[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 141 (Friday, July 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47763-47775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17397]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 131105931-6595-02]
RIN 0648-XC970
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Notice of 12-Month
Finding on a Petition To List the Caribbean Electric Ray as Threatened
or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding and availability of status review
document.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12-month finding and listing
determination on a petition to list the Caribbean electric ray (Narcine
bancroftii) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). We have completed a comprehensive status review of the
species in response to a petition submitted by WildEarth Guardians and
Defenders of Wildlife and considered the best scientific and commercial
data available. Based on the best scientific and commercial data
available, including the status review report (Carlson et al. 2015), we
have determined that the species is not currently in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and is
not likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Therefore, we
conclude that the Caribbean electric ray does not warrant listing at
this time.
DATES: This finding was made on July 22, 2016.
ADDRESSES: The Caribbean electric ray status review document associated
with this determination and its references are available by submitting
a request to the Species Conservation Branch Chief, Protected Resources
Division, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St.
Petersburg, FL 33701-5505, Attn: Caribbean Electric Ray 12-month
Finding. The report and references are also available electronically
at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/listing_petitions/index.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Lee, NMFS, Southeast Regional
Office (727) 551-5778; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources (301) 427-8469.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 7, 2010, we received a petition from WildEarth
Guardians to list the Caribbean electric ray as threatened or
endangered throughout its historical and current range and to designate
critical habitat within the territory of the United States concurrently
with listing the species under the ESA. On March 22, 2011 (76 FR
15947), we made a 90-day finding that the petition did not present
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted.
On March 22, 2012, we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue
from WildEarth Guardians on the negative 90-day finding. On February
26, 2013, WildEarth Guardians filed a Complaint for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division, on the negative 90-day finding. On
October 1, 2013, the Court approved a settlement agreement under which
we agreed to accept a supplement to the 2010 petition, if any was
provided, and to make a new 90-day finding based on the 2010 petition,
the supplement, and any additional information readily available in our
files.
On October 31, 2013, we received a supplemental petition from
WildEarth Guardians and Defenders of Wildlife. On January 30, 2014, we
published a 90-day finding with our determination that the petition
presented substantial scientific and commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted (79 FR 4877). In our 90-day
finding, we requested scientific and commercial information from the
public to inform the status review on the species. Specifically, we
requested information on the status of the Caribbean electric ray
throughout its range including: (1) Historical and current distribution
and abundance of this species throughout its range; (2) historical and
current population trends; (3) life history and habitat requirements;
(4) population structure information, such as genetics data; (5) past,
current and future threats specific to the Caribbean electric ray,
including any current or planned activities that may adversely impact
the species, especially information on destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat and on bycatch in commercial and artisanal
fisheries worldwide; (6) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and
restore the species and its habitat; and (7) management, regulatory,
and enforcement information on the species and its habitats. We
received information from the public in response to the 90-day finding
and incorporated relevant information in the species status review.
Listing Determinations Under the ESA
We are responsible for determining whether the Caribbean electric
ray is threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us to make listing
determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data
available after conducting a review of the status of the species and
after taking into account efforts being made by any state or foreign
nation to protect the species.
[[Page 47764]]
To be considered for listing under the ESA, a group of organisms
must constitute a ``species,'' which is defined in section 3 of the ESA
to include taxonomic species and ``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.'' In our 90-
day finding we found that the petitioned species constitutes a valid
species eligible for listing under the ESA based on the information
presented in the petition, along with information readily available in
our files. To determine whether the Caribbean electric ray warrants
listing under the ESA, we convened a Status Review Team (SRT). The SRT
was comprised of NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center and NMFS
Southeast Regional Office biologists. The SRT reviewed an unpublished
dissertation that separated the genus Narcine of the western Atlantic
Ocean into two species: N. brasiliensis, and N. bancroftii (de Carvalho
1999). The SRT noted some taxonomic uncertainty (see Taxonomy and
Species Description), but accepted de Carvalho (1999) as the best
available information on the species taxonomy. Narcine bancroftii is
recognized as a valid species in the Catalog of Fishes, the
authoritative reference for taxonomic fish names and taxonomic revision
(Eschmeyer 2015). We accept both de Carvalho (1999) and Eschmeyer
(2015) as the best available science at this time, thus we maintain
that Narcine bancroftii is a valid species eligible for listing.
When we consider whether a species might qualify as threatened
under the ESA, we must consider the meaning of the term ``foreseeable
future.'' It is appropriate to interpret ``foreseeable future'' as the
horizon over which predictions about the conservation status of the
species can be reasonably relied upon. The foreseeable future considers
the life history of the species, habitat characteristics, availability
of data, particular threats, ability to predict threats, and the
ability to forecast the effects of these threats and future events on
the status of the species under consideration. Because a species may be
susceptible to a variety of threats for which different data are
available, or which operate across different time scales, the
foreseeable future is not necessarily reducible to a particular number
of years or a single timeframe.
Under section 4(a) of the ESA, we must determine whether any
species is endangered or threatened due to any of the following five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence (sections 4(a)(1)(A) through (E)).
The SRT completed a status review report, which summarized the best
available information on the taxonomy, distribution, abundance, life
history and biology of the species, analyzed the threats identified as
potentially impacting the status of the species, and conducted an
extinction risk analysis (ERA) to determine the status of the species.
The results of the ERA are discussed below under ``Extinction Risk
Analysis.'' The status review report incorporates relevant information
received from the public in response to our request for information (79
FR 4877; January 30, 2014). The draft status review report was
submitted to 3 independent peer reviewers and comments and information
received from the peer reviewers were addressed and incorporated as
appropriate into the draft report before finalizing it. The peer review
report is available at http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prplans/PRsummaries.html.
Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as ``any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range'' and a threatened species as one ``which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' Thus, we
interpret an ``endangered species'' to be one that is presently in
danger of extinction. A ``threatened species'' is not currently in
danger of extinction but is likely to become so within the foreseeable
future. The key statutory difference between a threatened and
endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of
extinction, either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future
(threatened).
In determining whether the species meets the standard of endangered
or threatened, we considered the specific life history and ecology of
the species, the nature of threats, the species' response to those
threats, and population numbers and trends. We considered information
summarized in the status review report (Carlson et al. 2015). We
considered each threat that was identified, both individually and
cumulatively. For purposes of our analysis, the mere identification of
factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to
compel a finding that ESA listing is appropriate. In considering those
factors that might constitute threats, we look beyond mere exposure of
the species to the factor to determine whether the species responds,
either to a single or multiple threats, in a way that causes actual
impacts to the species' status. In making this finding, we have
considered and evaluated the best available scientific and commercial
information, including information received in response to our 90-day
finding.
The following sections provide key information presented in the
status review report (Carlson et al. 2015).
Summary of the Status Review
Life History, Biology and Ecology
Taxonomy and Morphology
Narcine bancroftii is a species in the phylum Chondrata, class
Chondrichthyes, order Torpediniforms and family Narcinidae. Common
names for this species include the lesser electric ray, Bancroft's
numbfish, and Caribbean electric ray. The SRT titled the status review
report and referred to the species in its report as the `lesser
electric ray' because the species is almost unanimously referred to as
the lesser electric ray, including in the published literature. In our
finding, we retain the use of `Caribbean electric ray' for the sole
purpose of being consistent with the petitioned action.
Rays within the genus Narcine, collectively known as numbfishes,
occur globally in temperate to tropical marine waters and according to
Eshmeyer (2015) are composed of 23 species. Until recently, rays of the
genus Narcine within the western North Atlantic Ocean were considered
to be one widely distributed species, N. brasiliensis (von Olfers
1831). However, Garman (1913) was the first to notice that there was
sufficient regional variability among individuals and suggested that N.
brasiliensis could be separated into two distinct species. Later, in a
taxonomic revision of the genus Narcine, de Carvalho (1999) separated
numbfishes of the western Atlantic Ocean into two species: N.
brasiliensis, known as the Brazilian electric ray, and N. bancroftii
(Griffith and Smith 1834), known as Bancroft's numbfish, or more
commonly, the lesser electric ray. N. brasiliensis is thought to range
from southeastern Brazil to northern Argentina, whereas N. bancroftii
is reported to range from North Carolina to northeastern Brazil,
including the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and the Caribbean Sea (de Carvalho
1999).
The SRT noted that ``the taxonomy of Narcine in the western
Atlantic Ocean
[[Page 47765]]
remains uncertain because taxonomic changes are sometimes accepted in
ichthyology without adequate or supporting proof and the de Carvalho
(1999) study remains unpublished.'' The SRT pointed out the need for a
genetics-based examination (e.g., mitochondrial DNA analysis) of
Narcine specimens from throughout their known range in the western
Atlantic Ocean to support the presence of two distinct species.
However, as we previously discussed (see Listing Determinations Under
the ESA), we accept both de Carvalho (1999) and Eschmeyer (2015) as the
best available science at this time, thus we maintain that Narcine
bancroftii is a valid species eligible for listing.
