Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding on Petition To List the Smooth Hammerhead Shark as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act, 41934-41958 [2016-15200]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41934-41958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15200]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Docket No. 150506425-6516-02]
RIN 0648-XD941


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-Month 
Finding on Petition To List the Smooth Hammerhead 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 12-month finding and availability of status review 
document.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list 
the smooth hammerhead shark (Sphyrna zygaena) as threatened or 
endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We have completed a 
comprehensive status review of the smooth hammerhead shark in response 
to this petition. Based on the best scientific and commercial 
information available, including the status review report (Miller 
2016), we have determined that the species does not warrant listing at 
this time. We conclude that the smooth hammerhead shark is not 
currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range and is not likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future.

DATES: This finding was made on June 28, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The status review report for the smooth hammerhead shark is 
available electronically at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/smooth-hammerhead-shark.html. You may also receive a copy by 
submitting a request to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Attention: Smooth 
Hammerhead Shark 12-month Finding.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maggie Miller, NMFS, Office of 
Protected Resources, (301) 427-8403.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On April 27, 2015, we received a petition from Defenders of 
Wildlife to list the smooth hammerhead shark (Sphyrna zygaena) as 
threatened or endangered under the ESA throughout its entire range, or, 
as an alternative, to list any identified Distinct Population Segment 
(DPS) as threatened or endangered. The petitioners also requested that 
critical habitat be designated for the smooth hammerhead under the ESA. 
In the case that the species does not warrant listing under the ESA, 
the petition requested that the species be listed based on its 
similarity of appearance to the listed DPSs of the scalloped hammerhead 
shark (Sphyrna lewini). On August 11, 2015, we published a positive 90-
day finding (80 FR 48053) announcing that the petition presented 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the 
petitioned action of listing the species may be warranted and explained 
the basis for that finding. We also announced the initiation of a 
status review of the species, as required by Section 4(b)(3)(a) of the 
ESA, and requested information to inform the agency's decision on 
whether the species warranted listing as endangered or threatened under 
the ESA.

Listing Species Under the Endangered Species Act

    We are responsible for determining whether smooth hammerhead sharks 
are threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To 
make this determination, we first consider whether a group of organisms 
constitutes a ``species'' under Section 3 of the ESA, then whether the 
status of the species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or 
endangered. Section 3 of the ESA defines species to include ``any 
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population 
segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds 
when mature.'' On February 7, 1996, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USFWS; together, the Services) adopted a policy describing 
what constitutes a DPS of a taxonomic species (61 FR 4722). The joint 
DPS policy identified two elements that must be considered when 
identifying a DPS: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in 
relation to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it 
belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to the 
remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs.
    Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as ``any species 
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range'' and a threatened species as one ``which is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' Thus, in the 
context of the ESA, the Services interpret an ``endangered species'' to 
be one that is presently at risk of extinction. A ``threatened 
species'' is not currently at risk of extinction, but is likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future. The key statutory difference 
between a threatened and endangered species is the timing of when a 
species may be in danger of extinction, either now (endangered) or in 
the foreseeable future (threatened).
    The statute also requires us to determine whether any species is 
endangered or threatened as a result of any one or a combination of the 
following five factors: The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization 
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; 
disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; 
or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence 
(ESA section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E)). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us 
to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and 
commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of 
the species and after taking into account efforts being made by any 
State or foreign nation or political subdivision thereof to protect the 
species. In evaluating the efficacy of existing domestic protective 
efforts, we rely on the Services' joint Policy on Evaluation of 
Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (``PECE''; 68 FR 
15100; March 28, 2003) for any conservation efforts that have not been 
implemented, or have been implemented but not yet demonstrated 
effectiveness.

Status Review

    The status review for the smooth hammerhead shark was conducted by 
a NMFS biologist in the Office of

[[Page 41935]]

Protected Resources (Miller 2016). The status review examined the 
entire species' status throughout its range and also evaluated if any 
portion of the smooth hammerhead shark's range was significant as 
defined by the Services Significant Portion of its Range (SPR) Policy 
(79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014).
    In order to complete the status review, information was compiled on 
the species' biology, ecology, life history, threats, and status from 
information contained in the petition, our files, a comprehensive 
literature search, and consultation with experts. We also considered 
information submitted by the public in response to our petition 
finding. In assessing extinction risk of the smooth hammerhead shark, 
we considered the demographic viability factors developed by McElhany 
et al. (2000). The approach of considering demographic risk factors to 
help frame the consideration of extinction risk has been used in many 
of our status reviews, including for Pacific salmonids, Pacific hake, 
walleye pollock, Pacific cod, Puget Sound rockfishes, Pacific herring, 
scalloped and great hammerhead sharks, and black abalone (see https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ for links to these reviews). In this 
approach, the collective condition of individual populations is 
considered at the species level according to four viable population 
descriptors: Abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial structure/
connectivity, and diversity. These viable population descriptors 
reflect concepts that are well-founded in conservation biology and that 
individually and collectively provide strong indicators of extinction 
risk (NMFS 2015b).
    The status review report was subjected to independent peer review 
as required by the Office of Management and Budget Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (M-05-03; December 16, 2004). The 
status review report was peer reviewed by three independent specialists 
selected from the academic and scientific community, with expertise in 
shark biology, conservation and management, and knowledge of smooth 
hammerhead sharks. The peer reviewers were asked to evaluate the 
adequacy, appropriateness, and application of data used in the status 
review, including the extinction risk analysis. All peer reviewer 
comments were addressed prior to dissemination of the final status 
review report and publication of this determination.
    We subsequently reviewed the status review report, its cited 
references, and peer review comments, and believe the status review 
report, upon which this 12-month finding is based, provides the best 
available scientific and commercial information on the smooth 
hammerhead shark. Much of the information discussed below on smooth 
hammerhead shark biology, distribution, abundance, threats, and 
extinction risk is attributable to the status review report. However, 
in making the 12-month finding determination, we have independently 
applied the statutory provisions of the ESA, including evaluation of 
the factors set forth in Section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E) and our regulations 
regarding listing determinations. The status review report is available 
on our Web site (see ADDRESSES section) and the peer review report is 
available at https://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prplans/PRsummaries.html. Below is a summary of the information from the report 
and our analysis of the status of the smooth hammerhead shark. Further 
details can be found in Miller (2016).

Description of the Petitioned Species

Taxonomy and Species Description

    All hammerhead sharks belong to the family Sphyrnidae and are 
classified as ground sharks (Order Carcharhiniformes). Most hammerheads 
belong to the Genus Sphyrna with one exception, the winghead shark 
(Eusphyra blochii), which is the sole species in the Genus Eusphyra. 
The smooth hammerhead was first described in 1758 by Karl Linnaeus and 
named Squalus zygaena; however, this name was later changed to the 
current scientific species name of Sphyrna zygaena (Linneaus 1758) 
(Bester n.d.).
    The hammerhead sharks are recognized by their laterally expanded 
head that resembles a hammer (hence the common name ``hammerhead''). In 
comparison to the other hammerhead sharks, the head of the smooth 
hammerhead shark has a scalloped appearance but a rounded un-notched 
anterior margin (which helps to distinguish it from scalloped 
hammerhead sharks) and depressions opposite each nostril. The smooth 
hammerhead also has a ventrally located and strongly arched mouth with 
smooth or slightly serrated teeth (Compagno 1984). The body of the 
shark is fusiform, lacks a mid-dorsal ridge, and has a moderately tall 
and hooked first dorsal fin and a lower second dorsal fin that is 
shorter than the notched anal fin (Compagno 1984; Bester n.d.). The 
color of the smooth hammerhead shark ranges from a dark olive to 
greyish-brown and fades into a white underside, which is different than 
most other hammerhead species whose colors are commonly brown (Bester 
n.d.).

Range and Habitat Use

    The smooth hammerhead shark is a circumglobal species, found 
worldwide in temperate to tropical waters between 59 [deg]N. and 55 
[deg]S. latitudes (CITES 2013). It is thought to be the hammerhead 
species most tolerant of temperate waters (Compagno 1984). In the 
northwestern Atlantic Ocean, the range of the smooth hammerhead shark 
extends from Nova Scotia, Canada to Florida, and partly into the 
Caribbean; however, the species is said to be rare in Canadian waters 
and only found offshore in the Gulf Stream (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 
2010). Additionally, its presence off the Caribbean Islands cannot be 
confirmed, although these waters are noted to be part of its range in 
Compagno (1984). In the southwestern Atlantic, the smooth hammerhead 
shark range extends from Brazil to southern Argentina, and in the 
eastern Atlantic Ocean, smooth hammerhead sharks can be found from the 
British Isles to equatorial West Africa and throughout the 
Mediterranean Sea (Compagno 1984; Bester n.d).
    In the Indian Ocean, the shark is found off the coasts of South 
Africa, within the Persian Gulf, along the southern coast of India, Sri 
Lanka, and off Indonesia, and along the western and southern coasts of 
Australia. Its range in the western and central Pacific extends from 
Japan to Vietnam, including the southeast coast of Australia and waters 
off New Zealand, the Hawaiian Islands and American Samoa. In the 
northeastern Pacific, the smooth hammerhead shark range extends from 
northern California to the Nayarit state of Mexico, and in the 
southeastern Pacific, the species can be found from Panama to Chile, 
but is generally rare in Chilean waters (Brito 2004).
    The smooth hammerhead shark is a coastal-pelagic and semi-oceanic 
species and generally occurs close inshore and in shallow waters, most 
commonly in depths of up to 20 m (CITES 2013). However, the species may 
also be found over continental and insular shelves to offshore areas in 
depths as great as 200 m (Compagno 1984; Ebert et al. 2013; Bester 
n.d.). Smooth hammerhead sharks are highly mobile and may undergo 
seasonal migrations (toward cooler waters in the summer and the reverse 
in the winter), with juveniles (of up to 1.5 m in length) occasionally 
forming large aggregations during these migrations (Compagno 1984; 
Diemer et al. 2011; Ebert et al. 2013; Bester n.d.).

[[Page 41936]]

Adult smooth hammerhead sharks, on the other hand, are generally 
solitary (Compagno 1984). Based on available tagging data, the species 
is able to travel significant distances, with various studies showing 
estimates of total distance travelled of around 919 km (Kohler and 
Turner 2001), more than 1,609 km (SWFSC 2015), and around 2,220 km 
(Clarke et al. 2015).

Diet and Feeding

    The smooth hammerhead shark is a high trophic level predator 
(trophic level = 4.2; Cort[eacute]s (1999)) and opportunistic feeder 
that consumes a variety of teleosts, small sharks (including its own 
species), dolphins, skates and stingrays, sea snakes, crustaceans, and 
cephalopods (Nair and James 1971; Compagno 1984; Bornatowski et al. 
2007; Masunaga et al. 2009; Rogers et al. 2012; Galvan-Magana et al. 
2013; Bornatowski et al. 2014; Sucunza et al. 2015). Skates and 
stingrays, in particular, tend to comprise the majority of the species' 
diet in inshore locations (Nair and James 1971; Bester n.d.), whereas 
in coastal and shelf waters, cephalopods appear to be an important prey 
item (Bornatowski et al. 2007; Bornatowski et al. 2014).

Growth and Reproduction

    The general life history characteristics of the smooth hammerhead 
shark are that of a long-lived, slow-growing, and late maturing 
species. The average size of a smooth hammerhead shark ranges between 
2.5-3.5 m in length, but individuals can reach maximum lengths of 5 m 
and weights of 880 pounds (400 kg) (CITES 2013; Bester n.d.). Based on 
observed and estimated sizes of smooth hammerhead sharks from both the 
Atlantic and Pacific oceans, females appear to reach sexual maturity 
between 250 cm and 290 cm total length (TL). Males are considered 
sexually mature at smaller sizes than females, with estimates of 210-
250 cm TL from the Atlantic and 250-260 cm TL in the western Pacific. 
More recent data from the eastern Pacific (specifically the Gulf of 
California) estimate much smaller maturity sizes for smooth hammerhead 
sharks, with 50 percent of females and males of the population maturing 
at 200 cm and 194 cm TL, respectively (Nava Nava and Fernando Marquez-
Farias 2014). Longevity of the species is unknown but thought to be at 
least 20 years (Bester n.d.), with female and male smooth hammerhead 
sharks aged up to 18 years and 21 years, respectively, from the eastern 
equatorial Atlantic Ocean (Coelho et al. 2011).
    The smooth hammerhead shark is viviparous (i.e., give birth to live 
young), with a gestation period of 10-11 months (White et al. 2006) and 
an assumed annual reproductive periodicity; however this has yet to be 
verified (Clarke et al. 2015). Possible pupping grounds and nursery 
areas for this species (based on the presence of pregnant females, 
neonates, and juveniles) include the Gulf of California, Gulf of 
Guinea, Strait of Sicily, coastal and inshore waters off Baja 
California, Venezuela, southern Brazil, Uruguay, Morocco, the southern 
and eastern cape of South Africa, Kenya (including Ungwana Bay), and 
New Zealand (Sadowsky 1965; Castro and Mejuto 1995; Buencuerpo et al. 
1998; Arocha et al. 2002; Celona and Maddalena 2005; Costa and Chaves 
2006; Bizzarro et al. 2009; Cartamil et al. 2011; Coelho et al. 2011; 
Diemer et al. 2011; CITES 2013; Kyalo and Stephen 2013; Bornatowski et 
al. 2014; Nava Nava and Fernando Marquez-Farias 2014). Litter sizes 
range from around 20 to 50 live pups, with an average of around 33 
pups, and length at birth is estimated to be between 49-64 cm. The 
smooth hammerhead shark is estimated to grow an average of 25 cm per 
year over the first 4 years of its life before slowing down later in 
its life (Coelho et al. 2011).

Demography

    Although there are very few age/growth studies, based on the best 
available data, smooth hammerhead sharks exhibit life-history traits 
and population parameters that place the species towards the faster 
growing end along the ``fast-slow'' continuum of population parameters 
that have been calculated for 38 species of sharks by Cort[eacute]s 
(2002, Appendix 2). In an Ecological Risk Assessment study of 20 
species caught in Atlantic pelagic fisheries, Cort[eacute]s et al. 
(2012) found that the smooth hammerhead shark ranked among the most 
productive species (with the 4th highest productivity rate; r = 0.225) 
and had one of the lowest vulnerabilities to pelagic longline 
fisheries. Based on these estimates, smooth hammerhead sharks can be 
characterized as having ``medium'' productivity (based on 
categorizations in Musick (1999)), with demographic parameters that 
provide the species with moderate resilience to exploitation.

Population Structure

    Due to sampling constraints, very few studies have examined the 
population structure of the smooth hammerhead shark. Using 
mitochondrial DNA (which is maternally inherited) Naylor et al. (2012) 
found only a single cluster of smooth hammerhead sharks (in other 
words, no evidence to suggest matrilineal genetic partitioning of the 
species). This analysis, however, suffered from low sample size, based 
on only 16 specimens, but covered the longitudinal distribution of the 
species (Naylor et al. 2012). In contrast, Testerman (2014) analyzed 
both mitochondrial control region sequences (mtCR; n=303, 1,090 base 
pair) and 15 nuclear microsatellite loci (n=332) from smooth hammerhead 
sharks collected from 8 regional areas: Western North Atlantic (n=21); 
western South Atlantic (n=55); western Indian Ocean (n=63); western 
South Pacific (n=44); western North Pacific (n=11); eastern North 
Pacific (n=55); eastern Tropical Pacific (n=15); and eastern South 
Pacific (n=6). Results from the analysis of mitochondrial DNA indicated 
significant genetic partitioning, with no sharing of haplotypes, 
between the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific basins (mtCR 
[phis]ST=0.8159) (Testerman 2014). Analysis of the nuclear 
DNA also showed significant genetic structure between ocean basins 
(nuclear FST=0.0495), with the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific 
considered to comprise two genetically distinct populations (Testerman 
2014). However, additional studies are needed to further refine the 
population structure of the smooth hammerhead shark and confirm the 
above results, including, as Testerman (2014) suggests, using samples 
from individual smooth hammerhead sharks of known size class and 
gender.

Species Finding

    Based on the best available scientific and commercial information 
described above, we determined that Sphyrna zygaena is a taxonomically-
distinct species and, therefore, meets the definition of ``species'' 
pursuant to section 3 of the ESA. Below, we evaluate whether Sphyrna 
zygaena warrants listing under the ESA as an endangered or threatened 
species throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Assessment of Extinction Risk

    The ESA (Section 3) defines endangered species as ``any species 
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range.'' Threatened species are ``any species which is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' Neither we nor 
the USFWS have developed any formal policy guidance about how to 
interpret the definitions of threatened and endangered. For the term 
``foreseeable future,'' we define it as the timeframe over which 
identified threats

[[Page 41937]]

could be reliably predicted to impact the biological status of the 
species. For the assessment of extinction risk for smooth hammerhead 
sharks, the ``foreseeable future'' was considered to extend out several 
decades. Given the species' life history traits, with longevity 
estimated to be greater than 20 years, maturity at around 8 years, and 
generation time at around 13 years, it would likely take several 
decades (i.e., multiple generations) for any recent management actions 
to be realized and reflected in population abundance indices (e.g., 
impact of declining shark fin trade). Furthermore, as the main 
potential operative threat to the species is overutilization by 
commercial and artisanal fisheries (discussed below), this timeframe 
(i.e., several decades) would allow for reliable predictions regarding 
the impact of current levels of fishery-related mortality on the 
biological status of the species. As depicted in the very limited 
available catch per unit effort (CPUE) time-series data, trends in the 
species' abundance can manifest within this time horizon.
    In evaluating the level of risk faced by a species in deciding 
whether the species is threatened or endangered, it is important to 
consider both the demographic risks facing the species as well as 
current and potential threats that may affect the species' status. To 
this end, a demographic risk analysis was conducted for the smooth 
hammerhead shark and considered alongside the information on threats to 
the species, including those related to the factors specified by the 
ESA Section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E). Specific methods on the demographic risk 
analysis can be found in the status review report, but each demographic 
factor was ultimately assigned one of three qualitatively-described 
levels of risk: ``very low or low risk,'' ``medium risk,'' or ``high 
risk'' (Miller 2016). The information from this demographic risk 
analysis in conjunction with the available information on threats 
(summarized below) was interpreted using professional judgement to 
determine an overall risk of extinction for S. zygaena. Because 
species-specific information is insufficient, a reliable, quantitative 
model of extinction risk could not be conducted as this time. The 
qualitative reference levels of ``low risk,'' ``moderate risk'' and 
``high risk'' were used to describe the overall assessment of 
extinction risk, with detailed definitions of these risk levels found 
in the status review report (Miller 2016).

Evaluation of Demographic Risks

Abundance

    Current and accurate abundance estimates are unavailable for the 
smooth hammerhead shark. With respect to general trends in population 
abundance, multiple studies indicate that smooth hammerhead sharks may 
have experienced population declines over the past few decades, 
although these studies suffer from very low sample sizes and a lack of 
reliable data due to the scarcity of the smooth hammerhead sharks in 
the fisheries data. Catch records also generally fail to differentiate 
between the Sphyrna species. As such, many of the available studies 
examining abundance trends have, instead, looked at the entire 
hammerhead shark complex (scalloped, smooth, and great hammerhead 
sharks combined). However, attributing the observed declines from these 
studies to the smooth hammerhead shark population could be erroneous, 
especially given the distribution and proportion of S. zygaena compared 
to other hammerhead species. As smooth hammerhead sharks tend to occur 
more frequently in temperate waters compared to other Sphyrna species, 
they are likely to be impacted by different fisheries, which may 
explain the large differences in the proportions that S. zygaena 
comprise in the available commercial and artisanal ``hammerhead'' 
catch. In fact, based on the available information (discussed in more 
detail in the section Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, 
Scientific or Educational Purposes), the proportion of smooth 
hammerhead sharks compared to the other hammerhead species in the 
fisheries data ranges from <1 percent to 100 percent, depending on the 
region, location, and timing of the fishing operations. As such, using 
other Sphyrna spp. abundance indices estimated from fisheries data to 
describe the status of S. zygaena is likely highly inaccurate. 
Therefore, we gave greater weight to the available abundance data that 
could explicitly or reasonably be attributed to smooth hammerhead 
sharks in our evaluation of the level of risk posed by current 
abundance.
    Unlike the scalloped hammerhead shark, and to a lesser extent, the 
great hammerhead shark, NMFS fishery scientists note that there are 
hardly any data for smooth hammerhead sharks, particularly in U.S. 
Atlantic waters (personal communication J. Carlson). Hayes (2007) 
remarks that the species rarely occurs throughout the majority of U.S. 
Atlantic waters, and is thought to be less abundant than scalloped or 
great hammerhead sharks. Due to these data deficiencies, no official 
stock assessment has been conducted (or accepted) by NMFS for the 
species in this region. However, two preliminary species-specific stock 
assessments of the U.S. Atlantic smooth hammerhead shark population 
(Hayes 2007; Jiao et al. 2011) were available for review. These stock 
assessments used surplus-production models, which are common for 
dealing with data-poor species, and are useful when only catch and 
relative abundance data are available (Hayes et al. 2009). Given the 
limited amount and low quality of available data on smooth hammerhead 
sharks in the U.S. Northwest Atlantic, the only CPUE dataset with 
sufficient sample size that could be used as an index of relative 
abundance for these stock assessments was the U.S. Pelagic Longline 
(PLL) Logbook dataset. Results from the Hayes (2007) stock assessment 
estimated a virgin population size of smooth hammerhead sharks to be 
anywhere between 51,000 and 71,000 individuals in 1982 and a population 
size in 2005 of around 5,200 individuals. While these estimates 
translate to a decline of around 91 percent in abundance, based on the 
modeled trajectory in the stock assessment (Hayes 2007), abundance 
appears to have stabilized in recent years. In fact, the Jiao et al. 
(2011) stock assessment model indicated that after 2001, the risk of 
overfishing of the species was very low. It is important to note, 
though, that the abundance estimates from these stock assessments are 
very crude, hampered by significant uncertainty and based on a single 
index that may not adequately sample coastal sharks.
    Within the Mediterranean region, rough estimates of the declines in 
abundance and biomass of smooth hammerhead sharks range from 96 to 99 
percent (Celona and Maddalena 2005; Ferretti et al. 2008). Similar to 
the previous studies, these findings are hindered by a lack of reliable 
data and sufficient sample sizes. Yet, despite the uncertainty in 
magnitude of decline, Celona and de Maddalena (2005) provide a detailed 
review of historical and recent anecdotal accounts and catch records 
from select areas off Sicily that indicate a strong likelihood that 
smooth hammerheads have been fished to the point where they are now 
extremely rare. Additionally, information from the Mediterranean Large 
Elasmobranchs Monitoring (MEDLAM) program, as well as data from more 
expansive sampling of Mediterranean fleets operating throughout the 
region, also indicate a species that is presently only

[[Page 41938]]

sporadically recorded (Megalofonou et al. 2005; Baino et al. 2012). 
Given the extent of the observed decline and evidence of the current 
rarity of the species, current abundance levels within this region are 
likely placing the species at a high risk of extirpation in the 
Mediterranean from anthropogenic perturbations.
    In the Indian Ocean, data on trends in smooth hammerhead shark 
abundance are available from only two studies conducted in waters off 
South Africa. As such, the results are not likely indicative of the 
status of the species throughout this region. Furthermore, based on the 
findings from the two studies, the trend in the species' abundance 
within South African waters is unclear. For example, one study, which 
consisted of a 25-year tagging survey (conducted from 1984-2009) off 
the eastern coast of South Africa, concluded that the abundance of 
smooth hammerhead sharks (based on their availability for tagging) 
peaked in 1987 (n=468 tagged) and declined thereafter (Diemer et al. 
2011). In contrast, a 25-year time series of annual CPUE of smooth 
hammerhead sharks in beach protective nets set off the KwaZulu-Natal 
beaches showed no significant trend, with the authors finding no 
evidence of a change in the mean or median size of S. zygaena in the 
nets over the time period (1978-2003) (Dudley and Simpfendorfer 2006).
    Off New South Wales (NSW), Australia, CPUE data from a shark 
meshing (bather protection) program was lumped for a hammerhead complex 
(scalloped, smooth, and great hammerhead sharks), although the majority 
of the hammerhead catch was assumed to comprise S. zygaena given the 
species' tolerance of temperate waters (Reid and Krogh 1992; Reid et 
al. 2011; Williamson 2011). The data indicate that hammerhead sharks 
may have declined by around 85 percent over the past 35 years (Reid et 
al. 2011); however, changes in the methods and level of effort of the 
program since its inception have complicated these long-term analyses. 
Since 2009, annual catches of smooth hammerhead sharks in the nets have 
remained fairly stable.
    Overall, with only a few regional studies providing limited 
information on the present abundance of the smooth hammerhead shark, 
the magnitude of declines and the current global abundance of the 
smooth hammerhead shark remains unclear. While the species may be at 
higher risk of extirpation in the Mediterranean, elsewhere throughout 
its range, trends and estimates in abundance do not indicate that the 
species' global abundance is so low, or variability so high, that it is 
at risk of global extinction due to environmental variation, 
anthropogenic perturbations, or depensatory processes, now or in the 
foreseeable future. In fact, many of the available regional studies 
suggest potentially stable populations. We therefore conclude that, at 
this time, the best available information on current abundance and 
trends indicates a low demographic risk to the species.

Growth Rate/Productivity

    Sharks, in general, have lower reproductive and growth rates 
compared to bony fishes; however, smooth hammerhead sharks exhibit 
life-history traits and population parameters that place the species 
towards the faster growing end along a spectrum of shark species 
(Cort[eacute]s 2002, Appendix 2). Cort[eacute]s et al. (2012) found 
that the smooth hammerhead shark ranked among the most productive 
species when compared to 20 other species of sharks. Based on the 
estimate of its intrinsic rate of population increase (r=0.225), smooth 
hammerhead sharks can be characterized as having ``medium'' 
productivity (Musick 1999) with moderate resilience to exploitation. 
Given the available information, with no evidence of declining 
population trends, it is unlikely that the species' average 
productivity is below replacement to the point where the species is at 
risk of extinction from low abundance. Additionally, the limited amount 
of information on the demography and reproductive traits of the smooth 
hammerhead shark throughout its range precludes identification of any 
shifts or trends in per capita growth rate. As such, we conclude that, 
at this time, the best available information on growth rate/
productivity indicates a low demographic risk to the species.

Spatial Structure/Connectivity

    The smooth hammerhead shark range is comprised of open ocean 
environments occurring over broad geographic ranges. There is very 
little information on specific habitat (or patches) used by smooth 
hammerhead sharks. For example, habitat deemed necessary for important 
life history functions, such as spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth 
to maturity, is currently unknown for this species. Although potential 
nursery areas for the species have been identified in portions of its 
range, there is no information that these areas are at risk of 
destruction or directly impacting the extinction risk of smooth 
hammerhead populations.
    Although dispersal rates for the species are currently unknown, 
there is no reason to believe that they are low within the range of S. 
zygaena. While the available data suggest a potentially patchy 
distribution for the species, given the relative absence of physical 
barriers within their marine environments (compared with terrestrial or 
river systems) and the shark's highly migratory nature (with tracking 
studies that indicate its ability to move long distances), it is 
unlikely that insufficient genetic exchange or an inability to find and 
exploit available resource patches are risks to the species. It is also 
unknown if there are source-sink dynamics at work that may affect 
population growth or species' decline. Thus, there is insufficient 
information that would support the conclusion that spatial structure 
and connectivity pose significant risks to this species. As such, we 
conclude that, at this time, the best available information on spatial 
structure/connectivity indicates a very low demographic risk to the 
species.

Diversity

    There is no evidence that the species is at risk due to a 
substantial change or loss of variation in genetic characteristics or 
gene flow among populations. Smooth hammerhead sharks are found in a 
broad range of habitats and appear to be well-adapted and 
opportunistic. There are no restrictions to the species' ability to 
disperse and contribute to gene flow throughout its range, nor is there 
evidence of a substantial change or loss of variation in life-history 
traits, population demography, morphology, behavior, or genetic 
characteristics. There is also no information to suggest that natural 
processes that cause ecological variation have been significantly 
altered to the point where the species is at risk. As such, we conclude 
that, at this time, the best available information on diversity 
indicates a very low demographic risk to the species.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Smooth Hammerhead Shark

    As described above, section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS 
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.11(c)) state that we must 
determine whether a species is endangered or threatened because of any 
one or a combination of the following factors: The present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or man-made factors affecting 
its continued

[[Page 41939]]

existence. We evaluated whether and the extent to which each of the 
foregoing factors contribute to the overall extinction risk of the 
global smooth hammerhead population, with ``significant'' defined as 
increasing the risk to such a degree that affects the species' 
demographics (i.e., abundance, productivity, spatial structure, 
diversity) either to the point where the species is strongly influenced 
by stochastic or depensatory processes or is on a trajectory toward 
this point. This section briefly summarizes our findings and 
conclusions regarding threats to the smooth hammerhead shark and their 
impact on the overall extinction risk of the species. More details can 
be found in the status review report (Miller 2016).

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

    Currently, smooth hammerhead sharks are found worldwide, residing 
in temperate to tropical seas. While the exact extent of the species' 
global range is not well known, based on the best available data, there 
does not appear to be any indication of a curtailment of range due to 
habitat destruction or modification. In the Mediterranean (specifically 
the Adriatic, Tyrrhenian, Ligurian, and Ionian Seas, Strait of Sicily, 
and Spanish Mediterranean waters) the species was previously thought to 
be ``functionally extinct'' based on the absence of the species in 
records after 1995 (as noted in Ferretti et al. 2008); however, recent 
studies provide evidence of the species' continued existence in this 
portion of its range, specifically within the Ionian and Tyrrhenian 
Seas and Strait of Sicily (Celona and de Maddalena 2005; Sperone et al. 
2012). As such, we do not find this to be an indication of a 
curtailment of the species' range.
    Additionally, there is very little information on habitat 
utilization of smooth hammerhead sharks. Because the smooth hammerhead 
range is comprised of open ocean environments occurring over broad 
geographic ranges, large-scale impacts such as global climate change 
that affect ocean temperatures, currents, and potentially food chain 
dynamics, may pose a threat to this species. Although studies on the 
impacts of climate change specific to smooth hammerhead sharks have not 
been conducted, results from a recent vulnerability assessment of 
Australia's Great Barrier Reef shark and ray species to climate change 
indicate that the closely related great and scalloped hammerhead sharks 
have a low overall vulnerability to climate change (Chin et al. 2010). 
These findings were, in part, based on the species' low vulnerabilities 
to each of the assessed climate change factors (i.e., water and air 
temperature, ocean acidification, freshwater input, ocean circulation, 
sea level rise, severe weather, light, and ultraviolet (UV) radiation) 
(Chin et al. 2010). While this is a very broad analysis of potential 
climate change impacts on hammerhead species, no further information 
specific to the direct effects of climate change on S. zygaena 
populations could be found. Furthermore, given the highly migratory and 
opportunistic behavior of the smooth hammerhead shark, these sharks 
likely have the ability to shift their range or distribution to remain 
in an environment conducive to their physiological and ecological 
needs, providing the species with some resilience to the effects of 
climate change. Therefore, while climate change has the potential to 
pose a threat to sharks in general, including through changes in 
currents and ocean circulation and potential impacts to prey species, 
there is presently no information to suggest climate change is a 
significant threat negatively affecting the status of the smooth 
hammerhead shark or its habitat.

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or Educational 
Purposes

    In general, there is very little information on the historical 
abundance, catch, and trends of smooth hammerhead sharks, with only 
occasional mentions in fisheries records. Although more countries and 
regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) are working towards 
improving reporting of species-specific data, catches of hammerhead 
sharks have gone and continue to go unrecorded in many countries 
outside the United States. Much of the available data on the 
exploitation of the smooth hammerhead shark come primarily from 
localized study sites and over small periods of time; thus, it is 
difficult to extrapolate this information to the global population. 
Further complicating the analysis is the fact that data are often 
aggregated for the entire hammerhead complex. As stated previously, to 
use a hammerhead complex or other hammerhead species as a proxy for 
estimates of smooth hammerhead utilization and abundance could be 
erroneous, especially given the more temperate distribution and 
generally smaller proportion of S. zygaena in the fisheries catch 
compared to other hammerhead species. Therefore, more weight is given 
to the analyses of the available species-specific fisheries information 
compared to hammerhead complex data in determining whether 
overutilization is a significant threat to the species.
    Smooth hammerhead sharks are both targeted and taken as bycatch in 
many global fisheries by a variety of gear types, including: Pelagic 
and bottom longlines, handlines, gillnets, purse seines, and pelagic 
and bottom trawls. They are valued for their large, high-quality fins 
for use in shark fin soup (Abercrombie et al. 2005; Clarke et al. 
2006a). Additionally, smooth hammerhead sharks exhibit high mortality 
rates after being caught in fishing gear such as longlines and nets. In 
fact, estimates of mortality rates range from 47 to 71 percent in 
longline fishing gear and 94 to 98 percent in net gear (Cliff and 
Dudley 1992; Kotas et al. 2000; Braccini et al. 2012; Coelho et al. 
2012; Fernandez-Carvalho et al. 2015). As such, we considered the 
impact of historical and current catch and bycatch levels (taking into 
account the species' high mortality rate on fishing gear and the 
effects of the shark fin trade) on the species' status to evaluate the 
threat of overutilization to the species. Due to the lack of global 
estimates and the above data limitations, the available information, 
including species-specific fishery data, is presented below by regions 
to better inform a global analysis.
    In the northwestern Atlantic, smooth hammerhead sharks are mainly 
caught, albeit rarely, as bycatch in the U.S. Highly Migratory Species 
(HMS) commercial longline and net fisheries, and by U.S. recreational 
fishermen using rod and reel. Their rare occurrence in the fisheries 
data is likely a reflection of the low abundance of the species in this 
region (Hayes 2007; NMFS 2015a). As mentioned previously, two 
preliminary species-specific stock assessments examined the effect of 
U.S. commercial and recreational fishing on the species' abundance in 
the northwest Atlantic (Hayes 2007; Jiao et al. 2011). These stock 
assessments drew conclusions about the status of the stock (e.g., 
``overfished'' or ``experiencing overfishing'') in relation to the 
fishery management terms defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (MSA), such as ``maximum sustainable 
yield'' (MSY). These statuses, which provide information for 
determining the sustainability of a fishery, are based on different 
criteria than those under the ESA, which relate directly to the 
likelihood of extinction of the species. In other words, the status 
under MSA does not necessarily have any relationship to a species' 
extinction risk.

[[Page 41940]]

