[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 134 (Tuesday, July 14, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40969-40988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17016]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 224

[Docket No. 150506424-5424-01]
RIN 0648-XD940


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
and Proposed Rule To List Three Angelshark Species as Endangered Under 
the Endangered Species Act

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have completed a comprehensive status review under 
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for three foreign marine angelshark 
species in response to a petition to list those species. These three 
species are the sawback angelshark (Squatina aculeata), smoothback 
angelshark (Squatina oculata), and common angelshark (Squatina 
squatina). Based on the best scientific and commercial information 
available, including the status review report (Miller 2015), and after 
taking into account efforts being made to protect these species, we 
have determined that these three angelshark species warrant listing as 
endangered under the ESA. We are not proposing to designate critical 
habitat because the geographical areas occupied by these species are 
entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction, and we have not identified any 
unoccupied areas that are currently essential to the conservation of 
any of these species. We are soliciting comments on our proposal to 
list these three angelshark species.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by September 14, 
2015. Public hearing requests must be made by August 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by 
NOAA-NMFS-2015-0084, by either of the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0084. Click the ``Comment Now'' icon, 
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Maggie Miller, NMFS 
Office of Protected Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East West Highway, Silver 
Spring, MD 20910, USA.
    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business 
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily 
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous 
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain 
anonymous).
    You can find the petition, status review report, Federal Register 
notices, and the list of references electronically on our Web site at 
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/petition81.htm.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On July 15, 2013, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians 
to list 81 marine species or subpopulations as threatened or endangered 
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This petition included species 
from many different taxonomic groups, and we prepared our 90-day 
findings in batches by taxonomic group. We found that the petitioned 
actions may be warranted for 24 of the species and 3 of the 
subpopulations and announced the initiation of status reviews for each 
of the 24 species and 3 subpopulations (78 FR 63941, October 25, 2013; 
78 FR 66675, November 6, 2013; 78 FR 69376, November 19, 2013; 79 FR 
9880, February 21, 2014; and 79 FR 10104, February 24, 2014). This 
document addresses the findings for 3 of those 24 species: the sawback 
angelshark (Squatina aculeata), smoothback angelshark (Squatina 
oculata), and the common angelshark (Squatina squatina). The status of 
the findings and relevant Federal Register notices for the other 21 
species and 3 subpopulations can be found on our Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/petition81.htm.
    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 consider first 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'' to include ``any subspecies 
of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of 
any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when 
mature.'' On February 7, 1996, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USFWS; together, the Services) adopted a policy describing 
what constitutes a distinct population segment (DPS) of a taxonomic 
species (the DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722). The DPS Policy identified two 
elements that must be considered when identifying a DPS: (1) The 
discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of 
the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) the 
significance of the population segment to the remainder of the species

[[Page 40970]]

(or subspecies) to which it belongs. As stated in the DPS Policy, 
Congress expressed its expectation that the Services would exercise 
authority with regard to DPSs sparingly and only when the biological 
evidence indicates such action is warranted. Based on the scientific 
information available, we determined that the sawback angelshark 
(Squatina aculeata), smoothback angelshark (Squatina oculata), and 
common angelshark (Squatina squatina) are ``species'' under the ESA. 
There is nothing in the scientific literature indicating that any of 
these species should be further divided into subspecies or DPSs.
    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.'' We interpret an 
``endangered species'' to be one that is presently in danger of 
extinction. A ``threatened species,'' on the other hand, 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).
    When we consider whether a species might qualify as threatened 
under the ESA, we must consider the meaning of the term ``foreseeable 
future.'' It is appropriate to interpret ``foreseeable future'' as the 
horizon over which predictions about the conservation status of the 
species can be reasonably relied upon. The foreseeable future considers 
the life history of the species, habitat characteristics, availability 
of data, particular threats, ability to predict threats, and the 
reliability to forecast the effects of these threats and future events 
on the status of the species under consideration. Because a species may 
be susceptible to a variety of threats for which different data are 
available, or which operate across different time scales, the 
foreseeable future is not necessarily reducible to a particular number 
of years.
    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 threat factors: the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting 
its continued existence. We are also required to make listing 
determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data 
available, after conducting a review of the species' status and after 
taking into account efforts being made by any state or foreign nation 
to protect the species.

Status Review

    The status review for the three angelshark species addressed in 
this finding was conducted by a NMFS biologist in the Office of 
Protected Resources (Miller 2015). In order to complete the status 
review, information was compiled on each species' biology, ecology, 
life history, threats, and conservation status from information 
contained in the petition, our files, a comprehensive literature 
search, and consultation with experts. We also considered information 
submitted by the public in response to our petition finding. In 
assessing extinction risk of these three species, we considered the 
demographic viability factors developed by McElhany et al. (2000). The 
approach of considering demographic risk factors to help frame the 
consideration of extinction risk has been used in many of our status 
reviews, including for Pacific salmonids, Pacific hake, walleye 
pollock, Pacific cod, Puget Sound rockfishes, Pacific herring, 
scalloped and great hammerhead sharks, and black abalone (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ for links to these reviews). In this 
approach, the collective condition of individual populations is 
considered at the species level according to four demographic viability 
factors: abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial structure/
connectivity, and diversity. These viability factors reflect concepts 
that are well-founded in conservation biology and that individually and 
collectively provide strong indicators of extinction risk.
    The draft status review report (Miller 2015) was submitted to 
independent peer reviewers; comments and information received from peer 
reviewers were addressed and incorporated as appropriate before 
finalizing the draft report. The status review report is available on 
our Web site (see ADDRESSES section) and the peer review report is 
available at http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prplans/PRsummaries.html. Below we summarize information from the report and 
our analysis of the status of the three angelshark species. Further 
details can be found in Miller (2015).

Species Descriptions

    Angelsharks belong to the family Squatinidae (Order: 
Squatiniformes) and are recognized by their batoid shape. Species 
identification of angelsharks is mainly conducted through the 
examination of external characteristics (such as dorsal spines, nasal 
barbels, color, etc.), but the taxonomy is often considered to be 
problematic since several species are morphologically similar, with 
overlapping characteristics (Vaz and de Carvalho 2013). In 1984, 
Compagno (1984) identified and described 12 Squatina species. Since 
1984, 11 additional Squatina species have been recognized (Froese and 
Pauly 2014), bringing the present total to 23 identified Squatina 
species. Recent research suggests there are currently undescribed 
species, indicating that the taxonomy of the angelsharks may still be 
unresolved (Stelbrink et al. 2010; Vaz and de Carvalho 2013).
    Angelsharks can be found worldwide in temperate and tropical 
waters. The three species proposed for listing are found in coastal and 
outer continental shelf sediment habitats in the Mediterranean Sea and 
eastern Atlantic. These species are bottom dwellers and prefer to spend 
most of their time buried in the sand or mud (Compagno 1984). To feed, 
they generally lie in wait for prey to approach before attacking 
(ambush predators), and, based on their diet, they are considered to be 
high trophic level predators (trophic level = 4.0; Cort[eacute]s 1999). 
In terms of reproduction, all three angelshark species are 
ovoviviparous, meaning embryos develop inside eggs that hatch within 
the female's body, with young born live. However, according to Sunye 
and Vooren (1997), Squatina species also have a uterine-cloacal chamber 
(the chamber where embryos complete their final development stage) that 
is open to the external environmental through a cloacal vent. This 
anatomical configuration is thought to be the reason why Squatina 
species are observed easily aborting embryos during capture or handling 
(Sunye and Vooren 1997; Capap[eacute] et al. 2005). Additional species-
specific descriptions are provided below.
    Squatina aculeata (Cuvier, 1829), the sawback angelshark, is 
distinguished from other angelsharks by its row of dorsal spines 
(sword-like bony structure) down the middle of its body, with spines 
also located on the snout and above the eyes. The sawback angelshark 
also has fringed nasal barbels and anterior nasal flaps on its body

[[Page 40971]]

(Compagno 1984). It can be found on the continental shelf and upper 
slope in depths of 30 m to 500 m, and feeds on small sharks, jacks, and 
benthic invertebrates, including cephalopods and crustaceans (Compagno 
1984; Corsini and Zava 2007). Gestation for the species likely lasts 
around a year, with litter sizes ranging from 8 to 12 pups and size at 
birth estimated to be around 30 cm-35 cm total length (TL) 
(Capap[eacute] et al. 2005). Squatina aculeata displays sexual 
dimorphism, with males maturing at around 120 cm-124 cm TL and reaching 
maximum sizes of around 152 cm TL, and females maturing at larger 
sizes, around 137 cm-143 cm TL, and attaining larger maximum sizes (175 
cm-180 cm TL) (Capap[eacute] et al. 2005; Serena 2005).
    Squatina oculata (Bonaparte, 1840), the smoothback angelshark, is 
distinguished from other angelsharks by its big thorns (sharp, tooth-
like structures on the skin) that are present on the snout and above 
the eyes, a first dorsal fin that originates well behind the pelvic 
rear tips, and noticeable white spots in symmetrical patterns on the 
pectoral fins and body (Compagno 1984). The species occurs in depths of 
20 m to 560 m on the continental shelf and upper slopes, but is more 
commonly found in depths between 50 and 100 m (Compagno 1984; Serena 
2005). Squatina oculata generally feeds on small fishes, including 
goatfishes, and reaches sizes of at least 145 cm TL (males) and 160 cm 
TL (females) (Compagno 1984). Gestation likely lasts, at a minimum, 
around a year, with litter sizes ranging from 5 to 8 pups and size at 
birth around 23 cm-27 cm TL (Capap[eacute] et al. 1990, 2002). Maturity 
is attained at around 71 cm TL for males and around 90 cm TL for 
females (Compagno 1984; Capap[eacute] et al. 1990, 2002).
    Squatina squatina (Linnaeus, 1758), the common angelshark, is 
distinguished from other angelsharks by its simple and conical nasal 
barbels, high and wide pectoral fins, small spines that are present on 
snout and above eyes and may also be present down middle of back, and 
lateral trunk denticles that are very narrow with sharp-cusped crowns 
(Compagno 1984). Unlike the other two angelshark species, S. squatina 
is generally found in shallower water, from inshore areas out to the 
continental shelf in depths of 5 m to 150 m (OSPAR Commission 2010). It 
may also be observed in estuaries and brackish waters (OSPAR Commission 
2010). Squatina squatina has a diet that consists mostly of bony 
fishes, especially flatfishes, and other demersal animals (skates, 
crustaceans, molluscs), with the occasional eelgrass and seabird (Day 
1880; Compagno 1984; Ellis et al. 1996; Agri-Food & Biosciences 
Institute 2009; Narv[aacute]ez 2012). Gestation for S. squatina in the 
Canary Islands is estimated to be 6 months with a 3-year 
reproductive cycle (Osaer 2009). Elsewhere in its range, gestation 
period is unknown but possibly lasts from 8 to 12 months, with 
potentially a 2-year reproductive cycle (Tonachella 2010; ICES 2014). 
Litter sizes range from 7 to 25 pups, with size at birth from 24 cm-30 
cm TL (Osaer 2009; Tonachella 2010). Males mature between 80 cm and 132 
cm TL, with maximum sizes attained at 183 cm TL, and females mature 
between 126 cm and 169 cm TL and attain maximum sizes of up to 244 cm 
TL (Compagno 1984; Capap[eacute] et al. 1990; Quigley 2006; Tonachella 
2010). In the Canary Islands, Osaer (2009) found length at first 
maturity (Lm50) for males to be 100.9 cm TL and for females to be 102.1 
cm TL, which is a bit smaller than the values estimated elsewhere. 
Weight of S. squatina has been recorded up to 80 kg (Quigley 2006).

Historical and Current Distribution and Population Abundance

Squatina aculeata

    The sawback angelshark was historically found in central and 
western Mediterranean waters and in the eastern Atlantic, from Morocco 
to Angola. According to Capap[eacute] et al. (2005), it has never been 
recorded in Atlantic waters north of the Strait of Gibraltar. It was 
previously assumed to be very rare or absent from the eastern 
Mediterranean (Capap[eacute] et al. 2005; Psomadakis et al. 2009); 
however, a number of recent studies have documented its presence in 
this region, suggesting possible misidentification of the species in 
historical records. For example, in 2007, Corsini and Zava (2007) 
reported the first record of the species in Hellenic waters of the 
Southeast Aegean Sea (around Rhodes and the Dodecanese Islands). Catch 
of S. aculeata has also been reported from the [Ccedil]anakkale Strait 
off Turkey ([Uuml]nal et al. 2010) and from G[ouml]kova Bay in the 
southern Aegean Sea (Filiz et al. 2005). The species was also listed as 
occurring in the Levantine Sea by Golani (1996) (as reported in 
Capap[eacute] et al. (2005)), with the first actual description of a 
specimen caught in this area from Iskenderun Bay in 1997 (Basusta 
2002); however, by 2004, Golani (personal communication cited in 
Capap[eacute] et al. (2005)) noted that the species was no longer 
reported in the area. In their updated checklist of marine fishes of 
Turkey, Bileceno[gbreve]lu et al. (2014) recorded S. aculeata as 
occurring in the Aegean Sea and Levantine Sea, and between 2001 and 
2004, Saad et al. (2005) captured the species along the Syrian coast.
    The species is currently reported as ``doubtful'' or rare in many 
areas in the central and western Mediterranean Sea, such as off the 
Spanish and French coasts, within Italian waters, and off Algeria 
(Barrull et al. 1999; Capap[eacute] et al. 2005). In the central 
Mediterranean, specifically the Gulf of Gab[egrave]s (Tunisia), the 
species was noted as being abundant in 1978 (Quignard and Ben Othman 
1978) and ``regularly observed'' in 2006 (Bradai et al. 2006); however, 
more recent studies suggest the species has significantly declined in 
this region and is now a rare occurrence in Mediterranean Tunisian 
waters (Scacco et al. 2002; Capap[eacute] et al. 2005; Ragonese et al. 
2013). Although the species had been previously included in inventories 
of sharks and ray species from the Maltese Islands (based on 
unconfirmed records; Schembri et al. 2003), recent surveys conducted in 
these waters (Scacco et al. 2002; Ragonese et al. 2013) cannot confirm 
its presence.
    Squatina aculeata has also seen significant declines in neighboring 
Mediterranean waters, such as in the Tyrrhenian Sea and Adriatic Sea. 
Based on historical commercial landings data and recent survey data, 
Ferretti et al. (2005) concluded that the species has been extirpated 
from the northern Tyrrhenian Sea since the early 1970s. Similarly, 
Capap[eacute] et al. (2005) noted past records of S. aculeata in the 
Adriatic Sea (dated to 1975); however, more recent and extensive bottom 
trawl surveys conducted from 1994-2005 throughout the Adriatic Sea have 
failed to locate the species (Jukic-Peladic et al. 2001; Ferretti et 
al. 2013). In contrast, in waters off Libya, the species was described 
as relatively common by the United National Environment Programme 
(UNEP) in 2005 (UNEP-Mediterranean Action Plan Regional Activity Centre 
For Specially Protected Areas (UNEP-MAP RAC/SPA) 2005); however, the 
data on which this statement was based, and present abundance, are 
unknown.
    In the western Mediterranean, the only information concerning the 
distribution and abundance of S. aculeata is the mention of a few 
specimens held in Spanish and French museums (The Global Biodiversity 
Information Facility (GBIF) 2013) and a discussion of the Balearic 
Islands (Spain) population in the International Union for Conservation 
of Nature (IUCN) Red List assessment of the species by Morey et al. 
(2007a).

