[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 21, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57431-57436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23486]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 100903415-04-02]
RIN 0648-XW96
Listing Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day
Finding on a Petition to List Atlantic Bluefin Tuna as Threatened or
Endangered under the Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: 90-day petition finding; request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding for a petition to list
Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) as endangered or threatened
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to designate critical
habitat concurrently with a listing. We find that the petition presents
substantial scientific information indicating the petitioned action may
be warranted. We will conduct a status review of Atlantic bluefin tuna
to determine if the petitioned action is warranted. To ensure that the
review is comprehensive, we solicit information pertaining to this
species from any interested party.
DATES: Information related to this petition finding must be received
by November 22, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-XW96, by
any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http//www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail or hand-delivery: Assistant Regional Administrator,
NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester,
MA 01930.
All comments received are a part of the public record and will
generally be
[[Page 57432]]
posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal
Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit
Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected
information.
NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or
Adobe PDF file formats only.
The petition and other pertinent information are also available
electronically at the NMFS website at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/prot_res/CandidateSpeciesProgram/csr.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Damon-Randall, NMFS, Northeast
Regional Office (978) 282-8485 or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources (301) 713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 24, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity (CBD) to list Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus
thynnus) as threatened or endangered under the ESA and designate
critical habitat concurrently with its listing. The petition contains
information on the species, including the taxonomy, historical and
current distribution, physical and biological characteristics of its
habitat and ecosystem relationships, population status and trends, and
factors contributing to the species' decline. In its petition, CBD
references information contained in the proposal prepared by Monaco for
the 15th Conference of the Parties (CoP15) to the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) to list Atlantic bluefin tuna under Appendix I. This document
is referenced in this finding as ``CITES, 2010.'' CBD contends that
``Atlantic bluefin tuna suffers from mismanagement by an ineffective
international organization, rampant illegal fishing as a consequence of
extraordinary market demand, complicated and poorly understood
population dynamics, and a diversity of habitat threats.'' The
petitioner presents information in the petition regarding the declining
trend of both the eastern Atlantic/Mediterranean and western Atlantic
stocks and what it characterizes as the lack of management measures
both nationally and internationally to fully address and reverse the
declines. The petitioner presents genetic information and life history
information, asserting that at least two distinct population segments
(DPS) of Atlantic bluefin tuna exist. CBD also contends that the
Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico occurred during
spawning in the only known spawning grounds of the western Atlantic
stock and is likely to have significant long-term effects on bluefin
tuna, possibly having the potential to ``devastate the population.''
ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy Considerations
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires
that we make a finding as to whether a petition to list, delist, or
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted. ESA
implementing regulations define substantial information as the amount
of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe the
measure proposed in the petition may be warranted (50 CFR
424.14(b)(1)). In determining whether substantial information exists
for a petition to list a species, we take into account several factors,
including information submitted with, and referenced in, the petition
and all other information readily available in our files. To the
maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days
of the receipt of the petition (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)), and the
finding is to be published promptly in the Federal Register. If we find
that a petition presents substantial information indicating that the
requested action may be warranted, section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA
requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to conduct a status
review of the species. Section 4(b)(3)(B) requires the Secretary to
make a finding as to whether or not the petitioned action is warranted
within 12 months of the receipt of the petition. The Secretary has
delegated the authority for these actions to the NOAA Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries.
The ESA defines an endangered species as ``any species which is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' (ESA section 3(6)). A threatened species is defined as a
species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' (ESA section 3(19)). Under the ESA, a listing determination can
address a species, subspecies, or a DPS of a vertebrate species (16
U.S.C. 1532 (16)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a species may be
determined to be threatened or endangered as a result of any one of the
following factors: (A) present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of habitat or range; (B) over-utilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. Listing determinations are made solely on the basis of the
best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a
review of the status of the species and taking into account efforts
made by any state or foreign nation to protect such species.
