[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 154 (Tuesday, August 11, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48053-48061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19550]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 150506425-5425-01]
RIN 0648-XD941
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition
To List the Smooth Hammerhead Shark as Threatened or Endangered Under
the Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
ACTION: 90-day petition finding, request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the
smooth hammerhead shark (Sphyrna zygaena) range-wide or, in the
alternative, any identified distinct population segments (DPSs), as
threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and to
designate critical habitat concurrently with the listing. We find that
the petition and information in our files present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted. We will conduct a status review of the species
to determine if the petitioned action is warranted. To ensure that the
status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and
commercial information pertaining to this species from any interested
party.
DATES: Information and comments on the subject action must be received
by October 13, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, information, or data on this
document, identified by the code NOAA-NMFS-2015-0103, by either any 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-2015-0103. 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).
Copies of the petition and related materials are available on our
Web site at http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/smooth-hammerhead-shark.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maggie Miller, Office of Protected
Resources, 301-427-8403.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 27, 2015, we received a petition from Defenders of
Wildlife to list the smooth hammerhead shark (Sphyrna zygaena) as
threatened or endangered under the ESA throughout its entire range, or,
as an alternative, to list any identified DPSs as threatened or
endangered. To this end, the petitioners identified five populations
that they indicate qualify for protection as DPSs: Northeast Atlantic
and Mediterranean Sea, Northwest Atlantic, Southwest Atlantic, Eastern
Pacific, and Indo-West Pacific. The petition also requests that
critical habitat be designated for the smooth hammerhead shark under
the ESA. In the case that the species does not warrant listing under
the ESA, the petition requests that the species be listed based on its
similarity of appearance to the listed DPSs of the scalloped hammerhead
shark (Sphyrna
[[Page 48054]]
lewini). Copies of the petition are available upon request (see
ADDRESSES).
ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions and Evaluation
Framework
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90
days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or
endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly
publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)).
When it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information
in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a
``positive 90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a
review of the status of the species concerned during which we will
conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and
commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a
finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted
within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the
12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available
information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day
stage, a ``may be warranted'' finding does not prejudge the outcome of
the status review.
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which
is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species,
any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint
NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (jointly, ``the Services'')
policy clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase ``distinct
population segment'' for the purposes of listing, delisting, and
reclassifying a species under the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A
species, subspecies, or DPS is ``endangered'' if it is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and
``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range
(ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and
(20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we
determine whether species are threatened or endangered based on any one
or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade
factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR
424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50
CFR 424.14(b)) define ``substantial information'' in the context of
reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. In
evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition,
the Secretary must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates
the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any
common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative
justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on
available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the
species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides
information regarding the status of the species over all or a
significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the
appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic
references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or
letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
At the 90-day finding stage, we evaluate the petitioners' request
based upon the information in the petition including its references and
the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct
additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties
outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will
accept the petitioners' sources and characterizations of the
information presented if they appear to be based on accepted scientific
principles, unless we have specific information in our files that
indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable,
obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information
that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is
contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at
the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable
person would conclude it supports the petitioners' assertions. In other
words, conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's
requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90- day
finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone
negates a positive 90-day finding if a reasonable person would conclude
that the unknown information itself suggests an extinction risk of
concern for the species at issue.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we
evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating the subject species may be either
threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate
whether the information presented in the petition, along with the
information readily available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under
the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the
species faces an extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be
indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and
trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the
species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors
pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species (e.g.,
population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age
structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, habitat
integrity or fragmentation), and the potential contribution of
identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We
then evaluate the potential links between these demographic risks and
the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1).
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to
the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these
factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species
to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad
statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification
of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute
substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We
look for information indicating that not only is the particular species
exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a
negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that
negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by
nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union on the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk
classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or
state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may
not provide the rationale for
[[Page 48055]]
a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For example, as explained by
NatureServe, their assessments of a species' conservation status do
``not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the
U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because NatureServe assessments ``have
different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic
coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species,
and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to
coincide'' http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/pdf/NatureServeStatusAssessmentsListing-Dec%202008.pdf. Additionally,
species classifications under IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent; data
standards, criteria used to evaluate species, and treatment of
uncertainty are also not necessarily the same. Thus, when a petition
cites such classifications, we will evaluate the source of information
that the classification is based upon in light of the standards on
extinction risk and impacts or threats discussed above.