Species Description
The Caribbean electric ray is a small, shallow-water batoid
characterized by a flattened, oval-shaped disc, large pelvic fins, and
oversized dorsal and caudal fins that cover most of its tapering tail
(Tricas et al. 1997). The dorsal surface of the Caribbean electric ray
varies from a light yellow brown to a darker greyish brown with dark
blotches over the snout and small incomplete eyespots over the disc and
base of the tail. The underside of the species is white or cream
colored sometimes with grey or brown blotches (McEachran and Carvalho
2002). The Caribbean electric ray has two electric organs that can
produce 14-37 volts of electricity (Smith 1997; Tricas et al. 1997).
Outlines of these kidney-shaped electric organs may be visible behind
the eyes as well as spiracles with rounded tubercles along the edges
next to the eyes (Smith 1997). Each organ consists of a honeycomb of
280 to 430 columns, containing several hundred electric plates, and the
organs combined account for about a sixth of total body weight (Tricas
et al. 1997).
Range and Distribution
The Caribbean electric ray is widely distributed in warm temperate
to tropical waters of the western Atlantic from North Carolina, through
the GOM, the Caribbean, the Lesser and Greater Antilles, and the north
coast of South America (McEachran and de Carvalho 2002). Bigelow and
Schroeder (1953) wrote: ``This Electric Ray has been reported from
localities so widely distributed, and it is so well represented in the
larger museums of both America and Europe, that it is expected anywhere
in the American littoral [zone], provided that the type of bottom and
depth be suitable . . .'' The southern extent of the range of Caribbean
electric rays is uncertain. De Carvalho (1999) reported specimens taken
from the southern hemisphere off the State of Bahia, Brazil, however,
McEachran and de Carvalho (2002) later placed the southern extent of
the range within the northern hemisphere off Venezuela.
The Caribbean electric ray exhibits a patchy distribution
throughout its range and is locally abundant in areas that contain
specific habitat characteristics. Fishery independent trawl surveys in
the Gulf of Mexico show that the species is patchily distributed (see
Abundance and Trends). The species' local abundance is best documented
by Rudloe (1989a) who found Caribbean electric rays abundant in barrier
beach surf zones and adjacent passes between barrier islands at depths
of 8-16 m around Cape San Blas, Florida, in the northern Gulf of
Mexico. Rudloe (1989a) collected 3,913 rays from March 1985 to March
1987 from sites in those areas at rates ranging from 3-31 rays per
hour. Rudlow (1989a) points out that ``the rays were concentrated over
an extremely limited area on each bar'' and that ``As little as several
tens of meters change in position could determine whether there were
two or 20 rays in the catch.''
Further, data indicate seasonal variation in their local
distributions. Rudloe (1989a) suggested that ``rays are localized in
their habitats during the warm months at least, and move directly from
one preferred locality to another or remain in one area over a period
of weeks to months.'' The species is evidently migratory but its
movements are poorly known. Existing information suggests at least some
Caribbean electric ray seasonal migrations are likely associated with
water temperature. Bigelow and Schroeder (1953) stated: ``Captures of
Narcine brasiliensis [bancroftii] off the Texas coast in the months of
September, November, and March show that it winters that far north and
probably does likewise at least along the southern part of Florida.
However, northward along the Atlantic Coast of the United States, to
North Carolina, all of the records of it, except one, have been in
summer.'' Similarly, Coles (1915) reported Caribbean electric rays are
present only off the northernmost part of their range (North Carolina)
during the summer. Rudloe (1989a) stated that within the GOM, rays were
caught in the surf zone at Alligator Point, Florida, from March to
December, and no rays were taken anywhere in the area from December to
February. Funicelli (1975) reported that Caribbean electric rays are
found at the deeper ends of their depth range during winter in the
northern GOM, particularly during colder months from November-February.
Habitat Use
The Caribbean electric ray inhabits relatively shallow waters,
often within the surf zone (Coles 1910; Fowler 1910; Bigelow and
Schroeder 1953; Hoese and Moore 1998; Rudloe 1989a). The Caribbean
electric ray generally occupies depths ranging from the intertidal zone
to approximately 37 m (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953, Rudloe 1989a);
however, there is at least one report of a Caribbean electric ray being
captured at a depth of 340 m (Schwartz 2010). Fisheries independent
data collected by NMFS verify that the Caribbean electric ray is
primarily a shallow water species. From 2002-2013, 5,137 trawls were
conducted in the northern GOM at randomly selected stations ranging in
depth from 4.7-326 m. A total of 127 Caribbean electric rays were
collected, and the mean depth of capture was 9.29 m (range 5.20-17.50
m; S.D. 2.93). Environmental data were collected during these surveys
demonstrating that this species inhabits waters ranging in temperature
from 21.9-30.2 [deg]C (mean = 27.18 [deg]C; S.D. = 1.57), salinity from
27.7-36.9 ppt (mean = 34.10 ppt; S.D. 2.32), dissolved oxygen from 2.0-
3.7 mg/l (mean = 2.85 mg/l; S.D. = 0.99) and turbidity from 0.6-94.0
percent transmissivity (mean = 37.77 percent transmissivity; S.D. =
28.23). These data are consistent with past reports of environmental
conditions associated with the presence of Caribbean electric rays
(e.g., Gunter 1945, Rudloe 1989a, Steiner et al. 2007).
The best available information on the species indicates that it
occurs predominately in sand bottom habitats. While Caribbean electric
rays have a relatively broad distribution in the western Atlantic
Ocean, the species is reported to occur almost exclusively on sand
bottom habitats (Coles 1910, Bigelow and Schroeder 1953, Rudloe 1989a).
For example, Rudloe (1989a) determined that ``barrier beach surf zones
and on [sand]bars adjacent to passes between barrier islands'' are the
preferred habitat for Caribbean electric rays. Both of these habitats
are dominated by sand. Anecdotal reports also document Caribbean
electric rays exclusively in high energy beach and sandbar habitats. In
NMFS fisheries-independent trawl survey data, all Caribbean electric
ray specimens recorded in the GOM were collected over sand bottom
habitats. The SRT found only one study of Caribbean electric rays
occurring in mud and fine silt habitats (i.e., Dean et al. 2005).
Caribbean electric rays are generally nocturnal and spend daylight
hours buried under the sand. Rudloe (1989a)
[[Page 47766]]
noted that sampling was limited to night-time when the rays were
active. Numerous reports of Caribbean electric ray sightings document
that these rays are most commonly found buried in the sand with only
their spiracles visible.
Age and Growth
There are no age and growth studies for this species. McEachran and
de Carvalho (2002) report size at birth at 9-10 cm with maximum growth
to 58 cm TL. Observations of Rudloe (1989a) suggest rapid growth during
the first year. Rudloe (1989a) estimated that newborn rays less than 14
cm total length (TL) in late summer attain a size of 15-19 cm TL by
fall. Rudloe (1989a) reported growth was dormant January and February
and then resumed in March, with young attaining a size of 20-29.9 cm TL
by the end of their first year.
Reproductive Biology
Estimates of size at reproductive maturity for male Caribbean
electric rays range from 20 to 26 cm TL (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953,
Funicelli 1975, de Carvalho 1999, Moreno et al. 2010). Females are
reported to reach a larger size than males at reproductive maturity.
The smallest reported female with well-developed gonads measured 26 cm
TL (Funicelli 1975), and the smallest gravid female measured 27.1 cm TL
(Bigelow and Schroeder 1953).
Rudloe (1989a) observed that all the females larger than 29 cm TL,
both in captivity and collected from the field off Florida, were gravid
in July. This indicates that the reproductive cycle is annual, and
adult females in the population are capable of reproducing each year.
Moreno et al. (2010) verified annual reproduction by mature females.
Rudloe (1989a) documents that females give birth off Florida in August
and September in the surf zone. Rudloe (1989a) also observed a peak in
newborn rays at more offshore Florida locations in November (i.e., at
West Pass) and December (i.e., at Cape San Blas), but could not
determine if these rays were born offshore or had immigrated from the
beach. Rudloe (1989a) did not estimate gestation period of Caribbean
electric rays. In the Colombian Caribbean Sea, Moreno et al. (2010)
found that the gestation period lasts approximately 4 months, with
birth occurring from February to April.
The brood size of female Caribbean electric rays has been reported
as 14 by Bean and Weed (1911), 4-15 by Bigelow and Schroeder (1953), 5-
13 by de Carvalho (1999), and 1-14 by Moreno et al. (2010).
Diet and Feeding
Caribbean electric rays are reported to feed on small, benthic
organisms (Moreno et al. 2010). Funicelli (1975) observed annelids in
84 percent of the Caribbean electric ray stomachs he examined from the
northern GOM, which was in agreement with the limited data presented by
Gudger (1912) and Bigelow and Schroeder (1953). Fishes within the order
Anguilliformes were the next most abundant prey (30 percent of
individuals), followed by arthropods and molluscs. Arthropods were the
dominant prey type found in small individuals less than 300 mm TL
(Funicelli 1975). Moreno et al. (2009) and Grijalba-Bendeck et al.
