Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices 57875

Dated: September 23, 2014. Background Section 3 of the ESA further defines Emily H. Menashes, On October 31, 2012, we received a an ‘‘endangered ’’ as ‘‘any Acting Director, Office of Sustainable petition from WildEarth Guardians to species which is in danger of extinction Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. list the humphead ( throughout all or a significant portion of [FR Doc. 2014–22932 Filed 9–25–14; 8:45 am] undulatus) as threatened or endangered its range’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as BILLING CODE 3510–22–P under the ESA throughout its entire one ‘‘which is likely to become an range. The petitioners also requested within the that critical habitat be designated for the foreseeable future throughout all or a DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE humphead wrasse under the ESA. On significant portion of its range.’’ Thus, February 28, 2013, we published a in the context of the ESA, we interpret National Oceanic and Atmospheric an ‘‘endangered species’’ to be one that positive 90-day finding (78 FR 13614), Administration is presently in danger of extinction. A announcing that the petition presented ‘‘threatened species’’ is not presently at [Docket No. 121204680–4789–03] substantial scientific or commercial risk of extinction, but is likely to information indicating the petitioned RIN 0648–XC387 become so in the foreseeable future. The action of listing the species may be key statutory difference between an warranted and explained the basis for Endangered and Threatened Wildlife endangered and threatened species is that finding. We also announced the and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding the timing of when a species may be in initiation of a status review of the on a Petition To List the Humphead danger of extinction, either presently species, as required by section 4(b)(3)(a) Wrasse as Threatened or Endangered (endangered) or in the foreseeable future Under the Endangered Species Act of the ESA, and requested information (threatened). (ESA) to inform the agency’s decision on Section 4 of the ESA and whether the species warranted listing as AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries implementing regulations at 50 CFR part endangered or threatened under the 424 require us to determine whether any Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and ESA. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), species is endangered or threatened as Commerce. Listing Species Under the Endangered a result of any one or a combination of the following five factors: (A) The ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding and Species Act availability of a status review report. present or threatened destruction, Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA requires modification, or curtailment of its us to make a finding within 12-months SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12- habitat or range; (B) overutilization for of the date of receipt of any petition that month finding on a petition to list the commercial, recreational, scientific, or was found to present substantial humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) educational purposes; (C) disease or information indicating that the as threatened or endangered under the ; (D) the inadequacy of petitioned action may be warranted. The Endangered Species Act (ESA). We have existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 12-month finding must provide a completed a comprehensive status other natural or manmade factors determination of whether the petitioned review of the humphead wrasse in affecting its continued existence (ESA action is: (a) Not warranted; (b) response to this petition. Based on the section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E)). Section 4(b)(1)(A) warranted; or (c) warranted but best scientific and commercial of the ESA requires us to make listing precluded. In this case, we are information available, including the determinations based solely on the best responsible for determining whether the status review report (Graham et al., scientific and commercial data available humphead wrasse warrants listing as 2014), we have determined that the after conducting a review of the status threatened or endangered under the species does not warrant listing at this of the species and after taking into ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To make time. We conclude that the humphead account efforts being made by any State this determination, we first consider wrasse is not currently in danger of or foreign nation or political subdivision whether a group of organisms extinction throughout all or a significant thereof to protect the species. We also constitutes a ‘‘species’’ under section 3 portion of its range and is not likely to consider the comments received in of the ESA, then whether the status of become so within the foreseeable future. response to issuance of the 90-day the species qualifies it for listing as We also announce the availability of the finding. In evaluating the efficacy of either threatened or endangered. Section humphead wrasse status review report. existing protective efforts, we rely on 3 of the ESA defines species to include the Services’ joint Policy on Evaluation DATES: This finding was made on ‘‘any subspecies of or wildlife or September 26, 2014. of Conservation Efforts When Making plants, and any distinct population Listing Decisions (‘‘PECE’’; 68 FR 15100; ADDRESSES: The humphead wrasse segment of any species of vertebrate fish March 28, 2003). The PECE provides status review report is available or wildlife which interbreeds when direction for considering conservation electronically at: http:// mature.’’ On February 7, 1996, NMFS _ efforts that have not been implemented, www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/prd and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or have been implemented but not yet humpheadwrasse.html. You may also (USFWS; together, the Services) adopted demonstrated effectiveness. receive a copy by submitting a request a policy describing what constitutes a to the Protected Resources Division, distinct population segment (DPS) of a Status Review Pacific Islands Regional Office, NMFS, taxonomic species (61 FR 4722). The We appointed an Endangered Species 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, DPS Policy identifies two elements that Biologist in the Protected Resources Honolulu, HI 96818, Attention: must be considered when identifying a Division of the NMFS Pacific Islands Humphead Wrasse 12-month Finding. DPS: (1) The discreteness of the Regional Office (PIRO) to gather and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: population segment in relation to the review the best available data and Krista Graham, NMFS, Pacific Islands remainder of the species (or subspecies) information on the life history and Regional Office, (808) 725–5152; or Lisa to which it belongs; and (2) the ecology, distribution, abundance, and Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected significance of the population segment threats to the humphead wrasse and to Resources, (301) 427–8466. to the remainder of the species (or document this review in a status review SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: subspecies) to which it belongs. report. Next, we convened a team of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 57876 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices

four biologists (hereinafter referred to as adults of both sexes, and intricate makes identifying individual fish the Extinction Risk Analysis (ERA) markings around the eyes (Marshall, possible if the head pattern and spots Team) to conduct an extinction risk 1964; Bagnis et al., 1972; Sadovy et al., can be seen or photographed. While analysis for the humphead wrasse, using 2003a). there is no apparent sexual the information in the status review The humphead wrasse has a reported dichromatism or permanent difference report. The ERA Team was comprised of maximum length of 229 cm total length in color between sexes (Sadovy et al., three fishery biologists from NMFS’ (TL) (7.5 ft) and weight of 190.5 kg (420 2003a), temporary color differences Pacific Island Fisheries Science Center lbs) (Marshall, 1964; Myers, 1989; between males and females are seen and a fishery biologist with NMFS Lieske and Myers, 1994; Donaldson and during reproduction (Colin, 2010). PIRO’s Habitat Conservation Division. Sadovy, 2001; Westneat, 2001; Sadovy Distribution The ERA Team had expertise in reef fish et al., 2003a; Russell, 2004); however, biology and ecology, population there are no confirmed records of this The humphead wrasse is widely dynamics, and stock assessment species greater than 150 cm fork length distributed on coral reefs and nearshore science. The ERA Team documented (FL) (Choat et al., 2006). (TL is habitats throughout much of the tropical their evaluation of possible DPSs for the measured from the tip of the snout to Indo-Pacific Ocean. The biogeographic humphead wrasse and their professional the tip of the longer lobe of the caudal range of the humphead wrasse spans judgment of the extinction risk facing or tail fin; whereas, FL is measured from from 30° N to 23° S latitude and the humphead wrasse in the status the tip of the snout to the end of the includes the Red Sea south to review report (Graham et al., 2014). The middle caudal fin rays (i.e., where the Mozambique in the Indian Ocean, from report makes no recommendation as to fork of the tail begins). TL is longer than southern Japan in the northwest Pacific the listing status of the species. The FL). The maximum age of humphead south to New Caledonia in the south status review report is available wrasse is estimated to be 30 years for Pacific and into the central Pacific electronically at http:// females and 25 years for males (Sadovy Ocean including French Polynesia. The www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/prd_ et al., 2003a; Choat et al., 2006; humphead wrasse has been recorded humpheadwrasse.html. Andrews et al., in review). from many islands of Oceania, but The status review report was then The development of the cephalic appears to be absent from the Hawaiian subjected to peer review as required by hump is related to body size and is Islands, Johnston Island, Easter Island, the Office of Management and Budget visible at 37 cm TL, with all individuals Pitcairn, Rapa, and Lord Howe Island Final Information Quality Bulletin for ≥75 cm TL exhibiting a distinctive with the exception of occasional waifs Peer Review (M–05–03; December 16, hump, irrespective of sex (Liu and (Randall et al., 1978). In the United 2004). The status review report was peer Sadovy de Mitcheson, 2011). Therefore, States (U.S.), the species is found in the reviewed by three independent C. undulatus does not show obvious territories of American Samoa, the specialists selected from the academic sexual dimorphism of the forehead Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana and scientific community, with extension, meaning that it is not a Islands (CNMI), and Guam. In the U.S. expertise in reef fish biology, reliable criterion for differentiating Pacific Remote Island Areas, the species conservation and management, and males and females. The species has 9 is found in the Line (Palmyra Atoll, knowledge of humphead wrasse. The dorsal fin spines, 10 dorsal fin rays, 3 Kingman Reef, and Jarvis Island) and peer reviewers were asked to evaluate anal fin spines, and 8 anal fin rays Phoenix (Howland and Baker) Islands, the adequacy, appropriateness, and (Sadovy et al., 2003a). Juveniles are pale and at Wake Atoll. gray/green with large dark spots on application of data used in the status Habitat review as well as evaluate the findings some of the scales that produce a series made in the ‘‘Assessment of Extinction of broad dark bands, interspersed with The humphead wrasse is widely Risk’’ section of the report. All peer narrower white bands along the length distributed in low densities on all types reviewer comments were addressed of the body and a pair of distinctive of environments and prior to dissemination of the final status parallel black lines before and after the nearshore habitats throughout much of review report and publication of this eye (Sadovy et al., 2003a). Colin (2006) the tropical Indo-Pacific. Both coral determination. notes that juvenile C. undulatus reefs and beds have been resemble juvenile C. trilobatus and C. reported to provide a nursery habitat for Life History, Biology, and Status of the chlorurus, with similar shape, some post-settlement and juvenile humphead Petitioned Species resemblance in coloration, similar swim wrasse (Sadovy et al., 2003a; Russell, Below we summarize the key life fashion, and can all occur in the same 2004). Juveniles are also observed in history and species information from habitat. The author notes that the murky outer river areas with patch reefs, the status review report (Graham et al., similarities with these two more shallow sandy areas adjacent to coral 2014). More detailed information is common species can result in confusion reef lagoons, and in mangroves (Randall, available in the status review report, and misidentification of juvenile C. 1955; Randall et al., 1978; Myers, 1989; which is available electronically at undulatus. Sadovy et al., 2003a; Myers, 1999). http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/prd_ Adults are olive green to blue-green Unlike juveniles, adults are more humpheadwrasse.html. with large scales. A narrow dark bar on commonly observed inhabiting offshore each scale breaks into irregular dark habitats along steep outer reef slopes, Species Description lines anteriorly on the body with growth reef drop offs, channel slopes, reef The humphead wrasse is the largest (Randall, 2005). The head is a blue- passes, reef flats, and lagoonal reefs to member of the family Labridae. Found green to blue with irregularly wavy depths of up to at least 100 m (Randall, throughout the Indo-Pacific Ocean, the yellowish lines (Sadovy et al., 2003) 1978; Myers, 1989; Sadovy et al., 2003a; humphead wrasse is distinguished from with the same two slightly oblique black Zgliczynski et al., 2013). Fish size and other coral reef , including other lines extending posteriorly from the abundance are correlated with habitat , due primarily to its large size lower half of the eye, often with two type, with the largest fish and most along with its fleshy lips in adults more black lines extending from the eye dense groups of humphead wrasses (Myers, 1999), prominent bulbous hump to the rear part of the upper lip (Randall, observed on barrier reefs and passes. In that appears on the forehead in larger 2005). These distinctive patterns of lines coastal, middle reefs and lagoon areas,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices 57877