Life History of the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna
Atlantic bluefin tuna are found throughout the North Atlantic Ocean
and adjacent seas, including the Mediterranean Sea. They are pelagic,
highly migratory species occupying coastal and open ocean areas up to
depths of 200 meters (m) (SCRS, 2008). Based on reproductive isolation
due to the existence of separate spawning grounds and the absence of
spawning in the middle of the North Atlantic, associated genetic
differentiation, and differing ages at maturity, the International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) manages this
highly migratory species as two separate stocks the eastern Atlantic
and western Atlantic (SCRS, 2008).
The Atlantic bluefin tuna is the largest of the tuna species.
Maximum lengths can exceed 4 meters (m) (13.1 feet), and weights of up
to 900 kilograms (kg) (1,984.2 lb) have been reported in various
fisheries in the western Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea (SCRS, 2008).
As large predators, bluefin tuna play an important role in pelagic
ecosystems (Rooker et al., 2007). Juveniles prey primarily on fish,
crustaceans, and cephalopods, and adults feed primarily on fish such as
herring, anchovy, sand lance, sardine, sprat, bluefish, and mackerel
(Fromentin, 2006).
The western Atlantic stock is believed to reach maturity at 8 or
more years of age while the eastern Atlantic stock is believed to
mature at 4 to 6 years of age (Medina et al., 2002 cited in Fromentin
and Powers, 2005). The western Atlantic stock spawns in the Gulf of
Mexico from March through May, while in the Mediterranean spawning
occurs from May to June in the eastern portion and June to July in the
central and western portions (Nishikawa et al., 1985; Mather et al.,
1995; Schaefer, 2001, cited in Fromentin and Powers, 2005). Bluefin
tuna are oviparous (i.e., lay eggs) and iteroparous (i.e., spawn
regularly), and are multiple batch spawners (Schaefer, 2001, cited in
Fromentin and Powers,
[[Page 57433]]
2005). According to Teo et al. (2007), bluefin tuna appear to spawn in
consecutive years. Fecundity (i.e., the number of eggs produced) is
size dependent. Fromentin (2006) determined that fertilization takes
place directly in the water column, and hatching occurs without
parental care after 2 days. Larvae are pelagic and resorb the yolk sac
within a few days (Fromentin and Powers, 2005).
Analysis of Petition and Information Readily Available in NMFS Files
In the following sections, we use the information presented in the
petition and in our files to: (1) describe the distribution of Atlantic
bluefin tuna; (2) determine whether Atlantic bluefin tuna populations
may meet the criteria for being identified as DPSs; and, (3) evaluate
whether Atlantic bluefin tuna populations proposed by the petitioners
are at abundance levels that would lead a reasonable person to conclude
that listing under the ESA may be warranted due to any of the factors
listed under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
Analysis of DPS Information
To be considered for listing under the ESA, a group of organisms
must constitute a ``species.'' A ``species'' is defined in section 3 of
the ESA to include ``any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and
any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' On February 7, 1996, NMFS and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (collectively, the ``Services'')
adopted a policy to clarify their interpretation of the phrase
``distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife'' (61 FR 4722). The joint DPS policy describes two criteria
that must be considered when identifying DPSs: (1) the discreteness of
the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species (or
subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the
population segment to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to
which it belongs. As further stated in the joint policy, if a
population segment is discrete and significant (i.e., it is a DPS), its
evaluation for endangered or threatened status will be based on the
ESA's definition of those terms and a review of the five factors
enumerated in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
Under the DPS policy, a population segment may be determined to be
discrete if: (1) it is markedly separated from other populations of the
same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological or
behavioral factors; and/or (2) the population is delimited by
international boundaries within which differences in control of
exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory
mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of
the ESA. As noted previously in the petition, CBD presents information
to support its claim that there are at least two DPSs of Atlantic
bluefin tuna. CBD contends that Atlantic bluefin tuna meet at least
one, if not both, of the discreteness criteria. The spawning grounds of
the eastern and western stocks are separated (e.g., Gulf of Mexico and
Mediterranean Sea), and there are significant genetic differences and
unique ages of maturity (markedly separated from other populations of
the same taxon). Bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean mature at
considerably younger ages (e.g., 4 to 6 years) than fish from the Gulf
of Mexico, which were described to mature at age 8 or older and at much
larger sizes (SCRS, 2008). Fromentin et al. (2005) and several other
authors have confirmed that bluefin tuna exhibits a strong homing
behavior and strong spawning site fidelity. ICCAT manages the species
as two separate stocks with separate Total Allowable Catch (TAC) levels
for the western stock and eastern stock (which are delimited by
international boundaries within which there are significant management
differences).