(2012) reported similar findings for Caribbean electric rays collected
in the Caribbean Sea off Colombia with annelids occurring in the
majority of stomachs examined. Both studies reported that arthropods
constituted a larger portion of the diet than anguilliform fishes. A
diet composed primarily of annelids has also been reported for the
closely related Brazilian electric ray (Goitein et al. 1998).
Dean and Motta (2004a and b) characterize Caribbean electric ray
feeding behavior and kinematics. The Caribbean electric ray is a
benthic suction feeder with highly protrusible jaws. The Caribbean
electric ray has the ability to protrude its jaws by nearly 100 percent
of its head length to excavate buried polychaetes.
Predation and Disease
Almost nothing is known of natural predation on the Caribbean
electric ray. Presumably its electric organs deter potential predators,
such as sharks and dolphins. Rudloe (1989a) reported that tagged rays
released off trawlers were repeatedly observed to be actively avoided
by both sharks and dolphins that fed heavily on other rays and bony
fishes as they were culled overboard. A researcher reported observed
consumption of Caribbean electric rays by large red drum that were
captured on bottom longlines and dissected. It was not clear to the
researcher whether the rays were discarded bycatch that were
opportunistically consumed or not (M. Ajemian, Texas A&M-Corpus
Christi, pers. comm. to Jennifer Lee, NMFS, June 19, 2015). Similarly,
there is scant information on disease within the species. Tao (2013)
reported that bacteria, such as Vibrio species, are prevalent in the
blood of healthy Caribbean electric rays. This condition is not
uncommon among chondrichthyan fishes.
Status, Abundance and Trends
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red
List Assessment classifies the Caribbean electric ray as Critically
Endangered (de Carvalho et al. 2007). The IUCN Red List assessment
notes that the species has declined 98 percent since 1972 in the
northern GOM according to a study by Shepherd and Myers (2005) of trawl
data from the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program
(SEAMAP). The IUCN Red List assessment reports that ``similar high
rates of decline are seen in the U.S. coastal areas between Cape
Canaveral (Florida) and Cape Hatter[a]s (North Carolina) in U.S. trawl
surveys between 1989 and 2001 (a decline to 5% during this period)''.
The IUCN also states that diver survey data from the Reef Environmental
Education Foundation (REEF) program show similar rates of decline for
Caribbean electric ray between 1994 and 2004 in eastern Florida and the
Florida Keys. The Red List Assessment formed the basis of the petition
to list Caribbean electric ray under the ESA.
To fully evaluate the above purported declines in abundance and
rarity of the species, the SRT attempted to find any and all abundance
data related to the species. This included a review of the known
scientific literature, internet searches, and communication with state
and Federal resource agencies that monitor fisheries. There are no
population size estimates available for Caribbean electric rays. The
SRT acquired the original data sets used for the IUCN assessment and
conducted an independent analysis of these data. The SRT also
considered a variety of other smaller datasets and encounter reports it
acquired in forming its conclusions about the abundance and trends of
the species. While some of these other data were anecdotal in nature
and couldn't be used to statistically assess trends in abundance, the
SRT believed they were useful in illustrating recent encounters of the
species. Below we provide a summary of each data source considered and
of the SRT's associated findings.
Gulf of Mexico SEAMAP
The primary source of fishery independent data reviewed was Gulf of
Mexico SEAMAP data. The NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center
Mississippi Laboratories have conducted trawl surveys in the northern
GOM dating back to the 1950s. Early work was exploratory and often only
recorded catch of target species. In 1972 a standardized fall trawl
survey began as a part of a resource assessment program.
[[Page 47767]]
Then in 1982 a standardized summer trawl survey began under the SEAMAP.
Finally, in 1987, the SEAMAP was adopted in the fall, thus unifying the
two surveys. SEAMAP is a collaborative effort between Federal, state
and university programs designed to collect, manage and distribute
fishery independent data throughout the region. The primary objective
of this trawl survey is to collect data on the abundance and
distribution of demersal organisms in the northern GOM. The survey is
conducted semi-annually (summer and fall) and provides an important
source of fisheries independent information on many commercially and
recreationally important species throughout the northern GOM (Pollack
and Ingram 2014, Pollack & Ingram 2015). A full description of the
historical and current surveys can be found in Nichols (2004) and
Rester (2015).
Shepherd and Myers (2005) examined trends in elasmobranch abundance
from SEAMAP data using the longest continuous temporal coverage (1972-
2002) for the areas between 10 and 110 m in depth near Alabama,
Mississippi and Louisiana (i.e., statistical zones 11, 13-16). The
authors correctly noted that N. brasiliensis has been historically
misidentified and is not known to inhabit the GOM. Thus, all N.
brasiliensis and Narcine species identified within the trawl survey
data were treated as N. bancroftii during the analysis. Using a
generalized linear modeling approach to correct for factors unrelated
to abundance, Shepherd and Myers (2005) reported a decline of 98
percent since the baseline abundance of Caribbean electric rays in 1972
in the northern GOM, i.e. the number of Caribbean electric rays
documented in the survey that year.
The SRT also used a generalized linear model approach in its re-
analysis of the Gulf SEAMAP data. In statistics, a covariate is a
variable that is possibly predictive of the outcome under study.
Covariates considered in the analysis that may have affected abundance
include year, area, water depth, and time-of-day. Irrespective of
statistical methodology, the major difference between Shepherd and
Myers (2005) and the analysis conducted by the SRT is the former did
not take into account major changes in survey design and how they would
affect the relative abundance of electric ray. There also was an
apparent misunderstanding of how the catch was sorted.
Because there were major changes in survey design and survey
coverage between 1972-1986 and 1987-2013 (Pollack and Ingram 2014), the
SRT determined that using one continuous time series as Shepherd and
Myers (2005) did was inappropriate. Instead, the SRT used three
separate time series: Fall SEAMAP 1972-1986, Fall SEAMAP 1988-2013, and
Summer SEAMAP 1982-2013. The Fall SEAMAP 1987 trawl survey was omitted
from analysis because the cruise track differed from that of all the
other surveys (counter-clockwise around the northern GOM and missed
half of the area off Texas due to weather). The SRT extended the
analysis of these survey data 11 years beyond the analysis by Shepherd
and Myers (2005), to reflect the best available data and the most
complete representation of abundance over time in the survey. Similar
to Shepherd and Myers (2005), all N. brasiliensis and Narcine (I, sp.
were treated as N. bancroftii for this analysis.
The abundance index constructed for Fall SEAMAP 1972-1986 was
limited to NMFS statistical zones 11, 13, 14 and 15 (Figure 1).
Sampling outside of these zones was inconsistent; therefore, the
analysis was limited to this core area. In addition, all stations
deeper than 75 m were removed from the dataset since there were no
records of Caribbean electric ray occurring at those depths from any
year of the survey. There are, in actuality, only two records in the
entire SEAMAP data set of Caribbean electric ray occurring beyond 36.5
m, one in 1972 at 42 m and one in 1975 at 64 m (depths for these
stations were verified by the NOAA National Geophysical Data Center,
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/coastal/crm.html). The second index
constructed was Fall SEAMAP 1988-2013. Following the methods outlined
for the Fall SEAMAP survey, data for this index were limited to NMFS
statistical zones 10-21 (excluding 12), and at stations shallower than
31 m. The third index constructed was Summer SEAMAP 1982-2013. Again
following the methods outlined for the previous time series, data for
this index were limited to NMFS statistical zones 10--21 (excluding
12), and at stations shallower than 33 m.
There were no discernable trends in relative abundance (CPUEs) of
Caribbean electric ray in any of the three Gulf of Mexico SEAMAP
indices. All three time series analyzed were relatively flat with peaks
in abundance scattered throughout the abundance trend. Within the
northern Gulf of Mexico 9,876 tows were included in the analysis, with
624 Caribbean electric rays captured. Most captures occurred off the
coast of Louisiana and Texas. Shepherd and Myers (2005) indicated that
only 78 individuals were captured from 1972-2002. However, the SRT
identified 351 individuals recorded from the same time period, more
than four times as many. Shepherd and Myers' (2005) exclusion of data
off Texas explains this partly, but the discrepancy also reflects their
lack of understanding of how the data were sampled (See ``sampled
versus select'' discussion in Carlson et al. 2016). The distribution of
Caribbean electric ray seems to be heavily concentrated along the
barrier islands around south Texas and Mississippi and Louisiana.
However, off the coast of Mississippi and Louisiana the survey is
conducted from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Ship Oregon II, which cannot fish in waters shallower than 9 m
due to the vessel's draft. Presently, efforts are being made to include
waters as shallow as two fathoms (4 m) in the sampling universe, but
there are only a few research vessels that can sample that shallow.
With the proportional allocation of stations by NMFS statistical zone,
very few stations may end up in these shallow depths in future survey
years. The SRT noted this could lead to a decrease in Caribbean
electric rays captured by the survey in the future because SEAMAP is no
longer sampling their habitat and therefore would not reflect abundance
changes. Overall, the SRT concluded the Caribbean electric ray is a
rare species to encounter during the trawl surveys due to their
shallow-water habitat and the inability of research vessels to sample
that habitat.
