[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 96304-96328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31460]
[[Page 96303]]
Vol. 81
Thursday,
No. 250
December 29, 2016
Part IV
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened
Listing Determination for the Oceanic Whitetip Shark Under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA); Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 96304]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 223
[Docket No. 151110999-6999-02]
RIN 0648-XE314
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Threatened Listing Determination for the Oceanic Whitetip Shark Under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has completed a comprehensive status review under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the oceanic whitetip shark
(Carcharhinus longimanus) in response to a petition from Defenders of
Wildlife to list the species. Based on the best scientific and
commercial information available, including the status review report
(Young et al., 2016), and after taking into account efforts being made
to protect the species, we have determined that the oceanic whitetip
shark warrants listing as a threatened species. We conclude that the
oceanic whitetip shark is likely to become endangered throughout all or
a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future. Any
protective regulations determined to be necessary and advisable for the
conservation of the species under ESA section 4(d) would be proposed in
a subsequent Federal Register announcement. Should the proposed listing
be finalized, we would also designate critical habitat for the species,
to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. We solicit information
to assist in this listing determination, the development of proposed
protective regulations, and the designation of critical habitat in the
event this proposed listing determination is finalized.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by March 29,
2017. Public hearing requests must be requested by February 13, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2015-0152, by either of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via
the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0152, click the ``Comment Now!'' icon,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Chelsey Young, NMFS
Office of Protected Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD 20910, USA. Attention: Oceanic whitetip proposed rule.
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/fish/oceanic-whitetip-shark.html.
You may also receive a copy by submitting a request to the Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910, Attention: Oceanic whitetip proposed rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources, (301) 427-8403.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 21, 2015, we received a petition from Defenders of
Wildlife to list the oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus)
as threatened or endangered under the ESA throughout its entire range,
or, as an alternative, to list two distinct population segments (DPSs)
of the oceanic whitetip shark, as described in the petition, as
threatened or endangered, and to designate critical habitat. We found
that the petitioned action may be warranted for the species; on January
12, 2016, we published a positive 90-day finding for the oceanic
whitetip shark (81 FR 1376), announcing that the petition presented
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the
petitioned action of listing the species may be warranted range wide,
and explaining the basis for those findings. We also announced the
initiation of a status review of the species, as required by section
4(b)(3)(a) of the ESA, and requested information to inform the agency's
decision on whether the species warranted listing as endangered or
threatened under the ESA.
Listing Species Under the Endangered Species Act
We are responsible for determining whether species are threatened
or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To make this
determination, we first consider whether a group of organisms
constitutes a ``species'' under section 3 of the ESA, then whether the
status of the species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or
endangered. Section 3 of the ESA defines species to include ``any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population
segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds
when mature.'' On February 7, 1996, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS; together, the Services) adopted a policy describing
what constitutes a DPS of a taxonomic species (61 FR 4722). The joint
DPS policy identified two elements that must be considered when
identifying a DPS: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in
relation to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it
belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to the
remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs.
Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as ``any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range'' and a threatened species as one ``which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' Thus, in the
context of the ESA, the Services interpret an ``endangered species'' to
be one that is presently at risk of extinction. A ``threatened
species,'' on the other hand, is not currently at risk of extinction,
but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future. In other words, a
key statutory difference between a threatened and endangered species is
the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either now
(endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened). The statute
also requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or
threatened as a result of any of the following five factors: The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; disease or
[[Page 96305]]
predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other
natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (ESA,
section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E)). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us to
make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and
commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of
the species and after taking into account efforts being made by any
State or foreign nation or political subdivision thereof to protect the
species. In evaluating the efficacy of existing protective efforts, we
rely on the Services' joint Policy on Evaluation of Conservation
Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (``PECE''; 68 FR 15100; March 28,
2003) for any conservation efforts that have not been implemented, or
have been implemented but have not yet demonstrated effectiveness.
