[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8619-8627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03326]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 130312237-5115-01]
RIN 0648-XC567
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition
to List Yellowtail Damselfish as Threatened or Endangered Under the
Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list
yellowtail damselfish (Microspathodon chrysurus) as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the
petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petitions and related materials are available
upon
[[Page 8620]]
request from the Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources
Division, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St.
Petersburg, FL 33701, or online at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ListingPetitions.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Rueter, NMFS Southeast Region,
727-824-5312.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 14, 2012, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity (CBD) to list eight reef fishes of the family
Pomacentridae as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The eight
species are orange clownfish (Amphiprion percula), black-axil chromis
(Chromis atripectoralis), blue-green damselfish (Chromis viridis),
Hawaiian dascyllus (Dascyllus albisella), reticulated damselfish
(Dascyllus reticulatus), yellowtail damselfish or jewelfish
(Microspathodon chrysurus), blackbar devil or Dick's damselfish
(Plectroglyphidodon dickii), and blue-eyed damselfish
(Plectroglyphidodon johnstonianus). The petition is available on our
Web site (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/petitions/pomacentrid_reef_fish_petition_2012.pdf). Given the geographic range of
these species, we divided the lead for the response to the petition
between our Southeast Regional Office (SERO) and our Pacific Islands
Regional Office (PIRO). SERO led the response to the petition to list
the yellowtail damselfish (Microspathodon chrysurus) in this finding;
PIRO led the response for the remaining species separately and
published a 90-day finding on those species on September 3, 2014 (79 FR
52276).
ESA Statutory and Regulatory Provisions and Evaluation Framework
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days
of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered,
the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly publish
such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When we
find that substantial scientific or commercial information in a
petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a ``positive
90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a review of the
status of the species concerned, during which we will conduct a
comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial
information. In such cases, we are to conclude the review with a
finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted
within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the
12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available
information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day
stage, a ``may be warranted'' finding at the 90-day stage does not
prejudge the outcome of the status review.
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a ``species,''
which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate
species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species, subspecies, or DPS is
``endangered'' if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and ``threatened'' if it is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20),
respectively; 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our
implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened
or endangered because of any one or a combination of the following five
section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease
or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any
other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50
CFR 424.14(b)) define ``substantial information'' in the context of
reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. In
evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition,
the Secretary must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates
the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any
common name of the species involved; (2) contains a detailed narrative
justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on
available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the
species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides
information regarding the status of the species over all or a
significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the
appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic
references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or
letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
Court decisions clarify the appropriate scope and limitations of
the Services' review of petitions at the 90-day finding stage to make a
determination whether a petitioned action ``may be'' warranted. As a
general matter, these decisions hold that a petition need not establish
a ``strong likelihood'' or a ``high probability'' that a species is
either threatened or endangered to support a positive 90-day finding.
We evaluate the petitioner's request based upon the information in
the petition, including its references, and the information readily
available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we
do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us
in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioner's sources and
characterizations of the information presented, if they appear to be
based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific
information in our files that indicates the petition's information is
incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the
requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one
interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information
will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is
reliable and a reasonable person would conclude it supports the
petitioner's assertions. In other words, conclusive information
indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is
not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude
that a lack of specific information alone negates a positive 90-day
finding, if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown
information itself suggests an extinction risk of concern for the
species at issue.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we
evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating the subject species may be either
threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate
whether the information presented in the petition, along with the
information readily available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under
the ESA. Next,
[[Page 8621]]
we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species at issue
faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated
in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or
in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We
evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to
evaluating extinction risk for the species at issue (e.g., population
abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age structure,
sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, or habitat
integrity), and the potential contribution of identified demographic
risks to extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate the
potential links between these demographic risks and the causative
impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1).
Information presented on impacts or threats should be such that it
reasonably suggests that one or more of these factors may be operative
threats that act, or have acted, on the petitioned species to the point
that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about
generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that
could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial
information that listing may be warranted. We look for information
indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor,
but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we
assess the potential significance of that negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by other
organizations or agencies, such as the International Union on the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society (AFS), or
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk
classifications by other organizations or made under other federal or
state statutes may be informative, but the classification alone may not
provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For
example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species'
conservation status do ``not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe
for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because NatureServe
assessments ``have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes
and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and
threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not
be expected to coincide'' (http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a petition cites such
classifications, we will evaluate the source information that the
classification is based upon, in light of the standards on extinction
risk and impacts or threats discussed above.
Species Description
The yellowtail damselfish is a reef fish (Family Pomacentridae)
that inhabits shallow coral reefs usually at depths between 1-10 m
(depth range can be up to 120 m; Loris and Rucabado, 1990) in the
western Atlantic Ocean including Bermuda, southern Florida, and the
Caribbean Sea (Allen, 1991), south to Brazil (Moura et al., 1999), and
also including the Gulf of Mexico (Bohlke and Chaplin, 1993).