smaller fish (< 50 cm TL) are typically (Randall et al., 1978; Myers, 1989; Humphead wrasse larvae settle out of observed among branching staghorn Randall et al., 1997; Thaman, 1998; the plankton at a size of 8 to 15 mm TL, corals (Acropora spp.) (Sadovy et al., Sadovy et al., 2003a; Choat et al., 2006). with a mode of 12 mm TL (at an 2003a). Similar to other wrasse (Labridae), unspecified larval duration), and reach humphead wrasses forage by turning Movement and Behavior 35 mm TL or greater within 2 to 3 weeks over or crushing rocks and rubble to post-settlement (Tupper, 2007 citing M. The numbers of fish found together reach cryptic organisms (Pogonoski et Tupper, unpublished data). Slamet and can vary. According to Sadovy et al. al., 2002; Sadovy et al., 2003a citing P.S. Hutapea (2005), however, indicate that (2003a), juveniles are typically solitary, Lobel, pers. comm.). The thick fleshy growth of larvae is actually much wary, and difficult to approach, though lips of the species appear to absorb sea slower. The authors report that captive they can be found in small groups. urchin spines, and the pharyngeal teeth larvae reach 50–60 mm TL in 6 months. Adults are typically observed solitary or easily crush heavy-shelled sea snails in Settlement varies among habitat types. paired (Myers, 1989; Sadovy et al., the genera Trochus spp. and Turbo spp. As is common in wrasses, the 2003a) but have also been noted in The humphead wrasse is also one of the groups of 3–7 individuals (Donaldson, humphead wrasse is a protogynous few predators of toxic such as , capable of changing sex 1995; Sadovy et al., 2003a). boxfishes (Ostraciidae), sea hares from female to male around 9 years of Additionally, small social units can be (Aplysiidae), and crown-of-thorns age (Choat et al., 2006; Sadovy de observed moving together in less starfish (Acanthaster planci) (Randall, Mitcheson et al., 2010). At around 6 heavily fished areas, while lone and 1978; Myers, 1989; Thaman, 1998; months of age, juveniles are more wary individuals are more often Sadovy et al., 2003a). Consumption of approximately 5–6 cm TL (Slamet and noted in heavily fished areas (Sadovy et toxic species in certain areas, Hutapea, 2005), reaching 50 cm TL at al., 2003a). particularly Tahiti, Tuvalu, New Based on mensurative in situ approximately 7 years of age. As females Caledonia, the Tuamotu Archipelago observations, humphead wrasse display reach sexual maturity growth slows, (French Polynesia), Marshall Islands, site fidelity and predictable home with few individuals observed > 100 cm and the Federated States of Micronesia ranges with the same individuals, TL. Male growth rates are approximately can cause the humphead wrasse to be identifiable by distinct head markings, ciguatoxic to humans (Randall, 1958; double those of females, resulting in observed along the same stretches of Randall et al., 1978; Randall, 1979; relatively young but large males (Choat reef for extended periods, although the Lewis, 1986; Myers, 1989; Dalzell, 1992; et al., 1996; 2006). lengths of these periods are not defined. Dalzell, 1994; Sadovy, 1998; Myers, Size at maturity for males and females Additionally, adults often use a 1999; Sadovy et al., 2003b; Sadovy, is difficult to compare across studies consistent resting place (i.e., cave or 2006). because some measurements are crevice) at night or when threatened reported as TL and others as FL. Sadovy (Bagnis et al., 1972; Myers, 1989; Reproduction and Growth et al. (2003a) estimates that females Thaman, 1998; Myers, 1999; Donaldson reach sexual maturity at around 5 years and Sadovy, 2001; Sadovy et al., 2003a; Field reports reveal variable of age and 35–50 cm TL. Other Chateau and Wantiez, 2007). humphead wrasse spawning behavior, Factors such as sex, age, and size of depending on location (Sadovy et al., histological studies estimate that sexual the fish directly influence the home 2003a; Colin, 2010). Spawning can maturity is reached around 40–60 cm range size of the humphead wrasse, occur between several and all months of TL, which is estimated to be about 5– with smaller fish using a fraction of the the year, coinciding with certain phases 7 years of age (Pogonoski et al., 2002 area occupied by adults (Sadovy et al., of the tidal cycle (usually after high and Russell, 2004 citing Sadovy, 2003a citing T.J. Donaldson, tide) and possibly lunar cycle (Sadovy unpublished data; Sadovy et al., 2011). unpublished data). A single juvenile (45 et al., 2003a; Colin, 2010). Spawning Another study analyzing early gonadal can reportedly occur in small (< 10 development on 178 humphead wrasse cm FL) humphead wrasse that had been ≤ surgically implanted with an ultrasonic individuals) or large ( 100 individuals) specimens revealed that minimum body transmitter in New Caledonia moved at groupings, which can take place daily in sizes for female and male sexual least 20–200 m every day and had an a variety of reef types (Sadovy et al., maturation were 65 cm and 84.5 cm TL, estimated home range size of at least 2003a; Sadovy de Mitcheson et al., respectively (Sadovy de Mitcheson et 50,000 m2 (Chateau and Wantiez, 2007). 2008; Colin, 2010). al., 2010). However, the authors note In Palmyra Atoll, 19 acoustically tagged Data from captive rearing programs that despite the results from this study, juveniles and adults (ranging in length indicates that egg diameter ranges from based on available information, it is from 27 to 109 cm TL) had home range 0.62–0.67 mm, and newly hatched suggested that the typical size of female sizes of 800 m 2 to 19,000 m 2, with the larvae are 1.5–1.7 mm TL (Slamet and sexual maturation for the humphead smallest home ranges occupied by Hutapea, 2005). Eggs are spherical and wrasse occurs at 40–50 cm TL (Sadovy juveniles, intermediate ranges for adult lack pigment (Sadovy et al., 2003 citing de Mitcheson et al., 2010). Choat et al. males, and largest ranges occupied for P.L. Colin, unpublished data). Little (2006) estimated length at first maturity adult females (Weng et al., in press). information is available regarding larval as 45–50 cm FL for females (6–7 years) dispersal in the wild (Poh and Fanning, and 70 cm FL (9 years) for males. Foraging Ecology 2012). However, in unpublished work Despite the apparent differences in The humphead wrasse is a diurnal P.L. Colin (pers. comm.) found that eggs estimated minimum size of female carnivore, feeding during the day and of humphead wrasse moved slowly off sexual maturation among the different sleeping at night (Durville et al., 2003; the western barrier reef of Palau over a studies and locations, the age at first Gillbrand et al., 2007). Much of its prey few hours in tidal currents, and then maturity is relatively late, representing is found in sand or rubble habitats stalled before moving laterally along the about 20% of the female life span as where it feeds on a variety of molluscs, reef. Some eggs are brought back in over opposed to 5–6% of the female life span small fishes such as gobies, moray eels, the barrier reef, while others remain at observed in most other reef fishes with sea urchins, , brittle stars, sea, all in the first 12 hours after life spans in excess of 30 years (Choat starfish, and other invertebrates spawning. and Robertson, 2002).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 57878 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices

Natural Mortality Past catch records for some locations, in some locations humphead wrasse are when compared to more current catch rarely observed (Sadovy et al., 2003a; Natural adult mortality is thought to records, although the data are sparse, Colin, 2006; Sadovy, 2006b; Unsworth be low (Sadovy et al., 2003a). As for indicate that some populations were at et al., 2007). However, in some areas, mortality due to predation, little is one time greater than present day (i.e., such as the previously mentioned known though it is thought there is , Fiji, Malaysia, Palau [IUCN, Tuamotu Archipelago, French refuge in size. Although adult 2008]). However, inferences regarding Polynesia, abundance of humphead humphead wrasses are most vulnerable abundance from fishery dependent data wrasse is low to non-existent, even during spawning, apex predators are subject to uncertainty from effects of when fisheries exploitation is known to including sharks are not known to prey fishing methods, size selectivity, fishery be low or non-existent (Galzin et al., on adult humphead during this time participation, regulation, and methods 1998). Another example is the (Colin, 2010). of collecting data. Such uncertainty is northernmost uninhabited islands of the Population Structure also true in relation to inferences made Marianas Archipelago (Uracus, Maug, from underwater surveys when habitat and Asuncion), which are part of the Very little published genetic research information and survey methodology Marianas Trench Marine National is available on the humphead wrasse are not known. Monument. Here, where commercial other than the results of sequencing the Efforts to estimate abundance and fishing is prohibited and recreational or mitochondrial genome of the species (Qi density of humphead wrasse have been subsistence fishing is very rare given the et al., 2013). Research is currently completed in certain regions within the distance from most of the southern underway to analyze 200 humphead species’ range (e.g., U.S. Pacific Islands) inhabited areas of the island chain, wrasse samples collected from the using underwater visual census humphead wrasses were not observed. eastern Indian Ocean to Pohnpei and techniques designed to quantify the However, in the southern inhabited part from the to the abundance of these relatively rare/ of the chain where some protections for Marianas Islands. Preliminary analyses uncommon and wide-ranging fish. the species exist, large (≤ 50 cm TL) of mitochondrial DNA from a subset of Although humphead wrasses are widely humphead wrasses are present though samples from across the range suggest distributed, natural densities are abundance levels are low (i.e., biannual no deep genetic differentiation on the typically low, even in locations where towed-diver surveys of fore reef habitats scale of ocean basins, though robust habitats are presumably intact. Unfished (10–15 m depth) from 2003–2011 of the conclusions await final analyses of the or lightly fished areas have densities entire Marianas Archipelago reports an complete dataset (Michael Dawson, ranging from 2–27 individuals per average of 0.059 individuals per 10,000 2 pers. comm.). Additionally, no tagging 10,000 m of reef (Sadovy et al., 2003a). m2 (Brainard et al., 2012; NMFS PIFSC or tracking studies of a scale sufficient For example, at Wake Atoll where there CRED, unpublished data)). to define population structure have been is zero fishing pressure for the species, Status of the Species conducted. Although a number of surveys that recorded primarily juveniles (< 30 cm TL) reported the studies have provided abundance Other than activities associated with naturally low abundance of the species estimates based on in situ surveys, there the live reef food fish trade (LRFFT), at 13–27 individuals per 10,000 m2 are no current studies or references there are few ‘‘directed’’ fisheries for the (Sadovy et al., 2003a and IUCN, 2008 describing population structure. humphead wrasse due to its natural citing P.S. Lobel, pers. comm., and rarity and the inherent difficulty of Population Abundance Lobel and Lobel, 2000). This is the capturing the fish (Gillett, 2010). In highest recorded abundance of any most countries where the fish occurs, There are no historical estimates (pre- location and one of the most protected most of the catch of this species is for 1970s) of global or local abundance or areas. Abundance of sub-adult and adult domestic use. Commercially, the biomass of humphead wrasse. When humphead wrasse observed from towed- limited surveys first began on this diver surveys of fore reef habitats (10– humphead wrasse is caught in low species in the early 1970s, the species 15 m depth) at Wake Atoll conducted by volume fisheries in different ways was generally characterized as being NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science according to its size and whether it is naturally uncommon to rare in places Center (PIFSC) Coral Reef Ecosystem needed alive or dead (Sadovy et al., (Bagnis et al., 1972; Galzin et al., 1998; Division (CRED) in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2003a). The species is sold for domestic Sadovy et al., 2003a and IUCN, 2008 and 2011 is lower. Four years of consumption, exported for food for the citing Galzin, 1985; IUCN, 2008 citing biannual surveys from this time period LRFFT, exported for mariculture until Tropical Research and Conservation report an average of 1.101 large (≤ 50 cm the fish is large enough for Centre—Malaysia (TRACC), 2004). For TL) individuals per 10,000 m2 (NMFS consumption, or exported for aquaria. example, in 1972 Taiaro lagoon, a 9 km2 PIFSC CRED, unpublished). Palmyra The LRFFT is a highly lucrative uplifted lagoon (maximum depth of 27 Atoll, also a U.S. Pacific Remote Island industry that involves the capture of m dominated by talus sand and small Area where the species is completely reef fish that are kept alive for sale and dispersed patch reefs) of Taiaro Atoll in protected, had similarly naturally low consumption. For about three decades, Tuamotu Archipelago, French abundance levels despite decades of the humphead wrasse has been a small Polynesia, where this species was not complete protection. Abundance of but significant component of the fished and fish diversity was high, large (≤ 50 cm TL) humphead wrasse commercial LRFFT as one of the abundance was estimated to be 1–2 fish observed from towed-diver surveys of highest-valued luxury food items per 10,000 m2 (Galzin et al., 1998). This fore reef habitats (10–15 m depth) of (Sadovy et al., 2003a; Sadovy et al., abundance remained unchanged during Palmyra Atoll conducted biannually 2003b; Gillett, 2010). , repeat surveys in 1992 and 1994 (Galzin from 2001–2012 is 0.641 individuals per Malaysia, and the are the et al., 1998). In the Society Islands of 10,000 m2 (NMFS PIFSC CRED, top three exporters of humphead wrasse French Polynesia, humphead wrasses unpublished). for the LRFFT, respectively. The major were also reported to be uncommon in At sites near human population importing countries for the species are the early 1970s (Bagnis et al., 1972; centers or at fished areas, densities are (especially Hong Kong), , IUCN, 2008 citing Galzin, 1985). typically lower by tenfold or more and and Singapore (Sadovy et al., 2003a).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices 57879

In 1996, the humphead wrasse was unique to the core-Coral Triangle area, female humphead wrasse to be replaced listed as ‘‘vulnerable’’ on the nor did they identify any other unique by offspring with the same spawning International Union for the habitat features of this area. The ERA capacity). Considering all of this, the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List Team did consider that the humphead Team agreed that it would likely take of Threatened Species due to concerns wrasse plays a relatively unique several generation times for any over rapidly declining numbers in many ecosystem role in the core-Coral conservative management action to be areas. In 2004, the species was Triangle area due to its co-occurrence realized and reflected in population reclassified to ‘‘endangered’’ on the with two significant prey species that abundance. Therefore, the ERA Team IUCN Red List. Also in 2004, the species likely have interdependent ecological chose to project threats in the was included in Appendix II in the roles. However, the humphead wrasse ‘‘foreseeable future’’ out to eight Convention on International Trade in also overlaps with the two significant generations, or about 50 years. Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and prey species outside the range of the Previous NMFS status reviews have Flora (CITES). Appendix II includes proposed DPS, and although the overlap involved use of a risk matrix method to species that are vulnerable to may not be as widespread, the team organize and summarize the overexploitation, but not at risk of acknowledged that this ecological professional judgment of a panel of extinction under CITES criteria; trade structure is not truly unique to the core- knowledgeable scientists. This approach must be regulated to avoid exploitation Coral Triangle area. Thus, overall, the is described in detail by Wainright and rates incompatible with species significance criterion of the DPS Policy Kope (1999) and has been used in survival. is not well supported. Pacific salmonid status reviews as well As stated in the DPS Policy, Congress as in the status reviews of many other Distinct Population Segment Analysis instructed the Services to exercise their species (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ As described earlier, the ESA’s authority with regard to DPSs ‘‘. . . pr/species for links to these reviews). In definition of ‘‘species’’ includes ‘‘any sparingly and only when the biological the risk matrix approach, the collective subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, evidence indicates that such action is condition of individual populations is and any distinct population segment of warranted.’’ Given this direction from summarized at the species level any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife Congress and the weak support for the according to four demographic risk which interbreeds when mature.’’ The significance of the core-Coral Triangle criteria: abundance, growth rate and petitioners did not request that NOAA DPS, we declined to consider this DPS productivity, spatial structure and consider listing a DPS; however, the further and asked the ERA Team to connectivity, and diversity. These ERA Team was asked to evaluate conduct the extinction risk analysis on viability criteria, outlined in McElhany whether any populations of the species the entire global population of the et al. (2000), reflect concepts that are might qualify as DPSs based on the humphead wrasse. well founded in conservation biology elements of discreteness and and that individually and collectively Assessment of Extinction Risk significance as defined in the DPS provide strong indicators of extinction Policy. The ERA Team found support When evaluating whether the risk. Using these concepts, the ERA for discreteness of the humphead wrasse humphead wrasse meets the definition Team estimated demographic risks by population within the ‘‘core-Coral of threatened or endangered, we assigning a risk score to each of the four Triangle’’ area of Indonesia, Malaysia, considered the best available demographic criteria. The scoring for and the Philippines solely on the basis information and applied professional the demographic risk criteria that the population is delimited by judgment in evaluating the level of risk correspond to the following values: 1— international governmental boundaries faced by a species. We qualitatively no risk, 2—low risk, 3—moderate risk, within which regulation and governance evaluated demographic risks, such as 4—high risk, and 5—very high risk. The of threats are different from other low abundance and productivity, along Team members also expressed their portions of the species’ range. There was with other threats to the species. A certainty regarding evidence of no support to conclusively subdivide quantitative viability analysis (i.e., demographic risk using a ranking of the species into discrete population population modeling) was not low, medium, and high. Detailed segments on the basis of genetics, conducted for the humphead wrasse definitions of the risk scores can be morphology, behavior, physical factors, because of the limited or inadequate found in the status review report. or other biological characteristics. data on population size, definitive The ERA Team then performed a When evaluating whether the core- trends in population size or apparent threats assessment for the humphead Coral Triangle DPS met the significance abundance, intrinsic rate of increase, wrasse by ranking the effect that each criteria, the team found some support mortality rates, or size structure. Lastly, threat was having on the extinction risk for the ‘‘persistence of the discrete as required under section 4(b)(1)(A), we of the species, both now and in the population segment in an ecological also took into account conservation foreseeable future. The four threat effect setting unusual or unique for the efforts being made to protect the levels ranged from ‘‘no effect,’’ ‘‘small taxon.’’ According to the Team (see species. effect,’’ ‘‘moderate effect,’’ and Appendix 1 of the Status Review ‘‘significant effect’’ on the extinction Report), this support was largely based Methods risk to the humphead wrasse. To allow on the fact that the three countries The term ‘‘foreseeable future’’ was individuals to express a distribution of within the core-Coral Triangle area defined as the future timeframe over risk scores in assessing the impacts of contain approximately 50 percent of which demographic risks and threats the threats to the species, the ERA Team mangroves and 30 percent of coral reefs can be reliably predicted to impact the adopted the ‘‘likelihood point’’ within the species range, both of which biological status of the humphead (FEMAT) method using 8 ‘‘likelihood provide important habitat for various wrasse. The Team took into account the points’’ per Team member for the four humphead wrasse life stages. However, life history of the species, including the threat effect levels. A similar approach the team acknowledged that because longevity of the species (25–30 years), has been used in previous NMFS status coral reef and mangrove habitats also and assumed 6–7 years for generation reviews (e.g., Pacific salmon, Puget occur outside the range of the proposed time (which is defined as the time it Sound rockfish, Pacific herring, black DPS, neither of those habitat types is takes, on average, for a sexually mature abalone, great hammerhead shark) to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 57880 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices

structure the Team’s thinking and Declines in abundance appear to be due to overharvest, the ERA Team express levels of risk as a distribution in restricted to particular areas where the concluded that the demographic factor assigning threat risk categories. The LRFFT has been active for several of abundance had a low-to-moderate scores were then tallied (frequency, decades. In some areas where no likelihood of contributing to the range, mode, and median) and apparent harvest occurs, the species has humphead wrasse’s risk of extinction summarized for each threat, and not demonstrated any notable changes now, and a moderate-to-high likelihood considered in making the overall risk between surveys. One aspect lacking in of contributing to the risk of extinction determination. The Team members also many fishery-independent surveys is in the foreseeable future. The ERA Team expressed their certainty regarding meaningful time series of observations was concerned that the species’ low evidence of potential threats using a incorporating standardized abundance levels, whether natural or ranking of low, medium, and high. methodological protocols. Without such manmade, may pose a risk to its Guided by the results from the time series, drawing firm conclusions continued existence if faced with other demographics risk analysis as well as based on temporally and/or spatially demographic risks or threats, such as the threats assessment, the ERA Team distinct observations is simply not overutilization, because a species that is members used their informed possible. In addition, surveyed locations already at naturally low levels may not professional judgment to make an (i.e., exact locations, habitat type, water be able to withstand heavy fishing overall extinction risk determination for depth) and methods (i.e., stationary pressure. Of the four demographic the humphead wrasse now and in the point count, towed-diver surveys) are an factors, abundance was considered by foreseeable future (up to 50 years). For important descriptor in survey work, as the ERA Team to pose the highest these analyses, the ERA Team defined not all areas where the humphead demographic risk to the species. Risk five levels of overall extinction risk: 1— wrasse exists are equally accessible for was found to be higher in the no risk, 2—low risk, 3—moderate risk, underwater visual census surveys. In foreseeable future than now simply 4—high risk, and 5—very high risk. other words, it is difficult to draw because the increased chance that Detailed definitions of these risk levels conclusions on abundance from survey declines in abundance may become can be found in the status review report. results across different locations and more serious with the passage of time, Again, the ERA Team adopted the time frames. unless regulations are effective and FEMAT method, distributing 10 Existing information suggests that enforced. Certainty of abundance ‘‘likelihood points’’ per Team member humphead wrasse populations are most affecting the risk of extinction to the among the five levels of extinction risk. abundant and stable in the Indian humphead wrasse now was deemed The scores were then tallied (frequency, Ocean. However, populations in the medium; certainty of abundance mode, and median for likelihood points, core-Coral Triangle area, where harvest affecting the risk of extinction to the and mean and range for certainty) and has been significant near population humphead wrasse in the foreseeable summarized. The Team members again centers, appear to remain depressed to future was deemed low. a degree that is not quantifiable. expressed their certainty in a ranking of Growth Rate and Productivity low, medium, and high. There are ‘‘pockets’’ of abundance in Finally, the ERA Team drew scientific Malaysia (e.g., Pulau Layang Layang, Regarding the effect of the humphead conclusions about the overall risk of West of , and Pulau Sipadan, as wrasses’ growth rate and productivity extinction faced by the humphead well as Hoga Island in Wakatobi Marine on its risk of extinction, the ERA Team wrasse under present conditions and in National Park) where either military or expressed less concern compared to the foreseeable future based on an management protection exists (IUCN, their concern for abundance. The evaluation of the species’ demographic 2008 citing TRACC, 2004). These intrinsic rate of increase, or risks and assessment of threats. The pockets of abundance in the core-Coral productivity, is a complex function of fecundity, survival rates, age at Team did not make recommendations as Triangle area should be considered maturity, and longevity of a species. to whether the species should be listed crucial as important potential source Productivity determines a species’ as threatened or endangered, or if it did populations to other core-Coral Triangle populations. However, density estimates ability to recover from low numbers, if not warrant listing. from these protected locations are at extrinsic factors are not limiting, as well Evaluation of Demographic Risks least a decade old, and no recent as the level of harvest that can be taken information is available to indicate that from a population sustainably (Hudson Abundance these densities have remained stable, and Bra¨utigam, 2007). For the Currently, there are no formal although there is no reason to expect humphead wrasse, productivity is estimates of population size throughout otherwise, especially in designated estimated to be 0.72 per year most of the humphead wrasse’s range. It military bases, where access is assumed (Fishbase.org). This places the is known that this species is uncommon to be extremely limited. humphead wrasse towards the slow end to rare throughout most of its range, in There are many other foreign and of the slow-to-fast growth continuum of some cases exhibiting low abundance in domestic areas where the species has reef fishes. While the humphead wrasse areas where no anthropogenic stressors been protected by fishing regulations or may be more productive than other reef are evident. In the CNMI, for example, reserves, and the species continues to be fish that are highly exploited in the humphead wrasses appear to be more observed throughout the Pacific LRFFT, such as the giant grouper prevalent in the southern populated wherever surveyed. Recent relative (Epinephelus lanceolatus), it is not as islands, as compared to the mostly abundance data suggest that many productive as the uninhabited or lightly populated islands populations, especially those in U.S. (Plectropomus leopardus) or the north of Saipan. In this case, several waters, are either stable, show no clear mangrove red snapper (Lutjanus factors may influence humphead wrasse trend, or may be increasing (Graham et argentimaculatus), two species which abundance such as total habitat al 2014). are also highly exploited in the LRFFT. availability, fishing access to humphead Based on the very limited abundance The Team recognized that being towards wrasse due to island size and/or information available and its natural the slow end of the continuum creates orientation, and restrictions on fishing rarity, along with depressed population some extinction risk compared with fish effort. sizes in the center of the species’ range that grow faster. As such, the ERA Team