The DPS policy also cites examples of potential considerations
indicating significance, including: (1) persistence of the discrete
population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the
taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would
result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence
that the DPS represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a
taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population
outside its historic range; or, (4) evidence that the discrete
population segment differs markedly from other populations of the
species in its genetic characteristics.
CBD presents information to support its claim that the two discrete
populations are significant, including evidence that: (1) they persist
in ecological settings that are unusual or unique for the taxon; (2)
loss of a population would result in a significant gap in the range of
the species; and (3) there are significant genetic differences between
the two stocks. CBD notes that the habitat in the Gulf of Mexico is
unique from that found in the Mediterranean. Carlsson et al. (2007)
provide information on trans-Atlantic migrations of the species as well
as genetic evidence indicating that the two populations are genetically
diverse. According to CBD, the genetic differentiation between the two
stocks supports the assertion that, if one population were to be lost,
this would result in the significant loss of genetic diversity and,
therefore, a significant gap in the range of the taxon. Based on the
information in the petition, and on information readily available in
our files prior to receipt of the petition, there is evidence that the
eastern and western Atlantic stocks of Atlantic bluefin tuna may be
discrete and significant. Thus, a full DPS analysis will be undertaken.
Abundance
CBD asserts that the eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna population is
critically imperiled and faces imminent risk of extinction, basing this
contention on information which suggests that the population has
declined more than 80 percent since 1970 (CITES, 2010). CBD cites a
stock assessment conducted in 2008 by SCRS who determined that the
spawning stock biomass (SSB) for the eastern Atlantic stock in 2007 was
78,724 tonnes (t). This contrasts with the biomass peak of 305,136 t in
1958 and 201,479 t in 1997 (CITES, 2010). As noted in the petition,
CITES (2010) indicates that the absolute extent of decline over the 50-
year historical period from 1957 to 2007 is estimated to be 74.2
percent, and the majority of that decline occurred in the last 10
years.
CBD also contends that the western Atlantic bluefin tuna population
is at imminent risk of extinction. According to the petition, a history
of intense fishing pressure has resulted in declines of over 80 percent
since 1970 (CITES, 2010). The SSB for the western Atlantic stock was
estimated in 2007 to be 8,693 t, declining from 49,482 t in 1970 (SCRS,
2009). This represents an 82.4 percent decline over the 38-year
historical period (SCRS, 2009). Since the early 1990s, the SSB has
remained relatively stable at approximately 15-18 percent of its pre-
exploitation biomass (SCRS, 2009).
CBD notes that at the 2010 CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP15),
the Principality of Monaco proposed to include the Atlantic bluefin
tuna in Appendix I (CBD, 2010). According to the CITES definitions,
Appendix I lists species that ``are the most endangered among CITES-
listed animals and plants. They are threatened with extinction, and
CITES prohibits the international trade in specimens of these species
except when the purpose of the import is not commercial, for instance
for scientific research.'' The listing proposal did not receive the
votes that it needed
[[Page 57434]]
to be adopted at CoP15. While the United States voted in favor of
Monaco's proposal, its support was based on problems with compliance in
the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean fishery, as well as the fact
that the 2010 quota level adopted by ICCAT for this stock was not as
low as the United States believed was necessary. Without improvement in
these areas, the United States had concerns about the long-term
viability of the bluefin tuna stock and fishery. A ban on the
international commercial trade of bluefin tuna offered an additional
tool to reduce fishing pressure and improve control of the eastern
stock in order to enhance its conservation in order to meet ICCAT
objectives (K. Blankenbeker, NMFS, personal communication, 2010).
