique for ecosystem in order to apply this concept a population segment qualifies as a the taxon, if there is evidence that loss is not necessarily feasible; however, as distinct population segment (DPS) of the DPS would result in a significant discussed previously, at least 12 per under the ESA: (1) The discreteness of gap in the range of a taxon, if there is cent of coral reef areas within the population segment in relation to evidence that the DPS represents the bumphead parrotfish range are the remainder of the species or only surviving natural occurrence of a essentially no-take areas for this species. subspecies to which it belongs; and (2) taxon that may be more abundant as an We acknowledge that this percentage is the significance of the population introduced population outside its lower than the bar set for marine reserve segment to the species or subspecies to historic range, or if there is evidence design in the literature. We express no which it belongs. If a population that the DPS differs markedly from other conclusion on whether existing segment is discrete and significant (i.e., populations of the species in its genetic regulatory mechanisms should or could it is a DPS), its evaluation for characteristics. We have no evidence to provide greater protection to the endangered or threatened status will be conclude that any of these significance bumphead parrotfish. We conclude only based on the ESA’s definitions of those criteria apply to the bumphead that the inadequacy of regulatory terms and a review of the factors parrotfish. Specifically, there is no mechanisms is not a factor contributing enumerated in section 4(a). However, it evidence to suggest the existence of to increased extinction risk of the should be noted that Congress has genetic differences between bumphead species. The Management Report also instructed the Secretary to exercise this parrotfish in different portions of the considered current conservation efforts authority with regard to DPS’s range. There is also no evidence to as well as conservation efforts that have ‘‘sparingly and only when the biological suggest that the loss of any segment of yet to be fully implemented or have yet evidence indicates that such action is the population would cause a to demonstrate effectiveness (under the warranted.’’ (Senate Report 151, 96th significant gap in the range of the taxon PECE policy) and found that these Congress, 1st Session). because the best available science conservation efforts do not at this time Under the DPS Policy, a population indicates one interconnected population positively or negatively affect the segment of a vertebrate species may be throughout the species range based on species status. Accordingly, we considered discrete if it satisfies either estimates of connectivity and a lack of conclude that the information in the one of the following conditions: (1) It is evidence indicating morphological, markedly separated from other Management Report does not support an behavioral, or other regional differences. populations of the same taxon as a adjustment in the BRT’s extinction risk Accordingly, we do not find that consequence of physical, physiological, results. We therefore conclude after distinct population segments of ecological, or behavioral factors; or (2) it considering all five factors that the bumphead parrotfish exist. is delimited by international BRT’s extinction risk results described governmental boundaries within which The species has patchy abundance, above provide the best available differences in control of exploitation, being depleted or absent in many areas information on the current extinction management of habitat, conservation while abundant in others. This risk faced by the bumphead parrotfish. status, or regulatory mechanisms exist conclusion is based on the Abundance Listing Determination that are significant in light of section and Density section of the Biological 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. As discussed more Review, which describes how the As described above, we are fully above, prong (1) is not satisfied abundance of bumphead parrotfish responsible for determining whether the because the species is made up of a varies widely across its range. Patchy bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon single population over its entire abundance throughout the range of a muricatum) warrants listing under the geographic range. In particular, the BRT species is common and due to ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). In order to report describes how available differences in habitat quality/quantity or make this listing determination, we observations and pelagic dispersal exploitation levels at different locations. conducted a comprehensive status modeling support the conclusion that Pinca et al. (2011) examined the relative review, consisting of a Biological the bumphead parrotfish is a single, importance of habitat variability and Review, a Threats Evaluation, and an well-described species that cannot be fishing pressure in influencing reef fish Extinction Risk Analysis, as sub-divided into distinct population communities across 17 Pacific Island summarized above. Key conclusions are segments. countries and territories; they found that described below, which provide the Under the DPS policy, population the relative impact of fishing on fish basis for our listing determination. segments also may be considered populations accounted for 20 percent of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:43 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Notices 66817

the variance while habitat accounted for While abundance is declining across spatially fragmented that it is at risk of 30 percent. the species’ range, the contemporary extinction. As stated earlier, our The species possesses life history population is estimated at 3.9 million conclusion is based on a synthesis of characteristics that increase adults. This conclusion is based on the multiple trends and threats over vulnerability to harvest, including slow Contemporary Global Population and different time periods. The 40-year time growth, late maturation, shallow Global Population Trends sections of frame is a point beyond which our habitat, nocturnal resting in refuge sites the Biological Review. Available ability to predict the status of the that are returned to daily, large size, evidence indicates a historical decline, species when considering the best and conspicuous coloration. This and a continuing trend of decline, scientific and commercial information conclusion is based on the Age and although unquantifiable, in the global