[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45377-45389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16335]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 200716-0193; RTID 0648-XA496]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-Month
Finding on a Petition To List the Dwarf Seahorse 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 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 dwarf seahorse (Hippocampus
zosterae) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). We have completed a status review of the dwarf seahorse in
response to a petition submitted by the Center for Biological
Diversity. After reviewing the best scientific and commercial data
available, including the Status Review Report, we have determined the
species does not warrant listing at this time. While the species has
declined in abundance, it still occupies its historical range, and
population trends indicate subpopulations are stable or increasing in
most locations. We conclude that the dwarf seahorse 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.
DATES: This finding was made on July 28, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The dwarf seahorse Status Review Report associated with this
determination and its references are available upon request from the
Species Conservation Branch Chief, Protected Resources Division, NMFS
Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL
33701, Attn: Dwarf Seahorse 12-month Finding. The report and references
are also available electronically at: https://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prplans/ID411.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Brame, NMFS Southeast Regional
Office, (727) 209-5958; or Celeste Stout, NMFS Office of Protected
Resources, 301-427-8436.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 6, 2011, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity to list the dwarf seahorse as threatened or
endangered under the ESA. The petition asserted that (1) the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or
range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (3) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
and (4) other natural or manmade factors are affecting its continued
existence and contributing to the dwarf seahorse's imperiled status.
The petitioner also requested that critical habitat be designated for
this species concurrent with listing under the ESA.
On May 4, 2012, NMFS published a 90-day finding for dwarf seahorse
with our determination that the petition presented substantial
scientific and commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted (77 FR 26478). We also requested scientific and
commercial information from the public to inform a status review of the
species, as required by
[[Page 45378]]
section 4(b)(3)(a) of the ESA. Specifically, we requested information
pertaining to: (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance of
this species throughout its range; (2) historical and current
population status and trends; (3) life history in marine environments;
(4) curio, traditional medicine, and aquarium trade or other trade
data; (5) any current or planned activities that may adversely impact
the species; (6) historical and current seagrass trends and status; (7)
ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and its
seagrass habitats; (8) management, regulatory, and enforcement
information; and (9) any biological information on the species. We
received information from the public in response to the 90-day finding
and incorporated the information into both the Status Review Report
(NMFS 2020) and this 12-month finding.
Listing Determinations Under the ESA
We are responsible for determining whether the dwarf seahorse 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. 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.'' On February 7, 1996, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS; together, the Services) adopted a policy describing
what constitutes a distinct population segment (DPS) of a taxonomic
species (``DPS Policy,'' 61 FR 4722). The joint DPS Policy identifies
two elements that must be considered when identifying a DPS: (1) The
discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of
the taxon to which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the
population segment to the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs.
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,'' on the other hand, is
not currently in danger of extinction but is likely to become so in the
foreseeable future. In other words, a 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).
Under section 4(a)(1) 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.
To determine whether the dwarf seahorse warrants listing under the
ESA, we formed a Status Review Team (SRT) consisting of biologists and
managers to complete a Status Review Report (NMFS 2020), which
summarizes the taxonomy, distribution, abundance, life history and
biology of the species. The Status Review Report (NMFS 2020) also
identifies threats or stressors affecting the status of the species,
and provides a description of fisheries, fisheries management, and
conservation efforts. The team then assessed the threats affecting
dwarf seahorse as part of an extinction risk analysis (ERA). The
results of the ERA from the Status Review Report (NMFS 2020) are
discussed below. The Status Review Report incorporates information
received in response to our request for information (77 FR 26478, May
4, 2012) and comments from three independent peer reviewers.
Information from the Status Review Report is summarized below in the
Biological Review section.
The petition requested that the species be considered for
endangered or threatened status as a single entity throughout its
range. While the agency has discretion to evaluate a species for
potential DPSs, it is our policy, in light of Congressional guidance
(S. Rep. 96-151), to list DPSs sparingly. The SRT held discussions as
to whether DPSs should be considered, based on the information within
the Status Review Report (NMFS 2020), but ultimately decided to
evaluate the dwarf seahorse as a singular species throughout its range.
In determining whether the species is endangered or threatened as
defined by the ESA, we considered both the data and information
summarized in the Status Review Report (NMFS 2020) as well as the
results of the ERA. The ERA analyzed demographic and listing factors
that could affect the status of the dwarf seahorse. Demographic factors
considered included abundance, population growth rate and productivity,
spatial structure/connectivity, and diversity. We also identified
threats under each of the five listing factors: (A) Present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range; (B) overutilization of the species for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. For purposes of our
analysis, the identification of demographic or listing factors that
could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding
that ESA listing is warranted. In considering those factors that might
constitute threats, we look beyond mere exposure of the species to the
factors to determine whether the species responds, either to a single
threat or multiple threats, in a way that causes impacts at the species
level. We considered each threat identified, both individually and
cumulatively, evaluating both their nature and the species' response to
the threat. In making this 12-month finding, we have considered and
evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information,
including information received in response to our 90-day finding.
Biological Review
This section provides a summary of key biological information
presented in the Status Review Report (NMFS 2020).
Species Description
The dwarf seahorse (Hippocampus zosterae, Jordan and Gilbert 1882),
is a short-lived, small-sized syngnathid fish. Like all seahorses, the
tail of the dwarf seahorse is prehensile (capable of grasping) and used
to secure the animal to seagrass or floating marine vegetation in the
water (Gill 1905; Walls 1975). The eyes move independently of one
another, allowing for better accuracy during feeding (Gill 1905). Dwarf
seahorses have a wide range of color patterns from yellow and green to
black. Individuals may also have white markings or dark spots which aid
in camouflage while inhabiting seagrass (Gill 1905; Lourie et al. 2004;
Lourie et al. 1999; Vari 1982).
Dwarf seahorses are one of the smallest species of seahorses.
[[Page 45379]]
Aquarium-raised dwarf seahorses have been recorded at 0.27-0.35 inches
(0.7-0.9 cm) total length (TL) at birth and growing to 0.7 inches (1.8
cm) TL by day 17 (Koldewey 2005). There is some discussion regarding
the maximum size of adults with reports ranging from 1 inch (2.5 cm;
Lourie et al. 2004) to a single specimen at 2.12 inches (5.4 cm;
Masonjones, University of Tampa, pers. comm. to Kelcee Smith,
Riverside, Inc., on July 17, 2013). Masonjones et al. (2010) indicated
body size was highly correlated with season, as individuals born in the
Florida wet season (June-September) were larger than those born in the
dry season. The species rarely lives longer than 2 years in the wild
(Koldewey 2005; Strawn 1958; Vari 1982), though it has been reported to
live up to 3 years in captivity (Abbott 2003).
Distribution
Historically, dwarf seahorses have been reported in the
southeastern United States, including Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, and Florida (Strawn 1958), Mexico, and the greater Caribbean,
including The Bahamas, Bermuda, and Cuba. Data from outside the United
States are limited, and reports from the Bahamas, Cuba, and Bermuda
have been rare historically and absent recently. Available data from
the United States, both historically and presently, indicate the
highest abundances of dwarf seahorses are in bay systems south of
29[deg] N (south Florida and south Texas) and the lowest abundances are
in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi (NMFS 2020).
Habitat
In general, dwarf seahorse habitat is characterized by shallow,
warm, nearshore seagrass beds. These habitats often occur within
sheltered lagoons or embayments with reduced exposure to strong
currents and heavy wave action (Iverson and Bittaker 1986). Dwarf
seahorses are typically found in shallow coastal and lagoon habitats
during the summer (Musick et al. 2000; Robbins 2005; Strawn 1961;
Tipton and Bell 1988; Walls 1975) and deeper waters or tide pools
during the winter (Lourie et al. 2004). Dwarf seahorses show no
particular affinity for a specific seagrass species (Masonjones et al.
2010), but are generally found in areas with higher densities of
seagrass blades and higher seagrass canopy (i.e., length of seagrass
blades) (Lourie et al. 2004). This results in a patchy distribution of
dwarf seahorses within estuaries.
Dwarf seahorses are found within a range of salinities (7-37),
temperatures (57-89[deg] F (14-32[deg] C)), and depths, depending on
geographic location and time of year (Ryan Moody, Dauphin Island Sea
Lab, pers. comm. to Kelcee Smith, Riverside, Inc., on July 17, 2012;
Masonjones and Rose 2009; Masonjones et al. 2010; Mark Fisher, Texas
Parks & Wildlife Dept., pers. comm. to Kelcee Smith, Riverside, Inc.,
on July 12, 2012; Mike Harden, Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources,
pers. comm. to Kelcee Smith, Riverside, Inc., July 24, 2012). However,
within aquarium husbandry the dwarf seahorse is considered a tropical
species, and water temperatures of 68-79[deg] F are recommended (20-
26[deg] C; Masonjones 2001; Koldewey 2005). In their review paper,
Foster and Vincent (2004) reported the maximum recorded depth for the
dwarf seahorse as 6.5 feet (2 meters).
Diet and Feeding
Seahorses are ambush predators, feeding on harpacticoid copepods
and amphipods (both very small crustaceans measuring only a few
millimeters in length) as they drift along the edges of seagrass beds
(Huh and Kitting 1985; Tipton and Bell 1988). No seasonal differences
have been reported in the dwarf seahorse diet (Tipton and Bell 1988).
Dwarf seahorses produce a stridulatory sound (a ``click'') from the
articulation of the supraoccipital and coronet bones in the skull
during feeding, and it has been shown that dwarf seahorses click 93
percent of the time during feeding in a new environment, and during
competition for mates (Colson et al. 1998).
Reproductive Biology
Dwarf seahorses reach reproductive maturity at approximately 3
months of age (Wilson and Vincent 2000) and exhibit gender-specific
roles in reproduction (Masonjones and Lewis 1996; Masonjones and Lewis
2000; Vincent 1994). Dwarf seahorses are generally monogamous (the
practice of an individual having one mate) within a breeding season and
mates are chosen by similarity in size (Jones et al. 2003; Wilson et
al. 2003). Dwarf seahorses will reject a potential mate if the size
difference is too large (Masonjones et al. 2010). Once bonded, the
mating pair remains together throughout a 3-day courtship ritual. After
successful courtship, the female deposits unfertilized eggs into the
male's brood pouch. In the brood pouch, eggs are fertilized and the
embryos are nourished, osmoregulated (the body fluid balance and
concentration of salts is kept stable), oxygenated (by circulating
water), and protected (Jones et al. 2003; Vincent 1995a; Wilson et al.
2003; Wilson and Vincent 2000). Strawn (1958) reported a maximum number
of 69 eggs found in the ovaries of a female and up to 55 young counted
in the pouch of a male. Masonjones and Lewis (1996) found that males
give birth to an average of 3-16 offspring per brood. Males in
captivity usually give birth to fewer individuals compared to males in
the wild (Masonjones et al. 2010). Throughout the 10-12-day gestation
(Masonjones and Lewis 2000) the female greets the male daily and the
pair remains in close proximity (Jones et al. 2003; Vincent 1995a;
Wilson and Vincent 2000).
Dwarf seahorses exhibit iteroparity (multiple reproductive cycles)
throughout the breeding season (Masonjones and Lewis 1996; Masonjones
and Lewis 2000; Rose et al. 2014). Following the transfer of eggs, the
female begins developing new eggs for the next clutch (Masonjones and
Lewis 1996; Masonjones and Lewis 2000). Egg development is achieved in
2 days but the female is only sexually receptive for a few hours
following development and is ``essentially incapable of mating before
the end of their previous mating partner's gestation period''
(Masonjones and Lewis 2000). Under ideal conditions, the male can mate
4-20 hours after giving birth, allowing dwarf seahorse pairs to produce
up to two broods per month (Masonjones and Lewis 2000; Strawn 1958;
Vari 1982). Masonjones and Lewis (2000) reported the potential number
of offspring that male and female dwarf seahorses could produce over
the breeding season were 279.5 and 240.5 individuals, respectively.
This difference in potential offspring between the two sexes is a
result of latency, as males are faster to respond to new potential
mates if the pair bond is disrupted (if one dies or is removed). If the
female dies or is removed during gestation, the male will give birth to
that clutch before finding a new mate. If a pregnant male (a male
carrying fertilized eggs) dies or is removed, the female will not mate
until the gestation for the interrupted pregnancy would have been
complete (Masonjones and Lewis 2000).
Dwarf seahorse breeding season is generally protracted and is
influenced by day length and water temperature (Koldewey 2005;
Masonjones and Lewis 2000; Strawn 1958; Vari 1982). Breeding occurs
year-round at latitudes south of approximately 28[deg] N (Rose et al.
2019). During the summer months, when the day length is longer and
water temperature exceeds 86[deg] F (30[deg] C), dwarf seahorses
reproduce more frequently because gestation is shorter (Fedrizzi et al.
2015; Foster and Vincent 2004). For
[[Page 45380]]
example, in Tampa Bay, Florida, pregnant males are found in all months
but are more abundant early summer through fall (Rose et al. 2019).
Year round reproduction was also observed in the Florida Keys, based on
anecdotal reports from commercial collectors (FWC 2016).
Population Structure and Genetics
Fedrizzi et al. (2015) investigated dwarf seahorse population
genetic structure at eight Florida locations: One in the Panhandle
(Pensacola), two adjacent to Tampa Bay, four in the Florida Keys, and
one in Indian River Lagoon. The study found significant population
structuring with a strongly separated population in the Panhandle, two
recognizable subpopulations in the Florida Keys, and a potential fourth
subpopulation at Big Pine Key. Dwarf seahorses from the Indian River
Lagoon were not delineated as a discrete population, due to small
sample size and lack of consistency in relationship to the other
populations. Despite overall population structuring, Fedrizzi et al.
(2015) observed evidence of some gene flow between sampled locations,
with the exception of the Florida Panhandle. The results suggest that
the subpopulations of Florida's dwarf seahorses that are closest to
each other are more genetically similar than those that are further
apart. Interestingly, the distance between the sites sampled by
Fedrizzi et al. (2015) is greater than the distance over which
Florida's dwarf seahorses have been shown to actively migrate
(Masonjones et al. 2010). Thus, genetic connectivity between
subpopulations is more likely the result of individuals dispersing to
neighboring subpopulations through rafting.
Status Assessments
There have been no formal status assessments conducted for the
dwarf seahorse throughout its range. While the species has been
documented from Florida to Texas in the United States and Cuba, The
Bahamas, Bermuda and Mexico internationally, data are generally lacking
outside of Florida. Given the paucity of data outside the United
States, we are unsure of the status of dwarf seahorse in these other
countries. Studies indicate dwarf seahorse subpopulations have steadily
decreased throughout their range since the 1970s due to loss of habitat
and are noted as rare in parts of its former range (Koldewey 2005;
Musick et al. 2000). Our evaluation of available data reviewed during
the status review supports this assertion, as the species is rarely
collected along the north coast of the Gulf of Mexico and relative
abundance has declined since the 1990s in long-term fishery-independent
data from Florida (Figure 3 in NMFS 2020). It is unlikely that the
dwarf seahorse ever fully occupied the northern Gulf of Mexico due to
winter water temperatures below the species' optimal limits and the
general lack of available seagrass habitat, as compared to Florida and
south Texas (Handley et al. 2007). Current data indicate that the
species remains common along the south and southwest coasts of Florida,
specifically west Florida from Tampa Bay to the Florida Keys.
In Florida, the species appears to be most abundant in five
estuaries: Charlotte Harbor, Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, Biscayne Bay, and
Florida Bay, which the SRT considers to be the core area of abundance
critical to the population, based on available seagrass habitat and the
species' thermal tolerance. Long-term dwarf seahorse abundance in
Charlotte Harbor and Tampa Bay estuaries has declined, but population
abundance has remained stable at a lower level since 2009 when the
commercial harvest trip limit regulations (see 68B-42, F.A.C.) went
into effect (FWC unpublished data). Rose et al. (2019) found Tampa Bay
dwarf seahorse was a robust subpopulation with stable densities across
3 years and year[hyphen]round breeding. Additionally, Tampa Bay dwarf
seahorse densities in 2008-2009 (Rose et al. 2019) were significantly
higher than those reported for 2005-2007 (Masonjones et al. 2010). The
U.S. Geological Survey data from Florida Bay and Biscayne Bay suggest
the relative abundance of dwarf seahorse was stable within these
systems over the short duration (2005-2009) of their study.
Cumulatively, the best available information on the dwarf seahorse's
status suggests that Florida Bay has the highest relative abundance of
dwarf seahorse.
Carlson et al. (2019) estimated dwarf seahorse population size in
five regions of Florida using a population viability model. Initial
population size estimates were developed for the following
subpopulations; Cedar Key, Tampa Bay, Charlotte Harbor, Florida Bay,
and North Indian River Lagoon, based on all known existing survey data.
Known density estimates varied from 0.0-0.59 N/m\2\ (individuals per
square meter) with highest densities in the most southern Bays (i.e.,
Florida Bay and Biscayne Bay) and lower estimates in Tampa Bay,
southwest Florida, and north Florida (Table 2 in Carlson et al. 2019).
