Listing Endangered and Threatened Species: 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Six Species of Sawfishes as Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Endangered Species Act, 12308-12314 [2011-5107]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12308-12314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5107]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No. 101004485-0486-01]
RIN 0648-XZ50


Listing Endangered and Threatened Species: 90-Day Finding on a 
Petition to List Six Species of Sawfishes as Endangered or Threatened 
Species Under the Endangered Species Act

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding, request for information, and 
initiation of status review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list six 
species of sawfish: Anoxyprisitis cuspidata, Prisitis clavata, P. 
microdon, P. pristis, P. zijsron, and the remaining non-listed 
population(s) of P. pectinata as endangered or threatened under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition and information 
in our files present substantial information indicating the petitioned 
action may be warranted for five of the sawfish species petitioned (A. 
cuspidata, P. clavata, P. microdon, P. zijsron, and all non-listed 
population(s) of P. pectinata). We find that the petition and 
information in our files do not present substantial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for P. pristis. 
We will conduct a status review of the five species of sawfish (A. 
cuspidata, P. clavata, P. microdon, P. zijsron, and all non-listed 
population(s) of P. pectinata) to determine if the petitioned action is 
warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are 
soliciting scientific and commercial data regarding these species (see 
below).

DATES: Information and comments on the subject action must be received 
by May 6, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the code 0648-XZ50, 
addressed to: Shelley Norton, Natural Resource Specialist, by any of 
the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal https://www.regulations.gov.
     Facsimile (fax): 727-824-5309.
     Mail: NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue 
South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

[[Page 12309]]

     Hand delivery: You may hand deliver written comments to 
our office during normal business hours at the street address given 
above.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and may be posted to https://www.regulations.gov without change. All 
personally identifiable information (for example, name, address, etc.) 
voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do 
not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or 
protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments 
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, Corel 
WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shelley Norton, NMFS, Southeast 
Region, (727) 824-5312; or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of Protected 
Resources, (301) 713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 9, 2010, we NMFS, received a petition from WildEarth 
Guardians requesting that the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) list 
six species of sawfish (range-wide): A. cuspidata, P. clavata, P. 
microdon, P. pristis, P. zijsron, and the remaining non-listed 
population of P. pectinata as endangered or threatened species under 
the ESA. The petitioner alternatively requested the listing of any 
Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the six species of sawfish, if we 
determine that they exist. Copies of the petition are available from us 
(see ADDRESSES, above).
    On November 30, 1999, we received a petition from the Center for 
Marine Conservation (now the Ocean Conservancy) requesting that we list 
the North American population of smalltooth sawfish (P. pectinata) as 
endangered. We listed the U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish as endangered 
on April 1, 2003 (68 FR 15674). Smalltooth sawfish whose range is 
located outside the U.S. are not currently listed under the ESA.

ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions and Evaluation 
Framework

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 
et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 
days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or 
endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that 
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly 
publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). 
When it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information 
in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a 
``positive 90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a 
review of the status of the species concerned during which we will 
conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and 
commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a 
finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted 
within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the 
12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available 
information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day 
stage, a ``may be warranted'' finding does not prejudge the outcome of 
the status review.
    Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a ``species,'' 
which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate 
species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when 
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NOAA-U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USFWS) (jointly, ``the Services'') policy clarifies the 
agencies' interpretation of the phrase ``distinct population segment'' 
for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species 
under the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or 
DPS is ``endangered'' if it is in danger of extinction throughout all 
or a significant portion of its range, and ``threatened'' if it is 
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), 
respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our 
implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened 
or endangered because of any one or a combination of the following five 
section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (2) overutilization 
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) 
disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; 
and (5) any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' 
existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
    ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 
CFR 424.14(b)) define ``substantial information'' in the context of 
reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the 
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe 
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. In 
evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, 
the Secretary must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates 
the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any 
common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative 
justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on 
available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the 
species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides 
information regarding the status of the species over all or a 
significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the 
appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic 
references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or 
letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
    Court decisions have clarified the appropriate scope and 
limitations of the Services' review of petitions at the 90-day finding 
stage, in making a determination that a petitioned action ``may be'' 
warranted. As a general matter, these decisions hold that a petition 
need not establish a ``strong likelihood'' or a ``high probability'' 
that a species is either threatened or endangered to support a positive 
90-day finding.
    We evaluate the petitioner's request based upon the information in 
the petition including its references, and the information readily 
available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we 
do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us 
in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioner's sources and 
characterizations of the information presented, if they appear to be 
based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific 
information in our files that indicates the petition's information is 
incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the 
requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one 
interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information 
will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is 
reliable and a reasonable person would conclude it supports the 
petitioner's assertions. In other words, conclusive information 
indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is 
not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude 
that a lack of specific information alone negates a positive 90-day 
finding, if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown 
information itself suggests