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices 57881

concluded that the demographic risks of and in the foreseeable future, with less of a concern throughout the rest of growth rate and productivity pose a low certainty deemed low for both the Indo-Pacific region (Sadovy de risk to the humphead wrasse’s timeframes. Mitcheson and Yin, in press), and thus continued existence now and a of less concern to the species Summary of Factors Affecting the moderate risk in the foreseeable future. throughout its range. In addition to its Humphead Wrasse Certainty of growth rate and deleterious effects on humphead wrasse, productivity affecting the risk of As described above, section 4(a)(1) of the cyanide released into and near the extinction to the humphead wrasse now the ESA and NMFS implementing reef substrate has substantial acute was deemed medium; certainty in the regulations (50 CFR part 424) state that mortality and delayed health effects on foreseeable future was deemed low. we must determine whether a species is other fishes in and near the reef and on endangered or threatened because of the non-fish motile, sessile, and other Spatial Structure/Connectivity and any one or a combination of the Diversity biota including corals. following five ESA factors: (A) The Regarding the loss and modification The species’ population depends on present or threatened destruction, of juvenile nursery areas, burgeoning dispersal dynamics of individuals as modification, or curtailment of its coastal development and poor land well as habitat quality and existing habitat or range; (B) overutilization for management (e.g., sedimentation) in spatial structure. Connectivity is commercial, recreational, scientific, or developing tropical countries appears to through spawning and planktonic larval educational purposes; (C) disease or be the major threat to the seagrass and dispersal processes. Spatial structure predation; (D) inadequacy of existing branching coral and macroalgal habitats and genetic diversity are important as regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other that provide juvenile nursery habitat. they affect the species’ ability to survive natural or man-made factors affecting its The cutting of mangroves for firewood in diverse environments and enable the continued existence. The ERA Team used to fuel open-fire cooking stoves is population to respond to and survive evaluated whether and the extent to another increasing problem reflecting long-term environmental changes. which each of the foregoing factors exponential human population growth The humphead wrasse is known to contributed to the overall extinction risk in many of these developing countries. occur in waters around 48 countries, of the global humphead wrasse Approximately one-third of all from the Red Sea, east through the population. This section briefly mangroves worldwide have been lost in tropical Indian and Pacific Oceans, to summarizes the ERA Team’s findings the past 50 years. French Polynesia. This geography and our conclusions regarding threats to includes tens-of-thousands of islands the humphead wrasse. More details can Regarding the loss and modification with diverse and varying bathymetry be found in the status review report of adult habitat, the major threat to the (e.g., shallow coral reefs) along (Graham et al., 2014). primary habitat of forereef and open- mainland coasts, most within close lagoons appears to be climate change- proximity and presumed easy dispersal (A) The Present or Threatened induced coral bleaching and reach of pelagic larvae of this species. Destruction, Modification, or acidification, both of which are Essentially very little is known Curtailment of its Habitat or Range impacting corals and other organisms regarding the spatial structure and The ERA Team evaluated habitat with carbonate skeletons, although at genetic diversity of the humphead destruction as a potential threat to the varying degrees according to wrasse. It is not known if there are any humphead wrasse and found this threat susceptibility. Although adult manmade or ecological factors that may have a small effect on the humphead wrasses use caves and other could significantly alter gene flow in the extinction risk of the humphead wrasse structures in rock and dead coral species, nor is it known if the now, meaning that it is unlikely that it limestone substrates to a great extent humphead wrasse consists of more than is presently increasing the species’ risk and are not directly dependent on living one population throughout its range or of extinction. In the foreseeable future, corals, humphead wrasses are most if any genetically distinct populations the Team found that it is moderately numerous near abundant live coral. exist. Without definitive genetic likely that this threat is increasing the Moreover, in geological time even information, the Team assumed that the species’ extinction risk. Certainty of the consolidated dead coral limestone species does not appear to be at risk of potential effects of habitat destruction substrates will decline because of a genetic bottleneck, meaning that the on the extinction risk of the species was weathering if the replenishment rates of humphead wrasse is likely able to adapt deemed medium for both now and in stony corals decline. Concern over this overtime to changing environments. the foreseeable future. factor and coastal development over a Although data are either completely With regard to destructive fishing longer term was influential in the lacking or inadequate, it can be practices, cyanide fishing is the major conclusion that habitat loss could have reasonably presumed that, across its practice that is used to target this moderate effects on extinction risk in entire range, the characteristics of wrasse, although a relatively small the foreseeable future. spatial structure/connectivity and number of mostly small-sized fish of Based on the best available genetic diversity, by themselves, are this species might occasionally be killed information, we do not find that habitat unlikely to contribute to an extinction incidentally during blast fishing for destruction, modification, or risk for the humphead wrasse. other reef fishes in open-reef curtailment are threats that are Therefore, the ERA Team concluded environments. The intent in using presently, or in the foreseeable future, that the demographic factor of spatial cyanide is to stun juvenile wrasse and placing the species at an increased risk structure and connectivity posed no-to- capture them alive for subsequent grow- of extinction. Cyanide has recently been low risk to the humphead wrasse’s out for sale in the LRFFT; however, banned in a number of countries continued existence both now and in some and perhaps a substantial throughout the species’ range, and the foreseeable future, with certainty proportion of cyanide-fished wrasse die illegal use appears to be waning and is deemed low for both timeframes. The prior to actually contributing product to much less of a concern outside of the Team also concluded that diversity the industry. Cyanide fishing is still a Coral Triangle region. The magnitude of posed a low risk to the humphead major fishing method in Southeast Asia, direct and indirect threats to juvenile wrasse’s continued existence both now but cyanide fishing is presently much and adult habitats is variable with no

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 57882 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices

evidence of substantial or widespread humphead wrasse between the external parasites in mariculture finfish habitat loss or destruction. jurisdictions, which falls in line with (Koesharyani et al., 2005). Vibriosis, the the conclusions of Lindley et al. (2014) most common bacterial disease in (B) Overutilization for Commercial, that the banning of scuba spearfishing marine finfish, has also been Recreational, Scientific or Educational results in depth refugia for many coral documented in broodstock and young Purposes reef fish species. humphead wrasse at the Gondol The ERA Team identified While there is some concern for Research Station. The infected fish were overutilization as a threat with a small- overutilization of the species, those that were captured with cage traps to-moderate effect on the extinction risk particularly for commercial purposes and transported to the station; mortality of the humphead wrasse now, and a resulting in population declines in some occurred within a week after the moderate effect on the extinction risk to areas such as the Coral Triangle region, transportation (Zafran et al., 2005). the species in the foreseeable future. the current evidence indicates that Wada et al. (1993) documented the Certainty of the potential effects of many populations are either stable, first known report of a simultaneous overutilization on the extinction risk of show no clear trend, or may be infection with an acid-fast bacterium the species was deemed medium for increasing. The current global (Mycobacterium sp.) and an imperfect now and low for the foreseeable future. population size is likely sufficient to fungus in a humphead wrasse that was Estimates of overutilization have been maintain population viability into the captured in Indonesia and reared in a hampered by a dearth of information foreseeable future. Based on the best commercial fish dealer’s concrete regarding landings data and illegal, available information, we do not find aquarium in Japan. They speculate that unregulated, and unreported fishing. that overutilization of the species is the male fish became infected while in Fisheries that land humphead wrasse presently, or in the foreseeable future, captivity. No other information has been appear to lack detailed temporal placing the species at an increased risk found to indicate that disease, information pertaining to fishing effort, of extinction. particularly in the wild, is a factor fishing power, harvest location, seasonal influencing mortality of humphead (C) Disease or Predation changes in landings, as well as the wrasse. institution of management protocols. The ERA Team evaluated disease and There are no known major predators For example, IUCN (2008) notes a 10- predation as potential threats to the of adult humphead wrasse, even in fold decrease in market landings from humphead wrasse, but noted that vulnerable locations such as at Palau from the mid 1980s to mid-1990s, available information on either threat is spawning aggregations. Colin (2010) though fails to note that scuba sparse. The ERA Team found that the reports that no instances of predation on spearfishing was banned in the early little information available indicates spawning adults were observed despite 1990s and may be directly linked to that that this threat may have a small effect the presence of grey reef (Carcharhinus stated decline. Although declines in on the extinction risk of the species, amblyrhynchos) and white tip landings were noted in some meaning that it is unlikely that disease (Trianodon obesus) reef sharks. jurisdictions, information indicating no or predation are increasing the Additionally, few other piscivorous reef changes in landings is either not noted extinction risk to the species, either now fishes are capable of taking even a or not available. This may be a result of or in the foreseeable future. Certainty of moderate-sized humphead wrasse humphead wrasse representing a minor the potential effects of disease or (Colin, 2010). The predators of juvenile component of most coral reef fisheries predation on the extinction risk of the humphead wrasse are unknown but throughout its range because of its species was deemed medium for both likely to be sharks and other large- natural rarity. time frames. bodied piscivorous species such as Anecdotal evidence, in particular Very little is known about diseases of grouper (Serranidae), Jacks (Carangidae), from within LRFFT participating the humphead wrasse other than fish and snapper (Lutjanidae) that are countries, indicates that areas where at leech infestation (Hirundinea spp.), commonly found on Indo-Pacific coral some past time period humphead parasitic infestations (protozoa, worms, reefs. wrasses were observed to have been etc.), and bacterial infections that have Based on the best available present in naturally low densities are no been documented. Parasitic infestations information, we agree that neither longer found since the start of the have been reported as occurring in the disease nor predation is increasing the LRFFT. fins, gill operculum, body surface, eyes, species’ extinction risk presently, or in Although overutilization appears to and mouth cavity (Koesharyani et al., the foreseeable future. be an issue in some jurisdictions and 2005; Zafran et al., 2005). Zafran et al. locales (e.g., core-Coral Triangle area) (2005) report that cryptocaryoniosis, or (D) The Inadequacy of Existing (Sadovy et al., 2003a; IUCN, 2008), white spot disease because it causes Regulatory Mechanisms amounting to moderate effects on numerous white spots on the body The ERA Team evaluated existing extinction risk now and in the surface, is the most dangerous parasitic regulatory mechanisms to determine foreseeable future, it cannot be disease in many marine fishes in whether they may be inadequate to considered a significant or overriding aquaria or mariculture facilities. This address threats to the humphead wrasse. impact on the species throughout its disease, which can spread rapidly to Existing regulatory mechanisms may entire range in either time frame. In other healthy fish and lead to a high include Federal, state, and international jurisdictions where scuba spearfishing mortality, has been documented at the regulations. Below is a brief description has been banned (Fiji, Palau, the U.S. Gondol Research Station in Indonesia. and evaluation of current and relevant jurisdictions of American Samoa and The Gondol Research Station has also domestic and international management CNMI), there is reasonable expectation reported the presence of the parasitic measures that affect the humphead that older and larger fish benefit from disease oodiniasis (Amyloodinium wrasse. More information on these depth refugia. In the CNMI, scuba ocellatum, a dinoflagellate protozoan) domestic and international management spearfishing is banned; it is still infecting captive humphead wrasse at measures can be found in the status permitted in Guam. As a result, there their facility (Zafran et al., 2005), as well review report (Graham et al., 2014). exists considerable disparity in the size as capsalid monogenean, or so-called Across the wide Indo-Pacific range of frequency distributions of landed skin flukes, which are the most common the humphead wrasse, there exists a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices 57883