For example, a species could be harvested at levels above MSY but which 
do not pose a risk of extinction. As such, the analysis of the results 
from these stock assessments were considered in conjunction with 
available catch and bycatch trends, abundance, biological information, 
and other fisheries data in evaluating whether overutilization is a 
threat to the species.
    For the stock assessment models, the limited amount and low quality 
of available data on smooth hammerhead sharks allowed for the input of 
only one index of relative abundance (the U.S. Atlantic PLL dataset) 
into the models. Catch time series data for the models included 
recreational catches, commercial landings, and pelagic longline 
discards. Based on these data, both assessments found significant 
catches of smooth hammerhead sharks in the early 1980s. Although these 
catches were over two orders of magnitude larger than the smallest 
catches, Hayes (2007) suggested that these large catches, which 
correspond mostly to the NMFS Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics 
Survey (MRFSS), are likely overestimated. Hayes (2007) also identified 
other data deficiencies that add to the uncertainty surrounding these 
catch estimates, including: Misreporting of the species, particularly 
in recreational fisheries, leading to overestimates of catches; 
underreporting of commercial catches in early years; and unavailable 
discard estimates for the pelagic longline fishery for the period of 
1982-1986.
    Results from the stock assessments indicated that the northwest 
Atlantic smooth hammerhead shark population declined significantly from 
virgin levels (by up to 91 percent; Hayes 2007), which was likely a 
consequence of fishery-related mortality exacerbated by the species' 
vulnerable life history. Although modeled fishing mortality rates were 
variable over the years, both assessments found a high degree of 
overfishing during the mid-1990s for smooth hammerhead sharks that 
likely led to the decline in the population. Towards the end of the 
modeled time series, however, Hayes (2007) noted that the stock 
assessment was highly sensitive to the inclusion of pelagic discards 
for the determination of whether the stock was experiencing overfishing 
in 2005. The Jiao et al. (2011) stock assessment model indicated that 
after 2001, the risk of overfishing was very low and that the smooth 
hammerhead population was still overfished but no longer experiencing 
overfishing. Additionally, the modeled trajectory of abundance appears 
to depict a depleted but stable population since the early 2000s (Hayes 
2007). It is important to note, however, that both studies point out 
the high degree of uncertainty associated with these stock assessment 
models, with Jiao et al. (2011) warning that the stock assessment model 
should be ``viewed as illustrative rather than as conclusive evidence 
of their [S. zygaena] present status,'' and Hayes (2007) noting that 
the ``Questionable data give us little confidence in the magnitude of 
the results.''
    Since 2005 (the last year of data included in the stock assessment 
models), smooth hammerhead shark catches have remained low, and 
additional regulatory and management measures have been implemented 
that significantly decrease any remaining risk of overutilization of 
the species. For example, in the U.S. bottom longline fishery, which is 
the primary commercial gear employed for targeting large coastal 
sharks, S. zygaena continues to be a rare occurrence in both the shark 
catch and bycatch. Based on data from the NMFS shark bottom longline 
observer program, between 2005 and 2014, only 6 smooth hammerhead 
sharks were observed caught by bottom longline vessels fishing in the 
Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (data from 214 observed vessels, 833 
trips, and 3,032 hauls; see NMFS Reports available at https://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/labs/panama/ob/bottomlineobserver.htm). In the 
pelagic longline fisheries, starting in 2011, the United States 
prohibited retaining, transshipping, landing, storing, or selling 
hammerhead sharks in the family Sphyrnidae (except for Sphyrna tiburo) 
caught in association with International Commission for the 
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) fisheries (consistent with ICCAT 
Recommendations 09-07, 10-07, 10-08, and 11-08). During 2012 and 2014, 
no smooth hammerhead sharks were reported caught by pelagic longline 
vessels, and in 2013, only one was reported caught and subsequently 
released alive (NMFS 2013a; NMFS 2014b).
    Presently, harvest of the species is managed under the 2006 
Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP). With the passage of 
Amendment 5a to this FMP, which was finalized on July 3, 2013 (78 FR 
40318), management measures have been implemented in the U.S. Federal 
Atlantic HMS fisheries that will help decrease fishery-related 
mortality of the species. These measures include separating the 
commercial hammerhead quotas (which includes great, scalloped, and 
smooth hammerhead sharks) from the large coastal shark (LCS) complex 
quotas, and linking the Atlantic hammerhead shark quota to the Atlantic 
aggregated LCS quotas, and the Gulf of Mexico hammerhead shark quota to 
the Gulf of Mexico aggregated LCS quotas. In other words, if either the 
aggregated LCS or hammerhead quota is reached, then both the aggregated 
LCS and hammerhead management groups will close. These quota linkages 
were implemented as an additional conservation benefit for the 
hammerhead shark complex due to the concern of hammerhead bycatch and 
additional mortality from fishermen targeting other sharks within the 
LCS complex. Furthermore, the separation of the hammerhead species from 
other sharks within the LCS management unit for quota monitoring 
purposes will allow NMFS to better manage the specific utilization of 
the hammerhead complex.
    Since these management measures have been in place, landings of 
hammerhead sharks have decreased significantly. In fact, in 2013, only 
49 percent of the Atlantic hammerhead shark quota was reached due to 
the closure of the Atlantic aggregated LCS group. In 2014, the Atlantic 
LCS quota was reached when only 46 percent of the Atlantic hammerhead 
quota had been caught. Most recently, in 2015, only 66 percent of the 
Atlantic hammerhead quota was caught. In other words, due to existing 
regulatory measures, the mortality of hammerhead sharks from both 
targeted fishing and bycatch mortality on fishing gear for other LCS 
species appears to have been significantly reduced, with current levels 
unlikely to lead to overutilization of the species.
    In the southwest Atlantic, hammerhead sharks are susceptible to 
being caught by the artisanal, industrial, and recreational fisheries 
operating off the coast of Brazil and Uruguay. However, the impact of 
these fisheries specifically on smooth hammerhead sharks remains 
unclear as the available landings data from this region, which tend to 
be lumped for all hammerhead species (Sphyrna spp.), have fluctuated 
over the years (Vooren and Klippel 2005). Additionally, when species-
specific fisheries information is available, the data indicate that S. 
lewini tend to comprise the majority of the hammerhead shark catch.
    According to Vooren and Klippel (2005), the majority of the 
hammerhead catch off Brazil is caught by the oceanic drift gillnet 
fleet, which operates on the outer shelf and slope between 27 [deg]S. 
and 35 [deg]S. latitudes. For example, in 2002,

[[Page 41941]]

total hammerhead landings from all Brazilian fisheries totaled 356 t, 
with 92 percent of the landings attributed to the gillnet fleet. 
However, similar to the findings from the northwest Atlantic, the 
available species-specific fisheries data indicate that smooth 
hammerhead sharks comprise a very small proportion of the hammerhead 
catch from these fisheries, with estimates of around <1-5 percent 
(Sadowsky 1965; Vooren and Klippel 2005).
    Although not as frequent as in the oceanic gillnet fisheries, 
catches of smooth hammerhead sharks are also observed in the longline 
fisheries operating in the shelf and oceanic waters off southern Brazil 
and Uruguay. Based on results from a study that examined shark catches 
from five S[atilde]o Paulo State surface longliners, smooth hammerhead 
sharks may actually comprise a larger proportion of the longline 
hammerhead catch in this region (Amorim et al. 2011). Over the course 
of 27 fishing trips from 2007-2008, a total of 376 smooth and scalloped 
hammerheads were caught, with smooth hammerhead sharks comprising 65 
percent of this catch (n=245 S. zygaena). Life stages of 30 male smooth 
hammerhead sharks were ascertained, with the large majority (n=20) 
constituting juveniles; however, the longliners also caught 10 adults, 
primarily during fishing operations in depths of 200 m-3,000 m (Amorim 
et al. 2011). In total, hammerhead sharks comprised 6.3 percent of the 
shark total by weight, at 37.7 t, which is similar to the range of 
yields reported by Silveira (2007) in Amorim et al. (2011), with 
estimates from 9 t (in 2002) to 55 t (in 2005).
    In the Brazilian artisanal net fisheries, smooth hammerhead sharks 
are caught in beach seines, cable nets, and gillnets, which are 
deployed off beaches in depths of up to 30 m. Given the area of 
operation (e.g., closer to shore, in shallower waters), hammerhead 
catches from these artisanal fishing operations consist mainly of 
juveniles of both S. lewini and S. zygaena, but generally with higher 
proportions of S. lewini. For example, from November 2002 to March 
2003, Vooren and Klippel (2005) monitored artisanal fish catches off a 
stretch of beach between Chui and Tramandai and recorded a total of 218 
hammerhead sharks, with only 4 (or 1.8 percent) identified as smooth 
hammerhead sharks. Artisanal fishermen operating near Solitude 
Lighthouse (30[deg]42' S) also reported a fish haul of 120 kg of 
newborn hammerhead sharks, with around 180 scalloped hammerheads and 
only 2 smooth hammerhead sharks (or 1 percent of the hammerhead catch) 
(Vooren and Klippel 2005). Off Parana, Bornatowski et al. (2014) 
documented 77 juveniles of S. zygaena (with sizes ranging from 67.1-185 
cm TL) and 123 scalloped hammerhead sharks in the artisanal gillnet 
fish catch over a 2-year period.
    Based on the available information, it is clear that all life 
stages of the smooth hammerhead shark are susceptible to the fisheries 
operating in the southwest Atlantic. However, the degree to which these 
fisheries are contributing to overutilization of the species is highly 
uncertain. Furthermore, analysis of the available CPUE data from this 
region as a reflection of abundance does not indicate any trends that 
would suggest the smooth hammerhead shark is at an increased risk of 
extinction. The available hammerhead CPUE data (for S. lewini and S. 
zygaena combined) from the oceanic gillnet fishery (the fishery that 
catches the majority of hammerhead sharks), show a variable trend over 
the period of 1992 to 2004. From 1992 to 1997, CPUE decreased from 0.28 
(t/trip) to 0.05 (t/trip), and then increased to 0.25 (t/trip) by 2002. 
Similarly, there was no discernible trend in the recreational fisheries 
CPUE data for hammerhead sharks for the period covering 1999 to 2004 
(Vooren and Klippel 2005). The CPUE of the longline fisheries was also 
variable, increasing from 0.02 (t/trip) in 1993 to 0.87 (t/trip) in 
2000 and then decreasing to 0.02 (t/trip) in 2002 (Vooren and Klippel 
2005). However, according to personal communication from the authors 
(Vooren and Klippel), cited in Food and Agriculture Organization of the 
United Nations (FAO) (2010), the effort data used to estimate CPUE did 
not account for changes in the size of gillnets or number of hooks in 
the longline fisheries. Given these results, and noting that smooth 
hammerhead sharks, while being primarily juveniles, generally tend to 
be harvested at low levels, with no evidence of impacts to recruitment, 
the available species-specific information does not indicate that 
overutilization is a significant threat presently contributing to the 
species' risk of extinction in this region.
    In the northeast and central Atlantic, smooth hammerhead sharks are 
caught primarily by the artisanal and industrial fisheries operating 
throughout the region. Additionally, many of these hammerheads are also 
juveniles, which could have serious implications on the future 
recruitment of hammerhead sharks to the population (Zeeberg et al. 
2006; Dia et al. 2012). For example, in a sample of the Spanish 
longline fleet landings at the Algeciras fish market (the largest fish 
market in southwestern Spain), Buencuerpo et al. (1998) observed that 
the average sizes of S. zygaena were 170 cm TL for females and 150 cm 
TL for males, indicating a tendency for these fisheries to catch 
immature individuals. Similarly, Portuguese longliners targeting 
swordfish in the eastern equatorial Atlantic were also observed 
catching smooth hammerhead sharks that were smaller than the estimated 
sizes at maturity. Between August 2008 and December 2011, Coelho et al. 
(2012) reported that the average length for captured smooth hammerheads 
(n=372) was 197.5 cm fork length (FL) (220 cm TL) (Coelho et al. 2012), 
which falls within the range of maturity size estimates for the 
species, but indicates that both adults and immature smooth hammerhead 
sharks are being caught. However, the impact of this level of juvenile 
catch on the smooth hammerhead shark population is largely unknown due 
to a lack of information on S. zygaena population size, CPUE trend 
data, or other time-series information that could provide insight into 
smooth hammerhead shark recruitment and population dynamics.
    Off the west coast of Africa, fisheries data are severely lacking, 
particularly species-specific data. While the available information 
suggests there has been a significant decline in the overall abundance 
of shark species due to heavy exploitation of sharks in the 1990s and 
2000s for the international fin trade market, the impact of this past 
utilization, and current levels, on the smooth hammerhead shark 
population are unclear. There is evidence that hammerhead sharks faced 
targeted exploitation by the Senegalese and Gambian fisheries (Diop and 
Dossa 2011), but in terms of available hammerhead-specific information 
from this region, the data show variable trends in catch or abundance 
over the past decade. For example, data from Senegal's annual Marine 
Fisheries Reports depict fairly stable landings in recent years, but 
with peak highs of around 1,800 mt in 2006 and most recently in 2014 
(Republique du Senegal 2000-2014). Seemingly in contrast, in 
Mauritanian waters, scientific research survey data collected from 
1982-2010 indicate that the abundance of Sphyrna spp. (identified as S. 
lewini and S. zygaena) has sharply declined, particularly since 2005, 
with virtually no Sphyrna spp. caught in 2010 (Dia et al. 2012). 
However, similar to the findings from the other areas in the Atlantic, 
scalloped hammerhead sharks appear to be the more common

[[Page 41942]]

hammerhead shark in this region, comprising the majority of the 
hammerhead catches and likely influencing the trends observed in the 
hammerhead data. For example, in 2009, Dia et al. (2012) reported that 
the total catches of sharks in Mauritanian waters amounted to 2,010 mt, 
with total hammerhead landings of 221 mt. Smooth hammerheads 
constituted only 1.76 percent of the total shark catch (or 35 mt) and 
16 percent of the hammerhead total (Dia et al. 2012). Similarly, based 
on data from 246 fishery surveys spanning the years from 1962 to 2002 
and conducted along the west coast of Africa (from Mauritania to 
Guinea, including Cape Verde), scalloped hammerheads occurred more 
frequently and in higher numbers in the observed catch. In fact, the 
greatest number of smooth hammerhead sharks observed during any single 
survey year was 12 individuals, recorded in 1991, whereas the scalloped 
hammerhead shark saw a peak of 80 individuals, recorded in 1993 (see 
Miller 2016 for more details). Overall, without additional information 
on present abundance levels, distribution information, or catch and 
overall utilization rates of the smooth hammerhead shark in this 
region, conclusions regarding the impact of current fishing pressure 
specifically on the extinction risk of the species would be highly 
uncertain and speculative.
    In the temperate waters of the Mediterranean Sea, smooth hammerhead 
sharks have been fished for over a century, and have consequently 
suffered significant declines in abundance in this region. In the early 
20th century, coastal fisheries would target large sharks and also land 
them as incidental bycatch in gill nets, fish traps, and tuna traps 
(Feretti et al. 2008). Feretti et al. (2008) hypothesized that certain 
species, including S. zygaena, found refuge in offshore pelagic waters 
from this intense coastal fishing. However, with the expansion of the 
tuna and swordfish longline and drift net fisheries into pelagic waters 
in the 1970s, these offshore areas no longer served as protection from 
fisheries, and sharks again became regular bycatch. Consequently, 
Feretti et al. (2008) estimate that the hammerhead shark abundance in 
the Mediterranean Sea (primarily S. zygaena) declined by more than 99 
percent over the past 107 years, with the authors considering 
hammerhead sharks to be functionally extinct in the region. Although 
these specific estimates are highly uncertain, hindered by a lack of 
reliable species-specific data and small sample sizes, they indicate a 
potentially serious decline in the population of hammerhead sharks 
within the Mediterranean that is further confirmed by findings from 
Celona and de Maddalena (2005) and fishery surveys conducted throughout 
the Mediterranean (Megalofonou et al. 2005; Baino et al. 2012).
    Specifically, Celona and de Maddalena (2005) reviewed historical 
and more recent data (through 2004) on hammerhead shark (likely S. 
zygaena) occurrence from select areas off Sicily and found that smooth 
hammerhead sharks have been fished to the point where they are now 
extremely rare. Historically, there were no regulations or management 
of the hammerhead shark fishery in Italy. When captured, these sharks 
were usually retained and sold, fresh and frozen, for human 
consumption. In the 1970s, when a specific hammerhead fishery existed 
off Sicily, and these sharks were caught in large numbers, their price 
even climbed to around 30 percent of swordfish prices (Celona and de 
Maddalena 2005). The high value and demand for the species, in 
combination with the lack of any regulations to control the fishery, 
led to significant overutilization of the species in Sicilian waters. 
In the Messina Strait, for example, hammerhead sharks were historically 
caught throughout the year and observed in schools, especially when 
bullet tuna schools (Auxis rochei rochei) were present in these waters. 
Hammerhead sharks were also historically common in waters off Palermo. 
Based on data from the most important landing site for the area, 
Portciello di Santa Flavia, around 300-400 sharks were caught per year 
as bycatch in driftnets targeting swordfish, and around 50 hammerhead 
sharks were caught annually in pelagic longlines. However, by the late 
1970s, these sharks became noticeably less abundant, with only 1-2 
sharks caught per year. Since 1998, no hammerhead sharks have been 
observed in the Messina Strait, and the last observed hammerhead shark 
in waters off Palermo was caught in 2004 (Celona and de Maddalena 
2005). Similar findings were made on the west coast of Sicily, off 
Catania, and in waters around Lampedusa Island in the Sicilian Channel, 
where hammerhead sharks were once regularly caught by swordfish and 
tuna fishermen (in both nets and longlines), but presently are a rare 
occurrence. According to Celona and de Maddalena (2005), fishermen 
acknowledge the negative effect that the historical heavy fishing 
pressure and the extensive use of the drift net gear has had on the 
abundance of hammerhead sharks. The authors ``roughly'' estimate that 
captures of hammerhead shark have declined by at least 96-98 percent in 
the last 30 years as a result of overexploitation.
    The disappearance of smooth hammerhead sharks is not just relegated 
to waters off Italy. In a sampling of fleets targeting swordfish and 
tuna throughout the Mediterranean from 1998 to 2000, only 4 smooth 
hammerhead sharks were observed based on data from 5,124 landing sites 
and 702 fishing days (onboard commercial fishing vessels) (Megalofonou 
et al. 2005). Similarly, the MEDLAM program, which was designed to 
monitor the captures and sightings of large cartilaginous fishes 
occurring in the Mediterranean Sea, also has very few records of S. 
zygaena in its database. Since its inception in 1985, the program has 
collected around 1,866 records (including historical records) of more 
than 2,000 specimens from 20 participating countries. Out of the 2,048 
elasmobranchs documented in the database through 2012, there are 
records identifying only 17 individuals of S. zygaena [note: Without 
access to the database, the dates of these observations are unknown] 
(Baino et al. 2012).
    Recently, Sperone et al. (2012) provided evidence of the 
contemporary occurrence of the smooth hammerhead shark in Mediterranean 
waters, recording 7 individuals over the course of 9 years (from 2000-
2009) near the Calabria region of Italy. Previous findings by Ferretti 
et al. (2008) indicated the species was likely extirpated from this 
area based on Ionian longline data from 1995 to 1999. Although Sperone 
et al. (2012) suggest these new findings may indicate the potential 
recovery of smooth hammerhead shark populations in Ionian waters off 
Calabria, Italy, the populations in the Mediterranean are still 
significantly depleted. Any additional fishing mortality on these 
existing populations is likely to significantly contribute to its risk 
of extirpation in the Mediterranean. Given the large fishing fleet in 
the Mediterranean, this likelihood remains high. In fact, in 2012, the 
European Commission (2014) reported a Mediterranean fleet size of 
76,023 vessels, with a total fishing capacity of 1,578,015 gross 
tonnage and 5,807,827 kilowatt power. As of January 2016, the General 
Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) identified 9,343 
large fishing vessels (i.e., larger than 15 meters) as authorized to 
fish in the GFCM convention area (which includes Mediterranean waters 
and the Black Sea). Of these vessels, 12 percent (or 1,086 vessels) 
reported using longlines