Distribution and Life History of the Smooth Hammerhead Shark
The smooth hammerhead shark is a circumglobal species found in
temperate to warm waters (Compagno, 1984). It occurs close inshore and
in shallow waters, over continental shelves, in estuaries and bays, and
around coral reefs, but it has also been observed offshore at depths as
great as 65-650 feet (20-200 meters (m)) deep (Compagno, 1984; Bester,
n.d.). Smooth hammerheads are highly mobile and, within the Sphyrnidae
family, are the most tolerant of temperate waters (Compagno, 1984). In
the western Atlantic Ocean, the range of the smooth hammerhead shark
extends from Nova Scotia to Florida and into the Caribbean Sea, and in
the south from southern Brazil to southern Argentina (Compagno, 1984;
Bester, n.d). In the eastern Atlantic Ocean, smooth hammerhead sharks
can be found from the British Isles to Guinea and farther south through
parts of equatorial West Africa. They are also found throughout the
Mediterranean Sea (Compagno, 1984; Bester, n.d). In the Indian Ocean,
the shark occurs from South Africa, along the southern coast of India
and Sri Lanka, to the coasts of Australia. Distribution in the Pacific
extends from Vietnam to Japan and includes Australia and New Zealand in
the west, the Hawaiian Islands in the central Pacific, and extends from
Northern California to the Nayarit state of Mexico, and from Panama to
southern Chile in the eastern Pacific (Compagno, 1984; Bester, n.d).
The smooth hammerhead shark gets its common name from its large,
laterally expanded head that resembles a hammer (Bester, n.d.). The
unique head shape allows for easy distinction of hammerheads of the
Sphyrnidae family from other types of sharks. The smooth hammerhead is
characterized by a ventrally located and strongly arched mouth with
smooth or slightly serrated teeth (Compagno, 1984). The body of the
shark is fusiform with a moderately hooked first dorsal fin and a lower
second dorsal fin, and its color ranges from a dark olive to greyish-
brown that fades into a white underside (Bester, n.d.).
The general life history characteristics of the smooth hammerhead
shark are that of a long-lived, slow-growing, and late maturing species
(Compagno, 1984; Casper et al., 2005). The smooth hammerhead can reach
a maximum length of 16 feet (5 m) and a maximum weight of 880 pounds
(400 kilograms (kg)) (Bester, n.d.). Females are considered sexually
mature at the age of 9, which correlates to size at sexual maturity of
8.7 feet (2.65 m) (Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), 2013). Males are considered
sexually mature slightly earlier in life than females, and at sizes
from 8.2-8.7 feet (2.10-2.65 m.) (CITES, 2013). The smooth hammerhead
shark is viviparous (i.e., give birth to live young), with a gestation
period of 10-11 months, and likely breeds every other year (ICCAT,
2012; Bester, n.d.). Litter sizes range from 20 to 40 live pups with a
mean litter size of 33.5 pups. Average length at birth is estimated to
be 50 cm (Bester, n.d.).
The smooth hammerhead shark is a high trophic level predator
(Cort[eacute]s, 1999) and opportunistic feeder that consumes a variety
of teleosts, small sharks, skates and stingrays, crustaceans, and
cephalopods (Compagno, 1984). The species has also been observed
scavenging from nets and hooks.
Analysis of Petition and Information Readily Available in NMFS Files
The petition contains information on the species, including the
taxonomy, species description, geographic distribution, habitat,
population status and trends, and factors contributing to the species'
decline. According to the petition, all five causal factors in section
4(a)(1) of the ESA are adversely affecting the continued existence of
the smooth hammerhead shark: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence.
In the following sections, we evaluate the information provided in
the petition and readily available in our files to determine if the
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that an endangered or threatened listing may be warranted as
a result of any of these ESA factors. Because we were requested to list
a global population and, alternatively, DPSs, we will first determine
if the petition presents substantial information that the petitioned
action is warranted for the global population. If it does, then we will
make a positive finding on the petition and conduct a review of the
species range-wide. If after this review we find that the species does
not warrant listing range-wide, then we will consider whether the
populations requested by the petitioners qualify as DPSs and warrant
listing. If the petition does not present substantial information that
the global population may warrant listing, and it has requested that we
list any populations of the species as threatened or endangered, then
we will consider whether the petition provides substantial information
that the requested population(s) may qualify as DPSs under the
discreteness and significance criteria of our joint DPS Policy, and if
listing any of those DPSs may be warranted. Below, we summarize the
information presented in the petition and in our files on the status of
the species and the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors that may be affecting
the species' risk of global extinction and determine whether a
reasonable person would conclude that an endangered or threatened
listing may be warranted as a result of any of these factors.
Smooth Hammerhead Shark Status and Trends
The petition does not provide an estimate of global population
abundance or trends for the smooth hammerhead shark. The petition
refers to the IUCN Redlist status assessment (Casper et al., 2005) and
its classification of the smooth hammerhead as globally ``vulnerable.''
The IUCN assessment cites overutilization by global fisheries as the
main threat to the species, with smooth hammerheads both targeted and
caught as bycatch and kept for their fins.