[[Page 40972]]

Specifically, Morey et al. (2007a) suggest that Squatina species 
(presumably S. aculeata or S. oculata based on fishing depths) were 
commonly caught in the Balearic Islands until the 1970s, after which 
captures became more sporadic. By the mid-1990s, the species was no 
longer observed or recorded from the area (Morey et al. 2007a).
    In the eastern Atlantic, observed population declines appear to 
have occurred within the past 40 years, particularly in waters off West 
Africa. According to a personal communication in the Morey et al. 
(2007a) assessment (from F. Litvinov in 2006), S. aculeata was commonly 
reported in Russian surveys off the coast of West Africa during the 
1970s and 1980s. Similarly, in their 1973 checklist of marine fishes, 
Hureau and Monod (1973) also referred to the species as common in these 
waters. By the early 1980s, however, there were signs of decline based 
on observations of the species. In fact, by 1985, Mu[ntilde]oz-Chapuli 
(1985) considered the species to be rare in the eastern Atlantic. This 
characterization was based on data from 181 commercial trawls conducted 
in 0 m-550 m depths from 1980-1982 along the northwestern African coast 
(27[deg] N-37[deg] N) and Alboran Sea. Only 28 S. aculeata sharks were 
captured, with 25 of them caught off the coast of Morocco (between 
31[deg] N and 34[deg] N). In waters farther south, Morey et al. (2007a) 
indicate that the species was frequently caught by artisanal Senegalese 
fishermen 30 years ago (mid-1970s), with catches now very rare 
according to artisanal fishermen and observers of the industrial 
demersal trawl fleets (Morey et al. (2007a) citing a personal 
communication from M. Ducrocq). Similarly, Capap[eacute] et al. (2005) 
noted that the species was relatively abundant off the coast of Senegal 
and was landed throughout the year; but, in recent years, Senegalese 
fishermen have reported fewer observations of all squatinid species 
(Dr. Christian Capap[eacute], Professor at Universit[eacute] 
Montpellier 2, personal communication 2015). In Sierra Leone, Morey et 
al. (2007a), citing a personal communication from M. Seisay, state that 
the species was ``periodically caught by demersal trawlers in the 
1980s, but are now caught very infrequently.'' These observations tend 
to support the available survey data, although data are only available 
through the year 2002. From 1962 to 2002, species recorded from 246 
surveys conducted along the west coast of Africa were reported in two 
databases: Trawlbase and Statbase, as part of the Syst[egrave]me 
d'Information et d'Analyse des P[ecirc]ches (SIAP) project (Mika Diop, 
Program Officer at Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, personal 
communication 2015). Based on the information from these databases, S. 
aculeata was recorded rather sporadically and in low abundance in the 
surveys since the 1970s, the exception being a 1997 survey conducted 
off Senegal, which recorded 24 individuals. However, in the surveys 
that followed (conducted from 1999-2002; with surveys off Senegal 
conducted in 1999 and 2000), no S. aculeata individuals were caught, 
with the last record of the species from the database dating back to 
1998.

Squatina Oculata

    The smoothback angelshark was historically found throughout the 
Mediterranean Sea and in the eastern Atlantic from Morocco to Angola. 
The current distribution and abundance of the species is not well 
known. In the western Mediterranean, it is possible that the species 
has been extirpated from the Balearic Islands (see discussion for S. 
aculeata above). Similarly, in the central Mediterranean, Ferretti et 
al. (2005) noted the disappearance of the entire Squatina genus from 
the northern Tyrrhenian Sea in the early 1970s. Between the Maltese 
Islands and Tunisia, Ragonese et al. (2013) noted S. oculata's sporadic 
occurrence based on shelf and slope trawl data from 1997, 1998, and 
2006, whereas Bradai et al. (2006) ``regularly observed'' the species 
in the Gulf of Gab[egrave]s. Prior to these surveys, Capap[eacute] et 
al. (1990) had suggested that the Gulf of Tunis (Tunisia) was likely a 
nursery area for S. oculata based on trawl catch data. In 2005, UNEP 
reported the species as being relatively common in Libyan waters but 
provided no corresponding citation or data to support this statement or 
further information regarding abundance in the Mediterranean Sea (UNEP-
MAP RAC/SPA 2005). The species has also been reported in the Adriatic 
Sea (Arapi et al. 2006; Soldo 2006), although, extensive bottom trawl 
surveys conducted from 1994-2005 throughout the Adriatic Sea failed to 
locate the species in these waters (Jukic-Peladic et al. 2001; Ferretti 
et al. 2013).
    In the eastern Mediterranean, its present distribution appears to 
be patchy, with few observations of the species. In 2004, one female S. 
oculata individual was caught by a trawl net in depths of 60 m-70 m in 
Trianda Gulf off the northwest coast of Rhodes, Greece. This marked the 
first record of the species in Hellenic waters of the Southeastern 
Aegean Sea (Corsini and Zava 2007). The species also appears to be rare 
in the central Aegean Sea as Damalas and Vassilopolou (2011) recorded 
only one individual during their analysis of 335 records of bottom 
trawl hauls conducted between 1995 and 2006. On the other hand, the 
species is characterized as ``prevalent'' by Golani (2006) along the 
Mediterranean coast of Israel, although the data upon which this 
characterization was based and the present abundance are unknown. S. 
oculata is also reported as occurring in the Sea of Marmara 
(Bileceno[gbreve]lu et al. 2014) and off the Mediterranean Syrian coast 
(based on survey data from 2001-2004; Saad et al. 2006). In 2015, an 
individual was landed near Akyaka (Turkey) by local fishermen (Joanna 
Barker, UK & Europe Project Manager of Conservation Programmes at 
Zoological Society of London, personal communication 2015).
    There is very little available information on the abundance of this 
species in the eastern Atlantic. The IUCN Red List assessment of the 
species by Morey et al. (2007b) also cites to the same personal 
communication from M. Ducrocq and F. Litvinov, found in the assessment 
of S. aculeata (Morey et al. 2007a), that indicates the species was 
frequently caught by artisanal Senegalese fishermen as well as commonly 
reported in Russian surveys off the coast of West Africa 30 years ago. 
Hureau and Monod (1973) also referred to the species as ``rather 
common'' in the eastern Atlantic, from Morocco to Angola. During 1981-
1982, a Norwegian research vessel conducted trawl surveys off West 
Africa, from Aghadir to Ghana, to examine the composition and biomass 
of fish resources in this region. Squatina oculata was the only 
Squatina species caught during these surveys, with catch rates of 45.6 
kg/hour off the coast of Gambia, 13.4 kg/hour off Sierra Leone, and 
12.4 kg/hour off Liberia (Str[oslash]mme 1984). In 2001, S. oculata was 
also reported as occurring off the coast of Ghana, with individuals 
usually caught between November and December but rarely landed (Edwards 
et al. 2001). No other data on abundance or frequency of occurrence 
were provided. Based on personal communication, Morey et al. (2007b) 
report that catches of the species in this region are now very rare, 
and Senegalese fishermen have noted a decrease in observations of all 
squatinid species in recent years (C. Capap[eacute], pers. comm. 2015). 
Based on the information from the SIAP databases, S. oculata was 
recorded rather sporadically in the surveys, with a few years reporting 
>20 individuals, primarily from surveys

[[Page 40973]]

conducted off the coast of Senegal. The last record of the species from 
the data dates back to 2002.

Squatina Squatina

    The common angelshark is the most northerly distributed of the 
three angelshark species discussed in this finding. Its historical 
range extended along the eastern Atlantic, from Scandinavia to 
Mauritania, including the Canary Islands, and the Mediterranean and 
Black Seas. Throughout most of the northeastern Atlantic, S. squatina 
was historically frequently encountered. As Day (1880) reported, the 
species was common within the North Sea and English Channel, especially 
along the southern coasts of Kent, Sussex, and Hampshire. It was also 
regularly observed in the Firth of Clyde after gales (Day 1880). Hureau 
and Monod (1973) noted its occurrence from the western and southern 
North Sea, and in Scandinavian waters in the Skagerrak and Kattegat. 
The authors characterized the species as common over 40 years ago, 
except in the most northern and eastern parts of its range. Pethon 
(1979) also documented the presence of the species in waters off Norway 
(first record in 1929; second record in 1979), describing the species 
as rare in Scandinavian waters but regularly observed in the southern 
part of the North Sea and around the British Isles. However, 
comparisons of historical and current catch and survey data on S. 
squatina suggest significant declines in abundance of the species 
throughout its range in the northeastern Atlantic, with possible 
extirpations of the species from the western English Channel (near 
Plymouth), North Sea, and Baltic Sea (although adult S. squatina were 
always considered to be rare in these waters; HELCOM 2013) (Morey et 
al. 2006; OSPAR Commission 2010; McHugh et al. 2011; ICES 2014).
    In Irish waters, historical records (dating back to 1772) suggest 
the species was regularly observed off the southern and western coasts 
of Ireland (Dr. Declan Quigley, Sea Fisheries Protection Authority, 
personal communication 2015). In fact, in the1960s, S. squatina were 
caught in large numbers off the west coast of Ireland, in Tralee Bay 
(County Kerry), by recreational anglers competing in fishing 
tournaments. Data from a marine sport fish tagging program in Ireland 
also suggests the species was rather common in these waters, with 320 
angelsharks caught, tagged, and released in Tralee and Clew Bays 
(Ireland) from 1987-1991. However, by the late 1990s, data from angler 
catches and the tagging program indicate that abundance started to 
decline. Specifically, annual numbers of S. squatina (weighing >22.68 
kg) caught by rod and line gear significantly decreased when compared 
to the previous 50 years, and from 1997-2001, only 16 angelsharks were 
caught by the tagging program, despite no change in tagging effort 
(Quigley 2006; ICES 2014). Since 2006, only one individual has been 
caught and tagged (ICES 2014). The species is now extremely rare off 
the west coast of Ireland, with no reported recaptures of tagged sharks 
since 2004. However, in October 2013, an angler reported catching (and 
releasing) an angelshark in Tralee Bay, confirming that the species 
still exists in these waters.
    Similarly, in other areas of the northeastern Atlantic, survey data 
on S. squatina suggest very low present abundance. For example, Ellis 
et al. (1996) analyzed data from 550 bottom trawls conducted throughout 
the northeastern Atlantic (with survey focus in the Irish Sea) between 
1981 and 1983 and found only 19 S. squatina sharks, comprising 0.6 
percent of the total elasmobranch catch. Analysis of more extensive 
bottom-trawl survey datasets, covering the period of 1967-2002 and with 
sampling in the North Sea (1967-1990; 2001-2002), Celtic Sea (1982-
2002), Eastern English Channel (1989-2002), Irish Sea (1988-2001), and 
Western English Channel (1990-2001), failed to record any S. squatina 
individuals (Ellis et al. 2004). However, in 2009, one S. squatina 
shark was captured in Cardigan Bay, four sharks were collected off 
Pembrokeshire (Wales) near the entrance to St. George's Channel (two in 
2007 and two in 2010), and recent (2015) reports on social media 
networks of S. squatina catches provide some evidence of the 
contemporary presence of the species in the Irish Sea and nearby waters 
(ICES 2013; ICES 2014; J. Barker, pers. comm. 2015).
    Similar to the trend in the northeastern Atlantic, S. squatina 
populations have declined throughout the Mediterranean Sea, with 
possible local extirpations in the Black Sea, Adriatic Sea, and 
northern Tyrrhenian Sea (Jukic-Peladic et al. 2001; Ferretti et al. 
2005; Morey et al. 2006; OSPAR Commission 2010; Ferretti et al. 2013). 
In the central Mediterranean, S. squatina was commonly recorded in 
historical faunistic lists (Giusto and Ragonese 2014). The species was 
reported in the Gulf of Naples in historical records dating back to 
1871 through at least 1956 (Tortonese 1956; Psomadakis et al. 2009) and 
in the Adriatic Sea (Tortonese 1956). However, Ferretti et al. (2005) 
noted the disappearance of the entire Squatina genus from the northern 
Tyrrhenian Sea in the early 1970s. In 2005, UNEP reported the species 
as being relatively common in Libyan waters; however, the data on which 
this statement was based are unknown. Bradai et al. (2006) also 
reported that the species was ``regularly observed'' in the Gulf of 
Gab[egrave]s; however, the only available data from this region comes 
from surveys conducted off the southern coasts of Sicily and northern 
coasts of Tunisia and Libya. In contrast to the Bradai et al. (2006) 
characterization of the abundance of the species, trawl surveys 
conducted from 1995-1999 in the Strait of Sicily recorded S. squatina 
near Cape Bon, Tunisia with a biomass that comprised only 1 percent of 
the total elasmobranch catch (Scacco et al. 2002). Ragonese et al. 
(2013) confirmed the rarity of this species, reporting only one 
captured individual from their analysis of extensive survey data 
collected between the southern coasts of Sicily and northern coasts of 
Africa (Tunisia and Libya) from 1994 to 2009. The fish was caught at a 
depth of 128 m in 2005, close to the Maltese Islands. More recently, in 
2011, an artisanal fishing vessel caught an S. squatina shark in a 
trammel net off the coast of Mazara del Vallo (southwestern Sicily), 
marking the first documented occurrence of S. squatina in over 30 years 
off the coast of southern Sicily (Giusto and Ragonese 2014).
    In the eastern Mediterranean, S. squatina is rare but present. In 
2008, three S. squatina individuals were recorded in Egypt from 
commercial landings in western Alexandrian waters (Moftah 2011). Within 
Turkish Seas, Kabasakal and Kabasakal (2014) report that S. squatina 
comprised 1.1 percent of the total number of elasmobranchs (n = 4632) 
caught between 1995 and 1999, and 0.46 percent of the total shark 
catches (n = 1068) between 1995 and 2004 in the northern Aegean Sea. In 
their updated checklist of marine fishes of Turkey, Bileceno[gbreve]lu 
et al. (2014) record S. squatina as occurring in the Black Sea 
(although the reference dates back to 1999), Sea of Marmara, Aegean 
Sea, and Levantine Sea. Kabasakal and Kabasakal (2014) also confirmed 
the presence of S. squatina in the Sea of Marmara but remarked on its 
rarity in these waters. In the Levantine Sea, Bulguro[gbreve]lu et al. 
(2014) reported the capture of an S. squatina individual in 2013 by a 
commercial trawl vessel from a depth of 50 m in Antalya Bay (southern 
Turkey), Hadjichristophorou (2006) characterized the species as

[[Page 40974]]

occasionally occurring in Cyprus fishery records, and Saad et al. 
(2006) captured the species along the Syrian coast during surveys 
conducted from 2001-2004. Additionally, Soldo (2006) notes the presence 
of the species in the Adriatic Sea but the information used to support 
this assertion is unclear, as the species has not been reported in 
survey data from these waters since 1958 (Ferretti et al. 2013).
    Presently, the only part of its range where S. squatina is 
confirmed as still relatively common is off the Canary Islands 
(Mu[ntilde]oz-Chapuli 1985; OSPAR Commission 2010). Much of the 
information on S. squatina presence and abundance from this area is 
derived from diver observational data. In 2013, the Zoological Society 
of London (ZSL), Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (ULPGC) and 
Zoological Research Museum Alexander K[ouml]nig (ZFMK) created the 
``Angel Shark Project'' (ASP), which has gathered public sighting data 
of angelsharks through the creation of a citizen science sighting 
scheme called Poseidon (www.programaposeidon.eu) (Joanna Barker, UK & 
Europe Coordinator Conservation Programmes, ZSL, personal communication 
2014). Since the launch of the Poseidon portal in April 2014, there 
have been 624 validated records (sightings of angelsharks), covering 
areas with no previous records such as El Hierro and La Palma (Meyers 
et al. 2014; Meyers, pers. comm. 2015; also see reported sightings on 
the ASP Web site, available at http://angelsharkproject.com/). 
Currently, 22 dive centers are actively reporting angelsharks (J. 
Barker, pers. comm. 2014); however, a few dive centers have been 
collecting observational data even prior to the creation of the 
Poseidon portal. For example, the ``Davy Jones Diving'' dive center, in 
Gran Canaria, has collected data on angelshark sightings in the ``El 
Cabron'' or Arinaga Marine Reserve since 2006. Narv[aacute]ez et al. 
(2008) analyzed these dive data for the period of May 2006 through 
August 2008 and found that 271 angelsharks were sighted over the course 
of 1,709 dives. Sightings included both females and males (with a sex 
ratio of 1:1.6) as well as juveniles (9 percent of the sightings) and 
adults.
    The Davy Jones Diving dive center continues to log sightings of 
angelsharks and other species on its Web site. Analysis of the log data 
from January 1, 2011 through December 29, 2014 shows that angelsharks 
are still frequently observed in the Arinaga Marine Reserve, with 
sightings recorded on 35 percent of the dive trips off Gran Canaria 
over the past 3 years (n = 1,253 total trips) (Miller 2015).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Three Angelshark Species

    Available information regarding historical, current, and potential 
threats to these three angelshark species was thoroughly reviewed 
(Miller 2015). We find that the main threat to these species is 
overutilization for commercial and recreational purposes. We consider 
the severity of this threat to be exacerbated by the species' natural 
biological vulnerability to overexploitation, which has led to declines 
in abundance and subsequent extirpations and range curtailment. We find 
current regulatory measures inadequate to protect these species from 
further overutilization. Hence, we identify these factors as additional 
threats contributing to the species' risk of extinction. We summarize 
information regarding these threats and their interactions below, with 
species-specific information where available, and according to the 
factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Available information 
does not indicate that disease, predation or other natural or manmade 
factors are operative threats on these species; therefore, we do not 
discuss these factors further in this finding. See Miller (2015) for a 
full discussion of all ESA Section 4(a)(1) threat categories.

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

    Based on the evidence of S. squatina extirpations in many parts of 
its range (see discussion in Historical and Current Distribution and 
Population Abundance), there has been a significant curtailment of the 
species' historical range, most notably in the northeastern Atlantic. 
In 2008, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 
(ICES) acknowledged that S. squatina was extirpated in the North Sea 
(although stated it may still occur in parts of the English Channel) 
and from parts of the Celtic Seas (ICES 2014), defining the term 
``extirpated'' as ``loss of the species from part of the main 
geographical range or habitat, and therefore . . . distinguished from a 
contraction in the range of a species, where it has been lost from the 
fringes of its distribution or suboptimal habitat.'' The species is 
also believed to be extirpated from the Baltic Sea and western English 
Channel in the northeastern Atlantic, from the Adriatic, Ligurian and 
Tyrrhenian Seas in the Mediterranean, and from the Black Sea (Rogers 
and Ellis 2000; Jukic-Peladic et al. 2001; Dulvy et al. 2003; Ferretti 
et al. 2005; OSPAR Commission 2010; EVOMED 2011).
    In the northern parts of its range, S. squatina is thought to 
undertake seasonal migrations, sometimes of large distances, moving 
inshore for the summer and out to deeper water in the winter (Day 1880; 
OSPAR Commission 2010; ICES 2014). However, for the most part, results 
from tagging studies conducted in the northeastern Atlantic indicate 
these sharks remain in waters close to their initial tagging location 
(Quigley 2006). Similarly, in Mediterranean waters, S. squatina do not 
appear to stray far from a core area, with tagged fish recaptured 10-44 
km from their release site (Quignard and Capap[eacute] 1971; 
Capap[eacute] et al. 1990). This available tagging information suggests 
that S. squatina exhibit potentially high site fidelity, which 
increases their susceptibility to local extirpations and has likely led 
to the observed loss of populations throughout large portions of its 
range. At this time, there is no genetic information available that 
could provide insight into natural rates of dispersal and genetic 
exchange among populations. However, based on information that S. 
squatina are ovoviviparous (lacking a dispersive larval phase) and 
likely exist as potentially isolated populations in a highly fragmented 
landscape, re-colonization of the extirpated areas mentioned above may 
not be possible. This curtailment of historical range ultimately 
translates to a significant loss of suitable habitat for the species 
and greatly increases the species' risk of extinction.
    A curtailment of historical range is much less evident for the 
other two species, where data are severely limited. The IUCN Red List 
reviews of S. aculeata and S. oculata suggest these two species are now 
rare or even absent from most of the northern Mediterranean coastline 
(Morey et al. 2007a, b). Many historical records simply document the 
presence of these species in certain locations, with no corresponding 
information on abundance or distribution. Only a few references provide 
subjective descriptions of historical abundance, and only from select 
areas (i.e., Balearic Islands, Gulf of Gab[egrave]s, Libya, Israel, and 
Senegal; see Historical and Current Distribution and Population 
Abundance section). However, based on the absence of the species in 
relatively recent and repeated surveys in areas where they were once 
historically documented, it is possible that both species may have 
experienced a curtailment of their historical range. For S. aculeata, 
the available information suggests it may no

[[Page 40975]]

longer be found in the Adriatic Sea (Jukic-Peladic et al. 2001; 
Ferretti et al. 2013) or central Aegean Sea (where the species was 
likely historically rare; Damalas and Vassilopolou 2011), and is also 
missing from the Ligurian and Tyrrhenian Seas (where it was caught by 
local fishermen and also part of commercial landings in the 1970s; 
Ferretti et al. 2005; EVOMED 2011), and off the Balearic Islands (where 
angelsharks were historically common; Morey et al. 2007a). For S. 
oculata, the species may no longer be found in the Aegean Sea (Damalas 
and Vassilopolou 2011), Ligurian and Tyrrhenian Seas (Ferretti et al. 
2005; EVOMED 2011), and off the Balearic Islands (Morey et al. 2007a), 
where its historical abundance in these areas mirrors that of S. 
aculeata. Similar to the case with S. squatina, these local 
extirpations and population declines have likely resulted in patchy 
distributions of both S. aculeata and S. oculata populations with low 
connectivity and loss of suitable habitat, increasing the species' 
risks of further extirpations and possibly leading to complete 
extinction.
    We investigated additional habitat-specific threats to the three 
angelshark species, including the impacts of demersal trawling on 
habitat modification, deep-water oil exploration projects, and climate 
change; however, we found no information to indicate these are 
operative threats that are increasing the species' risks of extinction. 
Although significant demersal trawling occurred and continues to occur 
throughout the range of the Squatina species (Sacchi 2008; FAO 2013), 
and has likely altered seafloor morphology (Puig et al. 2012), there is 
no information that this habitat modification has had a direct effect 
on the abundance of these three species, or is specifically responsible 
for the curtailment of range of any of the Squatina species. The 
species' broad diets of benthic invertebrates and fishes from soft-
sediment habitats means they are likely relatively resistant and 
resilient to changes in their habitats.
    In 2012, there was concern regarding potential oil spill impacts on 
the S. squatina habitat around the Canary Islands because the Spanish 
government had approved a deep-water oil exploration project off the 
coasts of Fuerteventura and Lanzarote (Nav[iacute]o 2013). However, 
based on the 2014 exploratory drilling in the region, Repsol (the 
Spanish oil company in charge of the project) determined that the area 
``lacked the necessary volume and quality [of methane and hexane gases] 
to consider future extraction'' and abandoned drilling off the Canary 
Islands in January 2015 (Bjork 2015).
    Predicted impacts to angelshark habitats from climate change were 
also evaluated. The effects of climate change are a growing concern for 
fisheries management, as the distributions of many marine organisms are 
shifting in response to their changing environment. Factors having the 
most potential to affect marine species are changes in water 
temperature, salinity, ocean acidification, ocean circulation, and sea 
level rise. However, based on a study published by Jones et al. (2013), 
it appears that angelsharks, at least in United Kingdom (UK) waters, 
may not be especially vulnerable to these impacts. According to the 
authors' climate model projections, any negative impacts from a range 
shift due to climate change would likely be offset by an increase in 
availability of protected habitat areas for the common angelshark. In 
addition, the range shift would also shrink the angelshark's overlap 
with other commercially-targeted species, thus potentially decreasing 
their occurrence as bycatch during commercial fishery operations. We 
found no other information regarding the response of Squatina species 
to the impacts of climate change. Therefore, at this time, the best 
available information does not suggest that habitat modification or 
destruction by demersal trawling activities, deep-water oil exploration 
projects, or climate change contributes significantly to the extinction 
risk of these species.

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Based on catch records and anecdotal reports, the Squatina species 
were historically regularly observed and landed in many areas of their 
respective ranges. For example, S. squatina (which was historically 
called ``monkfish'' before anglerfish entered the market) was commonly 
recorded on the southern and eastern English coasts, western and 
southern coasts of Ireland, within the North Sea, on the Dogger Bank, 
in the Bristol Channel, in the Firth of Clyde, and in the Mediterranean 
Sea during the 19th and early 20th centuries (Day 1880; Ferretti et al. 
2005; Morey et al. 2006; D. Quigley, pers. comm. 2015). In UK waters in 
the late 19th century, Day (1880) noted that the species was taken off 
the coasts of Kent, Sussex, Hampshire, and Swansea, frequent in 
Cornwall, and common ``at all times'' along the southern coast of 
Devon, documenting a personal observation of finding 26 common 
angelsharks that had been pulled in by seine net from Start Bay and 
left to die on shore. In Italy, historical fishing gear called 
``squaenara'' or ``squadrara'' were purposely built to catch 
angelsharks (EVOMED 2011), suggesting a level of abundance that would 
warrant specialized gear and targeting of the species. Similarly, in 
French waters, angelsharks were so common that Arcachon fishermen would 
also use a special net designed specifically for catching them. These 
fishermen, who fished on the continental shelf in Arcachon Bay and the 
Bay of Biscay, would rope the tails of the species with a string 
attached to a type of wooden buoy and would bring the live shark back 
to shore. By the mid-19th century, annual catches of S. squatina 
totaled around 25,000 kg per year (Laporte 1853 cited by Qu[eacute]ro 
and Cendrero 1996 and Qu[eacute]ro 1998). The angelshark was 
historically marketed for its flesh (which was consumed or used for a 
variety of purposes, including: Medicine, bait, polish for wood and 
ivory, cover for hilts of swords, and sheaths for knives), liver for 
oil, and carcass for fishmeal (Day 1880; Edwards et al. 2001; Saad et 
al. 2006; Shark Trust 2010; ICES 2014; D. Quigley, pers. comm. 2015 
citing Rutty (1772)). This exploitation continued for much of the 19th 
and early 20th centuries, during the time when demersal trawl fisheries 
saw significant expansion in the northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean. 
Because angelsharks are sedentary, bottom-dwelling species, they are 
highly susceptible to being caught in trawl fisheries. Consequently, as 
demersal trawling activities expanded with the use of steam-powered 
trawlers in the 1890s, angelshark populations began to experience 
significant declines.
    For S. squatina, the comparison of historical and current catch and 
survey data provide evidence of this clear decline from 
overutilization. In Arcachon Bay and the Bay of Biscay, for example, 
where S. squatina was once commonly caught in the mid-19th century, 
annual landings have decreased by over 95 percent compared to 
historical landings data, with only 291 kg of the species recorded 
caught in 1996 (Qu[eacute]ro 1998). Similarly, in the western English 
Channel, where Day (1880) noted the species was frequently captured by 
trawls and taken in trammel and seine nets in the late 19th century, S. 
squatina has since seemingly disappeared. Based on data from multiple 
research trawl surveys, conducted from 1989-1997 and 2008-2009 and in 
waters where historical surveys previously recorded the species, S. 
squatina was notably absent (Rogers

[[Page 40976]]

and Ellis 2000; McHugh et al. 2011). Numerous other surveys provide 
similar evidence of declines and disappearances (see Historical and 
Current Distribution and Population Abundance section), indicating that 
S. squatina has essentially declined to the point where it is now 
extirpated in a number of areas of its historical range where it was 
previously common, and is rarely observed or caught throughout the rest 
of its range (Barrull et al. 1999; Ferretti et al. 2005; Morey et al. 
2006; Psomadakis et al. 2009; McHugh et al. 2011; Dell'Apa et al. 
2012).
    It is likely that S. aculeata and S. oculata were also negatively 
impacted by these demersal trawlers, given their similar behavior and 
overlapping ranges; however, information regarding their relative 
historical abundance and/or frequency throughout their respective 
ranges, which could provide insight into population trends and impacts 
of this utilization, is less certain. Instead, much of the information, 
at least from Mediterranean waters, is primarily in the form of 
presence/absence on shark inventory lists for different countries or 
general characterizations of the species (with the most recent 
characterizations dated almost 10 years ago), with no corresponding 
data or information on abundance, the rationale behind the 
characterization, or recent updates on the status or presence of these 
species from those areas. However, with this information, we at least 
have evidence of the presence of these species in certain areas in the 
past and can rely on survey data for indications as to the present 
status of these species. Examining the extent of coverage of recent 
surveys and evaluating the potential impact of historical fishing 
effort can allow for reasonable conclusions to be drawn regarding 
utilization of these species. For example, Ferretti et al. (2005) 
concluded that the Squatina species have been extirpated from off the 
Tuscan coast since the early 1970s. This conclusion was based on the 
fact that the Squatina species (specifically S. aculeata and S. 
squatina) were formerly present in commercial landings data (although 
of unknown magnitude) and all three species were absent in recent trawl 
surveys. The trawl surveys were extensive, covering the continental 
shelf and upper slope of the Tuscan coast, from 0 to 800 meters depth, 
with 88 tows conducted from 1972-1974 and 1,614 tows between 1985 and 
2004 (Ferretti et al. 2005). In terms of historical fishing effort, the 
Tuscan fishery had been active for many years prior to the 20th 
century; however, it was not until the beginning of the 20th century 
when fishermen began focusing on exploiting demersal resources 
(Ferretti et al. 2005). As technology advanced in the 1930s, the 
fishery improved, and by 1960, Ferretti et al. (2005) estimated that 
the fleet was exploiting approximately 90 percent of the Tuscan 
Archipelago (~ 13,000 km\2\), with the majority of trawl effort 
concentrated in depths less than 400 m. Although the historical 
abundance of the Squatina species in this region is unknown (which 
could provide insight into the likelihood of the species in landings 
and survey data), given the history of the fishery, area of operation 
of the Tuscan fleets, and coverage of the recent trawl surveys, it is 
likely that historical overutilization of the angelshark species has 
occurred as a result of the expansion of the trawl fisheries. This 
overutilization has ultimately led to the observed extirpation of the 
Squatina species from the region. The decline and subsequent 
extirpation is further corroborated by interviews with fishermen who 
used to trawl in the Ligurian and Tyrrhenian Seas. According to their 
personal observations, the Squatina spp. were already reduced in 
numbers by the 1960s and 1970s (during the surge in fishing effort and 
capacity), with the last catches of the species from these seas 
remembered as occurring in the early 1980s (EVOMED 2011). Fishermen 
that trawled off the Sardinian coast also noted the progressive decline 
in abundance of the Squatina spp. during these years of fishery 
expansion, with the disappearance of the species from Sardinian waters 
occurring in the mid-1980s (EVOMED 2011).
    Similar conclusions can be made regarding the present status of the 
Squatina species off the Balearic Islands by comparing historical 
characterizations of these species and fishing effort to recent 
fishery-independent survey data. Historically, Morey et al. (2007a) 
suggested that Squatina species (presumably S. aculeata or S. oculata 
based on fishing depths) were commonly caught in the Balearic Islands, 
pointing to evidence of a special type of fishing net that was used for 
catching angelsharks in this area. These species were frequently caught 
in the coastal artisanal fisheries and also by the trawl and bottom 
longline fisheries until the 1970s, after which captures became more 
sporadic (Morey et al. 2007a). Morey et al. (2007a) also reference 
records from a lobster gillnet fishery operating in the Balearic 
Islands that showed it was common to catch angelsharks on a daily basis 
until the mid-1980s. The timing of the observed depletion in the 
Squatina populations coincides with the fast growth in bottom trawling 
fishing effort in the Balearic Islands, where growth (estimated in 
terms of vessel engine power (HP)) exponentially increased from around 
5,000 HP in the mid-1960s to over 20,000 HP by the early 1980s (Coll et 
al. 2014). The depths at which these trawlers fished also got 
progressively deeper over this time period due to increases in ship 
technology and gear. From 1940-1959, around 85 percent were trawling in 
shallow grounds of 40-150 m depths, and 15 percent in 40-800 m depths 
(EVOMED 2011). Between 1960-1979, more fishermen were exploiting deeper 
waters, with 44 percent strictly fishing in the shallow grounds, 30 
percent fishing in depths of 40-800 m, and 17 percent in 200-800 m 
depths (EVOMED 2011). Although S. aculeata and S. oculata could have 
potentially used deeper waters as a refuge from fishing mortality 
during the 1940s and 1950s (as their depth distribution extends from 
20-30 m to over 500 m), by the 1960s and 1970s, these deeper waters 
were no longer safe from exploitation. Squatina squatina likely 
experienced the highest level of fishing mortality as this species is 
found in much shallower depths, from 5--150 m, and therefore was 
accessible to the trawl fishermen during this entire time period. Since 
the mid-1990s, these species have not been recorded in fishery records 
(Morey et al. 2007a; EVOMED 2011). In addition, the Squatina species 
are notably absent in recent data from multiple fishery-independent 
studies that aimed to characterize the demersal elasmobranch assemblage 
off the Balearic Islands. These studies analyzed bottom trawl survey 
data collected from the continental shelf and slope of the Balearic 
Islands in depths of 41 m down to 1713 m, and covering the years of 
1996, 1998, and 2001 (Massut[iacute] and Moranta 2003; Massut[iacute] 
and Re[ntilde]ones 2005). No Squatina species were recorded from the 
trawl hauls despite the overlap of the surveyed area with the observed 
depth range of the species. Therefore, given the historical fishing 
effort in this area, the timing of the observed declines in the 
angelshark populations, and the recent absence of the Squatina species 
from both fishery records and fishery-independent survey data, it seems 
reasonable to conclude that historical overutilization of these 
angelshark species has led to the observed extirpation of these species 
from this area.

[[Page 40977]]

    Larger surveys, covering vast regions of the Mediterranean, have 
also provided valuable insight regarding the impacts of historical 
utilization on the Squatina species. For example, from 1985 to 1998, 
scientific trawl surveys (as part of the Italian Gruppo Nazionale 
Risorse Demersali (GRUND) project) were conducted in all Italian seas 
using typical Italian commercial trawl gear. However, S. aculeata and 
S. oculata were notably absent from the survey data (9,281 hauls over 
22 surveys; Morey et al. (2007a,b) citing Relini et al. 2001). More 
expansive surveys, covering waters from Alboran to the Aegean, were 
conducted as part of the Mediterranean International Trawl Survey 
(MEDITS) program. This program aimed to provide information on the 
status of demersal resources within the Mediterranean region (Bertrand 
et al. 1997). Numerous surveys were conducted along the Mediterranean 
coastline, in 10 m to 800 m depths, but also failed to find S. oculata 
and had very few observances of the other Squatina species (Baino et 
al. 2001). Out of the 6,336 tows conducted from 1995-1999, S. aculeata 
appeared in only one tow (from the Aegean Sea) and S. squatina appeared 
in two (from western Mediterranean: Defined as coasts of Morocco, Spain 
and France) (Baino et al. 2001). Similarly, the Mediterranean Large 
Elasmobranchs Monitoring (MEDLAM) program, which was designed to 
monitor the captures and sightings of large cartilaginous fishes 
occurring in the Mediterranean Sea, also has very few records of the 
Squatina species in its database. Since its inception in 1985, the 
program has collected around 1,866 records of more than 2,000 specimens 
from 20 participating countries. Out of the 2,048 elasmobranchs 
documented in the database through 2012, there are records identifying 
only 6 individuals of S. oculata, 4 of S. squatina, and 1 of S. 
aculeata. Given that fishing effort by the Mediterranean trawl fleet is 
estimated to have peaked in the mid-1980s (based on trends data from 
areas in the Catalan, Ligurian, Tyrrhenian, western Adriatic, Ionian, 
and Aegean Seas; EVOMED 2011), the rarity and absence of the Squatina 
species in survey data following this period suggests that the 
historical level of fishing effort likely resulted in substantial 
declines and significant overutilization of the species.
    Many of these surveyed areas have also seen a shift in species 
composition and richness since the expansion of the trawl fisheries. 
Historically abundant larger elasmobranch species, including 
angelsharks, have seemingly been replaced by smaller, more 
opportunistic species, a strong indicator of overutilization of these 
larger elasmobranchs by commercial fisheries (Rogers and Ellis 2000; 
Damalas and Vassilopoulou 2011; McHugh et al. 2011). For instance, in 
the central Aegean Sea, a major fishing ground for the Greek bottom 
trawl fishery fleet, Damalas and Vassilopoulou (2011) noted a 
significant decrease in chondrichthyan species richness along with a 
decline in their abundance from 1995 to 2006. Specifically, the authors 
analyzed data collected from 335 commercial bottom trawl hauls 
conducted in depths between 50 m and 339 m from 1995 to 2006 (2001-2002 
was excluded). A total of 217 species (141 bony fishes, 24 mollusks, 22 
crustaceans, and 30 chondrichthyan species, including S. aculeata (n = 
3) and S. oculata (n = 1)) were recorded from these hauls. However, in 
the last 4 years of the study (2003-2006), S. aculeata and S. oculata 
were absent from trawl catches, along with 9 other chondrichthyan 
species (over a third of the total). The authors estimated that species 
richness declined by an average of 0.66 species per year during the 
study period (with a more rapid decline exhibited from 1995-2000 
compared to 2003-2006). They attributed the decline in part to the 
intense fishing pressure by the Greek bottom trawl fishery and the 
vulnerability of certain species, such as angelsharks, to exploitation 
(Damalas and Vassilopoulou 2011).
    In the Adriatic Sea, a number of fishery-independent trawl surveys 
covering the entire basin have been conducted since 1948, allowing for 
an examination of the impact of historical exploitation on the Adriatic 
Sea demersal fish assemblage (Ungaro et al. 1998; Jukic-Peladic et al. 
2001; Feretti et al. 2013). Comparing trawl catch from surveys 
conducted in 1948 and 1998, Jukic-Peladic et al. (2001) found a 
decrease in overall elasmobranch diversity and occurrence. Larger shark 
and ray species that were present in 1948, including S. squatina, were 
rare or, in the case of S. squatina, completely absent in 1998 (Jukic-
Peladic et al. 2001). The authors attribute the extirpation of many 
species, including S. squatina, and the displacement of the larger 
elasmobranchs by smaller sized species to the overutilization of the 
Adriatic Sea demersal resources (Jukic-Peladic et al. 2001). A 
comparison of more recent bottom trawl survey data to the 1948-1949 
survey data indicate that the abundance of sharks in the Adriatic Sea 
has declined by 95.6 percent over the past 57 years (Ferretti et al. 
2013). Squatina squatina was still notably absent, with the last survey 
record of the species from these waters dated to 1958 (Ferretti et al. 
2013).
    In addition to these fishery-independent survey data, analyses of 
commercial landings data also indicate that historical overutilization 
throughout the northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean has led to a 
general decline in the abundance of demersal shark and ray species. For 
example, in an analysis of Italian landings data, Dell'Apa et al. 
(2001) noted that elasmobranch landings were fairly steady until the 
1970s, at which point they began to increase, reaching peaks in 1985 
and 1994 and then sharply declining, which the authors attribute to 
overharvesting. Between 1983 and 1994, mean annual elasmobranch 
landings were 10,583  2,599 t compared to 2,014  1681 t between 1996 and 2004, a time period that also showed a 
consistent annual decrease in catch per unit effort. Similarly, in the 
English Channel, landings of elasmobranchs have declined steadily since 
the 1950s, with an overall decrease in high trophic level species (such 
as gadoid fishes and elasmobranchs) and an increase in low trophic 
level species (such as invertebrates), indicative of unsustainable 
fisheries that are ``fishing down marine food webs'' (Molfese et al. 
2014). For areas where landings of Squatina species have been recorded 
(down to species level), the data show a similar trend. For example, in 
the Celtic Sea, French landings of S. squatina appear to have declined 
after peaking in the 1970s (when annual landings >25 t), falling to 
less than 1 t per year by the late 1990s (ICES 2013). Similarly, 
aggregated landings data of the genus Squatina from Portuguese 
fisheries statistics also show a decreasing trend over the last 20 
years (personal communication from R. Coelho to Morey et al. (2006)); 
however, no information is known regarding the corresponding effort or 
other factors such as changes in retention/discarding practices (R. 
Coehlo, personal communication, 2014).
    Off the west coast of Ireland, recreational fishermen observed a 
decline in rod-caught S. squatina beginning in the late 1990s. In fact, 
since 2006, only two individuals have been caught in these waters. The 
decline in this S. squatina population, to the point where the species 
is now extremely rare, has been attributed to both the historical 
recreational angling of the species as well as the operations of 
commercial trammel net fishermen in this area (D. Quigley, pers. comm. 
2015). In the1960s, S. squatina were regularly

[[Page 40978]]

caught in Tralee Bay by recreational anglers competing in fishing 
tournaments. Pictures from some of these competitions, found online in 
the Kennelly Archive (http://www.kennellyarchive.com/), depict the 
extensive catch of S. squatina during these tournaments and highlight 
the especially large individuals that were caught (with all fish 
brought ashore). For example, pictures from a June 1964 sea angling 
competition show a ``record catch,'' when 37 S. squatina were caught in 
less than 3 hours off the coast of Fenit Pier (Ireland). Another record 
catch was documented in June 1965 during a boat-angling competition in 
Tralee Bay, where four trophy S. squatina individuals, weighing 60, 59, 
50, and 30 lbs (27.2, 26.8, 22.7, 13.6 kgs), respectively, were caught 
in addition to numerous smaller individuals. Given the life history 
characteristics of the species, this level of essentially unregulated 
utilization and removal of larger and, hence, probably mature 
individuals, likely contributed to the observed decline in the S. 
squatina population from this area.
    Although catch-and-release became increasingly more common practice 
in Ireland over the years (Fahy and Carroll 2009), decreasing the 
threat of overutilization by recreational anglers, a new threat emerged 
in the 1970s in the form of trammel net usage by commercial fishermen. 
Trammel nets, which are a type of gill net consisting of three layers 
of netting tied together on a common floatline and leadline, were 
introduced off the coast of Kerry (Ireland) in the early 1970s (Quigley 
and MacGabhann 2014). They were primarily used to catch crawfish 
(Palinurus elephas), but given the non-specificity of the fishing gear, 
these nets also by-caught spider crab (Maja brachydactyla), another 
commercially important species in the area, as well as many other 
elasmobranchs and non-target species (Quigley and MacGabhann 2014). The 
prevalent use of these nets led to significant decreases in crawfish 
landings (from 300 t in 1971 to 34 t in 2006) as well as startling 
declines in the bycatch species, with Fahy and Carroll (2009) 
characterizing the angelsharks as having been fished ``almost to 
elimination'' by the use of these trammel nets.
    Farther south, in waters off West Africa, S. oculata and S. 
aculeata were commonly observed in the 1970s and 1980s. However, it was 
also during this time period that shark fishing in the region really 
started to expand and intensify (Diop and Dossa 2011). In a review of 
shark fishing in the Sub Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) member 
countries: Cape-Verde, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, 
Senegal, and Sierra Leone, Diop and Dossa (2011) state that the shark 
fisheries and trade spread throughout this region in the 1980s and 
1990s with the development of a market and increasing worldwide demand 
for shark fins. The number of boats and people entering the fishery, as 
well as improvements to fishing gear, steadily increased from 1994 to 
2005, especially in the artisanal fishing sector where catches rose 
substantially. For example, before 1989, artisanal catch was less than 
4,000 mt. However, from 1990 to 2005, fishing effort and catch 
increased dramatically, with catch estimates of over 26,000 mt by 2005 
(Diop and Dossa 2011). Including bycatch estimates from the industrial 
fishing fleet increases this number to over 30,000 mt in 2005 (note 
that discards of shark carcasses at sea were not included in bycatch 
estimates, suggesting bycatch may be underestimated) (Diop and Dossa 
2011). By 2008, shark landings had dropped by more than 50 percent to 
12,000 mt (Diop and Dossa 2011). Although landings were not identified 
to the species level, it is likely that this intense and relatively 
unregulated fishing pressure on sharks significantly contributed to the 
observed decline of the Squatina species in this region, to the point 
where these sharks are now only rarely observed.
    Overutilization of these angelshark species is still a threat, as 
the shark, trawl, and other demersal fisheries that historically 
contributed to the Squatina species' declines remain active throughout 
their respective ranges. In fact, in the Mediterranean Sea, trawling 
still provides one of the highest economic returns in the fishery 
sector operating in these waters (Sacchi 2008; STECF 2013). In 2008, 
Sacchi (2008) reported a Mediterranean fleet of approximately 84,000 
fishing entities, with around 10 percent using trawl gear and 
contributing more than half of the catch. By 2012, the fleet size had 
decreased to around 76,023 vessels, but had a total fishing capacity of 
1,578,015 gross tonnage and 5,807,827 kilowatt power (European 
Commission 2014). In April 2015, the General Fisheries Commission for 
the Mediterranean (GFCM) identified 9,171 large fishing vessels (i.e., 
larger than 15 meters) as authorized to fish in the GFCM convention 
area (which includes Mediterranean waters and the Black Sea). Of these 
vessels, 46 percent identified as trawlers, although 28 percent did not 
report their class of fishing gear (GFCM 2015). These Mediterranean 
trawlers operate in depths of up to 800 m but normally conduct hauls in 
less than 300 m (Sacchi 2008), which overlaps with the depth range of 
the Squatina species. These trawlers also tend to participate in multi-
species fisheries, meaning they are not just targeting one species but 
rather catching hundreds of different species during operations, posing 
a significant risk to non-targeted demersal species that are vulnerable 
to overexploitation, such as the Squatina species.
    In addition to the demersal trawling, many of the artisanal 
fisheries, and even some commercial fisheries, throughout the range of 
these Squatina species employ the use of trammel and gillnets during 
fishing operations, which are also rather unselective types of gear. In 
a review of artisanal fisheries in the western-central Mediterranean 
(covering Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Italy, France, and Spain), 
Coppola (2001) found that the most important gear used in artisanal 
fisheries were gillnets and entangling nets (comprising 53 percent of 
the total gear utilized). In Turkey, the majority of fishermen work in 
the small-scale fishery (comprising around 83 percent of the total 
fleet; Turkish Statistical Institute 2014). The small-scale fishery 
operations consist of daily trips, generally in the Aegean and Black 
Seas, to target fish species using gillnets, trammel nets, entangling 
nets, and demersal and pelagic longlines (Tokac et al. 2012). 
Additionally, off the west coast of Ireland, there is evidence that 
commercial fishermen continue to use trammel nets in the inshore 
fisheries (Fahy and Carroll 2009). Despite the prohibition on these 
trammel nets in certain areas off the Kerry and Galway (Ireland) coasts 
(due to their associated level of elasmobranch bycatch, which 
historically contributed to the decline and present rarity of the S. 
squatina population in this area), these trammel nets are still widely 
used and deployed year-round (Fahy and Carroll 2009). And, as mentioned 
previously, artisanal fishing effort is also significant off the west 
coast of Africa, with fishermen employing a variety of nets to capture 
species, with some nets that are even specially designed for catching 
shark species (Diop and Dossa 2011).
    Because of the low selectivity of the net and trawl gear and the 
intensity of fishing effort, a significant portion of the catch in 
these gears tends to be discarded at sea (Machias et al. 2001; Sacchi 
2008; Damalas and Vassilopoulou 2010). Damalas and Vassilopoulou (2011) 
note that chondrichthyans, especially, tend to be

[[Page 40979]]

discarded due to their low commercial value. Based on their 
observations of 335 commercial bottom trawl hauls in the Aegean Sea 
between 1995 and 2006, they calculated that over 90 percent of 
chondrichthyans (by number) were discarded. However, data are limited 
on the discard rates of Squatina species. In the Damalas and 
Vassilopoulou (2011) study, only 4 Squatina sharks were observed caught 
(3 S. aculeata and 1 S. oculata), with two individuals discarded. 
Machias et al. (2001) observed that both S. aculeata and S. oculata 
were always discarded by the commercial trawlers operating in the 
Aegean and western Ionian Sea. Observer data from the French discard 
observer program from 2003-2013 recorded two discarded S. squatina 
individuals (both in 2012) (ICES 2014). In general, the available 
information suggests that Squatina species are generally bycaught 
(Edwards et al. 2001; Morey et al. 2007a, b; OSPAR Commission 2010; 
ICES 2014) and would more likely than not be discarded with the other 
chondrichthyan species. This is especially true for S. squatina which 
is currently prohibited from being retained in European Union (EU) 
waters (see Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section). In 
fact, ICES (2014) reports that S. squatina is now only landed as a 
``curio'' for fish stalls.
    As such, the impact of the continued operation of these demersal 
trawl fleets as well as the net fisheries on the threat of 
overutilization really depends on the survival rate of these Squatina 
species upon capture and after discard. Unfortunately, at this time, 
the at-vessel mortality and discard survival rates of the Squatina 
species are unknown; however, based on mortality rates reported for two 
similar species, the African angelshark (S. africana) and the 
Australian angelshark (S. australis), discard survival may be low. For 
the African angelshark, Fennessy (1994) estimated an at-vessel 
mortality rate of 60 percent when caught by prawn trawlers and 
Shelmerdine and Cliff (2006) estimated a 67 percent mortality rate when 
the species was caught in protective shark gillnets. For the Australian 
angelshark, mortality rates of 25 and 34 percent have been estimated 
for capture in gillnets (Reid and Krogh 1992; Braccini et al. 2012), 
with a post-capture mortality rate (for those sharks discarded alive) 
of 40 percent (Braccini et al. 2012). Because these two angelsharks 
have similar life history traits to the Squatina species under review 
(see Miller (2015) for comparison of these species), we consider at-
vessel mortality and discard survival rates for S. aculeata, S. 
oculata, and S. squatina to be comparable to those estimated for S. 
africana and S. australis.
    Although current fishing mortality rates are unknown, even low 
levels of mortality would likely contribute to further population 
declines given the extremely depleted status of these species, to the 
point where all three species are rarely observed and extirpated in 
many areas. Yet, the discussion above provides evidence of high levels 
of fishing effort by commercial and artisanal fishermen using trawl and 
net gear throughout the range of these Squatina species. Therefore, 
given the inferred discard mortality estimates (with a 60 percent at-
vessel mortality rate in trawls and 25-67 percent mortality rate in 
nets) and high likelihood of incidental capture, we find that the 
continued operation of the demersal trawl fleets and net fisheries is 
posing a threat of overutilization that is likely contributing to 
further population declines and significantly increasing the extinction 
risks of these species at this time.
    In addition to the threat of overutilization from being bycaught, 
there is also evidence that these species are still being landed in 
certain parts of their ranges, contributing to the direct fishing 
mortality of the species. In Egypt, for example, which has the 2nd 
largest fishing fleet (of vessels >15 m) operating in the GFCM 
convention area, Moftah (2011) documented three S. squatina individuals 
for sale in a major fish market in western Alexandria. However, 
according to Bradai et al. (2012), the top elasmobranch fishing 
countries presently operating in the Mediterranean are Italy, Tunisia, 
and Turkey. From 1980 to 2008, these three countries were responsible 
for 76 percent of the total catch of elasmobranchs in the Mediterranean 
and Black Seas. Currently, Italy has the largest fishing fleet (of 
vessels >15 m) operating in the GFCM convention area, with 84 percent 
of its vessels (n = 1,421) identified as trawlers. Turkey has the third 
largest fishing fleet, with 54 percent identified as trawlers, and 
Tunisia has the fifth largest, with around 50 percent of its vessels 
considered to be trawlers. Although Italian vessels are currently 
prohibited from landing S. squatina in EU waters (see Inadequacy of 
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section), Tunisia and Turkey do not have 
the same prohibitions for their respective waters. Additionally, there 
are no prohibitions from landing the other two species of angelsharks 
throughout their ranges.
    In waters off Tunisia, the present level of fishing effort by 
trawlers as well as artisanal fishermen is a concern for any remaining 
populations of the three angelshark species. Tunisia is centrally 
located in the Mediterranean Sea. The Gulf of Gab[egrave]s and Gulf of 
Tunis, which historically supported populations of the Squatina species 
(Capap[eacute] et al. 1990; Quignard and Ben Othman 1978), are two of 
the most important fishing grounds off the Tunisian coast (Echwikhi et 
al. 2013; Cherif et al. 2008). In 2011, the Tunisian fishing fleet 
consisted of 11,393 units, which included 10,500 coastal boats 
(artisanal fishermen), 430 trawlers, 400 sardine seiners, 38 tuna 
seiners, and 25 coral-fisher boats (Haddad 2011). Elasmobranchs, in 
particular, constitute an important catch component in Tunisian 
fisheries, especially artisanal fisheries (Echwikihi et al. 2013), and 
since 1970, annual catches of elasmobranchs have steadily increased 
with recent catches (2005-2012) of elasmobranchs averaging around 2,000 
mt per year. Similarly, S. squatina catches in Tunisian waters also 
appear to show an increase in recent years, with a peak of 86 mt in 
2010 and 60 mt in 2012. In 1990, Capap[eacute] et al. (1990) observed 
that S. squatina was fished throughout the year in Tunisian waters and 
sold in the Tunis fish market. Based on the recent catch data, it 
appears that S. squatina is still being exploited by Tunisian 
fisheries. It is unknown if this exploitation is sustainable; however, 
based on the species' life history traits as well as the observed 
decline of the species and potential extirpations in areas where 
reported catches and landings have been of lesser magnitude (e.g., Bay 
of Biscay; Celtic Seas), this present level of exploitation is likely 
to cause declines in the S. squatina population from this area through 
the foreseeable future.
    The absence of data for the other two Squatina species is also 
telling, especially since in 1978, S. aculeata was noted as abundant, 
and as recently as 2006, both species were ``regularly observed'' in 
the Gulf of Gab[egrave]s (Quignard and Ben Othman 1978; Bradai et al. 
2006). Additionally, in 1990, the Gulf of Tunis was posited as a 
nursery ground for S. oculata based on young-of-the-year individuals 
captured during trawling operations (Capap[eacute] et al. 1990). 
However, in a recent analysis of extensive trawl survey data collected 
off the southern coasts of Sicily from 1994 to 2009, Ragonese et al. 
(2013) found only one report of a captured S. aculeata individual. This 
shark was caught during a shelf haul in 86 m

[[Page 40980]]

depth close to the Gulf of Gab[egrave]s in 2000. The fact that 
observations of these species are now rare, with the last record of the 
species in survey data from 15 years ago (Ragonese et al. 2013), and 
the most recent anecdotal characterizations of the species from almost 
a decade ago (Bradai et al. 2006), suggests that the remaining 
populations of S. aculeata and S. oculata are likely small and 
potentially isolated, placing them at risk from stochastic and 
demographic fluctuations. These risks will only increase in the future 
as more individuals are removed from the populations as a result of the 
continued fishing pressure by trawlers and artisanal fishermen within 
this region.
    In Turkey, at least one angelshark species, S. aculeata, was a 
recent target of recreational fishermen. Based on field survey data 
collected between January and September 2007, boat-based recreational 
fishermen operating in [Ccedil]anakkale Strait caught an estimated 
23,820 kg of S. aculeata ([Uuml]nal et al. 2010). The number of 
surveyed fishermen represented only 2.7 percent of the estimated 
recreational fishery population. In addition, the results from the 
surveys indicated that the marine recreational fishery in Turkey is 
essentially unmonitored and hence potentially unsustainable ([Uuml]nal 
et al. 2010). In fact, almost half of the recreational activity can be 
considered commercial activity as many of the recreational fishermen 
are selling their catches (even though marine recreationally caught 
fish are not legally allowed to be traded; [Uuml]nal et al. 2010). 
Given the high level of marine recreational harvest (around 30 percent 
of the commercial fishing harvest; [Uuml]nal et al. 2010), evidence of 
S. aculeata as a potentially targeted and traded species, and lack of 
monitoring or controls regarding fishing practices, this marine 
recreational fishery is considered a threat contributing to the direct 
overutilization of the species in this area. In 2015, one of the co-
authors of the above study noted that the species is presently rare in 
Turkish waters, but mentioned the recent capture of an S. aculeata 
shark from G[ouml]kova Bay by a fisherman using a trammel net (V. 
[Uuml]nal, personal communication 2015). This individual (a female S. 
aculeata) is the largest specimen ever recorded from Turkish waters (V. 
[Uuml]nal, pers. comm. 2015).
    In addition to the marine recreational fisheries, the commercial 
fisheries of Turkey are also harvesting angelsharks; however, the 
information on catch is not species-specific. According to Turkey's 
``Fisheries Statistics'' publication, catches of angelsharks have 
declined over the past 8 years after a peak of 51 tonnes was reported 
in 2006. In 2013, 17 tonnes of angelsharks were harvested, with 68 
percent of the catch coming from the Aegean region, 26 percent from the 
Mediterranean region, and 6 percent from the Marmara region. Although 
there is no accompanying information on fishing effort, the bottom 
trawl fishery is highly active in Turkish waters. In 2015, the GFCM 
identified 554 Turkish trawl vessels (over 15 meters) as authorized to 
fish in the GFCM convention area, and according to Toka[ccedil] et al. 
(2012), the bottom trawl fishery is responsible for around 90 percent 
of the total demersal fish catch from the Aegean Sea. As such, the 
decline in angelshark catch may likely be a result of decreasing 
abundance of these sharks in the region as a result of the exploitation 
of the species by the demersal trawl fishery.
    In the northeastern Atlantic, Spanish and French fleets have 
reported landings of S. squatina to ICES since the species' retention 
prohibition by the EU in 2009 (see Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 
Mechanisms section). In 2010, Spanish-reported landings amounted to 9 
tonnes (live weight), increased to 10 tonnes in 2011, and significantly 
increased to 63 tonnes in 2012. All of these landings occurred off the 
coasts of Portugal and Spain (ICES 2014). The ICES (2014) notes that 
there are also nominal records of S. squatina in French national 
landings for 2012 and 2013 but does not report the figures due to the 
unreliability of the data. There was no corresponding information on 
fishing effort and it is also unclear why this EU-prohibited species is 
still being landed by EU vessels.
    Similarly, in the Canary Islands, where S. squatina retains its EU 
prohibited designation, there is evidence that individuals continue to 
be captured by local and sport fishermen. Although S. squatina is not a 
targeted species in the Canary Islands, nor is there large demand for 
the species, fishermen in the area do like to eat angelsharks and may 
illegally land the species (E. Meyers, pers. comm. 2014). This illegal 
fishing of the species by artisanal fishermen for personal consumption 
is a concern for the S. squatina population in these waters (E. Meyers, 
pers. comm. 2014). Artisanal Canarian fishermen tend to concentrate 
their fishing efforts on the narrow continental shelf around the 
islands (Popescu and Ortega-Gras 2013), which increases the likelihood 
of capture of S. squatina sharks. Although the artisanal fishery has 
experienced a significant reduction in the number of fishing vessels 
since 2004, there has also been an associated increase in engine power 
per small vessel (Popescu and Ortega-Gras 2013). In fact, between 1990 
and 2003, these small vessels constituted only 12-18 percent of the 
total power of the Canarian fleet, but by 2013, this contribution had 
risen to 30.6 percent (Popescu and Ortega-Gras 2013). Additionally, 
despite the decrease in number of vessels, the artisanal sector remains 
the most important segment of the Canarian fishing fleet (both on a 
social and economic level), with small boats (less than 12 m) 
representing 86.7 percent of the total number of vessels in the 
Canarian fishing fleet (Popescu and Ortega-Gras 2013).
    Recreational fishing in the Canary Islands is also identified as a 
potential threat to the species, as many Canarian sport fishing Web 
sites display photos of hooked angelsharks despite their prohibited 
status. There is evidence that angelsharks caught by sportfishermen are 
returned to the water after a photo has been taken; however, the post-
release survival rates are unknown (J. Barker, pers. comm. 2015). This 
has become a concern in recent years due to the increasing number of 
sport fishermen in the area. According to Barker et al. (2014), from 
2005 to 2010 there has been a nearly 3-fold increase in the number of 
recreational angler licenses (from 40,000 to 116,000), with over 830 
registered charter fishing boats in operation. As the number of 
recreational anglers increases, so does the risk of hooking (and 
potentially killing) one of these prohibited sharks. Although S. 
squatina are regularly observed around the Canary Islands, very little 
is known about this population or the associated risks of this level of 
utilization (by artisanal and sport fishermen) on the local population.
    In waters off West Africa, artisanal fishing pressure on sharks 
remains high and relatively unregulated. In 2010, the number of 
artisanal fishing vessels that landed elasmobranchs in the SRFC zone 
was estimated to be around 2,500 vessels, with 1,300 of those 
specializing in catching sharks (Diop and Dossa 2011). Morey et al. 
(2007a, b) note that although there are no directed fisheries for 
Squatina species, it is taken as bycatch in the international 
industrial demersal trawl fisheries and artisanal fisheries. In a 
personal communication to Morey et al. (2007b), M. Ducrocq states that 
S. oculata were common and frequently caught by artisanal Senegalese 
fishermen in line and gillnet gear around 30 years ago, and 
Capap[eacute] et al. (2005) noted that S. aculeata was relatively 
abundant off the coast of

[[Page 40981]]

Senegal and landed throughout the year. However, since 2005, fishermen 
have reported fewer observations of all squatinid species (C. 
Capap[eacute], pers. comm. 2015), with no observed landings in recent 
years in the artisanal fishery (Mathieu Ducrocq, Programme Arc 
d'Emeraude, Agence Nationale des Parcs Nationaux, personal 
communication 2014). Although not as common anymore, this information 
suggests that S. oculata and S. aculeata were and potentially still are 
susceptible to being caught in artisanal fishing gear. Taking into 
account this susceptibility, as well as the fact that fishing for 
sharks occurs year-round in this region, and fishery management plans 
are still in the early implementation phase for this region (Diop and 
Dossa 2011), the continued operations of the artisanal fisheries may 
prevent any potential re-establishment of these Squatina species to 
this area (if already extirpated) or lead to further declines in 
existing local populations in the foreseeable future.
    Illegal fishing in waters off West Africa is also a threat likely 
contributing to the observed declines of these species and contributing 
to their risk of extinction. Illegal fishing activities off West Africa 
are thought to account for around 37 percent of the region's catch, the 
highest regional estimate of illegal fishing worldwide (Agnew et al. 
2009, EJF 2012). From January 2010 to July 2012, the UK-based non-
governmental organization Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) 
conducted a surveillance project in southern Sierra Leone to determine 
the extent of illegal fishing in waters off West Africa (EJF, 2012). 
The EJF staff received 252 reports of illegal fishing by industrial 
vessels in inshore areas, 90 percent of which were bottom trawlers (EJF 
2012). The EJF (2012) surveillance also found these pirate industrial 
fishing vessels operating inside exclusion zones, using prohibited 
fishing gear, refusing to stop for patrols, attacking local fishers and 
destroying their gear, and fleeing to neighboring countries to avoid 
sanctions. Due to a lack of resources, many West African countries are 
unable to provide effective or, for that matter, any enforcement, with 
some countries even lacking basic monitoring systems. In waters off 
Senegal, which may have historically supported larger populations of S. 
aculeata and S. oculata (see Historical and Current Distribution and 
Population Abundance section), fishery resources have been severely 
depleted due to both foreign and illegal fishing activities. In 2006, 
after Senegal cancelled its licensing agreement with the subsidized EU 
fleet, dozens of large (10,000-tonne factory ships) foreign trawling 
vessels were granted new licenses by the government and were reportedly 
catching hundreds of tonnes of fish a day (and up to 300,000 tonnes a 
year; Vidal 2012b) in Senegalese waters (Vidal 2012a). Although these 
trawlers are prohibited from trawling within 12-miles of the coast, due 
to the lack of monitoring and policing capabilities, many move closer 
inshore at night to fish (Vidal 2012b). Quoting the manager of the 
largest fishing port in Senegal, Vidal (2012b) reports that fish 
catches have decreased 75 percent compared to 10 years ago. Based on 
the level of fishing activity, reported landings and trends, fishing 
gear, and area of operation, it is likely that these foreign and 
illegal trawling activities have significantly contributed to the 
observed decline of the Squatina species within these areas. Although 
many of the foreign vessel licenses were cancelled in 2012 (see 
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section), due to the lack 
of enforcement resources, illegal trawling is still considered to be a 
threat contributing to the overutilization of the demersal resources, 
including the Squatina species.
    Overall, the available information on the past and present status 
of these species, including historical and present observations of the 
species from anecdotal, commercial, and fishery-independent survey 
data, in combination with trends in fishing effort and catch, suggests 
that the threat of overutilization alone is likely contributing 
significantly to the risk of extinction for all three Squatina species.

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    In the EU, there are some regulatory mechanisms in place to protect 
these three Squatina species. All three Squatina species are listed on 
Annex II of the Barcelona Convention, ``which requires Mediterranean 
countries to undertake maximum, cooperative efforts for their 
protection and recovery, including controlling or prohibiting their 
capture and sale, prohibiting damage to their habitat, and adopting 
measures for their conservation and recovery.'' In 2012, Spain 
published Order AAA/75/2012 which announced the inclusion of the 
Mediterranean populations of these three angelshark species (S. 
squatina, S. oculata, and S. acuelata) on Spain's List of Wild Species 
under Special Protection. Species on the list are protected from 
capture, injury, trade, import and export, and require periodic 
evaluations of their conservation status.
    Elsewhere in the EU, however, specific regulations prohibiting the 
capture or trade of these angelshark species, or other efforts to 
protect and recover these species, are missing or only apply to S. 
squatina and not the other two species. For example, in 2008, S. 
squatina was listed under Schedule 5, Section 9(1) of the UK Wildlife 
and Countryside Act (1981), which protects the species from being 
killed, injured or taken on land and up to 6 nautical miles from 
English coastal baselines. In 2011, these protections were extended out 
to 12 nautical miles and the species was also added under section 9(2) 
and 9(5), protecting it from being possessed or traded. In 2010 and 
2012, ICES advised that S. squatina remain on its list of Prohibited 
Species and that any incidental bycatch be returned to the sea (ICES 
2014). In 2009, S. squatina received full protection in EU waters from 
the European Council (Council Regulation (EC) 43/2009). European Union 
vessels are currently prohibited from fishing for, retaining on board, 
transhipping, or landing S. squatina in all EU waters (including EU 
waters within the Mediterranean Sea) (EC 23/2010, 57/2011, 43/2012, 39/
2013, 43/2014). These retention prohibitions may decrease, to some 
extent, fisheries-related mortality of the species, especially in those 
parts of its range where the species was previously landed. However, 
even prior to these prohibitions, it appears that the species was 
normally discarded due to its low commercial value. Given the assumed 
low survival rate of the species when bycaught and discarded by the 
trawl and demersal line fisheries (see Overutilization for Commercial, 
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes section), these 
existing regulatory mechanisms may only have a minor impact on 
decreasing current fisheries-related mortality and, ultimately, S. 
squatina's risk of extinction.
    In Ireland, in 2006, the Irish Specimen Fish Committee, which 
verifies and publicizes the capture of specimen (trophy) fish caught by 
anglers using rod and reel methods, removed S. squatina from its list 
of eligible ``specimen status'' species due to concern over its status. 
The committee reviewed the data on angler catches of angelsharks in 
2009 and again in 2013, and after finding a decline in the number being 
caught and released, decided to keep the exclusion in place until the 
next review period in 2015. As long as this exclusion from the specimen 
status list is in place, it should provide some benefit to the local

[[Page 40982]]

populations, as it will decrease potential fisheries-related mortality 
of the larger (and likely mature individuals) that may occur during 
handling and processing of the fish to meet the claim requirements. 
However, these benefits may be offset by the fact that claims for a new 
record (which is different from a specimen fish) are still considered, 
with the requirement that the fish be weighed on shore, photographed 
and returned alive. Therefore, there is some risk that especially large 
angelsharks (as the current angling record is a 33 kg S. squatina) may 
still be brought ashore with the potential for mortality during the 
processing of angling records. Removal of these larger and mature 
individuals from an already declining population will greatly decrease 
its productivity, making it more susceptible to overexploitation that 
may lead to potential extirpations.
    With respect to overutilization of the species by commercial 
fisheries in Ireland, a major threat identified for the angelsharks in 
Irish waters was the unsustainable level of bycatch of the species in 
trammel nets deployed by commercial fishermen. In 2002, a regulation 
(SI--Statutory Instrument) was implemented prohibiting the use of 
trammel nets to catch crawfish in specific areas off the coasts of 
Kerry and Galway (SI No. 179). This regulation was renewed in 2006 (SI 
No. 233); however the use of trammel nets to catch other species is 
still allowed (Fahy and Carroll 2009), decreasing the level of 
protection that this prohibition affords angelsharks. In addition, 
enforcement of inshore fishery regulations is lacking, and, as a 
consequence, Fahy and Carroll (2009) note that trammel nets are set 
year-round in Brandon and Tralee Bays (south-west Ireland--areas once 
known for large S. squatina populations) with the majority of landed 
crawfish caught by this method. Due to the deficiencies in the 
legislation (Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM) 2012) and enforcement of the SI, 
commercial trammel net fishing in the inshore areas off western Ireland 
still poses a significant risk to any remaining S. squatina 
individuals, and, as such, this regulatory measure is inadequate in 
decreasing the threat of overutilization by commercial fisheries in 
this area.
    With respect to controlling general EU fishing effort in the 
Mediterranean, the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP; the fisheries policy 
of the EU) requires Member States to achieve a sustainable balance 
between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. However, due to 
criticisms that the CFP has failed to control the problem of fleet 
overcapacity (European Commission 2009; 2010) and consequently prevent 
further declines in fish stocks (Khalilian et al. 2010), it was 
reformed in 2014. It is too soon to know if the new policies identified 
in the CFP, such as a complete ``discard ban'' and managing stocks 
according to maximum sustainable yield, will be adequate in controlling 
fishing effort by the European fishing fleet to the point where they no 
longer pose a threat to the remaining Squatina species populations.
    In non-EU countries, regulations to protect any of these Squatina 
species from overutilization are lacking. There are no species-specific 
management measures and current regulations are likely inadequate to 
prevent further declines in the three Squatina species. In Turkey, for 
example, there are very few landing quotas for species due to a lack of 
stock assessments, even though evidence suggests that many of the 
species found in Turkish seas are presently overexploited (OECD 2003; 
Toka[ccedil] et al. 2012; Ulman et al. 2013). The number of registered 
fishing boats continues to increase, with previous attempts to control 
the fishing effort deemed unsuccessful. Based on an analysis of catch 
data, Ulman et al. (2013) note that the optimal fleet capacity has been 
exceeded by over 350 percent for all of Turkey's seas, suggesting that 
fishing effort and stocks will continue to decline through the 
foreseeable future. Although there are some seasonal prohibitions to 
protect spawning stocks in certain areas, minimum size regulations, and 
gear restrictions, including a bottom trawl ban in the Sea of Marmara, 
there is little enforcement of existing regulations, with current 
management measures and prohibitions likely insufficient to protect 
fish resources from further declines (OECD 2003; Ulman et al. 2013).
    Off the coast of West Africa, fishing occurs year-round, including 
during shark breeding season (Diop and Dossa 2011). Many of the state-
level management measures in this region lack standardization at the 
regional level (Diop and Dossa 2011), which weakens some of their 
effectiveness. For example, Sierra Leone and Guinea both require shark 
fishing licenses; however, these licenses are much cheaper in Sierra 
Leone, and, as a result, fishers from Guinea fish for sharks in Sierra 
Leone (Diop and Dossa 2011). Also, although many of these countries 
have recently adopted FAO recommended National Plans of Action--Sharks, 
their shark fishery management plans are still in the early 
implementation phase, and with few resources for monitoring and 
managing shark fisheries, the benefits to sharks, including Squatina 
species, from these regulatory mechanisms have yet to be realized (Diop 
and Dossa 2011). Additionally, many of these countries also lack the 
resources and capabilities to effectively enforce presently implemented 
fishing regulations, making this region a hotbed for illegal fishing 
activities (Agnew et al. 2009, EJF 2012). For example, although the 
Senegalese government took a significant step in controlling the 
exploitation of its fisheries when it cancelled the licenses of 29 
foreign fishing trawlers in 2012, Senegal's director of Ministry of 
Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, Mr. Cheikh Sarr, recognizes that the 
country still lacks the enforcement resources and capabilities to 
combat illegal fishing activities. Mr. Sarr, quoted in Lazuta (2013), 
remarks: ``Revoking these licenses has been helpful in the general 
sense . . . But the reality is, whether or not a boat is authorized to 
enter our waters, if they decide to engage in IUU [illegal, unreported, 
and unregulated fishing], they will come . . . And often, we have very 
little power to stop them.'' These licenses were cancelled in response 
to the growing anger of artisanal fishermen at the level of overfishing 
by these trawlers and the alleged corruption of the previous 
government's licensing system (Vidal 2012a). It is unclear if these 
licenses will remain cancelled in the future under different government 
regimes. As such, the present regulatory mechanisms in this region, as 
well as means to enforce these mechanisms, appear inadequate to control 
the exploitation by illegal fishing vessels and thus pose a threat to 
the Squatina populations that may still be found in these waters.
    Within the Canary Islands, the EU prohibited bottom trawling 
throughout the EEZ in 2005 ((EC) No 1568/2005) in an effort to protect 
deep-water coral reefs from fishing activities. As demersal trawling is 
identified as a significant threat to S. squatina, contributing to its 
past decline, this prohibition will provide needed protection to S. 
squatina in an area where the species is still commonly observed. In 
addition, there are also three designated marine reserves in the Canary 
Islands, which provide protection from fishing activities, but they are 
relatively small, covering only 0.15 percent of the Canarian EEZ. Given 
the uncertainty regarding the population distribution of S. squatina 
within the Canary Islands, it is unclear if these reserves are even 
effective in protecting S. squatina from fishery-related

[[Page 40983]]

mortality. In fact, based on the present threats to the species in the 
Canary Islands, which include sport fishing practices and illegal 
fishing by artisanal fishermen for personal consumption, it does not 
appear that the current regulatory mechanisms in place are adequate to 
address these threats. For example, in August 2014, due to the concern 
over the sport fishing of prohibited shark species, the Canarian 
Government required anyone obtaining a sport fishing license to 
prominently display a poster of prohibited shark species (including S. 
squatina) on board their boat. Although this new requirement may help 
deter sport fishermen from keeping the sharks, it does not address the 
stress of capture and lethal handling techniques used by these 
fishermen (e.g., gaffing and long periods out of water; ZSL 2014). 
Additionally, those boats that had a sport fishing license prior to 
August 2014 are not required to have or display this poster (E. Meyers, 
pers. comm. 2015). Thus, the species may continue to suffer mortality 
in the sport fishery. Similarly, there is no information available to 
suggest that the current regulatory mechanisms will be adequate to curb 
the illegal fishing of the species by artisanal fishermen in the area. 
Although the species is protected in EU waters, the local Canarian 
government does not enforce this law, nor is there legal prosecution of 
violators (E. Meyers, pers. comm. 2015).
    Overall, existing regulatory mechanisms appear inadequate in 
decreasing the main threat of overutilization of these species. This is 
especially true for S. aculeata and S. oculata, which are still allowed 
to be legally exploited, with this exploitation essentially 
unregulated, throughout their respective ranges. Although S. squatina 
is afforded a higher level of protection through the EU prohibition of 
landing of the species, its range extends to areas where this 
prohibition does not apply. In addition, given the level of fishing 
effort by the Mediterranean trawl and demersal line fisheries and 
Canarian artisanal and sport fishermen, and associated discard 
mortality of the species, the existing regulatory measures may only 
have a minor impact on decreasing current fisheries-related mortality 
of S. squatina. As such, we conclude that the threat of the inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms is likely contributing significantly 
to the risk of extinction for all three Squatina species.

Extinction Risk

    Although accurate and precise data for many demographic 
characteristics of the Squatina shark species are lacking, the best 
available data provide multiple lines of evidence indicating that these 
species currently face a high risk of extinction. As defined by the 
status review (Miller 2015), a species is considered to be at a high 
risk of extinction when it is at or near a level of abundance, spatial 
structure and connectivity, and/or diversity that place its persistence 
in question. The demographics of the species may be strongly influenced 
by stochastic or depensatory processes. Similarly, a species may be at 
high risk of extinction if it faces clear and present threats (e.g., 
confinement to a small geographic area; imminent destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat; or disease epidemic) that 
are likely to create such imminent demographic risks. Below, the 
analysis of extinction risk is given for each species.

Squatina aculeata

    The sawback angelshark presently faces demographic risks that 
significantly increase its risk of extinction. Although there are no 
quantitative historical or current abundance estimates, the best 
available information (including anecdotal accounts as well as survey 
data) suggest the species has likely undergone substantial declines 
throughout its range, with no evidence to suggest a reversal of these 
trends. Recent and spatially expansive trawl data indicate the species 
is currently rare, including in areas where it once was common (e.g., 
Tunisia, Balearic Islands), as well as notably absent throughout most 
of its historical Mediterranean range. The best available data indicate 
a decline in abundance that has subsequently led to possible 
extirpations of the species from the Adriatic Sea, central Aegean Sea, 
Ligurian and Tyrrhenian Seas, and off the Balearic Islands. In the 
northeast Atlantic, the species was characterized as common in waters 
off West Africa, from Mauritania to Sierra Leone, in the 1970s; 
however, it has since undergone declines to the point where individuals 
of the species are rarely observed or caught, with the last record of 
the species from survey records dating back to 1998. The rare 
occurrence and absence of the species in recent survey data, despite 
sampling effort in areas and depths where S. aculeata would potentially 
or previously be found, suggest current populations are likely small 
and fragmented, making them particularly susceptible to local 
extirpations from environmental and anthropogenic perturbations or 
catastrophic events. Additionally, the reproductive characteristics of 
the species: Late maturity, long gestation, and low fecundity (which 
may be further reduced as gravid Squatina spp. females easily abort 
embryos during capture and handling) suggest the species has relatively 
low productivity, similar to other elasmobranch species. These 
reproductive characteristics have likely hindered the species' ability 
to quickly rebound from threats that decrease its abundance (such as 
overutilization) and render it vulnerable to extinction. Although there 
is no genetic, morphological or behavioral information available that 
could provide insight into natural rates of dispersal and genetic 
exchange among populations, S. aculeata are ovoviviparous (lacking a 
dispersive larval phase) and the best available information suggests 
that they likely have a patchy distribution due to local extirpations, 
population declines, and limited migratory behavior. As such, 
connectivity of S. aculeata populations is likely low, and this limited 
inter-population exchange may increase the risk of local extirpations, 
possibly leading to complete extinction. The small, fragmented, and 
possibly isolated remaining populations suggest the species may be at 
an increased risk of random genetic drift and could experience the 
fixing of recessive detrimental alleles, reducing the overall fitness 
of the species.
    In conclusion, although there is significant uncertainty regarding 
the current abundance of the species, the best available information 
indicates that the species has suffered substantial declines in 
portions of its range where it once was common, and is considered to be 
rare throughout its entire range. The species likely consists of small, 
fragmented, isolated, and declining populations that are likely to be 
strongly influenced by stochastic or depensatory processes and have 
little rebound potential or resilience. This vulnerability is further 
exacerbated by the present threats of overutilization and inadequacy of 
existing regulatory measures that continue to contribute to the decline 
of the existing populations, compromising the species' long-term 
viability. The demersal fisheries that historically contributed to the 
decline in S. aculeata are still active throughout the species' range 
and primarily operate in depths where S. aculeata would occur. The 
available information suggests heavy exploitation of demersal resources 
by these fisheries, including high levels of chondrichthyan discards 
and associated mortality due to the low gear selectivity and intensity 
of fishing effort throughout the Mediterranean and

[[Page 40984]]

eastern Atlantic. Given the depleted state of the S. aculeata 
populations and present demographic risks of the species, even low 
levels of mortality would pose a risk of extinction to the species. 
However, current regulatory measures appear inadequate to protect S. 
aculeata from further fishery-related mortality, especially in areas 
where recent fisheries data indicate the species may still be present. 
As such, the additional fishing mortality sustained by the species as a 
result of continued commercial, artisanal, recreational and illegal 
fishing activities is a threat that is significantly contributing to 
the species' risk of extinction throughout its range. In summary, based 
on the best available information and the above analysis, we conclude 
that S. aculeata is presently at a high risk of extinction throughout 
its range.

Squatina oculata

    The smoothback angelshark presently faces demographic risks that 
significantly increase its risk of extinction. Although there are no 
quantitative historical or current abundance estimates, the best 
available information (including anecdotal accounts as well as survey 
data) suggest the species has likely undergone substantial declines 
throughout its range, with no evidence to suggest a reversal of these 
trends. Recent and spatially expansive trawl data indicate the species 
is currently rare, including in areas where it once was common (e.g., 
Iberian coast, Tunisia, Balearic Islands), and notably absent 
throughout most of its historical Mediterranean range. The best 
available data indicate a decline in abundance that has subsequently 
led to possible extirpations of the species from the central Aegean 
Sea, Ligurian and Tyrrhenian Seas, and off the Balearic Islands. 
Although some qualitative descriptions of the abundance of the species 
from the literature suggest the species may be more common in portions 
of the central Mediterranean (i.e., Libya) and the Levantine Sea (i.e., 
Israel, Syria), these characterizations are almost a decade old. The 
absence of updated or recent data or information on the species within 
these areas is worrisome, and, based on the present threats to the 
species and its demographic risks, it is likely that these populations 
are also in decline. In the northeast Atlantic, the species was 
characterized as common in waters off West Africa, from Mauritania to 
Liberia, in the 1970s and 1980s; however, it has since decreased in 
abundance to the point where individuals of the species are rarely 
observed or caught, with the last record of the species from the survey 
records dating back to 2002. Based on the best available information, 
remaining populations of S. oculata are likely small and fragmented, 
making them particularly susceptible to local extirpations from 
environmental and anthropogenic perturbations or catastrophic events. 
Additionally, the reproductive characteristics of the species: Late 
maturity, long gestation, and low fecundity (which may be further 
reduced as gravid Squatina spp. females easily abort embryos during 
capture and handling) suggest the species has relatively low 
productivity, similar to other elasmobranch species. These reproductive 
characteristics have likely hindered the species' ability to quickly 
rebound from threats that decrease its abundance (such as 
overutilization) and render it vulnerable to extinction. Although there 
is no genetic, morphological or behavioral information available that 
could provide insight into natural rates of dispersal and genetic 
exchange among populations, S. oculata are ovoviviparous (lacking a 
dispersive larval phase) and the best available information suggests 
that they likely have a patchy distribution due to local extirpations, 
population declines, and limited migratory behavior. As such, 
connectivity of S. oculata populations is likely low, and this limited 
inter-population exchange may increase the risk of local extirpations, 
possibly leading to complete extinction. The small, fragmented, and 
possibly isolated remaining populations suggest the species may be at 
an increased risk of random genetic drift and could experience the 
fixing of recessive detrimental alleles, reducing the overall fitness 
of the species.
    In conclusion, although there is significant uncertainty regarding 
the current abundance of the species, the best available information 
indicates that the species is presently rare throughout most of its 
range, likely consisting of small, fragmented, isolated, and declining 
populations that are likely to be strongly influenced by stochastic or 
depensatory processes and have little rebound potential or resilience. 
This vulnerability is further exacerbated by the present threats of 
overutilization and inadequacy of existing regulatory measures that 
continue to contribute to the decline of the existing populations, 
compromising the species' long-term viability. The demersal fisheries 
that historically contributed to the decline in S. oculata are still 
active throughout the species' range and primarily operate in depths 
where S. oculata would occur. The available information suggests heavy 
exploitation of demersal resources by these fisheries, including high 
levels of chondrichthyan discards and associated mortality due to the 
low gear selectivity and intensity of fishing effort throughout the 
Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic. Given the depleted state of the S. 
oculata populations and present demographic risks of the species, even 
low levels of mortality would pose a risk of extinction to the species. 
However, current regulatory measures appear inadequate to protect S. 
oculata from further fishery-related mortality. As such, the additional 
fishing mortality sustained by the species as a result of continued 
commercial, artisanal, and illegal fishing activities is a threat that 
is significantly contributing to the species' risk of extinction 
throughout its range. In summary, based on the best available 
information and the above analysis, we conclude that S. oculata is 
presently at a high risk of extinction throughout its range.

Squatina squatina

    The common angelshark presently faces demographic risks that 
significantly increase its risk of extinction. Based on historical and 
current catches and survey data, S. squatina has undergone significant 
declines in abundance throughout most of its historical range, with no 
evidence to suggest a reversal of these trends. Once characterized as 
fairly common, the species is now considered to be extirpated from the 
western English Channel, North Sea, Baltic Sea, parts of the Celtic 
Seas, Adriatic Sea, Ligurian and Tyrrhenian Seas, and Black Sea, and 
rare throughout the rest of its range in the northeast Atlantic and 
Mediterranean, with one exception. The S. squatina population off the 
Canary Islands may be fairly stable (although there is no trend data to 
confirm this); however, this area only constitutes an extremely small 
portion of the species' range and its present abundance in this portion 
remains uncertain. Overall, the best available information suggests 
that S. squatina has undergone significant declines and is still in 
decline throughout most of its range. Current populations are likely 
small and fragmented, making them particularly susceptible to local 
extirpations from environmental and anthropogenic perturbations or 
catastrophic events. Additionally, the reproductive characteristics of 
the species: Late maturity, long gestation, and low fecundity (which 
may be further reduced as gravid Squatina spp. females easily abort 
embryos during capture and

[[Page 40985]]

handling) suggest the species has relatively low productivity, similar 
to other elasmobranch species. These reproductive characteristics have 
likely hindered the species' ability to quickly rebound from threats 
that decrease its abundance (such as overutilization) and render it 
vulnerable to extinction. Although there is no genetic, morphological 
or behavioral information available that could provide insight into 
natural rates of dispersal and genetic exchange among populations, S. 
squatina are ovoviviparous (lacking a dispersive larval phase) and the 
best available information suggests that they likely have a patchy 
distribution due to local extirpations, population declines, and 
limited migratory behavior with evidence of possible high site 
fidelity. As such, connectivity of S. squatina populations is likely 
low, and this limited inter-population exchange may increase the risk 
of local extirpations, possibly leading to complete extinction. The 
small, fragmented, and possibly isolated remaining populations suggest 
the species may be at an increased risk of random genetic drift and 
could experience the fixing of recessive detrimental alleles, reducing 
the overall fitness of the species.
    In conclusion, although there is significant uncertainty regarding 
the current abundance of the species, the best available information 
indicates that the species has undergone a substantial decline in 
abundance. Once noted as common in historical records, the species is 
presently rare throughout most of its range (and considered extirpated 
in certain portions), with evidence suggesting it currently consists of 
small, fragmented, isolated, and declining populations that are likely 
to be strongly influenced by stochastic or depensatory processes. Based 
on tagging data, the Canary Island population, whose present abundance 
and population structure remains unknown, may be confined to this small 
geographic area. With limited inter-population exchange, its 
susceptibility to natural environmental and demographic fluctuations 
increases its risk of extirpation. The vulnerabilities of this species 
(small population sizes, declining trends, potential isolation) are 
further exacerbated by the present threats of curtailment of range, 
overutilization, and inadequacy of existing regulatory measures that 
will either contribute or continue to contribute to the decline of the 
existing populations, compromising the species' long-term viability. 
The demersal fisheries that historically contributed to the decline in 
S. squatina are still active throughout the species' range and 
primarily operate in depths where S. squatina would occur. Although the 
species is protected in EU waters, the available information suggests 
heavy exploitation of demersal resources by fisheries operating 
throughout the Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic, resulting in high 
levels of chondrichthyan discards and associated mortality. The species 
is still being landed, both legally and illegally, and, in some parts 
of its range, such as Tunisia, at levels that have historically led to 
population declines. In the Canary Islands, which are thought to be the 
last stronghold for the species, S. squatina is presently at risk of 
mortality at the hands of artisanal fishermen as well as a growing 
number of sport fishermen, despite the prohibition on capturing the 
species. Although trawling is banned within the Canary Islands, and a 
number of marine reserves have been established there, it is unclear to 
what extent these regulations will be effective in protecting important 
S. squatina habitat or decreasing fishing mortality rates. In summary, 
based on the best available information and the above analysis, we 
conclude that S. squatina is presently at a high risk of extinction 
throughout its range.

Protective Efforts

    In response to the significant decline of S. squatina over the 
years, a number of conservation efforts are planned or in development 
with the goal of learning more about these sharks in order to 
understand how better to protect them. These efforts include projects 
to reduce sportfishing-related mortality and/or diver disturbance of 
the angelshark in the Canary Islands, data collection to inform 
conservation (including genetic and tagging research), and awareness-
raising campaigns to promote the importance of the Canary Islands for 
angelshark conservation (ASP 2014; E. Meyers, pers. comm. 2015; J. 
Barker, pers. comm. 2015). While funding has been secured for some of 
these activities, including for a pilot angelshark tagging program, 
many of the other efforts described above are dependent on additional 
future funding (J. Barker, pers. comm. 2015). As such, the likelihood 
of implementation of these projects remains uncertain. There is also a 
collaborative effort sponsored by Deep Sea World (Scotland's National 
Aquarium) and Hastings Blue Reef Aquarium to breed angelsharks in 
captivity, and in 2011, they were successful. A female S. squatina 
successfully delivered 19 pups in captivity, marking the first time 
that an angelshark has successfully bred in captivity (Deep Sea World 
2015), which may be an important first step in the conservation of the 
species.
    Although these efforts will help increase the scientific knowledge 
about S. squatina and promote public awareness of declines in the 
species, there is no indication that these efforts are currently 
effective in reducing the threats to the species, particularly those 
related to overutilization and the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms. Therefore, we cannot conclude that these existing 
conservation efforts have significantly altered the extinction risk for 
the common angelshark. We are not aware of any other planned or not-
yet-implemented conservation measures that would protect this species 
or the other two Squatina species (S. aculeata and S. oculata). We seek 
additional information on other conservation efforts in our public 
comment process (see below).

Proposed Determination

    Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, 
as summarized here and in Miller (2015), we find that all three 
Squatina species are in danger of extinction throughout their 
respective ranges. We assessed the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors and 
conclude that S. aculeata, S. oculata, and S. squatina all face ongoing 
threats of overutilization by fisheries and inadequate existing 
regulatory mechanisms throughout their ranges. Squatina squatina has 
also suffered a significant curtailment of its range. These species' 
natural biological vulnerability to overexploitation and present 
demographic risks (e.g., low and declining abundance, small and 
isolated populations, patchy distribution, and low productivity) are 
currently exacerbating the negative effects of these threats and 
placing these species in danger of extinction. We therefore propose to 
list all three species as endangered.

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)); 
concurrent designation of critical habitat, if prudent and determinable 
(16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); Federal agency requirements to consult with 
NMFS under section 7 of the ESA to ensure their 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); and

[[Page 40986]]

prohibitions on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538). Recognition of the species' 
plight through listing promotes conservation actions by Federal and 
state agencies, foreign entities, private groups, and individuals. The 
main effects of the proposed endangered listings are prohibitions on 
take, including export and import.

Identifying Section 7 Conference and 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 they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat. Section 7(a)(4) (16 U.S.C. 
1536(a)(4)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS regulations also require Federal 
agencies to confer with us on actions likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of species proposed for listing, or that result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat of 
those species. It is unlikely that the listing of these species under 
the ESA will increase the number of section 7 consultations, because 
these species occur outside of the United States and are unlikely to be 
affected by Federal actions.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 
1532(5)) as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the 
ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) 
essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require 
special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is 
listed upon a determination that such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all 
methods and procedures needed to bring the species to the point at 
which listing under the ESA is no longer necessary. Section 4(a)(3)(A) 
of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to the extent 
prudent and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently 
with the listing of a species. However, critical habitat shall not be 
designated in foreign countries or other areas outside U.S. 
jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(h)).
    The best available scientific and commercial data as discussed 
above identify the geographical areas occupied by Squatina aculeata, S. 
oculata, and S. squatina as being entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction, 
so we cannot designate critical habitat for these species.
    We can designate critical habitat in areas in the United States 
currently unoccupied by the species, if the area(s) are determined by 
the Secretary to be essential for the conservation of the species. 
Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e) specify that we shall designate as 
critical habitat areas outside the geographical range presently 
occupied by the species only when the designation limited to its 
present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the 
species. The best available scientific and commercial information on 
these species does not indicate that U.S. waters provide any specific 
essential biological function for any of the Squatina species proposed 
for listing. Therefore, based on the available information, we do not 
intend to designate critical habitat for S. aculeata, S. oculata, or S. 
squatina.

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 proposing to list all three Squatina species as 
endangered, all of the prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the ESA will 
apply to these species. These include prohibitions against the import, 
export, use in foreign commerce, or ``take'' of the species. These 
prohibitions apply to all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States, including in the United States, its territorial sea, or 
on the high seas. 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.'' 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 for these species 
include, but are not limited to, the following:
    (1) Delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in 
interstate or foreign commerce any individual or part, in the course of 
a commercial activity;
    (2) Selling or offering for sale in interstate commerce any part, 
except antique articles at least 100 years old; and
    (3) Importing or exporting these angelshark species or any part of 
these species.
    We emphasize that whether a violation results from a particular 
activity is entirely dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each 
incident. Further, an activity not listed may in fact result in a 
violation.

Public Comments Solicited

    To ensure that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be as accurate and effective as possible, we are soliciting 
comments and information from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested 
parties on information in the status review and proposed rule. Comments 
are encouraged on these proposals (See DATES and ADDRESSES). We must 
base our final determination on the best available scientific and 
commercial information when making listing determinations. We cannot, 
for example, consider the economic effects of a listing determination. 
Final promulgation of any regulation(s) on these species' listing 
proposals will take into consideration the comments and any additional 
information we receive, and such communications may lead to a final 
regulation that differs from this proposal or result in a withdrawal of 
this listing proposal. We particularly seek:
    (1) Information concerning the threats to any of the Squatina 
species proposed for listing;
    (2) Taxonomic information on any of these species;
    (3) Biological information (life history, genetics, population 
connectivity, etc.) on any of these species;
    (4) Efforts being made to protect any of these species throughout 
their current ranges;
    (5) Information on the commercial trade of any of these species;
    (6) Historical and current distribution and abundance and trends 
for any of these species; and
    (7) Current or planned activities within the range of these species 
and their possible impact on these species.
    We request that all information be accompanied by: 1) supporting 
documentation, such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of 
pertinent publications; and 2) the submitter's name, address, and any 
association, institution, or business that the person represents.

Role of Peer Review

    In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued

[[Page 40987]]

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 peer review policy is to ensure that listings are 
based on the best scientific and commercial data available. We 
solicited peer review comments on the status review report (Miller 
2015) from four scientists familiar with the three angelshark species. 
We received and reviewed comments from these scientists, and their 
comments are incorporated into the draft status review report for the 
three Squatina species and this proposed rule. Their comments on the 
status review are summarized in the peer review report and available at 
http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prplans/PRsummaries.html.

References

    A complete list of the references used in this proposed rule is 
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act

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

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

    As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the 
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of 
a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. 
In addition, this proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive 
Order 12866. This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-
information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this proposed 
rule does not have significant Federalism effects and that a Federalism 
assessment is not required. In keeping with the intent of the 
Administration and Congress to provide continuing and meaningful 
dialogue on issues of mutual state and Federal interest, this proposed 
rule will be given to the relevant governmental agencies in the 
countries in which the species occurs, and they will be invited to 
comment. We will confer with the U.S. Department of State to ensure 
appropriate notice is given to foreign nations within the range of all 
three species. As the process continues, we intend to continue engaging 
in informal and formal contacts with the U.S. State Department, giving 
careful consideration to all written and oral comments received.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, 
Transportation.

    Dated: July 8, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch, III.
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 224 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

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, amend the table in paragraph (h) by adding new 
entries for three species in alphabetical order under the ``Fishes'' 
table subheading to read as follows:


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
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Shark, common angel-.........  Squatina          Entire species.  [Insert Federal   NA...........  NA.
                                squatina.                          Register
                                                                   citation and
                                                                   date when
                                                                   published as a
                                                                   final rule].
Shark, sawback angel-........  Squatina          Entire species.  [Insert Federal   NA...........  NA.
                                aculeata.                          Register
                                                                   citation and
                                                                   date when
                                                                   published as a
                                                                   final rule].
Shark, smoothback angel-.....  Squatina oculata  Entire species.  [Insert Federal   NA...........  NA.
                                                                   Register
                                                                   citation and
                                                                   date when
                                                                   published as a
                                                                   final rule].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 40988]]

[FR Doc. 2015-17016 Filed 7-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P