South Atlantic SEAMAP
The SRT also reviewed South Atlantic SEAMAP data. A similar SEAMAP
survey occurs in the Atlantic Ocean off the southeastern U.S. East
Coast. Samples are collected by trawl from the coastal zone of the
South Atlantic Bight between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and Cape
Canaveral, Florida. Multi-legged cruises are conducted in spring (early
April-mid-May), summer (mid-July-early August), and fall (October-mid-
November). Stations are randomly selected from a pool of stations
within each stratum. The number of stations sampled in each stratum is
determined by optimal allocation. From 1990-2000, the survey sampled 78
stations each season within 24 shallow water strata. Beginning in 2001,
the number of stations sampled each season in the 24 shallow water
strata increased to 102, and strata were delineated by the 4-m depth
contour inshore and the 10-m depth contour offshore. In previous years
(1990-2000), stations were sampled in deeper strata with station depths
ranging from 10 to 19 m in order
[[Page 47768]]
to gather data on the reproductive condition of commercially important
penaeid shrimp. Those strata were abandoned in 2001 in order to
intensify sampling in the shallower depth-zone. Further details are
available in Eldridge (1988).
Neither we nor the SRT could find a reference or analysis to
support the IUCN Red List assessment's statement regarding high rates
of decline in Caribbean electric rays in U.S. coastal areas between
Cape Canaveral, Florida and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The SRT used
a generalized linear modeling approach to correct for factors unrelated
to abundance to standardize the South Atlantic SEAMAP data following
methods similar to the GOM SEAMAP data. Covariates considered in this
analysis that may have affected abundance include year, season, area,
and sampling statistical zone. Time of day was not included as a
covariate as data were discontinuous due to most participating vessels
not conducting 24-hour operations. The abundance trend for this time
series was flat with peaks in abundance of different magnitudes found
every 5-10 years. The data showed high inter-annual variability in
Caribbean electric ray catches in the survey, and catches were very low
throughout, but there was no trend in the catch rates suggestive of a
decline in Caribbean electric rays.
REEF Data
The REEF (www.reef.org) is a dataset that is composed of more than
100,000 visual surveys conducted by volunteer divers during their daily
dive activities. This data set has been previously used for evaluating
species abundance trends (e.g., Ward-Paige et al. 2010 and references
therein) and was referenced in the petition as evidence of the low
occurrence of Caribbean electric rays along the east coast of Florida,
the GOM, and the northwestern Caribbean.
The IUCN had cursorily reviewed 1994-2004 REEF data for apparent
trends, but had not conducted a thorough analysis. Because these visual
surveys vary in duration, location and diver skill level (experience,
including experience in species identification), the SRT applied a
generalized linear model to examine standardized rates of change in
sighting frequency as an index of abundance. The SRT considered area as
a covariate based on 8 major sampling areas from the REEF database:
Gulf of Mexico, east coast of Florida, the Florida Keys, the Bahamas
(including Turks and Caicos), and the northwestern Caribbean (including
Cuba, the Cayman Islands, Jamaica, Haiti/Dominican Republic), Greater
Antilles (Puerto Rico to Grenada), Continental Caribbean (Belize-
Panama), and Netherland Antilles. The SRT also considered skill level
of the diver (experienced or novice), the bottom type, year, season,
water temperature and water visibility as covariates.
In the REEF database, Caribbean electric rays were observed on 476
out of 119,620 surveys (0.4 percent). Caribbean electric rays were
observed throughout the survey area with sighting records averaging 10-
18 percent of the total number of fish in the Antilles, Bahamas,
Florida and Central America. Positive occurrences were lowest in the
northwest Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. The average depth where
diver sightings occurred was about 5 meters generally over a habitat
where a diver recorded a variety of individual habitats. The final
covariates included in the model were year, area and bottom type. The
trend in number of occurrences was relatively flat and similar to the
other data series that showed high fluctuation across years. Due to the
low encounter rate, there was high uncertainty in the abundance trend.
The SRT found that relative abundance fluctuated dramatically
between years, but found no trend. The final model selected contained
year, area and bottom type as covariates with the trend in occurrences
relatively flat with the number of encounters rapidly fluctuating over
the time series.
State Agency Data
As noted earlier, the SRT sought additional datasets that were not
included in the IUCN Red list Assessment or the petition. Fishery
independent data sets with Caribbean electric ray records were obtained
from Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) and Florida Fish and
Wildlife Research Institute (FFWRI). The North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) also provided the SRT with
the 6 records it had from all of its fishery-dependent and -independent
programs combined.
The TPWD fishery-independent nearshore Gulf trawl survey is the
only TPWD program that catches Narcine bancroftii somewhat regularly.
Trawl collections did not begin coast-wide until 1982 in bays and 1986
in the GOM. Trawl sampling in Sabine Lake began in January 1986, and in
East Matagorda Bay in April 1987. The trawl sampling program began in
the Texas Territorial Sea (within 16.7 kilometers (km) of shore) in
1984 off Port Aransas (24.1 km either side of each jetty) and was
expanded to similar areas off the Sabine Pass, Galveston, Port
O'Connor, and Port Isabel jetties in January 1986 (sampling off Port
Isabel was restricted to 48.2 km north of the Rio Grande River)
(Matlock 1992).
TPWD provided trawl data for the three Gulf areas that encounter
Caribbean electric rays, i.e., Aransas Pass, Matagorda, and Santiago
Pass (Mark Fisher, TPFWD, pers. comm. to Jennifer Lee, NMFS SERO, July
31, 2014). Data from Aransas Pass and Matagorda show increases in
abundance especially since early 2000. The trend in abundance for
Santiago Pass increases until the late 1990s, then decreases to its
original level at the start of the time series. Santiago Pass Caribbean
electric ray catches were about 0.1/hour from 1985-1990, increased to
0.4/hour from 1991-2004, then declined back to 0.1/hour from 2005-
present.
The FFWRI's fisheries independent monitoring program uses a
stratified-random sampling design to monitor fish populations of
specific rivers and estuaries throughout Florida. They use a variety of
gears to sample, including small seines, large seines, and otter
trawls. The program has long-term data sets for Apalachicola (since
1998), Cedar Key (since 1996), Tampa Bay (since 1989), and Charlotte
Harbor (since 1989) along the GOM and Tequesta (since 1997) and Indian
River Lagoon (since 1990) on the Atlantic Coast.
Despite the large geographic area sampled and the extensive
sampling efforts over time, the FFWRI fisheries independent monitoring
program has collected very few Caribbean electric rays to date (i.e.,
34 specimens). Of these, 13 Caribbean electric rays were collected from
Apalachicola (i.e., 2 per year in 1998, 2004, and 2012; 1 per year
during 2000-2002 and 2006-2008, and 2010), 15 were collected from Cedar
Key (1 per year during 2001-2002 and 2008, 5 in 2004, 2 per year in
2009 and 2012, and 3 in 2013); 4 were collected from Tequesta (2 in
1998, and 2 in 2009), and 1 was collected from each of Tampa Bay (1990)
and Indian River Lagoon (1994). The SRT determined it was not
appropriate to analyze these data points further due to the rarity of
this species within their samples.
The SRT also considered the NCDENR data. The SRT determined it was
not appropriate to analyze these data points further due to the extreme
rarity of this species' occurrence (i.e., 6 records) within their
samples.
Shrimp Observer Program
The Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Galveston Laboratory, began
placing at-sea observers on commercial shrimping vessels in 1992 in the
U.S. southeastern region through a
[[Page 47769]]
cooperative voluntary research effort. In July 2007, a mandatory
Federal observer program was implemented to characterize the U.S. Gulf
of Mexico penaeid shrimp fishery, and in June 2008, the mandatory
program expanded to include the South Atlantic penaeid and rock shrimp
fisheries. The program was initiated to identify and minimize the
impacts of shrimp trawling on federally managed species. The specific
objectives are to (1) estimate catch rates during commercial shrimping
operations for target and non-target species, including protected
species by area, season and depth; and (2) evaluate bycatch reduction
devices designed to eliminate or significantly reduce non-targeted
catch. During the voluntary research effort, several different projects
were initiated. One project, referred to as a characterization,
involved identifying all species in a subsample from one randomly
selected net. In the mandatory shrimp observer program, there are
approximately 30 species (common, federally managed, etc.) that are
selected and subsampled from every sampled net, but other species,
including Carribbean electric rays, are only grouped into broad
categories (e.g., crustaceans, inverts, finfish).
Data associated with commercial trawl bycatch of Caribbean electric
rays (recorded as Narcine brasiliensis--Ray, Lesser Electric) in the
eastern GOM and off the east coast of the United States were available
from the characterization project conducted in 2001, 2002, 2005, and
2007. A total of 1,150 trawls were observed, and the catch was sorted
in its entirety to the species level. Across all years, 28 Caribbean
electric rays were captured during 4,016.6 hours of trawl effort, with
387 and 763 trawls being observed off the east coast and in the
northern GOM, respectively. Due to the low occurrence of Caribbean
electric rays, the SRT chose not to develop an index of abundance for
this species from these data. The SRT believed the low number of
animals captured across all years would make the index relatively
uninformative. These data were evaluated in considering bycatch as a
potential other manmade factor that may threaten the species.