[[Page 12310]]

an extinction risk of concern for the species at issue.
    To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we 
evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating the subject species may be either 
threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First we evaluate 
whether the information presented in the petition, along with the 
information readily available in our files, indicates that the 
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under 
the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the 
species at issue faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this 
may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' 
status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to 
the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic 
factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species at 
issue (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial 
structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical 
range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential 
contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the 
species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic 
risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 
4(a)(1).
    Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to 
the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these 
factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species 
to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad 
statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification 
of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute 
substantial information that listing may be warranted. We look for 
information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed 
to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative 
fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative 
response.
    Many petitions identify risk classifications made by other 
organizations or agencies, such as the International Union on the 
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or 
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk 
classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or 
state statutes may be informative, but the classification alone may not 
provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For 
example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species' 
conservation status do ``not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe 
for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because NatureServe 
assessments ``have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes 
and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and 
threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not 
be expected to coincide.'' (https://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a petition cites such 
classifications, we will evaluate the source information that the 
classification is based upon in light of the standards on extinction 
risk and impacts or threats discussed above.

Species Description

    In the following sections we compile information from the petition 
and our files to describe the best available information and knowledge 
regarding the petitioned species biology.

Taxonomy

    All sawfishes belong to one of two genera (Pristis or Anoxypristis) 
in the Family Pristidae of the Order Pristiformes, and are classified 
as rays (Superorder Batoidea). Considerable taxonomic confusion exists 
for sawfishes. The largetooth sawfish group (P. pristis, P. microdon, 
and P. perotteti) is considered to be the most taxonomically confused 
of all of the sawfish species. Faria (2007) distinguished seven extant 
species in the family. The petitioner states that P. pristis is a valid 
taxon based on the most recent IUCN assessment (IUCN, 2005), but that 
it is a sketchily-known large sawfish. The petitioner also states that 
mature specimens are lacking and small specimens are rare and isolated 
attributes may be misidentified members of P. microdon. Information in 
our files indicates that P. pristis is not a valid species eligible for 
listing under the ESA. Faria (2007) completed a taxonomic review of 
sawfishes using historical taxonomic literature, empirical observations 
on morphology, geographical distribution, and genetics. Using molecular 
phylogeny (mitochondrial and nuclear gene analysis) paired with 
morphological characteristics he concluded that P. pristis is not a 
valid species. Pristis pristis is associated with various morphological 
features from a variety of specimens that cannot be assigned to a 
single species (Faria 2007). Based on the results of his review, Faria 
(2007) has prepared a proposal to the International Commission of 
Zoological Nomenclature to suppress or declare invalid P. pristis. The 
taxonomy sources cited by the petition, the IUCN and the Integrated 
Taxonomic Information System, rely on older, out-of-date information. 
Our regulations state that, ``In determining whether a particular taxon 
or population is a species for the purposes of the Act, the Secretary 
shall rely on standard taxonomic distinctions and the biological 
expertise of the Department and the scientific community concerning the 
relevant taxonomic group'' (50 CFR 424.11(a)). Under this provision, we 
must apply the best available science even when it indicates that 
currently accepted taxonomic classifications are wrong. Based on the 
best available commercial and scientific information, we have 
determined that P. pristis is not a valid species and, therefore, does 
not qualify for listing under the ESA. The remainder of this document 
will focus on the five remaining sawfish species listed in the 
petition.

Distribution

    Sawfishes are elasmobranches that historically were once widespread 
in tropical to warm temperate, shallow, nearshore marine habitats, 
estuaries, large rivers, and some lakes. Their distribution was 
presumably once continuous in suitable habitat, but is now severely 
fragmented with many populations extirpated from large parts of their 
former range and remaining populations seriously depleted.
    Sawfish distributions are still widespread. Anoxypristis cuspidata 
occurs in the Indo-West Pacific Ocean ranging from east Africa to 
Australia, China, and Taiwan (Compagno and Cook, 1995). Pristis clavata 
primarily occurs in northern nearshore waters of Australia while P. 
microdon is found from Sri Lanka to Australia, including islands of the 
Indonesian archipelago (Last and Stevens, 1994; Compagno and Cook, 
1995). Pristis microdon is also found in freshwater bodies in countries 
in Southern Africa, India, and southeastern Asia (Taniuchi et al., 
1994). Pristis pectinata is the most wide-ranging species, but its 
distribution is highly disjunct. Pristis pectinata occurs in the 
Western Atlantic Ocean from the Gulf of Mexico to Brazil (Bigelow and 
Schroeder, 1953), while in the eastern Atlantic Ocean, P. pectinata 
once occurred in the Mediterranean Sea (where it is now extirpated) and 
is rarely found in western African countries and South Africa. Its 
range further extends through the Indian Ocean from east Africa to 
Southeast Asia and Australia (Last and Stevens, 1994; Simpfendorfer, 
2005). Pristis zijsron occurs in the Indian and Western

[[Page 12311]]

Pacific Ocean from east Africa to Australia including some areas of 
Southeast Asia and in the Indonesian archipelago (Bigelow and 
Schroeder, 1953; Last and Stevens, 1994; Cook and Compagno, 1995).

Habitats

    Sawfishes are generally benthic in nature frequenting shallow 
coastal, brackish, and freshwater habitats. Sawfishes usually occur in 
shallow water depths less than 32 ft (10 m), but occasionally adults 
have been recorded up to 164 ft (50 m) (Simpfendorfer and Wiley, 2005). 
Observations of sawfishes tend to indicate a preference for areas with 
lower salinities especially river mouths. For the U.S. DPS of 
smalltooth sawfish, Simpfendorfer and Wiley (2005) reported closer 
associations between encounters and mangroves, seagrasses, and the 
shoreline than expected if distribution were random. Their encounter 
data also demonstrated that juvenile smalltooth sawfish occur in 
shallower water, and larger sawfish occur regularly at depths greater 
than 32 ft (10 m).

Age, Growth, and Reproduction

    Studies on the biological characteristics of any of the sawfishes 
are rare, but those studies that have examined parameters such as age, 
growth, and reproduction suggest a group with very low productivity. In 
the following discussion, we describe what is known about the life 
history of any of the species for which information exists. Where 
necessary we make determinations as to the best-available evidence for 
the biology of the petitioned species. There have been no formal 
studies examining the age and growth of the largetooth sawfishes, 
though Thorson's (1982a) study of the Lake Nicaragua population of P. 
perotteti provided some parameters that may be applicable to other 
sawfishes. He 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 to be 118 in (300 cm). Preliminary vertebral growth ring 
analysis suggests the lifespan of P. microdon to be an estimated 
maximum age of 51 years (Peverell, 2006), and we determined this to be 
our best available estimate of largetooth sawfish lifespan. Age at 
maturity for P. pectinata has been estimated to be 10-33 years 
depending on sex and study (Simpfendorfer, 2000; Clarke et al., 2004). 
Tanaka (1991) produced a growth curve for the freshwater sawfish P. 
microdon from northern Australia and Papua New Guinea using vertebral 
ageing that indicated relatively slow growth and late maturity. In 
contrast, Thorburn et al. (2007), working in northwestern Australia, 
reported similar first year growth rates, but continued rapid growth, 
with growth to 98 in (2500 mm) approximately four times faster than 
reported by Tanaka (1991). Thorson (1982) provided growth information 
for the largetooth sawfish (P. perotetti) from tag-recapture data, 
noting slow growth in adults (mean annual growth of 1.7 in or 44 mm). 
Recently, Simpfendorfer et al. (2006) reported growth rates of juvenile 
smalltooth sawfish collected in Florida waters between 1999 and 2006 
were 25.59 to 33.46 in (650-850 mm) in the first year and 18.90 to 
26.77in (480-680 mm) in the second year. The growth rates reported are 
substantially faster than those previously assumed for this species and 
may have important implications for the recovery of this endangered 
species. However, there are conflicting data regarding the growth rates 
of older sawfish which need to be resolved.
    As in all elasmobranches, fertilization in sawfishes is internal. 
Development is believed to be ovoviviparous. The embryos of P. 
pectinata, while still bearing the large yolk sac, already resemble 
adults relative to the position of their fins and absence of the lower 
caudal fin lobe. During embryonic development the rostral saw blade is 
soft and flexible. The rostral teeth are also encapsulated or enclosed 
in a sheath until birth. Shortly after birth, the teeth become exposed 
and attain their full size proportionate to the size of the saw. Size 
at birth for smalltooth sawfish is approximately 2.3 to 2.7 ft (690-810 
mm) (Simpfendorfer et al. 2008). Bigelow and Schroeder (1953) reported 
gravid females carry 15-20 embryos. Studies of P. perotteti in Lake 
Nicaragua (Thorson, 1976) report brood sizes of 1-13 individuals, with 
a mean of 7.3 individuals. The gestation period for P. perotteti is 
approximately 5 months and females likely produce litters every second 
year (Thorson, 1976).
    Simpfendorfer (2000), using age based demographic models, estimated 
an intrinsic rate of increase of 0.08 to 0.13 per year, and population 
doubling time of 5.4 and 8.5 for P. pectinata (US DPS). Intrinsic rates 
of increase for P. perotteti were 0.05 to 0.07 per year, with a 
population doubling time of 10.3 to 13.5 years. The estimates were 
based on ideal conditions (no fisheries mortality, no population 
fragmentation, no habitat modification and no inbreeding depression 
arising from the genetic consequences of a small population size). Low 
intrinsic rates of population increase are associated with the life 
history strategy known as ``K-selection''. K-selected animals are 
usually successful at maintaining relatively small, persistent 
population sizes in relatively constant environments. Consequently, 
sawfishes are not able to respond rapidly to additional and new sources 
of mortality resulting from changes in their environment. Musick (1999) 
and Musick et al. (2000) noted that intrinsic rates of increase less 
than 10 percent (0.1) were low, and make the population particularly 
vulnerable to excessive mortalities and rapid population declines, 
after which recovery may take decades.

Diet and Feeding

    Bigelow and Schroeder (1953) reported that sawfishes in general 
subsist chiefly on small schooling fishes, such as mullets and 
clupeids. They also reported that they feed to some extent on 
crustaceans and other bottom dwelling inhabitants. Breder (1952), in 
summarizing the literature on observations of sawfish feeding behavior, 
noted that they attack fish by slashing sideways through schools, and 
often impale the fish on their rostral teeth. Prey are subsequently 
scraped off the teeth by rubbing them on the bottom and then ingested 
whole. The oral teeth of sawfish are ray-like, having flattened cusps 
that are better suited to crushing or gripping.

Morphological Characteristics

    All modern sawfishes appear in some respects to be more shark-like 
than ray-like, with only the trunk and especially the head ventrally 
flattened. All sawfish snouts are extended as a long, narrow, 
flattened, rostral blade with a series of transverse teeth along either 
edge. The rostrum has a saw-like appearance and hence the name sawfish. 
The presence of this rostrum separates sawfishes from all other skates 
and rays.
    The smalltooth sawfish P. pectinata has 20 to 34 rostral teeth on 
each side of the rostrum (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953; Thorson, 1973; 
McEachran and Fechhelm, 1998; Compagno and Last, 1999). P. zijsron, has 
perhaps the longest rostrum of any living sawfish, ranging to at least 
5 ft or 1.66 m in length. The rostral tooth count for P. zijsron varies 
between 23 and 37 (typically 25-34) per side. Pristis zijsron is 
distinguished from A. cuspidata by its sharply pointed rostral teeth 
(versus blade-like), greater number of rostral teeth per side (23-37 
versus 18-25), presence of dermal denticles over the entire body, and 
the lack of a developed lower caudal fin lobe (Last and Stevens, 1994). 
Pristis

[[Page 12312]]

zijsron is distinguished from P. clavata by its narrow-based and 
moderately tapering rostrum (versus wide-based and strongly tapering), 
greater number of rostral teeth per side (23-37 versus 18-23), and the 
lack of a developed lower caudal fin lobe. In addition, P. zijsron 
reaches a larger maximum size (24 ft or 7.3 m or larger) than does P. 
clavata (10 ft or 3.1 m in total length). Pristis microdon can attain 
lengths of up to 7 m and is distinguished from other sawfishes by a 
combination of the following characteristics: first dorsal fin anterior 
to the pelvic fins; caudal fin bearing a conspicuous ventral lobe; and 
18-23 teeth on the rostrum (Last and Stevens 1994; Compagno and Last 
1998).

Analysis of Petition

    We evaluated the information provided in the petition and all other 
information readily available in our files to determine if it presented 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
petitioned actions may be warranted for the five valid species of 
sawfish (A. cuspidata; P. clavata; P. microdon; P. zijsron; and all 
non-listed population(s) of P. pectinata). The petition provides some 
information on the species, including administrative measures 
recommended, scientific and common name, description, habitat, and 
range and states that all five factors in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA 
are adversely affecting the continued existence of the petitioned 
species. In particular, the petitioner states that all of the 
petitioned sawfish species are threatened by habitat loss and 
degradation resulting from human population growth, coastal destruction 
and pollution, and fisheries (targeted and incidental). The petitioner 
also states that all six species of sawfish are threatened by the 
international shark fin trade, curio trade, and inadequate regulatory 
protection programs worldwide. Information on population status and 
trends for all six species of sawfish is included. Additionally, the 
petition states that, due to the difficulty in differentiating between 
all sawfish species, enforcement of trade bans is very difficult.
    Data are not available to determine the actual number or size of 
most remaining populations of sawfish, but all known populations of 
sawfishes have severely declined based on publication and museum 
records, negative scientific survey records, anecdotal fisher 
observations, and limited catch per unit effort information. Many 
populations have been extirpated or are near extirpation from large 
areas of their former range, with no or only very few observations 
since the 1960s. Interviews with fishers (structured and unstructured) 
have been undertaken in several countries in recent years to obtain 
information on recent and historic catches (e.g., Doumbouya, 2004; 
Saine, 2004). In most range states, these species are now only very 
sporadically recorded. Due to their unique morphological 
characteristics, it is unlikely that individuals would not report 
catching a sawfish.
    We summarize our analysis and conclusions regarding the specific 
ESA section 4(a)(1) factors affecting the species' risk of extinction 
below.

The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
Its Habitat or Range

    The information presented in the petition on the species states 
coastal development has caused substantial losses in coastal zone 
habitats through agricultural and urban development, commercial 
activities, dredge-and-fill activities, boating erosion, and diversions 
of freshwater. The petitioner also refers to information on habitat 
degradation and loss listed in the 2007 proposal by the U.S. to list 
all species of sawfish under the Conventions on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Additionally, 
information in our files indicates that the distribution and range of 
all species of sawfish has become severely fragmented and significant 
range contractions have occurred.

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Information from the petition and in our files suggests that the 
primary threat to all sawfish species is from fisheries. Sawfishes are 
caught as bycatch in various fishing gears (rod and reel, shrimp nets, 
trawls, and gill nets). Sawfish species are highly susceptible to 
entanglement in fishing gears because their toothed-rostrum makes it 
difficult to avoid entanglement in almost all types of mesh nets. The 
saw becomes entangled in the net and fishers often harm the animal 
(remove their saw or kill them) when removing them from their nets. In 
some locations where they are or were abundant enough, sawfishes have 
been directly targeted because of their value.
    Sawfishes are utilized for a wide variety of products. Among the 
most common products is the sawfish rostrum. Rostrums have long been a 
favorite marine curio (Migdalski, 1981) with large rostra commanding 
impressive prices (McDavitt, 1996). Rostra are sometimes decorated with 
elaborate designs or grotesque faces. These folk art rostra are 
sometimes fashioned into elaborate sheaths for knives. Sawfish rostra 
are also utilized as ceremonial weapons in the folk religion of Taiwan. 
McDavitt (1996) reported that sawfish rostra are also used in 
traditional medicine in Asia and in Mexico City. Rostra are dried and 
powdered, and then infused into a medicinal tea, which is used to treat 
``whooping cough, bronchitis, laryngitis and diseases of the 
respiratory tract in general'' (Watson, 2004).
    Sawfish rostral teeth have been the preferred material used to 
manufacture artificial ``spurs'' for use as weapons in Peruvian 
cockfighting (Cogorno Ventura, 2001). The rostral teeth are mostly 
obtained from Brazil, Ecuador, Panama, and various Caribbean countries. 
Charvet-Almeida (2002) and McDavitt and Charvet-Almeida (2004) 
determined that rostra find their way into the international 
cockfighting market from Brazil. Sawfish rostral teeth have been 
favored over other natural spur materials (such as deer antler, sea 
turtle shell, sea-lion teeth, mammal bones, and stingray spines), as 
systematic testing revealed that sawfish teeth were more durable, and 
have a sufficiently porous surface to cause greater body damage to the 
opponent (McDavitt and Charvet-Almeida, 2004).
    Sawfish products are also utilized for medicinal purposes. Four 
sawfish products are listed as materia medica in traditional Chinese 
medicine: liver, ova, and bile (Han and Xu, 1992) as well as the 
sawfish rostra (McDavitt, 1996). The bile of sawfishes is thought to 
remove phlegm and diminish inflammation from such conditions as fall 
injuries, rheumatoid arthritis, and cholecystitis (inflammation of the 
gall bladder) (McDavitt, 1996).
    Sawfishes are highly prized as exhibit animals in public aquaria 
because of their charismatic nature (McDavitt, 1996). They command high 
prices in the aquarium trade. Because of their large fins with high fin 
needle content (a tasteless gelatinous product used to make shark fin 
soup), sawfish fins are valued for shark fin soup in Asia. Although few 
fin dealers advertise the type of fins they trade, one Hong Kong vendor 
designates two trade names used for sawfish fins: huang jiao (described 
in English as ``saw shark,'') and mian qun (labeled as ``yellow shovel 
nose'' in English).

Disease and Predation

    The petition states that disease from parasitic infections and 
natural predation from sharks and crocodiles

[[Page 12313]]

are not responsible for the dramatic decline of the populations of 
sawfish. The petitioner also states that entanglement in fishing gears 
increases the risk of predation for sawfish due to their reduced 
population size. The petitioner states that disease and predation may 
now be a greater threat for all five petitioned species since their 
populations have declined, but does not provide information to 
substantiate their claims. There is no evidence in our files that 
indicate that disease and/or predation are negatively affecting 
population growth in these species.

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    As stated in the petition and in the U.S.' CITES proposal to list 
all sawfishes (2007), very few countries have enacted legislation 
specifically to protect sawfishes or manage their fisheries. 
Consequently, protective measures covering trade of A. cuspidata, P. 
clavata, P. zijsron, and P. pectinata were implemented internationally 
under Appendix I of CITES in 2007, making non-domestic trade of parts 
illegal. Pristis microdon was protected under Appendix II of CITES only 
for the purposes of live trade of animals to aquaria. Protection under 
Appendix I prohibits international trade in specimens of these species 
except when the purpose of the import is not commercial, for instance 
for scientific research. In these exceptional cases, trade may take 
place provided it is authorized by the granting of both an import 
permit and an export permit (or re-export certificate). Protection 
under Appendix II listing means international trade is allowed but an 
export permit or re-export certificate must be issued when it is 
determined that trade will not be detrimental to the survival of the 
species in the wild. Although all sawfishes are protected under CITES, 
information in our files indicates that enforcement of these 
regulations in various countries is difficult due to the length of the 
coastline, extensive internal waterways, lack of enforcement personnel, 
and the need for more efficient tools. Targeted fisheries for sawfish 
species is unlikely in most countries because abundances are so low; 
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 (McDavitt, 2006). The Nicaraguan government imposed a 
temporary moratorium on targeted fishing for sawfishes in Lake 
Nicaragua in the early 1980s (Thorson, 1982), after the population 
collapsed following intensive fishing in the 1970s. The aim was to 
allow the population to recover, but no such recovery has occurred 
(McDavitt, 2002). Indonesia enacted legislation to protect sawfishes 
(and five other freshwater fish species) in Lake Sentani, West Papua, 
following severe depletion of populations in a gill net fishery 
(Compagno et al., 2006). All Australian sawfish populations are listed 
as Vulnerable or Endangered, either under Australia's Commonwealth 
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act or by the 
Australian Society for Fish Biology. Environment Australia was 
petitioned to list all species of sawfish on the Endangered Species 
List and India's Ministry of Environment and Forests has protected 
sawfishes under the Wildlife Protection Act since 2001.

Other Natural or Manmade Factors

    Both information in the petition and information in our files 
indicate that the future abundance of all sawfish species is limited by 
their life history characteristics. Sawfish have slow growth rates, 
late maturity, a long life span, and low fecundity rates. 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.

Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors

    In summary, the petition and information in our files present 
substantial information that four of the five of section 4(a)(1) 
factors are likely affecting the continued existence of the five 
petitioned sawfish species. Interactions between and among these 
various threats may further exacerbate the impacts of each of the 
threats, such that there may be an extinction risk of concern for each 
of the five species.

Petition Finding

    After reviewing the information contained in the petition and in 
our files, we conclude there is not substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that P. pristis is a valid species 
eligible for listing. However, the petition and information in our 
files present substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the other 
five species of sawfish throughout their entire range (A. cuspidata, P. 
clavata, P. microdon, P. zijsron, and all non-listed population(s) of 
P. pectinata). In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and 
NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we will commence 
a review of the status of these five species and make a determination 
within 12 months of receiving the petition as to whether the petitioned 
action is warranted. The U.S. DPS of P. pectinata is already listed as 
an endangered species. As part of the status review, we will apply our 
DPS policy to the non-listed populations. If warranted, we will publish 
a proposed rule to list one or more species. If we propose any listings 
we will solicit public comments before developing and publishing a 
final rule.

Information Solicited

    To ensure that the status review is based on the best available 
scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information on 
whether A. cuspidata, P. clavata, P. microdon, P. zijsron, and all non-
listed population(s) of P. pectinata are endangered or threatened. 
Specifically, we are soliciting information in the following areas: (1) 
Historical and current distribution and abundance of these species 
throughout their range; (2) historical and current population trends; 
(3) life history in marine environments, (4) curio, meat, shark fin or 
other trade data; (5) taxonomy; (6) any current or planned activities 
that may adversely impact the species; (7) ongoing or planned efforts 
to protect and restore the species and their habitats; (8) population 
structure information relevant to distinct population segments; and (9) 
management, regulatory, and enforcement information. We request that 
all information be accompanied by: (1) supporting documentation such as 
maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; 
and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, 
institution, or business that the person represents.

References Cited

    A complete list of references is available upon request from the 
Protected Resources Division on NMFS Southeast Regional Office (see 
ADDRESSES).

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).


[[Page 12314]]


    Dated: March 1, 2011.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries for Regulatory Programs, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-5107 Filed 3-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P