diversity of regulations. In U.S. waters, wrasse to bodies, derivatives, and meat; effectiveness of new regulations. In most jurisdictions have regulations that of these 12 countries, only 10 countries areas of this region where the LRFFT is afford partial to complete protection for report exporting live humphead wrasse. not currently operating, any catch of the species, and these are, in general, According to CITES (2014) trade data, this species would bring a good price at reliably enforced. These include Federal from 2005–2011, 81,848 live humphead local markets. Local regulations to annual catch limits based on what little wrasse were legally traded by 10 manage the trade that are contradictory is known of abundance, prohibitions on countries, whereas in 2012, only 1,691 to national regulations also exist in the non-selective and destructive fishing live humphead wrasse were legally area and where illegal export is gear (e.g., American Samoa and CNMI traded, and only by 5 of the countries. reportedly rampant (e.g., Philippines). both ban scuba spearfishing, while Zero bodies, meat, or derivatives of the Misreporting continues to be an Guam presently does not but is species were traded in 2012 (CITES, illegal, unregulated, and unreported considering such a ban), an assortment 2014). fishing issue for the LRFFT in Southeast of no-take marine protected areas Legal trade has significantly Asia, including mislabeled fish or fish (MPAs) around CNMI and Guam, and decreased due to reduced or zero export hidden in exports (CITES, 2010a; CITES, full prohibition on take around quotas, especially from the main 2010b; Sadovy et al., 2011). American Samoa and the Pacific Remote exporting countries of Indonesia, Undocumented shipments continue Island Areas. Malaysia, and the Philippines. For through Singapore. However, Hong Internationally, of the 48 countries example, Indonesia decreased their Kong, the largest importer, has recently where humphead wrasses occur, only export quota of humphead wrasse from committed to controlling imports, re- about 18 have implemented regulations. 8,000 in 2005 to 1,800 in 2012 (IUCN, exports, and possession within the This lack of consistent regulation may 2013), and legally traded only 1,653 in territory, thus enabling a more secure be due to abundance data being 2012 (CITES, 2014). In 2010, Malaysia system of trade (CITES, 2010a). unknown, undocumented, or not reached and has maintained a zero Additionally, most countries ban the attended to (e.g., Cambodia, Egypt, export quota of the species (Sadovy, use of cyanide, though it does continue Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, 2010; IUCN, 2013; CITES, 2014). This is in areas due to lack of enforcement and etc.), or the country does not participate significant since Malaysia legally corruption (Erdman and Pet-Soede, in the legal international trade (e.g., exported ∼53,000 live humphead wrasse 1997; Pet and Pet-Soede, 1999; Yan, Djibouti, Eritrea, Israel, Madagascar, from 2007–2009 (CITES, 2014). 2011). Mayotte, Myanmar). Of countries that Moreover, Hong Kong is now believed Numerous MPAs exist throughout the have regulations, most prohibit non- to be better controlling trade where it range of the humphead wrasse. If selective and destructive gear types, checks imports and re-exports, and adequately enforced, these sufficiently regulate minimum size limits, coordinates verification of permits with large MPAs might help reduce threats significantly reduce or ban export Malaysia and Indonesia (Sadovy, 2010). from the loss and modification of adult quotas, and/or have tightened Additionally, countries that formerly or juvenile habitat, destructive fishing enforcement loopholes—all within the exported for the LRFFT have now practices, and overutilization. For last few years (Gillett, 2010; Sadovy, banned the export of the species (e.g., example, in areas including Australia, 2010; IUCN, 2013; Sadovy, Australia, Federated States of , and Wake Atoll where some unpublished). Only 12 countries are Micronesia, New Caledonia, , and degree of protection for the species is known to participate (or have Palau) (Gillett, 2010). In other countries, afforded (e.g., take and possession participated) in the legal trade of the national regulations have been tightened prohibited, ban on exports, etc.) and species, while the number of countries (e.g., Palau and Fiji), helping to close adequately enforced, the risk of local participating in the illegal trade is enforcement loopholes (Sadovy, 2010). ‘‘stock’’ depletion has been reduced and unquantified. International regulation In Indonesia, recent field surveys at abundance of humphead wrasse in the and effectiveness was the primary seven ‘‘baseline’’ sites found increased area is stable or increasing (Sadovy et concern in finding that inadequate densities of humphead wrasse at four al., 2003 citing Sluka, 2000; NMFS existing regulations have a moderate sites 4–5 years later. Most fish were PIFSC CRED, unpublished data). effect on extinction risk of the species. juveniles, but the increase in numbers is In summary, when considered across Other international regulatory encouraging and has occurred in areas the entire range of the species, it is authorities include CITES, which lists where fishing pressure has evidently reasonably likely that the various the humphead wrasse under Appendix declined (IUCN, 2013). At least a decade existing regulatory measures will II with the following provisions: Legal is believed to be a conservative time continue to benefit the humphead trade is regulated, an export permit is scale for these heavily exploited wrasse globally by appreciably reducing required to show fish were legally populations to begin recovery from the threats to the species, presuming acquired and harvesting is not fishing pressure following adequate they are adequately enforced. The detrimental to survival of the species, protection (Colin, 2010). greatest threat—the LRFFT—appears to and the exporting country must have a In the geographic center of the have decreased substantially, according functional management plan and species’ range—the Coral Triangle to recent CITES trade data available associated monitoring. In addition, the Region—the humphead wrasse is one of through 2012 (CITES, 2014). This importing country must closely monitor the most valuable species in the LRFFT, reduction in legal trade may be due to its imports. Sanctions or complete bans and has been for the past few decades. either reduced or zero export quotas, or on exports provide strong incentive to Countries within the Coral Triangle reduced population sizes of humphead comply. Additionally, the IUCN lists the region are characterized by large and wrasse stocks within the three main humphead wrasse as ‘‘endangered’’ growing populations, particularly in exporting countries of Indonesia, while affording no regulatory coastal areas, where many consider Malaysia, and Philippines. It can be protection; the hope is to promote fishing an occupation of last resort. hoped that with time more countries awareness of the status of the species. Many nearshore fish stocks are heavily will follow suit, implement, and As previously mentioned, 12 harvested, and recent declines in effectively enforce regulatory countries report legally trading the humphead wrasse landings probably mechanisms to prevent the decline of species, ranging from live humphead reflect this fact more so than the species and allow any overexploited

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 57884 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices

populations to rebuild. However, it is mentioned, much of its prey is found in be highly variable across coral taxa, believed that much illegal and sand or rubble habitats where it feeds on space, and time. unreported trade still continues, a variety of molluscs, small fishes such Other direct and indirect linkages of particularly in the several countries of as gobies, moray eels, sea urchins, ocean acidification effects to the the Coral Triangle region. In spite of crustaceans, brittle stars, starfish, and humphead wrasse remain tenuous. The local pockets of questionable regulatory other invertebrates (Randall et al., 1978; adult humphead wrasse does not appear compliance, we agree that based on the Myers, 1989; Randall et al., 1997; to be food limited or space limited in best available information, it is unlikely Thaman, 1998; Sadovy et al., 2003a; any portions of its range. The species that inadequate existing regulatory Choat et al., 2006). As generalists, the also appears to be adaptable to a variety mechanisms alone contribute more than humphead wrasse is less susceptible to of biotic and abiotic conditions given its moderately to the extinction risk for the competition for prey from other wide geographic range and observations humphead wrasse across its wide Indo- predators or fisheries with more of it residing (foraging, sleeping) in both Pacific range either now, or in the specialized diets. shallow and deep water. Additionally, foreseeable future. The recent Large-scale impacts such as global some researchers have pointed out that implementation of, increased adherence climate change may pose a threat to the increased CO2 (lower pH) leading to to, and enforcement of existing humphead wrasse because the species ocean acidification could enhance regulatory mechanisms throughout the uses inshore habitats and coral reefs out seagrass productivity (Palacios and species’ range appear effective in to depths of up to at least 100 m Zimmerman, 2007; Guinotte and Fabry, addressing the most important threat to (Randall, 1978; Sadovy et al., 2003a; 2008; Poloczanska et al., 2009), which the species, which is overharvest. Russell, 2004; Zgliczynski et al., 2013). may benefit juvenile humphead wrasse Certainty of the potential effects of The Status Review Report describes the that rely on seagrass beds as nursery inadequate existing regulatory potential threats, including ocean areas. Increased ocean temperatures on large mechanisms on the extinction risk of acidification, increased ocean spatial and temporal scales could the species was deemed medium for temperatures, sea level rise, and extreme generally impact current flow, now and low in the foreseeable future. weather, in detail. These threats are productivity, physiological performance Accordingly, we do not find that summarized below. inadequacy of existing regulatory and behavior of coral reef fishes and Although the impacts of ocean mechanisms is presently, or in the survival of corals. For example, larval acidification specifically to humphead foreseeable future, placing the species at production and survival rates could be wrasse are unknown, the threat is an increased risk of extinction. negatively impacted (e.g., Lo-Yat et al., anticipated to be greatest to marine taxa 2010). However, small temperature (E.) Other Natural or Manmade Factors that build skeletons, shells, and tests of increases might accelerate larval Affecting Its Continued Existence biogenic calcium carbonate such as development and competency to settle, The Status Review Report describes coral (e.g., Fabry et al., 2008; Guinotte though larger temperature increases may the life history characteristics, and Fabry, 2008; Pandolfi et al., 2011). be detrimental (Munday et al., 2008). information on competition, and In a meta-analysis, abundances of Brainard et al. (2011) discusses how substantial concerns with regard to species reliant on live coral for food or coral adaptation and acclimatization to climate change and pollution shelter consistently declined (e.g., increased ocean temperatures is considered by the ERA Team. The Team Wilson et al., 2006; Pratchett et al., possible; that there is intra-genus concluded that other natural or 2008), while abundance of some species variation in susceptibility of coral to manmade threats would likely have that feed on invertebrates, algae and/or bleaching, ocean acidification, and some small effects on the extinction risk detritus increased (e.g., Wilson et al., sedimentation; that at least some coral of the species now and moderate effects 2006). As previously discussed, species have already expanded their over the foreseeable future, the latter branching corals are one of several range in response to climate change; and due to concerns of increased climate important habitats to various stages of that not all coral species are seriously change and pollution-related impacts on the humphead wrasse life cycle. affected by ocean acidification. Such the species. Certainty of the potential Vulnerability of a coral species to a adaptation and acclimation could effects of other natural or manmade threat is a function of susceptibility and reduce the impact of warming factors on the extinction risk of the exposure, considered at the appropriate temperatures and allow populations to species was deemed medium for now spatial and temporal scales. With regard persist across their current range and low in the foreseeable future. to localized variability, recent papers (Donelson et al., 2011; Logan et al., The humphead wrasse may be identify various mechanisms that can 2013). The exceptional complexity, susceptible to natural and human offset or buffer changes in seawater pH extent, and diversity of coral reef habitat perturbations due to particular life around coral reefs from ocean defy simplistic modeling of reef history characteristics that include slow acidification, such as photosynthetic responses to climate change threats. growing, long-lived, and delayed uptake of CO2 by sea grasses and Likewise, many aspects of the biology of reproductive development (Choat et al., macroalgae in adjacent areas (Palacios reef-building corals contribute to 2006; Tupper, 2007; Sadovy de and Zimmerman, 2007; Manzello et al., complex responses to ocean warming. Mitcheson et al., 2008; Colin, 2010). 2012; Anthony et al., 2013), and This includes capacity for Additionally, adults often occupy biogeochemical processes within coral acclimatization and adaptation to ocean consistent home ranges, have reef communities (Andersson et al., warming, range expansion in response predictable sleeping sites, have discrete 2013). Other papers identify to ocean warming (Yamano et al., 2011; spawning locations, and may form mass mechanisms that can exacerbate Yara et al., 2011), and contrasting aggregations during spawning (Sadovy changes in seawater pH around coral ecological interactions resulting from et al., 2003a). reefs from ocean acidification, such as ocean warming (Hughes et al., 2012; As for competition with other species diurnal variability, that can amplify CO2 Cahill et al., 2013). All of these for prey, humphead wrasses are in seawater around coral reefs (Shaw et contribute to highly variable, complex opportunistic diurnal carnivores with a al., 2013). Ultimately, the future effects and uncertain responses of reef-building wide-ranging diet. As previously of ocean acidification on coral reefs will coral species and in turn, coral reefs to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices 57885