Anecdotal Reports
In addition to the datasets reviewed above, the SRT found anecdotal
accounts of Caribbean electric rays through various other sources. Many
of these additional anecdotal accounts are from YouTube videos by beach
goers or forum discussions by boaters and fishermen who encountered the
species along the northern Gulf Coast. There are also anecdotal reports
by divers around south Florida, along the Atlantic coast, and
throughout parts of the Caribbean. A researcher at Auburn University
provided anecdotal accounts of Caribbean electric rays along the Fort
Morgan Peninsula in Alabama. The researcher observed large numbers of
Caribbean electric rays during late summer to early fall over 3 years
(2011-2013) of sampling in that particular area during that particular
time of year (Dr. Ash Bullard, to Jennifer Lee, NMFS, pers. com, August
15, 2014). The most common anecdotal encounters are sightings. The
sightings typically describe the number of Caribbean electric rays
observed at one time as very abundant (e.g., ``lots,'' ``everywhere'').
One anecdote notes that when you know what to look for they can be seen
everywhere. The SRT noted while these reports cannot be used to analyze
trends in abundance, they illustrate that people continue to encounter
the species in coastal areas around the GOM, South Atlantic, and
Caribbean and that when they do the species appears to be locally
abundant.
Conclusion
Based on all times series analyzed by the SRT, including those used
to support the listing petition, the SRT found no evidence of a decline
in Caribbean electric ray. Differences in reported trends are related
to the more robust analysis used by the SRT in the status review.
Moreover, the preliminary analyses in our 90-day finding used only
ratio estimators, and we did not have the raw data to derive the
confidence interval. No discernable trends in abundance of the
Caribbean electric ray were detected in any of the three Gulf of Mexico
SEAMAP indices or the South Atlantic SEAMP index. The SRT noted the
number of encounters did dramatically fluctuate over each time series,
but that it was not surprising based on the species' apparent clustered
but patchy distribution over shallow, sandy habitats as documented
repeatedly in the literature. As additional support for this
characterization, the SRT noted that recent encounters documented
through anecdotes indicate the Caribbean electric ray is fairly
abundant in specific habitats while consistently absent from others.
The SRT was unable to find any historical or current abundance
information outside of U.S. waters for the Caribbean electric ray. A
non-commercial species, there are no statistics on Caribbean commercial
fishery catches or on efforts that would enable an assessment of the
population.
Threats Evaluation
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
The SRT concluded that man-made activities that have the potential
to impact shallow sandy habitats include dredging, beach nourishment,
and shoreline hardening projects (e.g., groins). These types of
activities can negatively impact Caribbean electric rays by removing
habitat features (e.g., alteration or destruction of sand bars) and
affecting prey species. For example, annelids that Caribbean electric
rays prey on are killed or otherwise directly or indirectly affected by
large dredge-and-fill projects (Greene 2002).
The SRT determined that coastal habitats in the United States are
being impacted by urbanization. Coastal habitats in the southern United
States, including both the areas along the Atlantic and GOM, have
experienced and continue to experience losses due to urbanization. For
example, wetland losses in the GOM region of the United States averaged
annual net losses of 60,000 acres (24,281 hectares) of coastal and
freshwater habitat from 1998 to 2004 (Stedman and Dahl 2008). Although
wetland restoration activities are ongoing in this region of the United
States, the losses outweigh the gains, significantly (Stedman and Dahl
2008). These losses have been attributed to commercial and residential
development, port construction (e.g., dredging, blasting, and filling
activities), construction of water control structures, modification to
freshwater inflows (e.g., Rio Grande River in Texas), and oil and gas
related activities.
The oil and gas industry may affect marine resources in a variety
of ways, including increased vessel traffic, the discharge of
pollutants, noise from seismic surveys, and decommissioning charges.
Although routine oil and gas drilling activities generally occur
outside of the known depth range of the species, miles of pipelines
associated with oil and gas activities may run through Caribbean
electric ray habitat. The SRT concluded that the effect or magnitude of
effects on Caribbean electric ray habitat from oil and gas activities
is unknown. The largest threat is the release of oil from accidental
spills. While safety precautions are in place to prevent the
probability of spills and to decrease the duration of spills, these
events still occur. In the GOM, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was an
unprecedented disaster, both in terms of the area affected and the
duration of the spill. The Deepwater Horizon incident resulted in
injuries to a wide array of
[[Page 47770]]
resources and habitat across the Northern Gulf of Mexico from Texas to
Florida, including shoreline beaches and sediments, organisms that live
on and in the sand and sediment, and fish and shellfish and other
invertebrates that live in the water in nearshore ocean-bottom habitats
(NOAA 2015, http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/restoration-planning/gulf-plan/). While there has been no production of oil along
the Atlantic coast of the United States to date, there remains the
possibility of production in the future.
The SRT reported on NOAA's Restoration Center's involvement in
ongoing coastal restoration activities throughout the southeastern
United States. In 2010, NOAA funded coastal restoration activities in
Texas and Louisiana using appropriations from The American Recovery and
Investment Act of 2009. In Louisiana, where 25 square miles (64.7
square kilometers) of wetlands are lost per year, funding from the
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act helps to
implement large-scale wetlands restoration projects, including barrier
island restoration and terrace and channel construction.
The SRT anticipated an increase in large-scale restoration projects
in the GOM to mitigate the adverse effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill and foster restoration of coastal habitat, including those used
by the Caribbean electric ray. Numerous large coastal restoration
projects in the GOM are expected to be funded by the Resources and
Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities and Revived Economies
of the Gulf Coast States Act, Natural Resource Damage Assessment, and
Clean Water Act settlement agreements related to the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill. Many additional restoration projects will also be funded by
the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, beginning in Fiscal Year 2017.
While fewer in number, restoration efforts are also expected along
coastal areas of the South Atlantic states. For example, funding is
expected to be available to support comprehensive and cooperative
habitat conservation projects in Biscayne Bay located in south Florida,
as one of NOAA's three Habitat Focus Areas.
The SRT concluded the geographic areas in which the Caribbean
electric ray occurs are being impacted by human activities. Despite
ongoing and anticipated efforts to restore coastal habitats of the GOM
and Atlantic off the Southeastern United States, coastal habitat losses
will continue to occur in these regions as well as throughout the
Caribbean electric ray's entire range. However, the SRT could find no
information on specific effects to the Caribbean electric ray beyond
broad statements on the impacts to coastal habitat resulting from
development and oil and gas exploration. Data are lacking on impacts to
habitat features related to the Caribbean electric ray and/or threats
that result in curtailment of the Caribbean electric ray's range. In
October 2015, NOAA published a Programmatic Damage Assessment and
Restoration Plan (PDARP) and Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement, which considers programmatic alternatives to restore natural
resources, ecological services, and recreational use services injured
or lost as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The PDARP
presents data on impacts to nearshore habitats and resources, but there
are no data specific to Caribbean electric rays.
As discussed above, anthropogenic impacts to shallow, soft bottom
habitats have been occurring for decades and are expected to continue
into the future indefinitely. However, there is no available
information that indicates that the Caribbean electric ray has been
adversely affected by impacts to the coastal soft bottom habitats they
prefer. Sand substrate is not limiting throughout the Caribbean
electric ray's range, and the limited data available on the species'
movements indicate they do travel between areas with suitable habitat.
The SRT concluded that predictions of coastal habitat losses adversely
impacting the Caribbean ray in the future would be speculative.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The SRT details how McEachran and Carvalho (2002) reported for the
Narcinidae family that ``flesh of the tail region may be marketed after
removal of the electric organs in the larger species, but is generally
considered to be mediocre in quality.'' The SRT notes that in the
species-specific account for Caribbean electric ray, McEachran and
Carvalho (2002) reported that ``the tail region may be consumed as food
and considered of good quality, but it is not targeted regularly by
fisheries in the Western Central Atlantic.''
The SRT found no evidence of commercial or recreational harvest of
the species. Interest in the species by those who detect it in the surf
zone is largely one of curiosity. As Caribbean electric rays are
generally nocturnal and spend daylight hours buried under the sand,
they likely go undetected by the general public. Recreational fishermen
who are gigging for flounder at night are most likely to encounter this
species. The SRT noted there are some anecdotal reports of recreational
surf fishermen capturing them in dip-nets; however, available data
indicate that captured individuals are released.
Scientific research on Caribbean electric rays has been sparse.
Rudloe (1989a) collected and studied the ecology of Caribbean electric
rays from March 1985 to March 1987, to assess the feasibility of its
use in biochemical and neurophysiological research. Rudloe (1989a)
reported catching 3,913 rays at several stations from Cape San Blas to
Alligator Point, Florida, during this time period. Of these, 3,229 were
retained, 455 were tagged and released, and 229 were released untagged
due to small size. Funding for research was discontinued after these 2
years of sampling.