Also, as noted in the petition, the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has listed western Atlantic bluefin tuna
as critically endangered with an extremely high risk of extinction in
the wild in the immediate future. According to IUCN, the population
meets the critically endangered criteria of having declined in excess
of 80 percent over the last 10 years or 3 generations. Eastern Atlantic
bluefin tuna are classified by IUCN as endangered, meaning that this
population is at very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near
future based on a reduction of at least 50 percent over the last 10
years or 3 generations. While the criteria for listing species under a
CITES appendix or under IUCN are different from those used under the
ESA, the information used to make these decisions may be informative
and will be considered during the development of the status review
where appropriate.
ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Habitat or Range
In the petition, CBD states that worldwide habitat loss and
degradation is one of the primary causes of the decline of Atlantic
bluefin tuna. It indicates that threats to habitat from pollution and
ocean climate change are having significant impacts globally. CBD cites
information from the NMFS Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH) assessment in which it is stated that habitat for these
species is comprised of open ocean environments occurring over broad
geographic ranges, and ``large-scale impacts such as global climate
change that affect ocean temperatures, currents, and potentially food
chain dynamics, are most likely to have an impact and pose the greatest
threat to HMS EFH'' (NMFS, 2009). CBD indicates that effects from
climate change are already impacting the North Atlantic Ocean with
increasing water temperatures and sea levels, increased acidification,
and changes in circulation patterns and nutrient supplies (Bindoff et
al. 2007; Beaugrand, 2009). It asserts that changing ocean conditions
as a result of climate change and ocean acidification may result in
species shifts and ecosystem changes that may negatively affect
Atlantic bluefin tuna. CBD states that climate change could impact
Atlantic bluefin tuna prey availability, behavior, and water quality.
According to CBD, ocean acidification may also decrease the sound
absorption in seawater, which could affect spawning habitat, resulting
in physiological or anatomical effects to the auditory systems,
potential behavioral alterations, and auditory masking.
The petitioners contend that oil and gas activities in the Gulf of
Mexico pose a significant threat to the only known spawning grounds for
the western Atlantic bluefin tuna population. According to CBD, the
Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico occurred during
spawning in the only known spawning grounds of the western Atlantic
stock and is, therefore, likely to have significant long-term effects
on bluefin tuna, possibly having the potential to devastate the
population. In response to the oil spill, NMFS is examining, among
other things, the historical distributions of spawners and larvae, as
well as the distributions expected this year based on maps of optimal
larval habitat, to determine the overlap of the oil spill with spawning
bluefin tuna and their progeny (C. Porch, NMFS, personal communication,
2010). It is not known how long the oil will remain in the Gulf and
what the long-term effects to fish exposed to non-lethal concentrations
of oil may be; however, the best available information on the effects
from the oil spill to Atlantic bluefin tuna will need to be considered
during the status review, including the results of current research and
analyses being undertaken by NMFS.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or Education
Purposes
In 2008, the ICCAT Standing Committee on Research and Statistics
(SCRS) advised that, unless fishing mortality rates on the eastern
Atlantic and Mediterranean stock of bluefin tuna were substantially
reduced in the future, further reduction of SSB was likely, which could
lead to a risk of fisheries and stock collapse (SCRS, 2009). For the
eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna population, CBD notes that the SCRS
indicated that continued fishing mortality rates at the 2007 levels
were expected to drive the SSB to very low levels (approximately 18
percent of the SSB in 1970 and 6 percent of the unfished SSB). CBD
cites MacKenzie et al. (2009) who predicted that the adult eastern
bluefin tuna population in 2011 will be 75 percent lower than in 2005
and that the fishing quotas will permit the capture of all remaining
adult fish. These authors noted that, at these low population sizes,
reproduction of eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna is increasingly uncertain
and could be limited by spawner biomass (MacKenzie et al., 2009). They
conclude that the population is at risk of collapse in the next few
years, which translates to a 90 percent decline in adult biomass within
3 generations (MacKenzie et al., 2009). It is important to note that
MacKenzie et al. (2009) made population projections based on the TAC
levels ICCAT established for 2008 through 2010 (22,000 t, 19,950 t, and
18,500 t, respectively). However, the TAC for 2010 has been reduced to
13,500 t; therefore, the projections that were made may not reflect the
current fishing pressure on the stock and may be overly pessimistic (G.
