[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 239 (Friday, December 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73978-74005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29201]



[[Page 73977]]

Vol. 79

Friday,

No. 239

December 12, 2014

Part III





 Department of Commerce





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





 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





50 CFR Part 224





 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Endangered 
Listing of Five Species of Sawfish Under the Endangered Species Act; 
Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 73978]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 224

[Docket No 101004485-4999-03]
RIN 0648-XZ50


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Endangered 
Listing of Five Species of Sawfish Under the Endangered Species Act

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, issue this final rule implementing our determination 
that the narrow sawfish (Anoxypristis cuspidata), dwarf sawfish 
(Pristis clavata), largetooth sawfish (collectively Pristis pristis; 
formerly Pristis pristis, Pristis microdon, and Pristis perotteti), 
green sawfish (Pristis zijsron), and the non-U.S. distinct population 
segment (DPS) of smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) are endangered 
species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. We 
also include a change in the scientific name for largetooth sawfish in 
this final rule to codify the taxonomic reclassification of P. 
perotteti to P. pristis. We are not designating critical habitat 
because the geographical areas occupied by the species are entirely 
outside U.S. jurisdiction and we have not identified any unoccupied 
areas within U.S. jurisdiction that are essential to the conservation 
of any of the five species. We have reviewed the status of the five 
species of sawfish, considered public and peer review comments, and 
conservation efforts being made to protect all five species, and we 
have made our determination based on the best available scientific and 
commercial data that all five species of sawfish--the narrow sawfish 
(Anoxypristis cuspidata), dwarf sawfish (Pristis clavata), largetooth 
sawfish (collectively Pristis pristis; formerly Pristis pristis, 
Pristis microdon, and Pristis perotteti), green sawfish (Pristis 
zijsron), and the non-U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish (Pristis 
pectinata)--are at risk of extinction throughout all of their ranges 
and should be listed as endangered species.

DATES: This final rule is effective January 12, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Information regarding this final rule may be obtained by 
contacting NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 263 13th Avenue South, 
St. Petersburg, Florida, 33701. The final rule and citation list are 
located on our Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/sawfish/index.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shelley Norton, NMFS, Southeast 
Regional Office (727) 824-5312 or Dr. Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of 
Protected Resources (301) 427-8403.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 10, 2010, we received a petition from the WildEarth 
Guardians (WEG) requesting we list six sawfish species--knifetooth, 
narrow, or pointed sawfish (A. cuspidata), hereinafter the narrow 
sawfish; dwarf or Queensland sawfish (P. clavata), hereinafter the 
dwarf sawfish; largetooth sawfish (P. pristis and P. microdon); green 
sawfish (P. zijsron); and the non-listed population(s) of smalltooth 
sawfish (P. pectinata)--as endangered or threatened under the ESA; or 
alternatively, list any distinct population segments (DPS) that exist 
under the ESA. On March 7, 2011, we published a 90-day finding (76 FR 
12308) stating the petitioned action may be warranted for five of the 
six species. The five species were A. cuspidata, P. clavata, P. 
microdon, P. zijsron, and the non-listed population(s) of P. pectinata. 
Information in our records at the time indicated that P. pristis, as 
described in the petition, was not a valid species. Our 90-day finding 
requested information to inform our decision, and announced the 
initiation of status reviews for the five species. On June 4, 2013, we 
published a proposed rule (78 FR 33300) to list A. cuspidata, P. 
clavata, P. pristis (formerly P. pristis, P. microdon, and P. 
perotteti), P. zijsron, and the non-U.S. DPS of P. pectinata as 
endangered. We also included a change in the scientific name for 
largetooth sawfish in the proposed rule to codify the taxonomic 
reclassification of P. perotteti to P. pristis. The largetooth sawfish 
(P. perotteti) was already listed as endangered on July 12, 2011 (76 FR 
40822), but this listing decision concerns the entire largetooth 
sawfish (P. pristis) species as it is currently classified, which also 
includes the species formerly classified as P. perotteti and P. 
microdon. We did not propose to designate critical habitat because the 
geographical areas occupied by the species are entirely outside U.S. 
jurisdiction and we did not identify any unoccupied areas that are 
currently essential to the conservation of any of these species. We 
solicited public and peer reviewer comments on the proposed rule and 
also coordinated outreach on the proposed rule with the Department of 
State to give notice to foreign nations where the species are believed 
to occur.
    We are responsible for determining whether species 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 the ESA, then whether the status of the 
species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or endangered. 
Section 3 of the ESA defines a ``species'' as ``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 (61 FR 4722), NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USFWS; collectively, the Services) adopted a policy 
identifying two elements that must be considered when identifying a 
DPS: (1) The discreetness 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. As stated in the DPS 
policy, Congress expressed its expectation that the Services would 
exercise their authority with regard to the use of DPSs sparingly and 
only when the biological evidence indicates such action is warranted.
    Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as ``any species 
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range'' and a threatened species as one ``which is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' Thus we 
interpret an ``endangered species'' to be one that is presently in 
danger of extinction. A ``threatened species,'' is not presently in 
danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future (that is, at a later time). In other words, the primary 
statutory difference between a threatened and endangered species is the 
timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction-- either 
presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened).
    Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us to determine whether any 
species is endangered or threatened due to any one or a combination of 
the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)

[[Page 73979]]

the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural 
or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We are required 
to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and 
commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of 
the species and after taking into account efforts being made by any 
state or foreign nation to protect the species.
    Accordingly, we have followed a stepwise approach in making our 
listing determinations for A. cuspidata, P. clavata, P. pristis 
(formerly P. pristis, P. microdon, and P. perotteti), P. zijsron, and 
the non-U.S.DPS of P. pectinata. For the non-U.S. DPS of P. pectinata 
that may qualify as a DPS, we considered biological evidence, such as 
genetic information to determine if the population met the DPS policy 
criteria. Using the best available information gathered during the 
status reviews, we completed an extinction risk assessment using the 
general procedure of Wainwright and Kope (1999). We then assessed the 
threats affecting the status of each species using the five factors 
identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, and then assessed public and 
peer reviewer comments.
    Once we determined the threats, we assessed the efforts being made 
to protect each species to determine if these conservation efforts were 
adequate to mitigate the existing threats and alter extinction risk. We 
evaluated conservation efforts using the criteria outlined in the joint 
NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Policy for Evaluating 
Conservation Efforts (PECE; 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003) to determine 
the certainty of implementation and effectiveness for future 
conservation efforts not yet fully implemented or effective. Finally, 
we re-assessed the extinction risk of each species after considering 
the existing conservation efforts.
    In order to conduct a comprehensive review, NMFS Southeast Region 
Protected Resources Division and NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science 
Center staff members collaborated to identify the best available 
information. Unlike some of our previous 12-month findings, we did not 
develop a separate status review report. Instead, we presented all 
information available for these species in the proposed rule, and we 
present that information again, as modified by public comment on the 
proposed rule, in this final rule. We first discuss background 
information relative to all five species, and then we include 
descriptions of the natural history specific to each species.

Sawfish General Species Description

    Sawfishes are a group of shark-like rays. Taxonomically, they are 
classified in the Family Pristidae (sawfishes), Order Rajiformes 
(skates, rays, and sawfishes), subclass (Elasmobrancii), and Class 
Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fish). The overall body form of sawfishes 
is similar to sharks, but they are flattened dorso-ventrally. Sawfishes 
are covered with dermal denticles (teeth-like scales) and possess 
enlarged pectoral fins.
    The most distinct characteristic of sawfishes is their large, flat, 
toothed rostrum or `saw' with large teeth on each side. The rostral 
teeth are made from calcified tissue that is neither dentin nor enamel, 
though it is more similar to the latter (Bradford, 1957). Rostral teeth 
develop inside sockets on the rostrum and are held in place by strong 
fibers. Unlike sharks, sawfish rostral teeth are not replaced, although 
partially broken teeth may continue to grow (Miller, 1974). For some 
species of sawfish, the number of rostral teeth can vary by geographic 
region.
    Sawfishes use their rostrum to locate, stun, and kill prey, 
generally small schooling fishes such as mullet, herring, shad, and 
sardines (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Breder (1952), in summarizing 
the literature on observations of sawfish feeding behavior, noted that 
they attack fish by slashing sideways through schools of fish, and then 
impale the fish on their rostral teeth. Prey are subsequently scraped 
off their rostral teeth by rubbing the rostrum on the bottom and then 
ingesting the whole fish. Bigelow and Schroeder (1953) also report that 
sawfish feed on crustaceans and other benthic species. Recent studies 
indicate that sawfishes may use their toothed rostrum to sense their 
prey's electric fields (Wueringer et al., 2011; 2012).
    Sawfish species are distributed primarily in circumtropical shallow 
coastal waters that generally vary in salinity. While sawfishes are 
commonly found in shallow water, adults are known to also inhabit 
deeper waters (greater than 130 ft, 39.6 m). Some sawfishes are found 
in freshwater, with established populations in major rivers and lakes 
of South America, Africa, Australia, and Southeast Asia. The physical 
characteristics of habitat, such as salinity and temperature, likely 
influence a sawfish's movement patterns. Tides limit the physical 
habitat area available, which may explain movement into shallow water 
areas during specific tidal cycles (Blaber et al., 1989).
    Life history data on sawfishes are limited. Fertilization is 
internal by means of male claspers and reproduction is ovoviviparous; 
females carry eggs with a yolk sac that nourishes developing young 
until they hatch within the body. Sawfishes are born with a gelatinous 
substance around their rostral teeth to protect the mother during birth 
(Last and Stevens, 1994; Rainboth, 1996; Compagno and Last, 1999; Raje 
and Joshi, 2003; Field et al., 2009). It is thought that most sawfishes 
breed every two years and have a gestation period of about four to five 
months (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953; Thorson, 1976a). The number of 
young in a litter varies by species, as does the age at sexual 
maturity.
    Like most chondrichthyes, sawfishes occupy the mid- to upper-level 
of their food web. Smaller sawfishes, including juveniles, may be 
preyed upon by larger sharks like the bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas), 
estuarine crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus), or alligators (Alligator 
mississippiensis). Sawfishes may use their saw as a weapon for defense 
against these predators (Brewer et al., 1997; Wueringer et al., 2009).
    Previously, seven valid species of sawfish were recognized 
worldwide (Compagno, 1999). Compagno and Cook (1995) and Compagno 
(1999) identified these seven species of sawfish as A. cuspidata Latham 
1794, P. microdon Latham 1794, P. perotteti Muller and Henle 1841, P. 
pristis Linnaeus 1758, P. clavata Garman 1906, P. pectinata Latham 
1794, and P. zijsron Bleeker 1851. Since then, the taxonomy, 
delineation, and identification of these species have proven 
problematic (Oijen et al., 2007; Wiley et al., 2008; Wueringer et al., 
2009). Most recently, Faria et al. (2013) hypothesized that the 
taxonomic uncertainty occurred due to several factors: many original 
species descriptions were abbreviated, few holotypes are available for 
examination, reference material is not available for comparison in 
museum collections, and it is difficult to obtain fresh specimens 
because of the infrequent captures of all sawfishes. The majority of 
the confusion regarding taxonomic classification of Pristidae was 
related to the species P. pristis. To resolve questions regarding the 
taxonomy of pristids, Faria et al. (2013) used historical taxonomy, 
external morphology, and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences (NADH-2 
loci) to conclude that sawfishes have five species in two genera: P. 
pristis, P. clavata, P. pectinata, P. zijsron, and A. cuspidata. We 
accept this proposed taxonomy as the best available science.

[[Page 73980]]

Natural History of the Narrow Sawfish (Anoxypristis cuspidata)

Taxonomy and Morphology

    The narrow sawfish was first described by Latham in 1794 as P. 
cuspidatus. It was later reclassified as Anoxypristis due to 
morphological differences from Pristis that include its narrow rostral 
saw, which lacks teeth on the first quarter of the saw closest to the 
head in adults, as well as the distinct shape of the lower lobe of the 
caudal fin (Compagno et al., 2006a). In juveniles, the portion of the 
rostrum without teeth is only about one-sixth of the saw length 
(Wueringer et al., 2009).
    In addition, the narrow sawfish is characterized by dagger-shaped 
rostral teeth (Fowler, 1941; Blegvad and Loppenthin, 1944; Compagno and 
Last, 1999; Faria et al., 2013). The narrow sawfish also has a second 
pair of hollow cartilaginous tubes in its rostrum that are not present 
in other sawfishes. These canals contain an additional connection to 
the ampullae of Lorenzini (special sensory receptors) located on the 
underside of the rostrum (Wueringer et al., 2009).
    Rostral tooth count varies for this species between 18 and 22 (Last 
and Stevens, 1994), 24 and 28 (Hussakof, 1912), and 27-32 (Miller, 
1974). The total number of teeth has been found to vary by individual, 
region, and sex. Some studies report males having fewer rostral teeth 
than females, while others report the opposite (Last and Stevens, 1994; 
Compagno and Last, 1999). While total rostral tooth count is often 
inconsistent among individuals or studies, the number of teeth an 
individual has is fixed during development (Wueringer et al., 2009).
    The pectoral fins of the narrow sawfish are narrow, short, and 
shark-like in shape. The first dorsal fin is located posterior to the 
insertion of the pelvic fins (Compagno and Last, 1999). Within the jaw, 
there are 94 teeth on the upper jaw and 102 on the lower jaw (Taniuchi 
et al., 1991a). The eyes are large and very close to the spiracles. 
Coloration is dark grey dorsally and whitish ventrally (Fowler, 1941; 
Compagno and Last, 1999).
    Narrow sawfish are the only sawfish having tricuspid (three-
pointed) denticles (White and Moy-Thomas, 1941). These denticles first 
appear on sawfish at 25.6 to 28 in (65 to 71 cm) total length (TL), 
after they are born. In general, the narrow sawfish is considered 
``naked'' because denticle coverage in adults is often sporadic and 
widely spaced, usually only covering the rostrum and anterior fin 
margins, making the skin appear smooth (Fowler, 1941; Gloerfelt-Tarp 
and Kailola, 1984; Last and Stevens, 1994; Wueringer et al., 2009). 
Narrow sawfish also have buccopharyngeal denticles (tooth-like 
structures) present in their mouth. This species does not have 
tubercles or thorns on their skin (Deynat, 2005).

Habitat Use and Migration

    The narrow sawfish is largely euryhaline and moves between 
estuarine and marine environments (Gloerfelt-Tarp and Kailola, 1984; 
Last, 2002; Compagno, 2002b; Compagno et al., 2006a; Peverell, 2008). 
It is generally found in inshore waters in depths of less than 130 ft 
(39.6 m) with salinities between 25 and 35 parts per thousand (ppt), 
spending most of its time near the substrate or in the water column 
over coastal flats (Compagno and Last, 1999; Last, 2002; Peverell, 
2005; Peverell, 2008; Wueringer et al., 2009). While Smith (1936) 
described it as a possible freshwater species, there are only a few 
reports from freshwater (Taniuchi and Shimizu, 1991; Last and Compagno, 
2002; Bonfil and Abdallah, 2004; Wueringer et al., 2009). We are not 
aware of any fresh or salt water tolerance studies on the species 
(Compagno, 2002a; Compagno, 2002b) and conclude its habitat is 
euryhaline.
    In studies conducted by Peverell (2008), the narrow sawfish in the 
Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia, undergo an ontogenetic shift in 
habitat. Larger individuals were commonly encountered offshore, while 
smaller individuals were mostly found in inshore waters. Peverell 
(2008) also found females were more likely to be offshore compared to 
males, at least during the months of the study (February to May). This 
suggests that smaller narrow sawfish use the protection and prey 
abundance found in shallow, coastal waters (Dan et al., 1994; Peverell, 
2005; Peverell, 2008).

Age and Growth

    Two studies have been conducted on age and growth of narrow 
sawfish. Field et al. (2009) compared previously-aged vertebrae with 
aged rostral teeth and found a direct correlation up to age 6. After 
age 6, an individual's age was often underestimated using tooth growth 
bands as the teeth become worn over time (Field et al., 2009). Peverell 
(2008) then used aged vertebrae to develop more accurate growth curves 
for both sexes. While the maximum observed age of narrow sawfish from 
vertebrae was 9 years, the theoretical longevity was calculated at 27 
years (Peverell, 2008). A 1-year-old animal has a saw length of 
approximately 4.5 in (11.5 cm). Female narrow sawfish begin to mature 
at 8 ft 1 in (246 cm) TL and all are mature at 15 ft 5 in (470 cm) TL; 
males are mature at 8 ft (245 cm) TL (Pogonoski et al., 2002; Bonfil 
and Abdallah 2004; Peverell, 2005; 2008). The maximum recorded length 
of a narrow sawfish is 15 ft 5 in (4.7 m) TL, with unconfirmed records 
of 20 ft (6.1 m) TL (Last and Stevens, 1994; Compagno and Last, 1999; 
Pogonoski et al., 2002; Bonfil and Abdallah, 2004; Faria et al., 2013).

Reproduction

    The narrow sawfish gives birth to a maximum of 23 pups in the 
spring. The total length (TL) of pups at birth is between 17-24 in (43-
61 cm) (Compagno and Last, 1999; Peverell, 2005; 2008). The 
reproductive cycle is assumed to be annual, with an average of 12 pups 
per litter (Peverell, 2005; D'Anastasi, 2010). The number of pups is 
related to female body size, as smaller females produce fewer offspring 
than larger females (Compagno and Last, 1999). Preliminary genetic 
research suggests that the narrow sawfish may not have multiple fathers 
per litter (D'Anastasi, 2010).
    Mating season may vary by geographic region. Female narrow sawfish 
captured in August (dry season) in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia, 
all contained large eggs indicating they were mature (Peverell, 2005). 
Mature males were also captured in similar locations during the same 
time of year (McDavitt, 2006). Although animals are sexually mature in 
the dry season, mating may not occur until the rainy season in March-
May in the Indo-West Pacific (Raje and Joshi, 2003).
    Age at maturity for narrow sawfish is 2 years for males and 3 years 
for females (Peverell, 2008). The intrinsic rate of population increase 
(rate of growth of the population) based on life history data from the 
exploited population in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia, has been 
estimated at 0.27 per year (Moreno Iturria, 2012), with a potential 
population doubling time of 2.6 years.

Diet and Feeding

    Narrow sawfish feed on small fish and cuttlefish (Compagno and 
Last, 1999; Field et al., 2009) and likely on crustaceans, polychaetes, 
and amphipods (Raje and Joshi, 2003).

Population Structure

    Genetic and morphological data support the division of the global 
species of narrow sawfish into populations. Based on gene sequence 
data, there is a very low level of gene flow between the northern 
Indian Ocean (n = 2) and west Pacific (n = 11)

[[Page 73981]]

populations. Four haplotypes (combinations of deoxyribonucleic acid 
sequences or DNA) were identified: northern Indian Ocean; Indonesian; 
New Guinean-Australian; and one specimen that lacked locality 
information, but had a northern Indian Ocean haplotype. Specimens 
collected from the Indian Ocean had a higher number of rostral teeth 
per side than those collected from the western Pacific (Faria et al., 
2013).
    Field et al. (2009) examined the primary chemical elements of 
rostral teeth (i.e., oxygen, calcium, and phosphorous) from narrow 
sawfish captured throughout Australia in an attempt to separate 
subpopulations based on the isotopes of these chemicals. They found 
distinctions between regions indicating two separate subpopulations 
within the Gulf of Carpentaria Australia: one in the west (Northern 
Territory) and one in the east (Queensland). Using isotopes to separate 
elasmobranch subpopulations is in its infancy, however, and, coupled 
with the limited number of samples, it is not clear whether these 
results agree with the above genetic studies of population structure. 
Isotopic signatures indicate the location where an animal spends most 
of its time and identifies its major prey resources and do not 
necessarily provide information on reproductive connectivity between 
regions. Therefore, we conclude that the best available information on 
isotopic signatures does not support separating narrow sawfish into 
subpopulations.

Distribution and Abundance

    The narrow sawfish is found throughout the eastern and western 
portions of the Indian Ocean as well as much of the western Pacific 
Ocean. The range once extended from as far west as the Red Sea in Egypt 
and Somalia (M. McDavitt, National Legal Research Group, Inc. pers. 
comm. to IUCN, London, 2012) to as far north as Honshu, Japan, 
including India, Sri Lanka, and China (Blaber et al., 1994; Last and 
Stevens, 1994; Compagno and Last, 1999; Compagno et al., 2006a; Van 
Oijen et al., 2007). The species has also been recorded in rivers in 
India, Burma, Malaysia, and Thailand (Compagno, 2002b).
    While uncertain, the current status of narrow sawfish populations 
across its range has declined substantially from historic levels. The 
species was previously commonly reported throughout its range, but it 
is now becoming rare in catches by both commercial and recreational 
fishers (Brewer et al., 2006; Compagno et al., 2006a). To evaluate the 
current and historic distribution and abundance of the narrow sawfish, 
we conducted an extensive search of peer-reviewed publications and 
technical reports, newspaper, and magazine articles. We also reviewed 
records from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) 
database (www.gbif.org). The results of that search are summarized by 
major geographic region.

Indian Ocean

    The earliest reports of narrow sawfish in the Indian Ocean were 
from 1937 and 1938. Two sawfish were captured from the northern Indian 
Ocean (no specific location was reported). A third specimen was later 
caught in the same area (Blegvad and Loppenthin, 1944).
    From areas in the western Indian Ocean around the Arabian Sea, 
three rostra were collected in 1938: Two near Bushire, Iran, presumably 
from the Gulf of Oman, and a third in Jask, Iran, also adjacent to the 
Gulf of Oman (Blegvad and Loppenthin, 1944). The most extensive report 
was 13 rostra from the Persian Gulf (one of those was from Iran) but it 
did not include date information. Four juveniles were recorded in 
Pakistan waters in 1975: Two females and two males (Faria et al., 
2013). The last published record of narrow sawfish from the western 
edge of the range, in the Straits of Hormuz, was in 1997 (A. Moore, RSK 
Environment Ltd., pers. comm. to IUCN, 2012).
    Most records of narrow sawfish in the Indian Ocean are from the Bay 
of Bengal. In 1960 and 1961, 118 sawfish, mostly narrow sawfish, were 
captured during fishery surveys using gillnets and long lines (James, 
1973). There are several additional records of rostra from Bangladesh 
in the 1960s (Faria et al., 2013). One record from the California 
Academy of Sciences is from a fish market in Bangkok, Thailand in 1961. 
A narrow sawfish was used for a 1969 parasitological study in 
Bangladesh, but no further information was recorded (Moravec et al., 
2006). Faria et al. (2013) also reported one specimen from 1976, as 
well as 11 more records off India, but no dates were recorded. Narrow 
sawfish were recorded from the Kirachi West Wharf Fish Market in 
Pakistan in 1978 (GBIF Database). From 1982 to 1994, one juvenile 
female, one juvenile male, and three rostra were recorded in 
Pondicherry, India (Deynat, 2005). Two female neonate specimens were 
recorded in Sri Lanka, and three juveniles (two males and one female) 
from Malabar in Southwest India were also reported from 1982-1994 
(Deynat, 2005). Between 1981 and 2000, in the Bay of Bengal, total 
elasmobranch landings records are dominated by rays and include narrow 
sawfish (Raje and Joshi, 2003). Landings of narrow sawfish are 
currently reported from the Indian Ocean off India although they are 
infrequent (K.K. Bineesh, Marine Fisheries Research Institute, 
Department of Pelagic Fisheries, India, pers. comm. to IUCN, 2012).

Indo-Pacific Ocean (excluding Australia)

    There are several accounts of narrow sawfish over time from various 
unspecified locations throughout the Indo-Pacific. One narrow sawfish 
specimen was recorded from Mabe, India in 1835, making it the oldest 
museum record from the region (GBIF Database). The first records of 
narrow sawfish were for juvenile males in 1852 and 1854 (Faria et al., 
2013). A female and male were recorded in 1867, but no exact location 
was specified (Faria et al., 2013). In 1879, one male and one female 
were also recorded from Indonesia and four rostra were reported from 
China in 1898 (Faria et al., 2013).
    The next reports of narrow sawfish from the Indo-Pacific occurred 
in the 1930s. A female was reported in 1931 in Indonesia (no specific 
location), and a male was reported in Singapore in 1937 (Blegvad and 
Loppenthin, 1944). A narrow sawfish was caught in the Gulf of Thailand 
in March 1937 (Blegvad and Loppenthin, 1944). A single report from 
Papua New Guinea was recorded in 1938 (Faria et al., 2013). In 1945, 
narrow sawfish were reported in the Chao Phraya River, Thailand and its 
tributaries (Smith, 1945). In 1952, two females were captured from 
Batavia, Semarang, Indonesia along with a third female without a 
rostrum (Van Oijen et al., 2007).
    Records of narrow sawfish throughout the Indo-Pacific were 
scattered and infrequent throughout the 1950s. Faria et al. (2013) 
recorded rostra from Papua New Guinea; two from 1955 and one each from 
1966, 1980, and 2000. A male was caught in 1989 from the Oriomo River, 
Papua New Guinea (Taniuchi et al., 1991b; Taniuchi and Shimizu, 1991; 
Taniuchi, 2002). There are other reports of narrow sawfish from Papua 
New Guinea around the Gulf of Papua and in Bootless Bay from the 1970s, 
but there are no recent records (Taniuchi et al., 1991b). In a 
comprehensive literature search for the period 1923 to 1996 on the 
biodiversity of elasmobranchs in the South China Sea, Compagno (2002a) 
found no records of sawfishes. Yet, fresh dorsal and caudal fins of 
narrow sawfish were found during a survey of fish markets from 1996 to 
1997 in Thailand (Manjaji, 2002b).

[[Page 73982]]

    There are even fewer records of narrow sawfish from the Indo-
Pacific over the last few decades. The only known specimen in the 
twenty-first century is a single report from New Guinea in 2001 (L. 
Harrison, IUCN, pers. comm. to John Carlson, NMFS, 2012).

Australia

    Australia may have larger populations of narrow sawfish than any 
other area within the species' range (Peverell, 2005). According to the 
GBIF Database for Australia flora and fauna, the first museum record of 
the narrow sawfish in Australia is from the Australia Museum in 
Townsville, Queensland in 1963. This database also lists observations 
of narrow sawfish throughout the 1980s, mostly recorded by the 
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) 
Marine and Atmospheric Research group. One individual was observed in 
Western Australia in 1982 and in 1983. In 1984, CSIRO observed one 
narrow sawfish just west of Darwin, Northern Territory, and five in the 
Gulf of Carpentaria (three in the east and two in the northwest). Five 
additional records in 1984 were from the northwest tip of the western 
Gulf of Carpentaria, one from outside the Daly River, and three outside 
of Kakadu National Park. In 1985, two narrow sawfish were observed near 
Marchinbar Island, Northern Territory. In the eastern Gulf of 
Carpentaria, four narrow sawfish were observed in 1986, with single 
observations in 1987 and 1988. In 1988, a narrow sawfish was observed 
in Western Australia. Two narrow sawfish were reported from the Gulf of 
Carpentaria in 1990 (Blaber et al., 1994). Single specimens were 
captured in 1991 from the west coast of Australia (Alexander, 1991), 
the Gulf of Carpentaria in 1995 (Brewer et al., 1997), and the Arafura 
Sea in 1999 (Beveridge et al., 2005). Faria et al. (2013) reported 
three rostra records from private collections in Australia from 1998-
1999, but no other information on the collection location was reported.
    Narrow sawfish have been reported in multiple studies between 2000 
and 2011, mostly from northern Australia. In a bycatch reduction device 
study conducted in 2001 in the Gulf of Carpentaria, 25 narrow sawfish 
were captured in trawling gear (Brewer et al., 2006). Later in 2001, a 
bycatch reduction device study conducted in the Queensland shallow-
water eastern king prawn (Penaeus plebejus) trawl fishery did not 
capture a single specimen (Courtney et al., 2006). The European 
Molecular Biology Lab recorded narrow sawfish in 2003 in the Northern 
Territory (GBIF database). A review of fisheries data and records from 
2000 to 2002, identified 74 offshore and 37 inshore records of narrow 
sawfish in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Peverell, 2005). Between April 2004 
and April 2005, 16 narrow sawfish were caught in the Gulf of 
Carpentaria during a trawl bycatch study; the mean catch rate was 0.16 
sawfish per hour (Dell et al., 2009). Observers on commercial fishing 
boats recorded nine captures of narrow sawfish in 2007 within the Great 
Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, Queensland, which accounted for 0.86 
percent of the shark and ray catch in the commercial fisheries 
(Williams, 2007). Observers in the Northern Territory's Offshore Net 
and Line Fishery encountered several narrow sawfish from 2007 to 2010 
(Davies, 2010). Data from the Kimberley (R. McAuley, Department of 
Fisheries, Western Australia, pers. comm. to Colin Simpfendorfer, 
2012), the Northern Territory (Field et al., 2009), the Gulf of 
Carpentaria (Peverell, 2005), and parts of the Queensland east coast 
(Harry et al., 2011) suggest viable subpopulations may remain locally, 
but at significantly lower levels compared to historic levels.
    In summary, it appears the current range of narrow sawfish is 
restricted largely to Australia. Narrow sawfish are considered very 
rare in many places where evidence is available, including parts of 
India (Roy, 2010), Bangladesh (Roy, 2010), Burma (FIRMS, 2007-2012), 
Malaysia (including Borneo; Almada-Villela, 2002; Manjaji, 2002), 
Indonesia (White and Kyne, 2010), Thailand (CITES, 2007; Compagno, 
2002a; Vidthayanon, 2002), and Singapore (CITES, 2007). In Australia, 
narrow sawfish are primarily located in the north. The most recent 
museum record for narrow sawfish in southern Australia was from New 
South Wales in the 1970s (Pogonoski et al., 2002). Data from the 
Queensland Shark Control Program, conducted along the east coast of 
Queensland, from 1969 to 2003 show a clear decline in sawfish catch 
(although not species-specific) with the complete disappearance of 
sawfish in southern regions of Queensland by 1993 (Stevens et al., 
2005). Although we cannot rule out underreporting of narrow sawfish, 
especially in remote areas of its historic range, we conclude from the 
consistent lack of records that narrow sawfish have been severely 
depleted in numbers and their range has contracted.

Natural History of Dwarf Sawfish (Pristis clavata)

Taxonomy and Morphology

    Due to its size and the geographic location where it was described, 
P. clavata is referred to as the dwarf or the Queensland sawfish. The 
species was first described by Garman in 1906; however, it has often 
been confused with largetooth sawfish (Last and Stevens, 1994; Cook et 
al., 2006; Morgan et al., 2010a). This species can be distinguished 
from largetooth sawfish based on rostral tooth morphology (Thorburn et 
al., 2007).
    The dwarf sawfish is olive brown in color dorsally with a white 
underside. The rostrum of this species is quite short, with 19 to 23 
rostral teeth that are moderately flattened, elongated, and peg-like. 
Studies indicate that this species does not display significant 
differences in the number of rostral teeth between males (19 to 23 
teeth) and females (20 to 23 teeth) (Ishihara et al., 1991a; Thorburn 
et al., 2008; Morgan et al., 2010a; Morgan et al., 2011). The rostrum 
makes up 21 to 26 percent of the total length of the dwarf sawfish 
(Blaber et al., 1989; Grant, 1991; Last and Stevens, 1994; Compagno and 
Last, 1999; Larson et al., 2006; Wueringer et al., 2009; Morgan et al., 
2011).
    Morphologically, the origin of the first dorsal fin is slightly 
posterior to the insertion of the pelvic fins, and the second dorsal 
fin is smaller than the first. The pectoral fins are small compared to 
other sawfish species, and are ``poorly developed'' (Ishihara et al., 
1991a). There is no lower lobe on the caudal fin. Lateral and low keels 
are present along the base of the tail (Compagno and Last, 1999; 
Wueringer et al., 2009; Morgan et al., 2010a; Morgan et al., 2011). 
Within the mouth are 82-84 tooth rows on the upper jaw. The total 
vertebrae number is 225-231. The dwarf sawfish has regularly 
overlapping monocuspidate denticles on its skin. As a result, there are 
no keels or furrows formed on the skin (Fowler, 1941; Last and Stevens, 
1994; Deynat, 2005).

Habitat Use and Migration

    The dwarf sawfish has been found along tropical coasts in marine 
and estuarine waters, mostly from northern Australia; it may inhabit 
similar habitats in other areas. Dwarf sawfish are reported on mudflats 
in water 6 ft 7 in to 9 ft 10 in (2 to 3 m) deep that is often turbid 
and influenced heavily by tides. Thorburn et al. (2008) reported dwarf 
sawfish occur in waters 2 to 22 ft (0.7 to 7 m) deep, while Stevens et 
al. (2008) recorded a maximum depth of 65 ft (20 m). This species has 
also been reported in rivers (Last and Stevens, 1994; Wueringer et al., 
2009; Morgan et al., 2010a) and as commonly occurring in both brackish 
and freshwater, and in both marine and estuarine habitats (Rainboth, 
1996; Thorburn et al., 2008).

[[Page 73983]]

For example, two dwarf sawfish were found 31 miles (50 km) upstream 
from the mouth of the south Alligator River, Kakadu National Park, 
Northern Territory, Australia in 2013 at salinities of 0.12 and 7.64 
ppt (P. Kyne, Charles Darwin University, pers. comm. to S. Norton, 
NMFS, June 2013).
    Juvenile dwarf sawfish may use the estuaries associated with the 
Fitzroy River, Australia as nursery habitat for up to three years 
(Thorburn et al., 2008). Dwarf sawfish are also known to use the Gulf 
of Carpentaria, Australia as nursery area in a variety of habitats 
(Gorham, 2006). However, physical characteristics such as salinity, 
temperature, and turbidity may limit seasonal movements (Blaber et al., 
1989).

Age and Growth

    Dwarf sawfish are considered to be small compared to other 
sawfishes. Their maximum size has been reported as 4 ft 11 in (1.5 m) 
total length (TL) (Grant, 1991) and 4 ft 7 in (140 cm) TL (Last and 
Stevens, 1994; Rainboth, 1996; Compagno and Last, 1999). But more 
recently, much larger sizes have been reported, as high as 19.7 ft 
(6000 cm) TL (Peverell, 2005). Specimens from Western Australia in 2008 
indicate that females reach at least 10 ft 2 in (310 cm) TL (Morgan et 
al., 2010a; Morgan et al., 2011).
    Thorburn et al. (2008) and Peverell (2008) estimated age and growth 
for this species based on the number of vertebral rings and total 
length. The average growth estimates for dwarf sawfish are 16.1 in 
(41cm) TL in the first year, slowing to 9.4 in (24 cm) in the second 
year (Peverell 2008). Thorburn et al. (2008) determined that animals 
close to 3 ft (90 cm) TL were age 1, those between 3.5 and 4 ft (110 cm 
and 120 cm) TL were age 2, and those around 5 ft (160 cm) TL were age 
6. Peverell (2008) reported dwarf sawfish between 2 ft 11 in and 3 ft 3 
in (90 and 98 cm) TL were age 0, those between 3 ft 7 in and 5 ft 9 in 
(110 to 175 cm) TL were considered 1 to 3 years old, and those between 
6 ft 7 in and 8 ft (201 to 244 cm) TL were considered 4 to 6 years old 
(Peverell, 2008). Any dwarf sawfish over 9 ft 10 in (300 cm) TL is 
considered to be at least 9 years old (Morgan et al., 2010a). The 
theoretical maximum age calculated from von Bertalanffy parameters for 
dwarf sawfish is 94 years (Peverell, 2008).

Reproduction

    There is little information available regarding the time or 
location of dwarf sawfish mating. It is hypothesized that dwarf sawfish 
move into estuarine or fresh waters to breed during the wet season 
(Larson et al., 2006), although no information on pupping habitat, 
gestation period, or litter size has been recorded (Morgan et al., 
2010a).
    Dwarf sawfish are born between 2 ft 2 in and 2 ft 8 in (65 cm and 
81 cm) TL (Morgan et al., 2010a; Morgan et al., 2011). Males become 
sexually mature between 9 ft 8 in and 10 ft (295 and 306 cm) TL with 
fully calcified claspers, though they may mature at smaller sizes, 
around 8 ft 5 in (255-260 cm) TL (Peverell, 2005; Thorburn et al., 
2008; Last and Stevens, 2009; Morgan et al., 2011). All males captured 
by Thorburn et al. (2008) less than 7 ft 5 in (226 cm) TL were 
immature; two females, both smaller than 3 ft 11 in (120 cm) TL, were 
also immature. There is little specific information about sexual 
maturation of females; females are considered immature at 6 ft 11 in 
(210 cm) TL (Peverell, 2005; Peverell, 2008; Morgan et al., 2010a). 
Wueringer et al. (2009) indicates that neither males nor females are 
mature before 7 ft 8 in (233 cm) TL.
    Intrinsic rates of population increase, based on life history data 
from Peverell (2008), has been estimated to be about 0.10 per year 
(Moreno Iturria, 2012), with a potential population doubling time of 
7.2 years.

Diet and Feeding

    Dwarf sawfish, like other sawfishes, use their saw to stun small 
schooling fishes. They may also use the saw for rooting in the mud and 
sand for crustaceans and mollusks (Breder Jr., 1952; Raje and Joshi, 
2003; Larson et al., 2006; Last and Stevens, 2009). In Western 
Australia, the dwarf sawfish eats shrimp (Natantia spp.), mullet 
(Mugilidae), herring (Clupeidae), and croaker (Sciaenidae) (Thorburn et 
al., 2008; Morgan et al., 2010a).

Population Structure

    Phillips et al. (2011) conducted a genetic study looking at mtDNA 
of dwarf sawfish and found no distinct difference in dwarf sawfish from 
Western Australia and those from the Gulf of Carpentaria in northern 
Australia. The genetic diversity of this species was moderate overall; 
however, dwarf sawfish from the Gulf of Carpentaria may have a lower 
genetic diversity than those of the west coast, possibly due to either 
a small sample size or a reduction in abundance (Phillips et al., 
2008). Further declines in abundance as well as genetic drift may 
result in reduced genetic diversity (Morgan et al., 2010a; 2011).
    Phillips et al. (2011) determined the populations of the dwarf 
sawfish are organized matrilineally (from mother to daughter), 
indicating the possibility that females are philopatric (return to 
their birth place). While the genetic diversity of this species is 
considered low to moderate across Australia, haplotype diversity in the 
Gulf of Carpentaria was very low, but was greater in the west compared 
to the east. Low diversity among and within groups of dwarf sawfish may 
be detrimental (Phillips et al., 2011).

Distribution and Abundance

    Dwarf sawfish are thought to historically occur in the Indo-
Pacific, western Pacific, and eastern Indian Oceans, with the 
population largely occurring in northern Australia (Last and Stevens, 
1994; Last and Compagno, 2002; Compagno, 2002a; Compagno, 2002b; 
Thorburn et al., 2008; Wueringer et al., 2009; Morgan et al., 2010a; 
Kyne et al., 2013). While dwarf sawfish may have been historically more 
widespread throughout the Indo-West Pacific (Compagno and Last, 1999; 
Last and Stevens, 2009), there are questions regarding records outside 
of Australian waters (DSEWPaC 2011; Kyne et al., 2013; GBIF database).
    In an effort to gather more information on the species' historic 
and current range and abundance, we conducted an extensive search of 
peer-reviewed publications and technical reports, newspaper, and 
magazine articles. We also reviewed records from the Global 
Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) Database (www.gbif.com). A 
summary of those findings is presented by major geographic region.

Indian Ocean

    Dwarf sawfish are considered extremely rare in the Indian Ocean and 
there are few records indicating its current presence (Last, 2002). 
Faria et al. (2013) report a female from the R[eacute]union Islands, a 
female from an unidentified location in the Indian Ocean, and a museum 
record of a male from Bay of Bengal, India. A sawfish was landed at a 
port in Arabian Peninsula (presumably caught in the Gulf of Oman or the 
Arabian Gulf) in January of 2006. It may have been a dwarf sawfish, but 
identification could not be confirmed (Kyne et al., 2013). There are no 
reports of dwarf sawfish from Sri Lanka in more than a decade, although 
they have been assumed to occur there (Last, 2002).

Indo-Pacific (excluding Australia)

    Dwarf sawfish are considered very rare in Indonesia, with only a 
few records (Last, 2002). Faria et al. (2013) compiled most reports of 
dwarf sawfish in Indonesia; since the first record in 1894 from Borneo, 
there have been two

[[Page 73984]]

rostral saws in 1910 and five other rostra without date or length 
information. There is also one museum record of a dwarf sawfish from 
Papua New Guinea in 1828 (Kyne et al., 2013).
    Although reported historically, dwarf sawfish have not been found 
in any other areas in the Indo-Pacific in over a decade. Rainboth's 
(1996) guide to fishes of the Mekong reported a dwarf sawfish from the 
Mekong River Basin, Laos, in the early 1900s but no specimen exists to 
confirm this report. No sawfish of any species, including the dwarf 
sawfish, were reported from the South China Sea from 1923-1996 
(Compagno, 2002a). Faria et al. (2013) reported on two specimens from 
the Pacific Ocean, but no specifics were provided.

Australia

    The northern coast of Australia represents the geographic center of 
dwarf sawfish range that extends from Cape York, Queensland west to the 
Pilbara area in Western Australia (Compagno and Last, 1999; Last and 
Stevens, 2009; Kyne et al., 2013). Dwarf sawfish may have occurred as 
far south as Cairns, but reports are lacking. Most records for dwarf 
sawfish are from the north and northwest areas of Australia.
    The earliest record of dwarf sawfish in Australia is from 1877, but 
no specific location was recorded (Faria et al., 2013). A single 
rostrum from a dwarf sawfish was found in 1916, but no other 
information was recorded. In 1945, a single specimen was reported from 
the Northern Territory, Australia (Stevens et al., 2005). There is a 
single record of a dwarf sawfish from the Victoria River in 1964 that 
is currently housed at the Museum Victoria (GBIF Database).
    Five female and five male dwarf sawfish (32 to 55 in; 82 to 140 cm 
TL) were captured in 1990 in the Pentecost River using gillnets 
(Taniuchi and Shimizu, 1991; Taniuchi, 2002). CSIRO recorded five dwarf 
sawfish in Western Australia in 1990 (GBIF Database). CSIRO also found 
one dwarf sawfish in Walker Creek (a tributary of the Gulf of 
Carpentaria) in 1991 (GBIF Database). In 1992, one specimen was found 
near Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia (GBIF Database). Between 
1994 and 2010, almost 75 tissue samples were taken from live dwarf 
sawfish or dried rostra from the Gulf of Carpentaria and the northwest 
coast of Australia (Phillips et al., 2011). In 1997, two specimens were 
collected near the mouth of Buffalo Creek in Darwin, Northern Territory 
(Chisholm and Whittington, 2000). In 2005, Naylor et al. (2005) 
collected one dwarf sawfish from Darwin, Australia. One dwarf sawfish 
was captured in 1998 in the upper reaches of the Keep River Estuary 
(Larson, 1999; Gunn et al., 2010). CSIRO reported one dwarf sawfish in 
Western Australia (GBIF Database). In 2006, the European Molecular 
Biology Lab reported the occurrence of three dwarf sawfish in Western 
Australia (GBIF Database). One interaction was reported between 2007 
and 2010 by observers in the Northern Territory Offshore Net and Line 
Fishery (Davies, 2010). A single specimen from Queensland (northeastern 
Australia) is preserved at the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology 
(Fowler, 1941).
    In a comprehensive survey of the Gulf of Carpentaria from 2001 to 
2002 (Peverell, 2005; 2008), indicated dwarf sawfish were concentrated 
in the west where 12 males and 10 females were captured. Most 
individuals caught in the inshore fishery were immature except for two 
mature males: 10 ft and 9 ft 8 in (306 cm and 296 cm) TL (Peverell, 
2005; 2008).
    Within specific riverine basins in northwestern Australia, dwarf 
sawfish have been reported in various surveys. Forty-four dwarf sawfish 
were captured between October 2002 and July 2004, in the King Sound and 
the Robison, May, and Fitzroy Rivers (Thorburn et al., 2008). Between 
2001 and 2002, one dwarf sawfish was caught at the mouth of the Fitzroy 
River in Western Australia (Morgan et al., 2004). Morgan et al. (2011) 
acquired 109 rostra from dwarf sawfish from the King Sound area that 
were part of museum or personal collections.
    In summary, there is some uncertainty in the species identification 
of historic records of dwarf sawfish, however, it appears the dwarf 
sawfish has become extirpated from much of the Indo-Pacific region and 
from the eastern coast of Australia. An October 2001 study on the 
effectiveness of turtle-excluder devices in the prawn trawl fishery in 
Queensland, Australia, reported no dwarf sawfish (Courtney et al., 
2006). Dwarf sawfish are now considered rare in the Gulf of 
Carpentaria. It is likely the Kimberley region and Pilbara region 
(Western Australia) may be the last remaining areas for dwarf sawfish 
(P. Kyne, Charles Darwin University, pers. comm. to IUCN, 2012).

Natural History of the Largetooth Sawfish (Pristis pristis)

Taxonomy and Morphology

    Many taxonomists have suggested classification of largetooth 
sawfish into a single circumtropical species given common morphological 
features of robust rostrum, origin of first dorsal fin anterior to 
origin of pelvic fins, and presence of a caudal-fin lower lobe 
(G[uuml]nther, 1870; Garman, 1913; Fowler, 1936; Poll, 1951; Dingerkus, 
1983; Daget, 1984; S[eacute]ret and McEachran, 1986; McEachran and 
Fechhelm, 1998; Carvalho et al., 2007). The recent analysis by Faria et 
al. (2013) used mtDNA (mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid) and 
contemporary genetic analysis to argue that the previously classified 
P. pristis, P. microdon, and P. perotteti should now be considered one 
species named P. pristis. After reviewing Faria et al. (2013) and 
consulting other sawfish experts, we conclude, based on the best 
available information, that P. pristis applies to all the largetooth 
sawfishes previously identified as P. pristis, P. microdon, and P. 
perotteti.
    The largetooth sawfish has a robust rostrum, noticeably widening 
posteriorly (width between the two posterior-most rostral teeth is 1.7 
to 2 times the width between the second anterior-most rostral teeth). 
Rostral tooth counts are between 14 and 23 per side with grooves on the 
posterior margin. The body is robust with the origin of the first 
dorsal-fin anterior to the origin of the pelvic fin; dorsal fins are 
high and pointed with the height of the second dorsal fin greater than 
the first. The lower lobe of the caudal-fin is small, but well-defined, 
with the lower anterior margin about half as long as the upper anterior 
margin (Wallace, 1967; Taniuchi et al., 1991a; Last and Stevens, 1994; 
Compagno and Last, 1999; Deynat, 2005; Wueringer et al., 2009; Morgan 
et al., 2010a; Morgan et al., 2010b; Morgan et al., 2011). The 
largetooth sawfish has buccopharyngeal denticles and regularly 
overlapping monocuspidate dermal denticles on its skin. The denticles 
are present on both dorsal and ventral portions of the body (Wallace, 
1967; Deynat, 2005). Within the mouth, there are between 70 and 72 
tooth rows on the upper jaw, and 64 to 68 tooth rows on the lower jaw. 
The number of vertebrae is between 226 and 228 (Morgan et al., 2010a). 
Coloration of the largetooth sawfish is a reddish brown dorsally and 
dull white ventrally (Fowler, 1941; Wallace, 1967; Compagno et al., 
1989; Taniuchi et al., 1991a; Compagno and Last, 1999; Chidlow, 2007).
    Male and female largetooth sawfish differ in the number of rostral 
teeth. Using largetooth sawfish teeth collected from Papua New Guinea 
and Australia, Ishihara et al. (1991b) found males to have an average 
of 21 rostral teeth on the left and 22 on the right; females averaged 
19 rostral teeth on both the left and the right side of the rostrum.

[[Page 73985]]

Rostrum length can vary between males and females (Wueringer et al., 
2009).

Habitat Use and Migration

    Largetooth sawfish are found in coastal and inshore waters and are 
considered euryhaline (Compagno et al., 1989; Last and Stevens, 1994; 
Compagno and Last, 1999; Chisholm and Whittington, 2000; Last, 2002; 
Compagno, 2002b; Peverell, 2005; Peverell, 2008; Wueringer et al., 
2009), being found in salinities ranging from 0 to 40 ppt (Thorburn et 
al., 2007). The species has been found far upriver, often occupying 
freshwater lakes and pools; they are associated with freshwater more 
than any other sawfish species (Last and Stevens, 1994; Rainboth, 1996; 
Peter and Tan, 1997; Compagno and Last, 1999; Larson, 1999). Largetooth 
sawfish have even been observed in isolated fresh water billabongs or 
pools until floodwaters allow them to escape; juveniles often use these 
areas for multiple years as deepwater refuges (Gorham, 2006; Thorburn 
et al., 2007; Wueringer et al., 2009; Morgan et al., 2010b). Similarly, 
largetooth sawfish have been found in Lake Nicaragua in depths up to 
400 ft (122 m) and are found in deeper holes, occupying muddy or sandy 
bottoms (Thorson, 1982). Adults more often use marine habitats than 
juveniles, and are typically found in waters with salinity at 31 ppt 
(Wueringer et al., 2009).
    Despite the variety of habitats occupied, females have been found 
to be highly philopatric as indicated by mtDNA studies, while males 
often undergo long movements (Lack et al., 2009; Phillips et al., 2009; 
Morgan et al., 2010a; Morgan et al., 2010b; Morgan et al., 2011). 
Largetooth sawfish occurred from the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico south 
through Brazil, and in the United States, largetooth sawfish were 
reported in the Gulf of Mexico, mainly along the Texas coast (NMFS, 
2010a). Largetooth sawfish were rarely reported in U.S. waters and may 
have been long-distance migrants from the Caribbean or Brazil (Feldheim 
et al., 2011).
    The physical characteristics of habitat strongly influence the 
movements of, and areas used by, largetooth sawfish. Recruitment of 
neonate largetooth sawfish was correlated with the rise in water levels 
during the wet season in Australia (Whitty et al., 2009). A study of 
juvenile largetooth sawfish movements in the Fitzroy River in Australia 
found young-of-the-year using extremely shallow areas (0 to 1 ft 7 in 
or 0 to 0.49 m) up to 80 percent of the time, mostly to avoid predators 
(Thorburn et al., 2007). Juvenile and adult largetooth sawfish also use 
rivers (Compagno, 2002b; Gorham, 2006) and can be found in areas up to 
248.5 miles (400 km) upstream (Morgan et al., 2004; Chidlow, 2007). The 
space used on a day to day basis by largetooth sawfish increases with 
body length (Whitty et al., 2009).

Age and Growth

    There are several age and growth studies for the largetooth 
sawfish; results vary due to differences in aging techniques, data 
collection, or location. In Australia, largetooth sawfish are between 2 
ft 6 in and 3 ft (76 and 91 cm) TL at birth, with females being 
slightly smaller than males on average (Chidlow, 2007; Morgan et al., 
2011). Thorson (1982) found pups at birth average 2 ft 4.7 in to 2 ft 
7.5 in (73-80 cm) TL, with a growth rate of 1 ft 2 in to 1 ft 3 in (35-
40) cm per year in Lake Nicaragua (NMFS, 2010a; Kyne and Feutry, 2013). 
Peverell (2008) found that largetooth sawfish in the Indo-West Pacific 
are born at 2 ft 4 in to 2 ft 11 in (72-90 cm) TL. Juveniles (age 1 to 
age at maturity) range in size from 2 ft 6 in to 9 ft (76 to 277 cm) TL 
(Morgan et al., 2011).
    Size at maturity in the Western Atlantic is estimated to be around 
9 ft 10 in (300 cm) TL for both sexes at around age 8 (Lack et al., 
2009; Morgan et al., 2010a; Morgan et al., 2010b; NMFS, 2010; Morgan et 
al., 2011; Kyne and Feutry, 2013). Thorson (1982) estimated age of 
maturity to be 10 years at 9 ft 10 in (300 cm) TL in Lake Nicaragua. 
Peverell (2008) estimated age at maturity in the Gulf of Carpentaria to 
be between 8 and 10 years. In the Indo-Pacific, males tend to mature 
earlier than other regions (9 ft 2 in (280 cm)) TL (Kyne and Feutry, 
2013). Generally, males under 7 ft 7 in (230 cm) TL and females under 8 
ft 10 in (270 cm) TL are considered immature (Whitty et al., 2009; 
Wueringer et al., 2009).
    The largest recorded length of a largetooth sawfish is 22 ft 11 in 
(700 cm) TL (Compagno et al., 1989. The largest largetooth sawfish 
recorded in the Kimberley, Queensland measured 21 ft 6 in (656 cm) TL 
(Compagno and Last, 1999). In other areas of Australia, largetooth 
sawfish can reach up to 15 ft (457 cm) and at least 11 ft 10 in (361 
cm) TL (Fowler, 1941; Chidlow, 2007; Gunn et al., 2010). Thorson (1982) 
estimated that largetooth sawfish in Lake Nicaragua only reach a 
maximum size of about 14 ft 1 in (430 cm) TL.
    Age and growth for largetooth sawfish has been estimated by Tanaka 
(1991) who generated a von Bertalanffy growth model for specimens 
collected from Papua New Guinea and Australia. For both sexes combined, 
the theoretical maximum size (L[infin]) from the von Bertalanffy growth 
equation was calculated at 11 ft 11 in (363 cm) TL with a growth rate 
(K) of 0.066 per year. Largetooth sawfish grow around 7 in (18 cm) in 
the first year and 4 in (10 cm) by the tenth year (Tanaka, 1991). 
Thorson (1982a) estimated an early juvenile growth rate of 13-15 in (35 
to 40 cm) per year and annual adult growth rate of 1 in (4.4 cm) per 
year based on largetooth from Lake Nicaragua. Simpfendorfer (2000) 
estimated the theoretical maximum size of largetooth sawfish to be 14 
ft 11 in (456 cm) TL with a growth rate (Brody growth coefficient K) of 
0.089 per year based on Thorson's (1982) data from Lake Nicaragua. 
Peverell (2008) calculated that largetooth sawfish from the Gulf of 
Carpentaria, Australia grow 1 ft 8.5 in (52 cm) in the first year and 7 
in (17 cm) during the fifth year. Maximum size was estimated at 20 ft 
11 in (638 cm) TL with a growth rate (Brody growth coefficient K) of 
0.08 per year from the von Bertalanffy equation (Peverell, 2008). Kyne 
and Feutry (2013) summarize maximum age estimates of 30 years in Lake 
Nicaragua and 35 years in the Gulf of Carpentaria. Based on the von 
Bertalanffy equation, growth slows at about 35 years or 19 ft 10 in 
(606 cm) TL (Kyne and Feutry, 2013).

Reproduction

    Largetooth sawfish are thought to reproduce in freshwater 
environments (Compagno and Last, 1999; Last, 2002; Compagno, 2002b; 
Martin, 2005; Thorburn and Morgan, 2005; Compagno et al., 2006b). 
Pupping seems to vary across the range, occurring during the wet season 
from May to July in the Indo-Pacific (Raje and Joshi, 2003), and from 
October to December in the western Atlantic and Lake Nicaragua 
(Thorson, 1976a; Kyne and Feutry, 2013).
    The number of pups in a largetooth sawfish litter varies by 
location, possibly due to a number of factors. One of the earliest 
reproductive studies on largetooth sawfish by Thorson (1976a) reported 
the litter sizes of 67 females ranged between 1 to 13 pups and an 
embryonic sex ratio for this species is 0.86 males for every 1 female. 
Average number of pups is 7 (NMFS, 2010a; Kyne and Feutry, 2013). 
Thorson (1976a) also found that both ovaries appeared to be functional, 
with the left ovary producing more eggs. Estimates of litter size from 
other studies in the Indo-West Pacific (e.g., Wilson, 1999; Moreno 
Iturria, 2012; Peverell, 2005) cannot be confirmed (Kyne and Feutry, 
2013). Length of gestation for largetooth sawfish is approximately five 
months in Lake Nicaragua, with a biennial

[[Page 73986]]

reproduction cycle (Thorson 1976a; NMFS 2010a; Kyne and Feutry, 2013). 
In the Indo-West Pacific, largetooth sawfish may reproduce every year 
(Peverell, 2008).
    Intrinsic rates of population growth vary tremendously throughout 
the species' range. Simpfendorfer (2000) estimated that the largetooth 
sawfish in Lake Nicaragua had an intrinsic rate of population growth of 
0.05 to 0.07 per year, with a potential population doubling time of 
10.3 to 13.6 years. Using data from Australia, rates of population 
increase for the Indo-Pacific were estimated to be around 0.12 per year 
(Moreno Iturria, 2012), with a population doubling time of 
approximately 5.8 years and a generation time of 14.6 years. Data from 
the western Atlantic Ocean indicate an intrinsic rate of increase of 
0.03 per year, with a population doubling time of 23.3 years and a 
generation time of 17.2 years (Moreno Iturria, 2012). Annual natural 
mortality for the western Atlantic has been estimated at 0.07 to 0.16 
(Simpfendorfer, 2000) and 0.14 to 0.15 per year (Moreno Iturria, 2012).

Diet and Feeding

    Largetooth sawfish diet is predominantly fish, but varies depending 
on geographic area. Small fishes including seer fish, mackerels, ribbon 
fish, sciaenids, and pomfrets are likely main diet items of largetooth 
sawfish in the Indian Ocean (Devadoss, 1978; Rainboth, 1996; Raje and 
Joshi, 2003). Small sharks, mollusks, and crustaceans are also 
potential prey items (Devadoss, 1978; Rainboth, 1996; Raje and Joshi, 
2003). Taniuchi et al. (1991a) found small fishes and shrimp in the 
stomachs of juveniles in Lake Murray, Papua New Guinea, while juveniles 
in Western Australia had catfish, cherabin, mollusks, and insect parts 
in their stomachs (Thorburn et al., 2007; Whitty et al., 2009; Morgan 
et al,. 2010a). Largetooth sawfish have also been found to feed on 
catfish, shrimp, croaker, small crustaceans, croaker, and mollusks 
(Chidlow, 2007; Thorburn et al., 2007; Morgan et al., 2010a; Morgan et 
al., 2010b). Largetooth sawfish captured off South Africa had bony fish 
and shellfish as common diet items (Compagno et al., 1989; Compagno and 
Last, 1999). In general, largetooth sawfish subsist on the most 
abundant small schooling fishes in the area (NMFS, 2010a).

Population Structure

    Genetic analyses based on specific sequences of mitochondrial DNA 
indicated largetooth sawfish can be found in populations based on ocean 
basin: Atlantic, Indo-West Pacific, and Eastern Pacific. There is also 
restricted flow of genes in largetooth sawfish between these geographic 
areas: Atlantic and Indo-West Pacific; Atlantic and eastern Pacific; 
and Indo-West Pacific and eastern Pacific (Faria et al. 2013).
    Genetic analyses based on a 480-base pair sequencing of the mtDNA 
gene NADH-2 sequence also revealed information indicating largetooth 
sawfish subpopulations. West and East Atlantic subpopulations differed 
as did samples from Australia and the wider Indian Ocean. Collectively, 
a total of 19 haplotypes were identified across largetooth sawfish: One 
east Pacific haplotype, 12 western Atlantic haplotypes, two eastern 
Atlantic haplotypes, one Indian Ocean haplotype, one Vietnamese-New 
Guinean haplotype, and two Australian haplotypes (Faria et al., 2013). 
This fine-scale structuring by haplotypes was only partially 
corroborated by the regional variation in the number of rostral teeth. 
While the rostral tooth count differed significantly in largetooth 
sawfish collected from the western and eastern Atlantic Ocean, it did 
not vary significantly between specimens collected from the Indian 
Ocean and western Pacific (Faria et al., 2013). Largetooth sawfish 
collected from the western Atlantic specimens had a higher rostral 
teeth count than those collected from the eastern Atlantic. Data from 
separate protein and genetics studies indicates some evidence of 
distinction among populations of largetooth sawfish in the Indo-
Pacific. At a broad scale, Watabe (1991) found that there was limited 
genetic variability between samples taken from Australia and Papua New 
Guinea based on lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) isozyme patterns. 
Largetooth sawfish might be genetically subdivided within the Gulf of 
Carpentaria, Australia, with both eastern and western Gulf populations 
(Lack et al., 2009).
    Phillips et al. (2011) found that the population of largetooth 
sawfish in the Gulf of Carpentaria is different from animals on the 
west coast of Australia (Fitzroy River) based on mtDNA. Recent data 
(Phillips, 2012) suggests that matrilineal structuring is found at 
relatively small spatial scales within the Gulf of Carpentaria region 
(i.e., this region contains more than one maternal `population'), 
although the precise location and nature of population boundaries are 
unknown. The difference in the genetic structuring using markers with 
different modes of inheritance (maternal versus bi-parental) suggests 
that largetooth sawfish may have male-biased dispersal and females 
remaining at, or returning to, their birth place to mate (Phillips et 
al., 2009; Phillips, 2012). Phillips (2012) noted that the presence of 
male gene flow between populations in Australian waters suggests that a 
decline of males in one location could affect the abundance and genetic 
diversity of assemblages in other locations.
    The genetic diversity for largetooth sawfish throughout Australia 
seems to be low to moderate. Genetic diversity was greater in the Gulf 
of Carpentaria than in Australian rivers, also suggesting potential 
philopatry: Animals return to or stay in their home range (Lack et al., 
2009). Yet, given limited sampling, additional research is needed to 
better understand potential population structure of largetooth sawfish 
in Australia (Lack et al., 2009; Phillips et al., 2009; Morgan et al., 
2010a; Morgan et al., 2010b).

Distribution and Abundance

    Largetooth sawfish have the largest historical range of all 
sawfishes. The species historically occurred throughout the Indo-
Pacific near Southeast Asia and Australia and throughout the Indian 
Ocean to east Africa. Older literature notes the presence of this 
species in Zanzibar, Madagascar, India, and the southwest Pacific 
(Fowler, 1941; Wallace, 1967; Taniuchi et al., 2003). Largetooth 
sawfish have also been noted in the Eastern Pacific Ocean from Mexico 
to Ecuador (Cook et al., 2005) or possibly Peru (Chirichigno and 
Cornejo, 2001). In the Atlantic Ocean, largetooth sawfish inhabit warm 
temperate to tropical marine waters from Brazil to the Gulf of Mexico 
in the western Atlantic, and Namibia to Mauritania in the eastern 
Atlantic (Burgess et al., 2009).
    Given the recent taxonomic changes for largetooth sawfish, we 
examined all current and historic records of P. microdon, P. perotteti, 
and P. pristis for a comprehensive overview on distribution and 
abundance. We conducted an extensive search of peer-reviewed 
publications and technical reports, newspaper, records from the GBIF 
Database, and magazine articles. The results of that search are 
summarized below by major geographic region.

Indian Ocean

    Largetooth sawfish historically occurred throughout the Indian 
Ocean; however, current records are rare for many areas. The earliest 
record of largetooth sawfish was in 1936 from Grand Lac near the Gulf 
of Aden, Indian Ocean (Kottelat, 1985). A second record in 1936 is from 
the Mangoky River, Madagascar (Taniuchi et al., 2003).

[[Page 73987]]

    Records from the 1960s and 1970s are largely from India and South 
Africa. One largetooth sawfish was reported from the confluence of the 
Lundi and Sabi Rivers, South Africa in 1960, over 200 miles (mi) inland 
(Jubb, 1967). Between 1964 and 1966, several largetooth sawfish were 
caught in the Zambesi River, South Africa during a general survey of 
rays and skates; largetooth sawfish have also been recorded in the 
shark nets off Durban, South Africa (Wallace, 1967). In 1966, a male 
(10 ft; 305 cm TL) was captured in a trawl net in the Gulf of Mannar, 
Sri Lanka (Gunn et al., 2010). Largetooth sawfish were commonly caught 
between 1973 and 1974 in the Bay of Bengal during the wet season (July 
and September) but rarely during other times of the year. Largetooth 
sawfish were also reported in three major rivers that empty into the 
Bay of Bengal: The Pennaiyar, Paravanar, and Gadilam (Devadoss, 1978).
    Current reports of largetooth sawfish throughout the Indian Ocean 
are isolated and rare. Largetooth sawfish were recorded in South Africa 
1992 and 1993 between Nelson Mandela Bay and Cape Town. Eight 
additional observations are reported in South Africa but associated 
date information was not included (GBIF database). While the species 
could not be confirmed, a survey of fishing landing sites and 
interviews with 99 fishers in Kenya by Nyingi found 71 reports of 
sawfishes over the last 40 years (unpublished report from Dorothy Wanja 
Nyingi to J. Carlson, NMFS, 2007). The longest time series of 
largetooth sawfish catches is from the swimmer protection beach nets 
off Natal, South Africa with a yearly average capture rate of 0.2 
sawfish per 0.6 mi (1 km) net per year from 1981 to 1990; since then 
only two specimens have been caught (CITES, 2007). Largetooth sawfish 
were reported in Cochin, India by the Central Marine Fisheries Research 
Institute in 1994, but no information about location, size, or number 
of animals is available (Dan et al., 1994). Commercial landings of 
elasmobranchs from 1981 to 2000 in the Bay of Bengal were mostly rays 
with some largetooth sawfish (Raje and Joshi, 2003). In the Betsiboka 
River, Madagascar, four largetooth sawfish were caught in 2001. The 
most recent capture of a largetooth sawfish (18 ft; 550 cm TL) in India 
occurred on January 18, 2011, between Karnataka and Goa 
(www.mangalorean.com).

Indo-Pacific Ocean (Excluding Australia)

    Many islands within the Indo-Pacific region contain suitable 
habitat for largetooth sawfish, but few reports are available, perhaps 
due to the lack of surveys or data reporting. The earliest records of 
largetooth sawfish from the Indo-Pacific are from a compilation study 
of elasmobranchs in the waters off Thailand that reports a largetooth 
sawfish in the Chao Phraya River and its tributaries in 1945 
(Vidthayanon, 2002). In 1955, two largetooth sawfish were captured from 
Lake Sentani (present day Intan Jaya, Indonesia). Juvenile largetooth 
sawfish have also been reported around the same time in a freshwater 
river close to Genjem, Indonesia (Boeseman, 1956). In 1956, largetooth 
sawfish were recorded in Lake Sentani (present day Intan Jaya, 
Indonesia), (Boeseman, 1956; Thorson et al., 1966). In a study by Munro 
(1967) in the Laloki River in the southeastern portion of New Guinea, 
no sawfish were captured. From 1967 to 1977, five largetooth sawfish 
were captured from the Indragiri River, Sumatra (Taniuchi, 2002). The 
presence of largetooth sawfish in the Mahakam River, Borneo was 
recorded in 1987 (Christensen, 1992). Three largetooth sawfish rostra 
were acquired from local fish markets in Sabah in 1996 (Manjaji, 
2002a). Additional surveys of local fish markets indicate largetooth 
sawfish are still present in these areas, although locals have noticed 
a decline in their abundance (Manjaji, 2002a). In 1996, two specimens 
were found in Malaysia: One in Palau Nangka and one in Palau Besar 
(GBIF Database).
    Multiple records of largetooth sawfish have occurred in areas 
throughout Papua New Guinea. From 1970 to 1971, Berra et al. (1975) 
collected five largetooth sawfish from the Laloki River, Papua New 
Guinea. Four largetooth sawfish were recorded in 1975 from the Fly 
River system, Papua New Guinea and one in 1979 in the northern part of 
Papua New Guinea near new Tangu (GBIF Database). In a survey of the Fly 
River system, Papua New Guinea, 23 individuals were captured in 1978 
(Roberts, 1978; Taniuchi and Shimizu, 1991; Taniuchi et al., 1991b; 
Taniuchi, 2002). There are two reports of largetooth sawfish in the 
1980s in Papua New Guinea: One in 1987 and one in 1988 (GBIF Database). 
More recently, 36 largetooth sawfish were captured in September 1989 in 
Papua New Guinea (Taniuchi and Shimizu, 1991; Taniuchi, 2002).
    The scarcity of records from Indo-Pacific led to an increased 
effort to document species presence. Anecdotal evidence suggests that 
largetooth sawfishes have not been recorded in Indo-Pacific for more 
than 25 years (White and Last, 2010). Largetooth sawfish have not been 
recorded in the Mekong River, Laos for decades (Rainboth, 1996). In a 
comprehensive study compiled by Compagno (2002a), no sawfishes were 
found in the South China Sea between the years of 1923 and 1996. Data 
from 200 survey days at fish landing sites in eastern Indonesia between 
2001 and 2005 recorded over 40,000 elasmobranchs, but only 2 largetooth 
sawfish (White and Dharmadi, 2007; Kyne and Feutry, 2013).

Australia

    Australia may have a higher abundance of largetooth sawfish than 
other areas within the species' current range (Thorburn and Morgan, 
2005; Field et al., 2009). Despite their current abundance levels, we 
only identified a few historic records from Australia. The first record 
of a largetooth sawfish was in 1945 in the Northern Territory (Stevens 
et al., 2005). There was a subsequent record in 1947, and two 
largetooth sawfish from the Gulf of Carpentaria, Queensland were 
reported in 1959 (GBIF Database). Faria et al. (2013) obtained a 
rostrum that was collected in Australia in 1960.
    Since the 1980s, we found significantly more records of largetooth 
sawfish in Australia than other regions. A largetooth sawfish was 
captured from the Keep River, Australia in 1981 (Compagno and Last, 
1999). Three largetooth sawfish were recorded in 1984 near Marchinbar 
Island, Northern Territory (GBIF Database). Blaber et al. (1990) found 
that largetooth sawfish were among the top twenty-five most abundant 
species in the trawl fisheries of Albatross Bay from 1986 to 1988. 
Three largetooth sawfish were reported from the Gulf of Carpentaria, 
Queensland: One in 1987 in Walker Creek, one in 1988 in the Gilbert 
River, and one in 1991 in Marrakai Creek, a tributary of the Adelaide 
River, Northern Territory (GBIF Database). Eight individuals were 
captured in the Leichhardt River in 2008 (Morgan et al., 2010b). In a 
preliminary survey of the McArthur River, Northern Territory, Gorham 
(2006) reported two largetooth sawfish captured between 2002 and 2006. 
Surveys (Peverell, 2005; Gill et al., 2006; Peverell, 2008) in the Gulf 
of Carpentaria found largetooth sawfish widely distributed throughout 
the eastern portion of the Gulf with most catches occurring near the 
mouth of

[[Page 73988]]

many rivers (Mitchell, et al., 2005; 2008).
    Juvenile largetooth sawfish in Australia use the Fitzroy River and 
other tributaries of King Sound (Morgan et al., 2004) as nursery areas 
while adults are found more often offshore (Morgan et al., 2010a). In 
Western Australia, besides the Fitzroy River and King Sound, the only 
other areas where juvenile sawfish have been recently recorded are in 
Willie Creek and Roebuck Bay (Gill et al., 2006; Morgan et al., 2011). 
Nursery areas for largetooth sawfish are also reported in northern 
Australia in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Gorham, 2006). Juvenile 
largetooth sawfish have been captured within the Adelaide River, 
Australia in 2013 (P. Kyne, Charles Darwin University, pers. comm., 
2013). Abundance estimates for the largetooth sawfish from areas that 
support higher human populations may be declining (Taniuchi and 
Shimizu, 1991; Taniuchi et al., 1991a; Morgan et al., 2010a). Whitty et 
al. (2009) found that the population of juvenile largetooth sawfish in 
the Fitzroy River had declined; catch per unit effort was 56.7 sawfish 
per 100 hours in 2003 compared to 12.4 in 2009. There were no reported 
captures of largetooth sawfish in 2008 from the Roper River system, 
which drains into the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Northern Territory 
(Dally and Larson, 2008). No adult sawfish were captured in any of the 
prawn trawl fisheries in Queensland, Australia during the month of 
October 2001 (Courtney et al., 2006).
    Outside the northern and western areas of Australia, largetooth 
sawfish do occur but reports are less frequent. In southwestern 
Australian waters, one female sawfish was captured by a commercial 
shark fisherman in February 2003 east of Cape Naturaliste (Chidlow, 
2007). Data from the Queensland, Australia Shark Control Program shows 
a clear decline in sawfish catch over a 30 year period from the 1960s, 
and the complete disappearance of sawfish in southern regions by 1993 
(Stevens et al., 2005).

Eastern Pacific

    In the eastern Pacific, the historic range of largetooth sawfish 
was from Mazatlan, Mexico to Guayaquil, Ecuador (Cook et al., 2005) or 
possibly Peru (Chirichigno and Cornejo, 2001). There is very little 
information on the population status in this region and few reports of 
capture records. The species has been reported in freshwater in the 
Tuyra, Culebra, Tilapa, Chucunaque, Bayeno, and Rio Sambu Rivers, and 
at the Balboa and Miraflores locks in the Panama Canal, Panama; in Rio 
San Juan, Colombia; and in the Rio Goascoran, along the border of El 
Salvador and Honduras (Fowler, 1936, 1941; Beebe and Tee-Van, 1941; 
Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953; Thorson et al., 1966a; Dahl, 1971; 
Thorson, 1974, 1976, 1982a, 1982b, 1987; Compagno and Cook, 1995; all 
as cited in Cook et al., 2005). There are 4 records of largetooth 
sawfish south of Purto Vallarta, Mexico in 1975, and several reports 
from Panama with no associated dates (GBIF Database). The only recent 
reports of largetooth sawfish in this area are anecdotal reports from 
Colombia, Nicaragua, and Panama (R. Graham, Wildlife Conservation 
Society, pers. comm. to IUCN, 2012).

Western Atlantic Ocean

    In the western Atlantic Ocean, largetooth sawfish were widely 
distributed throughout the marine and estuarine waters in tropical and 
subtropical climates and historically found from Brazil through the 
Caribbean, Central America, the Gulf of Mexico, and seasonally into 
waters of the United States (Burgess et al., 2009). Largetooth sawfish 
also occurred in freshwater habitats in Central and South America. 
Throughout the Caribbean Sea, the historical presence of the largetooth 
sawfish is uncertain and early records might have been misidentified 
smalltooth sawfish (G. Burgess, Florida Museum of Natural History, 
pers. comm. to IUCN, 2012).
    Historic records of largetooth sawfish in the western north 
Atlantic have been previously reported in NMFS (2010a). Sawfish were 
documented in Central America in Nicaragua as early as 1529 by a 
Spanish chronicler (Gill and Bransford, 1877). This species was also 
historically reported in Nicaragua by Meek (1907), Regan (1908), Marden 
(1944), Bigelow and Schroeder (1953) and Hagberg (1968). Five 
largetooth sawfish were reported from a survey of Lake Izabal, 
Guatemala from 1946 to 1947, and sawfishes were reported to be 
important to inland fisheries (Saunders et al., 1950). There is a 
single largetooth sawfish report from Honduras, but the true origin of 
the rostrum and the date of capture could not be confirmed (NMFS, 
2010a).
    In Atlantic drainages, largetooth sawfish has been found in 
freshwater at least 833 miles (1,340 km) from the ocean in the Amazon 
River system (Manacapuru, Brazil), as well as in Lake Nicaragua and the 
San Juan River; the Rio Coco, on the border of Nicaragua and Honduras; 
Rio Patuca, Honduras; Lago de Izabal, Rio Motagua, and Rio Dulce, 
Guatemala; and the Belize River, Belize. Largetooth sawfish are found 
in Mexican streams that flow into the Gulf of Mexico; Las Lagunas Del 
Tortuguero, Rio Parismina, Rio Pacuare, and Rio Matina, Costa Rica; and 
the Rio San Juan and the Magdalena River, Colombia (Thorson, 1974, 
1982b; Castro-Augiree, 1978 as cited in Thorson, 1982b; Compagno and 
Cook, 1995; C. Scharpf and M. McDavitt, National Legal Research Group, 
Inc., as cited in Cook et al., 2005).
    In the United States, largetooth sawfish were reported in the Gulf 
of Mexico mainly along the Texas coast east into Florida waters, though 
nearly all records of largetooth sawfish encountered in U.S. waters 
were limited to the Texas coast (NMFS, 2010a). Though reported in the 
United States, it appears that largetooth sawfish were never abundant, 
with approximately 39 confirmed records (33 in Texas) from 1910 through 
1961.
    The Amazon River basin and adjacent waters are traditionally the 
most abundant known range of largetooth sawfish in Brazil (Bates, 1964; 
Marlier, 1967; Furneau, 1969). Most of the records for which location 
is known originated in the state of Amazonas, which encompasses the 
middle section of the Amazon River basin along with the confluence of 
the Rio Negro and Rio Solimoes Rivers. The other known locations are 
from the states of Rio Grande do Norte, Sergipe, Bahia, Espirito Santo, 
Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Para, and Maranhao (NMFS, 2010a). Most 
records of largetooth sawfish in the Amazon River (Amazonia) predate 
1974. The Magdalena River estuary was the primary source for largetooth 
sawfish encounters in Colombia from the 1940's (Miles, 1945), while 
other records originated from the Bahia de Cartagena and Isla de 
Salamanca (both marine), and Rio Sinu (freshwater) from the 1960's 
through the 1980's (Dahl, 1964; 1971; Frank and Rodriguez, 1976; 
Alvarez and Blanco, 1985). In other areas of South America, there are 
only single records from Guyana, French Guiana, and Trinidad from the 
late 1800's and early 1900's. Of the 5 records from Suriname, the most 
recent was 1962. Though thought to have once been abundant in some 
areas of Venezuela (Cervignon, 1966a, 1966b), the most recent confirmed 
records of largetooth sawfish from that country was in 1962.
    Many records in the 1970's and 1980's are largely due to Thorson's 
(1982a, 1982b) research on the Lake Nicaragua-Rio San Juan system in 
Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Bussing (2002) indicated that this species 
was known to inhabit the Rio Tempisque and tributaries of the San Juan 
basin in Costa Rica. Following Thorson's (1982a, 1982b) studies,

[[Page 73989]]

records of largetooth sawfish in the western North Atlantic decline 
considerably. By 1981, Thorson (1982a) was unable to locate a single 
live specimen in the original areas he surveyed. There are no known 
Nicaraguan records of the largetooth sawfish outside of the Lake 
Nicaragua-Rio San Juan-Rio Colorado system (Burgess et al., 2009), 
although largetooth sawfish are still captured incidentally by fishers 
netting for other species (McDavitt, 2002). Of the known largetooth 
sawfish reported from Mexico, most records are prior to 1978 (NMFS, 
2010a). Caribbean records are very sparse (NMFS, 2010a). The last 
record of a largetooth sawfish in U.S. waters was in 1961 (Burgess et 
al., 2009).
    Most recent records for largetooth sawfish are in isolated areas. 
While many reports of largetooth sawfish from Brazil were from the 
1980's and 1990's (Lessa, 1986; Martins-Juras et al., 1987; Stride and 
Batista, 1992; Menni and Lessa, 1998; and Lessa et al., 1999), recent 
records indicate largetooth sawfish are primarily found in fish markets 
near the Amazon-Orinoco estuaries (Charvet-Almeida, 2002; Burgess et 
al., 2009). A Lake Nicaragua fisherman reports he encounters a few 
sawfish annually (McDavitt, 2002). Other records are rare for the area. 
Three recent occurrences were found in Internet searches, one being a 
200 lb. (90.7 kg) specimen caught recreationally in Costa Rica (Burgess 
et al., 2009). Though reported by Thorson et al. (1966a, 1966b) to be 
common throughout the area, there are no recent reports of encounters 
with sawfishes in Guatemala. Scientists in Colombia have not reported 
any sawfish sightings between 1999 and 2009 (Burgess et al., 2009).

Eastern Atlantic Ocean

    Historic records indicate that largetooth sawfish were once 
relatively common in the coastal estuaries along the west coast of 
Africa. Verified records exist from Senegal (1841-1902), Gambia (1885-
1909), Guinea-Bissau (1912), Republic of Guinea (1965), Sierra Leone 
(date unknown), Liberia (1927), C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire (1881-1923), Congo 
(1951-1958), Democratic Republic of the Congo (1951-1959), and Angola 
(1951). Most records, however, lacked species identification and 
locality data and may have been confused taxonomically with other 
species. Unpublished notes from a 1950's survey detail 12 largetooth 
sawfish from Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea, C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, and 
Nigeria, ranging in size from 35-275 in (89-700 cm) TL (Burgess et al., 
2009).
    A more recent status review by Ballouard et al. (2006) reported 
that sawfishes, including the largetooth sawfish, were once common from 
Mauritania to the Republic of Guinea, but are now rarely captured or 
encountered. According to this report, the range of sawfishes has 
decreased to the Bissagos Archipelago (Guinea Bissau). The most recent 
sawfish encounters outside Guinea Bissau were in the 1990's in 
Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia, and the Republic of Guinea. The most 
recent documented largetooth sawfish capture was from 2005 in Nord de 
Caravela (Guinea Bissau), along with anecdotal accounts from fishers of 
captures off of two islands in the same area in 2008 (Burgess et al., 
2009).
    In summary, on a global scale, largetooth sawfish appear to have 
been severely fragmented throughout their historic range into isolated 
populations of low abundance. Largetooth sawfish are now considered 
very rare in many places where evidence is available, including parts 
of East Africa, India, parts of the Indo-Pacific region, Central and 
South America and West Africa. Even within areas like Australia and 
Brazil, the species is primarily located in remote areas. Information 
from genetic studies indicates that largetooth sawfish display strong 
sex-biased dispersal patterns; with females exhibiting patterns of 
natal philopatry while males move more broadly between populations 
(Phillips et al., 2011). Thus, the opportunity for re-establishment of 
these isolated populations is limited because any reduction in female 
abundance in one region is not likely to be replenished by movement 
from another region (Phillips, 2012).

Natural History of Green Sawfish (Pristis zijsron)

Taxonomy and Morphology

    Pristis zijsron (Bleeker, 1851) is frequently known as the 
narrowsnout sawfish or the green sawfish. Synonymous names include P. 
dubius (Gloerfelt-Tarp and Kailola, 1984; Van Oijen et al., 2007; 
Wueringer et al., 2009). An alternative spelling for this species' 
scientific name (P. zysron) is found in older literature, due to either 
inconsistent writing or errors in translation or transcription (Van 
Oijen et al., 2007).
    The green sawfish has a narrow saw with 25-32 small, slender 
rostral teeth; tooth count may vary geographically (Marichamy, 1969; 
Last and Stevens, 1994; Morgan et al., 2010a). Specimens collected 
along the west coast of Australia have 24-30 left rostral teeth and 23-
30 right rostral teeth (Morgan et al., 2010a), although other reports 
are 23-34 (Morgan et al., 2011). There have been no studies to 
determine sexual dimorphism from rostral tooth counts for green 
sawfish. The rostral teeth are generally denser near the base of the 
saw than at the apical part of the saw (Blegvad and Loppenthin, 1944). 
The total rostrum length is between 20.6-29.3 percent of the total 
length of the animal and may vary based on the number and size of 
individuals. In general, green sawfish have a greater rostrum length to 
total length ratio than other sawfish species (Morgan et al., 2010a, 
2011).
    In terms of body morphology, the origin of the first dorsal fin on 
green sawfish is slightly posterior to the origin of pelvic fins. The 
lower caudal lobe is not well defined and there is no subterminal notch 
(Gloerfelt-Tarp and Kailola, 1984; Compagno et al., 1989; Last and 
Stevens, 1994; Compagno and Last, 1999; Bonfil and Abdallah, 2004; 
Wueringer et al., 2009; Morgan et al., 2010a; Morgan et al., 2011). The 
green sawfish has limited buccopharyngeal denticles and regularly 
overlapping monocuspidate dermal denticles on its skin. As a result, 
there are no keels or furrows formed on the skin (Deynat, 2005). The 
green sawfish is greenish brown dorsally and white ventrally. This 
species might be confused with the dwarf or smalltooth sawfish due to 
its similar size and range (Compagno et al., 2006c).

Habitat Use and Migration

    The green sawfish mostly uses inshore, marine habitats, but it has 
been found in freshwater environments (Gloerfelt-Tarp and Kailola, 
1984; Compagno et al., 1989; Compagno, 2002b; Stevens et al., 2008; 
Wueringer et al., 2009). In the Gilbert and Walsh Rivers of Queensland, 
Australia, specimens have been captured as far as 149 miles (240 km) 
upriver (Grant, 1991). However, Morgan et al. (2010a, 2011) report 
green sawfish do not move into freshwater for any portion of their 
lifecycle. Like most sawfishes, the green sawfish prefers muddy bottoms 
in estuarine environments (Last, 2002). The maximum depth recorded for 
this species is 131 ft (40 m) but it is often found in much shallower 
waters, around 16 ft (5 m; Compagno and Last, 1999; Wueringer et al., 
2009). Adults tend to spend more time in offshore waters in Australia, 
as indicated by interactions with the offshore Pilbara Fish Trawl 
Fishery, while juveniles prefer protected, inshore waters (Morgan et 
al., 2010a; Morgan et al., 2011).

[[Page 73990]]

Age and Growth

    At birth pups are between 2 ft and 2 ft 7 in (61 and 80 cm) TL. At 
age 1 green sawfish are generally around 4 ft 3 in (130 cm) TL (Morgan 
et al., 2010a). Peverell (2008) found between ages 1 and 5, green 
sawfish measure between 4 ft 2 in and 8 ft 5 in (128 and 257 cm) TL, 
based on the vertebral analysis of 6 individuals (Peverell, 2008; 
Morgan et al., 2010a; Morgan et al., 2011). A 12 ft 6 in (380 cm) TL 
green sawfish was found to be age 8, a 14 ft 4 in (438 cm) TL 
individual was found to be age 10, a 14 ft 9 in (449 cm) TL specimen 
was found to be age 16, and a 15 ft (482 cm) TL specimen was found to 
be age 18 (Peverell, 2008; Morgan et al., 2011).
    Adult green sawfish often reach 16 ft 5 in (5 m) TL, but may grow 
as large as 23 ft (7 m) TL (Compagno et al., 1989; Grant, 1991; Last 
and Stevens, 1994; Compagno and Last, 1999; Bonfil and Abdallah, 2004; 
Compagno et al., 2006c; Morgan et al., 2010a). The largest green 
sawfish collected in Australia was estimated to be 19 ft 8 in (600 cm) 
TL based on a rostrum length of 5 ft 5 in (165.5 cm; Morgan et al., 
2010a; Morgan et al., 2011).
    Peverell (2008) completed an age and growth study for green sawfish 
using vertebral growth bands. Von Bertalanffy growth model parameters 
from both sexes combined resulted in estimated maximum theoretical size 
of 16 ft (482 cm) TL, relative growth rate of 0.12 per year and 
theoretical time at zero length of 1.12 yrs. The theoretical maximum 
age for this species is calculated to be 53 years (Peverell, 2008; 
Morgan et al., 2010a).

Reproduction

    Last and Stevens (2009) reported size at maturity for green sawfish 
at 9 ft 10 in (300 cm) TL, corresponding to age 9. In contrast, 
Peverell (2008) reported one mature individual of 12 ft 4 in (380 cm) 
TL and estimated its age as 9 yrs. Using the growth function from 
Peverell (2008) and assuming length of maturity at 118 in (300 cm), 
Moreno Iturria (2012) determined maturation is likely to occur at age 
5. Demographic models based on life history data from the Gulf of 
Carpentaria indicate the generation time is 14.6 years, the intrinsic 
rate of population increase is 0.02 per year, and population doubling 
time is approximately 28 years (Moreno Iturria, 2012).
    Green sawfish give birth to as many as 12 pups during the wet 
season (January through July); Last and Stevens, 1994; Peverell, 2008; 
Morgan et al., 2010a, 2011). In Western Australia, females are known to 
pup in areas between One Arm Point and Whim Creek, with limited data 
for all other areas (Morgan et al., 2010a; Morgan et al., 2011). The 
Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia is also a known nursery area for green 
sawfish (Gorham, 2006). It is not known where the green sawfish breed 
or their length of gestation.

Diet and Feeding

    Like other sawfish, green sawfish use their rostra to stun small, 
schooling fishes, such as mullet, or use it to dig up benthic prey, 
including mollusks and crustaceans (Breder Jr., 1952; Rainboth, 1996; 
Raje and Joshi, 2003; Compagno et al., 2006c; Last and Stevens, 2009). 
One specimen captured in 1967 in the Indian Ocean had jacks and razor 
fish (Caranx and Centriscus) species in its stomach (Marichamy, 1969). 
In Australia, the diet of this species often includes shrimp, croaker, 
salmon, glassfish, grunter, and ponyfish (Morgan et al., 2010a).

Population Structure

    Faria et al. (2013) found no global population structure for green 
sawfish in their genetic studies. However, geographical variation was 
found in the number of rostral teeth per side, suggesting some 
population structure may occur. Green sawfish from the Indian Ocean 
have a higher number of rostral teeth per side than those from western 
Pacific specimens (Faria et al., 2013).
    In Australia, genetic analysis found differences in green sawfish 
between the west coast, the east coast, and the Gulf of Carpentaria 
(Phillips et al., 2011). Genetic data suggests these populations are 
structured matrilineally (from the mother to daughter) but there is no 
information on male gene flow at this time. These results may be 
indicative of philopatry where adult females return to or remain in the 
same area they were born (Morgan et al., 2010a; Morgan et al., 2011; 
Phillips et al., 2011). Phillips et al. (2011) also found low levels of 
genetic diversity for green sawfish in the Gulf of Carpentaria, 
suggesting the population may have undergone a genetic bottleneck.

Distribution and Abundance

    The green sawfish historically ranged throughout the Indo-West 
Pacific from South Africa northward along the east coast of Africa, 
through the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Southern Asia, Indo-Australian 
archipelago, and east to Asia as far north as Taiwan and Southern China 
(Fowler, 1941; Blegvad and L[oslash]ppenthin, 1944; Smith, 1945; Misra, 
1969; Compagno et al., 2002a, 2002b; Last and Stevens, 2009). Historic 
records indicating species presence are available from India, Southeast 
Asia, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, New South Wales, and Australia 
(Cavanagh et al., 2003; Wueringer et al., 2009; Morgan et al., 2010a; 
Morgan et al., 2011). Green sawfish have also been found in South 
Africa, the South China Sea, and the Persian Gulf (Fowler, 1941; 
Compagno et al., 1989; Grant, 1991; Compagno and Last, 1999; Last, 
2002; Compagno, 2002b; Morgan et al., 2010a). To evaluate the current 
distribution and abundance of the green sawfish, we conducted an 
extensive search of peer-reviewed publications and technical reports, 
newspaper, magazine articles, and the GBIF Database. The results are 
summarized by geographic area.

Indian Ocean

    Green sawfish are widely distributed throughout the Indian Ocean 
with the first record coming from Saudi Arabia in 1830 (GBIF Database). 
An additional record was reported from the Indian Ocean in the 1850s 
(GBIF Database). Several green sawfish were described near the Indian 
archipelago in the late 1800s (Van Oijen et al., 2007). Additional 
historical records include one female specimen captured in the Red Sea 
near Dollfus in 1929. In Egypt, two green sawfish rostra were found in 
1938, and an additional rostrum was found on Henjam Island, Gulf of 
Oman (Blegvad and Loppenthin, 1994).
    Unconfirmed reports of green sawfish are available from the Andaman 
and Nicobar Islands, India. In 1963, a male was captured at Port Blair, 
Gulf of Andaman (James, 1973). A female was captured in 1967, in the 
same area (Marichamy, 1969). One green sawfish was captured in the St. 
Lucia estuary, South Africa during a survey between 1975 and 1976 
(Whitfield, 1999). In 1984, a green sawfish was observed in Trafalgar, 
South Africa (GBIF Database).
    Despite historic records, there are few current records of green 
sawfish in the Indian Ocean. There are some reports of green sawfish 
from Iraq, Iran, South Africa, and Pakistan, but no dates are available 
(GBIF Database). We presume green sawfish are extremely rare or 
extirpated in the Indian Ocean based on the lack of current records.

Indo-Pacific Ocean (Excluding Australia)

    The first description of the green sawfish was based on a rostral 
saw (Bleeker, 1851) from Bandjarmasin, Borneo (Van Oijen et al., 2007). 
A juvenile male was captured in Amboine, Indonesia in 1856 (Deynat, 
2005). An isolated saw from the Gulf of Thailand

[[Page 73991]]

was obtained in 1895 and estimated to be from a green sawfish 4 ft 8 in 
(143 cm) TL (Deynat, 2005). Eight specimens were sent to the Wistar 
Institute of Anatomy in 1898 from Baram, British North Borneo (Fowler, 
1941). One green sawfish was reported from East Sepik, Papua New Guinea 
in 1929 (GBIF Database). In 1940, a green sawfish specimen was 
collected from Zamboanga, Philippines (GBIF Database).
    Many islands within the Indo-Pacific region contain suitable 
habitat for sawfish, but few records are available, possibly due to the 
lack of surveys or data reporting. Before 1995, there were few local 
scientific studies on elasmobranchs, and only two species of freshwater 
rays had been recorded in Borneo. As a result, a great effort to 
document any unknown species was undertaken by Fowler (2002). Rostra 
and records were documented in the study, including several dried 
rostra of green sawfish from the Kinabatangan River area in the local 
markets of Sabah, Borneo; no collection specifics were provided. Locals 
also indicated that this species could often be found in the Labuk Bay 
area (Manjaji, 2002a) and in the country's freshwater systems (Manjaji, 
2002b); they also reported a decline of sawfish populations overall.
    Elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region, few records of green sawfish 
have been reported. This species is currently considered endangered in 
Thailand by Vidthayanon (2002) and Compagno (2002a); they also reported 
no sawfish species from the South China Sea from 1923 to 1996. 
Anecdotal evidence suggests that sawfishes have not been recorded in 
Indonesia for more than 25 years (White and Last, 2010). Several 
reports of green sawfish exist from Malaysia, Indonesia, and New 
Zealand without any associated dates (GBIF Database).

Australia

    In Australian waters, the earliest museum collection of the green 
sawfish was in 1913 in Llyod Bay, Queensland, Australia (GBIF 
Database). The Queensland Museum houses a green sawfish specimen 
collected in 1929 that was found in Moreton Bay, Queensland (Fowler, 
1941). Two records exist of green sawfish collected in 1936 from 
Adeliade, South Australia (GBIF Database). We found very few records 
for green sawfish during the middle part of the last century. In the 
late 1970s and 1980s, reports of green sawfish began to occur again. In 
1978, green sawfish were recorded in the Western Territory by CSIRO 
(GBIF Database). There are multiple observations in 1980 of green 
sawfish in Australia: two from the Northern Territory, and one from the 
Gulf of Carpentaria (GBIF Database). A green sawfish was observed in 
the Gulf of Carpentaria in 1981 by CSIRO. Two were observed in Western 
Australia, one in 1982 and one in 1983 (GBIF Database). Two green 
sawfish were captured from Balgal, Queensland, Australia in 1985 
(Beveridge and Campbell, 2005). In the Gulf of Carpentaria, two green 
sawfish were recorded in 1986, and one was recorded in 1987 (GBIF 
Database).
    One green sawfish was caught in the southern portion of the Gulf of 
Carpentaria in late 1990 during a fish fauna survey (Blaber et al., 
1994). Alexander (1991) captured a female green sawfish from the west 
coast of Australia that was used for a morphological study. Between 
1994 and 2010, almost 50 tissue samples were taken from live green 
sawfish or dried rostra from multiple areas around Australia, primarily 
the Gulf of Carpentaria and northwest and northeast coasts (Phillips et 
al., 2011). In 1997, one green sawfish was found at the mouth of 
Buffalo Creek near Darwin, Northern Territory (Chisholm and 
Whittington, 2000). In a survey from 1999 through 2001 by White and 
Potter, (2004), one green sawfish was captured in Shark Bay, 
Queensland. In 1999, one green sawfish was captured by CSIRO from the 
Gulf of Carpentaria (GBIF Database). Peverell (2005, 2008) noted the 
green sawfish was one of the least encountered species in a survey from 
the Gulf of Carpentaria. In 2004, one green sawfish was reported near 
Darwin, Northern Territory by the European Molecular Biology Lab (GBIF 
Database). No green sawfish were captured from the Roper River system 
in 2008, which drains into the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Northern 
Territory (Dally and Larson, 2008). Some records have been reported for 
the east coast of Australia; one female green sawfish was acoustically 
tracked for 27 hours in May 2004 (Peverell and Pillans, 2004; Porteous, 
2004). Peverell (2005, 2008) noted the green sawfish was one of the 
least encountered species in a survey from the Gulf of Carpentaria.
    In summary, limited data makes it difficult to determine the 
current range and abundance of green sawfish. Nonetheless, given the 
uniqueness (size and physical characteristics) of the sawfish, we 
believe the lack of records in the areas where the species was 
historically found indicates the species is no longer present or has 
declined to extremely low levels. Extensive surveys at fish landing 
sites throughout Indonesia since 2001 have failed to record the green 
sawfish (White pers. comm. to IUCN, 2012). There is some evidence from 
the Persian Gulf and Red Sea (e.g., Sudan) of small but extant 
populations (A. Moore, RSK Environment Ltd., pers. comm. to IUCN, 
2012). Green sawfish are currently found primarily along the northern 
coast of Australia, but all sawfish species have undergone significant 
declines in Australian waters. The southern extent of the range of 
green sawfishes in Australia has contracted (Harry et al., 2011). Green 
sawfish have been reported as far south as Sydney, New South Wales, but 
are rarely found as far south as Townsville, Queensland (Porteous, 
2004).

Natural History of the Non-Listed Population(s) of Smalltooth Sawfish 
(Pristis pectinata)

    This section includes information from the listed U.S. DPS of 
smalltooth sawfish. The U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish was listed as 
endangered on April 1, 2003 (68 FR 15674). The basis of the U.S. DPS 
smalltooth sawfish listing was the significant differences in 
management across international borders. We discuss information from 
the U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish here because there is very little 
basic biological information on smalltooth sawfish found outside the 
U.S. We believe the information from the U.S. DPS is likely 
representative of the non-U.S. population of smalltooth sawfish and is 
useful for understanding its biology and extinction risk.

Taxonomy and Morphology

    The smalltooth sawfish was first described as Pristis pectinatus, 
Latham 1794. The name was changed to the currently valid P. pectinata 
to match gender of the genus and species as required by the 
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.
    The smalltooth sawfish has a thick body with a moderately sized 
rostrum. As with many other sawfishes, tooth count varies by individual 
or region. While there is no reported difference in rostral tooth count 
between sexes, there have been reports of sexual dimorphism in tooth 
shape, with males having broader teeth than females (Wueringer et al., 
2009). Rostral teeth are denser near the apex of the saw than the base. 
Most studies report a rostral tooth count of 25 to 29 for smalltooth 
sawfish (Wueringer et al., 2009). The saw may constitute up to one-
fourth of the total body length (McEachran and De Carvalho, 2002).
    The pectoral fins are broad and long with the origin of the first 
dorsal fin over or anterior to the origin of the

[[Page 73992]]

pelvic fins (Faria et al., 2013). The lower caudal lobe is not well 
defined and lacks a ventral lobe (Wallace, 1967; Gloerfelt-Tarp and 
Kailola, 1984; Last and Stevens, 1994; Compagno and Last, 1999; Bonfil 
and Abdallah, 2004; Wueringer et al., 2009). This species has between 
228 and 232 vertebrae (Wallace, 1967).
    The smalltooth sawfish has buccopharyngeal denticles and regularly 
overlapping monocuspidate (single-pointed) dermal denticles on their 
skin. As a result, there are no keels or furrows formed on the skin 
(Last and Stevens, 1994; Deynat, 2005). The body is an olive grey color 
dorsally, with a white ventral surface (Compagno et al., 1989; Last and 
Stevens, 1994; Compagno and Last, 1999). This species may be confused 
with the narrow or green sawfish (Compagno, 2002b).

Habitat Use and Migration

    All research on habitat use and migration has been conducted on the 
U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish. A summary of recent information (NMFS, 
2010b) indicates smalltooth sawfish are generally found in shallow 
waters with varying salinity level that are associated with red 
mangroves (Rhizophora mangle). Juvenile sawfish appear to have small 
home ranges and limited movements. Simpfendorfer et al. (2011) reported 
smalltooth sawfish have an affinity for salinities between 18 and at 
least 24 ppt, suggesting movements are likely made, in part, to remain 
within this salinity range. Therefore, freshwater flow may affect the 
location of individuals within an estuary. Poulakis et al. (2011) found 
juvenile smalltooth sawfish had an affinity for water less than 3 ft 
(1.0 m) deep, water temperatures greater than 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 
degrees Celsius), dissolved oxygen greater than 6 mg per liter, and 
salinity between 18 and 30 ppt. Greater catch rates for smalltooth 
sawfish less than 1 year old were associated with shoreline habitats 
with overhanging vegetation such as mangroves. Poulakis et al. (2012) 
further determined daily activity space of smalltooth sawfish is less 
than 1 mi (0.7 km) of river distance. Hollensead (2012) reported 
smalltooth sawfish activity areas ranged in size from 837 square yards 
to 240,000 square yards to approximately 3 million square yards (0.0007 
to 2.59 km\2\) with average range of movements of 2.3 yards to 6.67 
yards (2.4 to 6.1 m) per minute. Hollensead (2012) also found no 
difference in activity area or range of movement between ebb and flood, 
or high and low tide. Smalltooth sawfish movements at night suggest 
possible nocturnal foraging. Using a combination of data from pop-off 
archival transmitting tags across multiple institutional programs, 
movements and habitat use of adult smalltooth sawfish were determined 
in southern Florida and the Bahamas (Carlson et al., 2013). Smalltooth 
sawfish generally remained in coastal waters at shallow depths less 
than 32 ft; (10 m) for more than 96 percent of the time that they were 
monitored. Smalltooth sawfish also remained in warm water temperatures 
of 71.6 to 82.4 degrees Fahrenheit (22 to 28 degrees Celsius) within 
the region where they were initially tagged. Tagged smalltooth sawfish 
traveled an average of 49 mi (80.2 km) from deployment to pop-off 
location during an average of 95 days. No smalltooth sawfish tagged in 
U.S. or Bahamian waters have been tracked to countries outside where 
they were tagged.

Age and Growth

    There is no age and growth data for smalltooth sawfish outside of 
the U.S. DPS. A summary of age and growth data on the U.S. DPS of 
smalltooth sawfish (NMFS, 2010b) indicates rapid juvenile growth for 
smalltooth sawfish for the first two years after birth. Recently, 
Scharer et al. (2012) counted bands on sectioned vertebrae from 
naturally deceased smalltooth sawfish and estimated von Bertalanffy 
growth parameters. Theoretical maximum size was estimated at 14.7 ft 
(4.48 m), relative growth was 0.219 per year, with theoretical maximum 
size at 15.8 years.

Reproduction

    In the eastern Atlantic Ocean, smalltooth sawfish have been 
recorded breeding in Richard's Bay and St. Lucia, South Africa 
(Wallace, 1967; Compagno et al., 1989; Compagno and Last, 1999). 
Pupping grounds are usually inshore, in marine or fresh water. Pupping 
occurs year-around in the tropics, but in only spring and summer at 
higher latitudes (Compagno and Last, 1999). Records of captive breeding 
have been reported from the Atlantis Paradise Island Resort Aquarium in 
Nassau, Bahamas; copulatory behavior was observed in 2003 and six 
months later the female aborted the pups for unknown reasons (McDavitt, 
2006). In October 2012, a female sawfish gave birth to five live pups 
at the Atlantis Paradise Island Resort Aquarium in Nassau, Bahamas (J. 
Choromanski, Ripley's Entertainment pers. comm to NMFS, 2013).
    Several studies have examined demography of smalltooth sawfish in 
U.S. waters. Moreno Iturria (2012) calculated demographic parameters 
for smalltooth sawfish in U.S. waters and estimated intrinsic rates of 
increase at seven percent annually with a population doubling time of 
9.7 years. However, preliminary results of a different model by Carlson 
et al. (2012) indicates population increase rates may be greater, up to 
17.6 percent annually, for the U.S. population of smalltooth sawfish. 
It is not clear which of these models is more appropriate for the non-
U.S. population of smalltooth sawfish.

Diet and Feeding

    Smalltooth sawfish often use their rostrum saw in a side-sweeping 
motion to stun their prey, which may include small fishes, or to dig up 
invertebrates from the bottom (Breder Jr., 1952; Compagno et al., 1989; 
Rainboth, 1996; McEachran and De Carvalho, 2002; Raje and Joshi, 2003; 
Last and Stevens, 2009; Wueringer et al., 2009).

Population Structure

    A qualitative examination of genetic sequences revealed no 
geographical structuring of smalltooth sawfish haplotypes; however, 
variation in the number of rostral teeth per side was found in 
specimens from the western and eastern Atlantic Ocean (Faria et al., 
2013).

Distribution and Abundance

    Smalltooth sawfish were thought to be historically found in South 
Africa, Madagascar, the Red Sea, Arabia, India, the Philippines, along 
the coast of West Africa, portions of South America including Brazil, 
Ecuador, the Caribbean Sea, the Mexican Gulf of Mexico, as well as 
Bermuda (Bigelow and Scheroder, 1953; Wallace, 1967; Van der Elst 1981; 
Compagno et al., 1989; Last and Stevens, 1994; IUCN, 1996; Compagno and 
Last, 1999; McEachran and De Carvalho, 2002; Monte-Luna et al., 2009; 
Wueringer et al., 2009). Yet, reports of smalltooth sawfish from other 
than the Atlantic Ocean are likely misidentifications of other sawfish 
(Faria et al., 2013). The lack of confirmed reports of smalltooth 
sawfish from areas other than the Atlantic Ocean indicates that 
smalltooth sawfish are only found in the Atlantic Ocean. In the eastern 
Atlantic Ocean, smalltooth sawfish were historically found along the 
west coast of Africa from Angola to Mauritania (Faria et al., 2013). 
Although smalltooth sawfish were included in historic faunal lists of 
species found in the Mediterranean Sea (Serena, 2005), it is still 
unclear if smalltooth sawfish occurred as part of the Mediterranean 
ichthyofauna or were only seasonal migrants.
    To evaluate the current and historic distribution and abundance of 
the

[[Page 73993]]

smalltooth sawfish outside the U.S. DPS, we conducted an extensive 
search of peer-reviewed publications and technical reports, newspaper, 
records from the GBIF Database, and magazine articles. The results of 
that search are summarized by major geographic region.

Eastern Atlantic Ocean

    Smalltooth sawfish were once common in waters off the west coast of 
Africa, but are now rarely reported or documented in the area. The 
earliest record of a smalltooth sawfish is a specimen from Namibia in 
1874 (GBIF Database). Other records of smalltooth sawfish in Africa 
occurred in 1907 from Cameroon, five males and two females. Female 
specimens were recorded in the Republic of the Congo in 1911 and 1948. 
Other reports from the Republic of Congo include a male and two 
females, but dates were not recorded. An undated female specimen from 
Mauritania was recorded (Faria et al., 2013). A rostrum from Pointe 
Noire, Molez, Republic of the Congo was found in 1958 (Deynat, 2005; 
Faria et al., 2013). There are records of smalltooth sawfish from 
Senegal as early as 1956 and another rostral saw was recorded in 1959. 
Faria et al. (2013) also reports on four other rostra from Senegal, but 
no other information is available.
    Many records of smalltooth sawfish from the eastern Atlantic Ocean 
are reported in the GBIF database during the 1960s, particularly 
between 1963 and 1964. The majority of these records are from Nigeria 
(118), but others are from Gabon (77), Ghana (51), Cameroon (43), and 
Liberia (39). Another online database, Fishbase (www.fishbase.org), has 
the same records. It is unclear if these records are duplicative due to 
the lack of specific information.
    In the 1970s, records of smalltooth sawfish became limited to more 
northern areas of West Africa. One rostral saw from Senegal was 
recorded in 1975 (Alexander, 1991). Similarly, one rostral saw was 
reported from Gambia in 1977, but information about exact location or 
sex of the animal was absent (Faria et al., 2013). Faria et al. (2013) 
report a record of smalltooth sawfish in Guinea-Bissau in 1983 and a 
record of a saw in 1987. For a morphological study, Deynat (2005) 
obtained a juvenile female from Cacheu, Guinea-Bissau in 1983, and 
another from Port-Etienne, Mauritania, in 1986. Two rostra were 
reported from the Republic of Guinea, one in 1980 and one in 1988 
(Faria et al., 2013).
    In the last 10 years, there has been only one confirmed record of a 
smalltooth sawfish in the eastern Atlantic Ocean in Sierra Leone, West 
Africa, in 2003 (M. Diop, pers. comm. to IUCN, 2012). Two other 
countries have recently reported sawfish (Guinea Bissau, Africa in 
2011, and Mauritania in 2010), but these reports did not identify the 
species as smalltooth sawfish.

Western Atlantic Ocean (Outside U.S Waters)

    Overall, records of smalltooth sawfish in the western Atlantic 
Ocean are scarce and show a non-continuous range, potentially due to 
misidentification with largetooth sawfish. Faria et al. (2013) 
summarized most records of smalltooth sawfish in these areas. Faria et 
al. (2013) report the earliest records are a female smalltooth sawfish 
from Haiti in 1831 and a female sawfish from Trinidad and Tobago in 
1876 (Faria et al., 2013). One smalltooth sawfish was recorded in 
Bel[eacute]m, Brazil in 1863 (GBIF Database). Two smalltooth sawfish 
saws were reported from Guyana in 1886, and an additional saw was later 
recorded in 1900. In Brazil, there is a 1910 report of a female 
smalltooth sawfish. In 1914, there is a report of a smalltooth sawfish 
in Laguna de Terminos, Mexico (GBIF Database).
    In the middle part of the twentieth century, there are reports of 
two female smalltooth sawfish from Mexico in 1926. Rostral saws were 
found in Suriname in 1943, 1944, and 1963, but no additional location 
or specimen information is known. One rostrum was reported from Costa 
Rica in 1960 and one rostral saw from Trinidad and Tobago in 1944 
(Faria et al., 2013). Several whole individuals and one rostrum were 
recorded from Guyana in 1958 and 1960. There are also several other 
undated specimens recorded from Guyana from this period (Faria et al., 
2013). There are other records of smalltooth sawfish's presence in the 
western Atlantic Ocean but specific information is lacking. For 
example, Faria et al. (2013) report that 4 rostral saws came from 
Mexico and two from Belize. One female was reported from Venezuela and 
two rostra from Trinidad and Tobago. Despite lacking date information, 
the GBIF Database and Fishbase have reports of smalltooth sawfish 
throughout South and Central America: French Guiana (48), M[eacute]xico 
(9), Guyana (6), Venezuela (3), Hait[iacute] (2), and individual 
records from Colombia, Nicaragua, and Belize.
    In summary, while records are sparse, it is likely the distribution 
of smalltooth sawfish in the Atlantic Ocean is patchy and has been 
reduced in a pattern similar to largetooth sawfish. Data suggests only 
a few viable populations might exist outside the United States. The 
Caribbean Sea may have greater numbers of smalltooth sawfish than other 
areas given high quality habitats and reduced urbanization. For 
example, smalltooth sawfish have been repeatedly reported along the 
western coast of Andros Island, Bahamas (R.D. Grubbs, Florida State 
University pers. comm. to J. Carlson, NMFS, 2014) and The Nature 
Conservancy noted two smalltooth sawfish at the northern and southern 
end of the island in 2006. Fishing guides commonly encounter smalltooth 
sawfish around Andros Island while fishing for bonefish and tarpon 
(R.D. Grubbs pers. comm. to J. Carlson, NMFS, 2014), and researchers 
tagged two in 2010 (Carlson et al., 2013). In Bimini, Bahamas, 
generally one smalltooth sawfish has been caught every two years as 
part of shark surveys conducted by the Bimini Biological Station (D. 
Chapman pers. comm.to Carlson, NMFS). In West Africa, Guinea Bissau 
represents the last areas where sawfish can be found (M. Diop pers. 
comm. to IUCN, 2012). Anecdotal reports indicate smalltooth sawfish may 
also be found in localized areas off Honduras, Belize, and Cuba (R. 
Graham, Wildlife Conservation Society, pers. comm. to IUCN, 2012).

Peer Review and Public Comments

    In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued 
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review pursuant to the 
Information Quality Act (IQA). The Bulletin was published in the 
Federal Register on January 14, 2005 (70 FR 2664). The Bulletin 
established minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for 
public disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public 
participation with regard to certain types of information disseminated 
by the Federal Government. The peer review requirements of the OMB 
Bulletin apply to influential or highly influential scientific 
information. The proposed rule and included status review were 
considered influential scientific information under this policy and 
subject to peer review. Similarly, a joint NMFS/FWS policy (59 FR 
34270; July 1, 1994) requires us to solicit independent expert review 
from at least three qualified specialists, concurrent with the public 
comment period, on the science that is the basis for listing decisions. 
To ensure this final rule was based on the best scientific and 
commercial data available, we solicited peer review comments from three 
scientists familiar with elasmobranchs.
    On June 4, 2013, we published a proposed rule to list as endangered 
five species of sawfish: Narrow sawfish (A.

[[Page 73994]]

cuspidata), dwarf sawfish (P. clavata), largetooth sawfish (P. 
pristis), green sawfish (P. zijsron), and the non-U.S. DPS of 
smalltooth sawfish (P. pectinata), that occurs outside U.S. waters, and 
opened a 90-day public comment period (78 FR 33300). In the proposed 
rule, we stated that we were not proposing to designate critical 
habitat for any of the five species because they occur outside U.S. 
waters. During our comment period we received a request to extend the 
public comment period by 45 days. On August 7, 2013, we published a 
notice extending the public comment period by 45 days (78 FR 48134). We 
received a total of four public comments.
    In the following sections of the document we summarize and respond 
to the comments received from the public and peer reviewers on the 
proposed rule.

Peer Review Comments

    Comment 1: One commenter noted that the section of the proposed 
rule addressing protective efforts did not include details on the 
Sawfish Conservation Strategy developed by the IUCN Shark Specialist 
Group. The commenter stated that the strategy is a protective effort 
and will improve the conservation status of sawfishes worldwide. The 
commenter predicted a medium to high certainty that the actions 
identified in the Conservation Plan, when implemented, will be 
effective.
    Response: We have included the IUCN Sawfish Conservation Strategy 
in the Protective Efforts section of this final rule. The Services 
established two basic criteria in the PECE for evaluating conservation 
efforts: (1) The certainty that the conservation efforts will be 
implemented, and (2) the certainty that the efforts will be effective. 
We evaluated the IUCN Sawfish Conservation Strategy and determined it 
does not meet either criterion identified in the PECE. The strategy 
identifies actions for countries to develop regulations or adopt 
management actions to implement the strategy. However, the strategy 
does not legally bind any country to enact laws or regulations, fund 
conservation actions, or otherwise implement the strategy. We believe 
there is considerable uncertainty that the actions identified in the 
strategy will be adopted by the various countries within the range of 
the five species of sawfish, and that resources are limited to support 
these actions. Therefore, we cannot find that the strategy will 
decrease extinction risk for any of the species.
    Comment 2: One commenter stated that the Protective Efforts section 
of the proposed rule did not include national protective efforts except 
for the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild 
Fauna and Flora (CITES). The commenter stated that sawfish protections 
in Australia were likely effective, but protections in India were 
likely ineffective.
    Response: We updated the Protective Efforts section of the rule and 
included the new information on sawfish protections and conservation 
efforts in Australia from the Australian Government's recently 
published 2014 Draft Recovery Plan for Sawfish and River Sharks 
(Department of Environment, 2014). We also included updated information 
on existing laws in Australia and India designed to protect sawfishes 
into the Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section of this 
final rule.
    Comment 3: It was suggested we use information in Kyne et al. 
(2013) to update the occurrence information for P. clavata.
    Response: We appreciate the new information and updated the 
occurrence information in the preceding sections. The information did 
not impact our evaluation of the status of P. clavata.
    Comment 4: We received a question about the origin of the 1996 
record of dwarf sawfish from the Mekong River Basin, Laos.
    Response: We cite Rainboth (1996) for this report from the early 
1900s that assumed the dwarf sawfish was from the Mekong River Basin, 
Laos. We acknowledge no specimen exists to confirm this report.
    Comment 5: The validity of narrow sawfish reports from Tasmania by 
Deynat (2005) was questioned in one comment given the cold, temperate 
waters that do not support sawfish. The commenter suggested the record 
of the sawfish specimen in the fish collection of CSIRO in Hobart, 
Tasmania was erroneous.
    Response: We reviewed the literature and agree with the commenter. 
We removed the reference to reports of narrow sawfish in Tasmania.

Public Comments

    Comment 1: One commenter requested we cite a more recent reference 
for the information on the supply and demand of sawfish than the 1996 
reference in the proposed rule. Specifically, the commenter questioned 
the statement that ``sawfishes are in high demand throughout the world 
for display'' and suggested that sawfishes are no longer in high demand 
for display in aquaria.
    Response: We updated our information on the aquaria trade of 
sawfishes on current supply and demand of sawfishes in the Scientific 
and Educational Uses section and removed the statement cited by the 
commenter. Although we believe that sawfish are still in high demand in 
the aquaria trade, we recognize that the recent inclusion of all 
sawfishes under CITES Appendix I limits the use of sawfish for display 
and requires acquisition of animals for aquaria from captivity or 
captive breeding.
    Comment 2: Several commenters stated that they were concerned about 
the impacts of including ``injuring or killing a captive sawfish 
through experimental or potentially injurious veterinary care or 
conducting research or breeding activities on captive sawfish, outside 
the bounds of normal animal husbandry practices'' in the list of 
activities that could result in a violation of the ESA Section 9 
prohibitions. The concerns relate to the impacts on captive propagation 
and rearing programs being conducted by aquaria, and on the use of the 
latest advanced technological techniques available for captive held 
animals. The commenters requested clarification that fish care and 
husbandry techniques could continue to be used by aquaria.
    Response: As stated in the proposed rule, sawfish held in captivity 
at the time of listing are afforded all of the ESA protections and may 
not be killed or injured or otherwise harmed, and, therefore, must 
receive proper care. We realize that the care of captive animals 
necessarily entails handling or other manipulation and we do not 
consider such activities to constitute injury or harm to the animals so 
long as adequate care, including veterinary care, is provided. Such 
veterinary care includes confining, tranquilizing, and anesthetizing 
sawfishes when such practices, procedures, or provisions are necessary 
and not likely to result in injury.
    On the effective date of a final listing, ESA Section 9 take 
prohibitions automatically apply for species listed as endangered and 
any `take' of the species is illegal unless that take is authorized 
under a permit or through an incidental take statement. Incidental take 
statements result from ESA Section 7 consultations on the effects of 
federal activities. ESA Section 10 permits can authorize directed take 
(e.g., for scientific research or enhancement of the species) or 
incidental take during an otherwise lawful activity that would not be 
subject to ESA section 7 consultation. ESA Section 10 permits are 
issued to entities or persons subject to the

[[Page 73995]]

jurisdiction of the United States. We encourage institutions with 
captive sawfish who are considering activities outside the bounds of 
normal animal husbandry (e.g., breeding or research) to contact NMFS 
Office of Protected Resources, Permits and Conservation Division, to 
determine if an ESA Section 10 permit is required to authorize the 
proposed activity. We do not have information regarding emerging 
advances in fish care and animal husbandry for sawfish held in 
captivity so we cannot determine at this time if they are outside the 
bounds of normal care for captive animals.
    Comment 3: Several commenters requested clarification of the 
meaning of the terms ``non-commercial'' and ``non-commercially'' as 
those terms are used in the section titled Identification of those 
Activities that Would Constitute a Violation of Section 9 of the ESA.
    Response: Section 3 of the ESA defines the term ``commercial 
activity'' to mean ``all activities of industry and trade, including 
but not limited to, the buying and selling of commodities and 
activities conducted for the purposes of facilitating such buying and 
selling: Provided, however, That it does not include exhibitions of 
commodities by museums or similar cultural or historical 
organizations.'' NMFS will use the definition of ``commercial 
activity'' to evaluate whether an activity is ``non-commercial'' or a 
sawfish is being held ``non-commercially'' in captivity.
    Our listing determinations and summary of the data on which it is 
based, with the incorporated changes, are presented in the remainder of 
this document.

Species Determinations

    We first consider whether the narrow sawfish (A. cuspidata), dwarf 
sawfish (P. clavata), largetooth sawfish (P. pristis), green sawfish 
(P. zijsron), and of the non-U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish (P. 
pectinata) meet the definition of ``species'' pursuant to section 3 of 
the ESA. Then we consider if any populations meet the DPS criteria.

Consideration as a ``Species'' Under the Endangered Species Act

    Based on the best available scientific and commercial information 
described above in the natural history sections for each species, we 
have determined that the narrow sawfish (A. cuspidata), dwarf sawfish 
(P. clavata), largetooth sawfish (P. pristis), and green sawfish (P. 
zijsron) are taxonomically-distinct species and therefore eligible for 
listing under the ESA. The largetooth sawfish (P. pristis) now includes 
the formerly recognized species P. microdon and the previously listed 
P. perotteti. The decision to list P. pristis will replace our 2011 
listing determination for P. perotteti.

Distinct Population Segments

    In order to determine if the petitioned and currently non-listed 
population segment of smalltooth sawfish (P. pectinata) constitutes a 
``species'' eligible for listing under the ESA, we evaluated it under 
our joint NMFS- USFWS Policy regarding the recognition of distinct 
population segments (DPS) under the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). 
We examined the three criteria that must be met for a DPS to be listed 
under the ESA: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in 
relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs; (2) the 
significance of the population segment to the remainder of the species 
to which it belongs; and (3) the population segment's conservation 
status in relation to the Act's standards for listing (i.e., Is the 
population segment, when treated as if it were a species, endangered or 
threatened?).
    A population may be considered discrete, if it satisfies 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; or (2) it is 
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 
differences of 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.
    We previously determined that smalltooth sawfish in the United 
States merited protection as a DPS and listed the U.S. DPS of 
smalltooth sawfish as endangered (68 FR 15674; April 1, 2003). At that 
time, there was no information available to indicate smalltooth sawfish 
in U.S. waters interact with those in international waters or other 
countries, suggesting that the U.S. population may be effectively 
isolated from other populations. However, there were few scientific 
data on the biology of smalltooth sawfish, and it was not possible to 
conclusively subdivide this species into discrete populations on the 
basis of genetics, morphology, behavior, or other biological 
characteristics. Because there were no identified mechanisms regulating 
the exploitation of this species anywhere outside of the United States, 
we considered that lack of protection as directly relevant to the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms and a basis for 
considering the U.S. population as discrete across international 
boundaries.
    We now evaluate the non-U.S. population of smalltooth sawfish to 
determine if it meets the discreteness criteria of the joint DPS 
policy. First, we determine whether the non-U.S. population of 
smalltooth sawfish is discrete from the U.S. population because it is 
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 
differences of 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. Because we have 
designated critical habitat for the U.S. DPS population of smalltooth 
sawfish, there is a significant regulatory mechanism for protecting 
smalltooth sawfish and their habitats in the United States that does 
not exist for the non-U.S. population of smalltooth sawfish. Movement 
data from smalltooth sawfish tagged in U.S. and Bahamian waters also 
indicate no movement to countries outside where they were tagged. This 
information provides support that the non-U.S. population is discrete 
from the already-listed U.S. DPS on the basis of being markedly 
separate as a consequence of ecological factors, in addition to our 
previous determination that the U.S. DPS is discrete on the basis of 
international boundaries and significant differences in regulatory 
mechanisms. For smalltooth sawfish outside the U.S., we have no 
information regarding genetic or other biological differences that 
would provide a strong basis for further separating the non-U.S. 
smalltooth sawfish population into smaller, discrete units. We, 
therefore, conclude that the non-U.S. population of smalltooth sawfish 
meets the discreteness criterion of the joint DPS policy and we 
consider this population as a single potential DPS.
    We next must consider whether the non-U.S. population of smalltooth 
sawfish meets the significance criterion. The joint DPS policy gives 
examples of potential considerations indicating the population's 
significance to the larger taxon. Among these considerations is 
evidence that the discrete population segment would result in a 
significant gap in the range of the taxon. Smalltooth sawfish are 
limited in their distribution outside of the United States to West 
Africa, the Caribbean, Mexico, and Central and South America. Loss of 
this group of smalltooth sawfish would result in a significant gap in 
the range of this species and restrict distribution to U.S. waters. 
Because the loss of smalltooth sawfish in areas outside the United 
States would result in a

[[Page 73996]]

significant gap in the range of the species, we conclude the non-U.S. 
population of smalltooth sawfish is significant as defined by the DPS 
policy.
    Based on the above analysis of discreteness and significance, we 
conclude that the non-U.S. population of smalltooth sawfish (P. 
pectinata) meets the definition of a DPS and is eligible for listing 
under the ESA, and hereafter refer to it as the non-U.S. DPS of 
smalltooth sawfish.

Extinction Risk

    Our updated extinction risk analysis provides a more detailed 
discussion of the extinction risk analysis process that we used to 
determine the risk of extinction for narrow sawfish, dwarf sawfish, 
green sawfish, largetooth sawfish, and the non-U.S. DPS of smalltooth 
sawfish to determine whether the species are threatened or endangered 
per the ESA's definitions. We used an adaptation of the approach, 
including the primary concepts, developed by Wainwright and Kope (1999) 
to organize and summarize our findings. This approach was originally 
developed for salmonids and has been adapted and applied in the review 
of many other species (Pacific salmonid, Pacific hake, walleye pollock, 
Pacific cod, Puget Sound rockfishes, Pacific herring, and black 
abalone) to summarize the status of the species according to 
demographic risk criteria. The approach is useful when there is 
insufficient quantitative data to support development of population 
viability models to investigate extinction risk and it allows the 
incorporation of sparse and qualitative data. Wainwright and Kope 
(1999) identified key demographic parameters that have a strong bearing 
on extinction risk, with a focus on risks to small populations from 
genetic effects and population dynamics. Using these concepts, adapted 
to the biology of these sawfishes and our available data, we estimated 
the extinction risk, based on demographic factors, for each of the five 
species under both current threats and threats expected in the 
foreseeable future. We also performed a threats assessment by 
identifying the severity of threats that exist now and in the 
foreseeable future.
    We defined the ``foreseeable future'' as the timeframe over which 
threats, or the species' response to those threats, can be reliably 
predicted to impact the biological status of the species. We determined 
that the foreseeable future is approximately three generation times, 
calculated for each of the species based on the demographic 
calculations of Moreno Iturria (2012): Narrow sawfish, 14 years; dwarf 
sawfish, 49 years; largetooth sawfish, 48 years; green sawfish, 38 
years; and the non-U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish, 30 years. After 
considering the life history of each species, availability of data, and 
type of threats, we concluded that three generations was an appropriate 
measure to evaluate threats in the foreseeable future. As a late-
maturing species, with slow growth rate and low productivity, it would 
take more than one generation for any conservation management action to 
be realized and reflected in population abundance indices. The 
timeframe of three generations is a widely used scientific indicator of 
biological status, and has been applied to decision making models by 
many other conservation management organizations, including the 
American Fisheries Society, the CITES, and the IUCN.
    We considered three demographic categories in which to summarize 
available data and assess extinction risk of each sawfish species: (1) 
Abundance, (2) population growth rate/productivity, and (3) genetic 
integrity which include the connectivity and genetic diversity of the 
species. We determined the extinction risk for each category, for both 
now and in the foreseeable future, using a five level qualitative scale 
to describe our assessment of the risk of extinction. At the lowest 
level, a factor, either alone or in combination with other factors, is 
considered ``unlikely'' to significantly contribute to risk of 
extinction for a species. The next lowest level is considered to be a 
``low'' risk to contribute to the extinction risk, but could contribute 
in combination with other factors. The next level is considered a 
``moderate'' risk of extinction for the species, but in combination 
with other factors contributes significantly to the risk of extinction. 
A ranking of ``high'' risk means that factor by itself is likely to 
contribute significantly to the risk of extinction. Finally, a ranking 
of ``very high'' risk means that factor is considered ``highly likely'' 
to contribute significantly to the risk of extinction.
    We ranked abundance as high or very high risk which is likely to 
contribute significantly to the current and foreseeable risk of 
extinction for all five species. While it appears the northern coast of 
Australia supports the largest remaining groups of dwarf, largetooth, 
green, and narrow sawfish in the Pacific and Indian Ocean, data from 
the Queensland, Australia Shark Control Program show a clear decline in 
sawfish catch (non-species-specific) over a 30-year period from the 
1960s. In addition, it shows the complete disappearance of sawfish in 
southern regions (Stevens et al., 2005). The available data on 
abundance of sawfishes indicates there are still some isolated groups 
of sawfish in the western and central Indo-Pacific region, but their 
abundance has likely declined from historic levels. Smalltooth sawfish 
are still being reported outside of U.S. waters in the Caribbean Sea, 
but records are few and mostly insular (e.g., Andros Island) where 
habitat is available and gillnet fisheries are not a threat to the 
species (see below). There are only four records of largetooth sawfish 
in the eastern Atlantic Ocean over the last decade. In the western 
Atlantic, recent largetooth sawfish records are from only the Amazon 
River basin and the Rio Colorado-Rio San Juan area in Nicaragua.
    Wainright and Kope (1999) stated short- and long-term trends in 
abundance are a primary indicator of extinction risk. These trends may 
be calculated from a variety of quantitative data such as research 
surveys, commercial logbook or observer data, and landings information 
when accompanied by effort, but there is an absence of long-term 
monitoring data for all five sawfishes. We looked at the available data 
closely to see if we could support inferences about extinction risk 
based on the trends in past observations using the presence of a 
particular species at specified places and times (e.g., Dulvy et al., 
2003; Rivadeneira et al., 2009). The available museum records, negative 
scientific survey results, and anecdotal reports do indicate the 
abundance trend for all five sawfishes is declining and population 
sizes are small. Information available on the species' distribution 
indicates the species' ranges have also contracted. In many areas where 
sawfish still occur, they are subject to commercial and artisanal 
fisheries and potential habitat loss. We therefore ranked the risk of 
extinction posed by the sawfishes' abundances as high, now and into the 
foreseeable future.
    We next considered the species' potential growth rates and 
productivity as measures of their ability to recover from depleted 
levels and provide inherent protection against extinction risk. Sawfish 
have historically been classified as having both low reproductive 
productivity and low recovery potential. The demography of smalltooth 
and largetooth sawfish from the northwest Atlantic Ocean that was 
originally investigated using an age-structured life table 
(Simpfendorfer, 2000). Using known estimates of growth, mortality, and 
reproduction at the time, Simpfendorfer (2000) determined that 
intrinsic rates of

[[Page 73997]]

population increase ranged from 8 to 13 percent per year, and 
population doubling times were approximately 5 to 8.5 years for both 
species. These estimates included assumptions that there was no fishing 
mortality, no habitat limitations, no population fragmentation, or 
other effects of small population sizes. Simpfendorfer (2006) further 
modeled the demography of smalltooth sawfish using a method for 
estimating the rebound potential of a population by assuming that 
maximum sustainable yield was achieved when the total mortality was 
twice that of natural mortality. This demographic model produced 
intrinsic rates of population increase that were from two to seven 
percent per year for both smalltooth and largetooth sawfish. These 
values are similar to those calculated by Smith et al. (2008) using the 
same methodology corresponding to elasmobranch species with the lowest 
productivity. Musick et al. (2000) noted that species with intrinsic 
rates of increase of less than 10 percent were particularly vulnerable 
to rapid population declines and a higher risk of extinction.
    Some recent studies on the life history of sawfish, however, 
indicate they are potentially more productive than originally proposed. 
Growth rates (von Bertalanffy ``K'') for some species, like narrow 
sawfish, approach 0.34 per year (Peverell, 2008). Data from tag-
recapture studies and analysis of vertebral growth bands from 
smalltooth sawfish indicate that the first few years after birth 
represent the time when growth is most rapid (e.g., Simpfendorfer et 
al., 2008; Scharer et al., 2012). Using updated life history 
information, Moreno Iturria (2012) calculated intrinsic rates of 
increase for these five species of sawfish and determined values 
ranging from a low of 0.02 per year for green sawfish to a high of 0.27 
per year for narrow sawfish with dwarf sawfish being second highest at 
0.10 per year. Considering this information, and the inferred declining 
trend in abundance, we conclude productivity is a moderate risk for the 
narrow sawfish but a high risk for the other four species. We also 
determined that productivity would remain a moderate risk for the 
narrow sawfish and is a high risk for the other four species, in the 
foreseeable future.
    We also assessed the species' extinction risk, based on genetic 
diversity, spatial structure and connectivity. Population structure and 
levels of genetic diversity have recently been assessed for the green 
sawfish, dwarf sawfish, and largetooth sawfish across northern 
Australia using a portion of the mtDNA control region. Phillips et al. 
(2011) found statistically significant genetic structure within species 
and moderate genetic diversity among these species. These results 
suggest that sawfish may be more vulnerable to local extirpation along 
certain parts of their range, especially in areas where the population 
has been fragmented and movement between these areas is limited. 
However, these results do not necessarily suggest a higher risk of 
extinction throughout the entire range of the species. Chapman et al. 
(2011) investigated the genetic diversity of the U.S. DPS of smalltooth 
sawfish that has declined to between one percent to five percent of its 
abundance at the turn of the twentieth century, while its core 
distribution has contracted to less than 10 percent of its former range 
(NMFS, 2009). Surprisingly, given the magnitude of this population 
decline and range contraction, the U.S DPS of smalltooth sawfish does 
not exhibit any sign of genetic bottlenecks, and it has genetic 
diversity that is similar to other, less depleted elasmobranch 
populations (Chapman et al., 2011). Given that all five species of 
sawfish considered here have suffered similar abundance declines, we 
believe this conclusion should serve as a surrogate for the other 
sawfish species. Because the U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish has not 
undergone a genetic bottleneck, we ranked genetic diversity as a 
moderate risk for all sawfish species as it is likely, in combination 
with other factors, to contribute significantly to the risk of 
extinction. However, we determined that the risk of extinction due to 
the lack of connectivity was high for all five species, primarily 
because all populations have undergone severe fragmentation. While 
genetic results provide optimism for the remaining populations of 
sawfish, this does not preclude the promotion of management actions to 
enhance connectivity among populations that have been historically 
fragmented. We are also somewhat optimistic that sawfish populations 
may begin to rebuild in some areas and the risk of connectivity was 
determined to decrease for smalltooth and the narrow sawfish in the 
foreseeable future, although by only a small amount.
    After reviewing the best available scientific data and assessing 
the extinction risk on the five species of sawfishes based on their 
status and demography, we conclude the risk of extinction for all five 
species of sawfish is high.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Five Species of Sawfishes

    Next we consider whether any of the five factors specified in 
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA are contributing to the extinction risk of 
these five sawfishes.

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

    We identified destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat 
or range as a potential threat to all five species of sawfishes and 
determined this factor is currently, and in the foreseeable future, 
contributing significantly to the risk of extinction of these species.

Coastal and Riverine Habitats

    Loss of habitat is one of the factors determined to be associated 
with the decline of smalltooth sawfish in the U.S. (NMFS, 2009). As 
juveniles, sawfishes rely on shallow nearshore environments, primarily 
mangrove-fringed estuaries as nurseries (e.g., Wiley and Simpfendorfer, 
2010; Norton et al., 2012). Coastal development and urbanization have 
caused these habitats to be reduced or removed from many areas 
throughout the species' historic and current range. Habitat loss was 
identified as one of the most serious threats to the persistence of all 
species of sawfish, posing high risks for extinction. It is still 
unclear how anthropogenic perturbations to habitats affect the 
recruitment of juvenile sawfish, and therefore adequate protection of 
remaining natural areas is essential. Given the threat from coastal 
urbanization coupled with the predicted reduction of mangroves globally 
(Alongi, 2008), we believe the risk of habitat loss would significantly 
contribute to both the decline of sawfish and their reduced viability.
    We expect habitat modification throughout the range of these 
sawfishes to continue with human population increases. As humans 
continue to develop rural areas, habitat for other species, like 
sawfish, becomes compromised (Compagno, 2002b). Habitat modification 
affects all five species of sawfish, especially those inshore, coastal 
habitats near estuaries and marshes (Compagno and Last, 1999; Cavanagh 
et al., 2003; Martin, 2005; Chin et al., 2010; NMFS, 2010). Mining and 
mangrove deforestation severely alter the coast habitats of estuaries 
and wetlands that support sawfish (Vidthayanon, 2002; Polhemus et al., 
2004; Martin, 2005). In addition, riverine systems throughout most of 
these species' historical range have been

[[Page 73998]]

altered or dammed. For example, the potential expansion of the McArthur 
River Mine would permanently realign channels that would in turn affect 
the number of pools formed during the wet and dry seasons, many of 
which are used as refuge areas for dwarf, green, or largetooth sawfish 
(Polhemus et al., 2004; Gorham, 2006). In addition to the potential 
expansion of the McArthur River Mine, the Nicaragua government is 
proposing to build a cross-country canal through habitats currently 
used by the remaining largetooth sawfish population in Lake Nicaraugua 
(BBC News, Latin America and Caribbean, 2013).
    Although the status of habitats across the global range of these 
sawfishes is not well known, we expect the continued development and 
human population growth to have negative effects on habitat, especially 
to nearshore nursery habitats. For example, Ruiz-Luna et al. (2008) 
acknowledge that deforestation of mangrove forests in Mexico has 
occurred from logging practices, construction of harbors, tourism, and 
aquaculture activities. Valiela et al. (2001) reported on mangrove 
declines worldwide. They showed that the area of mangrove habitat in 
Brazil decreased from 9652 to 5173 square miles (24,999 to 13,398 
square kilometers) between 1983 and 1997, with similar trends in 
Guinnea-Bissau 1837 to 959 square miles (4758 to 2484 square 
kilometers) from 1953 to 1995. The areas with the most rapid mangrove 
declines in the Americas included Venezuela, Mexico, Panama, the U.S., 
and Brazil. Along the western coast of Africa, the largest declines 
have occurred in Senegal, Gambia, Sierra Leone, and Guinnea-Bissau. 
World-wide mangrove habitat loss was estimated at 35 percent from 1980 
to 2000 (Valiela et al., 2001). These areas where mangroves are known 
to have decreased are within both the historic and current ranges of 
these five species.
Hydroelectric and Flood Control Dams
    Hydroelectric and flood control dams pose a major threat to 
freshwater inflow into the euryhaline habitats of sawfishes. 
Alterations of flow, physical barriers, and increased water temperature 
affect water quality and quantity in the rivers, as well as adjacent 
estuaries that are important nursery areas for sawfish. Regulating 
water flow affects the environmental cues of monsoonal rains and 
increased freshwater flow for pupping (Peverel, 2008; Morgan et al., 
2011). Changes in siltation due to regulated water flow may also affect 
benthic habitat or prey abundance for these sawfishes (Compagno, 2002; 
Polhemus et al., 2004; Martin, 2005; Thorburn et al., 2007; Chin et 
al., 2010; Morgan et al., 2010a).
    New dams being proposed to provide additional irrigation to 
farmland upstream may affect sawfish habitat. For example, the Gilbert 
River, in Queensland, Australia drains into the Gulf of Carpentaria, 
which is the nursery area for green, dwarf, and largetooth sawfish. 
Further modification of the McArthur and Gilbert Rivers, along with 
increased commercial fishing in coastal waters, will negatively affect 
sawfishes by reducing available habitat while increasing bycatch 
mortality (Gorham, 2006).
Water Quality
    Largetooth sawfish in particular, and likely the other sawfishes, 
have experienced a loss of habitat throughout their range due to the 
decline in water quality. Agriculture and logging practices increase 
runoff, change salinity, and reduce the flow of water into freshwater 
rivers and streams that affects the habitat of the largetooth sawfish 
(Polhemus et al., 2004; IUCN Red List, 2006); mining seems to be the 
most detrimental activity to water quality. Pollution from industrial 
waste, urban and rural sewage, fertilizers and pesticides, and tourist 
development all end up in these freshwater systems and eventually the 
oceans. Pollution from these operations has caused a reduction in the 
number of sawfish in these freshwater systems (Vidthayanon, 2002; 
Polhemus et al., 2004).
    In summary, habitat alterations that potentially affect sawfishes 
include commercial and residential development; agricultural, 
silvicultural, and mining land uses; construction of water control 
structures; and modification to freshwater inflows. All sawfishes are 
vulnerable to a host of habitat impacts because they use rivers, 
estuaries, bays, and the ocean at various times of their life cycle. 
Based on our review of current literature, scientific surveys and 
anecdotal information on the historic and current distribution, we find 
that destruction, modification, and curtailment of habitat or ranges 
are a factor affecting the status of each species. We conclude that 
this factor is contributing, on its own or in combination with other 
factors, to the extinction risk of all five species of sawfishes.

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    We identified overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes as a potential threat to all five 
species of sawfishes and determined that it is currently and in the 
foreseeable future contributing significantly to their risk of 
extinction.
Commercial Fisheries
    Commercial fisheries pose the biggest threat to these sawfishes, as 
these species are bycatch from many fisheries. Their unusual morphology 
and prominent saw makes sawfishes particularly vulnerable to most types 
of fishing gear, most notably any type of net (Anak, 2002; Hart, 2002; 
Last, 2002; Pogonoski et al., 2002; Cavanagh et al., 2003; Porteous, 
2004; Stevens et al., 2005; Gorham 2006; IUCN Red List, 2006; Chidlow, 
2007; Field, 2009; Chin et al., 2010; NMFS, 2010; Morgan et al., 2011). 
Trawling gear is of particular concern as it is the most common gear 
used within the range and habitat of sawfishes (Compagno and Last, 
1999; Taniuchi, 2002; Walden and Nou, 2008). In Thailand, all sawfish 
fins obtained and sold to markets are a result of bycatch by otter-
board trawling and gillnet fisheries as there are no directed sawfish 
fisheries in the country (Pauly, 1988; Vidthayanon, 2002). The Lake 
Nicaragua commercial fishery for largetooth sawfish that collapsed 
prior to the 1980's was comprised mostly of gillnet boats (Thorson, 
1982a), and the commercial small coastal shark fishery in Brazil mainly 
uses gillnets and some handlines (Charvet-Almeida, 2002). Subadult and 
adult smalltooth sawfish have been reported as bycatch in the U.S. Gulf 
of Mexico and south Atlantic shrimp trawl fishery (NMFS SEFSC, 2011); 
however, if proper techniques are used, all sawfish species, 
particularly adults, are fairly resilient and can be released alive 
from most fishing gear (Lack et al., 2009).
    Live release of sawfishes from commercial fishing gear does occur 
but sawfishes are often retained. The meat is generally consumed 
locally, but the fins and rostra are of high value and sold in markets 
where these products are unregulated (CITES, 2007). In Brazil, a 
captured sawfish is most likely retained because of the value of their 
products, as the rostra, rostral teeth, and fins are valued at upwards 
of $1,000 U.S. in foreign markets (NMFS, 2010a). The proportion of 
largetooth sawfish in these markets is unknown, although as many as 180 
largetooth sawfish saws were annually sold at a single market in 
northern Brazil in the early 2000's (McDavitt and Charvet-Almeida, 
2004). The Trade Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce 
(TRAFFIC) organization found that meat, liver oil, fins, and skin are 
among the most

[[Page 73999]]

preferred sawfish products in Asian markets (Anak, 2002; Vidthayanon, 
2002). In the Gulf of Thailand, over 5,291 US tons (4,800 tonnes) of 
rays were caught annually from 1976 to 1989; at the same time over 
1,102 US tons (1,000 tonnes) of rays were caught in the Andaman Sea 
(Vidthayanon, 2002). It is likely that most of these products were sold 
in Asian markets because of the high demand for sawfish products. 
Reports of sawfish products in various markets throughout Asia are 
often inconsistent and inaccurate despite international rules on trade 
and possession of sawfish products (Fowler, 2002; Clarke et al., 2008; 
Kiessling et al., 2009).
    Recreational or commercial fishing gear may be abandoned or lost at 
sea. These ``ghost nets'' are an entanglement hazard for sawfishes and 
have become an increasing problem in the Gulf of Carpentaria where over 
5,500 ghost nets were removed in 2009. Sawfish captures are expected to 
occur in regions where no quantitative information about ghost nets 
exists (Gunn et al, 2010).
    Misidentification, general species-composition grouping, and 
failure to record information are all concerns for reporting sawfish 
captures in direct or indirect commercial fisheries (Stobutzki et al., 
2002b). With little enforcement of regional and international laws, the 
practice of landing sawfishes may continue (NMFS, 2010a). All sawfish 
populations have been declining worldwide, partly due to the negative 
effects of commercial fishing (Stevens et al., 2000; Peverell, 2008).
Recreational Fisheries
    Sawfish are bycatch of many recreational fisheries throughout their 
range, even in areas where they are protected, including many 
Australian rivers (Walden and Nou, 2008; Field et al., 2009). Peverell 
(2008) reports that some sawfish are a target sport fish for 
recreational fishermen in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Queensland. 
Historical information from the U.S. indicates that recreational hook 
and line fishers in Texas sometimes target large sharks as trophy fish 
but may capture sawfish (Burgess et al., 2009). Elsewhere in the United 
States, the abundance of sawfishes is low and likely never high enough 
for recreational fishers to encounter sawfish, much less target it 
(NMFS, 2010a). With the increase in human population along the coast, 
recreational fishing has the potential to put additional pressure on 
sawfish species that use coastal habitats (Walden and Nou, 2008).
Indigenous Take
    Due to the large populations of various indigenous people 
throughout the range of these five species, and the lack of data on the 
animals they harvest, the number of sawfish taken by local peoples is 
unknown. Elasmobranchs are caught for consumption throughout the Indo-
Pacific. In some areas, the meat and fins of these animals are of high 
market value, and therefore they are sold rather than consumed locally. 
Due to this unregulated consumption, removal of elasmobranchs, which 
includes sawfishes, is a threat to their population(s) (Compagno and 
Last, 1999; Pogonoski et al., 2002; Vidthayanon, 2002; Thorburn et al., 
2007; Peverell, 2008; Morgan et al., 2010a).
    Some studies have been conducted on the use and value of 
elasmobranch parts to various indigenous groups, particularly those in 
eastern Sabah, Malaysia. One study (Almada-Villela, 2002) found the 
majority of natives from Pulau Tetabuan and Pulau Mabul only take what 
is necessary for subsistence. Sawfish rostra are also valued and kept 
as decoration or given as gifts at the expense of the animal (Almada-
Villela, 2002; McDavitt et al., 1996; Vidthayanon, 2002).
Protective Coastal Nets
    Protective gillnets to prevent shark attacks on humans is used in 
some areas but can have a negative impact due to bycatch. Sawfishes are 
highly susceptible to capture in nets because their saws are easily 
tangled in nets. The Queensland Shark Control Program in Australia 
places nets along beaches during the summer months. From 1970 to 1990, 
sawfish bycatch in these nets declined despite relatively constant 
effort; likely due to an overall decline in sawfish populations 
(Stevens et al., 2005). In South Africa, the first protective gillnets 
lined the southeast tip of the continent's coast as early as 1952. By 
1990, over 27 mi (44 km) of nets lined the area between Richards Bay 
and Mzamba (Dudley and Cliff, 1993). About 350 sharks and rays were 
captured in these nets between 1981 and 1990. A high percentage of 
entangled sawfish are released alive because of their ability to 
breathe while motionless. Dudley and Cliff (1993) reported that 100 
percent of largetooth sawfish and 67 percent of smalltooth sawfish 
caught during that time were released alive. Still, subsequent 
mortality post-release due to stress or injury from the process is 
unknown and potentially detrimental given other fishing pressures 
(Dudley and Cliff, 1993).

Scientific and Educational Uses

    Sawfishes are unique animals that are currently on public display 
in many large aquariums. Removal of sawfishes from their natural 
habitats has caused some concern for these sawfish species and their 
ecosystems. No information is available on the level of mortality that 
occurs during the capture and transporting of live sawfish to aquaria. 
Removal of female sawfish from the wild could have an effect on the 
future reproductive capacity of that population (Anak, 2002; Harsan and 
Petrescu-Mag, 2008). Limited information is available regarding the 
number of sawfish that have been removed from the wild for display in 
aquaria. All sawfish removed from Australian waters for aquaria 
collections have been reported as juveniles (S. Olson, Association of 
Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), 2013 pers. comm). The two most recent imports 
of largetooth sawfish to an Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) 
accredited facility were in 2007 and 2008 (S. Olson, AZA, 2013 pers. 
comm).
    In July 2011, the Australian CITES Scientific Authority for Marine 
Species reviewed their 2007 non-detriment finding for the export of P. 
microdon and found that it was not possible to conclude with a 
reasonable level of certainty that any harvest for export purposes 
would not be detrimental to the survival or recovery of the species 
(DSEWPaC, 2011). Since then, international trade in freshwater sawfish 
from Australia has ceased.
    Worldwide, we are not aware of any narrow sawfish in captivity 
(Peverell, 2005, 2008). We are aware of 2 dwarf sawfish held in 
captivity in Japan (McDavitt, 2006). Largetooth sawfish are the most 
common sawfish species in captivity (NMFS, 2010a). Juvenile largetooth 
measuring less than 3.5 ft (1 m) TL on average are most often caught 
for the aquaria trade as they are easier to transport than adults 
(Peter and Tan, 1997).
    Globally, scientists are collecting information on sawfish biology. 
Research efforts began in 2003 on the U.S. DPS population of smalltooth 
sawfish and no negative impacts have been associated with this research 
to date.
    In summary, while no quantitative data on fishery impacts are 
available, we conclude that given the susceptibility of sawfish to 
entanglement in gillnets and trawl nets that are commonly used 
throughout their range, sawfishes are likely captured as incidental 
take. We are not aware of any fisheries

[[Page 74000]]

specifically targeting sawfishes. This impact from fisheries is the 
most likely single cause of the observed range contractions and reduced 
abundance in many areas of their former range. Trade of sawfish parts 
occurs throughout the world. Sawfish have been exploited for their 
fins, rostra, and teeth. Sawfish fins have been report in the shark fin 
trade since the early 1900s (Mountnorris, 1809). Trade of sawfish parts 
occurs on Internet sites such as eBay and Craigslist. Trade of sawfish 
parts (e.g., fins, rostral teeth, and rostra) are also ongoing threats 
to all five species (Harrison et al., 2014). Therefore, we conclude the 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes, alone or in combination with other factors as 
discussed herein, is contributing significantly to the risk of 
extinction of the narrow, dwarf, largetooth, green, and the non-U.S. 
DPS of smalltooth sawfish.

Disease and Predation

    We have determined that disease and predation are not potential 
threats to any of the five species of sawfish and that it is unlikely 
that these factors, on their own or in combination with other factors, 
are contributing significantly to their risk of extinction of all five 
sawfish species.
    These species co-occur with other sawfishes and large sharks, but 
we are not aware of any studies or information documenting 
interspecific competition in terms of either habitat or prey (NMFS 
2010a). Thorson (1971) speculated that the Lake Nicaragua bull shark 
population may compete with largetooth sawfish, as both were prevalent, 
but he offered no additional data. Sawfish have been documented within 
the stomach of a dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) near Bermuda (Bigelow and 
Schroeder, 1953; Monte-Luna et al., 2009), in the stomach of a bull 
shark (C. leucas) in Australia (Thorburn et al., 2004), and evidence of 
bite marks from what appeared to be a bull shark (C. leucas) on a 
juvenile smalltooth sawfish in the United States have been reported (T. 
Wiley-Lescher, Haven Worth Consulting, 2012 pers. comm). Crocodiles 
also prey on sawfishes (Cook and Compagno, 2005). There is no evidence 
that unusual levels of disease or predation affect any of the five 
sawfish species. Based on the information available on disease and 
predation for all five species of sawfish, we have determined that 
disease and predation on their own, or in combination with other 
factors, do not pose an extinction risk to any of these sawfishes.

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    We identified inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms as a 
potential threat to each of the five species of sawfish. We determined 
that this factor alone, or in combination with other factors, is 
contributing significantly to their risk of extinction.
    First, we reviewed general or global regulatory protections for 
sawfish. The use of turtle exclusion devices (TEDs) in the nets of 
trawl fisheries to conserve sea turtles occurs throughout much of the 
range of sawfishes, but TEDs are not efficient in directing sawfish out 
of nets because sawfish rostra get entangled (Stobutzki et al., 2002a; 
Brewer et al., 2006) prior to reaching the TED. TEDs are often used 
when trawling occurs along the sea bottom at depths of 49 ft to 131 ft 
(15 to 40 m), areas where sawfish are likely to be found (Stobutzki et 
al., 2002a). Most sawfishes show no difference in recovery after going 
through a trawl net, regardless of the presence or absence of a TED 
(Griffiths, 2006). Stobutzki et al. (2002a) found that large females 
are more likely to survive capture after passing through a trawling net 
and TED compared to smaller males. Only narrow sawfish were found to 
benefit from the presence of TEDs in nets as 73.3 percent escaped 
(Brewer et al., 2006; Griffiths, 2006). In general, TEDs tend to have 
negligible impact on sawfish that get captured by trawling nets 
(Stobutzki et al., 2002a; Griffiths, 2006), but they do provide an 
escape route if the animal does not get entangled.
    Data reporting agencies (i.e., customs and national fisheries) are 
often inconsistent in their reporting of wildlife trade (Anak, 2002). 
Reports are often vague and include general descriptions like ``shark 
fin'' or ``ray,'' providing practically no information of trading rates 
of specific products (Lack and Sant, 2011). Many countries in the Indo-
Pacific do not report bycatch statistics or elasmobranchs taken 
illegally (Holmes et al., 2009). In order for effective management 
plans to be implemented in fin markets and for sawfish product trade, 
data need to be consistent.
    Next, we reviewed regional or country specific regulatory 
protections for sawfish. Many countries in the Indo-Pacific and the 
Middle East do not have formal legislation for management or national 
protection of the sawfish that may occur in their waters. Presently, 
Thailand has regulated some fisheries, but has no protective 
legislation for any elasmobranch in the country except for export of 
marine species for aquaria (Vidthayanon, 2002). Among Middle Eastern 
countries that fish for sharks, only Iran has implemented an 
International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of 
Sharks (IPOA Shark Plan). Nine Arab countries have recently signed a 
Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks to 
improve shark conservation measures under the United Nations 
Environment Programme Convention on Migratory Species. Countries in 
Africa face similar circumstances as enforcement for sawfish protection 
is unknown (NMFS, 2010a). Countries that do have protective legislation 
are often unable to effectively patrol their waters, and fishing 
restrictions are routinely violated by foreign vessels (Lack. and Sant, 
2008). In one study, genetic testing (DNA barcoding) was used to 
identify fins from green sawfish confiscated from foreign boats 
illegally fishing in northern Australian waters (Holmes, 2009).
    The Australian government listed the largetooth, green, and dwarf 
sawfishes as vulnerable on their Environmental Protection and 
Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act list. The EPBC Act protects these 
sawfish and prohibits killing, injuring, taking, trading, keeping, or 
moving an individual without a permit. Even with these protections in 
place, the Draft Recovery Plan for Sawfish and River Sharks (Department 
of the Environment, 2014) reports that these three sawfish species have 
experienced substantial population declines.
    In summary, several organizations are trying to regulate and manage 
sawfish but often these regulations and management initiatives are 
inadequate. Illegal exploitation by foreign fishers often occurs when 
regulations exist but are not enforced (Kiessling et al., 2009). 
Preventative measures on existing fishing mechanisms to avoid sawfish 
catch, international monitoring of trade and bycatch, and governmental 
influence on fisheries are not presently sufficient to protect 
sawfishes. Specific regulation and monitoring of sawfishes by country 
would provide better protection (Vidthayanon, 2002; Walden and Nou, 
2008). Therefore, we conclude the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms has and continues to significantly contribute to the risk of 
extinction of the narrow, dwarf, largetooth, green, and the non-U.S. 
DPS of smalltooth sawfish.

Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    In the proposed rule, we determined this was not a factor 
contributing

[[Page 74001]]

significantly to the risk of extinction of all five species of sawfish. 
We re-evaluated the information for this factor and changed our 
conclusion from the proposed rule based on the fact that sawfish life 
history traits, which consists of slow growth rates, late maturity, 
long life spans, and low fecundity rates. These life history traits do 
not enable them to respond rapidly to additional sources of mortality, 
such as overexploitation and habitat degradation. Scientific 
information available on all five species of sawfish indicates that 
other natural or manmade factors are potential threats to all of the 
five species of sawfish. We conclude it is likely that these factors, 
on their own or in combination with other factors, are contributing 
significantly to the risk of extinction for all five sawfish species.
    An increase in global sea-surface temperature and sea level may 
already be influencing sawfish populations (Clark, 2006; Walden and 
Nou, 2008; Chin et al., 2010). Fish assemblages are likely to change 
their distribution and could affect the prey base for sawfishes. 
Estuaries, including sawfish pupping grounds, may be affected as 
climate change changes patterns in freshwater flow due to rainfall and 
droughts. Skewed salinities in these areas or extreme tide levels might 
discourage adults from making up-river migrations (Clark, 2006). 
Saltwater marsh grass and mangrove areas play important roles in 
sawfish habitat as well (Simpfendorfer et al., 2010); any disruption to 
these areas may affect sawfish populations. There is little agreement, 
however, on the effects that climate change will have on sawfish and 
their environments specifically (Clark, 2006; Chin et al., 2010).
    Red tide is the common name for a harmful algal bloom (HAB) of 
marine algae (Karenia brevis) that can make the ocean appear red or 
brown. Karenia brevis is one of the first species ever reported to have 
caused a HAB and is principally distributed throughout the Gulf of 
Mexico, with occasional red tides in the mid- and south-Atlantic United 
States. Karenia brevis naturally produces a brevetoxin that is absorbed 
directly across the gill membranes of fish or through ingestion of 
algal cells. While many HAB species are nontoxic to humans or small 
mammals, they can have significant effects on aquatic organisms. Fish 
mortalities associated with K. brevis events are very common and 
widespread. The mortalities affect hundreds of species during various 
stages of development. Red tide toxins can cause intoxication in fish, 
which may include violent twisting and corkscrew swimming, defecation 
and regurgitation, pectoral fin paralysis, caudal fin curvature, loss 
of equilibrium, quiescence, vasodilation, and convulsions, culminating 
in death. However, it is known that fish can die at lower cell 
concentrations and can also apparently survive in much higher 
concentrations. In some instances, mortality from red tide is not 
acute, but may occur over a period of days or weeks after exposure to 
subacute toxin concentrations. There is no specific information on red 
tide effects on sawfish, but a single report exists of a smalltooth 
sawfish that was found dead along the west coast of Florida, during a 
red tide event (International Sawfish Encounter Database, 2009). 
Therefore, we conclude that sawfishes occurring in the U.S. Gulf of 
Mexico are vulnerable to red tide, but there is little information 
documenting direct mortality resulting from exposure to red tide (NMFS, 
2010a). Harmful algal blooms also exist in waters outside of the U.S. 
Gulf of Mexico therefore, it is probable that all sawfishes are 
vulnerable to harmful algal blooms wherever they occur. Collectively, 
these other natural or manmade factors may be affecting the continued 
existence of the narrow, dwarf, largetooth, green, and the non-U.S. DPS 
of smalltooth sawfish. Based on the results from our extinction risk 
analysis and information on other man-made factors affecting all five 
species of sawfish, this factor is contributing to their extinction 
risk.

Overall Risk Summary

    After considering the extinction risks, both threat-based and 
demographic, for each of the five species of sawfish, we have 
determined the narrow, dwarf, largetooth, and green sawfish and the 
non-U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish are in danger of extinction 
throughout all of their ranges due to (1) present or threatened 
destruction, modification or curtailment of habitat, (2) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes, (3) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, 
and (4) other natural or manmade factors affecting their continued 
existence, and low abundance, lack of connectivity, and genetic 
diversity.

Protective Efforts

    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary, when making a 
listing determination for a species, to take into consideration those 
efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation to protect 
the species. In judging the effectiveness of efforts not yet 
implemented, or those existing protective efforts that are not yet 
fully effective, we rely on the Services' joint ``Policy for Evaluation 
of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions'' (``PECE''; 68 
FR 15100; March 28, 2003). The PECE policy is designed to ensure 
consistent and adequate evaluation on whether any conservation efforts 
that have been recently adopted or implemented, but not yet proven to 
be successful, will result in recovering the species to the point at 
which listing is not warranted or contribute to forming the basis for 
listing a species as threatened rather than endangered. The purpose of 
the PECE policy is to ensure consistent and adequate evaluation of 
future or recently implemented conservation efforts identified in 
conservation agreements, conservation plans, management plans, and 
similar documents when making listing determinations. The PECE provides 
direction for the consideration of conservation efforts identified in 
these documents that have not yet been implemented, or have been 
implemented but not yet demonstrated effectiveness. The policy is 
expected to facilitate the development of conservation efforts by 
states and other entities that sufficiently improve a species' status 
so as to make listing the species as threatened or endangered 
unnecessary.
    Two basic criteria were established in the PECE to use in 
evaluating efforts identified in conservations plans, conservation 
agreements, management plans or similar documents: (1) The certainty 
that the conservation efforts will be implemented; and (2) the 
certainty that the efforts will be effective. When we evaluate the 
certainty of whether or not the formalized conservation effort will be 
implemented, we may consider the following: Do we have a high level of 
certainty that that the resources necessary to carry out the 
conservation effort are available? Do the parties to the conservation 
effort have the authority to carry it out? Are regulatory or procedural 
mechanisms in place to carry out the efforts? If the conservation 
effort relies on voluntary participation, we will evaluate whether the 
incentives that are included in the conservation effort will ensure the 
level of participation necessary to carry out the conservation effort. 
In evaluating the certainty that a conservation effort will be 
effective, we may consider the following: Does the effort describe the 
nature and extent of the threats to the species to be addressed and how 
these threats are reduced by the conservation effort? Does the effort 
establish specific conservation objectives? Does the effort

[[Page 74002]]

identify the appropriate steps to reduce the threats to the species? 
And does the effort include quantifiable performance measures to 
monitor both compliance and effectiveness? Overall, we need to be 
certain that the formalized conservation effort improves the status of 
the species at the time we make a listing determination. The PECE 
Policy also states that last-minute agreements (i.e., those that are 
developed just before or after a species is proposed for listing) often 
have little chance of affecting the outcome of a listing decision. 
Last-minute efforts are also less likely to be able to demonstrate that 
they will be implemented and effective in reducing or removing the 
threats to a species. In addition, there are circumstances in which the 
threats to a species are so imminent and/or complex that is will be 
almost impossible to develop an agreement or plan that includes 
conservation efforts that will result in making the listing 
unnecessary. A conservation effort that satisfies the criteria for 
implementation and effectiveness is considered when making a listing 
determination, but may not ultimately change the risk assessment for 
the species. Using the criteria identified in our PECE Policy we 
evaluated conservation efforts to protect and recover the five sawfish 
species that are either underway but not yet fully implemented, or are 
only planned.
    CITES restricts the trade of live animals to a vast array of 
wildlife products derived from them, including food products, musical 
instruments, tourist curios and medicines. Many wildlife species in 
trade are not endangered, but the existence of an agreement to ensure 
the sustainability of the trade is important in order to safeguard 
these resources for the future. All sawfishes in the family Pristidae 
were listed on Appendix I of CITES at the 14th Conference of the 
Parties meeting in 2007. An Appendix I listing bans all commercial 
trade in parts (e.g., rostral teeth, rostra, liver, and fins) or 
derivatives of sawfish with trade in specimens of these species 
permitted only in exceptional circumstances (e.g., for research 
purposes). At that time, an annotation to the Appendix I listing 
allowed the largetooth sawfish P. microdon (herein P. pristis) to be 
treated as Appendix II ``for the exclusive purpose of allowing 
international trade in live animals to appropriate and acceptable 
aquaria for primarily conservation purposes.'' The annotation was 
accepted on the basis that Australian populations of P. microdon were 
robust relative to other populations in the species' range, and that 
the capture of individuals for aquaria was not likely to be detrimental 
to the population. Later, at the CITES 16th Annual Conference of the 
Parties meeting in March of 2013, Australia proposed the transfer of P. 
microdon from Appendix II to Appendix I, and the measure was adopted 
and became effective on 12 June 2013. Therefore, live trade of P. 
pristis (P. microdon) is currently banned and all commercial trade of 
all sawfishes is banned per CITES Appendix I listing.
    The recent banning of all trade of P. pristis (P. microdon) for 
aquaria trade is a good conservation measure for the species and meets 
all of the criteria for implementation and effectiveness. The recently 
adopted CITES Appendix I listing for largetooth sawfish only bans the 
live trade of the fish from Australia to approved foreign aquaria, all 
other trade was banned with the 2007 listing. Only 11 largetooth 
sawfish were approved for aquaria trade when the largetooth sawfish was 
listed under CITES Appendix I with the annotation for aquaria trade. 
The recent CITES Appendix I listing for largetooth sawfish is not 
likely to significantly affect the species outside of the limited area 
(Australia) where they were removed from the wild for aquaria display. 
Given live trade of P. pristis (P. microdon) for aquaria use is not a 
threat leading to the extinction risk of the species, we conclude the 
full CITES Appendix I listing may satisfy the PECE policy's standards 
for implementation and effectiveness, but the impact of this measure is 
considered insignificant. Australia may be effective at enforcing trade 
policies, but the recent Appendix I listing of P. microdon (largetooth 
sawfish) alone, is not sufficient to protect the species throughout its 
range.
    The IUCN Shark Specialist Group, in collaboration with a large 
number of the national and international stakeholders in sawfish 
conservation, developed A Global Strategy for Sawfish Conservation 
(Harrison and Dulvy, 2014). The strategy identifies the actions 
required to achieve recovery for all sawfishes. The strategy outlines 
seven objectives that are necessary to achieve recovery of all 
sawfishes: Fisheries management, species protection, habitat 
conservation, trade limitation, strategic research, education and 
communication, and responsible husbandry. We evaluated the certainty of 
whether or not the strategy would be implemented and determined that 
(1) the strategy does not have a high level of certainty that the 
resources necessary to carry out the conservation effort are available, 
(2) that the strategy team members do not have the authority to carry 
out all of the objectives, (3) regulatory or procedural mechanisms are 
not in place to carry out the objectives, (4) and the conservation 
efforts rely on voluntary participation that does not have incentives 
that are included in the conservation effort that will ensure the level 
of participation necessary to effectively carry out the conservation 
effort. Based on the lack of certainty that the conservation efforts 
will be implemented we determined the strategy does not satisfy the 
PECE policy's standards for certainty of implementation and 
effectiveness.
    The Australian Government, Department of the Environment, published 
a Draft Recovery Plan for Sawfish and River Sharks (Plan) in 2014 
(Department of Environment, 2014). The Draft Plan covers three sawfish 
species (P. pristis, P. zijsron, and P. clavata). The Plan identifies 
specific actions and objectives necessary to stop local decline of 
sawfish and river sharks and promotes their recovery. The goal of the 
Draft Plan is to assist with the recovery of sawfish in Australian 
waters in two ways: (1) Improving the population status leading to the 
removal of the sawfish from the protected species list of EPBC; and (2) 
ensuring anthropogenic actives do not hinder the recovery in the near 
future, or impact the conservation status of the species in the future. 
We evaluated the certainty of whether or not the Draft Plan would be 
implemented. We determined that the strategy has a high level of 
uncertainty regarding implementation because: (1) The Draft Plan does 
not have dedicated funding so the resources necessary to carry out the 
conservation efforts may not be available, and (2) the Draft Plan is 
dependent on the participation of voluntary groups or organizations 
(e.g., indigenous community groups and non-governmental organizations) 
to carry out some of the actions. Based on the lack of certainty that 
the Draft Plan will be implemented, we determined the Draft Plan does 
not satisfy the PECE policy's standards for certainty of implementation 
and effectiveness.

Listing Determinations

    Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that we 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 reviewed the best available scientific 
and commercial information including the petition, and the information 
in the

[[Page 74003]]

review of the status of the five species of sawfishes, and we have 
consulted with species experts.
    We are responsible for determining whether narrow sawfish (A. 
cuspidata), dwarf sawfish (P. clavata), largetooth sawfish (P. 
pristis), green sawfish (P. zijsron), and the non-U.S. DPS of 
smalltooth sawfish (P. pectinata) are threatened or endangered under 
the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We have followed a stepwise approach 
as outlined above in making this listing determination for these five 
species of sawfish. We have determined that narrow sawfish (A. 
cuspidata); dwarf sawfish (P. clavata); largetooth sawfish (P. 
pristis); green sawfish (P. zijsron); and the non-U.S. DPS of 
smalltooth sawfish (P. pectinata) constitute species as defined by the 
ESA. We have conducted an extinction risk analysis and concluded that 
the risk of extinction for all five species of sawfish is high, now and 
in the foreseeable future. We have assessed the threats affecting the 
status of each species using the five factors identified in section 
4(a)(1) of the ESA and concluded the narrow, dwarf, largetooth, green, 
and the non-U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish face ongoing threats from 
habitat alteration, overutilization for commercial and recreational 
purposes, inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and other 
natural or manmade factors affecting their continued existence 
throughout their ranges. Therefore, we find that all five species of 
sawfishes are in danger of extinction throughout all of their ranges. 
After considering efforts being made to protect these sawfishes, we 
could not conclude the proposed conservation efforts would alter the 
extinction risk for any of these five sawfishes.

Effects of Listing

    Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the ESA include recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); 
Federal agency requirements to consult with NMFS and to ensure its 
actions do not jeopardize the species or result in adverse modification 
or destruction of critical habitat should it be designated (16 U.S.C. 
1536); designation of critical habitat if prudent and determinable (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); and prohibitions on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538). An 
additional benefit of listing beyond these legal requirements is that 
the recognition of the species' plight through listing promotes 
conservation actions by Federal and state agencies, foreign entities, 
private groups, and individuals.

Recovery Plans

    NMFS may develop a recovery plan or plans for these species after 
considering the conservation benefit to the species per ESA sections 
4(f)(1) and 4(f)(1)(A). Section 4 (f)(1) of the ESA directs NMFS to 
develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival 
of listed species, unless we find that such a plan will not promote the 
conservation of the species. Section 4(f)(1)(A) further directs us, to 
the maximum extent practicable, to give priority in developing plans to 
those species that will most likely benefit from such plans.

Identifying Section 7 Consultation Requirements

    Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS 
regulations require Federal agencies to consult with us to ensure that 
activities authorized, funded, or carried out are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat. The requirement to consult applies 
to these Federal agency actions in the United States and on the high 
seas. The five sawfishes all occur in the waters of foreign nations, 
where there would be no consultation requirement. It is possible, but 
highly unlikely, that the listing of the five species of sawfish under 
the ESA may result in a minor increase in the number of Section 7 
consultations for high seas activities.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in Section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 
1532(5)) as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the 
ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) 
essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require 
special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is 
listed upon a determination that such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species. Critical habitat shall not be designated 
in foreign countries or other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 
424.12 (h)).
    The best available scientific and commercial data show that the 
geographical areas occupied by the narrow sawfish (A. cuspidata), dwarf 
sawfish (P. clavata), green sawfish (P. zijsron), largetooth sawfish 
(P. pristis), and the non-U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish (P. pectinata) 
are entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction, so we cannot designate critical 
habitat for these species in their occupied range.
    We can designate critical habitat in unoccupied areas in U.S. 
jurisdiction, if we determine the areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species. Only the largetooth sawfish (P. pristis, 
formerly P. perotteti) has a range that once included occasional use of 
U.S. waters, with approximately 39 confirmed records (33 in Texas) from 
1910 through 1961. All records of P. pristis in U.S. waters were 
adults, mostly during the summer months. U.S. waters were a limited 
part of the historic range, likely used for periodic, seasonal foraging 
movements. There is no evidence of U.S. waters supporting any other 
biological functions like breeding or nursery areas. Therefore, we 
believe reestablishment back into U.S. waters is not required for the 
recovery of P. pristis. Based on the best available information we have 
not identified unoccupied areas in U.S. jurisdiction that are essential 
to the conservation of any of the five sawfish species. Therefore, we 
do not intend to designate critical habitat for the narrow, dwarf, 
largetooth, green, or the non-U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish.

Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a Violation of 
Section 9 of the ESA

    On July 1, 1994, NMFS and FWS published a policy (59 FR 34272) that 
requires us to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at the time 
a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. Because we are listing 
all five sawfishes as endangered, all of the prohibitions of section 
9(a)(1) of the ESA will apply to all five species. These include 
prohibitions against the import, export, use in foreign commerce, and 
``take'' of the species. Take is defined as ``to harass, harm, pursue, 
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to 
engage in any such conduct.'' These prohibitions apply to all persons 
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including in the 
United States or on the high seas. The intent of this policy is to 
increase public awareness of the effects of this listing on proposed 
and ongoing activities within the species' range. Activities that we 
believe could result in a violation of Section 9 prohibitions of these 
five sawfishes include, but are not limited to, the following:
    (1) Take within the U.S. or its territorial sea, or upon the high 
seas;
    (2) Possessing, delivering, transporting, or shipping any sawfish 
part that was illegally taken;
    (3) Delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in 
interstate or

[[Page 74004]]

foreign commerce any sawfish or sawfish part, in the course of a 
commercial activity, even if the original taking of the sawfish was 
legal;
    (4) Selling or offering for sale in interstate commerce any sawfish 
part, except antique articles at least 100 years old;
    (5) Importing or exporting sawfish or any sawfish part to or from 
any country;
    (6) Releasing captive sawfish into the wild. Although sawfish held 
non-commercially in captivity at the time of listing are exempt from 
certain prohibitions, the individual animals are considered listed and 
afforded most of the protections of the ESA, including most importantly 
the prohibitions against injuring or killing. Release of a captive 
animal has the potential to injure or kill the animal. Of an even 
greater conservation concern, the release of a captive animal has the 
potential to affect wild populations of sawfish through introduction of 
diseases or inappropriate genetic mixing. Depending on the 
circumstances of the case, NMFS may authorize the release of a captive 
animal through a section 10(a)(1)(a) permit; and
    (7) Engaging in experimental or potentially injurious veterinary 
care or conducting research or breeding activities on captive sawfish, 
outside the bounds of normal animal husbandry practices. Normal care of 
captive animals necessarily entails handling or other manipulation of 
the animals, and NMFS does not consider such activities to constitute 
take or harassment of the animals so long as adequate care, including 
adequate veterinary care is provided. Such veterinary care includes 
confining, tranquilizing, or anesthetizing sawfishes when such 
practices, procedures, or provisions are not likely to result in 
injury. Captive breeding of sawfish is considered experimental and 
potentially injurious. Furthermore, the production of sawfish progeny 
has conservation implications (both positive and negative) for wild 
populations. Experimental or potentially injurious veterinary 
procedures and research or breeding activities of sawfish may, 
depending on the circumstances, be authorized under an ESA 10(a)(1)(a) 
permit for scientific research or the enhancement of the propagation or 
survival of the species.
    We have identified, to the extent known at this time, specific 
activities that will not be considered likely to result in a violation 
of Section 9. Although not binding, we consider the following actions, 
depending on the circumstances, as not being prohibited by ESA Section 
9:
    (1) Take of a sawfish authorized by a 10(a)(1)(a) permit authorized 
by, and carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of an 
ESA section 10(a)(1)(a) permit issued by NMFS for purposes of 
scientific research or the enhancement of the propagation or survival 
of the species;
    (2) Incidental take of a sawfish resulting from Federally 
authorized, funded, or conducted projects for which consultation under 
section 7 of the ESA has been completed, and when the otherwise lawful 
activity is conducted in accordance with any terms and conditions 
granted by NMFS in an incidental take statement in a biological opinion 
pursuant to section 7 of the ESA;
    (3) Continued possession of sawfish parts that were in possession 
at the time of listing. Such parts may be non-commercially exported or 
imported; however the importer or exporter must be able to provide 
sufficient evidence to show that the parts meet the criteria of ESA 
section 9(b)(1) (i.e., held in a controlled environment at the time of 
listing, non-commercial activity);
    (4) Continued possession of live sawfish that were in captivity or 
in a controlled environment (e.g., in aquaria) at the time of this 
listing, so long as the prohibitions under ESA section 9(a)(1) are not 
violated. Again, facilities should be able to provide evidence that the 
sawfish were in captivity or in a controlled environment prior to 
listing. We suggest such facilities submit information to us on the 
sawfish in their possession (e.g., size, age, description of animals, 
and the source and date of acquisition) to establish their claim of 
possession (see For Further Information Contact);
    (5) Provision of care for live sawfish that were in captivity at 
the time of listing. These individuals are still protected under the 
ESA and may not be killed or injured, or otherwise harmed, and, 
therefore, must receive proper care. Normal care of captive animals 
necessarily entails handling or other manipulation of the animals, and 
we do not consider such activities to constitute take or harassment of 
the animals so long as adequate care, including adequate veterinary 
care is provided. Such veterinary care includes confining, 
tranquilizing, or anesthetizing sawfish when such practices, 
procedures, or provisions are not likely to result in injury; and
    (6) Any importation or exportation of live sawfish or sawfish parts 
with all accompanying CITES import and export permits and an ESA 
section 10(a)(1)(a) permit for purposes of scientific research or the 
enhancement of the propagation or survival of the species.
    Section 11(f) of the ESA gives NMFS authority to promulgate 
regulations that may be appropriate to enforce the ESA. Future 
regulations may be promulgated to regulate trade or holding of sawfish, 
if necessary. The public will be given the opportunity to comment on 
future proposed regulations.

Policies on Peer Review

    In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued 
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing a 
minimum peer review standard. Similarly, a joint NMFS/FWS policy (59 FR 
34270; July 1, 1994) requires us to solicit independent expert review 
from qualified specialists, concurrent with the public comment period. 
The intent of the joint peer review policy is to ensure that listings 
are based on the best scientific and commercial data available. We 
formally solicited expert opinion of three appropriate and independent 
specialists regarding the scientific and commercial data or assumptions 
related to the information considered for listing.
    We considered peer reviewer comments in making our determination. 
We conclude that these experts' reviews satisfy the requirements for 
``adequate [prior] peer review'' contained in the Information Quality 
Bulletin for Peer Review and the joint NMFS/FWS policy (59 FR 34270; 
July 1, 1994).

References

    A complete list of the references used in this final rule is 
available on the Internet at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/sawfish/.

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act

    The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. 
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the 
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir. 
1981), NMFS has concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to 
the environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) (See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6).

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork 
Reduction Act

    As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the 
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of 
a species. Therefore, the economic analysis

[[Page 74005]]

requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to 
the listing process. In addition, this final rule is exempt from review 
under Executive Order 12866. This final rule does not contain a 
collection-of-information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this final rule 
does not have significant Federalism effects and that a Federalism 
assessment is not required.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224

    Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened 
species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
and Transportation.

    Dated: December 8, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 224 is amended 
as follows:

PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C 1361 et seq.


0
2. In Sec.  224.101, paragraph (h), amend the table by:
0
A. Removing the ``Sawfish, largetooth'' and the ``Sawfish, smalltooth 
(United States DPS)'' entries.
0
B. Adding entries for five new sawfish species in alphabetic order by 
Scientific name under ``Fishes'':


Sec.  224.101  Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *
    (h) The endangered species under the jurisdiction of the Secretary 
of Commerce are:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Species\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------  Citation(s) for     Critical
                                                    Description of        listing         habitat     ESA  rules
          Common name            Scientific name     listed entity    determination(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
            Fishes
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sawfish, dwarf................  Pristis clavata..  Entire species..  [Insert Federal             NA           NA
                                                                      Register
                                                                      citation] 12/12/
                                                                      2014.
Sawfish, green................  Pristis zijsron..  Entire species..  [Insert Federal             NA           NA
                                                                      Register
                                                                      citation] 12/12/
                                                                      2014.
Sawfish, largetooth...........  Pristis pristis    Entire species..  [Insert Federal             NA           NA
                                 (formerly                            Register
                                 Pristis                              citation] 12/12/
                                 perotteti,                           2014.
                                 Pristis pristis,
                                 and Pristis
                                 microdon).
Sawfish, narrow...............  Anoxypristis       Entire species..  [Insert Federal             NA           NA
                                 cuspidata.                           Register
                                                                      citation] 12/12/
                                                                      2014.
Sawfish, smalltooth (Non-U.S.   Pristis pectinata  Smalltooth        [Insert Federal             NA           NA
 DPS).                                              sawfish           Register
                                                    originating       citation] 12/12/
                                                    from non-U.S.     2014.
                                                    waters.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
  see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
  FR 58612, November 20, 1991).

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-29201 Filed 12-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P