[[Page 41943]]

or nets (drift nets, gillnets, trammel nets) as their main fishing gear 
(see https://www.gfcmonline.org/data/avl/). While the GFCM passed 
Recommendation GFCM/35/2011/7 (C), based on the ICCAT recommendation 
10-08, prohibiting the onboard retention, transshipment, landing, 
storing, selling, or offering for sale any part or whole carcass of 
hammerhead sharks of the family Sphyrnidae (except for the S. tiburo) 
taken in the Convention area, as noted previously, the smooth 
hammerhead exhibits high rates of at-vessel mortality. Given the 
extremely depleted status of the species, it is therefore unlikely that 
this regulation will significantly decrease the fishery-related 
mortality of the smooth hammerhead shark to the point where it is no 
longer at significant risk of further declines and potential 
extirpation from overutilization in the Mediterranean.
    In the southeastern Atlantic, hammerhead sharks (likely primarily 
S. zygaena given the more temperate waters of this region) have also 
been reported caught by commercial and artisanal fisheries operating 
off Angola, Namibia and the west coast of South Africa. However, within 
the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (defined as west of 20[deg] 
E. longitude, north of 35[deg] S. latitude and south of 5[ordm] S. 
latitude.) Petersen et al. (2007) found that hammerhead sharks were 
only a minor component of the shark bycatch. Based on reported observer 
data from the Namibian longline fisheries, hammerhead sharks comprised 
only 0.2 percent of the total shark bycatch from 2002-2004, with a very 
low catch rate of 0.2 sharks/1000 hooks (Petersen et al. 2007). 
Hammerhead sharks were also rarely caught by the South African pelagic 
longline fishery, with only one identified hammerhead shark out of 
10,435 sharks caught from 2000 to 2005 (Petersen et al. 2007). In the 
shark directed longline fishery off South Africa, hammerhead sharks 
also appear to comprise a small component of the catch (by number). 
Based on logsheet landings data from 1992-2005, as a group, 
hammerheads, copper sharks, cowsharks, threshers, and skates made up 
only 3 percent of the total number of sharks (Petersen et al. 2007). 
Additionally, local demand for smooth hammerhead sharks (particularly 
meat) does not appear to be a threat in these waters, with smooth 
hammerhead sharks generally relegated to the colloquial ``bad'' trade 
category due to the lower value of its flesh in South African markets 
(Da Silva and Burgener 2007).
    The fisheries information and catch data for the entire Atlantic 
region from ICCAT also depict a species that is not regularly caught by 
industrial fishing vessels operating throughout the Atlantic Ocean. 
ICCAT is the RFMO responsible for the conservation of tunas and tuna-
like species in the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas. Smooth hammerhead 
sharks are taken in the ICCAT convention area by longlines, purse seine 
nets, gillnets, and handlines, with around 44 percent of the total 
catch from 1987-2014 caught by drift gillnet gear and 23 percent caught 
by longlines. In total, approximately 1,746 mt of smooth hammerhead 
catches were reported to ICCAT from 1987-2014.
    In 2010, ICCAT adopted recommendation 10-08 prohibiting the 
retention onboard, transshipment, landing, storing, selling, or 
offering for sale any part or whole carcass of hammerhead sharks of the 
family Sphyrnidae (except for S. tiburo) taken in the Convention area 
in association with ICCAT fisheries. However, there is an exception for 
developing coastal nations for local consumption as long as hammerheads 
do not enter into international trade. Despite this exception, analysis 
of available observer data from ICCAT fishing vessels shows that, in 
general, smooth hammerhead catches are fairly minimal in the industrial 
fisheries operating throughout the Atlantic. For example, data from 
French and Spanish observer programs, collected over the period of 
2003-2007, show that smooth hammerhead sharks represented 3.5 percent 
of the shark bycatch (in numbers) in the European purse seine fishery 
(Amand[egrave] et al. 2010). This fishery primarily operates in 
latitudes between 20[deg] N. and 20[deg] S. and longitudes from 35[deg] 
W. to the African coast. In total, only 12 smooth hammerhead sharks 
were caught on the 27 observed trips which corresponded to 598 sets 
(Amand[egrave] et al. 2010). Similarly, in the tropical Atlantic Ocean, 
fishery observers onboard two Chinese tuna longline vessels from 
December 2007 to April 2008 (covering 90 fishing days and 226,848 
hooks) recorded only 7 smooth hammerhead sharks, making it the second 
least commonly encountered shark, with an average CPUE of 0.031 (number 
of sharks/1000 hooks) and comprising only 3 percent of the shark 
bycatch by weight and 1.1 percent by number (Dai et al. 2009).
    Observer data from tuna longliners operating throughout the 
Atlantic Ocean also support the observed low likelihood of catching S. 
zygaena during normal fishing operations. From 1995-2000, Japanese 
observers collected data from 20 trips, covering 886 fishing operations 
and 2,026,049 deployed hooks throughout the Atlantic (Matsushita and 
Matsunaga 2002). A total of 9,921 sharks were observed; however, only 
22 of these were smooth hammerhead sharks, comprising 0.2 percent of 
the total shark bycatch (Matsushita and Matsunaga 2002). Observers 
aboard Portuguese longline fishing vessels collected more recent data 
from 834 longline sets (1,078,200 deployed hooks) and conducted between 
August 2008 and December 2011 (Coelho et al. 2012). A total of 36,067 
elasmobranchs were recorded over the course of the 3-year study, of 
which 372 (or roughly 1 percent) were smooth hammerhead sharks (Coelho 
et al. 2012).
    Perhaps not surprising, given the above data on ICCAT longline 
catches, Cort[eacute]s et al. (2012) conducted an Ecological Risk 
Assessment and concluded that smooth hammerheads were one of the least 
vulnerable stocks to overfishing by the ICCAT pelagic longline 
fisheries. Ecological Risk Assessments are popular modeling tools that 
take into account a stock's biological productivity (evaluated based on 
life history characteristics) and susceptibility to a fishery 
(evaluated based on availability of the species within the fishery's 
area of operation, encounterability, post capture mortality and 
selectivity of the gear) in order to determine its overall 
vulnerability to overexploitation (Cort[eacute]s et al. 2012; Kiszka 
2012). Results from the Cort[eacute]s et al. (2012) Ecological Risk 
Assessment, which used observer information collected from a number of 
ICCAT fleets, indicate that smooth hammerhead sharks face a relatively 
low risk in ICCAT fisheries. In fact, based on the best available data 
from the Atlantic region, the evidence suggests that while smooth 
hammerhead sharks are caught as both targeted catch and bycatch, and 
then marketed for both their fins and meat, overall, the present level 
of utilization does not appear to be a threat significantly 
contributing to the species' risk of extinction.
    In the Indian Ocean, smooth hammerhead sharks have historically 
been and continue to be caught as bycatch in pelagic longline tuna and 
swordfish fisheries and gillnet fisheries, and may also be targeted by 
semi-industrial, artisanal and recreational fisheries; however, 
fisheries data, particularly species-specific information, are severely 
lacking. Presently, there are very few studies that have examined the 
status of or collected data specifically on smooth

[[Page 41944]]

hammerhead sharks in the Indian Ocean, making it difficult to determine 
the level of exploitation of this species within the ocean basin.
    In the western Indian Ocean, where artisanal fisheries are highly 
active, studies conducted in waters off Madagascar and Kenya provide 
limited data on the catch and use of smooth hammerhead sharks from this 
region. For the most part, many of the fisheries operating throughout 
this region are poorly monitored, with catches largely undocumented and 
underestimated. For example, in southwest Madagascar, McVean et al. 
(2006) investigated the directed shark fisheries of two villages over 
the course of 10 and 13 months, respectively, and found that the scale 
of these fisheries was ``largely unexpected.'' These fisheries, 
described as ``traditional fisheries'' (i.e., fishing conducted on foot 
or in non-motorized vessels), used both surface-set longlines and also 
gillnets to catch sharks. Sharks are processed immediately after 
landing, with valuable fins exported to the Far East at high prices and 
shark meat sold locally. Out of the examined 1,164 catch records, 
hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna spp.; fishermen did not differentiate 
between species) were the most commonly caught shark (n = 340), 
comprising 29 percent of the total sharks caught and 24 percent of the 
total wet weight. Overall, the fisheries landed 123 mt of sharks, which 
was significantly higher than the previous annual estimate of 500 kg 
per km of Madagascar coastline. The data also provided evidence of 
declines in both the numbers of sharks landed and size (McVean et al. 
2006). Due to the high economic returns associated with shark fishing 
in Madagascar, the authors predicted that these fisheries will likely 
continue despite the potential risks of resource depletion. However, 
without more accurate species-specific data, the effect of this level 
of exploitation, particularly on smooth hammerhead sharks, remains 
uncertain. In fact, in other areas of Madagascar, studies examining the 
artisanal and shark fisheries, including the genetic testing of fins 
from these fisheries, report hammerhead catches that consist mainly of 
scalloped hammerhead sharks and, to a lesser degree, great hammerhead 
sharks, but no smooth hammerhead sharks (Doukakis et al. 2011; Robinson 
and Sauer 2011).
    In Kenya, however, there is evidence of smooth hammerhead sharks in 
the fish catch. Similar to the McVean et al. (2006) study, Kyalo and 
Stephen (2013) analyzed data from various landing sites along the coast 
of Kenya as well as observer data from commercial and scientific trawl 
surveys to examine the extent of shark catch in Kenya's artisanal tuna 
fisheries and semi-industrial prawn trawls. In Kenya, sharks are 
primarily caught as bycatch, with the meat consumed locally and fins 
exported to Far East countries (including Hong Kong and China). Based 
on data collected over a 1-year period (July 2012-July 2013), 
hammerhead sharks (S. lewini and S. zygaena) comprised 58.3 percent of 
the shark catch in the semi-industrial prawn trawl fisheries. Smooth 
hammerhead sharks, alone, made up 27 percent of the sharks (n=69), with 
a catch rate estimated at 2 kg/hour. Additionally, all of the smooth 
hammerheads were neonates, with the vast majority within the estimated 
size at birth range, indicating that the fishing grounds likely also 
serve as parturition and nursery grounds for the species. While it is 
particularly concerning that the Kenyan semi-industrial trawl fisheries 
are harvesting neonate and juvenile smooth hammerhead sharks, the 
degree to which this harvest is impacting recruitment of S. zygaena to 
the population is unknown. However, the authors do note that the 
general catch trend of elasmobranchs in Kenya has exhibited a declining 
trend since 1984, and suggest additional research is needed to 
determine current harvest rates and sustainable catch and effort 
levels.
    While range maps place smooth hammerhead sharks within the Persian 
Gulf, there is no available information on the abundance or magnitude 
of catches of S. zygaena within this body of water. In the waters of 
the United Arab Emirates (UAE), hammerhead sharks are noted as 
generally ``common'' and are currently protected from being retained or 
landed. However, while the UAE prohibits the export of hammerheads 
caught in UAE waters, it still allows for the re-export of these sharks 
caught elsewhere (such as in Oman, Yemen, and Somalia) (Todorova 2014). 
In fact, in the past decade, the UAE has emerged as an important 
regional export hub for these countries in terms of the international 
shark fin trade, exporting up to 500 mt of dried raw fins annually to 
Hong Kong. Yet, information on the species traded and quantities 
involved is limited. Based on data collected from 2010-2012 at the 
Deira fish market (the only auction site in UAE for sharks destined for 
international trade), hammerheads were the second most represented 
family in the trade (at 9.3 percent) behind Carcharinidae sharks (which 
represented 74.9 percent of the species) (Jabado et al. 2015). A total 
of 12,069 sharks were recorded at the fish market, with the majority 
originating from Oman (Jabado et al. 2015). Around half (6,751 
individuals) were identified to species, with 186 identified as S. 
zygaena caught in Oman waters (Jabado et al. 2015). Thus, while the UAE 
affords protections to hammerhead sharks within its own waters, its re-
export business continues to drive the demand for the species 
throughout the region. However, while UAE traders confirmed that fins 
from hammerhead sharks are highly valued, they also note that the 
general trend in recent years has been a decline in prices and profits 
due to a reduction in demand for fins in Hong Kong (see Shark Fin Trade 
section for more details) (Jabado et al. 2015). As such, this decrease 
in demand may translate to a decrease in fishing pressure on the 
species. Yet, without any data on catch trends, fishing effort, or the 
size of the S. zygaena population in this region, the impact of current 
or even future fishing mortality rates on the smooth hammerhead 
population remains unknown.
    In the central Indian Ocean, data on smooth hammerhead shark 
utilization is available from the countries of Sri Lanka, India, and 
Indonesia. In Sri Lanka, shark meat, both fresh and dried, is used for 
human consumption as well as for a cheap animal feed source, while 
shark fins are exported to other countries (SL-NPOA-Sharks 2013). Shark 
catches in Sri Lanka reached high levels in the 1980s, coinciding with 
demand for shark products in the international market, and peaked in 
1999 at 34,842 mt (SL-NPOA-Sharks 2013). However, since 1999, annual 
shark catches have exhibited a significant decline, down to a low of 
1,611 t in 2014 (Jayathilaka and Maldeniya 2015). According to 
Jayathilaka and Maldeniya (2015), the decline in annual shark 
production, particularly over the past few years, can be mainly 
attributed to the implementation and enforcement of new regulations on 
sharks and, specifically, conservation provisions for thresher sharks 
(which were one of the more dominant species in the shark catches). The 
authors further go on to state that the declining price of shark fins 
has also influenced fishermen to shift to export-oriented tuna 
fisheries. In terms of the impacts on smooth hammerhead sharks, when 
the data are broken out by shark species, hammerhead sharks have and 
continue to comprise a very small proportion of the catch. Based on 
landings data over the past decade (and similarly reported

[[Page 41945]]

in historical catches), silky sharks tend to dominate the shark catch, 
followed by blue sharks, thresher sharks (until their prohibition in 
2012), and oceanic whitetip sharks. In 2014, smooth hammerhead sharks 
comprised around only 1 percent of the retained shark bycatch in Sri 
Lanka, with a total of 18 mt caught (Hewapathirana et al. 2015; 
Jayathilaka and Maldeniya 2015). While sharks have generally declined 
in Sri Lankan waters due to historical overutilization, there is no 
information to indicate that present catch levels of S. zygaena are a 
significant threat to the species in this portion of its range.
    Similarly, in Indian waters, available longline survey data 
collected from within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) show that 
smooth hammerheads tend to comprise a small portion of the shark 
bycatch (0.5-5 percent) (Varghese et al. 2007; John and Varghese 2009). 
Although India is considered to be one of the top shark-fishing 
nations, smooth hammerhead sharks, in particular, are not considered to 
be a species of interest (based on 2008-2013 Indian Ocean Tuna 
Commission (IOTC) data holdings) (Clarke and IOTC Secretariat 2014). 
The same appears true for Indonesia, which is considered to be the 
largest shark-catching country in the world. In fact, the available 
landings and observer data suggest that S. zygaena distribution is not 
likely concentrated within Indonesian fishing areas. For example, in an 
analysis of data collected from Indonesian tuna longline fishing 
vessels from 2005-2013, scientific observers recorded only 6 smooth 
hammerheads (covering 94 trips, 2,268 operations, and 3,264,588 hooks) 
(Novianto et al. 2014). In another study, data were collected and 
analyzed from numerous fish markets and landing sites throughout 
Indonesia from 2001-2005, including Central Java, Bali, Jakarta, West 
Java, and Lombok. This study revealed that Sphryna spp. are among the 
most commonly taken shark species as bycatch; however, when identified 
to species, only S. lewini was detected within the landings data 
(Blaber et al. 2009). Similarly, a study that used DNA barcoding to 
identify shark fins from numerous traditional fish markets and shark-
fin exporters across Indonesia (from mid-2012 to mid-2014) found a 
relatively high frequency of scalloped hammerhead sharks in the data 
(10.48 percent of fins; 2nd most common shark), whereas S. zygaena, 
while present in the fish markets, comprised only 1.03 percent of the 
fins (n=6 fins) (Sembiring et al. 2015). These results are not that 
surprising given the more temperate distribution of the smooth 
hammerhead shark compared to the tropical scalloped hammerhead. 
However, it also speaks to the threat of overutilization in that the 
largest shark-catching country in the world appears to primarily target 
sharks in tropical waters, so smooth hammerhead sharks may be provided 
some protection from these intensive fisheries due to their more 
temperate distribution.
    Given the above information on distribution, it is not surprising 
that the majority of S. zygaena catches in Australian waters is 
attributed to the Western Australian temperate gillnet and longline 
fisheries, which operate in continental shelf waters along the southern 
and lower west coasts. The main commercial shark species targeted in 
these fisheries are gummy sharks (Mustelus antarcticus), dusky sharks 
(Carcharhinus obscurus), whiskery sharks (Furgaleus macki) and sandbar 
sharks (Carcharhinus plumbeus). Smooth hammerhead sharks are considered 
to be a bycatch species and tend to comprise over 98 percent of the 
hammerhead catch from this fishery (Australian Government 2014; 
Commonwealth of Australia 2015). A recent multi-fisheries bycatch 
assessment, which examined the sustainability of bycatch species in 
multiple Gascoyne and West Coast Australian fisheries, found smooth 
hammerhead sharks to be at a low to moderate risk in this region, with 
the risk largely influenced by the species' biological profiles 
(vulnerable life history traits) as opposed to fishery impacts (Evans 
and Molony 2010). Between 1994 and 1999, McAuley and Simpfendorfer 
(2003) estimated that the average annual take of smooth hammerheads in 
the Western Australian temperate gillnet and longline fisheries was 
around 53 t. Based on recent catches of hammerhead sharks (range: 59.9 
t-71 t), harvest levels have increased slightly since the 1990s, but 
have remained fairly stable over the past 4 years. Furthermore, these 
harvest levels are considered to be within the recommended sustainable 
take for the species, which has been estimated at around 70 t per year 
(Australian Government 2014). An increasing CPUE trend specifically for 
hammerhead sharks in this fishery (Simpfendorfer 2014), as well as a 
declining trend in total gillnet effort (with effort on the west coast 
now at low historical levels) (Government of Western Australia 2015), 
suggests that the ongoing harvest of the species by the Western 
Australian temperate gillnet fisheries is unlikely to be a significant 
threat to the species.
    Fisheries information and catch data from the RFMO that operates 
throughout the Indian Ocean (the IOTC) also depict a species that is 
not regularly caught by industrial fishing vessels (see Miller (2016) 
for more details), nor does this RFMO consider the species to be a key 
``priority species'' (i.e., those shark species whose status the IOTC 
is concerned about and have scheduled future stock assessments). While 
current catches reported in the IOTC public domain database are thought 
to be incomplete and largely underestimated (Murua et al. 2013; IOTC 
2015), the available observer data from the IOTC convention area 
suggest that smooth hammerhead sharks tend to be rare in the various 
industrial and artisanal fisheries operating within the convention area 
(Huang and Liu 2010).
    In the western Pacific, smooth hammerhead sharks are regularly 
recorded in fisheries catch data, particularly from the temperate 
waters off southeastern Australia and New Zealand. They have also been 
reported in landings data from Japan, as far north as Hokkaido 
(Taniuchi 1974). According to Taniuchi (1974), smooth hammerhead sharks 
were historically widely distributed throughout Japan, with their flesh 
sold at fish markets from Shikoku to the Kanto District and Hokkaido; 
however, species-specific data are lacking. Over the past decade, 
reported catches of hammerhead sharks at main fishing ports in Japan 
have been low and variable (range: <10 mt to <40 mt), with no clear 
trend (Fisheries Agency of Japan 2015). Furthermore, overall fishing 
effort by Japanese longliners (which are responsible for the majority 
of shark catches) has been on a declining trend since the late 1980s, 
with significant declines noted particularly in the Pacific Ocean 
(Fisheries Agency of Japan 2011; Uosaki et al. 2015), with expansion of 
the scale of these fisheries unlikely in the foreseeable future 
(Fisheries Agency of Japan 2011).
    Although Japan is a significant producer and exporter of sharks 
fins, ranking 10th worldwide in terms of chondrichthyan catches and 
11th in (dried) shark fin exports from 2000-2011, both capture 
production and fin exports have steadily declined over the past decade 
(Dent and Clarke 2015). Compared to statistics from 2000, Japan's 
catches of chondrichthyans decreased by 68 percent in 2011 and fin 
exports dropped by 52 percent in 2012. Additionally, Japan has stated 
that due to the uncertainty of the stock structure of hammerhead 
sharks, as well as the lumping of all hammerhead sharks in the 
available Japanese data, it is unable to make a CITES non-detriment 
finding for the export of hammerhead shark