Status Review
We convened a team of agency scientists to conduct the status
review for the oceanic whitetip shark and prepare a report. The status
review report of the oceanic whitetip shark (Young et al., 2016)
compiles the best available information on the status of the species as
required by the ESA and assesses the current and future extinction risk
for the species, focusing primarily on threats related to the five
statutory factors set forth above. We appointed a biologist in the
Office of Protected Resources Endangered Species Conservation Division
to undertake a scientific review of the life history and ecology,
distribution, abundance, and threats to the oceanic whitetip shark.
Next, we convened a team of biologists and shark experts (hereinafter
referred to as the Extinction Risk Analysis (ERA) team) to conduct an
extinction risk analysis for the species, using the information in the
scientific review. The ERA team was comprised of a natural resource
management specialist from NMFS Office of Protected Resources, a
fishery management specialist from NMFS' Highly Migratory Species (HMS)
Management Division, and four research fishery biologists from NMFS'
Southeast, Northeast, Southwest, and Pacific Island Fisheries Science
Centers. The ERA team had group expertise in shark biology and ecology,
population dynamics, highly migratory species management, and stock
assessment science. The status review report presents the ERA team's
professional judgment of the extinction risk facing the oceanic
whitetip shark but makes no recommendation as to the listing status of
the species. The status review report is available electronically at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/oceanic-whitetip-shark.html.
The status review report was subjected to independent peer review
as required by the Office of Management and Budget Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (M-05-03; December 16, 2004). The
status review report was peer reviewed by five independent specialists
selected from the academic and scientific community, with expertise in
shark biology, conservation and management, and specific knowledge of
oceanic whitetip sharks. The peer reviewers were asked to evaluate the
adequacy, appropriateness, and application of data used in the status
review as well as the findings made in the ``Assessment of Extinction
Risk'' section of the report. All peer reviewer comments were addressed
prior to finalizing the status review report.
We subsequently reviewed the status review report, its cited
references, and peer review comments, and believe the status review
report, upon which this proposed rule is based, provides the best
available scientific and commercial information on the oceanic whitetip
shark. Much of the information discussed below on oceanic whitetip
shark biology, distribution, abundance, threats, and extinction risk is
attributable to the status review report. However, we have
independently applied the statutory provisions of the ESA, including
evaluation of the factors set forth in section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E), our
regulations regarding listing determinations, and our DPS policy in
making the 12-month finding determination.
Life History, Biology, and Status of the Petitioned Species
Taxonomy and Species Description
The oceanic whitetip shark belongs to the family Carcharhinidae and
is classified as a requiem shark (Order Carcharhiniformes). The oceanic
whitetip belongs to the genus Carcharhinus, which includes other
pelagic species of sharks, such as the silky shark (Carcharhinus
falciformis) and dusky shark (C. obscuras), and is the only truly
oceanic (i.e., pelagic) shark of its genus (Bonfil et al., 2008). The
oceanic whitetip shark has a stocky build with a large rounded first
dorsal fin and very long and wide paddle-like pectoral fins. The first
dorsal fin is very wide with a rounded tip, originating just in front
of the rear tips of the pectoral fins. The second dorsal fin originates
over or slightly in front of the base of the anal fin. The species also
exhibits a distinct color pattern of mottled white tips on its front
dorsal, caudal, and pectoral fins with black tips on its anal fin and
on the ventral surfaces of its pelvic fins. The head has a short and
bluntly rounded nose and small circular eyes with nictitating
membranes. The upper jaw contains broad, triangular serrated teeth,
while the teeth in the lower jaw are more pointed and are only serrated
near the tip. The body is grayish bronze to brown in color, but varies
depending upon geographic location. The underside is whitish with a
yellow tinge on some individuals (Compagno 1984).
Current Distribution
The oceanic whitetip shark is distributed worldwide in epipelagic
tropical and subtropical waters between 30[deg] North latitude and
35[deg] South latitude (Baum et al., 2006). In the western Atlantic,
oceanic whitetips occur from Maine to Argentina, including the
Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. In the central and eastern Atlantic, the
species occurs from Madeira, Portugal south to the Gulf of Guinea, and
possibly in the Mediterranean Sea. In the western Indian Ocean, the
species occurs in waters of South Africa, Madagascar, Mozambique,
Mauritius, Seychelles, India, and within the Red Sea. Oceanic whitetips
also occur throughout the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, including
China, Taiwan, the Philippines, New Caledonia, Australia (southern
Australian coast), Hawaiian Islands south to Samoa Islands, Tahiti and
Tuamotu Archipelago and west to the Galapagos Islands. Finally, in the
eastern Pacific, the species occurs from southern California to Peru,
including the Gulf of California and Clipperton Island (Compagno 1984).
Habitat Use and Movement
The oceanic whitetip shark is a highly migratory species of shark
that is usually found offshore in the open ocean, on the outer
continental shelf, or around oceanic islands in deep water, occurring
from the surface to at least 152 meters (m) depth. Although the oceanic
whitetip can be found in decreasing numbers out to latitudes of 30[deg]
N and 35[deg] S, with abundance decreasing with greater proximity to
continental shelves, it has a clear preference for open ocean waters
between 10[deg] S and 10[deg] N (Backus et al., 1956; Strasburg 1958;
Compagno 1984; Bonfil et al., 2008). The species can be found in waters
between 15 [deg]C and 28 [deg]C, but it exhibits a strong preference
for the surface mixed layer in water with temperatures above 20 [deg]C,
and is considered a surface-dwelling shark. It
[[Page 96306]]
is however, capable of tolerating colder waters down to 7.75 [deg]C for
short periods as exhibited by brief, deep dives into the mesopelagic
zone below the thermocline (>200 m), presumably for foraging (Howey-
Jordan et al., 2013; Howey et al., 2016). However, exposures to these
cold temperatures are not sustained (Musyl et al., 2011; Tolotti et
al., 2015a) and there is some evidence to suggest the species tends to
withdraw from waters below 15 [deg]C (e.g., the Gulf of Mexico in
winter; Compagno 1984).
Little is known about the movement or possible migration paths of
the oceanic whitetip shark. Although the species is considered highly
migratory and capable of making long distance movements, tagging data
provides evidence that this species also exhibits a high degree of
philopatry (i.e., site fidelity) in some locations. To date, there have
been three tagging studies conducted on oceanic whitetip sharks in the
Atlantic. Mark recapture data (number tagged = 645 and recaptures = 8)
from the NMFS Cooperative Shark Tagging Program between 1962 and 2015
provide supporting evidence that the range of movement of oceanic
whitetip sharks is large, with potential for transatlantic movements
(Kohler et al., 1998; NMFS, unpublished data). Maximum time at liberty
was 3.3 years and the maximum distance traveled was 1,225 nautical
miles (nmi0 (2,270 kilometers (km0). These data indicate movements from
the northeastern Gulf of Mexico to the Atlantic Coast of Florida, from
the Mid-Atlantic Bight to southern Cuba, from the Lesser Antilles west
into the central Caribbean Sea, from east to west along the equatorial
Atlantic, and from off southern Brazil in a northeasterly direction. In
the Bahamas, oceanic whitetips tagged at Cat Island stayed within 500
km of the tagging site for ~30 days before dispersing across 16,422
km\2\ of the western North Atlantic. Maximum individual displacement
from the tagging site ranged from 290-1,940 km after times at liberty
from 30-245 days, with individuals moving to several different
destinations (e.g., the northern Lesser Antilles, the northern Bahamas,
and north of the Windward Passage). Many sharks returned to the Bahamas
after ~150 days and estimated residency times within the Bahamas
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), were generally high (mean=68.2 percent
of time; Howey-Jordan et al., 2013). Oceanic whitetip sharks showed
similar movement patterns and site fidelity in a tagging study
conducted in Brazil. Although individuals tended to travel long
distances before returning to the tagging area, tagging and pop-up
sites were relatively close to each other. In fact, five out of eight
sharks ended their tracks relatively close to their starting points,
even after traveling several thousand kilometers (Tolotti et al.,
2015a).