Diaz, NMFS, personal communication, 2010).
CBD asserts that the western Atlantic bluefin tuna population is
also in imminent danger of extinction due to severe declines and
ongoing fishing pressures. As stated previously, according to CBD, this
stock has declined over 80 percent since 1970 due primarily to
overfishing (CITES, 2010). The SSB has declined approximately 82.4
percent over the 38-year historical period; however, since the early
1990s, it has remained relatively stable at approximately 15-18 percent
of its pre-exploitation biomass (SCRS, 2009). In 2008, the SCRS
determined that the western Atlantic stock has been below the level
required to produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) since the mid-
1970s, and fishing mortality rates have been above that which would
produce MSY throughout the time series used in the stock assessment
(which started in 1970). The SCRS also determined that 10 years after
ICCAT adopted a rebuilding program (half way through the 20-year
rebuilding period), the 2007 SSB was estimated to be 7 percent below
the level of the rebuilding plan's first year (SCRS, 2008). Since 1998,
the stock has generally stabilized, increasing in some years and
decreasing in others (G. Diaz, NMFS, personal
[[Page 57435]]
communication, 2010). According to CITES (2010), there is also great
uncertainty regarding potential recruitment of the western Atlantic
stock. In addition, Safina and Klinger (2008) suggest that the western
Atlantic stock is currently in danger of extinction and that a
moratorium on fishing this stock should be implemented.
According to the last ICCAT stock assessment (2008), the most
pessimistic recruitment scenario indicates that even a closure of the
fishery would not achieve rebuilding of the stock by 2019. However,
under different assumptions of recruitment, recovery is projected to
occur within this timeframe (SCRS, 2009). Fishing mortality of large
western Atlantic bluefin tuna has declined recently, and the TAC was
not taken for several years primarily because of U.S. underharvest,
which ranged from 40 to 80 percent of its national quota in 2006-2008
(SCRS, 2009). SCRS has indicated that there are two plausible
explanations for this: (1) the availability of fish to the U.S. fishery
has been abnormally low due to a change in the spatial distribution of
the stock; and/or (2) the overall size of the population in the Western
Atlantic declined substantially from the level of recent years (SCRS,
2009). It is important to note that U.S. catches have steadily
increased since 2006, and in 2009, the United States caught its entire
base quota.
Predation and Disease
According to CBD, emerging environmental stress on Atlantic bluefin
tuna may make them more vulnerable to disease, and tuna ranching may
also increase the prevalence and spread of disease. CBD asserts that
confined or escaped fish present a threat to wild fish from the spread
of disease and parasites, as confined fish are particularly vulnerable
to disease. It also notes that diseases in confined fish that are
controlled through the use of antibiotics can result in more virulent
strains of disease that are then resistant to antibiotics. While it
presents some information in the petition regarding disease, CBD does
state that disease and predation are not primary threats responsible
for the decline of the species.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
CBD states that existing regulatory mechanisms for Atlantic bluefin
tuna are inadequate. The petition indicates that the responsibility for
overfishing and the poor status of Atlantic bluefin tuna stocks falls
on ICCAT and its member countries, and CBD asserts that there is
consensus that the ICCAT process is failing the species.