[[Page 41946]]

species (Fisheries Agency of Japan 2015). Effective September 14, 2014, 
scalloped, smooth, and great hammerhead sharks are listed on Appendix 
II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of 
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which means that international trade in 
specimens of these species may be authorized by the granting of a CITES 
export permit or re-export certificate. However, under CITES, these 
permits or certificates should only be granted if that trade will not 
be detrimental to the survival of the species. This is done through the 
development of a ``non-detriment'' finding, or NDF. Because Japan is 
unable to make an NDF for the export of scalloped, smooth, or great 
hammerhead sharks, it will not issue any permits for the export of 
products from these species. This decision has likely significantly 
decreased the incentive for Japanese fishermen to target smooth 
hammerhead sharks for the international fin trade market, and has 
decreased the threat of overutilization of the species within Japanese 
waters.
    Smooth hammerhead sharks are also documented in the fisheries catch 
data from Taiwan, whose fleet also ranks in the top ten for global 
shark catches. However, based on the available data, the species does 
not appear to be a significant component of the shark catch. For 
example, from 2002-2010, Liu and Tsai (2011) examined offloaded 
landings at two major fish markets in Taiwan (Nanfangao and Chengkung) 
to get a better sense of the catch composition and whole weight of the 
sharks commonly caught by Taiwanese offshore tuna longliners. What they 
found was that there are 11 species of pelagic sharks that are commonly 
caught by the longliners, with blue sharks dominating the shark 
landings (by weight), comprising an average of 44.5 percent of the 
landings, followed by scalloped hammerheads (at 9.87 percent) and 
shortfin makos (at 9.42 percent) (Liu and Tsai 2011). Smooth hammerhead 
sharks, on the other hand, were one of the least represented species, 
comprising an average of 1.38 percent of the landings over the study 
period, which translated to around 78 mt per year (Liu and Tsai 2011). 
Since 2010, reported annual catches of smooth hammerhead sharks by 
Taiwan's tuna longline fleets have ranged from 81 mt to 149 mt 
(Fisheries Agency of Chinese Taipei 2015).
    According to the annual reports of Chinese Taipei, provided to the 
Western and Central Pacific Fishery Commission (WCPFC), over 93 percent 
of the smooth hammerhead bycatch can be attributed to the small scale 
tuna longline vessels, which operate mostly in the EEZ of Taiwan but 
also beyond the EEZ (particularly those vessels with freezing equipment 
which allows for expansion to more distant waters). Since 2011, 
reported smooth hammerhead shark catches by both the large and small-
scale longline fleets have decreased, but so has fishing effort, with a 
decline in the number of active vessels engaged in the fisheries 
(Fisheries Agency of Chinese Taipei 2015). Presently, there is no 
information to indicate overutilization of S. zygaena in Chinese Taipei 
by these fisheries.
    Off the east coast of Australia, smooth hammerhead sharks are 
normally found in continental shelf waters. While the majority of 
smooth hammerhead shark catches are taken in the previously discussed 
Western Australian fisheries, minimal numbers are also caught in the 
Commonwealth-managed southern shark fishery and the NSW Offshore Trap 
and Line Fishery, which operates off the eastern and southern coasts of 
Australia (Macbeth et al. 2009; Simpfendorfer 2014). Hammerhead sharks 
are also occasionally caught in Australia's NSW Shark Meshing Program 
(SMP). The NSW SMP annually deploys a series of bottom-set mesh nets 
between September 1st and April 30th along 51 ocean beaches from 
Wollongong to Newcastle. Based on the data from the NSW SMP, the CPUE 
of hammerhead sharks (likely S. zygaena, given the placement of nets in 
more temperate waters; Reid et al. 2011; Williamson 2011) over the past 
decade has exhibited a declining trend, although no significant trend 
was found when data from the start of the program were included (from 
1950-2010; Reid et al. 2011). Yet, since the 1970s, the number of 
hammerhead sharks caught per year in the NSW beach nets has decreased 
by more than 90 percent, from over 300 individuals in 1973 to fewer 
than 30 in 2008 (Williamson 2011).
    While changes in the SMP methods and level of effort since its 
inception have complicated long-term analyses, in 2005, the SMP was 
listed as a ``key threatening process'' by the NSW Fisheries Scientific 
Committee (convened under Australia's Fisheries Management Act 1994) 
and the NSW Scientific Committee (convened under Australia's Threatened 
Species Conservation Act 1995). It was listed as such due to its 
adverse effect on threatened species, populations, or ecological 
communities, and its potential for causing species, populations, or 
ecological communities that are not yet threatened to become 
threatened. Since 2009, the program has operated in accordance with 
Joint Management Agreements and an associated management plan, with an 
objective of minimizing the impact of its nets on non-target species 
(such as smooth hammerhead sharks) and threatened species to ensure 
that the SMP does not jeopardize the survival or conservation status of 
the species. To meet this objective, the SMP developed a ``trigger 
point'' that, when tripped, indicates additional measures are needed to 
comply with the objective. The trigger point is defined as: 
``entanglements of non-target species and threatened species over two 
consecutive meshing seasons exceed twice the annual average catch of 
the preceding 10 years for those species.'' For smooth hammerhead 
sharks, the trigger point was estimated at 55 individuals. Based on 
recent species-specific data from the SMP program, the annual catch of 
smooth hammerhead sharks has remained below the trigger point for the 
past 5 years, ranging from 18 sharks captured in 2010 to 42 sharks in 
2014, indicating that under the current evaluation parameters, the SMP 
is not considered to be impacting S. zygaena to the extent that it 
would jeopardize its survival or conservation status (NSW Department of 
Primary Industries 2015).
    To the east, in New Zealand, smooth hammerhead sharks are 
occasionally caught as bycatch in commercial fisheries, but are 
prohibited from being targeted. The available data from New Zealand 
waters, covering the time period from 1986-1997, show no clear trend in 
smooth hammerhead landings (Francis and Shallard 1998), and 
corresponding effort information is unavailable. When compared to all 
shark landings for the same time period, smooth hammerhead sharks 
comprised <1 percent of the total, indicating that the commercial 
fisheries in this region likely do not pose a significant threat to the 
species. However, in an analysis of 195 shark fillets from marketed 
cartons labelled as lemon fish (Mustelus lenticulatus), 14 percent were 
identified as S. zygaena (n=28). Similarly, analysis of 392 shark fins 
obtained from commercial shark fisheries operating in the Bay of Plenty 
indicated that 12 percent (n=47) came from smooth hammerhead sharks. 
These data suggest that while smooth hammerhead sharks may be 
prohibited from being targeted in New Zealand waters, they are still 
occasionally landed. However, at present, there is no indication that 
the impact of this take on the population is

[[Page 41947]]

significantly contributing to the species' risk of extinction in this 
region.
    In the central Pacific, smooth hammerhead sharks are caught as 
bycatch in the Hawaii and American Samoa pelagic longline fisheries. 
NMFS authorizes these pelagic longline fisheries under the Fishery 
Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific (Pelagics 
FEP) developed by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council 
(WPFMC) and approved by NMFS under the authority of the MSA. The WPFMC 
has implemented strict management controls for these fisheries. 
Although smooth hammerhead sharks are not a target species in these 
pelagic longline fisheries, the measures that regulate the longline 
fishery operations have helped to monitor the bycatch of smooth 
hammerhead sharks and may minimize impacts to the species. Some of 
these regulations include mandatory observers, vessel monitoring 
systems, designated longline buffer zones, areas of prohibited fishing, 
and periodic closures and effort limits (see Miller et al. (2014a) for 
more details). A mandatory observer program for the Hawaii-based 
pelagic longline fishery was also initiated in 1994, with coverage rate 
that increased to a minimum of 20 percent in 2001. The Hawaii-based 
deep-set pelagic longline fishery is currently observed at a minimum of 
20 percent and the Hawaii-based shallow-set pelagic fishery has 100 
percent observer coverage. The American Samoa longline fishery has also 
had an observer program since 2006, with coverage ranging between 20 
percent and 33 percent since 2010.
    Based on the available observer data, smooth hammerhead sharks 
appear to be caught in low numbers and comprise a very small proportion 
of the bycatch. For example, from 1995-2006, only 49 S. zygaena 
individuals on 26,507 sets total were observed caught for both Hawaii-
based pelagic longline fishery sectors combined, translating to an 
estimated nominal CPUE of 0.001 fish per 1,000 hooks (Walsh et al. 
2009). Additionally, according to the U.S. National Bycatch Report 
(NMFS 2011; NMFS 2013b), the Hawaii-based deep-set pelagic longline 
fishery reported only 2,453.74 pounds (1.1 mt) of smooth hammerheads as 
bycatch in 2005 and 3,173.91 pounds (1.44 mt) in 2010. The Hawaii based 
shallow-set pelagic longline fishery reported even lower levels of 
bycatch, with 930.35 pounds (0.422 mt) in 2005 and no bycatch of smooth 
hammerhead sharks in 2010. From 2010 to 2013, only three smooth 
hammerheads were observed caught in the American Samoa longline 
fishery, all in 2011, with total take extrapolated to 12 individuals 
(NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC), unpublished 
data). The number of unidentified hammerhead sharks observed caught for 
the same period was 2, extrapolated to 11 total (PIFSC, unpublished 
data). Given the strict management of these pelagic longline fisheries 
and the low levels of bycatch, with no evidence of population declines 
of smooth hammerhead sharks in this area, there is no information to 
suggest that overutilization is presently a threat in this portion of 
the species' range.
    The WCPFC, the RFMO that seeks the conservation and sustainable use 
of highly migratory fish stocks throughout the western and central 
Pacific Ocean, has also collected data on the longline and purse seine 
fisheries operating throughout the region; however, data specific to 
smooth hammerhead sharks (and hammerhead sharks in general) is severely 
limited. Only since 2011 have WCPFC vessels been required to report 
specific catch information for hammerhead sharks (in their annual 
reports to the WCPFC), and it tends to be for the entire hammerhead 
group (including S. mokarran, S. lewini,S. zygaena, and Eusphyra 
blochii). Given the lumping of all hammerhead species together and the 
limited information on catches and discards, the available data provide 
little insight into the impact of present utilization levels on the 
status of smooth hammerhead shark in this region (see Miller (2016) for 
more details).
    Similarly, available WCPFC observer data are also lacking, hindered 
by low observer rates and spatio-temporal coverage of fishing effort 
throughout the region. This is particularly true in the longline 
fisheries where coverage rates have been below 2 percent since 2009, 
despite the requirement under the Conservation and Management Measure 
for the Regional Observer Programme (CMM 2007[hyphen]01) requiring 5 
percent observer coverage by June 2012 in each longline fishery (Clarke 
2013). With these limitations in mind, the available observer data from 
1994-2009 indicate that, in general, catches of hammerhead sharks (S. 
mokarran, S. lewini, S. zygaena, and E. blochii) are negligible in all 
WCPFC fisheries. Rice et al. (2015) analyzed the WCPFC observer data 
through 2014 and found that hammerhead sharks generally have low 
encounter rates (i.e., low frequency of occurrence in the western and 
central Pacific Ocean). In the purse-seine fisheries data, Rice et al. 
(2015) noted that observations of hammerhead sharks are ``virtually 
non-existent,'' and in the longline observer data, hammerheads had a 
patchy distribution (concentrated around the Hawaiian Islands, Papua 
New Guinea, and Australian east coast), but relatively stable CPUE 
(from 2002-2013). However, due to the overall low frequency of 
occurrence of the species in the data, no conclusions could be made 
regarding hammerhead shark temporal trends, with Rice et al. (2015) 
noting that a stock assessment to determine the status of the 
hammerhead shark species throughout the western and central Pacific 
Ocean would not be feasible at this time.
    In the eastern Pacific Ocean, smooth hammerhead sharks are both 
targeted and taken as bycatch in industrial and artisanal fisheries. 
While the range of the smooth hammerhead shark is noted as extending as 
far north as northern California waters, based on the available data, 
the distribution of the species appears to be concentrated in waters 
off Mexico and areas south (Miller 2016). Observer data of the west 
coast based U.S. fisheries further confirms this finding, with smooth 
hammerhead sharks rarely observed in the catches (Miller 2016). In 
Mexico, however, sharks, including hammerheads, are considered an 
important component of the artisanal fishery (Instituto Nacional de la 
Pesca 2006), and artisanal fisheries account for around 80 percent of 
the elasmobranch fishing activity (Cartamil et al. 2011). Sharks are 
targeted both for their fins, which are harvested by fishermen for 
export, and for their meat, which is becoming increasingly important 
for domestic consumption. Yet, details regarding fishing effort and 
species composition of artisanal landings are generally unavailable 
(Cartamil et al. 2011).
    Information on Mexican artisanal catches specifically of smooth 
hammerhead sharks was found in studies examining artisanal fishing 
camps operating off Sinaloa, the ``Tres Marias'' Islands of Mexico, and 
Laguna Manuel (P[eacute]rez-Jim[eacute]nez et al. 2005; Bizzarro et al. 
2009; Cartamil et al. 2011). While findings from these studies indicate 
a predominance of immature smooth hammerhead sharks in artisanal 
landings, the CPUE is low, with S. zygaena representing a fairly small 
component of the shark and hammerhead catch. For example, a 1999 survey 
of the Sinaloa artisanal elasmobranch-targeted fishery revealed that 
CPUE (# individuals/vessel/trip) of smooth hammerhead sharks ranged 
from 0 to 0.7, depending on the season (Bizzarro et al. 2009). From 
2006-2008, a study of the Laguna Manuela artisanal fishing camp, 
identified as one of the most important elasmobranch fishing camps in 
Baja California, found that out of 10,595 captured elasmobranchs over

[[Page 41948]]

the course of 387 panta trips (small-scale operations, using 5-8 m long 
boats), only 306 (~3 percent) were smooth hammerhead sharks. The 
estimated CPUE was 1.32 (mean catch per trip) on gillnet and 0.08 on 
longline (Cartamil et al. 2011). Carcass discard sites were also 
surveyed outside of the Laguna Manuela fishing camp, with species 
composition within the sites very similar to the beach survey catch. 
Within the 17 carcass discard sites, 31,860 elasmobranch carcasses were 
identified, with 374 attributed to smooth hammerhead sharks (1.17 
percent) (Cartamil et al. 2011).
    In July 2015, the CITES Scientific Authority of Mexico held a 
workshop in an effort to collect information and assess the 
vulnerability of CITES-listed shark species to harvesting pressures in 
fishing grounds throughout all Mexican waters. Participants from 
government agencies, academic institutions, civil associations and 
independent consultants with experience on the management and knowledge 
of shark fisheries in all fishing areas and coasts of Mexico gathered 
to discuss the available data and conduct Productivity and 
Susceptibility Assessments for each shark species (following methods 
proposed by Patrick et al. 2010; Ben[iacute]tez et al. (2015)). For S. 
zygaena, the semi-quantitative assessment looked at the species' 
vulnerability in specific fishing zones along the Pacific coast and 
also by fishing vessel type (small or coastal vessels versus large 
fishing vessels). Results from the assessment showed that S. zygaena 
had a medium to low vulnerability to fishing pressure by large Mexican 
fishing vessels for all evaluated fishing zones, and a higher 
vulnerability to fishing by smaller/coastal vessels, particularly off 
the Pacific coast of Baja California south to Jalisco (Ben[iacute]tez 
et al. 2015). While these assessments provide managers and scientists 
with an index of the vulnerability of target and non-target species to 
overfishing within a fishery (e.g., S. zygaena is more likely to 
experience overfishing by smaller/coastal vessels as opposed to the 
larger fishing vessels), it does not provide information on the current 
status of the species or whether the species, is, in fact, being 
overfished in waters off Mexico.
    While the best available information, including from the above 
assessment and the fisheries surveys, shows that smooth hammerhead 
sharks (and particularly juveniles) are being utilized and face higher 
fishing pressure in the Mexican artisanal fisheries, without any 
information on current population size or CPUE trends in this region, 
the impact of this level of utilization on the extinction risk of the 
species is presently unknown. Due to the limited data available, the 
status of the Mexican S. zygaena population remains highly uncertain, 
with no data to indicate that overutilization is a threat significantly 
contributing to the species' risk of extinction.
    In waters farther south in the Eastern Pacific, three countries 
(Costa Rica, Ecuador and Peru) contribute significantly to shark 
landings and are important suppliers of shark fins for the Asian 
market. In Costa Rica, where shark fishing is still allowed, the 
limited available fisheries data suggest that smooth hammerhead sharks 
are only rarely caught as catch and bycatch (Whoriskey et al. 2011; 
Dapp et al. 2013). However, recent data on fin exports indicate that 
the species, at least when caught, is kept and utilized for the 
international fin trade market. For example, in December 2014, around 
259.2 kg of S. zygaena fins and 152 kg of S. lewini fins were exported 
out of Costa Rica to Hong Kong (Boddiger 2015). In February 2015, Costa 
Rican officials allowed the export of another batch of scalloped and 
smooth hammerhead fins, with estimates of total weight between 249-490 
kg (depending on the source of information) (Boddiger 2015). The 
conservation group Sea Turtle Recovery Programme estimated that these 
fins came from between 1,500 and 2,000 hammerhead sharks (Boddiger 
2015). While the impact of this take on the smooth hammerhead 
population is highly uncertain, given the lack of species-specific 
abundance estimates or trends for this region, in March 2015, the 
National System of Conservation Areas, in its role as the CITES 
Administrative Authority of Costa Rica, stated that no more export 
permits for hammerhead fins would be issued until the CITES NDF process 
is completed (Murias 2015). Whether this moratorium on exports will 
curb fishing of hammerhead sharks and decrease fishery mortality rates 
for the species has yet to be seen. In addition, depending on the 
findings from the NDF process, some level of export of hammerhead 
products may still be allowed in the future. Nevertheless, without 
information on the size or distribution of the smooth hammerhead 
population in this region, or evidence of declines in abundance, the 
best available information does not presently suggest that current 
levels of fishery-related mortality are significantly contributing to 
the overutilization of S. zygaena.
    In Ecuador, directed fishing for sharks is prohibited, but sharks 
can be landed if caught as bycatch. Hammerhead sharks, in particular, 
tend to be landed as incidental catch and, similar to Costa Rica, are 
used primarily for the fin trade. Unlike many of the other areas 
discussed in this report, smooth hammerhead sharks appear to be the 
dominant hammerhead species caught in Ecuadorian waters. Based on 
artisanal records from 2007-2011, catches of S. zygaena are on the 
order of three to four times greater than catches of S. lewini (see 
Miller 2016). Additionally, the majority of the smooth hammerhead 
sharks taken in Ecuadorian fisheries appear to be immature (Aguilar et 
al. 2007; Cabanilla and Fierro 2010), which, as mentioned previously, 
could potentially negatively affect recruitment and contribute to 
declines in the abundance of smooth hammerhead sharks. However, without 
information on corresponding fishing effort or population sizes, 
inferences regarding the status of the species or the impacts of 
current levels of take on the extinction risk of the species in Ecuador 
cannot be made with any certainty at this time.
    In waters off Peru, smooth hammerhead sharks are also prevalent. In 
fact, from 2006-2010, S. zygaena was the third most commonly landed 
shark species (comprising 15 percent of the shark landings) by the 
Peruvian small-scale fishery (Gonzalez-Pestana et al. 2014). In a 61-
year analysis of Peruvian shark fisheries, Gonzalez-Pestana et al. 
(2014) noted a significant increase in the amount of reported landings 
for smooth hammerhead sharks between 2000 and 2010, with peaks in 1998 
and 2003. The authors estimated that landings increased by 7.14 percent 
per year (confidence interval: 1.2-13.4 percent); however, if the 2003 
estimates (which appear to strongly influence the analysis) are removed 
from the dataset, smooth hammerhead landings show a fairly stable trend 
since 1999 (<500 t). Based on the latest available landings figure from 
2014 of 364 t, this trend does not appear to have changed (Instituto 
del Mar del Peru 2014). However, as Gonzalez-Pestana et al. (2014) 
note, without accompanying information on fishing effort, it is 
difficult to fully understand the dynamics of the shark fishery, and 
particularly, in this case, its impact on the smooth hammerhead 
population.
    In terms of the data from the RFMO that operates within the Eastern 
Pacific, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), bycatch 
of hammerhead sharks has been variable between 1993 and 2013. 
Specifically, catches of hammerhead sharks by large purse seine vessels 
peaked in 2003-

[[Page 41949]]

2004, at around 3,000 sharks, before significantly decreasing. This 
decline is thought to be, in part, a result of purse seiners moving 
fishing effort farther offshore in recent years to waters with fewer 
hammerhead sharks, but could also reflect a decline in the actual 
abundance of hammerhead sharks (Hall and Roman 2013). Since 2006, 
annual bycatch of hammerhead sharks has fluctuated between 750 and 
1,400 individuals (Rom[aacute]n-Verdesoto and Hall 2014). The 
Scientific Advisory Committee to the IATTC noted that this purse-seine 
catch may represent only a relatively small portion of the overall 
harvest of hammerhead sharks in this region, with insufficient data 
(due to the rarity of Sphyrna spp. in the catch) to provide for a 
meaningful analysis. Rather, the Committee indicated that the majority 
of harvest in this region is likely taken by the artisanal fisheries 
(Hall and Roman 2013; IATTC 2015). However, as already discussed, and 
further acknowledged by others in reviewing the IATTC information (Hall 
and Roman 2013; Rom[aacute]n-Verdesoto 2015), the data from these 
artisanal fishing operations are, for the most part, largely 
unavailable or not of the detail needed (e.g., species-specific with 
corresponding fishing effort over time) to examine impacts on the 
populations (Hall and Roman 2013; Rom[aacute]n-Verdesoto 2015). Thus, 
at this time, the best available information does not provide evidence 
that overutilization is a threat significantly contributing to the 
species' risk of extinction in the Eastern Pacific portion of its 
range.

Shark Fin Trade

    As noted in the above regional reviews examining utilization of the 
species, hammerhead sharks are primarily targeted and valued 
particularly for their fins. As hammerhead fins tend to be large in 
size, with high fin needle content (a gelatinous product used to make 
shark fin soup), they are one of the most valuable fins in the 
international market. Based on 2003 figures, smooth hammerhead shark 
fins fetch prices as high as $88/kg (Abercrombie et al. 2005). In the 
Hong Kong fin market, which is the largest fin market in the world, S. 
lewini and S. zygaena are mainly traded under a combined market 
category called Chun chi, and found in a 2:1 ratio, respectively 
(Abercrombie et al. 2005; NMFS 2014a). Based on an analysis of the Hong 
Kong fin data from 2000-2002, Chun chi was the second most traded 
category, comprising around 4-5 percent of the annual total fins 
(Clarke et al. 2006a), and translating to around 1.3-2.7 million 
individuals of scalloped and smooth hammerhead sharks (equivalent to a 
biomass of 49,000-90,000 tons) traded each year (Clarke et al. 2006b). 
By 2003-2004, both global catches of chondrichthyans and trade in shark 
fins peaked (Dent and Clarke 2015; Eriksson and Clarke 2015). However, 
as the impacts of this exploitation, particularly of chondrichthyan 
species to match the demand for their fins, became increasingly more 
apparent, many countries and states began passing management measures 
and regulations to discourage and dis-incentivize fishermen from 
targeting vulnerable sharks, and particularly their fins, for the 
international shark fin trade (PEW Environment Group 2012; Whitcraft et 
al. 2014; Miller 2016). Between 2008 and 2011, quantities of 
chondrichthyan catches and trade in shark fins leveled out at around 
82-83 percent of the peak figure (Dent and Clarke 2015; Eriksson and 
Clarke 2015). In 2012, the trade in shark fins through China, Hong Kong 
Special Administrative Region (SAR), which has served as an indicator 
of the global trade for many years, saw a decrease of 22 percent from 
2011 figures, indicating that recent government-led backlash against 
conspicuous consumption in China, combined with the global conservation 
momentum, appears to have had an impact on traded volumes (Dent and 
Clarke 2015; Eriksson and Clarke 2015). Dent and Clarke (2015) also 
note that a number of other factors may have contributed to this 
downturn in the trade of fins through Hong Kong SAR, including: 
Increased domestic chondrichthyan production by the Chinese fleet, 
increased monitoring and regulation of finning, a change in trade 
dynamics, other trade bans and curbs, and an overall growing 
conservation awareness. Potentially, if the demand for fins continues 
to decrease in the future, so will the direct targeting of hammerhead 
sharks (and illegal fishing of the species--see Inadequacy of Existing 
Regulatory Measures). Additionally, with the listing of the species on 
CITES Appendix II, for those countries unable to make NDFs, such as 
Japan, the incentives for fishermen to target or retain hammerhead 
sharks for trade will also likely decline and contribute to a decrease 
in fishing pressure. The extent (magnitude) to which this decrease in 
fishing pressure will translate to a decrease in mortality of the 
species is currently unclear, but will likely only benefit the species. 
As such, at this time, the best available information does not indicate 
that overutilization, including the demand for smooth hammerhead sharks 
in the shark fin trade, is a threat significantly contributing to the 
species' risk of extinction throughout its global range, now or in the 
foreseeable future.

Disease or Predation

    No information has been found to indicate that disease or predation 
is a factor that is negatively affecting the status of smooth 
hammerhead sharks. These sharks have been documented as hosts for the 
nematodes Parascarophis sphyrnae and Contracaecum spp. (Knoff et al. 
2001); however, no data exist to suggest these parasites are affecting 
S. zygaena abundance. Additionally, predation is also not thought to be 
a factor negatively influencing smooth hammerhead shark abundance. The 
most significant predator on smooth hammerhead sharks is likely humans; 
however, a study from New Zealand observed two killer whales (Orcinus 
orca) feeding on a small, juvenile (~100 cm TL) smooth hammerhead shark 
(Visser 2005). In a 12-year period that documented 108 encounters with 
New Zealand killer whales, only 1 smooth hammerhead shark was preyed 
upon (Visser 2005); thus, predation on S. zygaena by killer whales is 
likely opportunistic and not a contributing factor to abundance levels 
of smooth hammerhead sharks. Juvenile smooth hammerhead sharks also 
likely experience predation by adult sharks (including their own 
species); however, the rate of juvenile predation and the subsequent 
impact to the status of smooth hammerhead sharks is unknown. As such, 
at this time, the best available information does not indicate that 
disease or predation are threats significantly contributing to the 
species' risk of extinction throughout its global range, now or in the 
foreseeable future.

The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Although none of the previously discussed ESA section 4(a)(1) 
factors were identified as significant threats to S. zygaena, existing 
regulatory mechanisms in some portions of the species' range could be 
strengthened (or better enforced) to promote the long-term viability of 
the species. For example, in a recent study that examined current 
regulatory and management measures for smooth hammerhead sharks, 
including data collection requirements and level of compliance, Lack et 
al. (2014) concluded that additional management measures (particularly 
species-specific management measures) could benefit the species. For a 
comprehensive list of current management measures

[[Page 41950]]

pertaining to hammerhead sharks, as well as sharks in general, see the 
Appendix in Miller (2016).
    Despite the number of existing regulatory measures in place to 
protect sharks and promote sustainable fishing, enforcement tends to be 
difficult, and illegal fishing has emerged as a problem in many 
fisheries worldwide. Specifically, illegal fishing occurs when vessels 
or harvesters operate in violation of the laws of a fishery. In order 
to justify the risks of detection and prosecution involved with illegal 
fishing, efforts tend to focus on high value products (e.g., shark 
fins) to maximize returns to the illegal fishing effort. Thus, as the 
lucrative market for shark products, particularly shark fins, 
developed, so did increased targeting, both legal and illegal, of 
sharks around the world. Given that illegal fishing tends to go 
unreported, it is difficult to determine, with any certainty, the 
proportion of current fishery-related mortality rates that can be 
attributed to this activity. This is particularly true for smooth 
hammerhead sharks, where even legal catches go unreported. A study that 
provided regional estimates of illegal fishing (using FAO fishing areas 
as regions) found the Western Central Pacific (Area 71) and Eastern 
Indian Ocean (Area 57) regions have relatively high levels of illegal 
fishing (compared to the rest of the regions), with illegal and 
unreported catch constituting 34 percent and 32 percent of the region's 
catch, respectively (Agnew et al. 2009). The annual value of high seas 
illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) catches of sharks worldwide 
has been estimated at $192 million (High Seas Task Force 2006) and 
annual worldwide economic losses from all IUU fishing is estimated to 
be between $10 billion and $23 billion (NMFS 2015d).
    However, as mentioned in the Overutilization for Commercial, 
Recreational, Scientific or Educational Purposes section of this 
finding, given the recent downward trend in the trade of shark fins 
(Dent and Clarke 2015; Eriksson and Clarke 2015), illegal fishing for 
the sole purpose of shark fins may not be as prevalent in the future. 
It is also a positive sign that most (70 percent) of the top 26 shark-
fishing countries, areas and territories have taken steps to combat IUU 
fishing, either by signing the Port State Measures Agreement (46 
percent) or by adopting a National Plan of Action to prevent, deter, 
and eliminate IUU or similar plan (23 percent) (Fischer et al. 2012). 
However, whether these agreements or plans translate to less IUU 
fishing activity is unclear. For example, in quite a few countries, the 
effective implementation of monitoring, control, and surveillance 
schemes is problematic, often due to a lack of personnel and financial 
resources (Fischer et al. 2012), and a number of instances of IUU 
fishing, specifically involving sharks, have been documented over the 
past decade. For instance, as recently as May 2015, it was reported 
that Ecuadorian police confiscated around 200,000 shark fins from at 
least 50,000 sharks after raids on 9 locations in the port of Manta 
(BBC 2015). In September 2015, Greenpeace activists boarded a Taiwan-
flagged boat fishing near Papua New Guinea and found 110 shark fins but 
only 5 shark carcasses (which was in violation of both the Taiwanese 
and the WCPFC rules requiring onboard fins to be at most 5 percent of 
the weight of the shark carcasses) (News24 2015). Recreational 
fishermen have also been caught with illegal shark fins. A report from 
June 2015 identified 3 unlicensed recreational fishers operating in 
waters off Queensland, Australia, and in possession of 3,200 illegal 
shark fins most likely destined for the black market (Buchanan and 
Sparkes 2015). While these reports provide just a few examples of 
recent illegal fishing activities, more evidence and additional reports 
of specific IUU fishing activities throughout the world can be found in 
Miller et al. (2014a) and Miller et al. (2014b).
    In terms of tracking IUU fishing, most of the RFMOs maintain lists 
of vessels they believe to be involved in illegal fishing activities, 
with the latest reports on this initiative seeming to indicate 
improvement in combatting IUU. In the most recent 2015 Biennial Report 
to Congress, which highlights U.S. findings and analyses of foreign IUU 
fishing activities, NMFS reports that all 10 nations that were 
previously identified in the 2013 Biennial Report for IUU activities 
took appropriate actions to address the violations (e.g., through 
adoption of new laws and regulations or by amending existing ones, 
sanctioning vessels, and improving monitoring and enforcement) (NMFS 
2015c). In the current report, 6 countries were identified for having 
vessels engaged in IUU fishing activities; however, no countries were 
identified for engaging in protected living marine resources bycatch or 
for catching sharks on the high seas (although NMFS caveats this by 
noting the inability to identify nations due primarily to the 
restrictive time frames and other limitations in the statute) (NMFS 
2015b).
    While it is likely that S. zygaena is subject to IUU fishing, 
particularly for its valuable fins, based on the best available 
information on the species' population trends throughout its range, as 
well as present utilization levels, the mortality rates associated with 
illegal fishing and impacts on smooth hammerhead shark populations do 
not appear to be contributing significantly to the species' extinction 
risk. Furthermore, illegal fishing activities will likely decrease in 
the future as nations step up to combat IUU fishing and as the demand 
for shark fins declines. As such, at this time, the best available 
information does not indicate that the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory measures is a threat significantly contributing to the 
species' risk of extinction throughout its global range, now or in the 
foreseeable future.

Other Natural or Man-Made Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    In terms of other natural or manmade factors, environmental 
pollutants were identified as a potential threat to the species. Many 
pollutants in the environment, such as brevotoxins, heavy metals, and 
polychlorinated biphenyls, have the ability to bioaccumulate in fish 
species. Because of the higher trophic level position and longevity of 
hammerhead sharks, these pollutants tend to biomagnify in liver, gill, 
and muscle tissues (Storelli et al. 2003; Garc[iacute]a-
Hern[aacute]ndez et al. 2007; Marsico et al. 2007; Escobar-Sanchez et 
al. 2010; Maz-Courrau et al. 2012; Lee et al. 2015). A number of 
studies have attempted to study and quantify the concentration levels 
of these pollutants in fish species, but with a focus on human 
consumption and safety (Storelli et al. 2003; Garc[iacute]a-
Hern[aacute]ndez et al. 2007; Marsico et al. 2007; Escobar-Sanchez et 
al. 2010; Maz-Courrau et al. 2012; Lee et al. 2015). As such, many of 
the results from these studies may indicate either ``high'' or ``low'' 
concentrations in fish species, but this is primarily in comparison to 
recommended safe concentrations for human consumption and does not 
necessarily have any impact on the biological status of the species.
    In terms of smooth hammerhead sharks, mercury appears to be the 
most studied environmental pollutant in the species. International 
agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration and the World Health 
Organization, have set a recommended maximum mercury concentration of 1 
[mu]g/g wet weight in seafood tissues for human consumption. However, 
observed mercury concentrations in the tissues of smooth hammerhead 
sharks are highly variable.

[[Page 41951]]

For example, Storelli et al. (2003) tested tissue samples from four 
smooth hammerhead sharks from the Mediterranean Sea (size range: 277-
303 cm TL) and found that, on average, tissue samples from the liver 
and muscle had concentrations of mercury that greatly exceeded the 1 
[mu]g/g recommended limit. Mean mercury concentration in muscle samples 
were 12.15  4.60 [mu]g/g and mercury concentration in liver 
samples averaged 35.89  3.58 [mu]g/g. Similarly, 
Garc[iacute]a-Hern[aacute]ndez et al. (2007) found high concentrations 
of mercury in tissues of four smooth hammerhead sharks (size range: 
163-280 cm TL) from the Gulf of California, Mexico, with mean mercury 
concentration in muscle tissue of 8.25  9.05 [mu]g/g. In 
contrast, Escobar-Sanchez et al. (2010) tested muscle tissue of 37 
smooth hammerhead sharks from the Mexican Pacific (Baja California Sur, 
Mexico; size range: >55-184 cm TL) and found mercury concentrations 
were below the maximum safety limit of 1 [mu]g/g (average = 0.73 [mu]g/
g; median = 0.10 [mu]g/g). Out of the 37 studied sharks, only one shark 
had a mercury concentration that exceeded the recommended limit (1.93 
[mu]g/g). Likewise, Maz-Courrau et al. (2012) also found ``safe'' 
concentrations of mercury in smooth hammerhead sharks from the Baja 
California peninsula. Analysis of muscle tissue samples from 31 smooth 
hammerhead sharks (mean size = 114 cm TL  19.2) showed an 
average mercury concentration of 0.98  0.92 [mu]g/g dry 
weight (range: 0.24-2.8 [mu]g/g). The authors also tested mercury 
concentrations in four prey species of Pacific sharks (mackerel Scomber 
japonicus, lantern fish Symbolophorus evermanni, pelagic red crab 
Pleuroncodes planipes, and giant squid Dosidicus gigas) and found that 
D. gigas, a common prey item for smooth hammerhead sharks (see Diet and 
Feeding), had the lowest mercury concentration (0.12  0.05 
[mu]g/g). The authors suggest that the transfer of mercury to smooth 
hammerhead sharks is unlikely to come from feeding on cephalopods; 
however, these results may very well explain the observed low levels of 
mercury in smooth hammerhead shark tissues (i.e., because these sharks 
prefer to feed on cephalopods, bioaccumulation of mercury in tissues 
would likely be low).
    In Atlantic waters, Marsico et al. (2007) also found that smooth 
hammerhead sharks had relatively low levels of mercury concentrations 
(in comparison to the recommended 1 [mu]g/g human consumption limit). 
Based on muscle tissue samples from 5 smooth hammerhead sharks caught 
off the coast of Santa Catarina, Brazil, average mercury concentration 
was 0.443  0.299 [mu]g/g with a range of 0.015-0.704 [mu]g/
g. In Indo-Pacific waters, the only information on S. zygaena mercury 
bioaccumulation is an analysis of muscle tissue from a single smooth 
hammerhead that was caught off Port Stephens, NSW, Australia (Paul et 
al. 2003). The smooth hammerhead shark was 232 cm in length and had a 
muscle tissue mercury concentration of 1.9 [mu]g/g.
    Based on the above information, it appears that mercury 
concentrations may correlate with size of the smooth hammerhead shark, 
with larger sharks, such as those examined in the Paul et al. (2003), 
Storelli et al. (2003), and Garc[iacute]a-Hern[aacute]ndez et al. 
(2007) studies, containing higher mercury concentrations. However, 
analyses examining this very relationship show conflicting results 
(Escobar-Sanchez et al. (2010)--no correlation; Maz-Courrau et al. 
(2012)--significant correlation). Furthermore, the effect of these and 
other mercury concentrations in smooth hammerhead shark populations, 
and potential risk to the viability of the species, remains unknown. It 
is hypothesized that these apex predators can actually handle higher 
body burdens of anthropogenic toxins due to the large size of their 
livers which ``provides a greater ability to eliminate organic 
toxicants than in other fishes'' (Storelli et al. 2003) or may even be 
able to limit their exposure by sensing and avoiding areas of high 
toxins (like during K. brevis red tide blooms) (Flewelling et al. 
2010). Currently, the impact of toxin and metal bioaccumulation in 
smooth hammerhead shark populations is unknown. In fact, there is no 
information on the lethal concentration limits of toxins or metals in 
smooth hammerhead sharks, or evidence to suggest that current 
concentrations of environmental pollutants are causing detrimental 
physiological effects to the point where the species may be at an 
increased risk of extinction. As such, at this time, the best available 
information does not indicate that the present bioaccumulation rates 
and concentrations of environmental pollutants in the tissues of smooth 
hammerhead sharks are threats significantly contributing to the 
species' risk of extinction throughout its global range, now or in the 
foreseeable future.

Threats Assessment Summary

    Based on the best available information summarized above and 
discussed in more detail in the status review (Miller 2016), none of 
the ESA Section 4(a)(1) factors, either alone or in combination with 
each other, are identified as threats significantly contributing to the 
extinction risk of the species. While overutilization poses the largest 
potential threat to the species, based on the best available data 
throughout the species' range, present fishery-related mortality rates 
of the shark do not appear to be affecting the species' demographics to 
such a degree that cause it to be strongly influenced by stochastic or 
depensatory processes or on a trajectory toward this point.
    In the Atlantic Ocean, where species-specific data is available, 
the regional and local information indicates that smooth hammerhead 
sharks tend to be a rare occurrence, observed only sporadically in the 
fisheries data and in low numbers. In the northwest Atlantic, harvest 
and bycatch of the species is very low and strong management measures 
are in place to prevent overfishing of the species. In the southwest 
Atlantic, while the majority of the catch appears to be juveniles, 
smooth hammerhead sharks are generally harvested at low levels and 
comprise a small proportion of the fisheries catch. In the temperate 
waters of the Mediterranean Sea, smooth hammerhead sharks were 
historically a common occurrence. However, with the intense coastal 
fishing and the expansion of the tuna and swordfish longline and drift 
net fisheries in the 1970s, smooth hammerhead sharks have been fished 
almost to extinction in the Mediterranean Sea. Fishing pressure remains 
high in this portion of the species' range, which will likely result in 
additional fishing mortality and continued declines in the population. 
However, the Mediterranean comprises only a small portion of the 
species' range, and given the lack of trends or evidence of significant 
declines elsewhere in the Atlantic, the available data do not indicate 
that the overutilization and depletion of the Mediterranean population 
has significantly affected other S. zygaena populations in the 
Atlantic.
    Similarly, in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, the available data, 
albeit severely lacking, depict a species that is not regularly caught, 
or caught in large numbers, by fisheries operating in these regions. 
The majority of fishing effort, particularly in the Indian Ocean, tends 
to be concentrated in more tropical waters, thereby decreasing the 
threat of overutilization by these fisheries on the more temperately-
distributed smooth hammerhead shark. However, in the Western Pacific, 
there are a number of fisheries operating within the temperate

[[Page 41952]]

portions of this region (e.g., off Japan, Australia, New Zealand) that 
report regular catches of smooth hammerhead sharks. Based on the 
available data from these fisheries, including catch time series and 
CPUE data, no clear trends were found that would suggest 
overutilization is a significant threat to the species. In the Eastern 
Pacific, artisanal fisheries are responsible for the majority of the 
smooth hammerhead catch, and land primarily juveniles of the species. 
However, based on preliminary information on catch trends (primarily 
from Peru and Ecuador), there is no evidence to suggest that this level 
of utilization has or is significantly impacting recruitment to the 
population.
    Furthermore, the number of regulatory and management measures, 
including hammerhead retention bans and finning regulations, as well as 
the creation of shark sanctuaries, has been on the rise in recent 
years. These regulations are aimed at decreasing the amount of sharks 
being landed or finned just for the shark fin trade and work to dis-
incentivize fishermen from targeting vulnerable shark species. 
Additionally, with the CITES Appendix II listing, mechanisms are also 
now in place to monitor and control international trade in the species 
and ensure that this trade is not detrimental to the survival of the 
species in the wild. Already it appears that the demand for shark fins 
is on the decline. While it is unclear how effective these regulations 
will be in ultimately reducing fishing mortality rates for the smooth 
hammerhead shark (given their high at-vessel mortality rates), it is 
likely to decrease fishing pressure on the species, particularly in 
those fisheries that target the species and by those fishermen that 
illegally fish for the species solely for the shark fin trade.
    Overall, while there is a clear need for further research and data 
collection on smooth hammerhead sharks, the best available information 
at this time does not indicate that any of the ESA Section 4(a)(1) 
factors, or a combination of these factors, are significantly 
contributing to the extinction risk of the species throughout its 
global range, now or in the foreseeable future.

Overall Risk Summary

    While the species' life history characteristics increase its 
inherent vulnerability to depletion, and likely contributed to past 
population declines of varying magnitudes, the best available 
information suggests that present demographic risks are low. Smooth 
hammerhead sharks continue to be exploited throughout their range, 
particularly juveniles of the species. While it is universally 
acknowledged that information is severely lacking for the species, 
including basic catch and effort data from throughout the species' 
range, global, regional, and local population size estimates, abundance 
trends, life history parameters (particularly from the Pacific and 
Indian Oceans), and distribution information, the best available data 
do not indicate that present fishing levels and associated mortality, 
habitat modification, disease, predation, environmental pollutant 
levels, or a combination of these factors, are causing declines in the 
species to such a point that the species is at risk of extinction or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Thus, guided by the 
results from the demographic risk analysis and threats assessment, we 
conclude that the smooth hammerhead shark is currently at a low risk of 
extinction throughout all of its range.

Significant Portion of Its Range

    The definitions of both ``threatened'' and ``endangered'' under the 
ESA contain the term ``significant portion of its range'' as an area 
smaller than the entire range of the species which must be considered 
when evaluating a species risk of extinction. On July 1, 2014, the 
Services published the SPR Policy, which provides our interpretation 
and application for how to evaluate whether a species is in danger of 
extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, in a 
``significant portion of its range'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014).
    Because we found that the smooth hammerhead shark is at a low risk 
of extinction throughout its range, under the SPR Policy, we must go on 
to evaluate whether the species is in danger of extinction, or likely 
to become so in the foreseeable future, in a ``significant portion of 
its range.'' The SPR Policy explains that it is necessary to fully 
evaluate a particular portion for potential listing under the 
``significant portion of its range'' authority only if substantial 
information indicates that the members of the species in a particular 
area are likely both to meet the test for biological significance and 
to be currently endangered or threatened in that area. Making this 
preliminary determination triggers a need for further review, but does 
not prejudge whether the portion actually meets these standards such 
that the species should be listed. To identify only those portions that 
warrant further consideration, we will determine whether there is 
substantial information indicating that (1) the portions may be 
significant and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction in those 
portions or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We 
emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative is not a 
determination that the species is endangered or threatened throughout a 
significant portion of its range--rather, it is a step in determining 
whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required (79 FR 37578, 
at 37586; July 1, 2014).
    Thus, the preliminary determination that a portion may be both 
significant and endangered or threatened merely requires us to engage 
in a more detailed analysis to determine whether the standards are 
actually met (79 FR 37578, at 37587). Unless both standards are met, 
listing is not warranted. The SPR policy further explains that, 
depending on the particular facts of each situation, we may find it is 
more efficient to address the significance issue first, but in other 
cases it will make more sense to examine the status of the species in 
the potentially significant portions first. Whichever question is asked 
first, an affirmative answer is required to proceed to the second 
question. Id. ``[I]f we determine that a portion of the range is not 
`significant,' we will not need to determine whether the species is 
endangered or threatened there; if we determine that the species is not 
endangered or threatened in a portion of its range, we will not need to 
determine if that portion is `significant' '' Id. Thus, if the answer 
to the first question is negative--whether that regards the 
significance question or the status question--then the analysis 
concludes and listing is not warranted.
    As defined in the SPR Policy, a portion of a species' range is 
``significant'' ``if the species is not currently endangered or 
threatened throughout its range, but the portion's contribution to the 
viability of the species is so important that, without the members in 
that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, or likely 
to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range'' 
(79 FR 37578, at 37609). For purposes of the SPR Policy, ``[t]he range 
of a species is considered to be the general geographical area within 
which that species can be found at the time FWS or NMFS makes any 
particular status determination. This range includes those areas used 
throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if they are not 
used regularly (e.g., seasonal habitats). Lost historical range is 
relevant to the analysis of the status of the species, but it cannot 
constitute a significant portion of a species' range'' Id.

[[Page 41953]]

    Applying the SPR policy to the smooth hammerhead shark, we first 
evaluated whether there is substantial information indicating that any 
portions of the species' range may be significant. After a review of 
the best available information, we find that the data do not indicate 
any portion of the smooth hammerhead shark's range as being more 
significant than another. Smooth hammerhead sharks are highly mobile, 
with a global distribution, and very few restrictions governing their 
movements. While the Mediterranean region was recognized as a portion 
of the species' range in which it is likely at risk of extinction due 
to threats of overutilization, the Mediterranean represents only a 
small portion of the global range of the smooth hammerhead sharks. 
Furthermore, there is no indication that loss of that part of the 
species' range would constitute a moderate or high extinction risk to 
the global species, now or in the foreseeable future. As was mentioned 
previously, the available population and trend data do not indicate 
that the depletion of the Mediterranean population has significantly 
affected other S. zygaena populations. Thus, the Mediterranean would 
not qualify as ``significant'' under the SPR Policy.
    Likewise, there is no substantial evidence to indicate that the 
loss of genetic diversity from one portion of the species' range (such 
as loss of an ocean basin population) would result in the remaining 
populations lacking enough genetic diversity to allow for adaptations 
to changing environmental conditions. Similarly, there is no 
information to suggest that loss of any portion would severely fragment 
and isolate the species to the point where individuals would be 
precluded from moving to suitable habitats or have an increased 
vulnerability to threats. In other words, loss of any portion of its 
range would not likely isolate the species to the point where the 
species would be at risk of extinction from demographic processes, or 
likely to be so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range.
    Areas exhibiting source-sink dynamics, which could affect the 
survival of the species, were not evident in any part of the smooth 
hammerhead sharks' range. There is also no evidence of a portion that 
encompasses aspects that are important to specific life history events, 
but another portion that does not, where loss of the former portion 
would severely impact the growth, reproduction, or survival of the 
entire species, now or in the foreseeable future. In fact, potential 
pupping grounds and nursery areas for the species were identified in 
all three major ocean basins. In other words, the viability of the 
species does not appear to depend on the productivity of the population 
or the environmental characteristics in any one portion.
    It is important to note that the overall distribution of the smooth 
hammerhead shark is still uncertain, considered to be generally patchy 
but also unknown in large areas, such as the Indian Ocean. As better 
data become available, the species distribution (and potentially 
significant portions of its range) will become better resolved; 
however, at this time, there is no evidence to suggest that any 
specific portion of the species' range has increased importance over 
another with respect to the species' survival. As such, we did not 
identify any portions of the species' range that meet both criteria 
under the SPR Policy (i.e., the portion is biologically significant and 
the species may be in danger of extinction in that portion, or likely 
to become so within the foreseeable future). Therefore, listing is not 
warranted under the SPR policy.

Distinct Population Segment Analysis

    The ESA's definition of ``species'' includes ``any subspecies of 
fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any 
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' 
Our DPS Policy clarifies our interpretation of the phrase ``distinct 
population segment'' for the purposes of listing, delisting, and 
reclassifying a species under the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). 
In the 90-day finding addressing the smooth hammerhead shark petition, 
we stated that we would consider whether the populations requested by 
the petitioner qualify as DPSs pursuant to our DPS Policy and warrant 
listing (80 FR 48052; August 11, 2015).
    When identifying a DPS, our DPS policy stipulates two elements that 
must be considered: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in 
relation to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it 
belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to the 
remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs. In terms 
of discreteness, the DPS policy states that a population of a 
vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either 
one of the following conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from 
other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, 
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors (quantitative measures 
of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this 
separation) or (2) 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 ESA. 
If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of the 
above conditions, then its biological and ecological significance is 
considered. Significance under the DPS policy is evaluated in terms of 
the importance of the population segment to the overall welfare of the 
species. Some of the considerations that can be used to determine a 
discrete population segment's significance to the taxon as a whole 
include: (1) Persistence of the population segment in an unusual or 
unique ecological setting; (2) evidence that loss of the population 
segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; 
(3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only 
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant 
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; or 
(4) evidence that the population segment differs markedly from other 
populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
    The petition states that the smooth hammerhead shark is comprised 
of five DPSs: Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea, Northwest 
Atlantic, Southwest Atlantic, Eastern Pacific, and Indo-West Pacific. 
However, the petition provides no boundary lines for these identified 
population segments. As such, it is difficult to determine the 
discreteness and significance of these populations without knowing how 
to separate these populations, such as the Northwest and Southwest 
Atlantic populations. Therefore, we had to make assumptions regarding 
the boundary lines. Below we explain where we made assumptions and 
provide our evaluation of the qualification of these populations as 
DPSs under our DPS policy.
    In terms of discreteness, the petition asserts that the identified 
populations are ``markedly separate from each other as a result of 
multiple types of barriers that separate the different populations.'' 
Specifically, the petition identifies deep ocean areas as areas that 
contain the ``wrong habitat'' for the species and which act as barriers 
to movement between the petition's identified populations. The petition 
cites Bester (undated) and Hayes (2007) as support that the species 
avoids open-ocean and trans-oceanic movements. Additionally, the 
petitioner cites Diemer et al. (2011) to support its statement that the 
smooth hammerhead shark has less vagility, or freedom to move about, 
compared to

[[Page 41954]]

other shark species, therefore making it unlikely that ``populations 
will connect or reconnect even if they are only separated by relatively 
short distances.''
    In evaluating the information within Bester (undated), we found no 
data to suggest that the species cannot make open-ocean or trans-
oceanic movements. In the Hayes (2007) paper, the author notes ``As 
semi-oceanic species, they [hammerhead sharks] can be found from 
continental and insular shelves to deeper water just beyond the 
shelves, but avoid open-ocean and transoceanic movements (Compagno, 
1984).'' This statement refers generally to hammerhead sharks and does 
not specify species. Additionally, in reviewing the Compagno (1984) 
reference in Hayes (2007), there is no information to indicate that the 
species is not capable of these movements. In fact, in describing the 
habitat and biology of smooth hammerhead sharks, Compagno (1984) states 
that the species is an ``active, common, coastal-pelagic and semi-
oceanic hammerhead, found . . . at depths from the surface down to at 
least 20 m and probably much more.'' While the petitioner notes that 
this species may be less vagile than other species of sharks (that 
share similar depth ranges), thus suggesting a low potential for mixing 
of S. zygaena populations, we have no evidence to indicate that any 
populations of the smooth hammerhead shark are, in fact, markedly 
separated from other populations of the species.
    In our review of the best scientific and commercial information 
available, we found evidence to indicate that smooth hammerhead sharks 
are capable of long-distance movements, and, hence, the ability to 
potentially mix with other populations, with no data to suggest that 
they could not make trans-oceanic migrations. While the petition only 
references Diemer et al. (2011) as support for limited maximum and 
average annual movements, and, thus, low vagility for smooth hammerhead 
sharks (i.e., 384 km and 141.8 km, respectively), we found three 
additional studies that provided information on movements of S. 
zygaena, and whose results indicate that S. zygaena travels 
significantly farther distances than those reported in the petition. 
For example, Kohler and Turner (2001) provided available tagging data 
from recaptured adult smooth hammerhead sharks (n = 6) and found 
observed maximum distance travelled for S. zygaena to be 919 km, with a 
maximum speed of 4.8 km/day. In June 2015, NOAA scientists tagged a 
female smooth hammerhead shark (~213 cm FL) off San Clemente Island, 
CA. Data from the tag showed that the animal traveled more than 400 
miles south to the central Baja Peninsula and then returned north to 
waters off Ventura, CA, making the total distance traveled equal to 
more than 1,000 miles (>1,609 km) (SWFSC 2015). Clarke et al. (2015) 
also noted the ability of the species to travel significant distances, 
citing a study off New Zealand that found tagged individuals traveled 
to Tonga, a distance of around 1,200 nm (2,222 km). In fact, Clarke et 
al. (2015) characterized S. zygaena as the most oceanic of the 
hammerhead species. This characterization is further supported by 
Kohler et al. (1998), who showed tagging locations of S. zygaena in the 
central Atlantic Ocean, between 20[deg] W. and 30[deg] W. longitudes, 
indicating the presence of the species in open-ocean water areas. The 
presence of smooth hammerhead sharks in oceanic waters is also 
confirmed by fisheries data from the southwest Atlantic (Amorim et al. 
2011), tropical Atlantic Ocean (Matsushita and Matsunaga 2002; Dai et 
al. 2009), and eastern Pacific Ocean (Rom[aacute]n-Verdesoto 2015). 
Given the above information on long-distance movements and presence in 
oceanic waters, we do not find that the populations identified by the 
petitioner are markedly separate from each other as a consequence of 
physical or habitat barriers.
    The petition also asserts that populations of smooth hammerhead 
sharks are genetically distinct from each other, but notes that ``there 
is not extensive species-specific genetic differentiation information 
available.'' The petition cites Duncan et al. (2006), who examined the 
global phylogeography of the scalloped hammerhead shark and compared 
haplotypes of S. lewini to those of nine individuals of S. zygaena. The 
origin of these 9 S. zygaena samples were only identified as Atlantic 
(n = 6), Pacific (n = 2) and Indian (n = 1). The authors found high 
haplotype diversity for smooth hammerhead sharks (similar to the 
variation in scalloped hammerhead haplotype diversity); however, this 
analysis was based on very few samples of S. zygaena from non-specific 
locations and, therefore, provides no information regarding the genetic 
discreteness of the petitioner's identified populations, particularly 
between the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea, Northwest 
Atlantic, and Southwest Atlantic populations, and between the Eastern 
Pacific and Indo-West Pacific populations. Additionally, the Duncan et 
al. (2006) study examined mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Mitochondrial DNA 
is maternally-inherited, and, as such, differences in mtDNA haplotypes 
between populations do not necessarily mean that the populations are 
substantially reproductively isolated from each other because they do 
not provide any information on males. As demonstrated in previous 
findings, in species where female and male movement patterns differ 
(such as philopatric females but wide-ranging males), analysis of mtDNA 
may indicate discrete populations, but analysis of nuclear (or bi-
parentally inherited) DNA could show homogenous populations as a result 
of male-mediated gene flow (see e.g.,loggerhead sea turtle, 68 FR 
53947, September 15, 2003, and sperm whale, 78 FR 68032, November 13, 
2013).
    The petitioners also cite to the genetic information provided in 
Abercrombie et al. (2005) as support of the genetic differentiation 
between Pacific and Atlantic Ocean smooth hammerhead individuals. 
However, similar to the discussion above, this analysis was based on 
very few S. zygaena samples from non-specific locations (n = 7 samples 
from Atlantic; n = 34 from Pacific) and, therefore, provides no 
information regarding the genetic discreteness of the petitioner's 
identified populations, particularly between the Atlantic populations 
and between the Indo-West and Eastern Pacific populations. 
Additionally, neither the petitioner, nor the information in the 
Abercrombie et al. (2005), discuss the relative importance of the 
differences in the observed amplicons (segments of chromosomal DNA that 
undergo amplification and contain replicated genetic material) between 
the Atlantic and Pacific S. zygaena primers (strands of short nucleic 
acid sequences that serve as starting points for DNA synthesis) in 
terms of genetic diversity between these populations. Finally, the 
petition cites fossil records (Lim et al. 2010) as evidence that would 
support genetic differentiation amongst populations. The Lim et al. 
(2010) study used samples of S. zygaena from only one location (South 
Africa) to examine the phylogeny of all hammerhead species. The study 
provides no information on the genetic differentiation amongst the 
populations identified by the petitioner.
    As discussed previously in this finding, as well as in the smooth 
hammerhead shark status review (Miller 2016), very few studies have 
examined the population structure of S. zygaena. In addition to the 
studies referenced by the petitioner, we evaluated two other available 
genetic studies (Naylor et al. (2012) and Testerman (2014)) to 
determine if they provided evidence to

[[Page 41955]]

support the discreteness of the petitioner's identified populations. 
Similar to the Duncan et al. (2006) study, Naylor et al. (2012) 
analyzed mtDNA from S. zygaena individuals. This study also suffered 
from a small sample size (n = 16), but provided specific locations of 
the analyzed specimens (4 from Gulf of California, 6 from Northwest 
Atlantic, 3 from Taiwan, and 1 each from Senegal, Vietnam, and Japan). 
While these samples do not cover all of the identified petitioner's 
populations (i.e., no samples from the Southwestern Atlantic, 
Northeastern and Mediterranean, or Eastern Pacific), they provide some 
limited information for evaluating the discreteness of the Northwestern 
Atlantic and Indo-Pacific populations. The results from the Naylor et 
al. (2012) study show a single cluster of smooth hammerhead sharks, 
with no evidence to suggest matrilineal genetic partitioning of the 
species. In other words, the available data do not indicate that the 
identified Northwestern Atlantic population is markedly separate from 
the Indo-Pacific population due to genetic differentiation.
    In contrast, the Testerman (2014) study found statistically 
significant matrilineal genetic structuring within oceanic basins and 
significant genetic partitioning between oceanic basins. Specifically, 
Testerman (2014) analyzed both mitochondrial control region sequences 
(mtCR; n = 303, 1,090 bp) and 15 nuclear microsatellite loci (n = 332) 
from smooth hammerhead sharks collected from eight regional areas: 
Western North Atlantic (n = 21); western South Atlantic (n = 55); 
western Indian Ocean (n = 63); western South Pacific (n = 44); western 
North Pacific (n = 11); eastern North Pacific (n = 55); eastern 
Tropical Pacific (n = 15); and eastern South Pacific (n = 26). Results 
from the analysis of mtDNA indicated between-basin genetic structuring 
between the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific basins (mtCR [phis]ST 
= 0.8159), and shallow genetic variation among individuals from the 
Atlantic, eastern Tropical/South Pacific, western North Pacific, and 
western Indian Ocean. Analysis of the nuclear DNA (which is bi-
parentally inherited) also showed significant genetic structure between 
ocean basins (nuclear FST = 0.0495), with the Atlantic and 
Indo-Pacific considered to comprise two genetically distinct 
populations (Testerman 2014). However, unlike the mtDNA results, no 
significant structure was detected within oceanic basins using the 
nuclear markers, suggesting evidence of potential female philopatry and 
male mediated gene flow (Testerman 2014). In other words, the available 
data support genetic differentiation on a broad scale, between the 
Atlantic and Indo-Pacific basins, but do not provide genetic evidence 
of the discreteness of the populations identified by the petitioner. 
Furthermore, the Testerman (2014) study did not include samples from 
all of the petitioner's identified populations, including the Northeast 
Atlantic and Mediterranean population or the eastern Indian Ocean (with 
the assumption that these individuals are part of the identified Indo-
West Pacific population). Additionally, as Testerman (2014) indicates, 
more studies are needed, and in particular studies using samples from 
individual smooth hammerhead sharks of known size class and gender, to 
further refine the population structure of the smooth hammerhead shark 
and confirm the above results. Given the best available information, we 
do not find that the populations identified by the petitioners are 
markedly separate from each other as a consequence of genetic 
differences.
    Finally, the petition asserts that the populations are ``delimited 
by international governmental boundaries within which differences in 
control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, 
and regulatory mechanisms exist.'' The petition notes that the range of 
the smooth hammerhead shark is global, and, as such, extends across 
international government boundaries and waters regulated by different 
RFMOs. The petition references its discussion of the ``Inadequacy of 
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms'' as evidence of the overutilization of 
the species due to differences in control of exploitation of the 
species, management of habitat, conservation status, and regulatory 
mechanisms. The petition argues that because ``various international, 
national, regional, and RFMO regulations relevant to the species exist 
throughout all of the aforementioned populations, and since 
exploitation in these populations varies, they all meet the 
discreteness requirement.''
    We find that the populations identified by the petitioner are not 
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, and regulatory mechanisms exist that are 
significant in light of Section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. Firstly, we note 
that three of the petitioner's identified populations (the Northeast 
Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea population, the Northwest Atlantic 
population, and the Southwest Atlantic population) are governed by the 
same RFMO, ICCAT. The ICCAT convention area covers all waters of the 
Atlantic as well as adjacent Seas, including the Mediterranean. In 
2010, ICCAT adopted recommendation 10-08 prohibiting the retention 
onboard, transshipment, landing, storing, selling, or offering for sale 
any part or whole carcass of hammerhead sharks of the family Sphyrnidae 
(except for S. tiburo) taken in the Convention area in association with 
ICCAT fisheries. In other words, these populations are not delimited by 
international governmental boundaries within which differences in the 
control of exploitation of the species exist as these populations are 
all governed under the same RFMO, which presently prohibits the 
retention and sale of the smooth hammerhead shark in its fisheries. 
Additionally, the RFMO GFCM, whose convention area covers Mediterranean 
waters and the Black Sea, passed a similar recommendation based on 
ICCAT 10-08, further supporting the finding that the regulations 
governing the exploitation of the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean 
Sea population (e.g., the prohibition of retention and selling of S. 
zygaena individuals) are no different than those governing the 
exploitation of the Northwest Atlantic population or Southwest Atlantic 
population.
    Secondly, we did not find evidence of the overutilization of any of 
the populations identified by the petitioner due to differences in 
control of the exploitation of the species, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms across international 
governmental boundaries. The status review report (Miller 2016) 
provides a detailed discussion of the threat of overutilization, and 
presents this analysis by region. These regional discussions 
encapsulate the petitioner's identified populations, and, therefore, 
can be used to evaluate whether differences in the control of 
exploitation exist that are significant in light of Section 4(a)(1)(D) 
of the ESA. However, since this finding has already discussed, in 
detail, the threat of overutilization by region (see Overutilization 
for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or Educational Purposes 
section), below we provide the conclusions as they relate to the 
petitioner's identified populations.
    In the Northwest Atlantic, we find that existing regulatory 
measures have significantly decreased the mortality of hammerhead 
sharks from both targeted fishing and bycatch mortality on fishing gear 
for other large coastal shark species, with current levels unlikely to

[[Page 41956]]

lead to overutilization of the species. In the Southwest Atlantic, we 
find that smooth hammerhead sharks tend to generally be harvested at 
low levels and that the available species-specific information does not 
indicate that overutilization is a significant threat presently 
contributing to the species' risk of extinction in this region. In the 
Indo-West Pacific, we find that the best available information, 
including catch time series and CPUE data, does not indicate that 
present utilization of the species is contributing significantly to its 
risk of extinction within this region. In the Eastern Pacific, we find 
that the best available information does not indicate that the species 
has suffered declines to the point where it is at risk from depensatory 
processes or that present utilization levels are impacting populations 
of S. zygaena to such a degree that would significantly increase the 
species' risk of extinction in this region.
    For the Northeastern and Mediterranean population, while we found 
that the best available information suggests that smooth hammerhead 
sharks in the Mediterranean Sea have significantly declined, and 
acknowledge that existing regulatory mechanisms may not be adequate to 
prevent overutilization of the smooth hammerhead sharks specifically 
when they occur in the Mediterranean, the same cannot be concluded for 
those sharks when they occur in the Northeastern Atlantic. Available 
hammerhead-specific information from the Northeastern Atlantic shows a 
variable trend in the catch and abundance of hammerhead sharks over the 
past decade, and without additional information on present abundance 
levels, distribution information, or catch and overall utilization 
rates of the smooth hammerhead shark, we found that the best available 
information does not indicate that overutilization is a threat 
significantly contributing to the species' risk of extinction in this 
region. Additionally, as noted previously, the current regulations 
managing the exploitation of the Northeastern and Mediterranean 
population are not significantly different across international 
governmental boundaries.
    Given the above findings on the exploitation of the populations 
identified by the petitioner, as well as the information on the other 
ESA Section 4(a)(1) factors discussed previously in this finding, we do 
not find that the petitioner's identified populations are delimited by 
international governmental boundaries within which differences in 
control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, 
and regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of 
Section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA.
    As stated in the joint DPS policy, Congress expressed its 
expectation that the Services would exercise authority with regard to 
DPSs sparingly and only when the biological evidence indicates such 
action is warranted. Based on our evaluation of the best available 
scientific information, we do not find biological evidence to suggest 
that any of the populations identified by the petitioner meet the 
discreteness criterion of the DPS Policy. Because the identified 
populations are not discrete from each other, we do not need to 
determine whether the identified populations are significant to the 
global taxon of smooth hammerhead sharks, per the DPS policy. As such, 
we find that none of the population segments identified by the 
petitioner qualify as a DPS under the DPS policy and, therefore, none 
warrant listing under the ESA.

Similarity of Appearance Listing

    The Defenders of Wildlife petition requested that we also consider 
listing the smooth hammerhead shark as threatened or endangered based 
on its similarity of appearance to the listed scalloped hammerhead 
shark DPSs. Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(e)) provides that the 
Secretary may treat any species as an endangered or threatened species 
even though it is not listed pursuant to Section 4 of the ESA when the 
following three conditions are satisfied: (1) Such species so closely 
resembles in appearance, at the point in question, a species which has 
been listed pursuant to such section that enforcement personnel would 
have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the 
listed and unlisted species; (2) the effect of this substantial 
difficulty is an additional threat to an endangered or threatened 
species; and (3) such treatment of an unlisted species will 
substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of this 
chapter (16 U.S.C. 1533(e)(A)-(C)).
    While we find that the smooth and scalloped hammerhead sharks do 
closely resemble each other in appearance, we do not find that this 
resemblance poses an additional threat to the listed scalloped 
hammerhead shark, nor do we find that treating the smooth hammerhead 
shark as an endangered or threatened species will substantially 
facilitate the enforcement of current ESA prohibitions or further the 
policy of the ESA. As described in the scalloped hammerhead shark final 
rule (79 FR 38213; July 3, 2014) and critical habitat determination (80 
FR 71774; November 17, 2015), the significant operative threats to the 
listed scalloped hammerhead DPSs are overutilization by foreign 
industrial, commercial, and artisanal fisheries and inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms in foreign nations to protect these sharks from 
the heavy fishing pressure and related mortality in waters outside of 
U.S. jurisdiction. While three of the listed DPSs have portions of 
their range within U.S. waters (i.e., the Central and Southwest 
Atlantic DPS, Eastern Pacific DPS, and Indo-West Pacific DPS), the take 
and trade of scalloped hammerhead sharks by persons under U.S. 
jurisdiction were not identified as significant threats to the listed 
DPSs. In fact, for the threatened scalloped hammerhead shark DPSs 
(i.e., the Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS and Indo-West Pacific 
DPS), we determined that prohibiting these activities would not have a 
significant effect on the extinction risk of those DPSs (79 FR 38213; 
July 3, 2014). [For the Eastern Pacific DPS, while take and trade of 
this DPS by persons under U.S. jurisdiction were not identified as 
significant threats, the take prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the 
ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)) automatically apply because it is listed as 
endangered under the ESA.] Overall, interaction with the listed 
scalloped hammerhead shark DPSs by fishermen under U.S. jurisdiction is 
negligible.
    Additionally, the United States does not have a significant 
presence in the international fin trade, with U.S. exports and imports 
of all species of shark fins comprising less than 0.50 percent of the 
total number of fins globally exported and imported (based on 2009-2013 
data from U.S. Census Bureau, available at: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/foreign-trade/index, and from 
the FAO, available at: https://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global-commodities-production/en). As such, it was determined that any 
conservation actions for the listed scalloped hammerhead shark DPSs 
that would bring these DPSs to the point that the measures of the ESA 
are no longer necessary will need to be implemented by foreign nations.
    In terms of the impact of fishing pressure on the listed scalloped 
hammerhead shark DPSs by U.S. fishermen, as the final rule details, 
this additional mortality is not viewed as contributing significantly 
to the identified threats of overutilization and inadequate regulatory 
measures to the listed DPSs (79 FR 38213; July 3, 2014). This is 
primarily a result of the negligible interaction between U.S.

[[Page 41957]]

fishermen and the listed scalloped hammerhead shark DPSs, with the 
listed DPSs rarely caught by persons under U.S. jurisdiction (Miller et 
al. 2014a). Furthermore, current U.S. fishery regulations prohibiting 
the landing of scalloped hammerhead sharks also prohibit the landing of 
smooth hammerhead sharks. For example, in the Atlantic Ocean, including 
the Caribbean Sea, Atlantic HMS commercially-permitted vessels that 
have pelagic longline gear on board, and dealers buying from these 
vessels, have been prohibited from retaining onboard, transshipping, 
landing, storing, selling, or offering for sale any part or whole 
carcass of hammerhead sharks of the family Sphyrnidae (except for the 
S. tiburo) (76 FR 53652; August 29, 2011). As such, there is unlikely 
to be any enforcement issue requiring officials to distinguish between, 
for example, endangered Eastern Atlantic DPS of scalloped hammerhead 
sharks and smooth hammerhead sharks as both species are prohibited from 
being landed.
    In the Pacific, the core range of the endangered Eastern Pacific 
DPS is outside of U.S. jurisdiction (80 FR 71774; November 17, 2015). 
Based on the information from the scalloped hammerhead shark status 
review (Miller et al. 2014a), catch of this DPS by U.S. fishermen is 
extremely rare. In fact, observer data collected from 1993 to 2015 
indicate that no scalloped hammerhead sharks have been observed caught 
by large U.S. purse seine vessels (>363 mt capacity) operating in the 
Eastern Pacific Ocean since 2006 (C. Barroso, Fishery Policy Analyst, 
personal communication 2016). Furthermore, the U.S. States and 
territories located in the Pacific have passed laws addressing the 
possession, sale, trade, or distribution of shark fins, which will 
further discourage landing of scalloped hammerhead sharks. These U.S. 
states and territories (and year that law was passed) include Hawaii 
(2010), California (2011), Oregon (2011), Washington (2011), the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (2011), Guam (2011), and 
American Samoa (2012). As such, it is unlikely that U.S. fishermen will 
be landing hammerhead species in the United States if their fins cannot 
be traded. Hence, we do not foresee enforcement difficulties related to 
distinguishing between hammerhead species. As an additional note, the 
states of Illinois (2012), Maryland (2013), Delaware (2013), New York 
(2013), and Massachusetts (2014) have also passed similar laws 
prohibiting the possession, sale, trade, or distribution of shark fins.
    With the passage of the U.S. Shark Conservation Act (Pub. L. 111-
348, Jan. 4, 2011), except for smooth dogfish sharks (Mustelus canis), 
it is also now 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.'' As mentioned in the U.S. Shark finning report to Congress 
(NMFS 2014a), these provisions have improved the ability of U.S. 
enforcement personnel to enforce shark finning prohibitions in domestic 
shark fisheries. These shark finning prohibitions also facilitate 
enforcement of ESA prohibitions as any landed hammerhead shark will 
have its fins attached to its corresponding carcass. As noted in the 
NMFS Shark Fin ID Guide, while the first dorsal fins of the smooth and 
scalloped hammerhead shark are ``almost indistinguishable,'' the 
pectoral fins differ in coloration and can be ``easily identified'' 
(Abercrombie et al. 2013). Specifically, in scalloped hammerhead 
sharks, the ventral surfaces of the pectoral fins have dark patches 
concentrated at the apex whereas smooth hammerheads lack this dark 
patch. Since these sharks must be landed with all their fins naturally 
attached to the carcass, enforcement officials at U.S. ports can use 
the differences in pectoral fin coloration to differentiate between the 
species. If the cephalophoil (or head) of the hammerhead shark is also 
left on the carcass, it provides an additional morphological 
distinction that can be used to differentiate the species as the smooth 
hammerhead shark lacks the central indentation that is found on the 
scalloped hammerhead shark cephalophoil. Regardless, as previously 
mentioned, there are no ESA take prohibitions for the threatened 
scalloped hammerhead sharks found in U.S. waters in the Caribbean 
(Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS) or western Pacific (Indo-West 
Pacific DPS) and coupled with the other state and Federal fishery 
regulations that have been implemented in U.S. Atlantic and Pacific 
waters, it will largely be unnecessary for enforcement personnel to 
differentiate between landed smooth and scalloped hammerhead sharks for 
the furtherance of the ESA.
    For the reasons above, we do not find it advisable to further 
regulate the commerce or taking of the smooth hammerhead shark by 
treating it as an endangered or threatened species based on similarity 
of appearance to the listed scalloped hammerhead shark DPSs.

Final Determination

    Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that NMFS make listing 
determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data 
available after conducting a review of the status of the species and 
taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or 
foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and 
conserve the species. We have independently reviewed the best available 
scientific and commercial information including the petition, public 
comments submitted on the 90-day finding (80 FR 48053; August 11, 
2015), the status review report (Miller 2016), and other published and 
unpublished information, and have consulted with species experts and 
individuals familiar with smooth hammerhead sharks. We considered each 
of the statutory factors to determine whether it presented an 
extinction risk to the species on its own, now or in the foreseeable 
future, and also considered the combination of those factors to 
determine whether they collectively contributed to the extinction risk 
of the species, now or in the foreseeable future. As previously 
explained, we could not identify any portion of the species' range that 
met both criteria of the SPR policy. Additionally, we did not find 
biological evidence that would indicate that the population segments 
identified by the petitioner qualify as DPSs under the DPS policy. 
Therefore, our determination set forth below is based on a synthesis 
and integration of the foregoing information, factors and 
considerations, and their effects on the status of the species 
throughout its entire range.
    Based on our consideration of the best available scientific and 
commercial information, as summarized here and in Miller (2016), we 
find that the smooth hammerhead shark faces an overall low risk of 
extinction and conclude that the species is not currently in danger of 
extinction throughout its range nor is it likely to become so within 
the foreseeable future. Accordingly, the smooth hammerhead shark does 
not meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species, and 
thus, the smooth hammerhead shark does not

[[Page 41958]]

warrant listing as threatened or endangered at this time. This is a 
final action, and, therefore, we do not solicit comments on it.

References

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authority

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

    Dated: June 20, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-15200 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P