Yellowtail damselfish occupy non-overlapping, often contiguous
territories on solid substrata averaging 44 m\2\ in size (range 14-109
m\2\, n = 22; P. Sikkel, unpublished data) in which they feed on
epilithic microalgae (algae growing on rock) and associated microfauna
(Bohlke and Chaplin, 1968; Sikkel and Kramer, 2006). Adults are
primarily algae-eaters (Robins et al., 1986), feeding on microalgae,
epiphytic (growing on a plant) diatoms, and to a lesser extent live
coral, and are therefore known as facultative corallivores (Cole et
al., 2008). Adults of both sexes are solitary and they aggressively
defend their territories against conspecifics and other species to a
lesser extent (Sikkel and Kramer, 2006). The territories of females
tend to be shallower and closer to shore than those of males (Sikkel
and Kramer, 2006).
Yellowtail damselfish spawning peaks for four to five weeks in
February to March and again in July to August (Deloach, 1999). Spawning
occurs during the first 1-3 hours of daylight (Sikkel and Kramer, 2006)
at regular 3-day intervals from 3 days before to 3 weeks after the full
moon (Pressley, 1980; Robertson et al., 1990). Females can travel up to
120 m from their territory to find mates (Sikkel and Kramer, 2006).
Females lay their entire clutch within the male territory during a
spawning event and will often mate with the same male over successive
spawning trips (Sikkel and Kramer, 2006). Male damselfish prepare nests
within their territories, frequently in coral rubble, and protect the
eggs (Pressley, 1980). Embryos hatch approximately five days after
fertilization (Pressley, 1980), and larvae enter a 21 to 27 day pelagic
phase. They then tend to settle on shallow patch reefs, often inhabited
by Millepora (fire coral), which Deloach (1999) states makes up much of
the early diet, and Acropora species rubble habitats (Wilkes et al.,
2008).
Analysis of the Petition
We evaluated whether the petition presented the information
required in 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2) and found that the petition contains
the species' taxonomic description, current geographic distribution,
habitat characteristics, and threats that could be affecting it. The
petition does not present any information on past or present population
numbers, instead it acknowledges that abundance and population trends
are unknown for the petitioned species, but suggests that the decrease
in average live coral cover across the Caribbean from 50 to 60 percent
coverage in the 1970s to 8 percent coverage today suggests reasons for
concern. The petition does not provide information regarding the status
of yellowtail damselfish over all or a significant portion of its
range, other than a discussion of threats. The petition includes
supporting references.
The petition states that yellowtail damselfish are vulnerable to
coral habitat loss and degradation due to temperature-induced coral
bleaching and ocean acidification, and that this vulnerability is
heightened given their reliance on live branching corals such as
species of Millepora and Acropora. The petition states yellowtail
damselfish are threatened by ocean warming and ocean acidification that
directly impairs its sensory capabilities, behavior, aerobic capacity,
swimming ability, and reproduction. The petition also states that the
global marine aquarium trade and lack of regulatory mechanisms further
threaten yellowtail damselfish by decreasing their populations in the
wild.
Information on Population Status, Trends and Demographics Relevant to
Extinction Risk
As stated above, the petition does not include any information on
past or present population numbers, and it acknowledges that abundance
and population trends are unknown. The petition does not provide
information regarding the status of yellowtail damselfish over all or a
significant portion of its range, although one of the references cited
describes the species as ``common on shallow reefs in the tropical
Western Atlantic,'' occurring at densities of up to four individuals
per 100 m\2\ in the Barbados (Sikkel and Kramer, 2006). The petition
does not identify any risk classifications by other organizations for
this species.
There is some information in our files on population status and
trends for this species in the Florida Keys. We have data on the
abundance of yellowtail
[[Page 8622]]
damselfish from our Southeast Fisheries Science Center's (SEFSC) Reef
fish Visual Census (RVC). The RVC is a long-term, spatially-extensive
survey that has assessed trends in abundance of reef fishes in the
Florida Keys, by collection of standardized data on trends in frequency
of occurrence and density. The RVC survey includes data from 1980
through 2012 for the forereef, high relief spur and groove habitats,
the preferred habitat zone for yellowtail damselfish (NMFS SEFSC,
2014). These data show yellowtail damselfish abundance declined during
the 1980's but stabilized in the 1990's with no apparent trends through
2012. The RVC data recorded yellowtail damselfish in 93 percent of
samples (annual average) in the 1980's. Since 1991, the frequency of
occurrence has averaged around 79 percent, with no apparent trend.
Similarly, the density of fish, when present, averaged 5 fish per
standardized sample in the 1980's, and since 1991, the average annual
density when present has been 2.7 fish per standardized sample, with no
apparent trend (NMFS SEFSC, 2014). The observed decline in yellowtail
damselfish frequency and density between the 1980's and the subsequent
period of 1991-2012 in these data are correlated with the documented
widespread loss of coral habitat that occurred during the 1980's, as
noted in the petition. These data also indicate that since the initial
decline, the long term trend in yellowtail damselfish frequency and
density over 22 years of data collection has remained stable. We
interpret these data as indicating a population that has demonstrated
long term stability, despite significant habitat changes and a one-time
population decline. Thus, we do not believe the available information
on population status and trends suggest an extinction risk of concern
for the species.
Information on Impacts and Threats to the Species
We also evaluated whether the information in the petition and
information in our files concerning the extent and severity of one or
more of the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors suggest these impacts and
threats may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species,
posing a risk of extinction for yellowtail damselfish that is cause for
concern. As stated above in the petition analysis section, the petition
states that four of the five causal factors in section 4(a)(1) of the
ESA are adversely affecting the continued existence of yellowtail
damselfish: (A) Present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial
and recreational purposes; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. In the following sections, we assess the
information presented in the petition and readily available in our
files to determine whether the petitioned action may be warranted.
Present and Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Habitat or Range
The petition states that yellowtail damselfish are ``dependent on
live coral for shelter, reproduction, recruitment, and/or food, which
makes them highly vulnerable to coral habitat loss and degradation due
to ocean warming and ocean acidification and they are habitat
specialists that rely on branching corals which are particularly
susceptible to bleaching.'' First we will evaluate the petition's
arguments that dependency of the yellowtail damselfish on certain
species of live corals is a source of extinction risk, and then we will
evaluate the arguments that climate change impacts to the species'
habitat pose extinction risk that is cause for concern.
Dependency on Branching Coral Species
The petition cites several studies in support of the argument that
the yellowtail damselfish specializes on, or relies upon, branching
corals such as Millepora and Acropora species. The petition cites Allen
(1991) for the proposition that juvenile yellowtail damselfish ``are
usually seen among branches of the yellow stinging coral Millepora.''
Deloach (1999) is cited for an association between juveniles and blade
fire coral, M. complanata. Deloach (1999) is also cited as finding that
Millepora makes up much of the early diet of yellowtail damselfish. The
Web site www.species-identification.org is similarly cited for the
statement that yellowtail damselfish are known to feed on the polyps of
Millepora corals, though as the petition notes from another citation,
this species is considered a facultative and not an obligate
corallivore (Cole et al., 2008). Regardless of the importance as food
or habitat to yellowtail damselfish, the petition does not present
information that suggests Millepora corals have been affected by the
numerous threats other corals face, thus we assume their role in the
yellowtail damselfish's life cycle is unchanged. Additionally, Brainard
et al. (2011), state ``Millepora are among the first to bleach and die,
but they seem to have a special aptitude for recovering by recruiting
new colonies.'' Further, Veron (2000) describes Millepora species as
``common on reefs.'' Therefore, we do not find population trends of
Millepora pose an extinction risk that is cause for concern for
yellowtail damselfish.
We also reviewed the information in the petition regarding the
association between adult yellowtail damselfish and elkhorn coral. The
petition cites Deloach (1999) in describing habitat use by yellowtail
damselfish. In Deloach (1999), we found the statement ``[l]arge females
reign over widespread territories of varying sizes on reef crests,
while males typically occupy deeper zones of Elkhorn rubble.'' This was
the only information presented in the citation relative to elkhorn
coral, but it does not indicate yellowtail damselfish specialize on, or
rely upon, branching coral.
The petition also cites Tolimieri (1998) as a source for the
premise that yellowtail damselfish are ``significantly associated with
Acropora corals and total live coral cover.'' Tolimieri (1998),
investigated microhabitat substrate use by several damselfish species
on the Tague Bay Reef, St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands. This
study evaluated use of Porites spp., Porites spp. rubble, Montastrea
spp., Montastrea spp. rubble, Acropora spp. rubble, total live coral,
boulder (unidentified coral) rubble, algae, and pavement/sand
substrates. The author found that yellowtail damselfish were associated
more than would be expected by random chance with dead Acropora palmata
rubble, but not with live coral cover or the only live branching coral
in the study area--Porites porites. The association between yellowtail
damselfish and Acropora spp. coral rubble was statistically significant
(p = 0.043), but only explained 32 percent of the variation in
abundance of yellowtail damselfish between the various study sites on
this reef.
The petition presents Wilkes et al. (2008) for an association of
adult yellowtail damselfish with live branching staghorn coral in the
Dry Tortugas, Florida. Wilkes et al. (2008) described their study
objective as determining what effect, if any, on damselfish could be
discerned from much of the live staghorn coral in Dry Tortugas National
Park having been reduced to rubble by extreme cold snaps and disease.
Wilkes et al. (2008) compared damselfish densities on the largest
remaining live staghorn coral formation and nearby staghorn coral
rubble habitat, but did not directly investigate damselfish use of any
other habitat types in the park. This study found that the density of
adult
[[Page 8623]]
yellowtail damselfish was greater at sites with live staghorn coral
compared to nearby sites comprised of dead and broken staghorn coral
rubble. There was no significant difference in density of juvenile
yellowtail damselfish between the two sites. These authors suggest that
``complex reef topography of branching corals like Acropora are thought
to be a major factor affecting reef fish distribution and abundance''
and that the higher adult densities observed in this study ``may be
related to the increase in three-dimensional habitat that would provide
predator refuge dimensions more conducive to adult body sizes that
require larger shelter spaces.'' The authors conclude that ``reductions
in damselfish density are the likely outcome in reefs where expanses of
live branching coral are in decline and are being replaced by
relatively low-dimensional fields of reef rubble.'' Finally, Wilkes et
al. (2008) note that ``some damselfish species may require the habitat
complexity provided by branching corals, whereas others are better
suited to exploit a wide range of habitat types and display no specific
coral preference.'' However, the authors make no conclusion about
yellowtail damselfish and their habitat usage, though they do note
another study (Wallman et al., 2006) that found that patch reefs
lacking in live branching corals within Dry Tortugas National Park
support populations of adult yellowtail damselfish.
In our files we also have available Waldner and Robertson (1980)
that considers patterns of spatial distribution and resource
partitioning in damselfish to explain how ecologically similar reef
fishes can co-exist on various spatial scales. Field surveys recorded
yellowtail damselfish in Puerto Rico between 1976 and 1978 at both
inshore and offshore reefs and recorded substrate within 15 cm (5.9
inches) of where the species was observed or the substrate where the
fish sought refuge when rapidly approached by a diver. A total of 54
adult yellowtail damselfish were reported on 4 out of 6 substrate
types: 48 percent of observations were associated with non-branching
massive corals such as Montastraea annularis, 24 percent of the
observations were associated each with elkhorn (A. palmata) and
staghorn (A. cervicornis) coral, and 4 percent were associated with
Millepora spp. When the amount of the different substrate types within
the transect area was considered, elkhorn coral was found to be a most-
used substrate. Waldner and Robertson (1980) then compared their
results with the results of other studies that occurred throughout the
West Indies in the 1970's and concluded their results were in agreement
in most cases that adult yellowtail damselfish were most
characteristically associated with elkhorn coral and Millepora in very
shallow to moderate depth range.
Prior to the 1980's, Acropora corals were the overwhelmingly
dominant reef-building coral on Caribbean reefs, to the extent that
depth zones were named after these species (``elkhorn zone,''
``staghorn zone'') (Goreau, 1959). Given the dominance of these corals,
it is reasonable to expect that yellowtail damselfish and many other
reef fishes were found associated with acroporids then as well. For
example, Waldner and Robertson (1980) found a significant association
between yellowtail damselfish and elkhorn corals in the 1970's. During
the 1980's, a massive die-off of Acropora species occurred in the
Caribbean. The decline in Acropora species was greater than 90 percent
(Ginsburg, 1994; Hughes, 1994; McClanahan and Muthiga, 1998). As the
SEFSC RVC data indicate, yellowtail damselfish abundance declined in
fore-reef, spur and groove habitats in the Florida Keys in the 1980's.
The initial decline in yellowtail damselfish abundance is likely linked
to the widespread die-off of corals. However, the yellowtail damselfish
population has remained stable since 1991. Although the Florida Keys
population is at a lower level than it was in the 1970's and 1980's,
the stability in abundance indicates that it is not so low that
depensatory processes, such as declining mate-finding ability or
escalating risk of predation, are an extinction risk factor. Therefore,
we conclude that the yellowtail damselfish is not dependent on
acroporid corals to the extent that the decline of Acropora habitat
presents an extinction risk that is cause for concern.
In summary, we acknowledge that yellowtail damselfish was
historically associated with Acropora corals in the Caribbean (Waldner
and Robertson, 1980), and exhibited a population decline in habitats
dominated by Acropora concurrent with the massive die-off of corals in
the 1980s. However, the available information demonstrates yellowtail
damselfish associate with a variety of coral species and habitats
(Tolimieri, 1998; Wilkes et al, 2008) within the coral-reef ecosystem
(e.g., branching, boulder, and dead rubble), and appear in at least one
instance (Florida Keys) to have inhabited reef areas at stable
population levels for over 20 years after the widespread decline of
acroporids. Therefore, the loss of the branching elkhorn and staghorn
corals does not constitute an extinction risk for the yellowtail
damselfish that is a cause for concern.
Climate Change Impacts to Coral Reef Ecosystems Generally as a Threat
to Yellowtail Damselfish
The petition discusses at length climate change impacts to corals
and coral reefs and future predictions for worsening impacts to corals
at a global scale, and argues that these impacts pose extinction risk
to yellowtail damselfish through destruction, modification or
curtailment of its habitat. As discussed above, while the petition
establishes an association with live branching coral species for
yellowtail damselfish, we have established that they also associate
with other coral species and forms within the coral-reef ecosystem and
are not reliant upon branching corals for habitat.
Many of the references provided in the petition offer global
predictions on future rises in sea surface temperature (Donner et al.,
2005; Donner, 2009), ocean acidity (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007), or
coral reef decline in general (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999; Veron et al.,
2009). Emission rates of greenhouse gases (GHG) associated with ocean
warming have in recent years met or exceeded levels found in the worst-
case scenarios considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), resulting in all scenarios underestimating the projected
future climate condition. New information suggests that regardless of
the emission concentration pathway, more than 97 percent of reefs will
experience severe thermal stress by 2050 (Meissner et al., 2012). At
the same time new information also highlights the spatial and temporal
``patchiness'' of warming (79 FR 53851; September 10, 2014). This
patchiness moderates vulnerability of corals to extinction because most
species are not limited to one habitat type but occur in numerous types
of reef environments that are predicted, on local and regional scales,
to experience variable thermal regimes and ocean chemistry at any given
point in time (79 FR 53851; September 10, 2014). Overall, there is
ample evidence that climate change (including that which is already
committed to occur from past GHG emissions and future emissions
reasonably certain to occur) and will lead to a worsening environment
for corals.
If many coral species are to survive anticipated global warming,
corals and their zooxanthellae will have to undergo significant
acclimatization and/or adaptation. There has been a recent research
emphasis on the processes of acclimatization and adaptation in
[[Page 8624]]
corals. For example, the results of a study funded by NOAA and
conducted by the agency's scientists and its academic partners suggests
some coral species may be able to adapt to moderate climate warming,
improving their chance of surviving through the end of this century, if
there are large reductions in carbon dioxide emissions (Logan et al,
2013). Results of this study further suggest some corals have already
adapted to part of the warming that has occurred in the past. The study
modeled a range of possible coral adaptive responses to thermal stress,
and projected that, through processes such as genetic adaptation,
acclimation, and symbiont shuffling, the reefs could reduce the rate of
temperature-induced bleaching by 20 to 80 percent of levels currently
projected to occur by the year 2100, if there are large reductions in
carbon dioxide emissions. The authors emphasize the caveat that coral
adaptation will not significantly slow the loss of coral reefs if there
is no decrease in GHG emissions and further, that not all species will
be able to adapt fast enough or to the same extent.
Thus, as a whole, the body of research on coral adaptation to
global warming is inconclusive on how these processes may affect
particular coral species' extinction risk, given the projected
intensity and rate of ocean warming (Brainard et al., 2011).
Similarly, because of the increase in carbon dioxide and other GHGs
in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, ocean acidification
has already occurred throughout the world's oceans, including in the
Caribbean, and is predicted to considerably worsen between now and
2100. Overall, available information demonstrates that most corals
exhibit declining calcification rates with rising carbon dioxide
concentrations, declining pH, and declining carbonate saturation
state--although the rate and mode of decline can vary among species (79
FR 53851; September 10, 2014). Spatially, while carbon dioxide levels
in the surface waters of the ocean are generally in equilibrium with
the lower atmosphere, there can be considerable spatial variability in
seawater pH across reef-building coral habitats, resulting in colonies
of a species experiencing high spatial variability in exposure to ocean
acidification (79 FR 53851; September 10, 2014).
As we have discussed elsewhere (79 FR 53851; September 10, 2014),
vulnerability of a coral species to a threat is a function of
susceptibility and exposure, considered at the appropriate spatial and
temporal scales. Susceptibility of a coral species to a threat is
primarily a function of biological processes and characteristics, and
can vary greatly between and within taxa (i.e., family, genus, or
species). Susceptibility depends on direct effects of the threat on the
species, and it also depends on the cumulative (i.e., additive) and
interactive (i.e., synergistic or antagonistic) effects of multiple
threats acting simultaneously on the species. For example, ocean
warming affects coral colonies through the direct effect of bleaching,
together with the interactive effect of bleaching and disease, because
bleaching increases disease susceptibility. Vulnerability of a coral
species to a threat also depends on the proportion of colonies and
populations that are exposed to the threat. Exposure is primarily a
function of the distribution of the threat. The degree or intensity of
exposure to a threat is primarily a function of physical processes and
characteristics that limit or moderate the intensity of the threat
across the range of the species. In our final listing rule responding
to a petition to list 83 species of corals, we found that not all coral
species are highly vulnerable to the threats associated with global
climate change (79 FR 53851; September 10, 2014). Even some species
found to be susceptible to ocean warming were found not warranted for
listing because they may have a buffering capacity to resist adverse
effects on their status, due to high abundance, wide range, and/or high
habitat heterogeneity.
With information indicating yellowtail damselfish associate with a
variety of coral habitats, and because susceptibility of coral species
to climate change impacts is highly variable, we cannot infer any level
of extinction risk from habitat loss due to climate change for
yellowtail damselfish. Further, in a review of six studies examining
the effects of coral bleaching on coral-reef fishes, Pratchett et al.
(2008) found the density of 45 of 116 fish species' showed significant
changes 1-3 years post-bleaching. The responses ranged from local
extinction to several-fold increases in abundance. Though the
damselfishes included in their study showed mixed results, Pratchett et
al. (2008) found ``fishes that increased in abundance were mostly
dietary and habitat generalist species,'' but some herbivores also
showed increases. Thus, we do not view this study as providing any
reliable prediction of yellowtail damselfish responses to coral
bleaching. The petition also cites Bonin (2012) for effects of coral
bleaching on damselfish. The paper concludes that as a result of coral
mortality from bleaching, ``[fish] specialists will increasingly be
forced to use alternative recruitment habitats, and that is likely to
reduce population replenishment.'' As noted above, however, yellowtail
damselfish is not a specialist on any particular coral species. Bonin
(2012) further states that the ``available evidence suggests that the
presence of conspecifics provides a stronger cue for settlement than
does microhabitat (Booth, 1992; Lecchini et al., 2005a; 2005b).'' Thus,
the presence of established individuals of the same fish species was
more important for settling recruits than was habitat in that study. A
third study cited by the petition, Booth and Beretta (2012), provided
examples of fish recruit abundance decline independent of coral
bleaching and concluded ``these examples highlight the stochastic
nature of recruitment, and caution against the hasty attribution of
cause and effect in explaining changes in recruitment through time.''
Graham et al. (2007) was also cited by the petition as an example of
the effects of bleaching on coral-reef fishes. The authors concluded
that ``of the indirect effects of bleaching that we have identified,
one of the most significant for the reef ecosystem as a whole is likely
to be the decline in smaller size classes of herbivorous fishes (mainly
surgeonfishes and parrotfishes with some rabbitfishes and two species
of damselfish).'' The petition also cites Wilson et al. (2006) for
effects of bleaching on coral-reef fishes; however, Wilson et al.
(2006) found ``abundances of species reliant on live coral for food and
shelter consistently declined during this time frame, while abundance
of some species that feed on invertebrates, algae and/or detritus
increased. The response of species, particularly those expected to
benefit from the immediate loss of coral, is variable.'' Thus, given
that yellowtail damselfish is not an obligate corallivore and has a
varied diet including algae and invertebrates, this study is not
indicative of potential adverse impacts to yellowtail damselfish from
coral bleaching. Finally, the petition cites Bonin et al. (2009) for
effects of bleaching on coral-reef fishes. This study examined the
effects of bleaching on two species of gobies that are live-coral
symbionts. Again, this information does not allow us to infer any level
of extinction risk from coral reef habitat loss due to climate change
impacts for yellowtail damselfish.
Therefore, we find that the petition does not provide substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing yellowtail
damselfish as
[[Page 8625]]
threatened or endangered may be warranted due to loss or degradation of
coral habitat that may result from global climate change.
Overutilization for Commercial and Recreational Purposes
The petition provides information indicating damselfish are the
most commonly harvested group of fishes in the global trade of marine
aquarium fish. The petition does not include any information specific
to the collection of yellowtail damselfish, nor does it provide any
explanation of how harvest of yellowtail damselfish is an extinction
risk to the species. Due to the pugnacious behavior of yellowtail
damselfish and its solitary nature (Robins et al., 1986), it is likely
a less desirable species for use in aquaria compared to damselfish that
are schooling planktivores such as the blue-green chromis. Though we do
not have information in our files for harvest and trade impacts across
the entire range of the species, we do have information in our files
about harvest of damselfish in Florida for the aquarium trade; 9,780
damselfish were collected in 2009 from Florida waters for the aquarium
trade. There are 14 species of damselfish in Florida waters and
yellowtail damselfish is considered ``common'' (Humann, 1999), but
specific information regarding the contribution of yellowtail
damselfish to the aquarium trade harvest in Florida is not available
(FWRI, 2009). Even if we assumed the entire Florida harvest in 2009 was
comprised of yellowtail damselfish and is representative of ongoing
harvest levels, we do not believe the collection of nearly 10,000
individuals in Florida annually would constitute an extinction risk
that is cause for concern to the status of yellowtail damselfish.
Because field surveys throughout the Florida Keys forereef, high relief
spur and groove habitat indicate yellowtail damselfish have remained
stable in frequency and density for the last 22 years (NMFS SEFSC,
2014), we believe harvest is not contributing to a decline in total
numbers within Florida. In summary, we find the petition and
information in our files do not present substantial scientific or
commercial information to suggest that listing yellowtail damselfish as
threatened or endangered may be warranted due to overutilization for
commercial, recreational, educational, or scientific purposes.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petition states the regulatory mechanisms addressing greenhouse
gas pollution, protecting coral reef habitat, and controlling the
aquarium trade are inadequate to protect the yellowtail damselfish and
that the ``widespread and growing trade in coral-reef fish and corals
adds to the cumulative stresses . . . from ocean warming and ocean
acidification.'' The petition states that both international and
domestic laws controlling greenhouse gas emissions are inadequate and/
or have failed to control emissions, ``as acknowledged by NMFS in its
Status Review Report of 82 Candidate Coral Species and Accompanying
Management Report.'' We concur there is information in the petition,
readily available in our files, and from scientific literature that
indicates GHG emissions and associated ocean warming, acidification and
other synergistic effects are contributing to extinction risk for some
species of reef building corals (79 FR 53851; September 10, 2014), and
that existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to prevent these
emissions from causing serious harmful impacts to corals. However, we
do not have information in our files, and we are not aware of any
literature, indicating GHG emissions are negatively affecting
yellowtail damselfish (e.g., through sensory impacts, discussed below).
As discussed above, yellowtail damselfish associate with a variety of
coral-reef habitats and we have no information from which to conclude
the impacts of GHG emissions on coral reefs present extinction risk
that is cause for concern for yellowtail damselfish. Therefore, we also
cannot conclude that inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to control
these emissions is causing extinction risk that is cause for concern
for this species.
The petition states that existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to protect coral reef habitats from local threats (e.g.,
overfishing), despite international and domestic efforts to reduce
threats to reefs. The petition cites Burke et al. (2011), as concluding
that ``[m]ore than 60% of the world's coral reefs are under immediate
and direct threat from one or more local sources,'' and that ``[of]
local pressures on coral reefs, overfishing--including destructive
fishing--is the most pervasive immediate threat, affecting more than 55
percent of the world's reefs.'' The petition states ``this high level
of threat clearly indicates that existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to protect the coral reefs on which the petitioned
Pomacentrids depend.'' However, the petition fails to discuss how
yellowtail damselfish may be susceptible to this generalized threat to
coral reefs.
The petition states that regulation of the aquarium trade is
inadequate to control trade and prevent collection detrimental to the
species' survival. The petition cites Tissot et al. (2010) for evidence
of ``weak governance capacity in major source countries such as
Indonesia and the Philippines; high international demand, particularly
from the United States . . . and inadequate enforcement of the few
existing laws, allowing collectors to use illegal and harmful
collection methods such as sodium cyanide.'' Drawing inferences based
on Indo-Pacific species and the regulatory mechanisms governing their
collection is inappropriate because yellowtail damselfish do not occur
in the foreign countries in the Indo-Pacific discussed as having
inadequate governance and enforcement of laws. There is no information
in our files indicating yellowtail damselfish is a highly prized,
collected, or traded marine organism. We conclude the threats
characterization in the petition regarding inadequacy of regulatory
mechanisms to control harmful harvest of yellowtail damselfish is
unsubstantiated.
In summary we find the petition does not provide substantial
scientific or commercial information to suggest that existing
regulatory mechanisms related to any identified threats to the species
are inadequate such that they may be causing an extinction risk for the
yellowtail damselfish.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors
The petition states that ocean acidification and ocean warming, in
addition to causing habitat loss, ``directly threaten the survival of
the petitioned species through a wide array of adverse impacts that are
predicted to lead to negative fitness consequences and population
declines.'' The petition states ``ocean acidification impairs the
sensory capacity and behavior of larval clownfish and damselfish.'' The
petition refers to a number of sources to demonstrate that in the
laboratory, behavioral responses of larval fish can be affected by
elevated carbon dioxide levels.
The petition states ``research on the effects of ocean
acidification on six species of larval damselfish found that elevated
carbon dioxide levels expected within this century impair damselfish
smell, vision, learning, behavior, and brain function, leading to a
higher risk of mortality.'' Results from two of these six damselfish
are from Munday et al. (2010) who found that ``700 ppm carbon dioxide
is close to the threshold at which adaptation of behavioral responses
might be possible in reef
[[Page 8626]]
fishes, provided that the variation in sensitivity to elevated carbon
dioxide we observed between individuals at this concentration has a
genetic basis. The olfactory capacity of approximately one-half of the
larvae was unaffected by exposure to 700 ppm carbon dioxide, and these
individuals exhibited less risky behavior in the field (remained closer
to shelter) compared with affected individuals.'' The effect on
olfactory capacity appears to be an individual response and not
necessarily a population response. A variable individual response does
not constitute a risk to the entire population and therefore, there is
not sufficient evidence of extinction risk to yellowtail damselfish
posed by elevated carbon dioxide impacts on olfactory capacity.
Results from the other four of these six damselfish species are
from Ferrari et al. (2011), where the effects of carbon dioxide
exposure on the antipredator responses of four sympatric species who
share the same ecology and life history was tested; all four are
congeners in a different genus than yellowtail damselfish and all are
found in the Pacific Ocean. The four damselfish in the Ferrari et al.
(2011) study were specifically selected to compare similar species
response to carbon dioxide in order to predict ecological impacts on
marine communities. The concentrations of carbon dioxide tested ranged
from those similar to recent atmospheric concentrations (390 ppm) to
those representing highly elevated (700 and 850 ppm) atmospheric
levels. This was accomplished by placing juveniles collected in traps
into 35 L rearing aquariums that were either aerated with 390 ppm
(current-day control), 728 88, or 1008 78 ppm
(mean SD) carbon dioxide enriched air (Munday et al.,
2009; Dixson et al., 2010) creating environments with 700 and 850 ppm
CO2 (see Munday et al. (2010) for more details). While
Ferrari et al. (2011) predicted the difference in behavioral response
in the lab would translate into differential survival in the field, the
``four congeneric species showed striking and unexpected variation in
CO2 tolerance.'' The antipredator responses were reduced at
the 700 ppm level, but did not disappear, while at the 850 ppm level,
three out of four species did not show an adaptive antipredator
response, and the fourth maintained an antipredator response similar to
the response level of the 700 ppm exposure. Additionally, all fish
displayed antipredator responses to odors from injured conspecifics,
which is considered a reliable cue of general predation risk (Ferrari
et al., 2010). The results by Ferrari et al. (2011) were described by
the petitioner as highlighting how individual effects from elevated
carbon dioxide are highly uncertain and constitute an extinction risk
for the petitioned species. However, merely identifying factors that
could negatively impact a species does not constitute substantial
information that listing may be warranted. Because Ferrari et al.
(2011) found ``marked intraspecific variation,'' we interpret these
results to demonstrate variability in physiological responses within
the functional group examined (functional groups were defined by their
carbon dioxide tolerance). Further, Ferrari et al. (2011) found
predation rates and prey selectivity were impacted by exposure to
elevated levels of dissolved carbon dioxide, but the outcome of the
interaction was dependent on the size of juvenile prey, not on the
species. Additionally, Ferrari et al. (2011) concluded that if the
negative effects of carbon dioxide were balanced between prey and
predators, we would not expect any change in overall mortality rate.
These data do not provide reliable information for conclusions about
the response of the yellowtail damselfish, much less a population-level
response that might occur if the carbon dioxide levels tested are
eventually reached. Finally, Ferrari et al. (2011) note that their
experimental results may represent a worst case scenario in that it
assumes absence of adaptation. We do not have information in our files,
and we are not aware of any literature, indicating increased carbon
dioxide levels have reduced fitness of any western Atlantic damselfish,
or that increased levels may pose an extinction risk that is cause for
concern for yellowtail damselfish.