In the Indo-Pacific, two tagging studies of oceanic whitetip shark
have been conducted: one in the central Pacific and one in the western
Indian Ocean. In the central Pacific, oceanic whitetip sharks showed a
complex movement pattern generally restricted to tropical waters north
of the North Equatorial Countercurrent near the tagging location.
Maximum time at liberty was 243 days, but the largest linear movement
was 2,314 nmi (4,285 km) in 95 days (Musyl et al., 2011). Similar to
previously discussed studies, long distance movements were also
observed in the Indian Ocean, with one tag that remained attached for
100 days. This individual displayed extensive horizontal movement
covering a distance of approximately 6,500 km during the monitored
period, moving from the Mozambique Channel up the African east coast of
Somalia and then heading back down towards the Seychelles (Filmalter et
al., 2012). Overall, the available tagging data demonstrates that
oceanic whitetip sharks are capable of traveling great distances in the
pelagic environment, but also show a high degree of site fidelity in
some locations.
Diet and Feeding
Oceanic whitetip sharks are high trophic-level predators in open
ocean ecosystems feeding mainly on teleosts and cephalopods (Backus et
al., 1956; Bonfil et al., 2008), but studies have also reported that
they consume sea birds, marine mammals, other sharks and rays,
molluscs, crustaceans, and even garbage (Compagno 1984; Cort[eacute]s
1999). Backus et al., (1956) recorded various fish species in the
stomachs of oceanic whitetip sharks, including blackfin tuna,
barracuda, and white marlin. Based on the species' diet, the oceanic
whitetip has a high trophic level, with a score of 4.2 out of a maximum
5.0 (Cort[eacute]s 1999). The available evidence also suggests that
oceanic whitetip sharks are opportunistic feeders. In the Bahamas,
large pelagic teleosts (e.g., billfish, tunas, and dolphin fish) are
abundant and oceanic whitetips are anecdotally reported to feed heavily
on recreationally caught teleosts in this region. In a recent study of
an oceanic whitetip shark aggregation at Cat Island, Bahamas, SIA-based
Bayesian mixing model estimates of short-term (near Cat Island) diets
showed more large pelagic teleosts (72 percent) than in long-term diets
(47 percent), showing a spatiotemporal difference in oceanic whitetip
feeding habits. Thus, the availability of large teleost prey and
supplemental feeding from recreational sport fishermen may be possible
mechanisms underpinning site-fidelity and aggregation of oceanic
whitetips at this location (Madigan et al., 2015).
Size and Growth
Historically, the maximum length effectively measured for the
oceanic whitetip was 350 cm total length (TL; Bigelow and Schroder 1948
cited in Lessa et al., 1999), with ``gigantic individuals'' perhaps
reaching 395 cm TL (Compagno 1984), though Compagno's length seems to
have never been measured (Lessa et al., 1999). In contemporary times,
Lessa et al. (1999) recorded a maximum size of 250 cm TL in the
Southwest Atlantic, and estimated a theoretical maximum size of 325 cm
TL (Lessa et al., 1999), but the most common sizes are below 300 cm TL
(Compagno 1984). The oceanic whitetip has an estimated maximum age of
17 years, with confirmed maximum ages of 12 and 13 years in the North
Pacific and South Atlantic, respectively (Seki et al., 1998; Lessa et
al., 1999). However, other information from the South Atlantic suggests
the species likely lives up to ~20 years old based on observed
vertebral ring counts (Rodrigues et al., 2015). Growth rates (growth
coefficient, K) have been estimated similarly for both sexes and range
from 0.075--0.099 in the Southwest Atlantic to 0.0852-0.103 in the
North Pacific (Seki et al., 1998; Lessa et al., 1999; Joung et al.,
2016). Using life history parameters from the Southwest Atlantic,
Cort[eacute]s et al. (2010; 2012) estimated productivity of the oceanic
whitetip shark, determined as intrinsic rate of population increase
(r), to be 0.094-0.121 per year (median). Overall, the best available
data indicate that the oceanic whitetip shark is a long-lived species
(at least 20 years) and can be characterized as having relatively low
productivity (based on the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) productivity indices for exploited fish species,
where r < 0.14 is considered low productivity), making them generally
vulnerable to depletion and potentially slow to recover from
overexploitation.
Reproduction
Similar to other Carcharhinid species, the oceanic whitetip shark
is viviparous (i.e., the species produces live young) with placental
embryonic development. The reproductive cycle is thought to be
[[Page 96307]]
biennial, giving birth on alternate years, after a lengthy 10-12 month
gestation period. The number of pups in a litter ranges from 1 to 14
(mean = 6), and a positive correlation between female size and number
of pups per litter has been observed, with larger sharks producing more
offspring (Compagno 1984; Seki et al., 1998; Bonfil et al., 2008; IOTC
2015a). Age and length of maturity estimates are slightly different
depending on geographic location. For example, in the Southwest
Atlantic, age and length of maturity in oceanic whitetips was estimated
to be 6-7 years and 180-190 cm TL, respectively, for both sexes (Lessa
et al., 1999). In the North Pacific, there are two different estimates
for age and length of maturity. Seki et al., (1998) estimated that
females reach sexual maturity at approximately 168-196 cm TL, and males
at 175-189 cm TL, which corresponds to ages of 4 and 5 years,
respectively (Seki et al., 1998). However, more recently Joung et al.
(2016) determined a later age of maturity in the North Pacific, with
females reaching maturity at 190 cm TL (approximately 8.5-8.8 years)
and males reaching maturity at 172 cm TL (approximately 6.8-8.9 years
old). In the Indian Ocean, both males and females mature at around 190-
200 cm TL (IOTC 2014). Size at birth also varies slightly between
geographic locations, ranging from 55 to 75 cm TL in the North Pacific,
around 65-75 cm TL in the northwestern Atlantic, and 60-65 cm TL off
South Africa, with reproductive seasons thought to occur from late
spring to summer (Bonfil et al., 2008; Compagno 1984).
Tropical Pacific records of pregnant females and newborns are
concentrated between 20[deg] N and the equator, from 170[deg] E to
140[deg] W. In the Atlantic, young oceanic whitetip sharks have been
found well offshore along the southeastern coast of the United States,
suggesting that there may be a nursery in oceanic waters over this
continental shelf (Compagno 1984; Bonfil et al., 2008). In the
southwestern Atlantic, the prevalence of immature sharks, both female
and male, in fisheries catch data suggests that this area may serve as
potential nursery habitat for the oceanic whitetip shark (Coelho et
al., 2009; Tambourgi et al., 2013; Tolotti et al., 2013; Fr[eacute]dou
et al., 2015). Juveniles seem to be concentrated in equatorial
latitudes, while specimens in other maturational stages are more
widespread (Tambourgi et al., 2013). Pregnant females are often found
close to shore, particularly around the Caribbean Islands. One pregnant
female was found washed ashore near Auckland, New Zealand. These points
suggest that females may come close to shore to pup (Clarke et al.,
2015b). In the southwestern Indian Ocean, oceanic whitetip sharks
appear to mate and give birth in the early summer. The locations of the
nursery grounds are not well known but they are thought to be in
oceanic areas.
Population Structure and Genetics
To date, only two studies have been conducted on the genetics and
population structure of the oceanic whitetip shark, which suggest there
may be some genetic differentiation between various populations of the
species. The first study (Camargo et al., 2016) compared the
mitochondrial control region (mtCR) in 215 individuals from the Indian
Ocean and eastern and western Atlantic Ocean. While results showed
significant genetic differentiation (based on haplotype frequencies)
between the eastern and western Atlantic Ocean ([Phi]ST = 0.1039, P
<0.001; Camargo et al., 2016), pairwise comparisons among populations
within the regions revealed a complex pattern. Though some eastern
Atlantic populations were significantly differentiated from western
Atlantic populations (FST = 0.09-0.27, P < 0.01), others were not (FST
= 0.02-0.03, P > 0.01), even after excluding populations with sample
sizes of less than 10 individuals (Camargo et al., 2016). Additionally,
the sample size from the Indian Ocean (N = 9) may be inadequate to
detect statistically significant genetic structure between this and
other regions (Camargo et al., 2016). Furthermore, since this study
only used mitochondrial markers, male mediated gene flow is not
reflected.
In the second study, Ruck (2016) compared the mitochondrial control
region, a protein-coding mitochondrial region, and nine nuclear
microsatellite loci in 171 individuals sampled from the western
Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans. Using three population-level
pairwise metrics (PhiST, FST, and Jost's D), Ruck (2016) did not detect
fine-scale matrilineal structure within ocean basins, but mitochondrial
and nuclear analyses indicated weak but significant differentiation
between western Atlantic and Indo-Pacific Ocean populations ([Phi]ST =
0.076, P = 0.0002; FST = 0.017, P < 0.05 after correction for False
Discovery Rate). Therefore, Ruck (2016) suggests that oceanic whitetip
sharks consist of a minimum of two contemporary, distinct genetic
populations comprising sharks from the western Atlantic and the Indo-
Pacific (this study did not have any samples from the eastern
Atlantic). However, although significant inter-basin population
structure was evident, it was associated with deep phylogeographic
mixing of mitochondrial haplotypes and evidence of contemporary
migration between the western Atlantic and Indo-Pacific Oceans (Ruck
2016).
As noted previously, although Ruck (2016) did not initially detect
fine-scale matrilineal structure within ocean basins, after comparing
and analyzing the genetic samples of the two studies together (i.e.,
samples from Camargo et al., 2016 and samples from Ruck 2016), Ruck
(Unpublished data) detected significant maternal population structure
within the western Atlantic that provides evidence of three matrilineal
lineages in the western Atlantic. However, the data showing population
structure within the Atlantic relies solely on mitochondrial DNA and
does not reflect male mediated gene flow. Thus, while the current
(albeit unpublished) data supports three maternal populations within
the Atlantic, this data is preliminary and information regarding male
mediated gene flow would provide an improved understanding of the fine-
scale genetic structuring of oceanic whitetip in the Atlantic.
The best available information indicates that the oceanic whitetip
shark has relatively low genetic diversity. Compared to eight other
circumtropical elasmobranch species, including the basking shark
(Cetorhinus maximus), smooth hammerhead (Sphyrna zygaena), great
hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran), tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier),
blacktip reef shark (Carcharhinus limbatus), sandbar shark
(Carcharhinus plumbeus), silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis), and
the whale shark (Rhincodon typus), the oceanic whitetip shark ranks the
fourth lowest in global mtCR genetic diversity (0.33 percent 0.19 percent; Ruck 2016), with diversity similar to the smooth
hammerhead (0.32 percent 0.18 percent (Testerman 2014) and
greater than basking sharks (Hoelzel et al., 2006). The mtCR genetic
diversity of the oceanic whitetip is about half that of the closely
related silky shark (0.61 percent 0.32 percent; (Clarke et
al., 2015a)) and about a third that of the whale shark (1.1 percent
0.6 percent; (Castro et al., 2007). Ruck (2016) noted that
the relatively low mtDNA genetic diversity (concatenated mtCR-ND4
nucleotide diversity [pi] = 0.32 percent 0.17 percent)
compared to other circumtropical elasmobranch species raises potential
concern for the future genetic health of this species. Camargo et al.,
(2016) also observed low levels of
[[Page 96308]]
genetic variability for the species throughout the study area, and
noted that these low genetic variability rates may represent a risk to
the adaptive potential of the species leading to a weaker ability to
respond to environmental changes (Camargo et al. 2016).