Carlson et al. (2019) derived initial estimates of subpopulation size
by using all available dwarf seahorse density observations to create
10,000 bootstrapped samples (simulated outcomes). The 5 percent or 10
percent quantiles of seahorse density estimates (0.0009 N/m\2\ and
0.003 N/m\2\, respectively) from the bootstrapped samples were then
multiplied by the available seagrass acreage in nearshore waters
(Yarbro and Carlson 2016). Carlson et al. (2019) used the 5 percent or
10 percent quantiles to conservatively account for variability in dwarf
seahorse distribution within seagrass meadows (greater density of dwarf
seahorse in areas with higher density of seagrass blades and higher
seagrass canopy (Lourie et al. 2004)). As dwarf seahorses are most
abundant in bay systems south of 29[deg] N latitude, Carlson et al.
(2019) applied the density estimate from the 10 percent quantile (0.003
N/m\2\) for the Tampa Bay, Charlotte Harbor and Florida Bay
subpopulations (those south of 29[deg] N latitude) and the 5 percent
quantile (0.0009 N/m\2\) for the Cedar Key and north Indian River
Lagoon subpopulations (north of 29[deg] N latitude). Retrospective
projections from these conservative initial estimates suggested male
subpopulation sizes in 2016 ranged from about 15,258 at Cedar Key to
9,910,752 in Florida Bay. Assuming a female biased sex ratio of 58.2/
41.8 (Rose et al. 2019), the total estimated population across the five
modeled subpopulations exceeded 29 million individual dwarf seahorse in
2016.
The population abundance estimates from Carlson et al. (2019) are
likely conservative for the following reasons: (1) The starting
densities derived from the 5 percent or 10 percent quantiles of the
bootstrapped samples are expected to be underestimates of the actual
densities for each subpopulation; (2) the intrinsic rate of population
increase (Rmax) was conservatively estimated (assumed equal
to the dominant eigenvalue (an indicator of variance in the data) of
the Leslie matrix (an age-structured model of population growth) at
starting conditions prior to density-dependence (Cortes 2016)) and was
much lower than estimated Rmax for other seahorse species
(Denney et al. 2002, Curtis 2004); (3) the RAMAS model used by Carlson
et al. (2019) accounted for variability in survivorship of each age
class resulting in 98 percent of reproduction generated by the Age-0
class (suggests nearly all reproduction is carried out in the first
year so any reproduction after the first year is generally unaccounted
for even though it could be occurring); (4) carrying capacity in
seagrass habitats was capped at the 25 percent quantile estimate from
the bootstrapped data (0.02 N/m\2\),
[[Page 45381]]
which is likely an underestimate; (5) a 30 percent mortality rate was
assumed for acute cold exposure although greater thermal tolerance is
suggested by Mascar[oacute] et al. (2016); and (6) a theoretical
mortality rate of 100 percent for harmful algal bloom (HAB) exposure
was assumed, with HABs assumed to cover 25 percent to 50 percent of
available seagrass habitat within a given estuary, despite limited
observations of HAB overlap with seagrass beds in coastal bays (NOAA-
HABSOS 2018).
Extinction Risk Analysis
The SRT relied on the best information available to conduct an ERA
through evaluation of four demographic viability factors and five
threats-based listing factors. The SRT, which consisted of three NOAA
Fisheries Science Center and Regional Office personnel, was asked to
independently evaluate the severity, scope, and certainty for these
threats currently and in the foreseeable future. The SRT defined the
foreseeable future as the timeframe over which threats that impact the
biological status of the species can be reliably predicted.
Several foreseeable future scenarios were considered. The different
foreseeable futures were based on the ability to forecast different
primary threats and the species response to these threats through time.
As outlined in the Status Review Report (NMFS 2020), habitat loss
associated with climate change, overutilization in a targeted fishery,
and stochastic events such as HABs and cold weather events are the
greatest threats to the species. These threats affect dwarf seahorse
populations over different time scales. Stochastic events such as HABs
and severe cold events are generally restricted in geographic space,
duration, and frequency and therefore are likely short-term threats.
Directed harvest is a longer-term threat; however, harvest regulations
can be dynamically adapted to promote sustainability. Contemporary
models forecast climate change effects several decades into the future;
thus, climate change is considered a long-term threat.
The response of dwarf seahorses was considered over the timeframes
associated with the major threats. Dwarf seahorse subpopulations have
demonstrated remarkable resilience to stochastic events, with apparent
large population declines followed by large population increases (NMFS
2020). The response of dwarf seahorses to long-term threats was
difficult to predict given the species' life history, including
longevity and generation time. At approximately 1-3 years (Abbott 2003;
Koldewey 2005; Strawn 1958; Vari 1982), dwarf seahorse longevity is
very short in comparison to many other teleost fish. Dwarf seahorses
reach sexual maturity in about 3 months (Strawn 1953; Strawn 1958;
Koldewey 2005) and generation time is 1.24 years. As an early-maturing
species, with fast growth rates and high productivity, dwarf seahorse
subpopulations are highly dynamic and likely able to respond quickly to
conservation actions or short-term threats. However, this brief life
history strategy makes it difficult to forecast the response to long-
term threats, such as climate change, that extend over several decades.
The SRT was unsure how a short-lived species would be able to adapt to
slowly changing habitats associated with climate change. The SRT
discussed whether the impacts of known threats could be confidently
predicted over timeframes of several generations.
The SRT believed the foreseeable future should include several
generation times and ultimately decided on approximately 8 generation
times, or 10 years, as the SRT felt confident they could predict the
impact of threats on the species over a decade. While the selected
foreseeable future of 10 years is shorter than that estimated for other
species, the brief and highly dynamic life history of the dwarf
seahorse must be considered in determining an appropriate foreseeable
future because, their rapid turnover and capacity for replacement
limits our ability to reasonably predict the impact of longer-term
threats on the species.
The ability to determine and assess risk factors to a marine
species is often limited when quantitative estimates of abundance and
life history information are lacking. Therefore, in assessing threats
and subsequent extinction risk of a data-limited species such as the
dwarf seahorse, we include both qualitative and quantitative
information. In assessing extinction risk to the dwarf seahorse, the
SRT considered the demographic viability factors developed by McElhany
et al. (2000) and the risk matrix approach developed by Wainwright and
Kope (1999) to organize and summarize extinction risk considerations.
The approach of considering demographic risk factors to help frame the
consideration of extinction risk has been used in many of our status
reviews (see https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resources/documents?sort_by=created&title=status+review for links to these
reviews). In this approach, the collective condition of individual
populations is considered at the species level according to four
demographic viability factors: abundance, growth rate/productivity,
spatial structure/connectivity, and diversity. These viability factors
reflect concepts that are well-founded in conservation biology and that
individually and collectively provide strong indicators of extinction
risk.
Using these concepts, the SRT evaluated extinction risk by
assigning a risk score to each of the four demographic viability
factors and five threats-based listing factors. The scoring was as
follows: Very low risk = 1; low risk = 2; medium risk = 3; high risk =
4; and very high risk = 5.
Very low risk: It is unlikely that this factor contributes
significantly to risk of extinction, either by itself or in combination
with other demographic viability factors.
Low risk: It is unlikely that this factor contributes
significantly to current or long-term risk of extinction by itself, but
there is some concern that it may, in combination with other
demographic viability factors.
Moderate risk: This factor contributes to the risk of
extinction and may contribute to additional risk of extinction in
combination with other factors.
High risk: This factor contributes significantly to short-
term or long-term risk of extinction and is likely to be magnified by
the combination with other factors.
Very high risk: This factor by itself indicates danger of
extinction in the near future and over the foreseeable future.
SRT members were also asked to consider the potential interactions
among demographic and listing factors. If the demographic or listing
factor was ranked higher due to interactions with other demographic or
listing factors, SRT members were asked to identify those factors that
caused them to score the risk higher (or lower) than it would have been
if it were considered independently.
Finally, the SRT examined and discussed the independent responses
from each team member for each demographic and listing factor to
determine the overall risk of extinction (see Extinction Risk
Determination below).
Demographic Risk Analysis
Abundance
The best available information on dwarf seahorse abundance
indicates that the species may still be present along the east coasts
of Mexico and Texas and along both coasts of Florida. Lack of data from
outside the United States
[[Page 45382]]
hindered the SRT's ability to analyze abundance trends in foreign
locations. Within the United States, dwarf seahorse appears to be most
common in Florida, though it is also present at a much lower level of
abundance in south Texas. Outside of Florida and Texas, observations
and records of the dwarf seahorse are historically uncommon. Seasonally
low water temperatures establish geographic range boundaries, which
likely contribute to the limited number of records of the dwarf
seahorse in waters of the northern Gulf coast (Florida panhandle to
north Texas). Additionally, limited seagrass habitat along the northern
Gulf coast, both historically and currently, also likely restricts
dwarf seahorse in this region. There are three sources that can be used
to estimate the species relative abundance: U.S. Geological Survey
data, the Florida Fish Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Fisheries
Independent Monitoring (FIM) program in Florida, and the Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department (TPWD) monitoring program in Texas.
Additionally, a population modeling study by Carlson et al. (2019)
provides insight into the abundance of dwarf seahorse in Florida and
the potential changes to this population in the context of ongoing
threats.
The FWC FIM program provided survey data for several estuarine
areas in Florida including Apalachicola Bay (1998-2016), Cedar Key
(1996-2016), Tampa Bay (1996-2016), Sarasota Bay (2009-2016), Charlotte
Harbor (1996-2016), Florida Bay (2006-2009), and Indian River Lagoon
(1996-2016). FIM program data indicate that dwarf seahorses are not
abundant in northern Florida and have not been encountered in the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Surveys conducted within
estuaries of northern Florida found that the species is rare in
Apalachicola Bay and Cedar Key, and has never been recorded in
Choctawhatchee Bay or Northeast Florida. In the Indian River Lagoon, on
Florida's east coast, relative abundance was low throughout the survey
period (1996-2016), with no individuals recorded from 2011-2013. The
decline of the dwarf seahorse in the Indian River Lagoon could be the
direct result of recent HABs in the estuary (SJRWMD, 2012; FWC, 2014).
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, significant HABs in Florida Bay
resulted in massive seagrass die-offs and reductions in dwarf seahorse
abundance (Matheson Jr. et al. 1999). However, survey data from 2006-
2009 suggest that the dwarf seahorse was relatively abundant in Florida
Bay when compared to other species and locations (FWC FIM unpublished
data).
In Florida, the species appears to be most abundant in five
estuaries: Charlotte Harbor, Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, Biscayne Bay, and
Florida Bay (Figures 3 and 4 in NMFS 2020). The SRT believes these five
estuaries comprise the core area of abundance critical to the
population. Although long-term dwarf seahorse abundance has declined
from historical levels, abundance has remained stable at a lower level
since 2009 when the trip limit regulations went into effect (FWC FIM
unpublished data). The best available information on the dwarf
seahorse's status suggests that Florida Bay has the highest relative
abundance of the dwarf seahorse.
Retrospective population projections provided in the Carlson et al.
(2019) population viability assessment (PVA) of dwarf seahorses
estimated male subpopulation sizes over the past 15-20 years using the
empirical trends in seagrass coverage and occurrences of major
stochastic events. Carlson et al. (2019) estimated subpopulations in
2016 ranging from 15,258 in Cedar Key to 9,910,752 in Florida Bay. We
compared the Carlson et al. (2019) estimated annual subpopulation sizes
to the relative abundance indices from the FWC FIM small seine surveys
for Cedar Key, Charlotte Harbor, Tampa Bay and Indian River Lagoon
(Figure 18 in NMFS 2020). Modeled subpopulation sizes from the PVA did
not track the trends in relative abundance reported by FWC early in the
time series. The poor fit between modeled and reported data early in
the time series was likely a result of the conservative initial
population estimates in Carlson et al. (2019). However, the modeled
data appeared to equilibrate and become more representative mid-way
through the time series as indicated by similar patterns in trends
between the modeled and reported data.
The general agreement in recent trends suggests the PVA model
captured the primary drivers of dwarf seahorse abundance. Additionally,
the PVA results suggest that even with conservative assumptions
regarding initial population sizes for the different subpopulations,
carrying capacity, sex ratio, and age at maturity, the dwarf seahorse
population numbers in the tens of millions in Florida waters (Carlson
et al. 2019). Dwarf seahorse subpopulation densities (N/m\2\), which
were derived by dividing Carlson et al. (2019) subpopulation estimates
by total subregion seagrass habitat areas, are significantly lower than
those empirically observed, suggesting the Carlson et al. (2019) PVA is
conservative in its assessment of total population size (see Table 2 in
Carlson et al. 2019; Rose et al. 2019, Figures 3 & 4 in NMFS 2020).
Similarly, multiplication of recent density estimates for Tampa Bay
(0.139 N/m\2\--Rose et al. 2019; 0.095 N/m\2\--Masonjones et al. 2019)
and Florida Bay (0.00392 N/m\2\ in seines and 0.00462 N/m\2\ in
trawls--FWC FIM unpublished data) by the most recent estimates of
seagrass habitat area in Tampa Bay (2014) and Florida Bay (2010-2011),
respectively, provided estimates in the range of 15.5-22.6 million
dwarf seahorses in Tampa Bay and between 6.0-7.1 million dwarf
seahorses in Florida Bay. This analytical approach could overestimate
seahorse abundance if the density estimates were generated from areas
of localized dwarf seahorse abundance. However, density estimates are
influenced by catchability, which varies between sampling gears. Dwarf
seahorse densities derived from FIM catch-per-unit effort (CPUE) in
Tampa Bay for 2009 were orders of magnitude smaller for bag seine and
otter trawl, respectively (0.000402 N/m\2\ and 0.0000125 N/m\2\) than
those derived by Rose et al. (2019). These nominal CPUEs are 2.9
percent and 0.1 percent of the densities reported by Rose et al. (2019)
for the same time period using specialized gears for sampling dwarf
seahorse. Thus, population sizes of dwarf seahorse based on expanding
nominal FIM CPUE to seagrass area could be underestimates if animals
are uniformly distributed within seagrass habitats across the FIM
sampling domain. The difference in estimated abundance between Tampa
Bay and Florida Bay presented above is likely attributable to sampling
design; the Tampa Bay studies by Masonjones et al. (2019) and Rose et
al. (2019) were actively targeting dwarf seahorses using specialized
gears in an area believed to contain high densities, whereas the
Florida Bay study was a general nekton survey using less efficient
gears (trawls and seines) for collecting dwarf seahorse. Importantly,
this approach does suggest that field estimates of abundance, when
expanded for the full range of dwarf seahorse habitats, can greatly
exceed the estimates generated by the Carlson et al. (2019) modeling
approach.
In Texas, dwarf seahorse abundance is low and restricted to the
central and southern coastal systems including Aransas Bay, Corpus
Christi Bay, San Antonio Bay, and the Upper and Lower Laguna Madre. The
species has not been recorded in TPWD surveys conducted in
[[Page 45383]]
Galveston, Matagorda, and East Matagorda Bay systems. Of the bays where
dwarf seahorses have been recorded, relative abundance is highest in
Upper Laguna Madre, though abundance is still very low within this
system compared to the Florida estuaries. Data series for the other
bays (Aransas, Corpus Christi, San Antonio, and Lower Laguna Madre)
have fewer than 10 records each, and therefore the SRT was unable to
discern population trends. The SRT believes that Upper Laguna Madre is
likely the core area of abundance for the southwestern portion of the
species range within U.S. waters.
Populations with very low abundance that occur over a limited
geographic scale are more likely to be impacted by stochastic events
such as HABs or extreme cold weather events. Recolonization and
recovery is dependent on the ability of surrounding populations to
provide recruits to the depleted area. In some cases, a population may
have suffered a stochastic event and not been encountered in surveys
for several years before eventually returning to the area. Periodic
HABs continue to occur in Texas lagoons, but some bays, like Laguna
Madre, have consistently recorded dwarf seahorses in surveys indicating
that subpopulations can tolerate stochasticity in their environment.
Regardless, it is not prudent to base an assessment of risk to species
abundance on such few observations as reported from Texas.
Commercial harvest and bycatch of the dwarf seahorse in Florida is
a factor that impacts species abundance. The dwarf seahorse is targeted
by the commercial ornamental fishery to be sold for aquarium markets.
According to dealer reports, harvest appears to be focused from Tampa
Bay to Fort Myers and from Florida Bay to Miami (FWC, 2012). However,
commercial harvest is prohibited within the Everglades National Park,
which encompasses a significant portion of Florida Bay. The dwarf
seahorse is also among those species likely captured by non-selective
trawl fishing gear targeting bait shrimp, because this trawling often
occurs in seagrass habitat. The subpopulations in Charlotte Harbor and
Tampa Bay have been variable since surveys began in 1996, but have
stabilized since new regulations limiting harvest were adopted in 2009.
Because few, if any, reported large-scale stochastic events have
occurred over the past two decades within these systems, it is
reasonable to infer that high levels of commercial harvest prior to the
2009 trip limit likely caused at least a portion of the observed
historical declines in Charlotte Harbor and Tampa Bay (Figures 12 & 13
in NMFS 2020).
The best available information indicates that habitat loss and
degradation, stochastic events (HABs and extreme cold weather events),
and commercial harvest are factors that impact dwarf seahorse
abundance. However, the species appears to be at risk of local
extirpation only where populations have very low abundance or are
isolated due to the distance between habitat patches or estuary
systems.
Based on the above information, the SRT members scored the present
risk of dwarf seahorse extinction based on abundance from 2 to 3, with
a mean of 2.3 and a mode of 2. The team concluded that, based on the
population estimate resulting from the population viability model,
which shows stable or increasing subpopulations in most areas, the
abundance of dwarf seahorse presents a low risk of extinction and the
population is robust enough to withstand threats currently facing the
species. This result is similar to the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List assessment, which identified
dwarf seahorse as a species of ``least concern'' in terms of its threat
status (Masonjones et al. 2017). Although most subpopulations showed
stable or increasing abundance and the team expected these patterns to
continue into the foreseeable future based on the predictive modeling
in Carlson et al. (2019), an increase in the frequency, duration, or
scale of stochastic events into the future may increase extinction
risk. It was unclear to the SRT whether HABs and cold weather events
would increase in frequency and magnitude over the 10-year foreseeable
future, because the events are stochastic in nature and their causes
are poorly understood. Several conservative 10-year forecasts were
modeled to encompass the extinction risk associated with the
possibility of an increasing frequency and magnitude of these
stochastic events. When considering the contribution of abundance to
the risk of extinction over the foreseeable future, the team scored
abundance as a moderate risk (3), given the uncertainty associated with
increased potential for stochastic events.
Population Growth Rate and Productivity
The life history characteristics of the dwarf seahorse (i.e., early
age at maturity, rapid growth, high fecundity, and parental care)
suggest that this species has a relatively high intrinsic rate of
population increase (more births than deaths per generation time;
Rmax = 1.49 yr-1) and high compensatory capacity
(ability of a population to positively respond to changes in its
density) (Kindsvater et al. 2016). The dwarf seahorse has relatively
high fecundity compared to other seahorse species, though fecundity is
much lower than other teleosts. Current demographic analysis suggest
that healthy subpopulations have high intrinsic rates of population
increase and would be able to tolerate high levels of direct and
indirect mortality. However, the species also has complex courtship
behaviors and is constrained by its habitat specificity and small home
range. With the dwarf seahorse's complex reproductive behaviors, many
factors (e.g., stochastic events, directed fishing, bycatch) could
disrupt courtship and mating and consequently reduce productivity.
The SRT believes that the dwarf seahorse subpopulations in
Charlotte Harbor, Sarasota Bay, Tampa Bay, Florida Bay, and Biscayne
Bay are more productive than those of other estuaries and bays within
the species' range. The best available information suggests that
several other estuaries and bay systems in Florida and Texas have
subpopulations which may be at risk of an Allee effect (i.e., inability
to find a mate and subsequently low levels of population growth from
future recruitment), though these are all systems along the fringe of
the dwarf seahorse range and therefore may have naturally low
abundance.
The SRT considered scenarios developed by Carlson et al. (2019) for
dwarf seahorse abundance in five bay systems: Cedar Key, Tampa Bay,
Charlotte Harbor, Florida Bay and northern Indian River Lagoon (Figure
5 in NMFS 2020). Scenarios were initiated at the earliest time data
were available on the coverage of the seagrass canopy from Yarbro and
Carlson (2016) taking into account changes in seagrass density,
commercial harvest, bycatch and mortality related to HABs and cold
temperature events. Three of the five subpopulations (Tampa Bay,
Charlotte Harbor, Florida Bay) slightly increased in abundance (3-8
percent), whereas the Cedar Key and northern Indian River Lagoon
subpopulations did not increase in abundance.
Carlson et al. (2019) also explored future scenarios to test the
effect of the most likely threats to dwarf seahorse (Figure 20 in NMFS
2020). As the harvest of dwarf seahorse by the Marine Life fishery has
been limited, the greatest threats to future seahorse subpopulations
include the loss of seagrass habitat, and increased harmful algal
blooms, which can cause acute
[[Page 45384]]
mortality. Carlson et al. (2019) explored optimistic scenarios
(increased seagrass coverage and current levels) and pessimistic
scenarios (increased rates of mortality, loss of seagrass habitat and
likelihood of HABs increasing from historically observed levels). The
population was projected forward 10 years. Starting conditions for
these projections were conservatively assumed at the lower 5 or 10
percent quantiles from bootstrapped empirical estimates of abundance
(see Table 2 in Carlson et al. 2019). Projected stock trajectories
under potential future conditions were mostly stable in Cedar Key,
declining in Northern Indian River Lagoon, and generally increasing
under the vast majority of scenarios for the other three locations
(Figure 13 in NMFS 2020). Only the most pessimistic scenario for Indian
River Lagoon resulted in extirpation of any subpopulation within 10
years.
Scenarios testing the effects of HABs accompanied by reduced
seagrass habitat affected all subpopulations' abilities to grow. The
subpopulation to be most affected was the Indian River Lagoon, which
experienced significant declines in abundance. Abundance of dwarf
seahorse in Indian River Lagoon declined from a starting size of about
86,000 males to less than 6,000 in 10 years. Other subpopulations were
able to maintain their baseline levels of abundance despite losses of
habitat.
The SRT determined that population growth rate and productivity of
dwarf seahorse present a low risk of extinction to the species. Each
member of the team scored this demographic variable as a level 2 risk,
both currently and over the foreseeable future.
Spatial Structure/Connectivity
The dwarf seahorse has low mobility, occupying a limited activity
space and small home range within a specific habitat (seagrasses).
These life history traits suggest that the species is not likely to
disperse actively. However, movement by passive dispersal occurs as
seahorses use their prehensile tail to hold on to seagrass or
macroalgae which are carried by currents (Foster and Vincent 2004;
Masonjones et al. 2010; Fedrizzi et al. 2015). A population genetics
study on Hippocampus kuda in the Philippines suggested colonization of
distant habitats by a small number of founding individuals may be
common in seahorses associated with the H. kuda complex (Teske et al.
2005).
The species' short lifespan, narrow habitat preference, and low
mobility increase extinction vulnerability as the dwarf seahorse is
susceptible to population fragmentation and loss of population
connectivity. Successful repopulation or colonization may depend on a
sufficient number of individuals emigrating to a habitat containing
seagrass to establish themselves. It is essential that seagrass habitat
patches exist between subpopulations as dispersal capabilities are
restricted by the availability of seagrass habitat. Historically, the
dwarf seahorse has shown that it can recover from stochastic events
(HABs and extreme cold weather events) where subpopulations have been
impacted or even temporarily extirpated, but low relative abundance in
some areas may limit repopulation.
Based on the best available information on the spatial structure/
connectivity of dwarf seahorse subpopulations, the SRT believes this
demographic variable presents a moderate extinction risk both now and
in the foreseeable future. Team scores ranged from 2 to 3, with a mean
of 2.7 and a mode of 3. Differences in scores were largely a reflection
of personal thoughts on how far dwarf seahorses may disperse via
rafting, and thus how connected the populations could be.
Diversity
The loss of diversity can reduce a species' reproductive fitness,
fecundity, and survival, thereby contributing to declines in abundance
and population growth rate and increasing species extinction risk
(Gilpin and Soule, 1986). There is no indication that the dwarf
seahorse is at risk due to a significant change or loss of variation in
life history characteristics, population demography, morphology,
behavior, or genetics.
However, the SRT considered diversity to present a moderate
extinction risk to dwarf seahorses both now (range 2-3, mode = 3) and
in the foreseeable future (range 2-3, mode 3). The team considered this
a moderate risk given the lack of genetic information, particularly
from Texas, and how that population may relate to the Florida
population. Similarly, Fedrizzi et al. (2015) indicated population
structuring in which the Panhandle represents a separate population
from other areas of Florida. Given the large distance between the
subpopulations in the Florida panhandle and other parts of Florida the
team also expressed concern over the transfer of genetic material.
Expanding the research of Fedrizzi et al. (2015) to include dwarf
seahorses from Texas and Mexico could provide additional information on
the diversity of dwarf seahorse, the relationship among those outside
of Florida, and whether additional regulatory measures may be
necessary.
Summary of Demographic Risk Analysis
The SRT found that threats such as habitat loss or degradation and
overutilization may interact with the dwarf seahorse's life history
traits to increase the species' extinction risk. The dwarf seahorse's
habitat preference and low mobility could increase the species'
ecological vulnerability, as the species may be slow to recolonize
depleted areas. Similarly, patchy spatial distributions in combination
with low relative population abundance (relative to historical levels)
make the species susceptible to habitat degradation and
overexploitation. Life history traits, such as complex reproductive
behavior and monogamous mating, may also increase the species'
vulnerability. However, the species' ability to mature early and
reproduce multiple times throughout a prolonged breeding season offsets
much of the vulnerability.
Threats-Based Analysis
The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Its Habitat or Range
The SRT considered the destruction or modification of habitat to be
the largest threat facing dwarf seahorse both now and into the
foreseeable future. As discussed in the Status Review Report (NMFS
2020), there are a number of threats impacting seagrass habitats upon
which dwarf seahorse rely, including water quality, damage from vessels
and trawling, and climate change. Regulations and educational programs
have and continue to be implemented in an attempt to reduce impacts
from water quality, vessels, and trawling. In light of the long-term
HAB in the Indian River Lagoon resulting in large-scale losses of
seagrasses and the collapse of the dwarf seahorse subpopulation there,
the SRT was particularly concerned with HABs, their interaction with
water quality, and their potential to negatively affect dwarf seahorse.
One of the most severe HABs on the west coast of Florida occurred in
2005, with substantial spread of red tide into Tampa Bay (see Figure 1b
in Flaherty & Landsberg 2011). FIM data showed a substantial (-71
percent) but statistically insignificant decline in relative abundance
in 2005, with a substantial (+110 percent) recovery in 2006. Another
HAB was present along the west coast of Florida between Charlotte
Harbor and Tampa Bay during the summer and fall of 2018. HAB monitoring
data indicate Karenia brevis (red tide) did not enter Tampa Bay or
Charlotte Harbor (Figure 21 in NFMS
[[Page 45385]]
2020), which may have spared dwarf seahorses inhabiting these
estuaries. Subsequent dwarf seahorse sampling in Tampa Bay during 2019
indicates a robust dwarf seahorse population in Old Tampa Bay and Ft.
DeSoto areas (H. Masonjones, University of Tampa, pers. comm. to Adam
Brame, NOAA Fisheries, on October 13, 2019). The 2018 HAB did not
affect Florida Bay, where surveys and model simulations suggest dwarf
seahorses are found in the highest abundance.
The SRT was also concerned about the impact of climate change
affecting seagrass habitat into the future. Climate change is expected
to impact seagrass habitat, though the temporal rate and degree to
which this occurs is not known with certainty. The Status Review
indicates that thermal tolerance of seagrasses and rising sea levels
may affect future distribution and meadow health, while warming
seawater temperatures could increase the available habitat for dwarf
seahorses along the northern Gulf of Mexico. Based on the above
information, the team scored the present destruction or modification of
habitat as a moderate risk for dwarf seahorse, with all team members
giving it a score of 3. Considering the uncertainty associated with
climate change and HABs in the future, the team scored this threat
slightly higher when considering it over the foreseeable future, with
two members giving it a score of 4 and one team member giving it a
score of 3.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The commercial harvest of the dwarf seahorse is restricted to
Florida, but is considered by the SRT to be the second greatest threat
to the species after habitat loss and degradation. The dwarf seahorse
is harvested largely for the aquarium markets and removals have
resulted in declines in local subpopulation abundance since the early
1990s. In general, seahorses are one of the most popular and heavily
exploited marine ornamentals harvested in Florida. Dwarf seahorse
landings are significantly higher than other seahorse species; landings
data shows that seahorse harvest consists almost solely of dwarf
seahorse.
Data indicate that over a 25-year timeframe, dwarf seahorse
landings have fluctuated with tens of thousands being harvested
annually. Historical declines in abundance observed in Charlotte Harbor
and Tampa Bay suggest that harvest may be impacting these core
subpopulations. A 2009 trip limit regulation has reduced the harvest of
dwarf seahorses and the population appears to have stabilized as a
result (Figures 3 and 5 in NMFS 2020). Additionally, a significant
portion of Florida Bay is protected by the prohibition on commercial
fishing within Everglades National Park boundaries. The protection
against commercial harvest and bycatch within this system likely played
a significant role in the species' ability to recover from the HABs
that impacted Florida Bay during the late 1980s and early 1990s.
While the use of any net with a mesh area exceeding 500 square feet
(46.5 square meters) is prohibited in nearshore and inshore waters of
Florida (Florida 68B-4.0081(3)(e)), a bait-shrimp fishery operates
within these boundaries. This fishery relies upon small trawls to
collect shrimp for bait, and, given this fishery operates in seagrass
habitat, it is reasonable to infer that dwarf seahorse are removed as
bycatch. Seahorses may be more vulnerable to injuries, mortality, and
disruption of reproduction in habitats that are disturbed by heavy
trawls deployed for longer periods and over greater areas (Baum et al.
2003). Baum et al. (2003) analyzed bycatch of the lined seahorse
(Hippocampus erectus) in the bait-shrimp trawl fishery and estimated
about 72,000 seahorses were incidentally caught per year. However, this
study reported only two dwarf seahorses were captured during the study
period. In developing bycatch estimates for use in their population
viability model, Carlson et al. (2019) used the ratio of dwarf seahorse
caught to lined seahorse caught and estimated that 157 dwarf seahorses
are incidentally caught per year.
The SRT assumes that demand for the dwarf seahorse in the marine
ornamental fishery and aquarium markets will continue. The extent to
which heavy commercial harvest is impacting dwarf seahorse populations
in Florida is largely unknown, although there are some indications that
overharvest may be impacting populations in Charlotte Harbor and Tampa
Bay. In response to the listing petition and the subsequent data
request by NMFS, the State of Florida considered new regulations, which
included time-area closures and a 200 seahorses per trip limit. NMFS
analyzed the potential effects of the proposed regulations and
determined the area closure, the 200 seahorses per trip limit, and an
April-June closed season could, cumulatively, reduce harvest by 40-48
percent (NMFS 2015). Despite the results of the analysis, the State of
Florida did not adopt the new regulations, as the state believed the
current trip limit of 400 seahorses per day was sufficient for
sustainably managing the wild populations of seahorses. While the SRT
believes that the dwarf seahorse population is likely still being
negatively impacted by harvest under the current regulations, removals
since 2009 have declined by 55 percent, and the relative abundance
trend information since 2009 is stable (as an indirect indicator of
status) in areas where dwarf seahorses are significantly harvested
(e.g., southwest Florida and southeast Florida, including the Florida
Keys). Dwarf seahorses are characterized by rapid growth, early age at
maturity, and short generation time, all of which collectively indicate
that the species has high intrinsic rates of population increase. This
suggests that populations can recover from declines following a
reduction in fishing effort (Curtis et al. 2008).
The SRT concluded that the species is currently at a low to
moderate risk due to overexploitation from commercial harvest, with
scores that ranged between 2 and 3, with a mean of 2.3 and a mode of 2.
Given that the team considered similar rates of utilization in the
future, scores were the same when considering the threat over the
foreseeable future. The scores also remained the same when considered
in combination with other threats, such as lack of adequate existing
regulatory mechanisms.
Disease and Predation
The SRT determined that disease and predation present a very low
extinction risk to dwarf seahorse. The team was not able to find
documentation of disease affecting wild subpopulations of dwarf
seahorse. With respect to predation, the team assumed mortality rates
from predation are likely higher for juvenile seahorses than adults.
The dwarf seahorse is presumed to have few predators and is likely only
opportunistically predated upon by fishes, crabs, and wading birds. The
dwarf seahorse's excellent camouflage is well-adapted for the species'
ecological niche and likely reduces the level of predation on the
species.
All members of the SRT scored disease and predation as a 1, both
now and over the foreseeable future, which indicates a very low risk in
the ERA.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
With respect to inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, there
are only three regulations that relate to Hippocampus species in the
United States. Internationally, only Bermuda has a regulation
pertaining to seahorses,
[[Page 45386]]
and it focuses only on lined and longsnout seahorses, as the dwarf
seahorse has been extirpated there. The SRT was not aware of any
seahorse regulations in The Bahamas or Cuba.
Within the state of Florida, the FWC regulates fishing effort in
both the commercial marine life fishery, which includes marine
ornamentals like the dwarf seahorse (68B-42, F.A.C.) and the
recreational fishery. The commercial regulations include requirements
for specific fishing licenses and tiered endorsements, as well as a
commercial trip limit of 400 dwarf seahorses per person or vessel per
day, whichever is less (68B-42.006, F.A.C.). There is no cap on the
total annual take of dwarf seahorses, and there are no seasonal
restrictions or closures. However, entry is limited into the commercial
marine life fishery for ornamentals. From 2010-2014, on average, 19
permit holders have reported Florida dwarf seahorse harvest.
Enforcement of the trip limit regulation has been problematic as at
least one commercial harvester has continued to exceed the 400 dwarf
seahorses limit since its inception. This harvester exceeded the trip
limit 26 trips out of 80 between 2010 and 2015 (NMFS 2015). The State
of Florida also regulates recreational harvest of dwarf seahorse (daily
bag limit of up to five per person per day) and bycatch of dwarf
seahorses associated with the inshore bait shrimp fishery (also limited
by the recreational bag limit). Because there is no reporting
associated with recreational limits, the SRT is unsure of the impact
these regulations have on the dwarf seahorse population.