In the petition, CBD states that in 2008, ICCAT failed to adopt the
measures suggested by ICCAT scientists for eastern Atlantic and
Mediterranean bluefin tuna. Based on the 2008 stock assessment, SCRS
had advised that the maximum TAC for the eastern Atlantic stock be set
on the order of 15,000 t or less. SCRS also advised that a time and
area closure during the spawning months could greatly facilitate the
implementation and monitoring of rebuilding. Additionally, SCRS
indicated that a moratorium over the East Atlantic and Mediterranean
Sea during 1, 3, or 5 years followed by an F0.1 management strategy
would increase the probability of rebuilding the stock by 2023 (SCRS,
2009). In 2008, ICCAT established TACs for eastern bluefin tuna that
declined annually for the years 2009 through 2011 (22,000 t, 19,950 t,
and 18,500 t, respectively). However, in the petition, CBD did not
recognize that, in 2009, ICCAT adopted new 2010 TAC levels for eastern
bluefin tuna of 13,500 t, which is within the range of scientific
advice, and agreed that, at its 2010 meeting, it would establish TACs
for 2011-2013 with the goal of achieving biomass at maximum sustainable
yield (Bmsy) through 2022 (the end of the eastern/Mediterranean bluefin
tuna recovery period) with at least 60 percent probability, on the
basis of 2010 SCRS advice (ICCAT, 2009). CBD also presents information
regarding an independent review that ICCAT initiated in 2008 in
response to concerns expressed at the United Nations and other
international fora about the sustainable management of high seas
fisheries. According to CBD, although the review covered all species
within ICCAT's management jurisdiction, the Executive Summary of the
final report noted that ICCAT's international reputation ``will be
based largely on how ICCAT manages fisheries on bluefin tuna.'' They
cite that Hurry et al. (2008) stated that ``ICCAT's members'
performance in managing fisheries on bluefin tuna particularly in the
eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea is widely regarded as an
international disgrace.'' The petition indicates that the independent
review panel concluded that the ICCAT Convention Objectives were not
met for either of the two bluefin tuna stocks. The petition goes on to
state that the panel recommended that ICCAT suspend fishing on bluefin
tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean until ICCAT members
fully comply with ICCAT recommendations on this stock of bluefin tuna,
and also that ICCAT consider an immediate closure of all known bluefin
tuna spawning grounds at least during known spawning periods. According
to CBD, ICCAT did not follow these recommendations.
CBD states that ICCAT's management performance for the western
Atlantic bluefin tuna stock is also poor. According to the petition, in
2008, it was concluded that the 20-year rebuilding plan that was
initiated in 1998 has not resulted in the rebuilding that was
projected. CBD notes that the review panel attributed the slow
rebuilding of the stock to two potential causes: (1) ICCAT's adoption
of quotas at levels that fail to meet rebuilding goals, and (2) the
rate of mixing between the two stocks. The SCRS (2008) noted that
mixing rates are important as even a small amount of mixing between the
larger eastern stock and the smaller western stock could have
significant effects on the recovery of the latter.
CBD also cites the lack of data as a significant problem plaguing
the management of the eastern bluefin tuna stock. It notes that
reported catches from the mid 1970s to 2007 were inaccurate, often
underestimating the actual catch. Therefore, according to CBD, the
extent of the Atlantic bluefin tuna decline is underestimated.
According to the petition, this then leads to overfishing and severe
population decline because quotas are not based on the high catch that
actually occurred, and there are no fishery independent data that would
better characterize the decline.
CBD contends that U.S. fishery management also fails to meet its
domestic legal obligation to manage fisheries in order to attain
optimum yield. It states that the U.S. management measures for western
Atlantic bluefin tuna in the Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory
Species Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP) are ineffective at
maintaining stocks and meeting the requirements to rebuild the
population to healthy levels as mandated by the Magnuson Stevens Act.
The petition also references a proposed rule that NMFS recently
published to increase the maximum daily retention limit and lengthen
the season of the General category fishery and increase the Harpoon
category daily incidental retention limit (74 FR 57128; November 4,
2009), and indicates that these proposals were made despite the lack of
success of recovery efforts for the western Atlantic bluefin tuna
stock. It is important to note, however, that the information available
in our files indicates that western bluefin tuna biomass levels are not
in decline at this time and have remained stable, at low
[[Page 57436]]
levels, since the 1990s. It is also important to note that although
NMFS' November 4, 2009, proposed rule was intended to more thoroughly
utilize the available U.S. bluefin tuna quota established under the 20-
year rebuilding program as, in accordance with the Atlantic Tunas
Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.), the United States cannot
increase or decrease its bluefin tuna quota established by ICCAT. To
date, the rule has not been finalized.