available becomes more uncertain, Growth, Reproductive Biology, Habitat population of bumphead parrotfish. The including future impacts from the and Distribution, and Settlement and best estimate of contemporary global primary threats of juvenile habitat loss Recruitment sections of the Biological population abundance of bumphead and adult harvest. Accordingly, so as to Review. Bumphead parrotfish grow parrotfish is 3.9 million adults. avoid basing our findings on slowly and mature at a large size, thus Key Conclusions From Threats speculation, we adopt a 40-year time juveniles and sub-adults can be large, Evaluation frame as the species’ foreseeable future. attractive targets for harvest. Sub-adult The BRT’s extinction risk results are The two most important threats to and adult bumphead parrotfish possess unchanged by the Management Report. bumphead parrotfish are adult harvest a multitude of life history characteristics The BRT’s extinction risk analysis was and juvenile habitat loss. Adult harvest that increase vulnerability to harvest, based on Factors A, B, C, and E and juvenile habitat loss are both rated such as nocturnal resting behavior in (Kobayashi et al., 2011). After also as ‘‘high severity’’ threats to the species, shallow areas, diurnal feeding behavior considering Factor D and conservation both currently and over the next 40–100 on shallow forereefs, large size, and efforts, based on information in the years. All of the other threats to the conspicuous coloration. Several of these species were rated as lower severity, Management Report (NMFS 2012), an traits have also been related to slow both currently and over the next 40–100 adjustment in the BRT’s extinction risk recovery rates for severely depleted years. results is not supported. We therefore populations (Reynolds et al., 2001; Existing regulatory mechanisms may conclude after considering all five Dulvy and Reynolds, 2002; Dulvy et al., provide benefits in addressing the most factors that the BRT’s extinction risk 2003; Reynolds, 2003). serious threats to bumphead parrotfish. results described above provide the best The species possesses life history National and/or local laws and available information on the current characteristics conducive to population regulations, many relatively new marine extinction risk faced by the bumphead resilience including broad pelagic protected areas, and a resurgence of parrotfish. dispersal, frequent spawning, and non- customary management occurring across Conclusion selective feeding. This conclusion is much of the range of the species, may based on the Movements and Dispersal, address both adult harvest and juvenile Based on the key conclusions from Reproductive Biology, Feeding, habitat loss to an undetermined extent. the Biological Review, the Threats Ecosystem Considerations sections of The inadequacy of regulatory Evaluation, and the Extinction Risk the Biological Review. Resiliency mechanisms is not a contributing factor Analysis, we summarize the results of (abundance, spatial distribution, to increased extinction risk for the our comprehensive status review as productivity) describes characteristics of species. follows: (1) The species is made up of a species that allow it to recover from Existing regulatory mechanisms are at a single population over a broad periodic disturbance, as defined in the least as good within SPOIR as outside of geographic range, and its current range NMFS/USFWS joint Draft SPOIR policy SPOIR. Of the 46 countries and areas is indistinguishable from its historical (76 FR 76987; 9 December 2011). The within the range of the bumphead range; (2) while the species possesses broad geographic range of bumphead parrotfish, 26 countries or parts thereof life history characteristics that increase parrotfish includes areas of refuge are considered to be the ‘‘significant vulnerability to harvest, it also where abundance is high and harvest portion of its range’’ (SPOIR). Within possesses characteristics conducive to pressure is low. Although some these 26 areas, regulatory mechanisms population resilience; (3) although unknown proportion of recruitment is are at least as effective as in the other abundance is declining and patchy likely local in nature (Jones et al., 2009; areas of the species’ range. across the species’ range, the Hogan et al., 2012), the combination of contemporary population size is high fecundity and broad pelagic Key Conclusions From Extinction Risk sufficient to maintain population dispersal of eggs and larvae may Analysis viability into the foreseeable future, contribute to replenishment of depleted Bumphead parrotfish are not likely to based on the BRT’s assessment of areas at some level. Non-selective fall below the critical risk threshold extinction risk; (4) existing regulatory feeding allows the species to be resilient within the foreseeable future. In three of mechanisms throughout the species’ to changes in community composition the four spatio-temporal scenarios range may be effective in addressing the within its habitat. In combination, these examined by the BRT, the largest most important threats to the species life history characteristics contribute to proportion of the BRT’s votes indicate (adult harvest and juvenile habitat loss), population resilience. that bumphead parrotfish are 0–33 per but the extent of those conservation The species is broadly distributed, cent likely to fall below the CRT. Within benefits cannot be determined; and (5) and its current range is similar to its SPOIR 100 years into the future, the while the global population is likely to historical range. This conclusion is largest proportion (by a small margin) of further decline, the combination of life based on the Habitat and Distribution the BRTs votes were that bumphead history characteristics, large section of the BRT report, which parrotfish are 33–66% likely to fall contemporary population, and, to a concluded that available information below the CRT. Once again, the CRT is lesser extent, existing regulatory suggests that the current range is defined as a threshold below which the mechanisms indicate that the species is equivalent to the historical range. species is of such low abundance or so not currently in danger of extinction,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:43 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 66818 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Notices