climate change threats like ocean to be less than if they were foraging Policy as binding guidance in making warming. specialists like other reef fish species individual listing determinations, while The impacts of sea level rise to coral (i.e., bumphead parrotfish) that feed taking into account the unique reef ecosystems also remains uncertain. primarily on corals. circumstances of the species under Theoretically, a rise in sea level could In summary, the extent of potential consideration. However, the policy potentially provide additional habitat direct and indirect effects of climate remained in the draft form when the for corals living near the sea surface. change on the humphead wrasse are ERA Team discussed whether the data There are now studies documenting that unknown or speculative as the threats indicated if any portion of the during periods of higher water levels, described in the literature are broad and humphead wrasse’s range is more coral cover increases on reef flats general, and typically use another significant than another portion. (Brown et al., 2011; Scope´litis et al., species as a proxy to infer vulnerability. The ERA Team considered whether a 2011). On the other hand, if coral Lastly, contaminants such as fuel and portion of the species’ range is more crude oil from spills, land-based growth is unable to keep pace with sea important than any other portion, and pollution from agriculture, etc. that find level rise, there will most likely be that without that portion, the species its way into the marine environment, negative consequences. would be in danger of extinction. With As for the effects of climate change to sewage effluent from areas with this in mind, the ERA Team agreed that prey species of the humphead wrasse, insufficient sanitation systems, and of the entire range of the species, the direct and indirect effects are again marine debris from discarded or lost primary region that has exhibited a variable and complex. Climate change fishing gear are all potential sources of decline of the humphead wrasse, which can affect marine organisms both pollution that could directly and comprises the three countries in the directly via physiological stress and indirectly affect the humphead wrasse. core-Coral Triangle area, might meet the indirectly via changing relationships However, such events including oil and among species (Harley, 2011). Shifts in sewage spills are typically episodic and definition of a SPOIR. These countries distribution and abundance of prey can localized. Other types of pollution such are Indonesia, Malaysia, and the potentially be driven by changes in as land-based contaminants and marine Philippines, and have large and growing temperature and ocean chemistry debris may also impact the humphead human populations with coincident (Harley et al., 2006). Although wrasse, but the direct extent of the agricultural expansion and coastal humphead wrasses do not feed directly effects to the humphead wrasse and its development impacts on humphead on corals, many of their prey do rely on habitat are speculative at this time. As wrasse habitat. As this area is the center corals, sea grass beds, or mangroves for such, the Team determined that these of the species’ range, the Team also their own food or shelter. The wide other natural and manmade factors discussed physical, ecological, and variety of humphead wrasse prey is collectively would likely have some behavioral factors in relation to found in various habitats and across a small effects on the extinction risk of recruitment between the potential vast depth range of a few meters to at the species now and moderate effects SPOIR area and the rest of the species’ least 100 m. Coral communities found at over the foreseeable future. range. The Team concluded that local greater depths have shown thermal Therefore, based on the best available extinction of humphead wrasse in these refuge from increased temperatures information, although the Team three countries would not cause the while those found in more shallow areas identified the threat of other natural or remainder of the species to become in are more impacted (e.g., Graham et al., manmade factors, such as climate danger of extinction. Islands and 2008; Bridge et al., 2014). For example, change and pollution, as having a small- archipelagoes outside the core-Coral fertilization may be to-moderate effect on the species’ risk of Triangle area (i.e., compromised by warmer temperatures extinction, we do not find that other and the Solomon Islands in the east or (Byrne et al., 2009). While urchins natural or manmade factors are Australia to the south) are found in more shallow areas may have presently, or in the foreseeable future, comparatively healthy with fewer reduced or compromised fertilization placing the species at an increased risk impacts to the species. Humphead and development, urchins found at of extinction. wrasse in these other areas are not deeper depths may be less impacted. dependent on aggregations in Indonesia, Significant Portion of Its Range Urchins are also less susceptible to Malaysia, or the Philippines for larval increased ocean acidification (Byrne et The definitions of both ‘‘threatened’’ recruitment or other aspects of survival; al., 2009). In another example of and ‘‘endangered’’ under the ESA in fact, the ERA Team concluded that variable impacts, Harley (2011) contain the term ‘‘significant portion of these nearby areas could provide conducted an experiment and found its range’’ (SPOIR) as an area smaller recruits to recolonize the core-Coral that prey species were able to occupy a than the entire range of the species that Triangle portion of the range in the hot, extralimital site if predation must be considered when evaluating a event that local extirpations were to pressure was experimentally reduced. species’ risk of extinction. With regard occur inside that area. Thus, the status As a result, local species richness more to SPOIR, the Services proposed a of the rest of the species was not than doubled, suggesting that ‘‘Draft Policy on Interpretation of the considered to be dependent on the anthropogenic climate change can alter Phrase ‘Significant Portion of Its Range’ continued existence of the population in interspecific interactions and produce in the Endangered Species Act’s these three countries of Indonesia, unexpected changes in species Definitions of ‘Endangered Species’ and Malaysia, and the Philippines. The main distribution, community structure, and ‘Threatened Species’ ’’ (76 FR 76987; purpose for improved conservation in diversity (Harley, 2011). Overall, some December 9, 2011), which is consistent this core area of the species’ range humphead wrasse prey may likely be with our past practice as well as our would be the recovery of the negatively impacted by climate change; understanding of the statutory populations located there, and not the however, not all prey will be impacted framework and language. The Draft status of the rest of the population. equally. Given that humphead wrasse Policy was recently finalized on July 1, Therefore, after a review of the best are foraging generalists and feed on a 2014, (79 FR 37578), and the Services available information, the ERA Team wide variety of prey found in various are now to consider the interpretations concluded, and we agree, that data do habitats and depths, impacts are likely and principles contained in the Final not indicate any portion of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 57886 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices

humphead wrasse’s range meets the information for the foreseeable future as (1) The species is made up of a single definition of a SPOIR. As such, when being low. population over a broad geographic considering the overall extinction risk of Overall, there was a high degree of range, with no barrier to dispersal; (2) the species, we considered it throughout consensus among the members of the its current range is unaltered from the the species’ entire range. Team, and we agree, that the humphead range identified by surveys since the Under the Final SPOIR Policy, the wrasse’s risk of extinction presently and 1970s and although there are some definition of ‘‘significant’’ has been in the foreseeable future is no-to-low concerns related to the species’ habitat, revised to a lower threshold and now risk. Although the humphead wrasse is there is no evidence of substantial or states ‘‘A portion of the range of a naturally rare throughout its range and widespread habitat loss or destruction; species is ‘significant’ if the species is in some places abundance has declined, (3) although the species has predictable not currently endangered or threatened this no-to-low risk of extinction is based home ranges and sleeping sites, and throughout its range, but the portion’s primarily on the species’ sustained possesses life history characteristics that contribution to the viability of the widespread distribution throughout may increase its vulnerability to impacts species is so important that, without the most of its known range, and its recent of fishing in reef fish assemblages, its members in that portion, the species effective protection from exploitation at risk of extinction due to low would be in danger of extinction or a variety of localities under both U.S. productivity is not of significant likely to become so in the foreseeable and foreign jurisdiction. concern; (4) the best available future, throughout all of its range’’ Final Determination (emphasis added). Despite this revision, information indicates that abundance is we continue to find that the data do not Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires naturally low across the species’ range, indicate any portion of the humphead that NMFS make listing determinations and although populations have declined wrasse’s range meets the definition of a based solely on the best scientific and in some areas because of fishing SPOIR. Thus, the overall extinction risk commercial data available after mortality, many populations, especially of the species is considered throughout conducting a review of the status of the those in U.S. waters, are either stable, the species’ entire range. species and taking into account those show no clear trend, or may be efforts, if any, being made by any state increasing; (5) although there is no Overall Risk Summary or foreign nation, or political formal estimate on the current global As a final step in their analysis, the subdivisions thereof, to protect and population size, it is likely sufficient to ERA Team voted on the overall risk of conserve the species. We have maintain population viability into the extinction to the humphead wrasse independently reviewed the best foreseeable future; (6) the main threat to based on the information the Team available scientific and commercial the species is overutilization in the live reviewed in its demographic risk information including the petition, reef food fish trade; however, legal trade analysis, as modified by the information public comments submitted on the 90- of the species has decreased reviewed in the threats assessment. day finding (78 FR 13614; February 28, substantially over recent years due to Likelihood points attributed to the 2013), the status review report (Graham reduced or zero export quotas, current level of extinction risk et al., 2014), and other published and especially from the three main exporting categories were as follows, with the first unpublished information, and have countries within the Coral Triangle number representing the total votes by consulted with species experts and region; (7) there is no evidence that Team members and the second number individuals familiar with humphead disease or predation is contributing to representing the total possible votes, wrasse. We considered each of the five increasing the risk of extinction of the which was 40: No Risk (25/40), Low ESA statutory factors to determine species; (8) recent implementation of, Risk (13/40), Moderate Risk (2/40). whether it presented an extinction risk increased adherence to, and None of the Team members placed a to the species on its own. Additionally, enforcement of existing regulatory likelihood point in either the ‘‘High we do not find that the combination of mechanisms throughout the species’ Risk’’ or ‘‘Very High Risk’’ categories, factors poses an extinction risk. As range appear effective in addressing the indicating their strong consensus that required by the ESA, section 4(b)(1)(a), most important threat to the species the species is not currently at a high or we also took into account efforts to (overharvest); and (9) although there is very high risk of extinction. Thus, the protect humphead wrasse by territories, some concern with regard to effects Team found, and we agree, that the foreign nations, and others and from other natural or manmade factors, species is not presently at risk of evaluated whether those efforts provide such as climate change and pollution, extinction. The Team expressed this a conservation benefit to the species. As the evidence does not suggest that the view with a high relative certainty with previously explained, no portion of the species is at risk of extinction from regard to the available information. species’ range is considered significant these factors. For the level of extinction risk of the and we did not find biological evidence humphead wrasse in the foreseeable that would indicate that any population Based on these findings, we conclude future, the ERA Team found, and we segment of the humphead wrasse would that the humphead wrasse is not agree, that the species would be at low qualify as a DPS under the DPS Policy. presently in danger of extinction overall risk of extinction. Likelihood Therefore, our determination set forth throughout all or a significant portion of points attributed to each risk category in below is based on a synthesis and its range nor is it likely to become so the foreseeable future were as follows: integration of the foregoing information, within the foreseeable future. No Risk (15/40), Low Risk (18/40), factors and considerations, and their Accordingly, the humphead wrasse does Moderate Risk (7/40). Again, none of the effects on the status of the species not meet the definition of a threatened Team members placed a likelihood throughout its entire range. or endangered species and therefore the point in either the ‘‘High Risk’’ or ‘‘Very We conclude that the humphead humphead wrasse does not warrant High Risk’’ categories, indicating their wrasse is not presently in danger of listing as threatened or endangered at strong consensus that the species will extinction, nor is it likely to become so this time. However, it will remain on not be at a high or very high risk of in the foreseeable future throughout all our Species of Concern list and we will extinction in the foreseeable future. The of its range. We summarize the factors encourage research on the status of the Team viewed the certainty of supporting this conclusion as follows: species for use in future status reviews.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices 57887

References development of a Vision Blueprint DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE A complete list of all references cited (long-term strategic plan) for the South National Oceanic and Atmospheric herein is available upon request (see FOR Atlantic snapper grouper fishery. The Administration FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). outcome of the workshop will consist of a draft Vision Blueprint document RIN 0648–XD518 Authority outlining strategic goals, objectives, and The authority for this action is the strategies for managing the snapper Western Pacific Fishery Management Endangered Species Act of 1973, as grouper fishery going forward. The draft Council; Public Meetings amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). document will be provided to the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Dated: September 22, 2014. Council at the December 2014 Council Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Samuel D. Rauch, III., meeting and then open for public Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Deputy Assistant Administrator for comment. Topics of discussion include: Commerce. Regulatory Programs, National Marine 1. Visioning exercise to develop key ACTION: Notice of public meetings and Fisheries Service. concepts for each sector of the hearings. [FR Doc. 2014–23034 Filed 9–25–14; 8:45 am] snapper grouper fishery. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P SUMMARY: The Western Pacific Fishery 2. Breakout Group Discussion to Management Council (Council) will develop strategies on key topics to hold meetings of its 117th Scientific and DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE include: Statistical Committee (SSC) and its a. Sub-regional Management 161st Council meeting to take actions on National Oceanic and Atmospheric fishery management issues in the b. Reporting/Data Collection Administration Western Pacific Region. The Council RIN 0648–XD517 c. Reducing Discards will also convene meetings of the d. Access to the Fishery Council’s Education Steering Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Committee, Fishery Data Collection and e. Stakeholder Engagement Atlantic Fishery Management Council Research Committee, Pelagic Standing (SAFMC); Public Meeting f. Habitat/Ecosystems Committee, and Executive and Budget Standing Committee. AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries g. Allocation Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 3. Plenary session to summarize DATES: The meetings will be held Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), breakout group discussions, and Monday, October 13, 2014 through Commerce. Thursday, October 23, 2014. For specific 4. Public Comment/Outreach dates, times and agendas, see ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. Approaches for draft Vision SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Blueprint. SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery ADDRESSES: The Education Steering Management Council (Council) will Although non-emergency issues not Committee, 117th SSC, the Fishery Data hold a Visioning Workshop, October contained in this agenda may come Collection and Research Committee and 14–16, 2014 in North Charleston, SC. before these groups for discussion, those Standing Committee meetings will be DATES: The workshop will be held 1 issues may not be the subject of formal held at the Council office, 1164 Bishop p.m.–5 p.m., Tuesday, October 14, 2014; action during these meetings. Action Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813; telephone: (808) 522–8220. 8:30 a.m.–5 p.m., Wednesday, October will be restricted to those issues 15, 2014; and 8:30 a.m.–3 p.m., The 161st Council meeting will be specifically listed in this notice and any Thursday, October 16, 2014. Public held at the Laniakea YWCA-Fuller Hall, issues arising after publication of this comment will be held 4:30 p.m.–5 p.m., 1040 Richards Street, Honolulu, HI notice that require emergency action Tuesday, October 14, 2014; 4:30 p.m.– 96813; telephone: (808) 538–7061. 5 p.m., Wednesday, October 15, 2014; under section 305(c) of the Magnuson- The Fishers Forum will be held at the 1:30 p.m.–2 p.m., Thursday, October 16, Stevens Act, provided the public has Harbor View Center, Pier 38, 1129 North 2014. been notified of the Council’s intent to Nimitz Highway, Honolulu, HI 96817; ADDRESSES: take final action to address the telephone: (808) 983–1200. Meeting address: Crowne Plaza emergency. Background documents will be Charleston Airport-Convention Center, Special Accommodations available from, and written comments 4381 Tanger Outlet Boulevard, N. should be sent to, Mr. Edwin Ebisui, Charleston, SC 29418; telephone: (843) This meeting is accessible to people Acting Chair, Western Pacific Fishery 744–4422. with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary Management Council, 1164 Bishop Council address: South Atlantic aids should be directed to the SAFMC Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813; Fishery Management Council, 4055 office (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 telephone: (808) 522–8220 or fax: (808) Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. business days prior to the meeting. 522–8226. Charleston, SC 29405. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Note: The times and sequence specified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; Kim this agenda are subject to change. Iverson, Public Information Officer, telephone: (808) 522–8220. 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Charleston, SC 29405; telephone: (843) Education Steering Committee will meet Dated: September 23, 2014. 571–4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC–10; on October 13, 2014, between 3 p.m. fax: (843) 769–4520; email: Tracey L. Thompson, and 5 p.m.; 117th SSC meeting on [email protected]. Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable October 14–16, 2014, between 8:30 a.m. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. and 5 p.m.; Fishery Data Collection and workshop is being held for Council [FR Doc. 2014–22957 Filed 9–25–14; 8:45 am] Research Committee October 20, 2014, members to discuss the further BILLING CODE 3510–22–P between 10 a.m. and 12 noon; the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM 26SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES