Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Listing for the Largetooth Sawfish, 25174-25184 [2010-10874]
Download as PDF
25174
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
selected. Click on the comments you
wish to see. You may download the
comments. Although the comments are
imaged documents, instead of the word
processing documents, the ‘‘pdf’’
versions of the documents are word
searchable. Please note that even after
the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in
the Docket as it becomes available.
Further, some people may submit late
comments. Accordingly, we recommend
that you periodically search the Docket
for new material.
L. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation
assigns a regulation identifier number
(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in
the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in April and October of each
year. You may use the RIN that appears
in the heading on the first page of this
document to find this action in the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 594
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part
594 as follows:
PART 594—SCHEDULE OF FEES
AUTHORIZED BY 49 U.S.C. 30141
1. The authority citation for part 594
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141, 31 U.S.C.
9701; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Amend § 594.6 by:
a. Revising the introductory text of
paragraph (a);
b. Revising paragraph (b);
c. Revising the first sentence of
paragraph (d);
d. Revising the second sentence of
paragraph (h); and
e. Revising paragraph (i) to read as
follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
18:40 May 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
§ 594.10 Fee for review and processing of
conformity certificate.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) The review and processing fee for
each certificate of conformity submitted
on and after October 1, 2010 is $17.
* * * If NHTSA finds that the
information in the entry or the
certificate is incorrect, requiring further
processing, the processing fee shall be
$57.
Issued on: May 5, 2010.
Joseph Carra,
Acting Senior Associate Administrator for
Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 2010–10816 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
*
50 CFR Part 224
*
*
*
*
(e) For petitions filed on and after
October 1, 2010, the fee payable for
seeking a determination under
paragraph (a)(1) of this section is $175.
* * *
*
*
*
*
*
4. Amend § 594.8 by revising the first
sentence of paragraph (b) and the first
sentence of paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
*
(a) Each person filing an application
to be granted the status of a Registered
Importer pursuant to part 592 of this
chapter on or after October 1, 2010,
must pay an annual fee of $795, as
calculated below, based upon the direct
and indirect costs attributable to:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) That portion of the initial annual
fee attributable to the processing of the
application for applications filed on and
after October 1, 2010, is $320. The sum
of $320, representing this portion, shall
(e) The fee for each vehicle imported
on and after October 1, 2010, for which
cash deposits or obligations of the
United States are furnished in lieu of a
conformance bond, is $514.00.
6. Amend § 594.10 by revising the
first and third sentences of paragraph
(d) to read as follows:
§ 594.7 Fee for filing petitions for a
determination whether a vehicle is eligible
for importation.
§ 594.8 Fee for importing a vehicle
pursuant to a determination by the
Administrator.
§ 594.6 Annual fee for administration of
the registration program.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
not be refundable if the application is
denied or withdrawn.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) That portion of the initial annual
fee attributable to the remaining
activities of administering the
registration program on and after
October 1, 2010, is set forth in
paragraph (i) of this section. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * * This cost is $20.67 per manhour for the period beginning October 1,
2010.
(i) Based upon the elements and
indirect costs of paragraphs (f), (g), and
(h) of this section, the component of the
initial annual fee attributable to
administration of the registration
program, covering the period beginning
October 1, 2010, is $475. When added
to the costs of registration of $320, as set
forth in paragraph (b) of this section, the
costs per applicant to be recovered
through the annual fee are $795. The
annual renewal registration fee for the
period beginning October 1, 2010, is
$670.
3. Amend § 594.7 by revising the first
sentence of paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
*
*
*
*
(b) If a determination has been made
pursuant to a petition, the fee for each
vehicle is $158. * * *
(c) If a determination has been made
on or after October 1, 2010, pursuant to
the Administrator’s initiative, the fee for
each vehicle is $125. * * *
5. Amend § 594.9 by revising
paragraphs (c) and (e) to read as follows:
§ 594.9 Fee for reimbursement of bond
processing costs and costs for processing
offers of cash deposits or obligations of the
United States in lieu of sureties on bonds.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) The bond processing fee for each
vehicle imported on and after October 1,
2010, for which a certificate of
conformity is furnished, is $9.93.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Docket No [0906221082–0122–02]
RIN 0648–XQ03
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Proposed Listing for the
Largetooth Sawfish
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; 12–month
petition finding; request for comments.
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have determined
that the largetooth sawfish (Pristis
perotteti) qualifies as a ‘‘species’’ for
listing as endangered or threatened
under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), and propose listing the species as
endangered. This proposed rule also
constitutes the 12–month finding on the
petition to list the largetooth sawfish
throughout its range and designate
critical habitat for the species. We are
not proposing to designate critical
habitat. This proposed rule to list the
species as endangered is based on the
status review of the species (NMFS,
2010), and the best available scientific
and commercial data. We also solicit
information that may be relevant to the
status and conservation of the species.
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule
must be received by July 6, 2010. Public
hearing requests must be requested by
June 21, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by the RIN 0648–XQ03, by
any of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal http//
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail or hand-delivery: Assistant
Regional Administrator for Protected
Resources, NMFS, Southeast Regional
Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St.
Petersburg, FL 33701–5505.
• Facsimile (fax): 727 824 5309.
Instructions: No comments will be
posted for public viewing until after the
comment period. All comments
received are considered part of the
public record and will generally be
posted to https://WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV.
All Personal Identifying Information
(i.e., name, address, etc.) voluntarily
submitted may be publicly accessible.
Do not submit Confidential Business
Information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information. We will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘n/a’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Please provide electronic
attachments using Microsoft Word,
Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file
formats only. The proposed rule, the list
of references, and the status review are
also available electronically on the
NMFS website at https://
sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
Largetoothsawfish.htm.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shelley Norton, NMFS, Southeast
Regional Office (727) 824–5312 or
Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources (301) 713–1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Listing Determinations Under the
Endangered Species Act
Background
NMFS identified the largetooth
sawfish (Pristis perotteti) as a candidate
species in 1991 (56 FR 26797). It was
removed from the list on July 14, 1997
(62 FR 37560), but was subsequently
added to the revised list on June 23,
1999 (64 FR 33466).
On November 30, 1999, the Center for
Marine Conservation (currently called
Ocean Conservancy) petitioned us to list
North American populations of
largetooth and smalltooth sawfish as
endangered under the ESA. The
largetooth sawfish underwent a formal
status review; however, we determined
that the petitioner did not present
substantial evidence that the petitioned
action may be warranted for the
largetooth sawfish (56 FR 12959; March
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 May 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
10, 2000). Specifically, there was no
evidence that a North American
population of largetooth sawfish
existed. The largetooth sawfish was,
however, maintained on the candidate
species list and later transferred to the
new Species of Concern list on April 15,
2004 (69 FR 19975).
On April 21, 2009, WildEarth
Guardians petitioned the Secretary of
Commerce to list the largetooth sawfish
(Pristis perotteti) as endangered or
threatened throughout its range and to
designate critical habitat for this
species. The petitioners also requested
that we reconsider our previous March
10, 2000, negative finding on listing the
North American population.
On July 29, 2009, we published a
positive 90–day finding (74 FR 37671)
announcing that the petition presented
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating the petitioned
action of listing the species may be
warranted. We announced the initiation
of a status review of the species and
requested information to inform the
agency’s decision on whether to propose
the species for ESA listing. Our
Southeast Regional Office (SERO) issued
two contracts in 2009 to the Florida
Museum of Natural History to compile
all confirmed records of largetooth
sawfish in the U.S. and internationally.
The status review (NMFS, 2010) was
conducted by the Southeast Fisheries
Science Center (SEFSC) and SERO staff.
The status review is available
electronically at https://
sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
Largetoothsawfish.htm.
We are responsible for determining
whether the largetooth sawfish (Pristis
perotteti) 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. We
have followed a stepwise approach in
making this listing determination for the
largetooth sawfish (Pristis perotteti). As
the first of five steps, we determined if
the largetooth sawfish is a ‘‘species’’
under the ESA. 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 plus ‘‘any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants,
and any distinct population segment of
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25175
any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife
which interbreeds when mature.’’
Next we completed an extinction risk
assessment to determine the status of
the species, in particular whether it
qualified for threatened or endangered
status. 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.’’ For our
extinction risk analysis we follow the
general procedure of Wainwright and
Cope (1999).
In the third step, we assessed the
threats affecting the species status. We
did this by following the guidance in
the ESA that requires us to 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 (section 4(a)(1)(A) through
(E)). After analyzing the threats affecting
the species, we re-evaluated the
extinction status for the species to see
if the status changed after the
assessment of the five factors.
The fourth step involves an
assessment of the efforts being made to
protect the species to determine if these
efforts are adequate to mitigate existing
threats. We evaluated all conservation
efforts using the criteria outlined in the
joint NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) Policy for Evaluating
Conservation Efforts When Making
Listing Decisions (PECE policy; 68 FR
15100; March 28, 2003) to determine
their certainties of implementation and
effectiveness. In the final step, we
reassessed the preliminary extinction
risk assessment conclusion from above
to determine if the status of the species
had changed based on the PECE
analysis.
To evaluate the petitioner’s request
that NMFS designate critical habitat for
the species, we followed the provisions
in the ESA and in our implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424). Of particular
relevance in this case are provisions that
NMFS cannot designate critical habitat
in ‘‘foreign countries’’ or areas outside of
U.S. jurisdiction and that NMFS shall
not designate as critical habitat areas
outside of the geographical area
presently occupied by a species, unless
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
25176
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
‘‘a designation limited to its present
range would be inadequate to ensure the
conservation of the species’’ (50 CFR
424.12).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Largetooth Sawfish Natural History
Taxonomy
All sawfishes belong to two Genera
(Pristis and Anoxypristis) in the Family
Pristidae of the Order Pristiformes, and
are classified as rays (Superorder
Batoidea). Sawfishes are distinguished
from other rays by the long snout
(rostrum) with teeth on either side.
Using molecular phylogeny
(mitochondrial and nuclear gene
analysis) paired with morphological
characters, Faria (2007) distinguished
seven extant species in the Pristidae.
Sawfishes are classified into three
morphological groups based on rostrum
characteristics: largetooth, smalltooth,
and knifetooth (Garman, 1913). Three
species are currently classified in the
largetooth ‘‘group,’’ namely P. perotteti,
P. microdon, and P. pristis, though
difficulties associated with taxonomic
identification are known (Faria, 2007;
Wiley et al., 2008, Wueringer et al.,
2009).
Pristis perotteti has been referred to
by other names throughout its range. For
instance, it has been called P.
antiquorum (as cited in Bigelow and
Schroeder 1953), P. zephyreus (Beebe
and Tee-Van, 1941), P. pristis
(McEachran and Fechhelm, 1998), or P.
microdon (Garman, 1913; Fowler, 1941;
Chirichigno and Cornejo, 2001; Vakily
et al., 2002). Some authors consider the
eastern Pacific populations to be part of
the species P. microdon (Garman, 1913;
Fowler, 1941; Chirichigno and Cornejo,
2001), while others consider the eastern
Pacific populations to be P. perotteti
(Jordan and Evermann, 1896; refs. in
Beebe and Tee-Van, 1941; Compagno
and Cook, 1995; Camhi et al., 1998;
Cook et al., 2005). The species are
generally classified based upon location
(i.e., P. perotteti occurs in the Atlantic,
while P. microdon is in the IndoPacific), and there is some evidence that
tooth counts may differ (Wueringer et
al., 2009). The conserved morphology of
sawfishes makes identification difficult
in some cases; most species are
distinguished by the number of teeth on,
and size of, the rostrum, placement of
the first dorsal fin in relation to the
pectoral fins, and shape of the lower
lobe of the caudal fin. However, Faria
(2007), used both mitochondrial and
nuclear genes to investigate the
population structure for all Pristidae
species. The results from his study
indicate that the ‘‘largetooth’’ species P.
microdon and P. perotteti are separate
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 May 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
species, and that P. microdon occurs in
the Pacific, based on their
mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid
sequencing data and differences in
external morphology (e.g., rostrum
length and horizontal length of the eye).
Based on the available taxonomic
information on P. perotteti, we have
determined the species’ range is the
eastern and western Atlantic Ocean.
The rostral tooth count per side for P.
perotteti ranges from 14 to 22, and the
space between the two most posterior
teeth is between 4.5 and 8.5 percent of
rostrum standard length (Faria, 2007).
The origin of the first dorsal fin is
forward of the pelvic fin origin, and the
lower lobe of the caudal fin is distinct
at all maturity stages. The largest known
specimen was a 275.6 in (700 cm) total
length (TL) female captured in northern
Brazilian waters (Almeida, 1999). The
only other sawfish species that overlaps
in range with P. perotteti is the
smalltooth sawfish, P. pectinata. These
species are differentiated by the number
of teeth on the rostrum (24 to 32 for P.
pectinata, 22 to 29 for P. perotteti (Wiley
et al., 2008)), and the rostrum length of
P. pectinata is shorter in relation to its
body length.
Age and Growth
There have been no formal studies
examining the age and growth of the
largetooth sawfish, though Thorson’s
(1982a) study of the Lake Nicaragua
population estimated size at birth to be
30 in (75 cm) and an early juvenile
growth rate of 13.8 to 15.7 in (35 to 40
cm)/year. Thorson (1982a) also
estimated age of maturity to be 10 years
and size at maturity 118 in (300 cm).
Preliminary vertebral growth ring
analysis has extrapolated largetooth
sawfish (P. microdon) lifespan to an
estimated maximum age of 51 years
(Peverell, 2006), and we determined this
to be our best available estimate of
largetooth sawfish lifespan.
Reproductive Biology
The reproductive method of sawfishes
is most likely lecithotrophic viviparity;
ova are internally fertilized, developing
embryos receive nourishment from an
external yolk sac, and the pups are born
live after the yolk sac is absorbed. The
only known reproductive study of
largetooth sawfish was from Lake
Nicaragua in the 1970s (Thorson,
1976a). This study found that litter size
ranged from one to 13 pups, with an
average of 7.3 pups per cycle. The
Habitat Use and Migration
gestation period was approximately five
Largetooth sawfish are generally
months, with a biennial reproductive
restricted to shallow (< 33 ft (10 m))
cycle. After a five-month gestation
coastal, estuarine, and fresh waters,
period, young are born between October
although they have been found at
and December (Oetinger, 1978). Thorson
depths of up to 400 ft (122 m) in Lake
(1976a) also found that both ovaries
Nicaragua. Largetooth sawfish are often
appeared to be functional, though the
found in brackish water near river
left seemed to be larger and carry more
mouths and large bays, preferring
ova. Parturition occurred in October and
partially enclosed waters, lying in
November and size at birth was between
deeper holes and on bottoms of mud or
28.7 and 31.5 in (73 and 80 cm) TL.
muddy sand (Bigelow and Schroeder,
Thorson (1976a) reported that the
1953). This species, like the smalltooth
smallest gravid female was 120 in (305
sawfish, is highly mangrove-associated
cm) TL, and based on this and other
(Burgess et al., 2009). While it is thought observations, reported the size at
that they spend most of their time on
maturity is estimated to be around 118
the bottom, they are commonly
in (300 cm) TL. The life history of
observed swimming near the surface in
largetooth sawfish, like most
the wild and in aquaria (Cook et al.,
elasmobranchs, is characterized by slow
2005). Largetooth sawfish move across
growth, late maturity, and low
salinity gradients freely and appear to
fecundity, which generally contributes
have more physiological tolerance of
to a low intrinsic rate of increase.
freshwater than smalltooth sawfish
Simpfendorfer (2000) estimated that
(Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953; Dahl,
largetooth sawfish in Lake Nicaragua
1971; Thorson, 1974; 1976a; all as cited
had an intrinsic rate of increase (r) of
in Thorson, 1982a).
0.05 to 0.07 per year, with a population
doubling time (tx2) of 10.3 to 13.6 years.
Though their habitats once
Intrinsic rates of increase below 0.1 are
overlapped in the northern Gulf of
considered low, making species
Mexico, the largetooth sawfish
particularly vulnerable to population
historically had a more southerly range
decline (Musick et al., 2000). The
than the smalltooth sawfish, with what
results indicated that if effective
appears to be a more narrow seasonal
conservation measures are put in place
migration pattern. Mature largetooth
sawfish seasonally ventured into waters for the species and its habitats, recovery
to levels with little risk of extinction
as far north as U.S. waters of the Gulf
will take a few decades. Since Thorson
of Mexico.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(1973) hypothesized that many Lake
Nicaraguan sawfish may live their
whole lives in the lake and Faria (2007)
reported that the Lake Nicaraguan
sawfish may be a separate stock, the life
history parameters estimated by
Simpfendorfer (2000) may be unique to
that subpopulation or stock.
Diet and Feeding
No published information is available
that quantitatively describes the diet of
largetooth sawfish. Bigelow and
Schroeder (1953) reported that, in
general, sawfish subsist on the most
abundant small schooling fishes in the
area, such as mullets and small
clupeids. There is also some evidence of
largetooth sawfish feeding on
crustaceans and other small benthic
organisms (Bigelow and Schroeder,
1953). In these cases, the rostrum may
be used to stir up the bottom sediments
to locate prey, and in the case of fish
predation, the rostrum may be used to
stun or wound the fish in a slashing
movement (Bigelow and Schroeder,
1953).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Predation
While there is potential for
competition between P. perotteti and P.
pectinata due to their overlap in range
and habitat types, there is no data to
support this and differences in patterns
of habitat use and salinity tolerance may
adequately partition the niches of these
species. Thorson (1970) speculated that
the Lake Nicaragua population may
have also competed with the bull shark,
Carcharhinus leucas, as both were quite
prevalent (Thorson, 1970); however,
both species have since declined to the
point of near extirpation. A Pristis sp.
has been documented within the
stomach of a bottlenose dolphin near
Bermuda (Bigelow and Schroeder,
1953), in the stomach of a bull shark (C.
leucas) in Australia (Thorburn et al.,
2004), and a juvenile smalltooth sawfish
was captured with fresh bite marks from
what appears to be a bull shark (Tonya
Wiley, pers. comm., 2009). The
International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN) Red List for the
largetooth sawfish also states that
crocodiles prey on the species (CharvetAlmeida et al., 2007.
Distribution and Abundance
Historically, P. perotteti are thought to
inhabit warm temperate to tropical
marine waters in the eastern and
western Atlantic and Caribbean. In the
western Atlantic, P. perotteti occurred
from the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico
south through Brazil, and in the United
States, largetooth sawfish were reported
in the Gulf of Mexico, mainly along the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 May 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
Texas coast and east into Florida waters
(Burgess and Curtis, 2003; Burgess et al.,
2009). Burgess et al. (2009) also state
that, based on the evidence, the species
rarely occurred in Florida waters and
that nearly all records of largetooth
sawfish encountered in U.S. waters
were limited to the Texas coast. In the
eastern Atlantic, P. perotteti historically
occurred from Spain through Angola.
Currently, P. perotteti are thought to
primarily occur in freshwater habitats in
Central (includes Mexico) and South
America and West Africa. In Atlantic
drainages, largetooth sawfish have been
found in freshwater at least 833 miles
(1,340 km) from the ocean in the
Amazon River system (Manacapuru,
Brazil), as well as in Lake Nicaragua and
the San Juan River; the Rio Coco, on the
border of Nicaragua and Honduras; Rio
Patuca, Honduras; Lago de Izabal, Rio
Motagua, and Rio Dulce, Guatemala; the
Belize River, Belize; Mexican streams
that flow into the Gulf of Mexico; Las
Lagunas Del Tortuguero, Rio Parismina,
Rio Pacuare, and Rio Matina, Costa Rica;
Rio San Juan and the Magdalena River,
Colombia; the Falm River in Mali and
Senegal; the Saloum River, Senegal;
coastal rivers in Gambia; and the Geba
River, Guinea-Bissau (Thorson, 1974;
1982b; Castro-Aguirre, 1978 as cited in
Thorson, 1982b; Compagno and Cook,
1995; C. Scharpf and M. McDavitt, pers.
comm., as cited in Cook et al., 2005).
The United States
Although the first confirmed record of
a U.S. largetooth sawfish was from ‘‘the
Gulf of Mexico’’ in 1878 (Burgess et al.,
2009), they were likely present prior to
this time period. Sawfish encounters
were reported in the entire Gulf of
Mexico in the early popular literature of
the late 1800s but the similarities
between the smalltooth and largetooth
sawfishes limited the ability of nonspecialists to discriminate between the
two species. Because of this, there are
no conclusive data available for
largetooth sawfish abundance before
fishing and other anthropogenic
pressures began to affect their
distribution. Recreational fishers in
Texas began targeting prize fishes,
including large elasmobranchs such as
sawfishes, in the 1930s. Photographs
taken of these catches were favored in
the print media, allowing Burgess et al.
(2009) to identify 33 largetooth sawfish
in Texas.
Though reported in the United States,
it appears that P. perotteti was never
abundant, with approximately 39
confirmed records (33 in Texas) from
1910 through 1961, and no confirmed
sightings in the years since (Burgess et
al., 2009). A 1963 newspaper article
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25177
reporting a shrimp trawler off the coast
of Texas taking a ‘‘broadbill sawfish’’
may refer to a largetooth sawfish
(Burgess et al., 2009). One specimen
was reported between 1916 and 1919 in
Louisiana. The capture location and
identification as a largetooth sawfish
species ‘‘presumably from Alabama’’ was
catalogued at the University of Alabama
but could not be verified (Burgess et al.,
2009). Four individuals from Florida
were noted between 1910 and 1960
(Burgess et al., 2009). Two of the reports
in Florida were identified by
elasmobranch researcher Stewart
Springer by rostral tooth counts: one
from Key West (1941) and another from
Port Salerno (Baughman, 1943; Bigelow
and Schroeder, 1953). Port Salerno is on
the east coast of Florida, making this
capture the only reported largetooth
sawfish outside of the Gulf of Mexico in
the U.S. Another specimen from south
Florida was collected by the American
Museum of Natural History in 1910. The
final record for P. perotteti in Florida
was recorded in the Springer and
Woodburn (1960) study of Tampa Bay
fishes. The dried specimen was on
display at the Sea-Orama in the city of
Clearwater Beach, but the identification
was not verified, and the size of the
specimen (Burgess et al., 2009) was
much smaller than any other individual
captured in U.S. waters. With this
exception, all largetooth sawfish
captured in the U.S. were 14 feet (4.3 m)
in length or larger.
In Texas, largetooth sawfish were
primarily found in three regions: Padre
Island-Laguna Madre, Corpus ChristiPort Aransas, and Galveston-Freeport
(Burgess et al., 2009). Most were caught
from 1929 through 1957, though some
records may have been duplicated
(Baughman, 1943). Ten largetooth
sawfish were encountered in the Corpus
Christi-Port Aransas region, from 1917
to 1961, though again duplication of
records is possible. The highest number
of records is from the northeast Texas
coast (Galveston) and the lowest number
from near the Texas-Mexico border
(Padre Island), corresponding to the
historical freshwater inflow patterns of
the region (Longley, 1994). That is,
sighting frequency is positively
correlated with higher freshwater flow
discharge. While it is likely that the
freshwater affinity of this species,
especially in comparison to the
smalltooth sawfish, attracted the
largetooth sawfish to these high outflow
areas, these numbers may also be an
artifact of higher fishing effort or
likelihood of reporting in that area.
Burgess et al. (2009) report captures of
largetooth sawfish in Texas were
primarily in shallow inshore waters and
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
25178
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
the majority (65 percent) of those
captures noted were taken from fisheries
using rod and reel gears. Additionally,
shrimp nets (reported as shrimp seines,
shrimp net, and shrimp trawls) are the
gear type associated with approximately
25 percent of all captures. Where size
data could be determined, all largetooth
sawfish caught in Texas were greater
than 16 ft (4.88 m) TL. Burgess et al.
(2009) report all largetooth sawfish
found in U.S. waters were large (>14 ft
(4.3 m)) and were primarily encountered
during periods of warm water (May
through October), suggesting that adults
of this species mainly utilized Texas
waters in the summer (but data on
month of capture only exist for 10
records).
The last confirmed record of P.
perotteti in U.S. waters was from Port
Aransas, Texas on June 24, 1961. The
last records for other Gulf of Mexico
states include Florida in 1941 and
Louisiana in 1917. No records of
largetooth sawfish were found from
Mississippi, and, as stated previously,
the one Alabama specimen could not be
verified.
The Caribbean, Central America, and
Northern South America
Only 33 confirmed records of P.
perotteti exist for this region outside of
Costa Rica and Nicaragua (Burgess et al.,
2009). The lack of data likely stems from
several factors, including confusion or
ambiguity of identification with
smalltooth sawfish and the lack of
scientific surveys and popular reports
during the time of highest abundance. In
total, 5 largetooth sawfish records were
from Mexico, 5 from Guatemala, 1 from
Honduras, 483 from Nicaragua, 37 from
Costa Rica, 7 from Colombia, 6 from
Venezuela, 1 from Guyana, 5 from
Suriname, 1 from French Guiana, and 1
from Trinidad. Length data were not
available for most of these specimens.
Of the known Mexican largetooth
sawfish, four were from the
southwestern Gulf of Mexico
(Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Tabasco, and
Campeche), while one was captured at
the northeastern tip of the Yucatan
Peninsula (Quintana Roo). The mature
(17.7 ft (5.4 m in total length), 1764 lbs
(800 kg)) Yucatan individual was
captured in 1997, which is the northernmost record in recent history. It appears
that the last records in the Mexican Gulf
of Mexico were prior to 1978, and
Caribbean records are very sparse.
No encounters could be substantiated
in Belize (Burgess et al., 2009). All five
Guatemalan largetooth sawfish were
from a survey of Lake Izabal between
1946 and 1947, and sawfishes were
reported to be important inland fishes
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 May 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
(Saunders et al., 1950). Though reported
by Thorson et al. (1966a; 1966b) to be
common throughout the area, a claim
which was mirrored by local fishers at
the time, there are no recent reports of
encounters with sawfishes in
Guatemala. The lone largetooth sawfish
reported from Honduras was acquired
from that country, but the true origin of
the rostrum and the date of capture
could not be confirmed.
The vast majority of P. perotteti
records from Costa Rica (34 of 37) and
Nicaragua (397 of 483) stem from
Thorson’s (1982a; 1982b) years of work
on the Lake Nicaragua-Rio San Juan
system. The San Juan River originates at
Lake Nicaragua and runs along the
Nicaragua-Costa Rica border until it
reaches the Caribbean slightly south of
the Nicaraguan border; therefore,
movement between the countries was
likely. Sawfish were noted in Nicaragua
as early as 1529 by a Spanish chronicler
(Gill and Bransford, 1877). This species
was also reported in Nicaragua by Meek
(1907), Regan (1908), Marden (1944),
Bigelow and Schroeder (1953), Hagberg
(1968), and Baez (1980a; 1980b). A
commercial fishery for the largetooth
sawfish that began in earnest around
1970 quickly decimated the Lake
Nicaragua population (Thorson, 1982a).
Low-level sustenance fishing for this
species was common before this time,
but the Nicaraguan government helped
to establish a processing plant in 1970,
which processed and sold the meat,
fins, and rostra in an efficient manner.
In the 1970s, an American supermarket
chain (A&P) produced advertisements in
their Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois
chains which included ‘‘Fish Features’’
listing ‘‘Sierra Steaks’’ using the Spanish
name for sawfish, pez sierra, as a fresh
fish available in their stores (The Times
Recorder, 1975). By 1981, Thorson
(1982a) was unable to locate a single
live specimen. Thorson (1982a)
documented that within a decade the
commercial largetooth sawfish fishery
had removed the species from shallow
water habitats within Lake Nicaragua.
The species was relegated to deep water
‘‘pockets’’ remaining in Lake Nicaragua.
Commercial fishing for largetooth
sawfish in Lake Nicaragua was banned
in 2006, but the species is still caught
incidentally by fishers netting for other
species (McDavitt, 2002). A Lake
Nicaraguan fisherman reported that he
encounters a few sawfish annually,
nowadays (McDavitt, 2002). There are
no known Nicaraguan records of the
largetooth sawfish outside of the Lake
Nicaragua-Rio San Juan-Rio Colorado
system (Burgess et al., 2009).
Bussing (2002) indicated that this
species was known to inhabit the Rio
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Tempisque and tributaries of the San
Juan basin in Costa Rica. Three
occurrences in that river were found in
internet searches, one being a 200 lb
(90.7–kg) specimen caught
recreationally (Burgess et al., 2009). In
Colombia, the Magdalena River estuary
was the primary source for largetooth
sawfish encounters from the 1940s
(Miles, 1945), while other records
originated from the Bahia de Cartagena
and Isla de Salamanca (both marine),
and Rio Sinu (freshwater) from the
1960s through the 1980s (Dahl, 1964;
1971; Frank and Rodriguez, 1976;
Alvarez and Blanco, 1985). Scientists in
the country reported that there have
been no sightings of this species in
Colombia for about 10 years (Burgess et
al., 2009).
Though thought to have once been
abundant in some areas of Venezuela
(Cervignon, 1966a; 1966b), the last of
the four confirmed records of P.
perotteti from that country was from
1962. The single records from Guyana,
French Guiana, and Trinidad appear to
be from the late 1800s and early 1900s.
Of the five Suriname accounts, the latest
was collected in 1962.
Brazil
The largetooth sawfish was assessed
as critically endangered in Brazil by
Charvet-Almeida and Faria (2008). A
total of 139 reports are available for this
species (Burgess et al., 2009), some from
as recently as 2009. Most of the records
for which location is known originated
in the state of Amazonas (12), which
encompasses the middle section of the
Amazon River basin along with the
confluence of the Rio Negro and Rio
Solimoes (in the state of Manaus). The
other known locations are from the
states of Rio Grande do Norte, Sergipe,
Bahia, Espirito Santo, Rio de Janeiro,
and Sao Paulo (1 record each), Para (7
records), and Maranhao (3 records). Para
contains the estuary and lower reaches
of the Amazon River, and Maranhao is
just southeast of Para. Anectodal reports
from fishers indicate that they are also
caught in Amapa, which is the
northernmost state in Brazil (CharvetAlmeida and Faria, 2008).
The Amazon River basin and adjacent
waters are traditionally the most
abundant known area for largetooth
sawfish in Brazil (Bates, 1964; Marlier,
1967; Furneau, 1969); however,
scientific collection and fisheries data
for this region are very limited, both
historically and recently. Sawfishes are
captured as bycatch in artisanal and
commercial fisheries in northern Brazil
(Charvet-Almeida, 2002). Most historic
records of largetooth sawfish in the
Amazon River (Amazonia) predate 1974.
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Known lengths ranged from 4.9 to 8.2 ft
(1.5 to 2.5 m) in total length. Mathew
McDavitt (pers. comm., 2010) notes
there is anecdotal evidence that P.
perotteti is currently being targeted in
Brazil for the lucrative Chinese shark fin
trade. A recent popular guide in China
for dried seafood products provides
descriptions of a dozen or so popular
shark fin categories. Based on
photographs and descriptions, the
category huang jiao (literally: ‘‘yellowglue’’) comes from Pristis sawfishes, the
trade name deriving from its beige color
and the especially copious gelatine it
produces when cooked. This Chinese
dried seafood book gives the current
sources for huang jiao fin, noting that
the supply from Brazil is favored
nowadays due to its comparatively large
size.
The Brazilian sawfish populations,
which include both P. perotteti and P.
pectinata, are found in this region but
are almost exclusively of the largetooth
species, are presumably large and
abundant, compared to those captured
in other localities, due to the fact that
sawfishes have not yet been extirpated
in Brazilian waters to the extent that
they have been elsewhere. Presumably
both species are caught and sold. No
quantification of the exact species or
number of captured or sold sawfishes is
currently available, though CharvetAlmeida and Faria (2008) reported that
as many as 1500 small and medium
rostra and 180 large rostra were sold
each year in Para alone.
The two most recent largetooth
encounters in Brazil were from
Maranhao, one caught by a fisher in
1998 and another in 2009. The latter
was a gravid female estimated to be 7 m
TL (Burgess et al., 2009). Earlier reports
of largetooth sawfish in Maranhao were
mostly from the 1980s and 90s (Lessa,
1986; Martins-Juras et al., 1987; Stride
and Batista, 1992; Menni and Lessa,
1998; and Lessa et al., 1999). Sawfish
are likely caught incidentally by shark
fishers in this state and landed for their
saws (Almeida et al., 2006).
Records of largetooth sawfish in each
of the states south of Maranhao are
limited to one each, and the dates of
capture are largely unknown, though
most appear to be from the nineteenth
century. An archeological site in Sao
Paulo yielded tooled P. perotteti rostral
teeth, though whether they came from
locally caught animals, or were traded
from the north is unknown. CharvetAlmeida and Faria (2008) concluded
that largetooth sawfish are most likely
extirpated in most of the states south of
Maranhao.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 May 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
West Coast of Africa
Historical records indicate that
largetooth sawfish were once relatively
common in the coastal estuaries of West
Africa. Verified records exist from
Senegal (1841 to 1902), Gambia (1885 to
1909), Guinea-Bissau (1912), Republic
of Guinea (1965), Sierra Leone (date
unknown), Liberia (1927), Cote d’Ivoire
(1881 to 1923), Congo (1951 to 1958),
Democratic Republic of the Congo (1951
to 1959), and Angola (1951) (Burgess et
al., 2009). Most records, however,
lacked species identification and
locality data and may have been
confused taxonomically with other
sawfish species that also occur in the
area. Unpublished notes from a 1950s
survey detail 12 P. perotteti from
Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea, Cote
d’Ivoire, and Nigeria, ranging in size
from 35 through 276 in (89 through 700
cm) in total length (Burgess et al., 2009).
A more recent status review by
Ballouard et al. (2006) reported that
sawfishes, including the largetooth
sawfish, were once common from
Mauritania to the Republic of Guinea,
but are now rarely captured or
encountered. According to this report,
the range of sawfishes has decreased to
the Bissagos Archipelago (Guinea
Bissau). The most recent sawfish
encounters outside Guinea Bissau were
in the 1990s in Mauritania, Senegal,
Gambia, and the Republic of Guinea.
The most recent documented P.
perotteti capture was from 2005 in Nord
de Caravela (Guinea Bissau), along with
anecdotal accounts from fishers of
captures off of two islands in the same
area (Burgess et al., 2009).
Summary and Abundance
As we document above, the range of
the largetooth sawfish has contracted
significantly on both sides of the
Atlantic. Although no time-series
abundance data exists to quantify the
extent of the decline of the species
throughout its range, we believe that
with the substantial number of
commercial and recreational fisheries
fishing along our U.S. coast, the
uniqueness of the species morphology,
and because media and internet sites are
easily accessible to the public,
largetooth sawfish encounters would be
noteworthy and reported. Additionally,
outreach efforts along the Gulf of
Mexico coast in the U.S. for the
smalltooth sawfish, which includes
printed brochures and signage in local
bait shops, marinas, and boat ramps on
where and how to report sawfish
encounters, should have increased the
likelihood of reporting a largetooth
sawfish encounter. Access to media and
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25179
internet sites for reporting largetooth
encounters outside the U.S. is most
likely less common in some of the
remote areas along the coasts of Central
America, the Amazonian region of
Brazil, and West Africa. Nevertheless,
the apparent decrease of sightings over
time suggests that the species has
undergone severe declines in abundance
throughout its range. Moreover, the
decline in museum records, negative
scientific survey results in the U.S. and
Lake Nicaragua, and anecdotal reports
from fisher people suggest the trend for
the species is declining (Burgess et al.,
2009).
Species Determination
We first considered whether or not P.
perotteti met the definition of ‘‘species’’
pursuant to section 3 of the ESA as
described above. As stated in the
taxonomy section above, after reviewing
the best available scientific and
commercial taxonomic data on the
species, we determined that P. perotteti
is a ‘‘species’’ and its range is the eastern
and western Atlantic Ocean. The best
available scientific and commercial data
available also suggest P. perotteti has a
tropical distribution in the eastern and
western Atlantic Ocean and has been
rare at latitudes higher than 12° N and
12° S during historic times.
Extinction Risk
We next considered the risk of
extinction for P. perotteti to determine
whether the species is threatened or
endangered as defined above. No
quantitative estimate of abundance for
the species is known, so methods such
as population viability analysis cannot
be used to determine the risk of
extinction for the species. Therefore, we
must use a method to determine the risk
of extinction using qualitative
information.
Wainwright and Kope (1999)
developed methods to assess the risk of
extinction for U.S. West Coast salmon.
Using the definitions of endangered and
threatened in the ESA, they considered
a variety of information to assess
extinction risks, including abundance,
trends, productivity, variability, genetic
integrity, and other risks. Wainwright
and Kope (1999) further consider the
risk to small populations based on
potential genetic effects or random
demographic effects. They also
considered habitat capacity to answer
questions about the carrying capacity
and whether or not the carrying capacity
can ensure the populations viability. In
assessing the risk of extinction using
trends, productivity, and variability,
Wainwright and Kope (1999) indicate
that short and long-term trends in
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25180
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
abundance are the primary indicators of
risk. Wainwright and Kope (1999) also
assessed the effects of genetic integrity
(introduced genotypes, interactions with
hatchery fish, or anthropogenic
selection) as it relates to evaluating the
risk of extinction. Loss of fitness and
loss of diversity can occur from random
genetic effects and increase the risk of
extinction for a species. Wainwright and
Kope (1999) also evaluated other risks
that are considered for salmonids
(disease, predation, and changes in life
history). These ‘‘other risks’’ can affect
the sustainability of a population. The
last factor that Wainwright and Kope
(1999) evaluated is the risks associated
with recent events. Changes in harvest
rates, anthropogenic changes in the
environment (habitat degradation or
enhancement), or natural events (floods,
volcanic eruptions) can pose a risk for
species but may not have been
adequately considered by looking at the
other effects above when there is a timelag in seeing the effect of recent events.
In addition to analyzing factors that
may affect the risk of extinction for
salmon, Wainwright and Kope (1999)
developed a general quantitative
evaluation method to assess both
qualitative and quantitative evidence for
the various risk factors. In this method,
four of the major categories of extinction
risk are scored. These four categories
are: (1) abundance, (2) trend,
productivity, and variability (TPV), (3)
genetic integrity, and (4) ‘‘other risks’’.
The risk categories are scored on a scale
from 1 to 5. A score of 1 represents a
very low risk and factors (single or
multiple factors) scored at this level are
unlikely to contribute significantly to
risk of extinction. A score of 2
represents a low risk and single factors
are unlikely to contribute to extinction
alone, but in combination with other
factors may be a concern. Scores of 3
represent moderate risk. These factors
contribute significantly to long-term risk
of extinction, but do not alone
constitute a danger of extinction in the
near future. Score values of 4 represent
increasing risk. This rating indicates the
present risk is low or moderate, but is
likely to increase to high risk in the
future (reflects the ESA definition of
threatened). Scores of 5 represent the
high risk rating. This factor indicates
danger of extinction in the near future.
Professional biologists at SERO used
Wainwright and Kope’s (1999) methods
to assess extinction risk for P. perotteti.
For the abundance category the
following were important
considerations. Small-population risks
for the species were considered to assess
the risk of extinction. As detailed above,
museum records, negative scientific
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 May 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
survey results in the U.S. and Lake
Nicaragua, and anecdotal reports from
fisher people suggest the trend for the
species is declining and population size
is small. This species is also a Kselected animal which indicates they
are usually successful at maintaining
relatively small, persistent population
sizes in relatively constant
environments. We expect changes from
random demographic effects are likely
to be significant for the species since
they are not able to respond rapidly to
stochastic events. Information on the
distribution of the species was also used
as an indicator of abundance. The
current distribution for the species is
significantly reduced from its historic
range. Thus, the existing population of
P. perotteti does not adequately
represent historic patterns of geographic
distribution and this is considered a risk
factor for the species. We could not
determine the habitat capacity for the
species since most of the habitat within
the species range is located in foreign
countries and we have poor data from
those areas. Based on small population
risks that could occur from demographic
effects and the severe range constriction
that has occurred, we assigned a rating
of 5 (high-risk) for the abundance factor.
For the TPV category we considered
that the data for the species indicates a
declining trend in abundance. A
directed fishery existed for the species
in Lake Nicaragua but no longer exists
today. Reports of the species in Lake
Nicaragua are rare. Lack of reports of the
species occurrence throughout most of
its range, including the U.S. and
southern Brazil, also indicates the
species abundance is declining.
Productivity rates are not known for the
species but are expected to be declining
(Shaffer 1981). Variations in freshwater
and marine environments within the
species range are difficult to assess.
Since reports of the species are rare
throughout its range, we expect
productivity is low.
Genetic integrity was not evaluated
because we do not have information on
the loss of fitness and loss of genetic
diversity for the species.
Our evaluation of the ‘‘other risk’’
factor considered information about the
species life history characteristics, in
particular that the species has slow
growth rates, late maturation, low
fecundity, and population recovery
potential is considered limited. Based
on this information, we scored the other
risk category as a 3.
Using Wainwright and Kope (1999)
methods to determine the risk of
extinction for P. perotteti, we believe
that abundance and distribution of P.
perotteti is likely to continue to decline
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in the near future. Therefore, we have
determined the current threats affecting
the species will continue into the future
and the species is currently in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Largetooth Sawfish
In this section, we consider the five
factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the
ESA that we outlined as step XX of our
listing determination process above.
The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of its
Habitat or Range
Coastal habitat loss throughout the
species’ historical range is a
contributing factor to the species
decline. Coastal habitats in the southern
U. S. Gulf of Mexico region have
experienced and continue to experience
losses due to urbanization. Wetland
losses in the Gulf of Mexico region of
the U.S. averages annual net losses of
60,000 acres (242.8 km2) of coastal and
freshwater habitats from 1998 to 2004
(Stedman et al., 2008). Although
wetland restoration activities are
ongoing in this region of the U.S., the
losses significantly outweigh the gains
(Stedman et al., 2008). These losses
have been attributed to commercial and
residential development, port
construction (dredging, blasting, and
filling activities), construction of water
control structures, modification to
freshwater inflows (Rio Grande River in
Texas), and gas and oil related activities.
Riverine systems throughout the
species’ historical range have been
altered or dammed. NOAA’s Restoration
Center is involved in ongoing coastal
restoration activities throughout the
Gulf of Mexico to restore coastal
habitats. In spite of ongoing efforts to
restore coastal habitats, coastal habitat
losses will continue to occur.
The status of habitats within the
current international range of the
species is not well known, but with
continued development and human
population growth, negative effects on
habitat are likely. Ruiz-Luna et al.
(2008) acknowledge that deforestation of
mangrove forests in Mexico has
occurred from logging practices,
construction of harbors, tourism, and
aquaculture activities. In addition to
deforestation, Ruiz-Luna et al. (2008)
document that changes in the
hydrological systems occurred with
opening of the artificial canal in
Cuautla, in the state of Nayarit. Valiela
et al. (2001) report the total area of
mangrove habitats in Brazil has
decreased significantly (from 9,653 to
5,174 mi2 (25,000 to 13,400 km2)) from
1983 to 1997, with similar trends in
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Guinnea-Bissau (1,838 to 959 mi2 (4760
to 2484 km2)) from 1953 to 1995.
Habitat modification, including
mangrove forest removal, is also likely
in northern Brazil (Compagno et al.,
2006). The areas with the most rapid
mangrove declines in the Americas
included Venezuela, Mexico, Panama,
the United States, and Brazil, while
Senegal, Gambia, Sierra Leone, and
Guinnea-Bissau showed the largest
declines in western Africa (Ruiz-Luna et
al. 2008). World-wide mangrove habitat
loss was estimated to be 35 percent from
1980 to 2000 (Valiela et al., 2001). There
are unconfirmed reports of dam
building activities on the Rio San Juan
(Nicaragua) system, which could affect
the movements of largetooth sawfish in
that region. These threats cannot be
directly related to the decline of the
largetooth sawfish, but habitat loss is a
known factor contributing to the decline
of many freshwater and marine species,
including the endangered U.S. distinct
population segment (DPS) of smalltooth
sawfish.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
Commercial Fisheries
Sawfishes are very vulnerable to most
fishing gears, and were historically
caught by gillnets, trawls, seines, and
lines (Compagno et al., 2006). Most
targeted catches of largetooth sawfish in
Texas in the 1930s were from
recreational hook and line, but they
were also caught incidentally by shrimp
trawls and seines (Burgess et al., 2009).
The Lake Nicaragua commercial fishery
for largetooth sawfish consisted mostly
of gillnet boats (Thorson, 1982a), and
the commercial small coastal shark
fishery in Brazil mainly utilizes gillnets
and some handlines (Charvet-Almeida,
2002). Today the main threat to the
largetooth sawfish is most likely from
bycatch mortality, though sawfishes
may be targeted opportunistically in
some areas (Brazil) when the occasion
arises. The current scarcity of sawfish
may inhibit targeted fisheries that might
occur in spite of international trade
bans. However, if caught as bycatch they
are most likely retained because of the
value of their parts (e.g., the rostra,
teeth, and fins). For example McDavitt’s
(2006) review of eBay sales of rostra is
estimate a total of 200 rostra per year are
sold, with a value of more than US
$25,000.
Recreational Fisheries
Historically, recreational hook and
line fishers targeted large
elasmobranchs, including sawfishes, as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 May 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
trophies in Texas (Burgess et al., 2009).
Elsewhere in the U.S., abundance was
likely never high enough for
recreational fishers to encounter this
species, much less target it. Because of
its current distribution, which is mostly
in developing nations, the largetooth
sawfish is unlikely to be encountered by
recreational fishers, with possible rare
exceptions of tourists in these areas.
There is no current information on the
use of sawfish species for subsistence
fishing, though it was noted in Brazil
that the meat was often sold in local fish
markets, while the other products
(rostra, fins) were sold internationally
(Charvet-Almeida, 2002).
Commercial Trade
There is very little information
available about the trade of sawfish
products in general, especially the
largetooth sawfish. Largetooth sawfish
were listed under Appendix I of the
Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES) in 2007, which prohibits
the commercial trade of largetooth
sawfish parts (see Regulatory
Mechanisms section below). In 2006,
eBay banned the sale of smalltooth
sawfish on their online auction site;
however, the ban was not established
for all sawfish species. A survey by
McDavitt and Charvet-Almeida (2004) of
sawfish rostra on eBay (before the ban)
found that large rostra command prices
of over $1,000 (US). An informal web
search in November 2009 turned up
several sawfish rostra for sale online to
international buyers, some listed as
‘‘largetooth’’, along with sites selling
cockfighting spurs made from South
American sawfish teeth. It is apparent
that largetooth and smalltooth sawfishes
are still landed and sold illegally in
northern Brazil (Charvet-Almeida pers.
comm., 2009). It was previously
observed that sawfish rostra from small
individuals were sold to tourists, while
damaged or cut rostra were used for
local folk medicine (McDavitt and
Charvet-Almeida, 2004). The larger
rostra were sold in international
cockfighting markets, as the rostral teeth
were used as spurs. The larger rostra
were also purchased by Asian shark fin
buyers, most likely for medicine or
curios. The proportion of largetooth
sawfish in these markets is unknown,
though as many as 180 large Pristis spp.
rostra were sold per year at a single
market in northern Brazil in the early
2000s (McDavitt and Charvet-Almeida,
2004). With little enforcement of
regional and international laws, the
practice of landing sawfishes may
continue in Brazil, though the extent of
any international trade since the CITES
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25181
listing is unknown. No confirmed
reports of P. perotteti in aquaria exist
currently. No seizures of largetooth
sawfish in international trade have
occurred since its CITES listing (Sharon
Lynn (USFWS) pers. comm.).
Scientific Use
The only published studies on life
history and movements of the largetooth
sawfish were conducted by Thorson in
the 1970s and 1980s in Costa Rica and
Nicaragua (Thorson, 1970; 1973; 1974;
1976a; 1976b; 1978; 1982a; 1982b; 1987;
Thorson et al., 1966a; 1966b). While
many live largetooth sawfish were
tagged by Thorson in this time period,
it seems that most of the biological data
were obtained from dead specimens that
were purchased from commercial
fishers. Most areas where the largetooth
sawfish now occurs suffer from lack of
biological sampling due to logistical
difficulties and most likely low funding
of research. However, there is some
scientific information being collected by
researchers in Brazil, mostly from fish
markets, where sawfishes are illegally
landed and sold.
Disease and Predation
No commercial or scientific data
exists on diseases that may affect the
largetooth sawfish and all information
related to predation is listed above in
the Largetooth Sawfish Natural History
section. There is no evidence that
unusual levels of disease or predation
are a threat to the species.
The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms
Protective measures covering trade in
the largetooth sawfish (Pristis perotteti)
are implemented internationally under
Appendix I of CITES, making nondomestic trade of parts illegal.
Additional Federal, state, and national
laws in the United States, Nicaragua,
and Brazil are designed to limit the
harvest and sale of largetooth sawfish
locally and internationally. The
Nicaraguan government officially
banned commercial fishing for
largetooth sawfish in Lake Nicaragua in
2006. The Brazilian Environment
Ministry listed P. perotteti in Appendix
I of the ‘‘Instrucao Normativa numero
05,’’ meaning that the species is
considered endangered and therefore
cannot be landed or sold. Enforcement
of these regulations in Brazil and
Nicaragua is difficult due to the length
of the coastline, extensive internal
waterways, lack of enforcement
personnel, and the need for more
efficient tools. Sawfish abundance
within other parts of their current range
is depleted so targeted fisheries are
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
25182
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
unlikely; however, those caught as
bycatch are probably kept due to their
value. Thus, illegal foreign trade of
sawfish parts may be ongoing in
Nicaragua and Brazil and elsewhere in
spite of the CITES listing and national
laws due to lack of enforcement and the
high value of sawfish parts.
The status of largetooth sawfish
protection in western Africa is mostly
unknown, though Guinnea-Bissau has
created six official Protected Areas,
which were established in 2005 (UNEP,
2008). Among these areas are several
island chains and deltas with intertidal
muddy sand banks and mangroves,
which are ideal sawfish habitat.
Nevertheless, existing regulations in this
part of the world may be inadequate to
protect and restore populations of
largetooth sawfish.
Though not currently found in U.S.
waters, existing regulations and
measures put in place to protect the
smalltooth sawfish could also benefit
the largetooth sawfish, should it return
into the northern most extent of its
historical range in North America. The
U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish (Pristis
pectinata) was listed as endangered on
April 1, 2003. Both the smalltooth and
largetooth sawfish are susceptible to
similar threats (e.g., bycatch in various
fisheries and habitat loss) so protections
for the smalltooth sawfish will benefit
the largetooth sawfish. In response to
the listing of the U.S. DPS of smalltooth
sawfish, Texas implemented a ban on
harvest of largetooth sawfish because of
the possibility of misidentification. The
trading of any largetooth sawfish parts
is banned by state laws in both Florida
and Louisiana. Additionally, Florida
and Texas do not allow gillnet fishing
in state waters less than 9 miles (14.5
km) from shore, and Alabama restricts
gillnet fishing within less than 3.5 miles
(5.6 km) from shore.
In summary, the high value of sawfish
parts, weak enforcement, and lack of
adequate protections for largetooth
sawfish habitat mean that existing
regulations are inadequate to protect the
species from further declines.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting its Continued Existence
Largetooth sawfish have slow growth
rates, late maturity, a long life span, and
low fecundity rates. The largetooth
sawfish is a more k-selected type
species, with an intrinsic rate of
population increase below 1.0
(Simpfendorfer, 2000). K-selected
animals are usually successful at
maintaining relatively small, persistent
population sizes in relatively constant
environments. Conversely, they are not
able to respond rapidly to additional
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 May 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
sources of mortality, such as
overexploitation and habitat
degradation. Because of this, the risk of
extinction remains high without
effective conservation plans put into
place.
Red tide may also be a human
amplified factor that could affect the
species. Red tide is caused by an
increase of toxic, naturally occurring
microscopic blooms of plankton and is
a coastal phenomenon which is caused
by environmental conditions. Factors
that are especially favorable include
warm surface temperatures, high
nutrient content, low salinity, and calm
seas. Rain followed by sunny weather in
the summer months is often associated
with red tide blooms. We do not have
specific information on red tide effects
to largetooth sawfish but we do have a
report of a smalltooth sawfish that was
found dead along the west coast of
Florida during a red tide event (National
Sawfish Encounter Database, 2009).
Summary of Findings
After considering the 5 factors above
from Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA we
determined that the species continues to
be in danger of extinction throughout all
of its range.
Protective Efforts
As a requirement of the ESA, current
or future conservation efforts that have
yet to be implemented or to show
effectiveness to protect and recover
largetooth sawfish must be evaluated
under the PECE Policy (see above). This
policy is designed to determine whether
any conservation efforts that have been
recently adopted or implemented or
proposed, but not yet proven to be
successful, will result in recovering the
species to the point at which listing is
not warranted or contribute to forming
a basis for listing a species as threatened
rather than endangered (68 FR 15101;
March 28, 2003). The PECE policy
established two basic criteria to be met
before an action could be considered to
help improve the conservation status of
a species: (1) the certainty that the
conservation efforts will be
implemented, and (2) the certainty that
the efforts will be effective.
Ongoing conservation efforts for the
smalltooth sawfish may benefit the
conservation of the largetooth sawfish if
it returns to U.S. waters. The Smalltooth
Sawfish Recovery Plan was finalized in
2009. The Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery
Plan lays out specific guidelines for
federal and state agencies to follow.
Among the recovery plan’s objectives
are to minimize harm caused by human
interactions and to protect and restore
habitats. Since both species are
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
susceptible to similar threats,
implementation of the Smalltooth
Sawfish Recovery Plan will provide
conservation benefits for the largetooth
sawfish if it returns to U.S. waters.
Additionally, in 2010, NOAA will fund
coastal restoration activities in Texas
and Louisiana using appropriations
from The American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, which restore
habitats used by sawfish. Both of these
projects meet the criteria of the PECE for
certainty of implementation and
effectiveness. However, we have
determined that these conservation
efforts will not alter the extinction risk
of the species.
Proposed Determination
NMFS is responsible for determining
whether the largetooth sawfish (Pristis
perotteti) is threatened or endangered
under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
Accordingly, we have followed a
stepwise approach as outlined above in
making this listing determination for the
largetooth sawfish. We determined that
P. perotteti is a valid species with a
range in the eastern and western
Atlantic Ocean. We then reviewed the
status of the species and the threats to
its status using the five-factor analysis
described above. Next, we assessed
efforts being made to protect the
species, determining if these efforts are
adequate to mitigate existing threats.
In summary, the largetooth sawfish (P.
perotteti) faces ongoing threats from
habitat alteration, bycatch, trade, and
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms to address and reduce
habitat alterations, bycatch, and trade.
The species range has constricted so
that it has not been seen in the U.S.
since 1961. A similar range constriction
is apparent at the southern extreme of
the species’ historical range. The species
has not been reported from southern
Brazil for almost at century. All of the
threats attributed to the species decline
are ongoing, except for the directed
largetooth sawfish fishery in Lake
Nicaragua. The Lake Nicaraguan fishery
collapsed presumably when the sawfish
population collapsed. These ongoing
threats exist throughout the species
current range (Central and South
America and West Africa) and existing
regulatory mechanisms in place are
insufficient to protect the species from
further decline. No current or proposed
conservation activities will be enough to
sufficiently improve the species status.
Based on our review, therefore, we find
that the species is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range
and should be listed as endangered.
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Effects of Listing
Conservation measures provided for
species listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA include
recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)),
Federal agency consultation
requirements (16 U.S.C. 1536), and
critical habitat designations, and
prohibitions on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538).
Recognition of the species’ plight
through listing promotes conservation
actions by Federal and state agencies,
foreign entities, private groups, and
individuals. Should the proposed listing
be made final, a recovery plan may be
developed, unless such plan would not
promote the conservation of the species.
Identifying Section 7 Consultation
Requirements
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires
Federal agencies to consult with NMFS
to ensure that activities authorized,
funded, or carried out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species or destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat. We anticipate
few section 7 consultation requirements
for Federal agencies given the species
current distribution and abundance.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1) the
specific areas within the geographical
area occupied by a species, at the time
it is listed in accordance with the ESA,
on which are found those physical or
biological features (a) essential to the
conservation of the species and (b) that
may require special management
considerations or protection; and (2)
specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by a species at the time
it is listed upon a determination that
such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species.
‘‘Conservation’’ means the use of all
methods and procedures needed to
bring the species to the point at which
listing under the ESA is no longer
necessary. Regulations require that we
shall designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area presently
occupied by a species only when a
designation limited to its present range
would be inadequate to ensure the
conservation of the species (50 CFR
424.12 (e)).
Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to
the extent prudent and determinable,
critical habitat be designated
concurrently with the listing of a
species. Critical habitat shall not be
designated in foreign countries or other
areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR
424.12 (h)).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:55 May 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
The best available scientific and
commercial data as discussed above
identify the geographical area occupied
by P. perotteti as Central and South
America and West Africa. Since these
areas are entirely outside U.S.
jurisdiction, NMFS cannot designate
critical habitat in the geographical area
occupied by the species. NMFS can
designate critical habitat in unoccupied
areas if the area(s) are determined by the
Secretary to be essential for the
conservation of the species. Regulations
at 50 CFR 424.12 (e) specify that we
shall designate as critical habitat areas
outside the geographical range presently
occupied by the species only when the
designation limited to its present range
would be inadequate to ensure the
conservation of the species.
The best available scientific and
commercial information on the species
does not indicate that U.S. waters
provided any specific essential
biological function other than general
foraging opportunities for the species.
All records of P. perotteti were larger
animals (adults). No records of juveniles
are documented in U.S. waters, which
suggest the species was not using the
area as a nursery. The majority of the
reports of the species in U.S. waters
suggest they were in the U.S. during the
summer months when water
temperatures were warmer. No reports
of the species in U.S. waters suggest
breeding aggregations were present.
Based on the best available information
we have not identified unoccupied
area(s) that are currently essential to the
conservation of the species. Therefore,
no critical habitat designation is
currently being proposed.
Take Prohibitions
Because we are proposing to list this
species as endangered all of the take
prohibitions of Section 9(a)(10) of the
ESA of the act will apply. These include
prohibitions against the import, export,
use in foreign commerce, or ‘‘take’’ of the
species. Take is defined as ‘‘to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to
engage in any such conduct.’’ These
prohibitions apply to all persons subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States,
including in the U.S. or on the high
seas.
Service Policies on Endangered and
Threatened Fish and Wildlife
On July 1, 1994, NMFS and USFWS
published a series of policies regarding
listings under the ESA, including a
policy for peer review of scientific data
(59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994), the Office
of Management and Budget (2004)
Bulletin on Peer Review, and a policy to
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25183
identify, to the maximum extent
possible, those activities that would or
would not constitute a violation of
section 9 of the ESA (59 FR 34272; July
1, 1994).
Role of Peer Review
The intent of the peer review policy
is to ensure that listings are based on the
best scientific and commercial data
available. Prior to a final listing, NMFS
formally solicits expert opinions and
analyses on one or more specific
questions or assumptions. This
solicitation process may take place
during a public comment period on any
proposed rule or draft recovery plan,
during the status review of a species
under active consideration for listing, or
at any other time deemed necessary to
clarify a scientific question. The status
review was peer reviewed by two
elasmobranch experts in the field and
an elasmobranch trade expert, with their
substantive comments incorporated in
the final status review.
Identification of Those Activities That
Would Constitute a Violation of Section
9 of the ESA
The intent of this policy is to increase
public awareness of the effect of this
listing on proposed and ongoing
activities within the species’ range.
NMFS will identify, to the extent known
at the time of the final rule, specific
activities that will not be considered
likely to result in violation of section 9,
as well as activities that will be
considered likely to result in violation.
Activities that NMFS believes could
result in violation of section 9
prohibitions against ’’take’’ of the
largetooth sawfish include, but are not
limited to, the following: (1)
importation, (2) exportation, (3) take, (4)
sale, and (5) delivery that directly or
indirectly affect endangered species,
and (6) take any such species on the
high seas. These prohibitions apply to
all individuals, organizations, and
agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
References
A complete list of the references used
in this proposed rule is available upon
request (see ADDRESSES).
Classification
National Environmental Policy Act
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in
section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the
information that may be considered
when assessing species for listing. Based
on this limitation of criteria for a listing
decision and the opinion in Pacific
Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d
825 (6th Cir. 1981), NMFS has
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
25184
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
concluded that ESA listing actions are
not subject to the environmental
assessment requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (See
NOAA Administrative Order 216–6).
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Flexibility Act and Paperwork
Reduction Act
As noted in the Conference Report on
the 1982 amendments to the ESA,
economic impacts cannot be considered
when assessing the status of a species.
Therefore, the economic analysis
requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act are not applicable to the
listing process. In addition, this
proposed rule is exempt from review
under Executive Order 12866. This
proposed rule does not contain a
collection-of-information requirement
for the purposes of the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
In keeping with the intent of the
Administration and Congress to provide
continuing and meaningful dialogue on
issues of mutual state and Federal
interest, this proposed rule will be given
to the relevant governmental agencies in
each state in which the subject species
historically occurred, and these agencies
will be invited to comment.
International Relations
NMFS has conferred with the U.S.
Department of State to ensure
appropriate notice is given to foreign
nations within the range of the species.
As the process continues, NMFS intends
to continue engaging in informal and
formal contacts with the U.S. State
Department, giving careful
consideration to all written and oral
comments received.
Public Comments Solicited
NMFS intends that any final action
resulting from this proposal will be as
accurate as possible and informed by
the best available scientific and
commercial information. Therefore,
NMFS request comments or information
from the public, other concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested party concerning this
proposed rule. NMFS particularly seek
comments containing:
(1) Information concerning the
location(s) of any sightings or captures
of the species; and
(2) Information concerning the threats
to the species; and
(3) Taxonomic information on the
species; and
(4) Efforts being made to protect the
species throughout its current range.
Public hearing requests must be
requested by June 21, 2010.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224
Administrative practice and
procedure, Endangered and threatened
species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
record keeping requirements,
Transportation.
Dated: April 30, 2010.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 224 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE
AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
1. The authority citation for part 224
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
2. In § 224.101, the table in paragraph
(a) is amended by adding an entry for
‘‘Largetooth Sawfish’’ at the end of the
table to read as follows:
§ 224.101 Enumeration of endangered
marine and threatened anadromous
species.
*
*
*
(a)* * *
*
*
Species
Scientific
name
*
Largetooth Sawfish
*
*
*
Where Listed
*
Pristis perotteti
Common name
*
Everywhere
*
*
Citation(s) for listing determination(s)
*
*
[Insert FEDERAL REGISTER
citation and date when
published as a final rule]
*
*
[FR Doc. 2010–10874 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am]
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:55 May 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
Citation(s) for critical habitat
designation(s)
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
*
NA
*
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 88 (Friday, May 7, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25174-25184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10874]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 224
Docket No [0906221082-0122-02]
RIN 0648-XQ03
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Listing
for the Largetooth Sawfish
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding; request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have determined that the largetooth sawfish
(Pristis perotteti) qualifies as a ``species'' for listing as
endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and
propose listing the species as endangered. This proposed rule also
constitutes the 12-month finding on the petition to list the largetooth
sawfish throughout its range and designate critical habitat for the
species. We are not proposing to designate critical habitat. This
proposed rule to list the species as endangered is based on the status
review of the species (NMFS, 2010), and the best available scientific
and commercial data. We also solicit information that may be relevant
to the status and conservation of the species.
[[Page 25175]]
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by July 6, 2010.
Public hearing requests must be requested by June 21, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the RIN 0648-XQ03, by
any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http//www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail or hand-delivery: Assistant Regional Administrator
for Protected Resources, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th
Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5505.
Facsimile (fax): 727 824 5309.
Instructions: No comments will be posted for public viewing until
after the comment period. All comments received are considered part of
the public record and will generally be posted to https://www.regulations.gov. All Personal Identifying Information (i.e., name,
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information. We will accept anonymous comments (enter ``n/a''
in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Please provide
electronic attachments using Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or
Adobe PDF file formats only. The proposed rule, the list of references,
and the status review are also available electronically on the NMFS
website at https://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/Largetoothsawfish.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shelley Norton, NMFS, Southeast
Regional Office (727) 824-5312 or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources (301) 713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NMFS identified the largetooth sawfish (Pristis perotteti) as a
candidate species in 1991 (56 FR 26797). It was removed from the list
on July 14, 1997 (62 FR 37560), but was subsequently added to the
revised list on June 23, 1999 (64 FR 33466).
On November 30, 1999, the Center for Marine Conservation (currently
called Ocean Conservancy) petitioned us to list North American
populations of largetooth and smalltooth sawfish as endangered under
the ESA. The largetooth sawfish underwent a formal status review;
however, we determined that the petitioner did not present substantial
evidence that the petitioned action may be warranted for the largetooth
sawfish (56 FR 12959; March 10, 2000). Specifically, there was no
evidence that a North American population of largetooth sawfish
existed. The largetooth sawfish was, however, maintained on the
candidate species list and later transferred to the new Species of
Concern list on April 15, 2004 (69 FR 19975).
On April 21, 2009, WildEarth Guardians petitioned the Secretary of
Commerce to list the largetooth sawfish (Pristis perotteti) as
endangered or threatened throughout its range and to designate critical
habitat for this species. The petitioners also requested that we
reconsider our previous March 10, 2000, negative finding on listing the
North American population.
On July 29, 2009, we published a positive 90-day finding (74 FR
37671) announcing that the petition presented substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating the petitioned action of listing the
species may be warranted. We announced the initiation of a status
review of the species and requested information to inform the agency's
decision on whether to propose the species for ESA listing. Our
Southeast Regional Office (SERO) issued two contracts in 2009 to the
Florida Museum of Natural History to compile all confirmed records of
largetooth sawfish in the U.S. and internationally. The status review
(NMFS, 2010) was conducted by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center
(SEFSC) and SERO staff. The status review is available electronically
at https://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/Largetoothsawfish.htm.
Listing Determinations Under the Endangered Species Act
We are responsible for determining whether the largetooth sawfish
(Pristis perotteti) 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. We have followed a
stepwise approach in making this listing determination for the
largetooth sawfish (Pristis perotteti). As the first of five steps, we
determined if the largetooth sawfish is a ``species'' under the ESA. 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 plus ``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.''
Next we completed an extinction risk assessment to determine the
status of the species, in particular whether it qualified for
threatened or endangered status. 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.'' For our extinction risk analysis we follow the general
procedure of Wainwright and Cope (1999).
In the third step, we assessed the threats affecting the species
status. We did this by following the guidance in the ESA that requires
us to 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 (section 4(a)(1)(A) through (E)).
After analyzing the threats affecting the species, we re-evaluated the
extinction status for the species to see if the status changed after
the assessment of the five factors.
The fourth step involves an assessment of the efforts being made to
protect the species to determine if these efforts are adequate to
mitigate existing threats. We evaluated all conservation efforts using
the criteria outlined in the joint NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) Policy for Evaluating Conservation Efforts When Making
Listing Decisions (PECE policy; 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003) to
determine their certainties of implementation and effectiveness. In the
final step, we reassessed the preliminary extinction risk assessment
conclusion from above to determine if the status of the species had
changed based on the PECE analysis.
To evaluate the petitioner's request that NMFS designate critical
habitat for the species, we followed the provisions in the ESA and in
our implementing regulations (50 CFR 424). Of particular relevance in
this case are provisions that NMFS cannot designate critical habitat in
``foreign countries'' or areas outside of U.S. jurisdiction and that
NMFS shall not designate as critical habitat areas outside of the
geographical area presently occupied by a species, unless
[[Page 25176]]
``a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to
ensure the conservation of the species'' (50 CFR 424.12).
Largetooth Sawfish Natural History
Taxonomy
All sawfishes belong to two Genera (Pristis and Anoxypristis) in
the Family Pristidae of the Order Pristiformes, and are classified as
rays (Superorder Batoidea). Sawfishes are distinguished from other rays
by the long snout (rostrum) with teeth on either side. Using molecular
phylogeny (mitochondrial and nuclear gene analysis) paired with
morphological characters, Faria (2007) distinguished seven extant
species in the Pristidae. Sawfishes are classified into three
morphological groups based on rostrum characteristics: largetooth,
smalltooth, and knifetooth (Garman, 1913). Three species are currently
classified in the largetooth ``group,'' namely P. perotteti, P.
microdon, and P. pristis, though difficulties associated with taxonomic
identification are known (Faria, 2007; Wiley et al., 2008, Wueringer et
al., 2009).
Pristis perotteti has been referred to by other names throughout
its range. For instance, it has been called P. antiquorum (as cited in
Bigelow and Schroeder 1953), P. zephyreus (Beebe and Tee-Van, 1941), P.
pristis (McEachran and Fechhelm, 1998), or P. microdon (Garman, 1913;
Fowler, 1941; Chirichigno and Cornejo, 2001; Vakily et al., 2002). Some
authors consider the eastern Pacific populations to be part of the
species P. microdon (Garman, 1913; Fowler, 1941; Chirichigno and
Cornejo, 2001), while others consider the eastern Pacific populations
to be P. perotteti (Jordan and Evermann, 1896; refs. in Beebe and Tee-
Van, 1941; Compagno and Cook, 1995; Camhi et al., 1998; Cook et al.,
2005). The species are generally classified based upon location (i.e.,
P. perotteti occurs in the Atlantic, while P. microdon is in the Indo-
Pacific), and there is some evidence that tooth counts may differ
(Wueringer et al., 2009). The conserved morphology of sawfishes makes
identification difficult in some cases; most species are distinguished
by the number of teeth on, and size of, the rostrum, placement of the
first dorsal fin in relation to the pectoral fins, and shape of the
lower lobe of the caudal fin. However, Faria (2007), used both
mitochondrial and nuclear genes to investigate the population structure
for all Pristidae species. The results from his study indicate that the
``largetooth'' species P. microdon and P. perotteti are separate
species, and that P. microdon occurs in the Pacific, based on their
mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid sequencing data and differences in
external morphology (e.g., rostrum length and horizontal length of the
eye). Based on the available taxonomic information on P. perotteti, we
have determined the species' range is the eastern and western Atlantic
Ocean.
The rostral tooth count per side for P. perotteti ranges from 14 to
22, and the space between the two most posterior teeth is between 4.5
and 8.5 percent of rostrum standard length (Faria, 2007). The origin of
the first dorsal fin is forward of the pelvic fin origin, and the lower
lobe of the caudal fin is distinct at all maturity stages. The largest
known specimen was a 275.6 in (700 cm) total length (TL) female
captured in northern Brazilian waters (Almeida, 1999). The only other
sawfish species that overlaps in range with P. perotteti is the
smalltooth sawfish, P. pectinata. These species are differentiated by
the number of teeth on the rostrum (24 to 32 for P. pectinata, 22 to 29
for P. perotteti (Wiley et al., 2008)), and the rostrum length of P.
pectinata is shorter in relation to its body length.
Habitat Use and Migration
Largetooth sawfish are generally restricted to shallow (< 33 ft (10
m)) coastal, estuarine, and fresh waters, although they have been found
at depths of up to 400 ft (122 m) in Lake Nicaragua. Largetooth sawfish
are often found in brackish water near river mouths and large bays,
preferring partially enclosed waters, lying in deeper holes and on
bottoms of mud or muddy sand (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). This
species, like the smalltooth sawfish, is highly mangrove-associated
(Burgess et al., 2009). While it is thought that they spend most of
their time on the bottom, they are commonly observed swimming near the
surface in the wild and in aquaria (Cook et al., 2005). Largetooth
sawfish move across salinity gradients freely and appear to have more
physiological tolerance of freshwater than smalltooth sawfish (Bigelow
and Schroeder, 1953; Dahl, 1971; Thorson, 1974; 1976a; all as cited in
Thorson, 1982a).
Though their habitats once overlapped in the northern Gulf of
Mexico, the largetooth sawfish historically had a more southerly range
than the smalltooth sawfish, with what appears to be a more narrow
seasonal migration pattern. Mature largetooth sawfish seasonally
ventured into waters as far north as U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
Age and Growth
There have been no formal studies examining the age and growth of
the largetooth sawfish, though Thorson's (1982a) study of the Lake
Nicaragua population estimated size at birth to be 30 in (75 cm) and an
early juvenile growth rate of 13.8 to 15.7 in (35 to 40 cm)/year.
Thorson (1982a) also estimated age of maturity to be 10 years and size
at maturity 118 in (300 cm). Preliminary vertebral growth ring analysis
has extrapolated largetooth sawfish (P. microdon) lifespan to an
estimated maximum age of 51 years (Peverell, 2006), and we determined
this to be our best available estimate of largetooth sawfish lifespan.
Reproductive Biology
The reproductive method of sawfishes is most likely lecithotrophic
viviparity; ova are internally fertilized, developing embryos receive
nourishment from an external yolk sac, and the pups are born live after
the yolk sac is absorbed. The only known reproductive study of
largetooth sawfish was from Lake Nicaragua in the 1970s (Thorson,
1976a). This study found that litter size ranged from one to 13 pups,
with an average of 7.3 pups per cycle. The gestation period was
approximately five months, with a biennial reproductive cycle. After a
five-month gestation period, young are born between October and
December (Oetinger, 1978). Thorson (1976a) also found that both ovaries
appeared to be functional, though the left seemed to be larger and
carry more ova. Parturition occurred in October and November and size
at birth was between 28.7 and 31.5 in (73 and 80 cm) TL. Thorson
(1976a) reported that the smallest gravid female was 120 in (305 cm)
TL, and based on this and other observations, reported the size at
maturity is estimated to be around 118 in (300 cm) TL. The life history
of largetooth sawfish, like most elasmobranchs, is characterized by
slow growth, late maturity, and low fecundity, which generally
contributes to a low intrinsic rate of increase.
Simpfendorfer (2000) estimated that largetooth sawfish in Lake
Nicaragua had an intrinsic rate of increase (r) of 0.05 to 0.07 per
year, with a population doubling time (tx2) of 10.3 to 13.6 years.
Intrinsic rates of increase below 0.1 are considered low, making
species particularly vulnerable to population decline (Musick et al.,
2000). The results indicated that if effective conservation measures
are put in place for the species and its habitats, recovery to levels
with little risk of extinction will take a few decades. Since Thorson
[[Page 25177]]
(1973) hypothesized that many Lake Nicaraguan sawfish may live their
whole lives in the lake and Faria (2007) reported that the Lake
Nicaraguan sawfish may be a separate stock, the life history parameters
estimated by Simpfendorfer (2000) may be unique to that subpopulation
or stock.
Diet and Feeding
No published information is available that quantitatively describes
the diet of largetooth sawfish. Bigelow and Schroeder (1953) reported
that, in general, sawfish subsist on the most abundant small schooling
fishes in the area, such as mullets and small clupeids. There is also
some evidence of largetooth sawfish feeding on crustaceans and other
small benthic organisms (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). In these cases,
the rostrum may be used to stir up the bottom sediments to locate prey,
and in the case of fish predation, the rostrum may be used to stun or
wound the fish in a slashing movement (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953).
Predation
While there is potential for competition between P. perotteti and
P. pectinata due to their overlap in range and habitat types, there is
no data to support this and differences in patterns of habitat use and
salinity tolerance may adequately partition the niches of these
species. Thorson (1970) speculated that the Lake Nicaragua population
may have also competed with the bull shark, Carcharhinus leucas, as
both were quite prevalent (Thorson, 1970); however, both species have
since declined to the point of near extirpation. A Pristis sp. has been
documented within the stomach of a bottlenose dolphin near Bermuda
(Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953), in the stomach of a bull shark (C.
leucas) in Australia (Thorburn et al., 2004), and a juvenile smalltooth
sawfish was captured with fresh bite marks from what appears to be a
bull shark (Tonya Wiley, pers. comm., 2009). The International Union
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List for the largetooth sawfish
also states that crocodiles prey on the species (Charvet-Almeida et
al., 2007.
Distribution and Abundance
Historically, P. perotteti are thought to inhabit warm temperate to
tropical marine waters in the eastern and western Atlantic and
Caribbean. In the western Atlantic, P. perotteti occurred from the
Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico south through Brazil, and in the United
States, largetooth sawfish were reported in the Gulf of Mexico, mainly
along the Texas coast and east into Florida waters (Burgess and Curtis,
2003; Burgess et al., 2009). Burgess et al. (2009) also state that,
based on the evidence, the species rarely occurred in Florida waters
and that nearly all records of largetooth sawfish encountered in U.S.
waters were limited to the Texas coast. In the eastern Atlantic, P.
perotteti historically occurred from Spain through Angola.
Currently, P. perotteti are thought to primarily occur in
freshwater habitats in Central (includes Mexico) and South America and
West Africa. In Atlantic drainages, largetooth sawfish have been found
in freshwater at least 833 miles (1,340 km) from the ocean in the
Amazon River system (Manacapuru, Brazil), as well as in Lake Nicaragua
and the San Juan River; the Rio Coco, on the border of Nicaragua and
Honduras; Rio Patuca, Honduras; Lago de Izabal, Rio Motagua, and Rio
Dulce, Guatemala; the Belize River, Belize; Mexican streams that flow
into the Gulf of Mexico; Las Lagunas Del Tortuguero, Rio Parismina, Rio
Pacuare, and Rio Matina, Costa Rica; Rio San Juan and the Magdalena
River, Colombia; the Falm River in Mali and Senegal; the Saloum River,
Senegal; coastal rivers in Gambia; and the Geba River, Guinea-Bissau
(Thorson, 1974; 1982b; Castro-Aguirre, 1978 as cited in Thorson, 1982b;
Compagno and Cook, 1995; C. Scharpf and M. McDavitt, pers. comm., as
cited in Cook et al., 2005).
The United States
Although the first confirmed record of a U.S. largetooth sawfish
was from ``the Gulf of Mexico'' in 1878 (Burgess et al., 2009), they
were likely present prior to this time period. Sawfish encounters were
reported in the entire Gulf of Mexico in the early popular literature
of the late 1800s but the similarities between the smalltooth and
largetooth sawfishes limited the ability of non-specialists to
discriminate between the two species. Because of this, there are no
conclusive data available for largetooth sawfish abundance before
fishing and other anthropogenic pressures began to affect their
distribution. Recreational fishers in Texas began targeting prize
fishes, including large elasmobranchs such as sawfishes, in the 1930s.
Photographs taken of these catches were favored in the print media,
allowing Burgess et al. (2009) to identify 33 largetooth sawfish in
Texas.
Though reported in the United States, it appears that P. perotteti
was never abundant, with approximately 39 confirmed records (33 in
Texas) from 1910 through 1961, and no confirmed sightings in the years
since (Burgess et al., 2009). A 1963 newspaper article reporting a
shrimp trawler off the coast of Texas taking a ``broadbill sawfish''
may refer to a largetooth sawfish (Burgess et al., 2009). One specimen
was reported between 1916 and 1919 in Louisiana. The capture location
and identification as a largetooth sawfish species ``presumably from
Alabama'' was catalogued at the University of Alabama but could not be
verified (Burgess et al., 2009). Four individuals from Florida were
noted between 1910 and 1960 (Burgess et al., 2009). Two of the reports
in Florida were identified by elasmobranch researcher Stewart Springer
by rostral tooth counts: one from Key West (1941) and another from Port
Salerno (Baughman, 1943; Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Port Salerno is
on the east coast of Florida, making this capture the only reported
largetooth sawfish outside of the Gulf of Mexico in the U.S. Another
specimen from south Florida was collected by the American Museum of
Natural History in 1910. The final record for P. perotteti in Florida
was recorded in the Springer and Woodburn (1960) study of Tampa Bay
fishes. The dried specimen was on display at the Sea-Orama in the city
of Clearwater Beach, but the identification was not verified, and the
size of the specimen (Burgess et al., 2009) was much smaller than any
other individual captured in U.S. waters. With this exception, all
largetooth sawfish captured in the U.S. were 14 feet (4.3 m) in length
or larger.
In Texas, largetooth sawfish were primarily found in three regions:
Padre Island-Laguna Madre, Corpus Christi-Port Aransas, and Galveston-
Freeport (Burgess et al., 2009). Most were caught from 1929 through
1957, though some records may have been duplicated (Baughman, 1943).
Ten largetooth sawfish were encountered in the Corpus Christi-Port
Aransas region, from 1917 to 1961, though again duplication of records
is possible. The highest number of records is from the northeast Texas
coast (Galveston) and the lowest number from near the Texas-Mexico
border (Padre Island), corresponding to the historical freshwater
inflow patterns of the region (Longley, 1994). That is, sighting
frequency is positively correlated with higher freshwater flow
discharge. While it is likely that the freshwater affinity of this
species, especially in comparison to the smalltooth sawfish, attracted
the largetooth sawfish to these high outflow areas, these numbers may
also be an artifact of higher fishing effort or likelihood of reporting
in that area.
Burgess et al. (2009) report captures of largetooth sawfish in
Texas were primarily in shallow inshore waters and
[[Page 25178]]
the majority (65 percent) of those captures noted were taken from
fisheries using rod and reel gears. Additionally, shrimp nets (reported
as shrimp seines, shrimp net, and shrimp trawls) are the gear type
associated with approximately 25 percent of all captures. Where size
data could be determined, all largetooth sawfish caught in Texas were
greater than 16 ft (4.88 m) TL. Burgess et al. (2009) report all
largetooth sawfish found in U.S. waters were large (>14 ft (4.3 m)) and
were primarily encountered during periods of warm water (May through
October), suggesting that adults of this species mainly utilized Texas
waters in the summer (but data on month of capture only exist for 10
records).
The last confirmed record of P. perotteti in U.S. waters was from
Port Aransas, Texas on June 24, 1961. The last records for other Gulf
of Mexico states include Florida in 1941 and Louisiana in 1917. No
records of largetooth sawfish were found from Mississippi, and, as
stated previously, the one Alabama specimen could not be verified.
The Caribbean, Central America, and Northern South America
Only 33 confirmed records of P. perotteti exist for this region
outside of Costa Rica and Nicaragua (Burgess et al., 2009). The lack of
data likely stems from several factors, including confusion or
ambiguity of identification with smalltooth sawfish and the lack of
scientific surveys and popular reports during the time of highest
abundance. In total, 5 largetooth sawfish records were from Mexico, 5
from Guatemala, 1 from Honduras, 483 from Nicaragua, 37 from Costa
Rica, 7 from Colombia, 6 from Venezuela, 1 from Guyana, 5 from
Suriname, 1 from French Guiana, and 1 from Trinidad. Length data were
not available for most of these specimens.
Of the known Mexican largetooth sawfish, four were from the
southwestern Gulf of Mexico (Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Tabasco, and
Campeche), while one was captured at the northeastern tip of the
Yucatan Peninsula (Quintana Roo). The mature (17.7 ft (5.4 m in total
length), 1764 lbs (800 kg)) Yucatan individual was captured in 1997,
which is the northern-most record in recent history. It appears that
the last records in the Mexican Gulf of Mexico were prior to 1978, and
Caribbean records are very sparse.
No encounters could be substantiated in Belize (Burgess et al.,
2009). All five Guatemalan largetooth sawfish were from a survey of
Lake Izabal between 1946 and 1947, and sawfishes were reported to be
important inland fishes (Saunders et al., 1950). Though reported by
Thorson et al. (1966a; 1966b) to be common throughout the area, a claim
which was mirrored by local fishers at the time, there are no recent
reports of encounters with sawfishes in Guatemala. The lone largetooth
sawfish reported from Honduras was acquired from that country, but the
true origin of the rostrum and the date of capture could not be
confirmed.
The vast majority of P. perotteti records from Costa Rica (34 of
37) and Nicaragua (397 of 483) stem from Thorson's (1982a; 1982b) years
of work on the Lake Nicaragua-Rio San Juan system. The San Juan River
originates at Lake Nicaragua and runs along the Nicaragua-Costa Rica
border until it reaches the Caribbean slightly south of the Nicaraguan
border; therefore, movement between the countries was likely. Sawfish
were noted in Nicaragua as early as 1529 by a Spanish chronicler (Gill
and Bransford, 1877). This species was also reported in Nicaragua by
Meek (1907), Regan (1908), Marden (1944), Bigelow and Schroeder (1953),
Hagberg (1968), and Baez (1980a; 1980b). A commercial fishery for the
largetooth sawfish that began in earnest around 1970 quickly decimated
the Lake Nicaragua population (Thorson, 1982a). Low-level sustenance
fishing for this species was common before this time, but the
Nicaraguan government helped to establish a processing plant in 1970,
which processed and sold the meat, fins, and rostra in an efficient
manner. In the 1970s, an American supermarket chain (A&P) produced
advertisements in their Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois chains which
included ``Fish Features'' listing ``Sierra Steaks'' using the Spanish
name for sawfish, pez sierra, as a fresh fish available in their stores
(The Times Recorder, 1975). By 1981, Thorson (1982a) was unable to
locate a single live specimen. Thorson (1982a) documented that within a
decade the commercial largetooth sawfish fishery had removed the
species from shallow water habitats within Lake Nicaragua. The species
was relegated to deep water ``pockets'' remaining in Lake Nicaragua.
Commercial fishing for largetooth sawfish in Lake Nicaragua was banned
in 2006, but the species is still caught incidentally by fishers
netting for other species (McDavitt, 2002). A Lake Nicaraguan fisherman
reported that he encounters a few sawfish annually, nowadays (McDavitt,
2002). There are no known Nicaraguan records of the largetooth sawfish
outside of the Lake Nicaragua-Rio San Juan-Rio Colorado system (Burgess
et al., 2009).
Bussing (2002) indicated that this species was known to inhabit the
Rio Tempisque and tributaries of the San Juan basin in Costa Rica.
Three occurrences in that river were found in internet searches, one
being a 200 lb (90.7-kg) specimen caught recreationally (Burgess et
al., 2009). In Colombia, the Magdalena River estuary was the primary
source for largetooth sawfish encounters from the 1940s (Miles, 1945),
while other records originated from the Bahia de Cartagena and Isla de
Salamanca (both marine), and Rio Sinu (freshwater) from the 1960s
through the 1980s (Dahl, 1964; 1971; Frank and Rodriguez, 1976; Alvarez
and Blanco, 1985). Scientists in the country reported that there have
been no sightings of this species in Colombia for about 10 years
(Burgess et al., 2009).
Though thought to have once been abundant in some areas of
Venezuela (Cervignon, 1966a; 1966b), the last of the four confirmed
records of P. perotteti from that country was from 1962. The single
records from Guyana, French Guiana, and Trinidad appear to be from the
late 1800s and early 1900s. Of the five Suriname accounts, the latest
was collected in 1962.
Brazil
The largetooth sawfish was assessed as critically endangered in
Brazil by Charvet-Almeida and Faria (2008). A total of 139 reports are
available for this species (Burgess et al., 2009), some from as
recently as 2009. Most of the records for which location is known
originated in the state of Amazonas (12), which encompasses the middle
section of the Amazon River basin along with the confluence of the Rio
Negro and Rio Solimoes (in the state of Manaus). The other known
locations are from the states of Rio Grande do Norte, Sergipe, Bahia,
Espirito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, and Sao Paulo (1 record each), Para (7
records), and Maranhao (3 records). Para contains the estuary and lower
reaches of the Amazon River, and Maranhao is just southeast of Para.
Anectodal reports from fishers indicate that they are also caught in
Amapa, which is the northernmost state in Brazil (Charvet-Almeida and
Faria, 2008).
The Amazon River basin and adjacent waters are traditionally the
most abundant known area for largetooth sawfish in Brazil (Bates, 1964;
Marlier, 1967; Furneau, 1969); however, scientific collection and
fisheries data for this region are very limited, both historically and
recently. Sawfishes are captured as bycatch in artisanal and commercial
fisheries in northern Brazil (Charvet-Almeida, 2002). Most historic
records of largetooth sawfish in the Amazon River (Amazonia) predate
1974.
[[Page 25179]]
Known lengths ranged from 4.9 to 8.2 ft (1.5 to 2.5 m) in total length.
Mathew McDavitt (pers. comm., 2010) notes there is anecdotal evidence
that P. perotteti is currently being targeted in Brazil for the
lucrative Chinese shark fin trade. A recent popular guide in China for
dried seafood products provides descriptions of a dozen or so popular
shark fin categories. Based on photographs and descriptions, the
category huang jiao (literally: ``yellow-glue'') comes from Pristis
sawfishes, the trade name deriving from its beige color and the
especially copious gelatine it produces when cooked. This Chinese dried
seafood book gives the current sources for huang jiao fin, noting that
the supply from Brazil is favored nowadays due to its comparatively
large size.
The Brazilian sawfish populations, which include both P. perotteti
and P. pectinata, are found in this region but are almost exclusively
of the largetooth species, are presumably large and abundant, compared
to those captured in other localities, due to the fact that sawfishes
have not yet been extirpated in Brazilian waters to the extent that
they have been elsewhere. Presumably both species are caught and sold.
No quantification of the exact species or number of captured or sold
sawfishes is currently available, though Charvet-Almeida and Faria
(2008) reported that as many as 1500 small and medium rostra and 180
large rostra were sold each year in Para alone.
The two most recent largetooth encounters in Brazil were from
Maranhao, one caught by a fisher in 1998 and another in 2009. The
latter was a gravid female estimated to be 7 m TL (Burgess et al.,
2009). Earlier reports of largetooth sawfish in Maranhao were mostly
from the 1980s and 90s (Lessa, 1986; Martins-Juras et al., 1987; Stride
and Batista, 1992; Menni and Lessa, 1998; and Lessa et al., 1999).
Sawfish are likely caught incidentally by shark fishers in this state
and landed for their saws (Almeida et al., 2006).
Records of largetooth sawfish in each of the states south of
Maranhao are limited to one each, and the dates of capture are largely
unknown, though most appear to be from the nineteenth century. An
archeological site in Sao Paulo yielded tooled P. perotteti rostral
teeth, though whether they came from locally caught animals, or were
traded from the north is unknown. Charvet-Almeida and Faria (2008)
concluded that largetooth sawfish are most likely extirpated in most of
the states south of Maranhao.
West Coast of Africa
Historical records indicate that largetooth sawfish were once
relatively common in the coastal estuaries of West Africa. Verified
records exist from Senegal (1841 to 1902), Gambia (1885 to 1909),
Guinea-Bissau (1912), Republic of Guinea (1965), Sierra Leone (date
unknown), Liberia (1927), Cote d'Ivoire (1881 to 1923), Congo (1951 to
1958), Democratic Republic of the Congo (1951 to 1959), and Angola
(1951) (Burgess et al., 2009). Most records, however, lacked species
identification and locality data and may have been confused
taxonomically with other sawfish species that also occur in the area.
Unpublished notes from a 1950s survey detail 12 P. perotteti from
Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea, Cote d'Ivoire, and Nigeria, ranging in
size from 35 through 276 in (89 through 700 cm) in total length
(Burgess et al., 2009).
A more recent status review by Ballouard et al. (2006) reported
that sawfishes, including the largetooth sawfish, were once common from
Mauritania to the Republic of Guinea, but are now rarely captured or
encountered. According to this report, the range of sawfishes has
decreased to the Bissagos Archipelago (Guinea Bissau). The most recent
sawfish encounters outside Guinea Bissau were in the 1990s in
Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia, and the Republic of Guinea. The most
recent documented P. perotteti capture was from 2005 in Nord de
Caravela (Guinea Bissau), along with anecdotal accounts from fishers of
captures off of two islands in the same area (Burgess et al., 2009).
Summary and Abundance
As we document above, the range of the largetooth sawfish has
contracted significantly on both sides of the Atlantic. Although no
time-series abundance data exists to quantify the extent of the decline
of the species throughout its range, we believe that with the
substantial number of commercial and recreational fisheries fishing
along our U.S. coast, the uniqueness of the species morphology, and
because media and internet sites are easily accessible to the public,
largetooth sawfish encounters would be noteworthy and reported.
Additionally, outreach efforts along the Gulf of Mexico coast in the
U.S. for the smalltooth sawfish, which includes printed brochures and
signage in local bait shops, marinas, and boat ramps on where and how
to report sawfish encounters, should have increased the likelihood of
reporting a largetooth sawfish encounter. Access to media and internet
sites for reporting largetooth encounters outside the U.S. is most
likely less common in some of the remote areas along the coasts of
Central America, the Amazonian region of Brazil, and West Africa.
Nevertheless, the apparent decrease of sightings over time suggests
that the species has undergone severe declines in abundance throughout
its range. Moreover, the decline in museum records, negative scientific
survey results in the U.S. and Lake Nicaragua, and anecdotal reports
from fisher people suggest the trend for the species is declining
(Burgess et al., 2009).
Species Determination
We first considered whether or not P. perotteti met the definition
of ``species'' pursuant to section 3 of the ESA as described above. As
stated in the taxonomy section above, after reviewing the best
available scientific and commercial taxonomic data on the species, we
determined that P. perotteti is a ``species'' and its range is the
eastern and western Atlantic Ocean. The best available scientific and
commercial data available also suggest P. perotteti has a tropical
distribution in the eastern and western Atlantic Ocean and has been
rare at latitudes higher than 12[deg] N and 12[deg] S during historic
times.
Extinction Risk
We next considered the risk of extinction for P. perotteti to
determine whether the species is threatened or endangered as defined
above. No quantitative estimate of abundance for the species is known,
so methods such as population viability analysis cannot be used to
determine the risk of extinction for the species. Therefore, we must
use a method to determine the risk of extinction using qualitative
information.
Wainwright and Kope (1999) developed methods to assess the risk of
extinction for U.S. West Coast salmon. Using the definitions of
endangered and threatened in the ESA, they considered a variety of
information to assess extinction risks, including abundance, trends,
productivity, variability, genetic integrity, and other risks.
Wainwright and Kope (1999) further consider the risk to small
populations based on potential genetic effects or random demographic
effects. They also considered habitat capacity to answer questions
about the carrying capacity and whether or not the carrying capacity
can ensure the populations viability. In assessing the risk of
extinction using trends, productivity, and variability, Wainwright and
Kope (1999) indicate that short and long-term trends in
[[Page 25180]]
abundance are the primary indicators of risk. Wainwright and Kope
(1999) also assessed the effects of genetic integrity (introduced
genotypes, interactions with hatchery fish, or anthropogenic selection)
as it relates to evaluating the risk of extinction. Loss of fitness and
loss of diversity can occur from random genetic effects and increase
the risk of extinction for a species. Wainwright and Kope (1999) also
evaluated other risks that are considered for salmonids (disease,
predation, and changes in life history). These ``other risks'' can
affect the sustainability of a population. The last factor that
Wainwright and Kope (1999) evaluated is the risks associated with
recent events. Changes in harvest rates, anthropogenic changes in the
environment (habitat degradation or enhancement), or natural events
(floods, volcanic eruptions) can pose a risk for species but may not
have been adequately considered by looking at the other effects above
when there is a time-lag in seeing the effect of recent events.
In addition to analyzing factors that may affect the risk of
extinction for salmon, Wainwright and Kope (1999) developed a general
quantitative evaluation method to assess both qualitative and
quantitative evidence for the various risk factors. In this method,
four of the major categories of extinction risk are scored. These four
categories are: (1) abundance, (2) trend, productivity, and variability
(TPV), (3) genetic integrity, and (4) ``other risks''. The risk
categories are scored on a scale from 1 to 5. A score of 1 represents a
very low risk and factors (single or multiple factors) scored at this
level are unlikely to contribute significantly to risk of extinction. A
score of 2 represents a low risk and single factors are unlikely to
contribute to extinction alone, but in combination with other factors
may be a concern. Scores of 3 represent moderate risk. These factors
contribute significantly to long-term risk of extinction, but do not
alone constitute a danger of extinction in the near future. Score
values of 4 represent increasing risk. This rating indicates the
present risk is low or moderate, but is likely to increase to high risk
in the future (reflects the ESA definition of threatened). Scores of 5
represent the high risk rating. This factor indicates danger of
extinction in the near future.
Professional biologists at SERO used Wainwright and Kope's (1999)
methods to assess extinction risk for P. perotteti. For the abundance
category the following were important considerations. Small-population
risks for the species were considered to assess the risk of extinction.
As detailed above, museum records, negative scientific survey results
in the U.S. and Lake Nicaragua, and anecdotal reports from fisher
people suggest the trend for the species is declining and population
size is small. This species is also a K-selected animal which indicates
they are usually successful at maintaining relatively small, persistent
population sizes in relatively constant environments. We expect changes
from random demographic effects are likely to be significant for the
species since they are not able to respond rapidly to stochastic
events. Information on the distribution of the species was also used as
an indicator of abundance. The current distribution for the species is
significantly reduced from its historic range. Thus, the existing
population of P. perotteti does not adequately represent historic
patterns of geographic distribution and this is considered a risk
factor for the species. We could not determine the habitat capacity for
the species since most of the habitat within the species range is
located in foreign countries and we have poor data from those areas.
Based on small population risks that could occur from demographic
effects and the severe range constriction that has occurred, we
assigned a rating of 5 (high-risk) for the abundance factor.
For the TPV category we considered that the data for the species
indicates a declining trend in abundance. A directed fishery existed
for the species in Lake Nicaragua but no longer exists today. Reports
of the species in Lake Nicaragua are rare. Lack of reports of the
species occurrence throughout most of its range, including the U.S. and
southern Brazil, also indicates the species abundance is declining.
Productivity rates are not known for the species but are expected to be
declining (Shaffer 1981). Variations in freshwater and marine
environments within the species range are difficult to assess. Since
reports of the species are rare throughout its range, we expect
productivity is low.
Genetic integrity was not evaluated because we do not have
information on the loss of fitness and loss of genetic diversity for
the species.
Our evaluation of the ``other risk'' factor considered information
about the species life history characteristics, in particular that the
species has slow growth rates, late maturation, low fecundity, and
population recovery potential is considered limited. Based on this
information, we scored the other risk category as a 3.
Using Wainwright and Kope (1999) methods to determine the risk of
extinction for P. perotteti, we believe that abundance and distribution
of P. perotteti is likely to continue to decline in the near future.
Therefore, we have determined the current threats affecting the species
will continue into the future and the species is currently in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Largetooth Sawfish
In this section, we consider the five factors specified in section
4(a)(1) of the ESA that we outlined as step XX of our listing
determination process above.
The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
its Habitat or Range
Coastal habitat loss throughout the species' historical range is a
contributing factor to the species decline. Coastal habitats in the
southern U. S. Gulf of Mexico region have experienced and continue to
experience losses due to urbanization. Wetland losses in the Gulf of
Mexico region of the U.S. averages annual net losses of 60,000 acres
(242.8 km2) of coastal and freshwater habitats from 1998 to 2004
(Stedman et al., 2008). Although wetland restoration activities are
ongoing in this region of the U.S., the losses significantly outweigh
the gains (Stedman et al., 2008). These losses have been attributed to
commercial and residential development, port construction (dredging,
blasting, and filling activities), construction of water control
structures, modification to freshwater inflows (Rio Grande River in
Texas), and gas and oil related activities. Riverine systems throughout
the species' historical range have been altered or dammed. NOAA's
Restoration Center is involved in ongoing coastal restoration
activities throughout the Gulf of Mexico to restore coastal habitats.
In spite of ongoing efforts to restore coastal habitats, coastal
habitat losses will continue to occur.
The status of habitats within the current international range of
the species is not well known, but with continued development and human
population growth, negative effects on habitat are likely. Ruiz-Luna et
al. (2008) acknowledge that deforestation of mangrove forests in Mexico
has occurred from logging practices, construction of harbors, tourism,
and aquaculture activities. In addition to deforestation, Ruiz-Luna et
al. (2008) document that changes in the hydrological systems occurred
with opening of the artificial canal in Cuautla, in the state of
Nayarit. Valiela et al. (2001) report the total area of mangrove
habitats in Brazil has decreased significantly (from 9,653 to 5,174
mi\2\ (25,000 to 13,400 km\2\)) from 1983 to 1997, with similar trends
in
[[Page 25181]]
Guinnea-Bissau (1,838 to 959 mi\2\ (4760 to 2484 km\2\)) from 1953 to
1995. Habitat modification, including mangrove forest removal, is also
likely in northern Brazil (Compagno et al., 2006). The areas with the
most rapid mangrove declines in the Americas included Venezuela,
Mexico, Panama, the United States, and Brazil, while Senegal, Gambia,
Sierra Leone, and Guinnea-Bissau showed the largest declines in western
Africa (Ruiz-Luna et al. 2008). World-wide mangrove habitat loss was
estimated to be 35 percent from 1980 to 2000 (Valiela et al., 2001).
There are unconfirmed reports of dam building activities on the Rio San
Juan (Nicaragua) system, which could affect the movements of largetooth
sawfish in that region. These threats cannot be directly related to the
decline of the largetooth sawfish, but habitat loss is a known factor
contributing to the decline of many freshwater and marine species,
including the endangered U.S. distinct population segment (DPS) of
smalltooth sawfish.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Commercial Fisheries
Sawfishes are very vulnerable to most fishing gears, and were
historically caught by gillnets, trawls, seines, and lines (Compagno et
al., 2006). Most targeted catches of largetooth sawfish in Texas in the
1930s were from recreational hook and line, but they were also caught
incidentally by shrimp trawls and seines (Burgess et al., 2009). The
Lake Nicaragua commercial fishery for largetooth sawfish consisted
mostly of gillnet boats (Thorson, 1982a), and the commercial small
coastal shark fishery in Brazil mainly utilizes gillnets and some
handlines (Charvet-Almeida, 2002). Today the main threat to the
largetooth sawfish is most likely from bycatch mortality, though
sawfishes may be targeted opportunistically in some areas (Brazil) when
the occasion arises. The current scarcity of sawfish may inhibit
targeted fisheries that might occur in spite of international trade
bans. However, if caught as bycatch they are most likely retained
because of the value of their parts (e.g., the rostra, teeth, and
fins). For example McDavitt's (2006) review of eBay sales of rostra is
estimate a total of 200 rostra per year are sold, with a value of more
than US $25,000.
Recreational Fisheries
Historically, recreational hook and line fishers targeted large
elasmobranchs, including sawfishes, as trophies in Texas (Burgess et
al., 2009). Elsewhere in the U.S., abundance was likely never high
enough for recreational fishers to encounter this species, much less
target it. Because of its current distribution, which is mostly in
developing nations, the largetooth sawfish is unlikely to be
encountered by recreational fishers, with possible rare exceptions of
tourists in these areas. There is no current information on the use of
sawfish species for subsistence fishing, though it was noted in Brazil
that the meat was often sold in local fish markets, while the other
products (rostra, fins) were sold internationally (Charvet-Almeida,
2002).
Commercial Trade
There is very little information available about the trade of
sawfish products in general, especially the largetooth sawfish.
Largetooth sawfish were listed under Appendix I of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) in 2007, which prohibits the commercial trade of largetooth
sawfish parts (see Regulatory Mechanisms section below). In 2006, eBay
banned the sale of smalltooth sawfish on their online auction site;
however, the ban was not established for all sawfish species. A survey
by McDavitt and Charvet-Almeida (2004) of sawfish rostra on eBay
(before the ban) found that large rostra command prices of over $1,000
(US). An informal web search in November 2009 turned up several sawfish
rostra for sale online to international buyers, some listed as
``largetooth'', along with sites selling cockfighting spurs made from
South American sawfish teeth. It is apparent that largetooth and
smalltooth sawfishes are still landed and sold illegally in northern
Brazil (Charvet-Almeida pers. comm., 2009). It was previously observed
that sawfish rostra from small individuals were sold to tourists, while
damaged or cut rostra were used for local folk medicine (McDavitt and
Charvet-Almeida, 2004). The larger rostra were sold in international
cockfighting markets, as the rostral teeth were used as spurs. The
larger rostra were also purchased by Asian shark fin buyers, most
likely for medicine or curios. The proportion of largetooth sawfish in
these markets is unknown, though as many as 180 large Pristis spp.
rostra were sold per year at a single market in northern Brazil in the
early 2000s (McDavitt and Charvet-Almeida, 2004). With little
enforcement of regional and international laws, the practice of landing
sawfishes may continue in Brazil, though the extent of any
international trade since the CITES listing is unknown. No confirmed
reports of P. perotteti in aquaria exist currently. No seizures of
largetooth sawfish in international trade have occurred since its CITES
listing (Sharon Lynn (USFWS) pers. comm.).
Scientific Use
The only published studies on life history and movements of the
largetooth sawfish were conducted by Thorson in the 1970s and 1980s in
Costa Rica and Nicaragua (Thorson, 1970; 1973; 1974; 1976a; 1976b;
1978; 1982a; 1982b; 1987; Thorson et al., 1966a; 1966b). While many
live largetooth sawfish were tagged by Thorson in this time period, it
seems that most of the biological data were obtained from dead
specimens that were purchased from commercial fishers. Most areas where
the largetooth sawfish now occurs suffer from lack of biological
sampling due to logistical difficulties and most likely low funding of
research. However, there is some scientific information being collected
by researchers in Brazil, mostly from fish markets, where sawfishes are
illegally landed and sold.
Disease and Predation
No commercial or scientific data exists on diseases that may affect
the largetooth sawfish and all information related to predation is
listed above in the Largetooth Sawfish Natural History section. There
is no evidence that unusual levels of disease or predation are a threat
to the species.
The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Protective measures covering trade in the largetooth sawfish
(Pristis perotteti) are implemented internationally under Appendix I of
CITES, making non-domestic trade of parts illegal. Additional Federal,
state, and national laws in the United States, Nicaragua, and Brazil
are designed to limit the harvest and sale of largetooth sawfish
locally and internationally. The Nicaraguan government officially
banned commercial fishing for largetooth sawfish in Lake Nicaragua in
2006. The Brazilian Environment Ministry listed P. perotteti in
Appendix I of the ``Instrucao Normativa numero 05,'' meaning that the
species is considered endangered and therefore cannot be landed or
sold. Enforcement of these regulations in Brazil and Nicaragua is
difficult due to the length of the coastline, extensive internal
waterways, lack of enforcement personnel, and the need for more
efficient tools. Sawfish abundance within other parts of their current
range is depleted so targeted fisheries are
[[Page 25182]]
unlikely; however, those caught as bycatch are probably kept due to
their value. Thus, illegal foreign trade of sawfish parts may be
ongoing in Nicaragua and Brazil and elsewhere in spite of the CITES
listing and national laws due to lack of enforcement and the high value
of sawfish parts.
The status of largetooth sawfish protection in western Africa is
mostly unknown, though Guinnea-Bissau has created six official
Protected Areas, which were established in 2005 (UNEP, 2008). Among
these areas are several island chains and deltas with intertidal muddy
sand banks and mangroves, which are ideal sawfish habitat.
Nevertheless, existing regulations in this part of the world may be
inadequate to protect and restore populations of largetooth sawfish.
Though not currently found in U.S. waters, existing regulations and
measures put in place to protect the smalltooth sawfish could also
benefit the largetooth sawfish, should it return into the northern most
extent of its historical range in North America. The U.S. DPS of
smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) was listed as endangered on
April 1, 2003. Both the smalltooth and largetooth sawfish are
susceptible to similar threats (e.g., bycatch in various fisheries and
habitat loss) so protections for the smalltooth sawfish will benefit
the largetooth sawfish. In response to the listing of the U.S. DPS of
smalltooth sawfish, Texas implemented a ban on harvest of largetooth
sawfish because of the possibility of misidentification. The trading of
any largetooth sawfish parts is banned by state laws in both Florida
and Louisiana. Additionally, Florida and Texas do not allow gillnet
fishing in state waters less than 9 miles (14.5 km) from shore, and
Alabama restricts gillnet fishing within less than 3.5 miles (5.6 km)
from shore.
In summary, the high value of sawfish parts, weak enforcement, and
lack of adequate protections for largetooth sawfish habitat mean that
existing regulations are inadequate to protect the species from further
declines.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence
Largetooth sawfish have slow growth rates, late maturity, a long
life span, and low fecundity rates. The largetooth sawfish is a more k-
selected type species, with an intrinsic rate of population increase
below 1.0 (Simpfendorfer, 2000). K-selected animals are usually
successful at maintaining relatively small, persistent population sizes
in relatively constant environments. Conversely, they are not able to
respond rapidly to additional sources of mortality, such as
overexploitation and habitat degradation. Because of this, the risk of
extinction remains high without effective conservation plans put into
place.
Red tide may also be a human amplified factor that could affect the
species. Red tide is caused by an increase of toxic, naturally
occurring microscopic blooms of plankton and is a coastal phenomenon
which is caused by environmental conditions. Factors that are
especially favorable include warm surface temperatures, high nutrient
content, low salinity, and calm seas. Rain followed by sunny weather in
the summer months is often associated with red tide blooms. We do not
have specific information on red tide effects to largetooth sawfish but
we do have a report of a smalltooth sawfish that was found dead along
the west coast of Florida during a red tide event (National Sawfish
Encounter Database, 2009).
Summary of Findings
After considering the 5 factors above from Section 4(a)(1) of the
ESA we determined that the species continues to be in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
Protective Efforts
As a requirement of the ESA, current or future conservation efforts
that have yet to be implemented or to show effectiveness to protect and
recover largetooth sawfish must be evaluated under the PECE Policy (see
above). This policy is designed to determine whether any conservation
efforts that have been recently adopted or implemented or proposed, but
not yet proven to be successful, will result in recovering the species
to the point at which listing is not warranted or contribute to forming
a basis for listing a species as threatened rather than endangered (68
FR 15101; March 28, 2003). The PECE policy established two basic
criteria to be met before an action could be considered to help improve
the conservation status of a species: (1) the certainty that the
conservation efforts will be implemented, and (2) the certainty that
the efforts will be effective.
Ongoing conservation efforts for the smalltooth sawfish may benefit
the conservation of the largetooth sawfish if it returns to U.S.
waters. The Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Plan was finalized in 2009. The
Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Plan lays out specific guidelines for
federal and state agencies to follow. Among the recovery plan's
objectives are to minimize harm caused by human interactions and to
protect and restore habitats. Since both species are susceptible to
similar threats, implementation of the Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Plan
will provide conservation benefits for the largetooth sawfish if it
returns to U.S. waters. Additionally, in 2010, NOAA will fund coastal
restoration activities in Texas and Louisiana using appropriations from
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which restore
habitats used by sawfish. Both of these projects meet the criteria of
the PECE for certainty of implementation and effectiveness. However, we
have determined that these conservation efforts will not alter the
extinction risk of the species.
Proposed Determination
NMFS is responsible for determining whether the largetooth sawfish
(Pristis perotteti) is threatened or endangered under the ESA (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) Accordingly, we have followed a stepwise approach
as outlined above in making this listing determination for the
largetooth sawfish. We determined that P. perotteti is a valid species
with a range in the eastern and western Atlantic Ocean. We then
reviewed the status of the species and the threats to its status using
the five-factor analysis described above. Next, we assessed efforts
being made to protect the species, determining if these efforts are
adequate to mitigate existing threats.
In summary, the largetooth sawfish (P. perotteti) faces ongoing
threats from habitat alteration, bycatch, trade, and the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms to address and reduce habitat
alterations, bycatch, and trade. The species range has constricted so
that it has not been seen in the U.S. since 1961. A similar range
constriction is apparent at the southern extreme of the species'
historical range. The species has not been reported from southern
Brazil for almost at century. All of the threats attributed to the
species decline are ongoing, except for the directed largetooth sawfish
fishery in Lake Nicaragua. The Lake Nicaraguan fishery collapsed
presumably when the sawfish population collapsed. These ongoing threats
exist throughout the species current range (Central and South America
and West Africa) and existing regulatory mechanisms in place are
insufficient to protect the species from further decline. No current or
proposed conservation activities will be enough to sufficiently improve
the species status. Based on our review, therefore, we find that the
species is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range and
should be listed as endangered.
[[Page 25183]]
Effects of Listing
Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA include recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)),
Federal agency consultation requirements (16 U.S.C. 1536), and critical
habitat designations, and prohibitions on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538).
Recognition of the species' plight through listing promotes
conservation actions by Federal and state agencies, foreign entities,
private groups, and individuals. Should the proposed listing be made
final, a recovery plan may be developed, unless such plan would not
promote the conservation of the species.
Identifying Section 7 Consultation Requirements
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to consult
with NMFS to ensure that activities authorized, funded, or carried out
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. We anticipate few section
7 consultation requirements for Federal agencies given the species
current distribution and abundance.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C.
1532(5)) as: (1) the specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the
ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (a)
essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require
special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is
listed upon a determination that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all
methods and procedures needed to bring the species to the point at
which listing under the ESA is no longer necessary. Regulations require
that we shall designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area presently occupied by a species only when a
designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure
the conservation of the species (50 CFR 424.12 (e)).
Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires
that, to the extent prudent and determinable, critical habitat be
designated concurrently with the listing of a species. Critical habitat
shall not be designated in foreign countries or other areas outside
U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12 (h)).
The best available scientific and commercial data as discussed
above identify the geographical area occupied by P. perotteti as
Central and South America and West Africa. Since these areas are
entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction, NMFS cannot designate critical
habitat in the geographical area occupied by the species. NMFS can
designate critical habitat in unoccupied areas if the area(s) are
determined by the Secretary to be essenti