The assessment of individual species and fishing effort are
necessary to determine whether existing regulations are likely to be
effective at maintaining the sustainability of the resources. To date,
however, the commercial removal of dwarf seahorses and its impact on
the population has not been assessed. The SRT was unable to determine
exactly how the daily bag limit (400 dwarf seahorses per person per
day) was established, its ability to prevent overharvest, or how
effective it will be at achieving long-term sustainability. However,
the 2009 bag limit regulation seems to have stabilized the population
since implementation.
The second regulatory mechanism that may affect seahorses
(Hippocampus spp.) is the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)--an international
agreement between governments established with the aim of ensuring that
international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not
threaten their survival. Seahorses are listed under Appendix II of
CITES. Appendix II includes species that are not necessarily threatened
with extinction, but for which trade must be controlled in order to
avoid utilization incompatible with their survival. International trade
of Appendix II species is permitted when export permits are granted
from the country of origin. In order to issue an export permit, the
exporting country must find that the animals were legally obtained and
their export will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in
the wild (referred to as a ``non-detriment finding''). Millions of
seahorses are traded internationally each year, although only a small
percentage of these are dwarf seahorses, and the CITES listing has not
curbed this trade (Foster et al. 2014). Almost all the dwarf seahorses
harvested from the wild populations in the United States remain in U.S.
markets and therefore are not subject to the CITES regulation of trade
under Appendix II. Dwarf seahorses represent approximately 0.01 percent
of international trade, and over a 10-year period only 2,190 dwarf
seahorses were exported from the United States, with 1,500 of those
being captive-bred (USFWS 2014).
The third regulatory factor that provides protections for seahorses
is the listing of dwarf seahorse as a species subject to ``Special
Protection'' under Mexican law. This limits any removal of the species
to what is allowed under the rules of the Mexican General Law of
Wildlife (Diaz 2013), which establishes the conditions for capture, and
transport permits, and authorizations (Bruckner et al. 2005). The SRT
is unsure of the adequacy of this regulation at this time.
The SRT expects that demand for the dwarf seahorse in the marine
ornamental fishery and aquarium markets will continue into the future.
The extent to which current regulations are adequate at protecting the
dwarf seahorse population was difficult to evaluate. The SRT concluded
that the lack of regulatory mechanisms intended to control harvest,
particularly commercial harvest, is likely having detrimental effects
on population abundance and productivity. However, the 2009 regulation
limiting commercial harvest to 400 seahorses per person or per vessel
per day, whichever is less, seems to have stabilized the population. In
combination with time-area closures associated with the marine life
fishery, the limited entry into the fishery, and export regulations
associated with CITES, the team concluded that inadequacy of regulatory
mechanisms presents a low extinction risk (mode = 2). Given the team's
belief that these regulations will remain in place and that they will
continue to affect harvest in a similar manner into the future, the
scores remained unchanged when considering this threat over the
foreseeable future.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
The Status Review Report (NMFS 2020) identified several potential
natural or man-made factors that could serve as potential threats to
the dwarf seahorse. These included the species' life history strategy,
anthropogenic noise, oil spills, and high-impact storm events. The SRT
evaluated the potential impact of these threats on the dwarf seahorse,
but did not find that any of these other threats are likely to be a
source of high extinction risk to the dwarf seahorse. The dwarf
seahorse life history strategy is well suited to respond to periodic
declines associated with stochastic events. The Deepwater Horizon oil
spill occurred far from the core dwarf seahorse population in south and
southwest Florida and was not known to affect seagrass habitat outside
of the area around the Chandeleur Islands where dwarf seahorses are
rare. While future oil spills could impact dwarf seahorses or their
habitat, the majority of oil and gas exploration occurs in the central
and western portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and oil would need to be
transported great distances to reach the nearshore waters of Florida
where dwarf seahorses are most abundant. Data are insufficient to
determine how anthropogenic noise affects dwarf seahorses, and life
history and future studies may be necessary to address this potential
threat. Lastly, weather events have the potential to impact dwarf
seahorses, but these are expected to be short-term perturbations that
the species is capable of quickly responding to. The SRT ranked this
category of threats as a very low risk both currently and in the
foreseeable future, with all team members scoring this factor a 1.
Extinction Risk Determination
Guided by the results from the demographics risk analysis as well
as the threats-based analysis, the SRT members used their informed
professional judgment to make an overall extinction risk determination
for the species. For these analyses, the SRT defined three levels of
extinction risk:
High risk: A species with a high risk of extinction is 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 at such a high
[[Page 45387]]
level of risk may be highly uncertain and strongly influenced by
stochastic or depensatory processes. Similarly, a species 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 imminent and substantial demographic risks;
Moderate risk: A species is 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 may be at moderate risk of extinction due to
projected threats or declining trends in abundance, productivity,
spatial structure, or diversity. The appropriate time horizon for
evaluating whether a species will be at high risk in the foreseeable
future depends on various case-specific and species-specific factors.
For example, the time horizon may reflect certain life history
characteristics (e.g., long generation time or late age at maturity)
and may also reflect the timeframe or rate over which identified
threats are likely to impact the biological status of the species
(e.g., the rate of disease spread); and
Low risk: A species is at low risk of extinction if it is
not at a moderate or high level of extinction risk (see ``Moderate
risk'' and ``High risk'' above). A species 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
at low risk of extinction is likely to show stable or increasing trends
in abundance and productivity with connected, diverse populations.
To allow individuals to express uncertainty in determining the
overall level of extinction risk facing the dwarf seahorse, the SRT
adopted the ``likelihood point'' method, which has been used in
previous status reviews (e.g., Pacific salmon, Southern Resident Killer
Whale, Puget Sound Rockfish, Pacific herring, and black abalone) to
structure the team's thinking and express levels of uncertainty in
assigning threat risk categories. For this approach, each team member
distributed 10 ``likelihood points'' among the three extinction risk
levels. After scores were provided, the team discussed the range of
risk level perspectives for the species, and the supporting data on
which the perspectives were based, and each member was given the
opportunity to revise scores if desired after the discussion. The
scores were then tallied (mode, median, range), discussed, and
summarized for the species.
Finally, the SRT did not make recommendations as to whether the
dwarf seahorse should be listed as threatened or endangered. Rather,
the SRT drew scientific conclusions about the overall risk of
extinction faced by this species under present conditions and in the
foreseeable future, based on an evaluation of the species' demographic
viability factors and assessment of threats.
The best available information indicates that within the United
States dwarf seahorses occur in Florida and to a lesser extent in south
Texas, but do not appear to extend into the northern Gulf of Mexico
(i.e., Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana), as previously believed.
The SRT acknowledged that there is a lack of abundance data in the
northern Gulf of Mexico, but found that, because the species is
temperature-limited, and due to the seasonal cold water temperatures in
that region (Figure 8 of NMFS 2020), it is unlikely that dwarf seahorse
was ever common in the northern Gulf of Mexico. The SRT determined that
there is evidence of a historical decrease in abundance, especially in
areas where dwarf seahorses are naturally abundant. However, over the
past decade the most productive subpopulations appear stable or appear
to be increasing in their abundance, despite the threats they face.
Current regulations and the rebuilding of seagrass habitat have
stabilized the populations. The team acknowledged that uncertainty in
the frequency, duration, and scale of stochastic events (HABs and
extreme cold weather events) could affect the population trend into the
foreseeable future and increase extinction risk, but ultimately, based
on the predictive analyses provided in Carlson et al. (2019), the team
believed that the population is robust enough to handle this threat.
Outside of the United States, data on abundance and population
trends are lacking. Evidence suggests the species is present along the
east coast of Mexico, but without abundance data the SRT was unable to
make further conclusions. Therefore, the team made conclusions based
solely on the best available data from within the United States.
The SRT had concerns regarding the level of commercial harvest,
bycatch, and lack of regulatory mechanisms, and determined that these
threats are likely having effects on the species--especially on those
local subpopulations that occur in some of the most heavily exploited
areas. In addition, overutilization will serve to exacerbate the
demographic risks currently faced by the species. However, the SRT
determined that habitat degradation (i.e., HABs and coastal
construction), projected habitat losses due to sea level rise, and
ocean warming resulting from climate change were the most significant
threats to the species. The predicted losses of seagrass habitat due to
climate change combined with the prolonged commercial harvest may
increase the species demographic risks, as impacted populations may be
limited in their abilities to recolonize depleted areas based on the
dwarf seahorse's low mobility and narrow habitat preference. However,
the team concluded that overall the species is at a low risk of
extinction (19 out of a possible 30 likelihood points), as it is highly
productive and faces only one high risk threat. The other remaining 11
likelihood points were all assigned to the moderate risk category. We
agree with the assessment provided by the SRT that the dwarf seahorse
is at a low risk of extinction.
Significant Portion of Its Range
As noted in the introduction above, the definitions of both
``threatened'' and ``endangered'' under the ESA contain the term
``significant portion of its range'' (SPR), and define SPR as an area
smaller than the entire range of the species that must be considered
when evaluating a species' risk of extinction. Under the final SPR
Policy announced in July 2014, should we find that the species is of
low extinction risk throughout its range (i.e., not warranted for
listing), we must go on to consider whether the species may have a
higher risk of extinction in a significant portion of its range (79 FR
37577; July 1, 2014).
As an initial step, we identified portions of the range that
warranted further consideration based on analyses within the Status
Review Report (NMFS 2020). The range of a species can theoretically be
divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. However, as noted
in the policy, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the range
that are not reasonably likely to be significant or in which a species
is not likely to be endangered or threatened. To identify only those
portions that warrant further consideration, we consider whether there
is substantial information indicating that (1) the portions may be
significant, and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction in
those portions or is likely to become so within the foreseeable future.
We emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative is not a
determination that the species is endangered or threatened throughout a
SPR; rather, it is a step in determining
[[Page 45388]]
whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required (79 FR 37578;
July 1, 2014). Making this preliminary determination triggers a need
for further review, but does not prejudge whether the portion actually
meets these standards such that the species should be listed. If this
preliminary determination identifies a particular portion or portions
that may be both significant and may be threatened or endangered, those
portions are then fully evaluated under the SPR authority to determine
whether the members of the species in the portion in question are
biologically significant to the species and whether the species is
endangered or threatened in that portion of the range.
The definition of ``significant'' in the SPR Policy was invalidated
in two recent District Court cases that addressed listing decisions
made by the USFWS. The SPR Policy set out a biologically based
definition that examined the contributions of the members in the
portion to the species as a whole, and established a specific threshold
(i.e., when the loss of the members in the portion would cause the
overall species to become threatened or endangered). The courts
invalidated the threshold component of the definition because it set
too high a standard. Specifically, the courts held that, under the
threshold in the policy, a species would never be listed based on the
status of the portion, because in order for a portion to meet the
threshold, the species would be threatened or endangered rangewide.
Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946,
958 (D. Ariz. 2017); Desert Survivors v. DOI 321 F. Supp. 3d. 1011
(N.D. Cal., 2018). Accordingly, while the SRT used the threshold
identified in the policy, which was effective at the time the SRT met,
NMFS did not rely on the definition of ``significant'' in the policy
when making this 12-month finding. This is consistent with the second
Desert Survivors case (336 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 1134-1136; N.D. CA August,
2018), which vacated this definition without geographic limitation. As
such, our analysis independently analyzed the biological significance
of the members of the portion, drawing from the record developed by the
SRT with respect to viability characteristics (i.e., abundance,
productivity, spatial distribution, and genetic diversity) of the
members of the portions, in determining if a portion was a significant
portion of the species' range. We considered the contribution of the
members in each portion to the viability of the taxon as a whole, given
the current available information on abundance levels. We also
considered how the contribution of the members in each portion affects
the spatial distribution of the species (i.e., would there be a loss of
connectivity, would there be a loss of genetic diversity, or would
there be an impact on the population growth rate of the remainder of
the species).
Within the range of the dwarf seahorse we considered multiple
population portions including: (1) South and southwest Florida, (2)
east coast of Florida, (3) northwest Florida, (4) Texas, and (5)
eastern Mexico. After a review of the best available information, we
concluded that only the east coast of Florida and northwest Florida
portions may have elevated risk of extinction relative to the species'
status range-wide. The other portions considered were either not at
risk of extinction (e.g., south and southwest Florida where abundance
is high, subpopulations are stable, and seagrass communities are either
stable or increasing) or there was insufficient data available to
develop an opinion on extinction risk (Texas and eastern Mexico).
Therefore, we proceeded to consider the biological significance of only
the two portions with elevated extinction risk.
The subpopulation of dwarf seahorses along the east coast of
Florida, especially in Indian River Lagoon, appears to be at an
elevated risk of extinction relative to the species' range-wide status.
Under conservative starting conditions, the retrospective analysis
showed this subpopulation has varied in abundance through time and
persists at a stable but very low abundance as of 2016 (Carlson et al.
2019). The projected PVA runs indicate the population is stable or
slightly increasing under optimistic scenarios, but decreasing under
all pessimistic scenarios, with the most pessimistic run leading to
localized extinction (Carlson et al. 2019). The ongoing threat of poor
water quality and HABs has drastically reduced seagrass coverage and in
turn dwarf seahorse abundance in this portion of its range. If this
subpopulation was lost, there would be a reduction in the geographic
extent of the dwarf seahorse. However, this portion does not currently
have the abundance or habitat capacity to buffer surrounding stocks
against environmental threats and is not responsible for connecting
other portions. The east coast of Florida subpopulation has been in
decline for several years but we have not seen this result in a decline
in the adjacent south and southwest Florida subpopulation, suggesting
the contribution of the east coast is limited. While Fedrizzi et al.
(2015) showed there is some gene flow between this portion and others
via passive dispersal, the genetic contributions of the east coast
portion to the rest of the population's range is limited by ocean
currents and winds that dictate passive dispersal. Therefore we would
not expect the loss of this portion to contribute significantly to a
loss of genetic diversity, and the remaining population would contain
enough diversity to allow for adaptations to changing environmental
conditions. In conclusion, we determined that the east coast of Florida
portion's contribution to the population in terms of abundance, spatial
distribution, and diversity is of low biological importance and overall
does not appear significant to the viability of the species. Thus we
find the east coast of Florida does not represent a significant portion
of the dwarf seahorse range.
Dwarf seahorses in northwest Florida (including Apalachicola, Big
Bend, Cedar Key, and St. Andrew's Bay) appear to be at a low risk of
extinction despite low abundance and the threats facing the species
within this portion of its range. Historically, this subpopulation has
been far less abundant than other subpopulations, based on the
retrospective analysis and fisheries surveys. Overall we find that the
contribution that this stock makes to the species' abundance is low.
This subpopulation is found on the northern periphery of the species
range based on thermal tolerances and thus is most susceptible to
mortality from cold weather events. A recent genetic analysis indicates
the western-most portion of this subpopulation (Pensacola, Florida) is
a separate population from the rest of the Florida population (Fedrizzi
et al. 2015), but we are unsure of mixing along the boundary further to
the south of this portion. If the northwest Florida portion was lost,
dwarf seahorses rangewide would lose some potential genetic adaptation.
However, this subpopulation is small in size and has limited genetic
connectivity to the overall taxon. The remaining subpopulations would
continue to provide genetic diversity to the species as whole. There is
no evidence to indicate that the loss of genetic diversity from the
northwest Florida portion of the dwarf seahorse range would result in
the remaining portions lacking enough genetic diversity to allow for
adaptations to changing environmental conditions. While it is possible
that the unique genetic signature of the northwest
[[Page 45389]]
Florida portion conveys some type of adaptive potential to the species
rangewide, we do not currently have evidence of this. In particular, it
is unclear if this subpopulation is uniquely adapted genetically to
tolerate colder conditions. The projected PVA runs indicate the
subpopulation is generally stable (Carlson et al. 2019). Pessimistic
PVA scenarios resulted in decreased abundance for this portion of the
population, but not extinction (Carlson et al. 2019). Although this
portion has some extinction risk, its low abundance and limited
connectivity suggest it is not significant to the viability of the
species overall.
In summary, we find that there is no portion of the dwarf
seahorse's range that is both significant to the species as a whole and
endangered or threatened. After considering all the portions we believe
that some portions (east coast of Florida and northwest Florida) carry
an elevated risk of extinction relative to the status of the species
range-wide; however, these portions are not biologically significant to
the species. In contrast, the south and southwest Florida subpopulation
appears to be biologically important to the continued viability of the
overall species in terms of abundance, connectivity, and productivity,
but this subpopulation is robust and not at risk of extinction now or
in the foreseeable future. Thus, we find no reason to list this
species, based on an analysis within a significant portion of its
range.
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 (77 FR 26478; May 4, 2012),
the Status Review Report (NMFS 2020), and other published and
unpublished information. We considered each of the statutory factors to
determine whether each 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 dwarf seahorse is not presently in danger of
extinction, nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, the
dwarf seahorse does not meet the definition of a threatened species or
an endangered species and does not warrant listing as threatened or
endangered at this time.
References
A complete list of the references used in this proposed rule is
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
Peer Review
In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing
minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public
disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public
participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented under the Information
Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554) is intended to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Federal government's scientific information, and
applies to influential or highly influential scientific information
disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. To satisfy our requirements
under the OMB Bulletin, we obtained independent peer review of the
Status Review Report. Three independent specialists were selected from
the academic and scientific community for this review. All peer
reviewer comments were addressed prior to dissemination of the final
Status Review Report and publication of this proposed rule. Both the
Status Review Report and the Peer Review Report can be found here:
https://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prplans/ID411.html.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
Dated: July 22, 2020.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-16335 Filed 7-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P