Finally, the petition claims that there are no habitat protections
for the western Atlantic bluefin tuna stock. It notes that NMFS
designated an area of the Gulf of Mexico as a Habitat Area of
Particular Concern and identified bluefin tuna spawning grounds as
needing special protection. However, it states that NMFS did not
implement any measures that would actually protect the habitat, and,
thus, this designation has done little to protect the species.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Existence
Chemical contaminants, such as endocrine disrupting chemicals
(EDCs) and mercury, and offshore aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico are
presented by CBD as potential threats to Atlantic bluefin tuna. CBD
cites Storelli et al. (2008) and Fossi et al. (2002) who warned that
EDCs have the potential to result in reproductive alterations in
bluefin tuna as a result of bioaccumulation. Storelli et al. (2008)
concluded that exposure to EDCs over a long lifetime might ``create the
prerequisite for the development of pathological conditions'' in
Atlantic bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean. CBD also states that
mercury may accumulate in the food chain due to low pH resulting from
climate change induced ocean acidification, which will result in
increased bioaccumulation in Atlantic bluefin tuna.
The petitioner also suggests that offshore aquaculture in the Gulf
of Mexico is an emerging threat to Atlantic bluefin tuna. CBD cites
NMFS (2009), stating that potential impacts from offshore aquaculture
include increased nutrient loading, habitat degradation, fish
escapement, competition with wild Atlantic bluefin tuna, and spread of
pathogens. CBD concludes that offshore aquaculture will affect Atlantic
bluefin tuna.
Petition Finding
Based on the above information and the criteria specified in 50 CFR
424.14(b)(2), we find that the petition presents substantial scientific
and commercial information indicating that the petitioned action
concerning Atlantic bluefin tuna may be warranted. Under section
4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, this positive 90-day finding requires NMFS to
commence a status review of the species. During our status review, we
will consider whether there are multiple DPSs within the species'
range, whether these are threatened or endangered, and whether the
species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
We now initiate this review, and thus, the Atlantic bluefin tuna is now
considered to be a candidate species (69 FR 19976; April 15, 2004).
Within 12 months of the receipt of the petition (May 24, 2011), we will
make a finding as to whether listing Atlantic bluefin tuna or DPSs of
Atlantic bluefin tuna as endangered or threatened is warranted, as
required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. If warranted, we will
publish a proposed rule and solicit public comments before developing
and publishing a final determination.
References Cited
A complete list of the references used in this finding is available
upon request (see ADDRESSES).
Information Solicited
To ensure the status review is based on the best available
scientific and commercial data, we solicit information pertaining to
Atlantic bluefin tuna. Specifically, we solicit information in the
following areas: (1) historical and current distribution and abundance
of this species throughout its range; (2) historical and current
condition; (3) population status and trends; (4) any current or planned
activities that may adversely impact the species, especially as related
to the five factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and listed
above; (5) ongoing efforts to protect and restore the species and its
habitat; (6) genetic data or other information that would help us
determine whether any population segments of Atlantic bluefin tuna meet
the DPS policy criteria of discreteness and significance; and (7)
whether any particular portions of the range of the Atlantic bluefin
tuna constitute significant portions of the range of the species or of
any potential DPSs that may exist. We request that all information be
accompanied by: (1) supporting documentation such as maps,
bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and
(2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or
business that the person represents.
Peer Review
On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, published a series of policies regarding listings under the
ESA, including a policy for peer review of scientific data (59 FR
34270). The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure listings are
based on the best scientific and commercial data available. We solicit
the names of recognized experts in the field that could take part in
the peer review process for this status review. Independent peer
reviewers will be selected from the academic and scientific community,
tribal and other Native American groups, Federal and state agencies,
the private sector, and public interest groups.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: September 14, 2010.
Eric C. Schwaab,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-23486 Filed 9-16-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S