The SRT uncovered only a few additional studies involving the
Caribbean electric ray that post-date the Rudloe study (Dean and Motta
2004a, b; Dean et al. 2005, 2006; Tao 2013). Dr. Mason Dean led a study
on Caribbean electric ray husbandry (Dean et al. 2005) and three
studies on jaw morphology and feeding behavior (Dean and Motta 2004a,
b; Dean et al. 2006). For these studies, samples were collected using a
trawl off Cape Canaveral on the east coast of Florida (41 individuals
total) and in the northeast portion of the GOM (6 individuals); six
individual specimens preserved at the Florida Museum of Natural History
that had been collected from Little St. George Island, Florida were
also used. Tao (2013), as a Ph.D. candidate at Auburn University,
analyzed the blood vascular systems of ten Caribbean electric rays
captured in the northern GOM off Alabama for bacteria. The Bullard
Laboratory at Auburn University provided the samples for that study,
subsequently releasing them alive after collecting external parasites
(Dr. Ash Bullard, Auburn University pers. comm. to J. Lee, NMFS, August
15, 2014). Bullard Laboratory at Auburn University sampled an unknown
number of additional Caribbean electric rays in accordance with its
state collection permit; no record was kept of the number of Caribbean
electric rays observed in the field or the total number of individuals
examined. A few researchers from the GOM expressed interest in studying
the species in the future, but the SRT did not uncover nor are we aware
of any directed studies on Caribbean electric rays at this time.
Captive display of Caribbean electric rays in public aquaria is
extremely rare. Due to their selective food habits (i.e.,
[[Page 47771]]
live polychaete worms) and feeding behavior, they are not easy to keep
in aquaria (Rudloe 1989b, Dean et al. 2005). The 2008 American
Elasmobranch Society International Captive Elasmobranch Census
documented two male electric rays and one female electric ray in
captivity. They were recorded as Narcine brasiliensis and were in
captivity at a single aquarium. The SRT was unable to determine if
these animals were still in captivity or the location of this aquarium.
Nevertheless this serves as the only record of electric rays in
aquaria.
The Gulf Marine Specimens Laboratory sells 6-24 cm wild caught
Caribbean electric rays for $126 (http://www.gulfspecimen.org/specimen/fish/sharks-and-rays/). However, no more than a few are sold annually,
and the cost of collection and delivery greatly reduces the likelihood
of their use as student specimens (Jack Rudloe pers. comm. to J. Lee,
NMFS, August 15, 2014).
The species has apparent fidelity for specific, localized habitats,
thus targeting Caribbean electric rays could adversely affect the
population. However, the SRT found no information to indicate that
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational overutilization of
Caribbean electric rays has occurred or is occurring. Further, based on
the information presented above, the SRT did not expect overutilization
by any specific industry in the future.
C. Competition, Disease and Predation
The available data reviewed by the SRT on competition for Caribbean
electric ray prey species or other resources, and disease of and
predation on Caribbean electric rays, are summarized in the Life
History, Biology, and Ecology Section. The SRT found no information to
indicate that competition for Caribbean electric ray prey species or
other resources (e.g., sandy substrate habitat) is negatively affecting
the Caribbean electric ray abundance or survival. The SRT also found no
information indicating that predation or disease is impacting Caribbean
electric ray abundance and survival. Given the lack of data, the SRT
concluded that predictions of whether competition, predation, or
disease, may impact the Caribbean electric ray in the future would be
entirely speculative.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The SRT evaluated this factor in terms of whether existing
regulations may be inadequate to address potential threats to the
species. The SRT concluded that although there were no species-specific
regulations, there is no evidence that the lack of such is having a
detrimental effect on the Caribbean electric ray.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
There are a variety of other natural and manmade factors that may
affect the Caribbean electric ray and thus the continued existence of
this species. Factors reviewed by the SRT included the species' life
history and habitat use, natural events such as extreme tidal or red
tide events, bycatch in commercial fisheries, and climate change.
Life History and Habitat Use
Rudloe (1989a) believed the species was potentially vulnerable to
overharvest as a result of its low rate of reproduction and localized
distribution. Caribbean electric rays reproduce annually (Rudloe 1989a,
Moreno et al. 2010) with brood sizes ranging from 1-14 young (Bigelow
and Schroeder 1953, de Carvalho et al. 1999, Moreno et al. 2010). While
it is generally believed that elasmobranchs exhibit life history traits
that make them more susceptible to exploitation (e.g., low fecundity,
late age of maturity, slow growth), the limited evidence on Caribbean
electric ray life-history traits and population parameters (e.g.,
mature by age 2, females reproduce every year) likely place the species
among those elasmobranchs that are more productive. Therefore, the SRT
did not consider the species to be vulnerable due to its rate of
reproduction. The SRT did believe the species' patchy distribution and
fidelity for specific habitats increases vulnerability, but they did
not find evidence of this vulnerability having detrimental effects on
the Caribbean electric ray. Thus they believed there was no basis to
conclude these traits would increase extinction risk into the future.
Natural Events
Red tide (Karenia brevis) impacts many species of fish and wildlife
in the GOM and along the Florida coast. Karenia brevis produces
brevetoxins capable of killing fish, birds, and other marine animals.
While red tide events can cause deaths of aquatic species, the SRT has
no information on the extent to which red tides may be affecting the
Caribbean electric ray. The SRT did not find any reports of red tide
resulting in Caribbean electric ray mortalities.
There are a couple of reports of mass strandings of electric rays
resulting from extremely low tides. The National Park Service at Padre
National Seashore reported documenting a dozen or so dead electric rays
in the tidal zone of Padre Island, Texas, after an extremely low tide
event in the fall. Showing no signs of trauma or disease, officials at
the National Park Service at Padre National Seashore attributed the
mortalities to the extreme low tide leaving them stranded. The SRT
concluded that such events have always occurred occasionally and are
expected to continue to occur in the future without affecting overall
population abundance.
Bycatch in Commercial Fisheries
Caribbean electric rays have been incidentally captured by
commercial fisheries targeting other species, specifically those
fisheries using trawl gear. The likelihood and frequency of exposure to
bycatch in fisheries is generally a function of (1) the extent of
spatial and temporal overlap of the species and fishing effort, and (2)
the likelihood of an interaction resulting in capture and the extent of
injury from capture.
As stated earlier, data associated with commercial trawl bycatch of
Caribbean electric ray in the eastern GOM and off the east coast of the
United States are available from the NMFS Observer Program. During
2001, 2002, 2005 and 2007, 1,150 trawls were observed and the catch was
sorted in its entirety to the species level. Across all years, 28
Caribbean electric rays were captured during 4,016.6 hours of trawl
effort. NMFS observed 387 trawls off the east coast and 763 trawls in
the northern GOM over this time period. Trawl duration ranged from 0.1
to 11 hours (mean = 3.48 hours, S.D. = 1.41) and occurred at depths
ranging from 0.6 to 71.1 m (mean = 15.08, S.D. = 9.04). In the combined
areas there were 0.0070 individuals caught per hour of trawling.
Examining area specific Caribbean electric ray catch rates, there were
0.0171 and 0.0015 individuals caught per hour off the east coast and in
the GOM, respectively. For trawls with positive catch, there was no
significant relationship between trawl duration and the number of
individuals captured (F = 0.01, P = 0.92), consistent with what would
be expected for a species with a patchy distribution. Based on the
number of trawls associated with Caribbean electric ray captures (n =
10) and the total number of trawls observed (n = 1150), the probability
of capturing Caribbean electric rays off the east coast and in the GOM
is 0.0087 (C.V. = 0.3148).
Acevedo et al. (2007) reported on 99 shrimp trawls in the Caribbean
Sea off the northern coast of Colombia from
[[Page 47772]]
August to November 2004. These trawls were conducted at depths ranging
from 14-72 m. Elasmobranch fishes were captured in 30 of the 99 trawls,
including 6 Caribbean electric rays. The six specimens were reported
for the months of August and September, the only months in which the
species was taken.
The SRT believes the capture of six Caribbean electric rays is
likely the result of their patchy distribution and not reflective of
overall Colombian fleet annual catch per unit of effort levels. The SRT
noted that there are few areas of suitable habitat for the species off
northern Colombia because the bottoms are rocky or coralline, and that
this also makes most areas in that area unsuitable for trawling. Based
on that information, the SRT concluded that it did not believe the
documented bycatch is particularly notable or cause for concern.
The lack of sandy bottom habitat in northern Colombia could also
mean that Caribbean electric rays and trawling effort may overlap more
in that particular area. However, the SRT did not conclude that
documented bycatch in Colombia raises concerns about the status of the
species.