nor is it likely to become in danger of and cobia fisheries will consist of a environmentalists, and non- extinction in the foreseeable future. series of workshops and supplemental governmental organizations (NGOs); These overall results of our status webinars. This notice is for a webinar international experts; and staff of review portray a species that still associated with the Assessment portion Councils, Commissions, and state and occupies its historical range, although at of the SEDAR process. federal agencies. lower and declining abundance, but DATES: The SEDAR 28 Assessment SEDAR 28 Assessment Workshop with both biological characteristics and, Workshop Webinar will be held on Webinar potentially, management measures that November 26, 2012, from 1 p.m. until 5 help maintain the population above the p.m. EDT. The established time may be Panelists will continue deliberations viability threshold. Our information adjusted as necessary to accommodate and discussions regarding modeling does not indicate that this status is the timely completion of discussion methodologies for the Gulf of Mexico likely to change within the foreseeable relevant to the assessment process. Such Spanish mackerel and cobia fisheries. future. adjustments may result in the meeting Special Accommodations Based on these results, we conclude being extended from, or completed prior that the bumphead parrotfish is not to, the times established by this notice. This meeting is accessible to people currently in danger of extinction ADDRESSES: The webinar will be held with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary throughout its range or throughout via a GoToMeeting Webinar Conference. aids should be directed to the Council SPOIR, and is not likely to become in The webinar is open to members of the office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION danger of extinction within the public. Those interested in participating CONTACT) at least 10 business days prior foreseeable future. Accordingly, the should contact Ryan Rindone at SEDAR to the meeting. species does not meet the definition of (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) Dated: November 1, 2012. threatened or endangered. Based on to request an invitation providing Tracey L. Thompson, these findings, our listing determination webinar access information. Please Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable is that the bumphead parrotfish does not request meeting information at least 24 Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. warrant listing as threatened or hours in advance. [FR Doc. 2012–27087 Filed 11–6–12; 8:45 am] endangered at this time. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BILLING CODE 3510–22–P References Ryan Rindone, SEDAR Coordinator, A complete list of all references cited 2203 N Lois Ave, Suite 1100, Tampa FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348–1630; DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE herein is available upon request (see FOR email: [email protected] FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). United States Patent and Trademark SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf Office Authority of Mexico Fishery Management Council The authority for this action is the (GMFMC), in conjunction with NOAA Submission for OMB Review; Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Fisheries, has implemented the Comment Request amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method Dated: November 2, 2012. The United States Patent and for determining the status of fish stocks Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit Alan D. Risenhoover, in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a to the Office of Management and Budget Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, three-step process including: (1) Data (OMB) for clearance the following performing the functions and duties of the Workshop; (2) Assessment Process, proposal for collection of information Deputy Assistant Administrator for including a workshop and webinars; Regulatory Programs, National Marine under the provisions of the Paperwork Fisheries Service. and (3) Review Workshop. The product Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). of the Data Workshop is a data report [FR Doc. 2012–27244 Filed 11–6–12; 8:45 am] Agency: United States Patent and which compiles and evaluates potential Trademark Office (USPTO). BILLING CODE 3510–22–P datasets and recommends which Title: Invention Promoters/Promotion datasets are appropriate for assessment Firms Complaints. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE analyses. The product of the Assessment Form Number(s): PTO/SB/2048. Process is a stock assessment report Agency Approval Number: 0651– National Oceanic and Atmospheric which describes the fisheries, evaluates 0044. Administration the status of the stock, estimates Type of Request: Revision of a biological benchmarks, projects future currently approved collection. RIN 0648–XC328 population conditions, and recommends Burden: 18 hours annually. research and monitoring needs. The Number of Respondents: 50 responses Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; assessment is independently peer per year. Southeast Data, Assessment, and reviewed at the Review Workshop. The Avg. Hours per Response: The USPTO Review (SEDAR); Assessment Process product of the Review Workshop is a estimates that it will take the public Webinar for Gulf of Mexico Spanish summary documenting panel opinions approximately 15 minutes (0.25 hours) Mackerel and Cobia regarding the strengths and weaknesses to gather the necessary information, AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries of the stock assessment and input data. prepare the form, and submit a Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Participants for SEDAR Workshops are complaint to the USPTO and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), appointed by the GMFMC, NOAA approximately 30 minutes (0.5 hours) Commerce. Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, and for an invention promoter or promotion ACTION: Notice of SEDAR 28 Gulf of the NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science firm to prepare and submit a response Mexico Spanish mackerel and cobia Center. Participants include: Data to a complaint. assessment webinar. collectors and database managers; stock Needs and Uses: The Inventors’ assessment scientists, biologists, and Rights Act of 1999 requires the USPTO SUMMARY: The SEDAR 28 assessment of researchers; constituency to provide a forum for the publication the Gulf of Mexico Spanish mackerel representatives including fishermen, of complaints concerning invention

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:43 Nov 06, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES