Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Common Thresher Shark as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act, 11379-11386 [2015-04409]
Download as PDF
11379
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Species 1
Citation(s) for listing determination(s)
Common name
Scientific name
*
Description of listed entity
*
Coelacanth, African
(Tanzanian DPS).
*
Latimeria
chalumnae.
*
*
Fishes
African coelacanth population inhabiting deep waters off the coast of
Tanzania.
*
*
*
*
[Insert Federal Register citation and
date when published as a final
rule].
*
Critical
habitat
*
*
ESA
rules
*
NA
NA
*
1 Species
includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7,
1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 141219999–5132–01]
RIN 0648–XD680
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List
the Common Thresher Shark as
Threatened or Endangered Under the
Endangered Species Act
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.
AGENCY:
We, NMFS, announce the 90day finding for a petition to list the
common thresher shark (Alopias
vulpinus) as either endangered or
threatened under the U.S. Endangered
Species Act (ESA) either worldwide or
as one or more distinct population
segments (DPSs) identified by the
petitioners. We find that the petition
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted
for the species worldwide. We find that
the petition fails to present substantial
scientific or commercial information to
support the identification of DPSs of the
common thresher suggested by the
petitioners, and, as such, we find that
the petitioned action of listing one or
more of these DPSs is not warranted.
Accordingly, we will initiate a review of
the status of the common thresher shark
at this time. To ensure that the status
review is comprehensive, we are
soliciting scientific and commercial
information regarding this species.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:54 Mar 02, 2015
Information and comments on
the subject action must be received by
May 4, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
information, or data, identified by
‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2015–0025’’ by either
of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20150025. Click the ‘‘Comment Now’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail or hand-delivery: Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910.
Instructions: You must submit
comments by one of the above methods
to ensure that we receive, document,
and consider them. Comments sent by
any other method, to any other address
or individual, or received after the end
of the comment period, may not be
considered. All comments received are
a part of the public record and will
generally be posted for public viewing
on https://www.regulations.gov without
change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. We will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats
only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources (OPR), (301) 427–
8491 or Marta Nammack, NMFS, OPR,
(301) 427–8469.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
[FR Doc. 2015–04405 Filed 3–2–15; 8:45 am]
Jkt 235001
Background
On August 26, 2014, we received a
petition from Friends of Animals
requesting that we list the common
thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) as
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
endangered or threatened under the
ESA, or, in the alternative, delineate six
distinct population segments (DPSs) of
the common thresher shark, as
described in the petition, and list them
as endangered or threatened. Friends of
Animals also requested that critical
habitat be designated for this species in
U.S. waters concurrent with final ESA
listing.
The petitioner states that the common
thresher shark merits listing as an
endangered or threatened species under
the ESA because of the following: (1)
The species faces threats from historical
and continued fishing for both
commercial and recreational purposes;
(2) life history characteristics and
limited ability to recover from fishing
pressure makes the species particularly
vulnerable to overexploitation; and (3)
there is a lack of regulations that
specifically protect the common
thresher shark.
ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy
Considerations
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973,
as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
requires, to the maximum extent
practicable, that within 90 days of
receipt of a petition to list a species as
threatened or endangered, the Secretary
of Commerce make a finding on whether
that petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted, and promptly
publish the finding in the Federal
Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When
we find that substantial scientific or
commercial information in a petition
and in our files indicates the petitioned
action may be warranted (a ‘‘positive 90day finding’’), we are required to
promptly commence a review of the
status of the species concerned, which
includes conducting a comprehensive
review of the best available scientific
and commercial information. Within 12
months of receiving the petition, we
must conclude the review with a finding
as to whether, in fact, the petitioned
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11380
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
action is warranted. Because the finding
at the 12-month stage is based on a
significantly more thorough review of
the available information, a ‘‘may be
warranted’’ finding at the 90-day stage
does not prejudge the outcome of the
status review.
Under the ESA, a listing
determination may address a ‘‘species,’’
which is defined to also include
subspecies and, for any vertebrate
species, any DPS that interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint
NMFS–U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) policy clarifies the agencies’
interpretation of the phrase ‘‘distinct
population segment’’ for the purposes of
listing, delisting, and reclassifying a
species under the ESA (‘‘DPS Policy’’;
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,
the determination of whether a species
is threatened or endangered shall be
based on any one or a combination of
the following five section 4(a)(1) factors:
The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat
or range; overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; disease or predation;
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; and any other natural or
manmade factors affecting the species’
existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR
424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued
jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR
424.14(b)) define ‘‘substantial
information’’ in the context of reviewing
a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a
species as the amount of information
that would lead a reasonable person to
believe that the measure proposed in the
petition may be warranted. When
evaluating whether substantial
information is contained in a petition,
we 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
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)).
At the 90-day stage, 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 that it supports the
petitioner’s assertions. Conclusive
information indicating the species may
meet the ESA’s requirements for listing
is not required to make a positive 90day finding. We will not conclude that
a lack of specific information alone
negates a positive 90-day finding, if a
reasonable person would conclude that
the unknown information itself suggests
an extinction risk of concern for the
species at issue.
To make a 90-day finding on a
petition to list a species, we evaluate
whether the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating the subject
species may be either threatened or
endangered, as defined by the ESA.
First, we evaluate whether the
information presented in the petition,
along with the information readily
available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ‘‘species’’
eligible for listing under the ESA. Next,
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
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 ESA
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 nongovernmental organizations, such as the
International Union for 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 such 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 of information
that the classification is based upon in
light of the standards on extinction risk
and impacts or threats discussed above.
Species Description
Distribution
The common thresher shark (Alopias
vulpinus) is a large highly migratory
pelagic species of shark found
throughout the world in temperate and
tropical seas. In the North Atlantic,
common thresher sharks occur from
Newfoundland, Canada, to Cuba in the
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
west and from Norway and the British
Isles to the African coast in the east
(Gervelis, 2013). Landings along the
South Atlantic coast of the United States
and in the Gulf of Mexico are rare.
Common thresher sharks also occur
along the Atlantic coast of South
America from Venezuela to southern
Argentina. In the eastern Atlantic, A.
vulpinus ranges from the central coast of
Norway south to, and including, the
Mediterranean Sea and down the
African coast to the Ivory Coast. They
appear to be most abundant along the
Iberian coastline, particularly during
spring and fall. Specimens have also
been recorded at Cape Province, South
Africa (Goldman, 2009). In the Indian
Ocean, A. vulpinus is found along the
east coast of Somalia, and in waters
adjacent to the Maldive Islands and
Chagos archipelago. They are also
present off Australia (Tasmania to
central Western Australia), Sumatra,
Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Oman,
Kenya, the northwestern coast of
Madagascar and South Africa. A few
specimens have been taken from
southwest of the Chagos archipelago,
the Gulf of Aden, and northwest Red
Sea. In the western Pacific Ocean, the
range of A. vulpinus includes southern
Japan, Korea, China, parts of Australia
and New Zealand. They are also present
around several Pacific Islands,
including New Caledonia, Society
Islands, Fanning Islands and Hawaii. In
the Northeast Pacific Ocean, the
geographic range of common thresher
sharks extends from Goose Bay, British
Columbia, Canada to the Baja Peninsula,
Mexico and out to about 200 miles from
the coast (Goldman, 2009).
Additionally, they are found off Chile
and records exist from Panama
(Campagno, 1984).
Physical Characteristics
The common thresher shark possesses
an elongated upper caudal lobe almost
equal to its body length, which is
unique to this family. It has a
moderately large eye, a broad head,
short snout, narrow tipped pectoral fins,
no grooves on the head above the gills,
and lateral teeth without distinct
cusplets. The origin of the pelvic fins is
well behind the insertion of the first
dorsal fin. While some of the above
characteristics may be shared by other
thresher shark species, diagnostic
features separating this species from the
other two thresher shark species (bigeye
thresher, A. superciliosus, and pelagic
thresher, A. pelagicus) are the presence
of labial furrows, the origin of the
second dorsal fin posterior to the end of
the pelvic fin free rear tip, and the white
color of the abdomen extending upward
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
over the pectoral fin bases, and again
rearward of the pelvic fins. In living
specimens, dorsal coloration may vary
from brown, blue slate, slate gray, blue
gray, and dark lead to nearly black, with
a metallic, often purplish, luster. The
lower surface of the snout (forward of
the nostrils) and pectoral fin bases are
generally not white and may be the
same color as the dorsal surface
(Goldman, 2009).
Habitat
Surveys of the common thresher shark
from our Southwest Fisheries Science
Center (SWFSC) demonstrate habitat
separation between juveniles and adults
(PMFC, 2003; Smith et al., 2008).
Juveniles occupy relatively shallow
water over the continental shelf, while
adults are found in deeper water, but
rarely range beyond 200 miles (321.87
km) from the coast (PMFC, 2003; Smith
et al., 2008). Both adults and juveniles
are associated with highly biologically
productive waters, found in regions of
upwelling or intense mixing.
Feeding Ecology
Common thresher sharks feed at midtrophic levels on small pelagic fish and
squid. Given their more specialized diet
compared to other local pelagic sharks,
they are more likely to exert top-down
effects on their prey, although this
remains to be demonstrated. Based on
studies at the SWFSC, the top six prey
species, in order, are northern anchovy,
Pacific sardine, Pacific hake, Pacific
mackerel, jack mackerel, and market
squid (Preti et al., 2001, 2004). Thresher
sharks are unique, in that they use their
tail in a whip-like fashion to disorient
and incapacitate their prey (Oliver,
2013).
Life History
The life span of the common thresher
shark is estimated between 15 and 50
years, although additional research to
confirm this is necessary (Gervalis,
2013). Thresher sharks reach maturity at
approximately 5 years of age and at
around 166 cm fork length for both
sexes. They grow approximately 30 cm
per year for the first 5 years of their lives
(Gervalis, 2013; Smith et al., 2008).
Maximum size has been estimated for
thresher sharks along the U.S. West
Coast at 550 cm (Gervalis, 2013; Smith
et al., 2008). Their mode of
reproduction is aplacental
ovoviviparous and oophagous, and a
typical litter size is 2–4 pups, with
gestation thought to be around 9 months
(NMFS Common Thresher Shark Fact
Sheet; PMFC, 2003; Smith et al., 2008).
Pupping is thought to occur in the
springtime, with mating thought to
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11381
occur in the summer, and nursery
grounds for pups are in shallow
continental shelf waters 90 m deep or
less (NMFS Common Thresher Shark
Fact Sheet).
Analysis of DPS Information
The petition requests that we list the
common thresher shark throughout its
range, or list the species as six DPSs.
The petitioner identifies six
subpopulations that it believes may
qualify for listing: Eastern Central
Pacific, Indo-West Pacific, Northwest
and Western Central Atlantic,
Southwest Atlantic, Mediterranean, and
Northeast Atlantic. To meet the
definition of a DPS, a population must
be both discrete from other populations
of the species and significant to the
species as a whole (61 FR 4722;
February 7, 1996).
The petition does not provide
biological evidence to support the
existence of the six ‘‘subpopulations’’
identified; however, the petition states
that six subpopulations of the common
thresher shark are discrete. The petition
goes on to define this discreteness
according to the second discreteness
factor listed in the NMFS/USFWS joint
DPS policy, where a population can be
considered discrete if it ‘‘is delimited by
international governmental boundaries
within which differences in control of
exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory
mechanisms exist that are significant in
light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.’’
The petitioner maintains that the ‘‘broad
and varied spectrum of harvest control,
habitat management, conservation
status, and regulatory mechanisms’’
addressing the species may qualify
different ‘‘subpopulations’’ as discrete
under this discreteness factor, asserting
that, ‘‘due to broad differences in
regulation of their management and
capture, the subpopulations of common
thresher sharks should be considered
sufficiently discrete for protection as
DPSs under the ESA.’’
The petition does not propose any
boundaries for the six suggested DPSs,
nor does the petition describe in any
detail the ways in which different
management relating to international
governmental boundaries may delineate
the species into boundaries aligning
with the six suggested DPSs. Specific
gaps in management or
intergovernmental boundaries are not
described as they relate to any of the six
proposed DPSs. We were also unable to
find information to define the six
subpopulations as discrete on biological
grounds. In our files, only a single
preliminary study was available to
suggest population structure of the
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
11382
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
common thresher shark. This study
examined mitochondrial control region
DNA, which demonstrated significant
population structure between most
pairwise comparisons, but the sample
sizes were extremely low, and thus the
results could not be interpreted with
confidence. The data support separate
Atlantic vs. Pacific populations (or at
least female philopatry) (Trejo, 2005).
However, based on the preliminary
nature of these data, and low sample
size throughout the study, these results
cannot be relied upon to divide the
common thresher shark into the six
subpopulations proposed by the
petition.
Based on information in the petition
and readily available in our files, we
were unable to find evidence to support
the discreteness of any of the six DPSs
proposed. Because of this, arguments
made by the petitioner describing the
potential significance of any suggested
DPS are irrelevant. Thus, we conclude
that the petition provides insufficient
evidence to identify any DPSs of the
common thresher shark at this time.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Analysis of Petition and Information
Readily Available in NMFS Files
The following sections contain
information found in the petition and
readily available in our files to
determine whether a reasonable person
would conclude that an endangered or
threatened listing may be warranted as
a result of any of the factors listed under
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
Common Thresher Shark Status and
Trends
The petition does not provide a
population abundance estimate for
common thresher sharks, but points to
its ‘‘vulnerable’’ status on the IUCN Red
List, and quotes extensively from the
Encyclopedia of Life, an online
collaborative database intended for
documenting information on all species
of life. The petition asserts that a global
decline of common thresher sharks has
been caused mainly by commercial and
recreational fishing (both direct harvest
and bycatch), particularly during the
1970s and early 1980s. The petition
references high commercial catch rates
for common threshers along the U.S.
West Coast during the 1980s, and
declines in catch by the mid-1990s,
indicative of overexploitation (Goldman
et al., 2009). In the Northwest and
Western Central Atlantic, the petition
cites the Encyclopedia of Life for
asserting 50–80 percent declines in
common thresher shark abundance
occurring from 1986–2005. The petition
describes likely declines of common
thresher sharks in the Mediterranean
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
due to high fishing pressure. In the
Northeast Atlantic, the petition
describes variable landings prior to 2000
and a decline in landings since 2002
(ICES, 2006). Finally, the petition points
to increased interest in recreational
fishing of the common thresher shark,
with the potential for high post-release
mortality. The petition does not provide
information on estimates of abundance
across the range of the species.
Although historical overfishing of the
common thresher shark led to serious
declines in population abundance,
particularly during the 1980s,
regulations since the early 1990s have
contributed to trends of rebuilding of
the species over the past two decades in
some portions of its range, particularly
in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (PFMC,
2011; NMFS Common Thresher Shark
Fact Sheet). However, in other portions
of the species’ global range, declines
due to overutilization (bycatch,
recreation, and directed catch) may be
ongoing, leading to declines in
abundance. The threat of commercial
fishing is discussed in more detail
below (see ‘‘Overutilization’’).
The last IUCN assessment of the
common thresher shark was completed
in 2009 and since then several estimates
of global and subpopulation trends and
status have been made. Perhaps most
heavily studied have been common
thresher sharks in the Eastern Pacific
Ocean, where the shark has historically
been most heavily fished. Commercial
fishing of thresher sharks in the U.S.
was eliminated by gill net regulations by
1990, and within a decade, the
population began to slowly rebuild to
just below 50 percent of the initial
subpopulation size (Camhi et al., 2007).
A preliminary examination of trends in
the catch-per-unit-effort and total catch
of common thresher sharks in this
region is consistent with earlier
conclusions that the population is
increasing from its decline in the late
1980s and early 1990s (PMFC, 2011).
Efforts to conduct a full stock
assessment have been initiated by
NMFS. Based on preliminary stock
assessment results, there appears to be
an initial period of decline from 1981 to
1986, followed by a gradual recovery of
the stock. The index is highly variable
after 2000, which is possibly due to
regulatory and operational changes in
the fishery (SWFSC, unpublished data).
In the Northwest Atlantic, declines in
relative abundance cited by the
petitioner were derived from analyses of
´
logbook data, reported in Cortes (2007).
This study reported a 63 percent decline
of thresher sharks (on the genus level)
based on logbook data, occurring
´
between 1986 and 2006 (Cortes, 2007).
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The observer index data from the same
study shows an opposite trend in
relative abundance, with a 28 percent
increase of threshers in the Northwest
Atlantic since 1992. Logbook data over
the same period (1992–2006) showed a
50 percent decline in thresher sharks.
The logbook dataset is the largest
available for the western North Atlantic
Ocean, but the observer dataset is
generally more reliable in terms of
consistent identification and reporting.
According to observer data, relative
abundance of thresher sharks (again,
only at the genus level) in the western
North Atlantic Ocean appears to have
stabilized or even be increasing since
´
the late 1990s (Cortes, 2007). A more
recent analysis using logbook data
between 1996 and 2005 provides some
supporting evidence that the abundance
of thresher sharks has stabilized over
this time period (Baum, 2010). However,
the conflicting evidence between
logbook and observer data showing
opposite trends in thresher shark
abundance cannot be fully resolved at
this time. Data are not available in the
petition or in our own files to assess the
trend in population abundance in this
region since 2006, or to assess the trend
specific to the common thresher shark.
Because the logbook data from this
region shows consistent evidence of a
significant and continued decline in
thresher sharks, we must consider this
information in our 90-day
determination.
For the Northeast Atlantic, there are
no population abundance estimates
available, but data indicate that the
species is taken in driftnets and gillnets.
In the Mediterranean Sea, estimates
show significant declines in thresher
shark abundance during the past two
decades, reflecting data up to 2006;
according to historical data compiled
using a generalized linear model,
thresher sharks have declined between
96 and 99 percent in abundance and
biomass in the Mediterranean Sea
(Ferretti et al., 2008).
In other areas of the world, estimates
of thresher shark abundance are limited.
For the Indo-West Pacific, little
information is currently available on
common thresher sharks. Although
pelagic fishing effort in this region is
high, with reported increases in recent
years, the common thresher shark is
more characteristic of cooler waters, and
further information needs to be
collected on records and catches of the
species in this region (IUCN assessment,
2009).
In conclusion, trends throughout the
Eastern Pacific Ocean portion of the
species’ range suggest that the
population there is rebuilding from
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
historical overexploitation. However,
across the rest of its global range, we
find evidence suggesting that
population abundance of common
thresher sharks has continued to decline
or, as in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean,
may be stable at a diminished
abundance. While data are still limited
with respect to population size and
trends, we find the petition and our files
sufficient in presenting substantial
information on common thresher shark
abundance, trends, or status to indicate
that the petitioned action may be
warranted.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors
The petition indicated three main
categories of threats to the common
thresher shark: Overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and
other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. We
discuss each of these below, as well as
an additional evaluation of other 4(a)(1)
factors based on information in the
petition, and the information readily
available in our files.
Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification or Curtailment of Habitat
or Range
The petition does not list threats to
habitat as impacting the common
thresher shark. In our files, we were also
unable to find evidence that destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat
or range were negatively impacting the
species. Supporting this conclusion, in
our files, we found evidence
demonstrating that habitat pollution has
not resulted in high concentrations of
pollutants in the bodies of common
thresher sharks. For example, Suk et al.
(2009) demonstrated that the level of
mercury measured in the muscle of
individual thresher sharks was quite
low (mean 0.13 ± 0.15 mg/g), with no
traces of mercury detected in the liver.
Mercury concentration increased with
shark size to a maximum of 0.7 mg/g for
a 241 cm fork length (∼ 425 lb)
individual, still far lower than for other
sharks examined in the study, including
the shortfin mako and the sevengill
shark (Suk et al., 2009). Although data
are unavailable to assess the impact of
these mercury levels on the health of the
common thresher shark, low mercury
levels exhibited by the common
thresher shark likely relate to its
tendency to feed on small schooling fish
and cephalopods, at lower trophic levels
than the prey consumed by other sharks
studied.
In summary, the petition, references
cited, and information in our files do
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
not comprise substantial information
indicating there is present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the common thresher
shark’s habitat or range such that listing
may be warranted.
Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
The petition states that ‘‘historical
and continued trends of fishing of this
commercially and recreationally
valuable shark remain a threat,’’ listing
commercial exploitation as the first
threat of overutilization of the species.
Historically, common thresher sharks
were primarily caught in the drift gillnet
fishery established off the West Coast of
the United States, which targeted the
species in the late 1970s. The fishery
had shifted its focus to a swordfish
fishery by the mid-1980s due to
economic drivers, but also to protect
pupping female thresher sharks (PFMC,
2003). Since that time, common thresher
sharks have only been targeted
secondarily or caught incidentally in the
drift gillnet fishery there. West Coast
commercial landings are down from
1,800 metric tons (mt) in the early 1980s
to below 200 mt in 2008 and 2009
(PFMC, 2010). As stated above, based on
preliminary stock assessment results,
there appears to be an initial period of
decline from 1981 to 1986, followed by
a gradual rebuilding of the stock (NMFS
SWFSC, unpublished data). Average
annual landings since 2004 have been
about 200 mt (PFMC, 2011), well below
an established sustainable and
precautionary harvest level of 450 mt,
and this level of landings has allowed
the population to further rebuild.
Regulations on commercial fishing
operations (e.g., time and area closures)
to protect gravid females during the
pupping season (March through
August), combined with a switch in the
primary target of the driftnet fishery
from thresher sharks to swordfish, have
likely contributed to the rebuilding of
the common thresher shark in the
Eastern Pacific Ocean over the past 25
years (PMFC, 2003).
The petition states that in addition to
broad commercial harvest of the species,
direct catch related to the shark fin trade
has resulted in population decline. No
information connecting population
declines as a result of this direct catch
is provided in the petition. The petition
states that common thresher shark fins
are valuable due to their large size and
longer fin needles. Evidence suggests
that the three thresher shark species,
collectively, may account for
approximately 2.3 percent of the fins
auctioned in Hong Kong, the world’s
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11383
largest fin-trading center (Clarke, 2006).
This translates to 0.4 million to 3.9
million threshers that may enter the
global fin trade each year (Clarke, 2006).
However, information on the speciesspecific impact of this harvest on
common thresher shark abundance is
not provided by the petitioner, and is
not available in our files. The bigeye
thresher shark is of higher value and
vulnerability to fishing than the
common thresher shark (Cortez, 2010);
however, the relative proportion of each
thresher shark species comprising the
shark-fin trade is not available in this
genus-level assessment. Overall,
evidence that common thresher sharks
(and threshers in general) are highly
valued for their fins and comprise a
portion of the Hong Kong fin-trading
auction suggests that this threat may
impact the species.
Indirect catch is another category of
overutilization identified by the
petition, which states that post-release
mortality may be high in the species.
However, no information is provided in
the petition to connect the effect of
bycatch on population declines of the
species. In our own files, we found
evidence to support that adults and
juveniles of common thresher shark are
caught as bycatch in longline, purse
seine and mid-water fisheries (IATTC,
2006). As stated in the petition, in the
Northeast Atlantic Ocean prior to 2000,
estimated landings fluctuated at 13–17 t,
and in 2000–2001 they exceeded 100 t,
after which they dropped to 4 t in 2002
and have not exceeded 7 t since (ICES,
2006). In the Mediterranean, there are
no large-scale fisheries targeting pelagic
sharks and rays, but these species are
taken as bycatch in surface longline
fisheries (Cahmi, 2009). In our files, we
found evidence that, in the last two
decades, common thresher sharks have
declined between 96 and 99 percent in
abundance and biomass in the
Mediterranean Sea (Ferretti, 2008).
Currently, there is no commercial
fishery for common thresher sharks on
the East Coast of the United States, but
they are taken as bycatch on pelagic
longlines and in gillnets; here,
commercial bycatch landings averaged
19,958 kg (dressed weight) from 2003 to
2011, with landings peaking at 27,801
kg (dressed weight) in 2010 (NMFS,
2012; Gervalis et al., 2013). These
landings may be linked to declines in
the species across the Northwest
Atlantic portion of its range; however,
as discussed earlier, conflicting logbook
and observer data decrease the certainty
´
of these trends (Cortes, 2007; Baum,
2010). In the Southwest Atlantic Ocean,
off the coast of Brazil, big eye thresher
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11384
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
sharks represent almost 100 percent of
thresher sharks caught, and only
occasionally are common thresher
sharks caught in the longline fishery
(Amorin, 1998).
The petition identified recreational
fishing as the fourth category of
overutilization. In our files, we found
evidence that common thresher sharks
are valued by recreational sport
fishermen throughout the species’ U.S.
East Coast and West Coast range, and
those that are caught are generally
landed; the common thresher shark is
considered one of the better species for
human consumption (Compagno, 2001).
The species appears to be increasing in
importance at shark tournaments in the
Northeastern United States. As
described in the petition, at one major
tournament, common thresher shark
numbers increased steadily such that
the percent of total catch increased from
0.1 percent to 4.8 from 1965 to 1995 and
jumped to 27.8 percent of the total catch
in 2004 (Gervalis et al., 2013). Heberer
(2010) identified the potential negative
impact of recreational fishing on the
survival of the common thresher shark
by assessing post-release survivorship of
sharks captured using the caudal-finbased techniques used by most
recreational fishermen. Since common
thresher sharks use their elongate upper
caudal lobe to immobilize prey before it
is consumed, the majority of thresher
sharks captured in the recreational
fishery are hooked in the caudal fin and
hauled-in backwards (Heberer, 2010).
The common thresher is an obligate ram
ventilator that requires forward motion
to ventilate the gills (Heberer, 2010).
The reduced ability to extract oxygen
from the water during capture as well as
the stress induced from these capture
methods may influence recovery
following release. The findings of
Heberer (2010) demonstrate that large
tail-hooked common thresher sharks
with prolonged fight times (≥85 min)
exhibit a heightened stress response,
which may contribute to an increased
mortality rate. This work suggests,
especially for larger thresher sharks, that
recreational catch-and-release may not
be an effective conservation-based
strategy for the species. A recent paper
by Sepulveda (2014) found similar
evidence for high post-release mortality
of recreationally caught common
thresher sharks in the California
recreational shark fishery. Their results
demonstrated that caudal-fin-based
angling techniques, which often result
in trailing gear left embedded in the
shark, can negatively affect post-release
survivorship. This work suggests that
mouth-based angling techniques can,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
when performed properly, result in a
higher survivorship of released sharks.
However, these techniques are not a
common practice. Recreational catch
varies widely from year to year but has
averaged roughly 20 mt annually in
recent years (CDFG, 2008). The
estimated level of catch in this fishery
may be imprecise because the fishery is
patchy and sporadic. Although
recreational catch rate data are
unavailable or highly unreliable,
evidence for high post-release mortality
suggests that increases in recreational
fishing may pose a threat to the common
thresher shark.
Overall, trends throughout the Eastern
Pacific Ocean suggest that the species
either may be rebuilding from historical
overexploitation, or may be stable.
Elsewhere across the species’ range,
information in the petition and in our
files suggests that the species may
continue to experience declines as a
result of overutilization. While
measures may be implemented to
improve post-release mortality of a
recreational common thresher shark
fishery, and to reduce bycatch, we
found no evidence that these measures
have been incorporated into common
practice. In summary, the petition,
references cited, and information in our
files comprise substantial information
indicating that listing may be warranted
because of overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific or
educational purposes.
Disease and Predation
The petitioner does not identify
predation and disease as a threat to the
common thresher shark, and we were
unable to find any information in our
files to suggest that this factor is
affecting the continued survival of the
species.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms
The petition states that ‘‘the U.S. does
not provide adequate protection for this
species. Additionally, this global
species lacks international protection
under the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species (CITES),
and regional management mechanisms
remain ineffective.’’
On the contrary, we found that
national fishing regulations on common
thresher shark fishing in the United
States are precautionary, and have led to
the rebuilding of the species in U.S.
waters over the last two decades. The
Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West
Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory
Species includes an annual harvest
guideline of 340 mt for thresher shark.
This is a precautionary harvest
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
guideline for commercial catch, which
is estimated to be 75 percent of the
regional maximum sustainable yield for
this population. Time and area
restrictions in the pelagic drift gillnet
fishery were imposed off California in
the mid-1980s to protect thresher
sharks, and more regulations were
added in 2000 to protect sea turtles,
resulting in reduced effort. In the United
States Atlantic Ocean, the species has
been managed as part of the pelagic
shark complex under the 2006
Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory
Species Fishery Management Plan.
Management measures include the
following: Commercial quotas, limited
entry, time-area closures, and
recreational bag limits. Sharks are
required to be landed with fins naturally
attached to the carcass. Overfishing and
overfished status is currently unknown
(NMFS HMS 3rd Qtr 2011 stock status),
but preliminary stock assessment data
suggest that the species is rebuilding in
U.S. waters due to management
measures to conserve the species
(SWFSC, unpublished).
Since we received the petition, the
common thresher shark has been listed
in Appendix II under the International
Convention on the Conservation of
Migratory Species of Wild Animals
(CMS). The petitioner stated that there
are no laws specifically addressing the
needs of the common thresher shark;
however, a CMS Appendix II listing
now encourages international
cooperation towards conservation of the
species.
We agree with the petition that the
majority of other international
regulations provide general protection
for all sharks, and that includes the
common thresher shark. The petition
asserts that finning regulations are
‘‘inadequate’’ for protecting the common
thresher shark species because common
thresher sharks may still be caught,
either directly or indirectly as bycatch.
The petition also cites several regional
fisheries management organizations
(RFMOs) that implement a 5-percent
fin-to-carcass ratio regulation, describes
what the petitioner contends are
potential loopholes in those regulations,
and states that these general regulations
are inadequate for the common thresher
shark, whose larger fins make it a more
targeted species. We agree with the
petitioner that the common thresher
shark is highly valued for its fins, and
can be identified in the shark fin
market, although only to the genus
level. However, we do not find that
national and international regulations
are inadequate for protecting the
common thresher shark.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Finning regulations are a common
form of shark management regulation
and have been adopted by far more
countries and regional fishery
management organizations than the
petition lists (see HSI, 2012). While the
petitioner asserts that there may be
some loopholes in regulations using a
5% fin-to-carcass ratio, we find that the
common thresher shark is rebuilding in
broad portions of its range and is of
lower vulnerability due to its
demographic characteristics, such that
current regulations are not considered
inadequate. In addition, a number of
countries have also enacted complete
shark fishing bans, with the Bahamas,
Marshall Islands, Honduras, Sabah
(Malaysia), and Tokelau (an island
territory of New Zealand) added to the
list in 2011, and an area of 1.9 million
km off the Cook Islands added in 2012.
The petition states that Tokelau and the
Cook Islands have only partial fishing
bans, but this statement appears to be
based on incomplete information. Shark
sanctuaries can also be found in the
Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape
(which encompasses around 2,000,000
km2 and includes the Galapagos, Cocos,
and Malpelo Islands), and in waters off
the Maldives, Mauritania, Palau, and
French Polynesia. Countries, states, and
territories that prohibit the sale or trade
of shark fins or products include the
Bahamas, Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, American
Samoa, Cook Islands, Egypt, French
Polynesia, Guam, Republic of Marshall
Islands, and Sabah. Several U.S. States
prohibit the sale or trade of shark fins/
products as well, including Hawaii,
Oregon, Washington, California, Illinois,
Maryland, Delaware, New York and
Massachusetts. The U.S. Shark
Conservation Act of 2010 protects all
shark species, making it illegal to
remove any of the fins of a shark
(including the tail) at sea; to have
custody, control, or possession of any
such fin aboard a fishing vessel unless
it is naturally attached to the
corresponding carcass; to transfer any
such fin from one vessel to another
vessel at sea, or to receive any such fin
in such transfer, without the fin
naturally attached to the corresponding
carcass; or to land any such fin that is
not naturally attached to the
corresponding carcass, or to land any
shark carcass without such fins
naturally attached. Additionally, many
cities in Canada also prohibit the sale or
trade of shark fins/products. All of these
measures provide protections for the
global common thresher shark
population.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
The petition also mentions the lack of
CITES protections for the common
thresher shark. The common thresher
shark is not a CITES listed species,
however, a CITES listing would only
address threats associated with the
international trade of the species, and
would not address such impacts as
bycatch or recreational catch-andrelease of the species. Although a CITES
Appendix II listing or international
reporting requirements would provide
better data on the global catch and trade
of the common thresher shark, the lack
of a CITES listing or requirements
would not suggest that current
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate
to protect the common thresher shark
population from becoming endangered
under the ESA.
In summary, the petition, references
cited, and information in our files do
not comprise substantial information
indicating that the species is impacted
by inadequacy of regulatory
mechanisms such that listing may be
warranted.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Existence
The petition states that the biological
constraints of the common thresher
shark, such as its low reproduction rate
(typically 2–4 pups a year), coupled
with the time required to reach maturity
(approximately 5 years), contribute to
the species’ vulnerability to harvesting
and its inability to recover rapidly. It is
true that the common thresher shark
and pelagic sharks, in general, exhibit
relatively slow growth rates and low
fecundity; however, not all species are
equally vulnerable to fishing pressure
due to these life history characteristics.
An ecological risk assessment
conducted to inform the International
Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) categorized the
relative risk of overexploitation of the
11 major species of pelagic sharks,
including the common thresher shark
´
(Cortes et al., 2010, 2012). The study
derived an overall vulnerability ranking
for each of the 11 species, which was
defined as ‘‘a measure of the extent to
which the impact of a fishery [Atlantic
long line] on a species will exceed its
´
biological ability to renew itself’’ (Cortes
et al., 2010, 2012). This robust
assessment found that common thresher
sharks, along with pelagic stingrays, are
relatively productive species that show
very low susceptibility to the combined
pelagic longline fisheries in the Atlantic
´
Ocean (Cortes et al., 2010, 2012). In fact,
of 11 species examined, common
thresher sharks exhibited one of the
lowest vulnerability rankings. The
relatively low vulnerability of the
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11385
common thresher shark is further
supported by a recent comparison of
demographic models which ranked 26
pelagic sharks according to their
potential growth rate and rebound
potential (Chapple et al., 2013). The
common thresher shark was found to
rank 9 out of 26 overall in terms of its
egg production, rebound potential,
potential for population increase, and
for its stochastic growth rate; again
ranking among the highest in
productivity when compared with other
pelagic sharks (Chapple et al., 2013).
Even within the genus Alopiidae, the
common thresher shark is considered
the fastest-growing and earliestmaturing of the three species, and
attains the largest size (Smith et al.,
2008).
In summary, the petition, references
cited, and information in our files do
not comprise substantial information
indicating that the species is impacted
by ‘‘other natural or manmade factors,’’
including the life history trait of slow
productivity, such that listing of the
species may be warranted.
Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors
We conclude that the petition does
not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the ESA section (4)(a)(1) threats of
‘‘other manmade or natural factors’’ or
‘‘inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms’’
may be causing or contributing to an
increased risk of extinction for the
global population of the common
thresher shark. In addition, neither the
petition nor information in our files
indicated that the ‘‘present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range,’’ or
‘‘disease or predation’’ are threats to the
species. However, we do conclude that
the petition and information in our files
present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the section 4(a)(1) factor
‘‘overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes’’ may be causing or
contributing to an increased risk of
extinction for the species.
Petition Finding
Based on the above information and
the criteria specified in 50 CFR
424.14(b)(2), we find that the petition
and information readily available in our
files presents substantial scientific and
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action of listing the
common thresher shark worldwide as
threatened or endangered may be
warranted. Therefore, in accordance
with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and
NMFS’ implementing regulations (50
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
11386
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we will commence a
status review of the species. During the
status review, we will determine
whether the species is in danger of
extinction (endangered) or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future
(threatened) throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We now
initiate this review, and thus, we
consider the common thresher shark to
be a candidate species (69 FR 19975;
April 15, 2004). Within 12 months of
the receipt of the petition (August 26,
2015), we will make a finding as to
whether listing the species as
endangered or threatened is warranted
as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the
ESA. If listing the species is found to be
warranted, we will publish a proposed
rule and solicit public comments before
developing and publishing a final rule.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Information Solicited
To ensure that the status review is
based on the best available scientific
and commercial data, we are soliciting
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
information relevant to whether the
common thresher shark is endangered
or threatened. Specifically, we are
soliciting information in the following
areas: (1) Historical and current
distribution and abundance of this
species throughout its range; (2)
historical and current population
trends; (3) life history in marine
environments, including identified
nursery grounds; (4) historical and
current data on common thresher shark
bycatch and retention in industrial,
commercial, artisanal, and recreational
fisheries worldwide; (5) historical and
current data on common thresher shark
discards in global fisheries; (6) data on
the trade of common thresher shark
products, including fins, jaws, meat,
and teeth; (7) any current or planned
activities that may adversely impact the
species; (8) ongoing or planned efforts to
protect and restore the species and its
habitats; (9) population structure
information, such as genetics data; and
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
(10) 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 to the Office of
Protected Resources (see ADDRESSES).
Authority; The authority for this action is
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: February 25, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–04409 Filed 3–2–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 3, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11379-11386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04409]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 141219999-5132-01]
RIN 0648-XD680
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition
To List the Common Thresher Shark as Threatened or Endangered 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 the 90-day finding for a petition to list
the common thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) as either endangered or
threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) either worldwide
or as one or more distinct population segments (DPSs) identified by the
petitioners. We find that the petition presents substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted for the species worldwide. We find that the petition fails to
present substantial scientific or commercial information to support the
identification of DPSs of the common thresher suggested by the
petitioners, and, as such, we find that the petitioned action of
listing one or more of these DPSs is not warranted. Accordingly, we
will initiate a review of the status of the common thresher shark at
this time. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are
soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding this
species.
DATES: Information and comments on the subject action must be received
by May 4, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, information, or data, identified by
``NOAA-NMFS-2015-0025'' by either of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0025. Click the ``Comment Now'' icon,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Mail or hand-delivery: Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Instructions: You must submit comments by one of the above methods
to ensure that we receive, document, and consider them. Comments sent
by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received
after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All
comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be
posted for public viewing on https://www.regulations.gov without change.
All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. We
will accept anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if
you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will
be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources (OPR), (301) 427-8491 or Marta Nammack, NMFS, OPR,
(301) 427-8469.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 26, 2014, we received a petition from Friends of Animals
requesting that we list the common thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) as
endangered or threatened under the ESA, or, in the alternative,
delineate six distinct population segments (DPSs) of the common
thresher shark, as described in the petition, and list them as
endangered or threatened. Friends of Animals also requested that
critical habitat be designated for this species in U.S. waters
concurrent with final ESA listing.
The petitioner states that the common thresher shark merits listing
as an endangered or threatened species under the ESA because of the
following: (1) The species faces threats from historical and continued
fishing for both commercial and recreational purposes; (2) life history
characteristics and limited ability to recover from fishing pressure
makes the species particularly vulnerable to overexploitation; and (3)
there is a lack of regulations that specifically protect the common
thresher shark.
ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy Considerations
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days
of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered,
the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted, and promptly publish the
finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When we find
that substantial scientific or commercial information in a petition and
in our files 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, which includes
conducting a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and
commercial information. Within 12 months of receiving the petition, we
must conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in fact, the
petitioned
[[Page 11380]]
action is warranted. Because the finding at the 12-month stage is based
on a significantly more thorough review of the available information, a
``may be warranted'' finding at the 90-day stage does not prejudge the
outcome of the status review.
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a ``species,''
which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate
species, any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A
joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) policy clarifies the
agencies' interpretation of the phrase ``distinct population segment''
for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species
under the ESA (``DPS Policy''; 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, the
determination of whether a species is threatened or endangered shall be
based on any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1)
factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or
predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other
natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C.
1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50
CFR 424.14(b)) define ``substantial information'' in the context of
reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. When
evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition,
we 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)).
At the 90-day stage, 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 that it supports the petitioner's assertions.
Conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's
requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day
finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone
negates a positive 90-day finding, if a reasonable person would
conclude that the unknown information itself suggests an extinction
risk of concern for the species at issue.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we
evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating the subject species may be either
threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate
whether the information presented in the petition, along with the
information readily available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under
the ESA. Next, 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 ESA 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 non-
governmental organizations, such as the International Union for 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 such 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 of information that the
classification is based upon in light of the standards on extinction
risk and impacts or threats discussed above.
Species Description
Distribution
The common thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) is a large highly
migratory pelagic species of shark found throughout the world in
temperate and tropical seas. In the North Atlantic, common thresher
sharks occur from Newfoundland, Canada, to Cuba in the
[[Page 11381]]
west and from Norway and the British Isles to the African coast in the
east (Gervelis, 2013). Landings along the South Atlantic coast of the
United States and in the Gulf of Mexico are rare. Common thresher
sharks also occur along the Atlantic coast of South America from
Venezuela to southern Argentina. In the eastern Atlantic, A. vulpinus
ranges from the central coast of Norway south to, and including, the
Mediterranean Sea and down the African coast to the Ivory Coast. They
appear to be most abundant along the Iberian coastline, particularly
during spring and fall. Specimens have also been recorded at Cape
Province, South Africa (Goldman, 2009). In the Indian Ocean, A.
vulpinus is found along the east coast of Somalia, and in waters
adjacent to the Maldive Islands and Chagos archipelago. They are also
present off Australia (Tasmania to central Western Australia), Sumatra,
Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Oman, Kenya, the northwestern coast of
Madagascar and South Africa. A few specimens have been taken from
southwest of the Chagos archipelago, the Gulf of Aden, and northwest
Red Sea. In the western Pacific Ocean, the range of A. vulpinus
includes southern Japan, Korea, China, parts of Australia and New
Zealand. They are also present around several Pacific Islands,
including New Caledonia, Society Islands, Fanning Islands and Hawaii.
In the Northeast Pacific Ocean, the geographic range of common thresher
sharks extends from Goose Bay, British Columbia, Canada to the Baja
Peninsula, Mexico and out to about 200 miles from the coast (Goldman,
2009). Additionally, they are found off Chile and records exist from
Panama (Campagno, 1984).
Physical Characteristics
The common thresher shark possesses an elongated upper caudal lobe
almost equal to its body length, which is unique to this family. It has
a moderately large eye, a broad head, short snout, narrow tipped
pectoral fins, no grooves on the head above the gills, and lateral
teeth without distinct cusplets. The origin of the pelvic fins is well
behind the insertion of the first dorsal fin. While some of the above
characteristics may be shared by other thresher shark species,
diagnostic features separating this species from the other two thresher
shark species (bigeye thresher, A. superciliosus, and pelagic thresher,
A. pelagicus) are the presence of labial furrows, the origin of the
second dorsal fin posterior to the end of the pelvic fin free rear tip,
and the white color of the abdomen extending upward over the pectoral
fin bases, and again rearward of the pelvic fins. In living specimens,
dorsal coloration may vary from brown, blue slate, slate gray, blue
gray, and dark lead to nearly black, with a metallic, often purplish,
luster. The lower surface of the snout (forward of the nostrils) and
pectoral fin bases are generally not white and may be the same color as
the dorsal surface (Goldman, 2009).
Habitat
Surveys of the common thresher shark from our Southwest Fisheries
Science Center (SWFSC) demonstrate habitat separation between juveniles
and adults (PMFC, 2003; Smith et al., 2008). Juveniles occupy
relatively shallow water over the continental shelf, while adults are
found in deeper water, but rarely range beyond 200 miles (321.87 km)
from the coast (PMFC, 2003; Smith et al., 2008). Both adults and
juveniles are associated with highly biologically productive waters,
found in regions of upwelling or intense mixing.
Feeding Ecology
Common thresher sharks feed at mid-trophic levels on small pelagic
fish and squid. Given their more specialized diet compared to other
local pelagic sharks, they are more likely to exert top-down effects on
their prey, although this remains to be demonstrated. Based on studies
at the SWFSC, the top six prey species, in order, are northern anchovy,
Pacific sardine, Pacific hake, Pacific mackerel, jack mackerel, and
market squid (Preti et al., 2001, 2004). Thresher sharks are unique, in
that they use their tail in a whip-like fashion to disorient and
incapacitate their prey (Oliver, 2013).
Life History
The life span of the common thresher shark is estimated between 15
and 50 years, although additional research to confirm this is necessary
(Gervalis, 2013). Thresher sharks reach maturity at approximately 5
years of age and at around 166 cm fork length for both sexes. They grow
approximately 30 cm per year for the first 5 years of their lives
(Gervalis, 2013; Smith et al., 2008). Maximum size has been estimated
for thresher sharks along the U.S. West Coast at 550 cm (Gervalis,
2013; Smith et al., 2008). Their mode of reproduction is aplacental
ovoviviparous and oophagous, and a typical litter size is 2-4 pups,
with gestation thought to be around 9 months (NMFS Common Thresher
Shark Fact Sheet; PMFC, 2003; Smith et al., 2008). Pupping is thought
to occur in the springtime, with mating thought to occur in the summer,
and nursery grounds for pups are in shallow continental shelf waters 90
m deep or less (NMFS Common Thresher Shark Fact Sheet).
Analysis of DPS Information
The petition requests that we list the common thresher shark
throughout its range, or list the species as six DPSs. The petitioner
identifies six subpopulations that it believes may qualify for listing:
Eastern Central Pacific, Indo-West Pacific, Northwest and Western
Central Atlantic, Southwest Atlantic, Mediterranean, and Northeast
Atlantic. To meet the definition of a DPS, a population must be both
discrete from other populations of the species and significant to the
species as a whole (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996).
The petition does not provide biological evidence to support the
existence of the six ``subpopulations'' identified; however, the
petition states that six subpopulations of the common thresher shark
are discrete. The petition goes on to define this discreteness
according to the second discreteness factor listed in the NMFS/USFWS
joint DPS policy, where a population can be considered discrete if it
``is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.'' The petitioner
maintains that the ``broad and varied spectrum of harvest control,
habitat management, conservation status, and regulatory mechanisms''
addressing the species may qualify different ``subpopulations'' as
discrete under this discreteness factor, asserting that, ``due to broad
differences in regulation of their management and capture, the
subpopulations of common thresher sharks should be considered
sufficiently discrete for protection as DPSs under the ESA.''
The petition does not propose any boundaries for the six suggested
DPSs, nor does the petition describe in any detail the ways in which
different management relating to international governmental boundaries
may delineate the species into boundaries aligning with the six
suggested DPSs. Specific gaps in management or intergovernmental
boundaries are not described as they relate to any of the six proposed
DPSs. We were also unable to find information to define the six
subpopulations as discrete on biological grounds. In our files, only a
single preliminary study was available to suggest population structure
of the
[[Page 11382]]
common thresher shark. This study examined mitochondrial control region
DNA, which demonstrated significant population structure between most
pairwise comparisons, but the sample sizes were extremely low, and thus
the results could not be interpreted with confidence. The data support
separate Atlantic vs. Pacific populations (or at least female
philopatry) (Trejo, 2005). However, based on the preliminary nature of
these data, and low sample size throughout the study, these results
cannot be relied upon to divide the common thresher shark into the six
subpopulations proposed by the petition.
Based on information in the petition and readily available in our
files, we were unable to find evidence to support the discreteness of
any of the six DPSs proposed. Because of this, arguments made by the
petitioner describing the potential significance of any suggested DPS
are irrelevant. Thus, we conclude that the petition provides
insufficient evidence to identify any DPSs of the common thresher shark
at this time.
Analysis of Petition and Information Readily Available in NMFS Files
The following sections contain information found in the petition
and readily available in our files to determine whether a reasonable
person would conclude that an endangered or threatened listing may be
warranted as a result of any of the factors listed under section
4(a)(1) of the ESA.
Common Thresher Shark Status and Trends
The petition does not provide a population abundance estimate for
common thresher sharks, but points to its ``vulnerable'' status on the
IUCN Red List, and quotes extensively from the Encyclopedia of Life, an
online collaborative database intended for documenting information on
all species of life. The petition asserts that a global decline of
common thresher sharks has been caused mainly by commercial and
recreational fishing (both direct harvest and bycatch), particularly
during the 1970s and early 1980s. The petition references high
commercial catch rates for common threshers along the U.S. West Coast
during the 1980s, and declines in catch by the mid-1990s, indicative of
overexploitation (Goldman et al., 2009). In the Northwest and Western
Central Atlantic, the petition cites the Encyclopedia of Life for
asserting 50-80 percent declines in common thresher shark abundance
occurring from 1986-2005. The petition describes likely declines of
common thresher sharks in the Mediterranean due to high fishing
pressure. In the Northeast Atlantic, the petition describes variable
landings prior to 2000 and a decline in landings since 2002 (ICES,
2006). Finally, the petition points to increased interest in
recreational fishing of the common thresher shark, with the potential
for high post-release mortality. The petition does not provide
information on estimates of abundance across the range of the species.
Although historical overfishing of the common thresher shark led to
serious declines in population abundance, particularly during the
1980s, regulations since the early 1990s have contributed to trends of
rebuilding of the species over the past two decades in some portions of
its range, particularly in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (PFMC, 2011; NMFS
Common Thresher Shark Fact Sheet). However, in other portions of the
species' global range, declines due to overutilization (bycatch,
recreation, and directed catch) may be ongoing, leading to declines in
abundance. The threat of commercial fishing is discussed in more detail
below (see ``Overutilization'').
The last IUCN assessment of the common thresher shark was completed
in 2009 and since then several estimates of global and subpopulation
trends and status have been made. Perhaps most heavily studied have
been common thresher sharks in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, where the
shark has historically been most heavily fished. Commercial fishing of
thresher sharks in the U.S. was eliminated by gill net regulations by
1990, and within a decade, the population began to slowly rebuild to
just below 50 percent of the initial subpopulation size (Camhi et al.,
2007). A preliminary examination of trends in the catch-per-unit-effort
and total catch of common thresher sharks in this region is consistent
with earlier conclusions that the population is increasing from its
decline in the late 1980s and early 1990s (PMFC, 2011). Efforts to
conduct a full stock assessment have been initiated by NMFS. Based on
preliminary stock assessment results, there appears to be an initial
period of decline from 1981 to 1986, followed by a gradual recovery of
the stock. The index is highly variable after 2000, which is possibly
due to regulatory and operational changes in the fishery (SWFSC,
unpublished data).
In the Northwest Atlantic, declines in relative abundance cited by
the petitioner were derived from analyses of logbook data, reported in
Cort[eacute]s (2007). This study reported a 63 percent decline of
thresher sharks (on the genus level) based on logbook data, occurring
between 1986 and 2006 (Cort[eacute]s, 2007). The observer index data
from the same study shows an opposite trend in relative abundance, with
a 28 percent increase of threshers in the Northwest Atlantic since
1992. Logbook data over the same period (1992-2006) showed a 50 percent
decline in thresher sharks. The logbook dataset is the largest
available for the western North Atlantic Ocean, but the observer
dataset is generally more reliable in terms of consistent
identification and reporting. According to observer data, relative
abundance of thresher sharks (again, only at the genus level) in the
western North Atlantic Ocean appears to have stabilized or even be
increasing since the late 1990s (Cort[eacute]s, 2007). A more recent
analysis using logbook data between 1996 and 2005 provides some
supporting evidence that the abundance of thresher sharks has
stabilized over this time period (Baum, 2010). However, the conflicting
evidence between logbook and observer data showing opposite trends in
thresher shark abundance cannot be fully resolved at this time. Data
are not available in the petition or in our own files to assess the
trend in population abundance in this region since 2006, or to assess
the trend specific to the common thresher shark. Because the logbook
data from this region shows consistent evidence of a significant and
continued decline in thresher sharks, we must consider this information
in our 90-day determination.
For the Northeast Atlantic, there are no population abundance
estimates available, but data indicate that the species is taken in
driftnets and gillnets. In the Mediterranean Sea, estimates show
significant declines in thresher shark abundance during the past two
decades, reflecting data up to 2006; according to historical data
compiled using a generalized linear model, thresher sharks have
declined between 96 and 99 percent in abundance and biomass in the
Mediterranean Sea (Ferretti et al., 2008).
In other areas of the world, estimates of thresher shark abundance
are limited. For the Indo-West Pacific, little information is currently
available on common thresher sharks. Although pelagic fishing effort in
this region is high, with reported increases in recent years, the
common thresher shark is more characteristic of cooler waters, and
further information needs to be collected on records and catches of the
species in this region (IUCN assessment, 2009).
In conclusion, trends throughout the Eastern Pacific Ocean portion
of the species' range suggest that the population there is rebuilding
from
[[Page 11383]]
historical overexploitation. However, across the rest of its global
range, we find evidence suggesting that population abundance of common
thresher sharks has continued to decline or, as in the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean, may be stable at a diminished abundance. While data are
still limited with respect to population size and trends, we find the
petition and our files sufficient in presenting substantial information
on common thresher shark abundance, trends, or status to indicate that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors
The petition indicated three main categories of threats to the
common thresher shark: Overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or manmade factors affecting
its continued existence. We discuss each of these below, as well as an
additional evaluation of other 4(a)(1) factors based on information in
the petition, and the information readily available in our files.
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification or Curtailment of
Habitat or Range
The petition does not list threats to habitat as impacting the
common thresher shark. In our files, we were also unable to find
evidence that destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or
range were negatively impacting the species. Supporting this
conclusion, in our files, we found evidence demonstrating that habitat
pollution has not resulted in high concentrations of pollutants in the
bodies of common thresher sharks. For example, Suk et al. (2009)
demonstrated that the level of mercury measured in the muscle of
individual thresher sharks was quite low (mean 0.13 0.15
[mu]g/g), with no traces of mercury detected in the liver. Mercury
concentration increased with shark size to a maximum of 0.7 [mu]g/g for
a 241 cm fork length (~ 425 lb) individual, still far lower than for
other sharks examined in the study, including the shortfin mako and the
sevengill shark (Suk et al., 2009). Although data are unavailable to
assess the impact of these mercury levels on the health of the common
thresher shark, low mercury levels exhibited by the common thresher
shark likely relate to its tendency to feed on small schooling fish and
cephalopods, at lower trophic levels than the prey consumed by other
sharks studied.
In summary, the petition, references cited, and information in our
files do not comprise substantial information indicating there is
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the
common thresher shark's habitat or range such that listing may be
warranted.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petition states that ``historical and continued trends of
fishing of this commercially and recreationally valuable shark remain a
threat,'' listing commercial exploitation as the first threat of
overutilization of the species. Historically, common thresher sharks
were primarily caught in the drift gillnet fishery established off the
West Coast of the United States, which targeted the species in the late
1970s. The fishery had shifted its focus to a swordfish fishery by the
mid-1980s due to economic drivers, but also to protect pupping female
thresher sharks (PFMC, 2003). Since that time, common thresher sharks
have only been targeted secondarily or caught incidentally in the drift
gillnet fishery there. West Coast commercial landings are down from
1,800 metric tons (mt) in the early 1980s to below 200 mt in 2008 and
2009 (PFMC, 2010). As stated above, based on preliminary stock
assessment results, there appears to be an initial period of decline
from 1981 to 1986, followed by a gradual rebuilding of the stock (NMFS
SWFSC, unpublished data). Average annual landings since 2004 have been
about 200 mt (PFMC, 2011), well below an established sustainable and
precautionary harvest level of 450 mt, and this level of landings has
allowed the population to further rebuild. Regulations on commercial
fishing operations (e.g., time and area closures) to protect gravid
females during the pupping season (March through August), combined with
a switch in the primary target of the driftnet fishery from thresher
sharks to swordfish, have likely contributed to the rebuilding of the
common thresher shark in the Eastern Pacific Ocean over the past 25
years (PMFC, 2003).
The petition states that in addition to broad commercial harvest of
the species, direct catch related to the shark fin trade has resulted
in population decline. No information connecting population declines as
a result of this direct catch is provided in the petition. The petition
states that common thresher shark fins are valuable due to their large
size and longer fin needles. Evidence suggests that the three thresher
shark species, collectively, may account for approximately 2.3 percent
of the fins auctioned in Hong Kong, the world's largest fin-trading
center (Clarke, 2006). This translates to 0.4 million to 3.9 million
threshers that may enter the global fin trade each year (Clarke, 2006).
However, information on the species-specific impact of this harvest on
common thresher shark abundance is not provided by the petitioner, and
is not available in our files. The bigeye thresher shark is of higher
value and vulnerability to fishing than the common thresher shark
(Cortez, 2010); however, the relative proportion of each thresher shark
species comprising the shark-fin trade is not available in this genus-
level assessment. Overall, evidence that common thresher sharks (and
threshers in general) are highly valued for their fins and comprise a
portion of the Hong Kong fin-trading auction suggests that this threat
may impact the species.
Indirect catch is another category of overutilization identified by
the petition, which states that post-release mortality may be high in
the species. However, no information is provided in the petition to
connect the effect of bycatch on population declines of the species. In
our own files, we found evidence to support that adults and juveniles
of common thresher shark are caught as bycatch in longline, purse seine
and mid-water fisheries (IATTC, 2006). As stated in the petition, in
the Northeast Atlantic Ocean prior to 2000, estimated landings
fluctuated at 13-17 t, and in 2000-2001 they exceeded 100 t, after
which they dropped to 4 t in 2002 and have not exceeded 7 t since
(ICES, 2006). In the Mediterranean, there are no large-scale fisheries
targeting pelagic sharks and rays, but these species are taken as
bycatch in surface longline fisheries (Cahmi, 2009). In our files, we
found evidence that, in the last two decades, common thresher sharks
have declined between 96 and 99 percent in abundance and biomass in the
Mediterranean Sea (Ferretti, 2008). Currently, there is no commercial
fishery for common thresher sharks on the East Coast of the United
States, but they are taken as bycatch on pelagic longlines and in
gillnets; here, commercial bycatch landings averaged 19,958 kg (dressed
weight) from 2003 to 2011, with landings peaking at 27,801 kg (dressed
weight) in 2010 (NMFS, 2012; Gervalis et al., 2013). These landings may
be linked to declines in the species across the Northwest Atlantic
portion of its range; however, as discussed earlier, conflicting
logbook and observer data decrease the certainty of these trends
(Cort[eacute]s, 2007; Baum, 2010). In the Southwest Atlantic Ocean, off
the coast of Brazil, big eye thresher
[[Page 11384]]
sharks represent almost 100 percent of thresher sharks caught, and only
occasionally are common thresher sharks caught in the longline fishery
(Amorin, 1998).
The petition identified recreational fishing as the fourth category
of overutilization. In our files, we found evidence that common
thresher sharks are valued by recreational sport fishermen throughout
the species' U.S. East Coast and West Coast range, and those that are
caught are generally landed; the common thresher shark is considered
one of the better species for human consumption (Compagno, 2001). The
species appears to be increasing in importance at shark tournaments in
the Northeastern United States. As described in the petition, at one
major tournament, common thresher shark numbers increased steadily such
that the percent of total catch increased from 0.1 percent to 4.8 from
1965 to 1995 and jumped to 27.8 percent of the total catch in 2004
(Gervalis et al., 2013). Heberer (2010) identified the potential
negative impact of recreational fishing on the survival of the common
thresher shark by assessing post-release survivorship of sharks
captured using the caudal-fin-based techniques used by most
recreational fishermen. Since common thresher sharks use their elongate
upper caudal lobe to immobilize prey before it is consumed, the
majority of thresher sharks captured in the recreational fishery are
hooked in the caudal fin and hauled-in backwards (Heberer, 2010). The
common thresher is an obligate ram ventilator that requires forward
motion to ventilate the gills (Heberer, 2010). The reduced ability to
extract oxygen from the water during capture as well as the stress
induced from these capture methods may influence recovery following
release. The findings of Heberer (2010) demonstrate that large tail-
hooked common thresher sharks with prolonged fight times (>=85 min)
exhibit a heightened stress response, which may contribute to an
increased mortality rate. This work suggests, especially for larger
thresher sharks, that recreational catch-and-release may not be an
effective conservation-based strategy for the species. A recent paper
by Sepulveda (2014) found similar evidence for high post-release
mortality of recreationally caught common thresher sharks in the
California recreational shark fishery. Their results demonstrated that
caudal-fin-based angling techniques, which often result in trailing
gear left embedded in the shark, can negatively affect post-release
survivorship. This work suggests that mouth-based angling techniques
can, when performed properly, result in a higher survivorship of
released sharks. However, these techniques are not a common practice.
Recreational catch varies widely from year to year but has averaged
roughly 20 mt annually in recent years (CDFG, 2008). The estimated
level of catch in this fishery may be imprecise because the fishery is
patchy and sporadic. Although recreational catch rate data are
unavailable or highly unreliable, evidence for high post-release
mortality suggests that increases in recreational fishing may pose a
threat to the common thresher shark.
Overall, trends throughout the Eastern Pacific Ocean suggest that
the species either may be rebuilding from historical overexploitation,
or may be stable. Elsewhere across the species' range, information in
the petition and in our files suggests that the species may continue to
experience declines as a result of overutilization. While measures may
be implemented to improve post-release mortality of a recreational
common thresher shark fishery, and to reduce bycatch, we found no
evidence that these measures have been incorporated into common
practice. In summary, the petition, references cited, and information
in our files comprise substantial information indicating that listing
may be warranted because of overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific or educational purposes.
Disease and Predation
The petitioner does not identify predation and disease as a threat
to the common thresher shark, and we were unable to find any
information in our files to suggest that this factor is affecting the
continued survival of the species.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petition states that ``the U.S. does not provide adequate
protection for this species. Additionally, this global species lacks
international protection under the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species (CITES), and regional management mechanisms remain
ineffective.''
On the contrary, we found that national fishing regulations on
common thresher shark fishing in the United States are precautionary,
and have led to the rebuilding of the species in U.S. waters over the
last two decades. The Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast
Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species includes an annual harvest
guideline of 340 mt for thresher shark. This is a precautionary harvest
guideline for commercial catch, which is estimated to be 75 percent of
the regional maximum sustainable yield for this population. Time and
area restrictions in the pelagic drift gillnet fishery were imposed off
California in the mid-1980s to protect thresher sharks, and more
regulations were added in 2000 to protect sea turtles, resulting in
reduced effort. In the United States Atlantic Ocean, the species has
been managed as part of the pelagic shark complex under the 2006
Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan.
Management measures include the following: Commercial quotas, limited
entry, time-area closures, and recreational bag limits. Sharks are
required to be landed with fins naturally attached to the carcass.
Overfishing and overfished status is currently unknown (NMFS HMS 3rd
Qtr 2011 stock status), but preliminary stock assessment data suggest
that the species is rebuilding in U.S. waters due to management
measures to conserve the species (SWFSC, unpublished).
Since we received the petition, the common thresher shark has been
listed in Appendix II under the International Convention on the
Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). The petitioner
stated that there are no laws specifically addressing the needs of the
common thresher shark; however, a CMS Appendix II listing now
encourages international cooperation towards conservation of the
species.
We agree with the petition that the majority of other international
regulations provide general protection for all sharks, and that
includes the common thresher shark. The petition asserts that finning
regulations are ``inadequate'' for protecting the common thresher shark
species because common thresher sharks may still be caught, either
directly or indirectly as bycatch. The petition also cites several
regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) that implement a 5-
percent fin-to-carcass ratio regulation, describes what the petitioner
contends are potential loopholes in those regulations, and states that
these general regulations are inadequate for the common thresher shark,
whose larger fins make it a more targeted species. We agree with the
petitioner that the common thresher shark is highly valued for its
fins, and can be identified in the shark fin market, although only to
the genus level. However, we do not find that national and
international regulations are inadequate for protecting the common
thresher shark.
[[Page 11385]]
Finning regulations are a common form of shark management
regulation and have been adopted by far more countries and regional
fishery management organizations than the petition lists (see HSI,
2012). While the petitioner asserts that there may be some loopholes in
regulations using a 5% fin-to-carcass ratio, we find that the common
thresher shark is rebuilding in broad portions of its range and is of
lower vulnerability due to its demographic characteristics, such that
current regulations are not considered inadequate. In addition, a
number of countries have also enacted complete shark fishing bans, with
the Bahamas, Marshall Islands, Honduras, Sabah (Malaysia), and Tokelau
(an island territory of New Zealand) added to the list in 2011, and an
area of 1.9 million km off the Cook Islands added in 2012. The petition
states that Tokelau and the Cook Islands have only partial fishing
bans, but this statement appears to be based on incomplete information.
Shark sanctuaries can also be found in the Eastern Tropical Pacific
Seascape (which encompasses around 2,000,000 km\2\ and includes the
Galapagos, Cocos, and Malpelo Islands), and in waters off the Maldives,
Mauritania, Palau, and French Polynesia. Countries, states, and
territories that prohibit the sale or trade of shark fins or products
include the Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
American Samoa, Cook Islands, Egypt, French Polynesia, Guam, Republic
of Marshall Islands, and Sabah. Several U.S. States prohibit the sale
or trade of shark fins/products as well, including Hawaii, Oregon,
Washington, California, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, New York and
Massachusetts. The U.S. Shark Conservation Act of 2010 protects all
shark species, making it illegal to remove any of the fins of a shark
(including the tail) at sea; to have custody, control, or possession of
any such fin aboard a fishing vessel unless it is naturally attached to
the corresponding carcass; to transfer any such fin from one vessel to
another vessel at sea, or to receive any such fin in such transfer,
without the fin naturally attached to the corresponding carcass; or to
land any such fin that is not naturally attached to the corresponding
carcass, or to land any shark carcass without such fins naturally
attached. Additionally, many cities in Canada also prohibit the sale or
trade of shark fins/products. All of these measures provide protections
for the global common thresher shark population.
The petition also mentions the lack of CITES protections for the
common thresher shark. The common thresher shark is not a CITES listed
species, however, a CITES listing would only address threats associated
with the international trade of the species, and would not address such
impacts as bycatch or recreational catch-and-release of the species.
Although a CITES Appendix II listing or international reporting
requirements would provide better data on the global catch and trade of
the common thresher shark, the lack of a CITES listing or requirements
would not suggest that current regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to
protect the common thresher shark population from becoming endangered
under the ESA.
In summary, the petition, references cited, and information in our
files do not comprise substantial information indicating that the
species is impacted by inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms such that
listing may be warranted.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Existence
The petition states that the biological constraints of the common
thresher shark, such as its low reproduction rate (typically 2-4 pups a
year), coupled with the time required to reach maturity (approximately
5 years), contribute to the species' vulnerability to harvesting and
its inability to recover rapidly. It is true that the common thresher
shark and pelagic sharks, in general, exhibit relatively slow growth
rates and low fecundity; however, not all species are equally
vulnerable to fishing pressure due to these life history
characteristics.
An ecological risk assessment conducted to inform the International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) categorized
the relative risk of overexploitation of the 11 major species of
pelagic sharks, including the common thresher shark (Cort[eacute]s et
al., 2010, 2012). The study derived an overall vulnerability ranking
for each of the 11 species, which was defined as ``a measure of the
extent to which the impact of a fishery [Atlantic long line] on a
species will exceed its biological ability to renew itself''
(Cort[eacute]s et al., 2010, 2012). This robust assessment found that
common thresher sharks, along with pelagic stingrays, are relatively
productive species that show very low susceptibility to the combined
pelagic longline fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean (Cort[eacute]s et al.,
2010, 2012). In fact, of 11 species examined, common thresher sharks
exhibited one of the lowest vulnerability rankings. The relatively low
vulnerability of the common thresher shark is further supported by a
recent comparison of demographic models which ranked 26 pelagic sharks
according to their potential growth rate and rebound potential (Chapple
et al., 2013). The common thresher shark was found to rank 9 out of 26
overall in terms of its egg production, rebound potential, potential
for population increase, and for its stochastic growth rate; again
ranking among the highest in productivity when compared with other
pelagic sharks (Chapple et al., 2013). Even within the genus Alopiidae,
the common thresher shark is considered the fastest-growing and
earliest-maturing of the three species, and attains the largest size
(Smith et al., 2008).
In summary, the petition, references cited, and information in our
files do not comprise substantial information indicating that the
species is impacted by ``other natural or manmade factors,'' including
the life history trait of slow productivity, such that listing of the
species may be warranted.
Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors
We conclude that the petition does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the ESA section
(4)(a)(1) threats of ``other manmade or natural factors'' or
``inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms'' may be causing or contributing
to an increased risk of extinction for the global population of the
common thresher shark. In addition, neither the petition nor
information in our files indicated that the ``present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range,'' or
``disease or predation'' are threats to the species. However, we do
conclude that the petition and information in our files present
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
section 4(a)(1) factor ``overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes'' may be causing or contributing to
an increased risk of extinction for the species.
Petition Finding
Based on the above information and the criteria specified in 50 CFR
424.14(b)(2), we find that the petition and information readily
available in our files presents substantial scientific and commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action of listing the common
thresher shark worldwide as threatened or endangered may be warranted.
Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS'
implementing regulations (50
[[Page 11386]]
CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we will commence a status review of the species.
During the status review, we will determine whether the species is in
danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to become so within the
foreseeable future (threatened) throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. We now initiate this review, and thus, we consider the
common thresher shark to be a candidate species (69 FR 19975; April 15,
2004). Within 12 months of the receipt of the petition (August 26,
2015), we will make a finding as to whether listing the species as
endangered or threatened is warranted as required by section 4(b)(3)(B)
of the ESA. If listing the species is found to be warranted, we will
publish a proposed rule and 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 relevant
to whether the common thresher shark is endangered or threatened.
Specifically, we are soliciting information in the following areas: (1)
Historical and current distribution and abundance of this species
throughout its range; (2) historical and current population trends; (3)
life history in marine environments, including identified nursery
grounds; (4) historical and current data on common thresher shark
bycatch and retention in industrial, commercial, artisanal, and
recreational fisheries worldwide; (5) historical and current data on
common thresher shark discards in global fisheries; (6) data on the
trade of common thresher shark products, including fins, jaws, meat,
and teeth; (7) any current or planned activities that may adversely
impact the species; (8) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and
restore the species and its habitats; (9) population structure
information, such as genetics data; and (10) 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 to the
Office of Protected Resources (see ADDRESSES).
Authority; The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: February 25, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-04409 Filed 3-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P