The petition provides evidence of population declines in a number
of regions throughout the smooth
[[Page 48056]]
hammerhead's range that would indicate that smooth hammerhead sharks
may be experiencing declines on a global scale. For example, a stock
assessment of smooth hammerhead sharks in the Northwest Atlantic
region, conducted by Hayes (2007), estimated a 91 percent decline of
the population between 1981 and 2005. Similarly, another study (Myers
et al., 2007) used standardized catch per unit effort (CPUE) data from
shark-targeted, fishery-independent surveys off the east coast of the
United States and found a 99 percent decline of smooth hammerhead
sharks from 1972-2003. Myers et al. (2007) remarks that the trends in
abundance may be indicative of coast-wide population declines because
the survey was situated ``where it intercepts sharks on their seasonal
migrations.'' In the southwest Atlantic, Brazilian commercial fisheries
report an 80 percent decline in CPUE of the hammerhead complex
(including smooth hammerhead sharks) from 2000 to 2008, suggesting a
significant decline in abundance of hammerhead sharks from this area
(FAO, 2010). The State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, experienced a 65
percent decrease in CPUE from 2000-2002, specifically of smooth
hammerhead sharks (CITES, 2013). In the Mediterranean Sea, estimated
declines of the Sphyrna complex (with S. zygaena comprising the main
species) exceeded 99 percent over the last century, with hammerhead
sharks considered to be functionally extinct in the region (Feretti et
al., 2008). In the Indian Ocean, tagging surveys conducted off the
eastern coast of South Africa over the course of 25 years suggest
smooth hammerhead abundance has declined, after reaching a peak in 1987
(n = 468, 34.9 percent of the total smooth hammerheads tagged over the
course of the study; Diemer et al., 2007). However, catches of smooth
hammerhead sharks in beach protective nets set off the KwaZulu-Natal
beaches in South Africa were highly variable from 1978-2003, with no
clear trend that could indicate the status of the population (Dudley
and Simpfendorfer, 2006). In the Eastern Pacific, incidental catches of
smooth hammerhead sharks by tuna purse-seine vessels have exhibited a
declining trend, from a peak of 1,205 sharks caught in 2004 to 436
individuals in 2011 (a decrease of around 64 percent) (CITES, 2013).
Based on the available information from these regions, we find evidence
suggesting that the population abundance of smooth hammerhead sharks
has declined significantly and may still be in decline. While data are
limited with respect to population size and trends, we find the
information presented in the petition and readily available in our
files to be substantial information on smooth hammerhead shark
abundance, trends, and status.
Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors
The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Its Habitat or Range
The petition contends that smooth hammerhead sharks are at risk of
extinction throughout their range due to pollutants, especially those
that are able to bioaccumulate and biomagnify to high concentrations at
high trophic levels. Of particular concern to the petitioners are high
mercury and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) concentrations in smooth
hammerhead shark tissues. International agencies, such as the Food and
Drug Administration and the World Health Organization, have set a
recommended maximum of 1 [micro]g/g concentration of mercury in seafood
tissues (Garc[iacute]a-Hern[aacute]ndez et al., 2007) for human
consumption. Storelli et al. (2003) tested tissue samples from four
smooth hammerhead sharks from the Mediterranean Sea and found that, on
average, tissue samples from the liver and muscle had concentrations of
mercury that greatly exceeded recommended limits (mean mercury
concentration in muscle samples: 12.15 4.60 [micro]g/g,
mean mercury concentration in liver samples: 35.89 3.58
[micro]g/g). Additionally, these specimens showed high concentrations
of more chlorinated (hexa- and hepta-chlorinated) PCBs. Similarly,
Garc[iacute]a-Hern[aacute]ndez et al. (2007) found high concentrations
of mercury in tissues of four smooth hammerhead sharks from the Gulf of
California, Mexico (mean mercury concentration in muscle tissue: 8.25
9.05 [micro]g/g). Escobar-S[aacute]nchez (2010) also
studied mercury concentrations in the muscle tissues of smooth
hammerhead sharks from the Mexican Pacific, but out of 37 studied
sharks, only one shark had a mercury concentration that exceeded the
recommended limits. As stated previously, we look for information in
the petition and in our files to indicate that not only is the
particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be
responding in a negative fashion. Despite providing evidence that
smooth hammerhead sharks accumulate pollutants in their tissues, the
petitioners fail to provide evidence that these concentrations of
mercury and PCBs are causing detrimental physiological effects to the
species or may be contributing significantly to population declines in
smooth hammerhead sharks to the point where the species may be at risk
of extinction. As such, we conclude that the information presented in
the petition on threats to the habitat of the smooth hammerhead shark
does not provide substantial information indicating that listing may be
warranted for the species.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Information from the petition and in our files suggests that the
primary threat to the smooth hammerhead shark is from overutilization
by fisheries. Smooth hammerhead sharks are both targeted and taken as
bycatch in many global fisheries. Smooth hammerhead sharks face fishing
pressure from commercial, artisanal, and recreational fisheries that
use a variety of gear types to harvest these sharks: Pelagic and bottom
longlines, handlines, gillnets, purse seines, and pelagic and bottom
trawls (Camhi et al., 2007). Smooth hammerhead sharks are mostly
targeted for their large, high-quality fins for use in shark fin soup,
which are then transported to Asian markets where they fetch a high
market price ($88/kg in 2003) (Abercrombie et al., 2005). In the Hong
Kong fin market, which is the largest fin market in the world, S.
zygaena and S. lewini are mainly traded under a combined market
category called Chun chi (Abercrombie et al., 2005; NMFS, 2014a). Based
on data from 2000-2002, Chun chi is the second most traded category,
comprising around 4-5 percent of the total fins traded in the Hong Kong
market annually (Clarke et al., 2006; Camhi et al., 2007). This
percentage of fins correlates to an estimated 1.3-2.7 million
individuals of scalloped and smooth hammerhead sharks (equivalent to a
biomass of 49,000-90,000 tons) traded in the Hong Kong market annually.
Given their relatively high price and popularity in the Hong Kong
market, there is concern that many smooth hammerhead sharks caught as
incidental catch may be kept for the fin trade as opposed to released
alive; however, as noted in the Great Hammerhead 12-month finding (79
FR 33509; June 11, 2014), there has also been a recent global push to
decrease the demand of shark fins, especially for shark fin soup.
In the northwestern Atlantic, smooth hammerhead sharks are mainly
caught as bycatch in the U.S. commercial longline and net fisheries and
by U.S. recreational fishermen using rod and reel, albeit rarely (NMFS,
2014b). This
[[Page 48057]]
is likely a reflection of the low abundance of the species. Between
1981 and 2005, Hayes (2007) estimated that the Northwest Atlantic
population of smooth hammerhead shark suffered a 91 percent decline in
size. As of 2005, the population was estimated to be at 19-24 percent
of the biomass that would produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY), as
defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, and that the population was being fished at 150 percent of fishing
mortality associated with MSY. Under 2005 catch levels, Hayes (2007)
estimated that there was a 64 percent likelihood of smooth hammerhead
shark recovery within 30 years. It is important to note that the term
``recovery'' as used by Hayes (2007) is defined under the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and is based on
different criteria than threatened or endangered statuses under the
ESA. As such, it does not necessarily indicate that a species may
warrant listing under the ESA because it does not necessarily have any
relationship to a species' extinction risk. Overutilization under the
ESA means that a species has been or is being harvested at levels that
pose a risk of extinction, not just at levels over MSY. However, we
agree that the significant decline estimated for the population
combined with the species' biological susceptibility to current
fisheries and high at-vessel mortality rates (see Other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence section) may be of
concern as it relates to the extinction risk of the species. In
addition, we note that, as pointed out in the NMFS Great Hammerhead
Shark Status Review (Miller et al., 2014), Hayes (2007) (cited as Hayes
2008 in the status review) identified many uncertainties in the data
and catch estimates from his stock assessment model that may have
affected population decline estimates and should be taken into
consideration. We will evaluate these uncertainties and the adequacy of
existing regulatory measures in preventing further declines in the
species during the status review phase.
In the southwestern Atlantic, industrial landings of the hammerhead
complex (mainly S. lewini and S. zygaena) off the coast of Santa
Catarina, Brazil increased from 6.7 tons in 1989 to a peak of 570 tons
in 1994, due to fast development of industrial net fishing during this
time (CITES, 2013). However, catches of hammerheads from the industrial
net fishery fell to 44 tons in 2008, despite continued fishing effort.
Industrial deep fishing with bottom gillnets off the coast of Brazil is
a threat to recruiting coastal hammerheads, especially during their
mating and birthing seasons (CITES, 2013). Data from a bottom gillnet
fishery targeting hammerheads off the coast of Brazil noted an 80
percent decline in CPUE of the hammerhead complex from 2000-2008 (FAO,
2010). The targeted hammerhead fishery was abandoned after 2008 when
the species became too rare to make the fishery economically viable. In
the Rio Grande do Sul State of Brazil, a 65 percent decrease in CPUE of
smooth hammerhead sharks from the industrial fisheries was noted from
2000-2002, decreasing from 0.37 tons per trip to 0.13 tons per trip
(CITES, 2013). The various fishing operations in this region
concentrate effort in areas where all life stages of hammerhead sharks
occur. For example, the artisanal net and industrial trawl fishing
within inshore areas and on the continental shelf place neonates and
juveniles at risk of fishery-related mortality, and the industrial
gillnet and longline fisheries operating on the outer continental shelf
and adjacent ocean waters place adults at risk (CITES, 2013). With this
heavy fishing effort affecting all life stages, there may be observed
declines in the population.
In the Mediterranean Sea, it is thought that smooth hammerheads may
have been fished to functional extinction (Feretti et al., 2008). In
the early 20th century, coastal fisheries would target large sharks and
also land them as incidental bycatch in gill nets, fish traps, and tuna
traps (Feretti et al., 2008). Feretti et al. (2008) hypothesized that
certain species, including S. zygaena, found refuge in offshore pelagic
waters from this intense coastal fishing. However, with the expansion
of the tuna and swordfish longline and drift net fisheries into pelagic
waters in the 1970s, these offshore areas no longer served as
protection from fisheries, and sharks again became regular bycatch.
Consequently, the hammerhead shark abundance in the Mediterranean Sea
(primarily S. zygaena) is estimated to have declined by more than 99
percent over the past 107 years, with hammerheads considered to be
functionally extinct in the region. Recently, Sperone et al. (2012)
provided evidence of the contemporary occurrence of the smooth
hammerhead shark in Mediterranean waters, recording seven individuals
from 2000-2009 near the Calabria region of Italy. Additionally, the
aforementioned toxicology study, Storelli et al. (2003), used four
smooth hammerhead sharks that were caught as bycatch from the swordfish
fishery in the Mediterranean in July of 2001. These two studies suggest
that numbers of smooth hammerhead shark in the Mediterranean region may
be slowly recovering (Sperone et al., 2012), although further study is
needed.
In the waters off of northwestern Africa, hammerhead sharks are
retained primarily as bycatch from the industrial fisheries and catch
from the artisanal fisheries operating within this region.
Historically, Spanish swordfish gillnet and longline fisheries and
European industrial trawl fisheries caught significant amounts of
hammerheads (Buencuerpo et al., 1998; Zeeberg et al., 2006). For
example, from 1991-1992 a total of 675 hammerheads (the authors refer
to them as scalloped hammerheads but give the scientific name of S.
zygaena) were landed as incidental catch in the Spanish swordfish
fishery, with juveniles comprising the majority of the catch (94
percent of males and 96 percent of females) (Buencuerpo et al., 1998).
In a study of European trawl fisheries off the coast of Mauritania, 42
percent of the megafauna bycatch (the largest category) were hammerhead
sharks and 75 percent of the hammerhead sharks were juveniles (Zeeberg
et al., 2006). The study estimated that over 1,000 hammerheads are
removed annually, a number considered to be unsustainable for the
region. Additionally, according to a review of shark fishing in the Sub
Regional Fisheries Commission member countries (Cape-Verde, Gambia,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Senegal, and Sierra Leone), Diop and
Dossa (2011) state that shark fishing is an important component of the
artisanal fishery. Before 1989, artisanal catch of sharks was less than
4,000 mt. However, from 1990 to 2005, shark catch increased
dramatically from 5,000 mt to over 26,000 mt, as did the level of
fishing effort (Diop and Dossa, 2011). However, from 2005 to 2008,
shark landings dropped by more than 50 percent, to 12,000 mt (Diop and
Dossa, 2011). As noted in the Scalloped Hammerhead Final Listing Rule
(79 FR 38213; July 3, 2014), regulations in Europe appear to be moving
towards the sustainable use and conservation of shark species; however,
there is still concern regarding the level of exploitation of
hammerhead sharks off the west coast of Africa, and the threat warrants
further exploration.
In the eastern Pacific Ocean, smooth hammerhead sharks are both
targeted and taken as bycatch in industrial and artisanal fisheries
(Casper et al., 2005). In Mexico, sharks, in general, are an important
component of the artisanal
[[Page 48058]]
fishery (INP, 2006). They are targeted for both their fins, which are
harvested by fishermen for export, and for their shark meat, which is
becoming increasingly important for domestic consumption. In the Gulf
of Tehuantepec, smooth hammerhead sharks are the seventh most important
shark species (out of 21 identified species) caught in the artisanal
fishery (INP, 2006). In a survey of the targeted artisanal elasmobranch
fishery off the coast of Sinaloa, Mexico, smooth hammerhead sharks
accounted for 6.4 percent (n = 70) of total landings in the more active
winter season and 3 percent (n = 120) of the total surveyed catch from
1998-1999 (Bizzarro et al., 2009). Of concern is the fact that all
individuals landed during this survey were juveniles. Similarly, a
1995-1996 survey of the artisanal fishery off the Tres Marinas Islands
of Mexico demonstrated that smooth hammerhead sharks constituted 35
percent (n = 700) of the total catch, and only 20 percent of the
females and 1 percent of the males were considered mature
(P[eacute]rez-Jim[eacute]nez et al., 2005). Given the species' low
productivity, slow growth rate, and late maturity, this targeted
removal of recruits from the population may cause or continue to cause
declines in the abundance of the species to the point where it may be
contributing to the species' risk of extinction and is cause for
concern that warrants further review.
Smooth hammerhead sharks are also taken as bycatch by the tuna
purse-seine fisheries operating in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission convention area of the Eastern Pacific region. Based on data
from observers, smooth hammerhead sharks constituted around 1.7 percent
of the total bycatch from the tuna purse-seine fleet from 2000-2001.
Since the mid-1980s, the tuna purse-seine fishery in the Pacific has
been rapidly expanding (Williams and Terawasi, 2011), and despite the
increase in fishery effort (or perhaps a consequence of this increased
fishing pressure), incidental catch of smooth hammerhead sharks has
seen a decline, from a peak of 1,205 individuals in 2004 to 436
individuals in 2011 (CITES, 2013).
In the west-coast based U.S. fisheries, hammerheads are primarily
caught as bycatch, and, based on observer data, appear to be relatively
rare in the fisheries catch. For example, in the California/Oregon
drift gillnet fishery, which targets swordfish and common thresher
shark and operates off the U.S. Pacific coast, observers recorded only
70 bycaught smooth hammerheads and 2 unidentified hammerheads in 8,698
sets conducted over the past 25 years (from 1990-2015; WCR, 2015).
Throughout the majority of the Indian Ocean and western Pacific,
fisheries data in the petition and available in our files are lacking,
but shark finning and illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing
were identified by the petitioners as threats contributing to the
overutilization of the species in these areas. The smooth hammerhead
shark is caught in both artisanal and commercial fisheries as directed
catch and retained incidental bycatch (Casper et al., 2005). Pelagic
fisheries from industrialized countries have been active in the region
for over 50 years (Casper et al., 2005). A recent review of fisheries
in the Indian Ocean reports that sharks in the area are fully or over-
exploited (de Young, 2006), but due to the high levels of IUU fishing
and lack of species-specific catch reporting, it is difficult to
determine the rate of exploitation of smooth hammerhead sharks. In
Western Australia, smooth hammerhead sharks are retained as bycatch in
the demersal gillnet fishery, but it appears that the fishing pressure
is too low to have impacted populations in this region (Casper et al.,
2005). Smooth hammerheads are relatively common around New Zealand's
North Island, where they are frequently caught as bycatch in commercial
gillnets and trawls; however, these individuals are often discarded
dead (Casper et al., 2005).
In the central Pacific, smooth hammerhead sharks are bycaught in
the Hawaii-based fisheries, but comprise a very small proportion of the
bycatch. In fact, from 1995-2006, only 49 smooth hammerhead sharks and
38 unidentified hammerhead sharks were bycaught in the Hawaiian
longline fishery, amounting to less than 0.1 percent of all bycaught
shark species in the fishery for that time period (Walsh et al., 2009).
According to the U.S. National Bycatch Report (NMFS, 2011; NMFS, 2013),
the Hawaii-based deep-set pelagic longline fishery (which targets
swordfish) bycaught 3,173.91 pounds (1440 kg) of smooth hammerhead in
2010, an increase of around 29 percent from the amount reported in 2005
(2,453.74 pounds (1,113 kg)). However, for the Hawaii based shallow-set
pelagic longline fishery (which also targets swordfish), there were no
reports of bycaught smooth hammerhead sharks in 2010, whereas in 2005,
930.35 pounds (422 kg) of smooth hammerheads were recorded as bycatch.
Additionally, in 2011, an estimated 12 smooth hammerhead sharks (based
on extrapolated observer data) were taken in the American Samoa
longline fishery (PIFSC, unpublished data). Further review is necessary
to determine if this level of fishery-related mortality is a threat to
the smooth hammerhead shark.
Given the evidence of historical exploitation of the species and
subsequent population declines, and the fact that fishing pressure from
industrial and artisanal fisheries may still be high based on available
fisheries data and the high value and contribution of smooth hammerhead
fins to the international fin trade, we conclude that the information
in the petition and in our files suggest that global fisheries are
impacting smooth hammerhead shark populations to a degree that raises
concern that the species may be at risk of extinction.
Disease or Predation
The petition asserts that high concentrations of arsenic in smooth
hammerhead shark tissues should be considered a significant threat to
smooth hammerhead shark populations as it is a possible carcinogenic.
The petition refers to Storelli et al. (2003), which found that smooth
hammerhead sharks (n = 4) had a mean arsenic concentration in muscle
samples of 18.00 8.57 [micro]g/g and a mean arsenic
concentration in liver samples of 44.22 2.22 [micro]g/g.
The study cites that sharks rarely have arsenic concentrations that
exceed 10 [micro]g/g, and so the arsenic levels in the sharks tissues
should be considered ``notably elevated'' (Storelli et al., 2003). The
petitioners contend that the smooth hammerhead sharks are at a higher
risk for developing cancer due to these high levels of arsenic.
However, as already stated, we look for information in the petition and
in our files to indicate that not only is the particular species
exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a
negative fashion. Despite providing evidence that some smooth
hammerhead sharks have elevated levels of arsenic in their tissues, the
petitioners fail to show that those specific levels are causing
detrimental physiological effects or may be contributing significantly
to population declines in smooth hammerhead sharks to the point where
the species may be at risk of extinction. Additionally, neither the
petitioners nor the information in our files indicate that predation is
a significant threat to this apex species. As such, we conclude that
the information presented in the petition on the threats of disease or
predation to the smooth hammerhead shark does not provide substantial
information indicating that listing may be warranted for the species.
[[Page 48059]]
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petition asserts that the existing international, regional, and
national regulations do not adequately protect the smooth hammerhead
shark and have been insufficient in preventing population declines.
Additionally, the petition asserts that most existing regulations are
inadequate because they limit retention of the smooth hammerhead shark
and argues that the focus should be on limiting the catch of smooth
hammerhead sharks in order to decrease fishery-related mortality,
particularly given the species' high post-catch mortality rates. Among
the regulations that the petition cites as inadequate are shark finning
bans and shark finning regulations. Shark finning bans are currently
one of the most widely used forms of shark utilization regulations, and
the petition notes that 21 countries, the European Union, and 9
Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) have implemented
shark finning bans (CITES, 2013). However, the petition contends that
these shark finning bans are often ineffective as enforcement is
difficult or lacking, implementation in RFMOs and international
agreements is not always binding, and catches often go unreported
(CITES, 2013). The petition also states that shark finning regulations
tend to have loopholes that can be exploited to allow continued
finning. Many shark finning regulations require that both the carcass
and the fins be landed, but not necessarily naturally attached.
Instead, the regulations impose a fin to carcass ratio weight, which is
usually 5 percent (Dulvy et al., 2008). This allows fishermen to
preferentially retain the carcasses of valuable species and valuable
fins from other species in order to maximize profits (Abercrombie et
al., 2005). In 2010, the United States passed the Shark Conservation
Act, which except for a limited exception regarding smooth dogfish,
requires all sharks to be landed with their fins attached, abolishing
the fin to carcass ratio. However, in other parts of the species'
range, the inadequacy of existing finning bans may be contributing to
further declines in the species by allowing the wasteful practice of
shark finning at sea to continue.
In the Atlantic United States, smooth hammerhead sharks are managed
as part of the Large Coastal Shark (LCS) complex group under the U.S.
Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP). The
petition asserts that the inclusion of smooth hammerheads in the LCS
complex offers minimal to no protection to the smooth hammerhead shark,
and that implementation of Amendment 5 to the HMS FMP does not cover
smooth hammerhead sharks. We find that the petitioners are incorrect in
their assertion.
Amendments, in general, are rulemakings that amend FMPs, and in
2012, NMFS published a draft of Amendment 5 to the 2006 HMS FMP (77 FR
73029) that proposed measures designed to reduce fishing mortality and
effort in order to rebuild various overfished Atlantic shark species
while ensuring that a limited sustainable shark fishery for certain
species could be maintained. After considering all of the public
comments on Draft Amendment 5, NMFS split Amendment 5 into two
rulemakings: Amendment 5a (which addressed scalloped hammerhead,
sandbar, blacknose, and Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks) and Amendment
5b (which addressed dusky sharks).
Amendment 5a was implemented in 2013 (78 FR 40318) and was a
rulemaking designed to maintain the rebuilding of sandbar sharks, end
overfishing and rebuild scalloped hammerhead and Atlantic blacknose
sharks, establish total allowable catches (TAC) and commercial quotas
for Gulf of Mexico blacknose and blacktip sharks, and establish new
recreational shark fishing management measures. Although Amendment 5a
focuses specifically on the rebuilding of scalloped hammerhead sharks,
the regulatory measures affect and likely benefit the entire hammerhead
complex. For example, with the implementation of Amendment 5a,
commercial hammerhead shark quotas (which include smooth, scalloped and
great hammerheads) have been separated from the aggregated LCS
management group quotas, with links between the Atlantic hammerhead
shark quota and the Atlantic aggregated LCS quotas, and links between
the Gulf of Mexico hammerhead shark quota and Gulf of Mexico aggregated
LCS quotas. In other words, if either the aggregated LCS or hammerhead
shark quota is reached, then both the aggregated LCS and hammerhead
shark management groups will close. These quota linkages were
implemented as an additional conservation benefit for the hammerhead
shark complex due to the concern of hammerhead shark bycatch and
additional mortality from fishermen targeting other sharks within the
LCS complex. The separation of the hammerhead species for quota
monitoring purposes from other sharks within the LCS management unit
allows for better management of the specific utilization of the
hammerhead shark complex, which includes smooth hammerhead sharks.
Additionally, although the petition asserts that Amendment 5 did
not cover the smooth hammerhead shark, it acknowledges that an
applicable protection for smooth hammerhead sharks from Amendment 5a is
the minimum size catch requirement for recreational fishermen, which
has been set at 6.5 feet (198 cm). However, the petition notes that
this minimum size is below the size at maturity for smooth hammerhead
sharks (estimated at 210-250 cm for males and 270 cm for females), and,
as such, allows for the continued catch of immature smooth hammerhead
sharks.
Finally, although not part of Amendment 5a but still applicable to
the smooth hammerhead shark, we note that starting in 2011, U.S.
fishermen using pelagic longline (PLL) gear and operating in the
Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea, and dealers buying from
vessels that have PLL gear onboard, have been prohibited from retaining
onboard, transshipping, landing, storing, selling, or offering for sale
any part or whole carcass of hammerhead sharks of the family Sphyrnidae
(except for S. tiburo) (76 FR 53652; August 29, 2011). This prohibition
provides an additional benefit to the species by reducing the fishery-
related mortality of this species within the Atlantic.
While we find that the petitioners are incorrect in their assertion
that the inclusion of smooth hammerheads in the LCS complex offers
minimal to no protection to the smooth hammerhead shark and the
implementation of Amendment 5 (presumably Amendment 5a) does not cover
smooth hammerhead sharks, we will evaluate the adequacy of these and
the other existing regulations in relation to the threat of
overutilization of the species during the status review.
In terms of other national measures, the petition provides a list
of countries that have prohibited shark fishing in their respective
waters, but notes that many suffer from enforcement related issues,
citing cases of illegal fishing and shark finning. The petition also
highlights enforceability issues associated with international
agreements regarding smooth hammerhead shark utilization and trade.
Based on the information presented in the petition as well as
information in our files, we find that further evaluation of the
adequacy of existing regulatory measures is needed to determine whether
this may be a
[[Page 48060]]
threat contributing to the extinction risk of the species.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
The petition contends that ``biological vulnerability'' in the form
of long gestation periods, late maturity, large size, relatively
infrequent reproduction, and high post-catch mortality rates exacerbate
the threat of overutilization and increase the species' susceptibility
to extinction. The petition cites Cort[eacute]s et al. (2010), which
estimated a post-release mortality of 85 percent for smooth hammerheads
caught on pelagic longline. In New South Wales, Australia, Reid and
Krogh (1992) examined shark mortality rates in protective beach nets
set off the coast between 1950 and 1990, and found that only 1.7
percent of the total number of hammerheads caught in the net (total
=2,031 sharks) were still alive when the nets were cleared. These high
post-release mortality rates increases the sharks' vulnerability to
fishing pressure, with any capture of this species, regardless of
whether the fishing is targeted or incidental, contributing to its
fishing mortality. However, in an ecological risk assessment of 20
shark stocks, Cort[eacute]s et al. (2010) found that the smooth
hammerhead ranked among the least vulnerable sharks to pelagic longline
fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, although the authors note that the
amount and quality of data regarding the species was considerably lower
than for the other species. Overall, this information suggests that the
species' biological vulnerability (low productivity and high post-
release mortality) may be a threat in certain fisheries, possibly
contributing to an increased risk of extinction, but may not be a cause
for concern in other fisheries.
The petition also contends that the species' tendency to form
juvenile aggregations increases the species' susceptibility to
extinction. Juveniles of the species have been known to aggregate in
shallow, coastal waters (Zeeberg et al., 2006; Diemer et al., 2011;
CITES, 2013), which increases the species' susceptibility to being
caught in large numbers. These shallow areas are close to coastlines
and, as such, generally face heavier fishing pressure from commercial,
artisanal, and recreational fisheries. Many studies of targeted and
retained bycatch shark fisheries have demonstrated that a large amount
of the catch of smooth hammerhead sharks are juveniles (Bizzarro et
al., 1998; Buencuerpo et al., 1998; Zeeberg et al., 2006; Diemer et
al., 2007). The removal of substantial numbers of juveniles from a
population can have significant effects on recruitment to the
population and could lead to population declines and potentially
extinction of a species. Given the observed declines in the species,
this juvenile aggregating behavior and, consequently, increased
susceptibility to being caught in large numbers, may be a threat that
is contributing to the extinction risk of the species.
Thus, the available information in the petition and in our files
suggests that the species' natural biological vulnerability (including
high post-catch mortality rates and aggregating behavior) may present a
threat that warrants further exploration to see if it is exacerbating
the threat of overutilization and contributing to the species' risk of
extinction that is cause for concern.
Summary of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors
We conclude that the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that a combination of three of the
section 4(a)(1) factors (overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; inadequate existing regulatory
mechanisms; and other natural factors) may be causing or contributing
to an increased risk of extinction for the smooth hammerhead shark.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well
as information readily available in our files, and based on the above
analysis, we conclude the petition presents substantial scientific
information indicating the petitioned action of listing the smooth
hammerhead shark as threatened or endangered may be warranted.
Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS'
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we will commence a
status review of the species. During our status review, we will first
determine whether the species is in danger of extinction (endangered)
or likely to become so (threatened) throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. If it is not, then we will consider whether the
populations identified by the petitioners meet the DPS policy criteria,
and if so, whether any of these are threatened or endangered. If no
populations meet the DPS policy criteria, then we will consider whether
a similarity of appearance listing is warranted. We now initiate this
review, and thus, the smooth hammerhead shark is considered to be a
candidate species (69 FR 19975; April 15, 2004). Within 12 months of
the receipt of the petition (April 27, 2016), we will make a finding as
to whether listing the species (or any petitioned DPSs) as endangered
or threatened is warranted as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the
ESA. If listing the species (or any petitioned DPSs) or a similarity of
appearance listing is found to be warranted, we will publish a proposed
rule and solicit public comments before developing and publishing a
final rule.
Information Solicited
To ensure that the status review is based on the best available
scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information on
whether the smooth hammerhead shark is endangered or threatened.
Specifically, we are soliciting information in the following areas: (1)
Historical and current distribution and abundance of this species
throughout its range; (2) historical and current population trends; (3)
life history in marine environments, including identified nursery
grounds; (4) historical and current data on smooth hammerhead shark
bycatch and retention in industrial, commercial, artisanal, and
recreational fisheries worldwide; (5) historical and current data on
smooth hammerhead shark discards in global fisheries; (6) data on the
trade of smooth hammerhead shark products, including fins, jaws, meat,
and teeth; (7) any current or planned activities that may adversely
impact the species; (8) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and
restore the species and its habitats; (9) population structure
information, such as genetics data; and (10) management, regulatory,
and enforcement information. We request that all information be
accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps,
bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and
(2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or
business that the person represents.
References Cited
A complete list of references is available upon request to the
Office of Protected Resources (see ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
[[Page 48061]]
Dated: August 5, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-19550 Filed 8-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P