Overall, the SRT concluded there is no evidence that the bycatch of
Caribbean electric ray occurring in U.S. or foreign fisheries,
including the Colombia trawl fisheries, has had any past impact on
Caribbean electric rays. Given that declines have not been documented
in U.S. waters where data are available, there is no reason to suspect
that declines are occurring elsewhere in the species' range. The SRT
further found there is no basis to conclude that operations of these
fisheries indefinitely into the future would result in a decline in
Caribbean electric ray abundance.
Climate Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that
global climate change is unequivocal (IPCC 2007) and its impacts to
coastal resources may be significant. There is a large and growing body
of literature on past, present, and future impacts of global climate
change induced by human activities, i.e., global warming mostly driven
by the burning of fossil fuels. Some of the likely effects commonly
mentioned are sea level rise, increased frequency of severe weather
events, and change in air and water temperatures. NOAA's climate change
web portal provides information on the climate-related variability and
changes that are exacerbated by human activities (http://www.climate.gov/#understandingClimate). The EPA's climate change Web
page also provides basic background information on these and other
measured or anticipated effects (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html).
The SRT concluded that climate change impacts on Caribbean electric
rays cannot currently be predicted with any degree of certainty.
Climate change can potentially affect the distribution and abundance of
marine fish species. Distributional changes are believed to be highly
dependent on the biogeography of each species, but changes in ocean
temperature are believed likely to drive poleward movement of ranges
for tropical and lower latitude organisms (Nye et al. 2009). Evidence
of climate change-induced shifts in distribution of marine fish has
been recorded in the western Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, and in the
Northeastern Atlantic (Fodrie et al. 2010, Murawski 1993, Nye et al.
2009). The SRT predicts that increased water levels and warmer water
temperatures will have little impact on the species and, if anything,
could possibly expand its range off the U.S. east coast. Given what the
SRT knows about the species' current depth distribution, the SRT
concluded it is unlikely that sea level rise will have adverse effects.
Similarly, because the range of the Caribbean electric ray seems to be
restricted to warm temperate to tropical water temperature, the SRT
concluded increased water temperatures are unlikely to negatively
influence the species and could possibly expand their northern range in
the future.
Extinction Risk Analysis
In addition to reviewing the best available data on potential
threats to Caribbean electric rays, the SRT considered demographic
risks to the species similar to approaches described by Wainwright and
Kope (1999) and McElhany et al. (2000). The approach of considering
demographic risk factors to help frame the discussion of extinction
risk has been used in many status reviews (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species). In this approach, the collective condition of individual
populations is considered at the species level, typically according to
four demographic viability risk criteria: Abundance, population growth,
spatial structure/connectivity, and diversity/resilience. These
viability criteria reflect concepts that are well-founded in
conservation biology and that individually and collectively provide
strong indicators of extinction risk.
Because the information on Caribbean electric ray demographics and
threats is largely sparse and non-quantitative, the SRT used
qualitative reference levels for its analysis to the extent consistent
with the best available information. The three qualitative `reference
levels' of extinction risk relative to the demographic criteria used
were high risk, moderate risk, and low risk as defined in NMFS'
Guidance on Responding to Petitions and Conducting Status Reviews under
the ESA. A species or distinct population segment (DPS) with a high
risk of extinction was defined as being at or near a level of
abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and/or diversity that
places its continued persistence in question. The demographics of a
species or DPS at such a high level of risk may be highly uncertain and
strongly influenced by stochastic or depensatory processes. Similarly,
a species or DPS may be at high risk of extinction if it faces clear
and present threats (e.g., confinement to a small geographic area;
imminent destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat; or
disease epidemic) that are likely to create present and substantial
demographic risks.
A species or DPS was defined as being at moderate risk of
extinction if it is on a trajectory that puts it at a high level of
extinction risk in the foreseeable future (see description of ``High
risk'' above). A species or DPS may be at moderate risk of extinction
due to projected threats or declining trends in abundance,
productivity, spatial structure, or diversity.
A species or DPS was defined as being at low risk of extinction if
it is not at moderate or high level of extinction risk (see ``Moderate
risk'' and ``High risk'' above). A species or DPS may be at low risk of
extinction if it is not facing threats that result in declining trends
in abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity. A species
or DPS at low risk of extinction is likely to show stable or increasing
trends in abundance and productivity with connected, diverse
populations.
The SRT evaluated the current extent of extinction risk based on
Caribbean electric ray relative abundance trends data and the
likelihood the species will respond negatively in the future to
potential threats. The foreseeable future is linked to the ability to
forecast population trends. The SRT considered the degree of certainty
and foreseeability that could be gleaned concerning each potential
threat, whether the threat was temporary or permanent in nature, how
the various threats affect the life history of the species, and whether
observations concerning the species' response to the threat are
adequate to establish a trend.
[[Page 47773]]
In evaluating the foreseeable future, it is not just the foreseeability
of the threats, but also the foreseeability of the impacts of the
threats on the species that must be considered. Thus, the nature of the
data concerning each threat and the degree to which reliable
predictions about their impacts on the species could be made were
assessed. There are no data documenting discernable decreases in
relative abundance trends or other data showing that Caribbean electric
ray populations have been impacted by identified potential threats. The
magnitude of potential threats and factors described above were
generally expected to remain unchanged. Thus, the SRT determined it was
unable to specify a definitive time frame to define the foreseeable
future for evaluating the degree to which demographic factors and
potential threats contribute to the species' risk of extinction.
Qualitative Risk Analysis of Demographics
The SRT's ability to analyze many of the specific criteria embedded
in the risk definitions for demographic factors was limited. There are
no data available on age-at maturity or natural mortality that would be
necessary to determine population growth rates. Population structure
and levels of genetic diversity in Caribbean electric rays are
completely unknown, with no genetic studies ever conducted, even for
the species' taxonomy.
The SRT determined that the relative abundance trend information
for Caribbean electric rays represents a low risk to the species'
continued existence now and into the future. The Caribbean electric ray
has a broad range in warm temperate to tropical waters of the western
Atlantic from North Carolina to Florida (its presence in the Bahamas is
unknown, however), the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea to the
northern coast of South America. Within its range, it has a patchy
distribution within relatively shallow waters, often within the surf
zone. There are no estimates of absolute population size over the
species' range; however, analyses of available long-term datasets
indicate that the trend in relative abundance is relatively flat with
abundance dramatically fluctuating over each time series. The SRT did
not find this surprising given the patchy distribution over specific
habitat types.
The SRT found very little information available on the life history
of Caribbean electric ray. There are no age and growth studies for this
species but anecdotal studies suggest rapid growth. Size at maturity
for females is estimated at about 26 cm TL (Funicelli 1975). Caribbean
electric rays are estimated to reach reproductive size by the end of
their first year, and the reproductive cycle is annual (Rudloe 1989a).
The brood size ranges from 1-14 depending on the study. While it is
generally regarded that elasmobranchs exhibit life history traits
(e.g., low fecundity, late age of maturity, slow growth) that make them
more susceptible to exploitation, the limited evidence on Caribbean
electric ray life-history traits and population parameters likely place
the species among those elasmobranchs that are more productive. Thus,
the SRT believed that the species likely will be able to withstand
moderate anthropogenic mortality levels and have a higher potential to
recover from exploitation and stochastic events. The SRT concluded that
available information on the species' demographic characteristics
currently represent a low risk of extinction, and risks are unlikely to
increase into the future.
The SRT found no evidence that Caribbean electric rays are at risk
of extinction due to a change or loss of variation in genetic
characteristics or gene flow among populations currently or into the
future. This species is found over a broad range and appears to be
opportunistic and well adapted to its environment. In addition, the
risk of extinction due to the loss of spatial structure and
connectivity for the Caribbean electric ray is low. Caribbean electric
rays have a relatively broad distribution in the western Atlantic Ocean
generally in habitats dominated by sand bottom substrate. Sand
substrate is not limiting throughout the range, and the limited data
available on species movements indicate individuals do travel between
areas with suitable habitat.
Qualitative Risk Analysis of Threats
Regarding habitat threats to the species, the SRT concluded that
man-made activities that have the potential to impact shallow sandy
habitats include dredging, oil and gas pipelines and pipeline
development, beach nourishment, and shoreline hardening projects (e.g.,
groins). These types of activities could negatively impact Caribbean
electric rays by removing habitat features they require. Although
specific data are lacking on impacts to the Caribbean electric ray, it
is reasonable to anticipate that coastal development will continue
perpetually and may damage habitat within the species' range. However,
the species does occur over a broad range and most impacts to the
coastal zone have more significantly occurred to wetlands, coral reefs
and mangrove ecosystems, rather than sand bottom habitats. For these
reasons, the SRT concluded that the Caribbean electric ray is at low
risk of extinction due to destruction and modification of habitat
currently and in the future.