The petition also states that elevated sea surface temperatures
``can influence the physiological condition, developmental rate, growth
rate, early life history traits, and reproductive performance of coral
reef fishes, all of which can affect their population dynamics,
community structure, and geographical distributions,'' citing Nilsson
et al. (2009). We reviewed Nilsson et al. (2009) and found the results
show physiological responses to changes in water temperature. Nilsson
et al. (2009) examined the capacity of five species of marine fish to
perform aerobically (aerobic scope). They found that all five species
exhibited a decline in aerobic capacity at elevated water temperatures
(31, 32, or 33 [deg]C) compared to the control (29 [deg]C); the three
damselfish species tested retained over half their aerobic scope at 33
[deg]C, while all capacity for additional oxygen uptake was exhausted
at 33 [deg]C for the two cardinalfish species tested. One damselfish
species' oxygen uptake was reduced from 142% at 29 [deg]C to 81% at 31
[deg]C while another species' uptake went from 300% at 29 [deg]C to
178% at 33 [deg]C. These results indicate that damselfish are thermally
tolerant and as Nilsson et al. (2009) state, ``populations of thermally
tolerant species are likely to persist at higher temperatures, but
populations of thermally sensitive species could decline on low-
latitude reefs if individual performance falls below levels needed to
sustain viable populations.
The petition cites several other sources, primarily Johansen and
Jones (2011), which found increasing temperatures have negative effects
on the aerobic capacity and swimming performance of some damselfish,
though the species tested did not include the yellowtail damselfish or
any of its congeners. These studies also revealed inter-specific
differences in the response to elevated temperature and discussed how
acclimation, developmental plasticity, and adaptation can alleviate
temperature-related physiological impacts. All but one of these studies
were single generation studies and did not evaluate trans-generational
plasticity for any species to determine if the species are able to
adapt or acclimate to new environmental conditions over time. In fact,
the one study that did (Donelson et al., 2011) found that ``complete
compensation in aerobic scope occurred when both parents and offspring
were reared throughout their lives at elevated temperature. Such
acclimation could reduce the impact of warming temperatures and allow
populations to persist across their current range. This study reveals
the importance of trans-generational (across generations) acclimation
as a mechanism for coping with rapid climate change and highlights that
single generation studies risk underestimating the potential of species
to cope.'' The petition does not provide any information about the
aerobic scope of yellowtail damselfish, nor do we have any information
in our files. Therefore, we do not believe Nilsson et al. (2009),
Donelson et al. (2011), and Johansen and Jones (2011), are reliable
sources for the premise that elevated sea temperatures will affect the
physiological response of yellowtail damselfish to the extent it poses
an extinction risk of concern to the species.
Results from a study by Munday et al. (2008) are also included in
the petition to indicate how larval growth rates and recruitment of
some reef fishes can increase with warmer water. Munday et
[[Page 8627]]
al. (2008) documented high variability in response at both the
individual and species level. Many coral reef fishes have geographical
ranges spanning a wide temperature gradient and some have short
generation times. These characteristics are conducive to acclimation or
local adaptation to climate change and provide potential for more
resilient species to persist (Munday et al., 2008).
Thus, we conclude the petition did not explain, nor do we have
information in our files explaining, how physiological effects of
elevated carbon dioxide or elevated temperature would have negative
effects on yellowtail damselfish. As we have noted, many of the
references presented by the petition show highly variable physiological
responses by individuals and species to various stimuli (elevated
carbon dioxide or increased temperatures) and no reliable inference to
yellowtail damselfish population responses can be drawn. We conclude
the petition does not provide reliable support for the premise that the
effects of ocean warming or ocean acidification may be posing
extinction risk that is cause for concern for yellowtail damselfish.
In summary, we conclude the petitions' characterization of ocean
acidification and ocean warming as posing negative fitness consequences
to be broad statements of generalized threats and do not indicate that
ocean acidification and ocean warming directly threaten the survival or
pose extinction risk that is cause for concern to the yellowtail
damselfish. Therefore, we conclude the petition does not present
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the
petitioned action may be warranted due to other natural or manmade
factors.
Synergistic threats
Additionally, we do not find that the combination of proposed
threats to yellowtail damselfish poses extinction risk that is cause
for concern for yellowtail damselfish. The proposed threat from loss of
habitat or habitat degradation is overstated because not all coral
species are highly vulnerable to the threats associated with global
climate change, some coral species will survive, and yellowtail
damselfish are capable of habitat adaptations in response to changes in
composition of coral species on reefs; harvest of the species is
minimal; and physiological responses to increased carbon dioxide levels
and sea temperature vary widely. Therefore, we do not believe these
proposed threats act synergistically on yellowtail damselfish to pose
extinction risk that is cause for concern.
Finding
After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well
as information readily available in our files, we conclude the petition
does not present substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing the yellowtail damselfish as either an
endangered species or as a threatened species may be warranted.
References Cited
A complete list of all references is available on our Web site:
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/listing_petitions/species_esa_consideration/index.html .
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: February 11, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-03326 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P