The SRT determined impacts from overutilization are unlikely to
cause the species to be at heightened risk of extinction. There is
little to no direct harvest for the species. The SRT considered bycatch
in commercial fisheries as one of the natural or manmade factors it
reviewed. Caribbean electric rays are very uncommon as bycatch in trawl
and gillnet fisheries. Moreover, many states throughout their U.S.
range (e.g., Florida, Texas, and Georgia) have banned gillnet fishing
in state waters which will further reduce the likelihood of bycatch as
a negative impact on the continued existence of Caribbean electric
rays. The level of bycatch from U.S. shrimp trawl fisheries is believed
to be low primarily because they operate mainly in areas where
Caribbean electric rays are not found. The SRT concluded that
overutilization presented a low risk of extinction. The risk associated
with the level of bycatch from U.S. shrimp trawl fisheries is unlikely
to change in the future given the areas where the fishery mainly
operates are also unlikely to change. Since 2001, there has been a
dramatic decrease in otter trawl effort in southeast U.S. shrimp
fisheries, which has been attributed to low shrimp prices, rising fuel
costs, competition with imported products, and the impacts of 2005 and
2006 hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. Although otter trawl effort from
year to year may fluctuate some, there are no data to indicate that
otter trawl effort levels will increase in the future from recent
levels. Also, the species has been subject to bycatch for centuries and
does not appear to have experienced any measurable decline during those
earlier periods, based on the relative abundance trends data available.
The SRT also determined the risk to Caribbean electric ray from disease
or predation is also low now; in the absence of data on past or current
impacts to the species, the SRT concluded that no impacts can be
foreseen into the future.
Overall Risk of Extinction Throughout Its Range Analysis
In this section we evaluate the overall risk of extinction to the
Caribbean electric ray throughout its range. In determining the overall
risk of extinction to the species throughout its range, we considered
available data on the specific life history and ecology of
[[Page 47774]]
the species, the nature of potential threats, any known responses of
the species to those threats, and population abundance trends. We
considered the information summarized in the status review report
(Carlson et al. 2015).
The SRT determined it could not define a foreseeable future for
their extinction risk. However, we think the available information on
abundance trends can provide an appropriate horizon over which to
consider how the species may respond to potential impacts into the
future. The fisheries-independent datasets from which we evaluated
abundance trends span time periods of 11 to 34 years, during which
abundance trends were flat, with scattered and varied peaks in
abundance. All of the potential threats evaluated by the SRT were
occurring at the same time that the fishery independent surveys were
performed. All of the activities that constitute potential threats were
also projected by the SRT to continue at their current levels into the
future. Therefore, we feel it is appropriate to consider the
foreseeable future to be the next few decades, or 20 to 30 years, for
Caribbean electric ray. Although the lifespan of Caribbean electric ray
is not known, based on their early size of maturity and apparent annual
reproduction, 20 to 30 years would encompass several generations of the
species and thus any adverse responses to threats would be discernible
over this timeframe.
We concur with the SRT's analysis and risk conclusions for
potential threats and for demographic factors. The threat and
demographic factors identified present either no risk or at most low
risk to Caribbean electric ray, now and over the foreseeable future.
There is no information indicating that any potential threats have
adversely impacted Caribbean electric ray in the past, and there is no
basis to predict that potential threats will adversely impact the
species over the next 20 to 30 years. The species has not faced threats
in the past, and is not expected to face any over the foreseeable
future, that would result in declining trends in abundance, spatial
structure, or diversity.
Based on all time series of data analyzed by the SRT, including
those used to support the listing petition, there is no evidence of a
decline in relative abundance of Caribbean electric rays. No
discernable trends in abundance of Caribbean electric ray were detected
in any of the available datasets. Number of encounters did dramatically
fluctuate over each time series, but we believe this reflects the
species' apparent clustered but patchy distribution over shallow, sandy
habitats. Anecdotal accounts of recent encounters indicate they are
abundant in specific habitats while consistently absent from others.
Our 90-day determination that the petitioned action may be warranted
due to impacts from incidental take in fisheries was based on one study
(Shepherd and Myers 2005) indicating that nearshore shrimp trawl
fisheries operating in the northern Gulf of Mexico may be negatively
impacting the species in that region. However, further examination of
the dataset by the SRT revealed that Shepherd and Myers (2005) did not
take into account major changes in survey design and how they would
affect the relative abundance of Caribbean electric rays, and did not
understand how the catch was sorted, thus Shepherd and Myers (2005)
underestimated the number of individual reports in the data. The SRT's
analysis showed no discernable trends in abundance of Caribbean
electric ray in any of the three Gulf of Mexico Southeast Area
Monitoring and Assessment Program indices.
There is no evidence that potential threats comprising ESA section
(4)(a)(1) factors (A)-(C) or (E) have contributed to heightened
extinction risk and endangerment of the species. Incidental take in
fisheries was the only activity we initially believed might be
resulting in adverse impacts to the species due to the decline
presented in Shepherd and Myers (2005). However, after further review
we believe there is no evidence indicating that nearshore shrimp trawl
fisheries operating in the northern Gulf of Mexico or in foreign waters
(e.g., Colombia shrimp trawls) are negatively impacting the species in
those areas.
Neither we nor the SRT identified any threats under the other
Section 4(a)(1) factors that may be causing or contributing to
heightened extinction risk of this species. Therefore, we conclude that
inadequate regulatory mechanisms (Section (4)(a)(1)(D)) are also not a
factor affecting the status of Caribbean electric ray.
So to summarize, we did not find that any of the demographic
factors or Section 4(a)(1) factors contribute significantly to the
extinction risk of this species throughout its range, now or in the
foreseeable future. Based on our consideration of the best available
data, as summarized here and in Carlson et al. (2016), we determine
that the present overall risk of extinction to the Caribbean electric
ray throughout its range is low, and will remain low over the
foreseeable future, and thus listing as threatened or endangered under
the ESA throughout its range is not warranted. We also considered
whether any threats or demographic factors elevated risks to the
species when considered cumulatively. With no evidence of any decline
in the species or other negative impacts to life history
characteristics, there is no evidence to suggest that potential threats
and demographic factors cumulatively are currently elevating the
species' risk of extinction, or will elevate extinction risk throughout
its range over the foreseeable future.
Significant Portion of Its Range (SPOIR)
Because we found that listing the species as endangered or
threatened throughout its range was not warranted, we then conducted a
``significant portion of its range analysis.'' The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and NMFS--together, ``the Services''--have
jointly finalized a policy interpreting the phrase ``significant
portion of its range'' (SPOIR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). The SPOIR
policy provides that: (1) If a species is found to be endangered or
threatened in only a significant portion of its range, the entire
species is listed as endangered or threatened, respectively, and the
Act's protections apply across the species' entire range; (2) a portion
of the range of a species is ``significant'' if the species is not
currently endangered or threatened throughout its range, but the
portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so important
that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future,
throughout all of its range; and (3) the range of a species is
considered to be the general geographical area within which that
species can be found at the time we make any particular status
determination.
We evaluated whether substantial information indicated that (i)
portions of the Caribbean electric ray's range are significant and (ii)
the species occupying those portions is in danger of extinction or
likely to become so within the foreseeable future (79 FR 37578; July 1,
2014). Under the SPOIR policy, both considerations must apply to
warrant listing a species as threatened or endangered throughout its
range based upon its status within a portion of the range.
The historical range of the Caribbean electric ray is in western
Atlantic shallow coastal waters, from North Carolina through the
northern coast of Brazil (Carvalho et al. 2007). Individual populations
are localized and do not migrate extensively, but do move onshore and
offshore at least seasonally, crossing between barrier beach surf zones
and sandbars adjacent to passes associated with estuarine barrier
islands
[[Page 47775]]
(Rudloe 1989a). Movements also include travel east and west between
sand bar habitats (Rudloe 1989a). Geographically as well as
quantitatively, those parts of the electric ray's range that are within
U.S. waters (Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic) may each constitute a
significant portion of the Caribbean electric ray's range because if
the population were to disappear from either portion, it could result
in the rest of the species being threatened or endangered. However,
there is no information to indicate that the members of the species in
either the Gulf of Mexico or the South Atlantic have different
demographic viability or are facing different or more intense threats
to the point where they would be threatened or endangered in these
portions. Because a portion must be both significant and threatened or
endangered before we can list a species based on its status in a
significant portion of its range, we do not find that listing the
Caribbean electric ray is threatened or endangered based on its status
in a significant portion of its range is warranted.
Final Listing Determination
Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that NMFS make listing
determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data
available after conducting a review of the status of the species and
taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or
foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and
conserve the species. We have independently reviewed the best available
scientific and commercial information including the petitions, public
comments submitted on the 90-day finding (79 FR 4877; January 30,
2014), the status review report (Carlson et al. 2015), and other
published and unpublished information. We considered each of the
statutory factors to determine whether it contributed significantly to
the extinction risk of the species. As previously explained, we could
not identify a significant portion of the species' range that is
threatened or endangered. Therefore, our determination is based on a
synthesis and integration of the foregoing information, factors and
considerations, and their effects on the status of the species
throughout its entire range.
We conclude that the Caribbean electric ray is not presently in
danger of extinction, nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range. Accordingly, the Caribbean electric
ray does not meet the definition of a threatened species or an
endangered species and our listing determination is that the Caribbean
electric ray does not warrant listing as threatened or endangered at
this time.
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 18, 2016.
Samuel R. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-17397 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P