Current Status
Oceanic whitetip sharks can be found worldwide, with no present
indication of a range contraction. Although generally not targeted,
they are frequently caught as bycatch in many global fisheries,
including pelagic longline (PLL) fisheries targeting tuna and
swordfish, purse seine, gillnet, and artisanal fisheries. Oceanic
whitetip sharks are also a preferred species for their large,
morphologically distinct fins, as they obtain a high price in the Asian
fin market, and thus they are valuable as incidental catch for the
international shark fin trade.
In 2006, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
classified the oceanic whitetip shark as Vulnerable globally based on
an assessment by Baum et al., (2006) and its own criteria
(A2ad+3d+4ad), and placed the species on its ``Red List.'' Under
criteria A2ad, 3d and 4ad, a species may be classified as Vulnerable
when its ``observed, estimated, inferred or suspected'' population size
is reduced by 30 percent or more over the last 10 years, the next 10
years, or any 10-year time period, or over a 3-generation period,
whichever is the longer, where the reduction or its causes may not have
ceased or may not be understood or may not be reversible, based on a
direct observation and actual or potential levels of exploitation. The
IUCN's justification for the categorization is based on the species'
declining populations. The IUCN notes that the species' regional
trends, slow life history characteristics (hence low capacity to
recover from moderate levels of exploitation), and high levels of
largely unmanaged and unreported mortality in target and bycatch
fisheries, give cause to suspect that the population has decreased by
over 30 percent and meets the criteria to be categorized as Vulnerable
globally. As a note, the IUCN classification for the oceanic whitetip
shark alone does not provide the rationale for a listing recommendation
under the ESA, but the classification and the sources of information
that the classification is based upon are evaluated in light of the
standards on extinction risk and impacts or threats to the species.
Distinct Population Segments
As described above, the ESA's definition of ``species'' includes
``any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment (DPS) of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife
which interbreeds when mature.'' As stated in the joint DPS policy,
Congress expressed its expectation that the Services would exercise
authority with regard to DPSs sparingly and only when the biological
evidence indicates such action is warranted. NMFS determined at the 90-
day finding stage that the petition to list the global species of
oceanic whitetip shark was warranted. As such, we conducted the
extinction risk analysis on the global oceanic whitetip shark
population.
Assessment of Extinction Risk
The ESA (section 3) defines an endangered species as ``any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.'' A threatened species is defined as ``any
species which is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' Neither we nor the USFWS have developed formal policy guidance
about how to interpret the definitions of threatened and endangered
with respect to what it means to be ``in danger of extinction.'' We
consider the best available information and apply professional judgment
in evaluating the level of risk faced by a species in deciding whether
the species is threatened or endangered. We evaluate both demographic
risks, such as low abundance and productivity, and threats to the
species, including those related to the factors specified in ESA
section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E).
Methods
As we described previously, we convened an ERA team to evaluate
extinction risk to the species. This section discusses the methods used
to evaluate threats and the overall extinction risk to the oceanic
whitetip shark. For purposes of the risk assessment, an ERA team
comprised of fishery biologists and shark experts was convened to
review the best available information on the species and evaluate the
overall risk of extinction facing the oceanic whitetip shark, now and
in the foreseeable future. The term ``foreseeable future'' was defined
as the timeframe over which threats could be reliably predicted to
impact the biological status of the species. After considering the life
history of the oceanic whitetip shark, availability of data, and types
of threats, the ERA team decided that the foreseeable future should be
defined as approximately 3 generation times for the oceanic whitetip
shark, or approximately 30 years. A generation time is defined as the
time it takes, on average, for a sexually mature female oceanic
whitetip shark to be replaced by offspring with the same spawning
capacity. This timeframe (3 generation times) takes into account the
time necessary to provide for the conservation and recovery of the
species. As a late-maturing species, with slow growth rate and
relatively low productivity, it would likely take more than a
generation time for any conservative management action to be realized
and reflected in population abundance indices. In addition, the
foreseeable future timeframe is also a function of the reliability of
available data regarding the identified threats and extends only as far
as the data allow for making reasonable predictions about the species'
response to those threats. Since the main threats to the species were
identified as fisheries and the inadequacy of existing regulatory
measures that manage these fisheries, the ERA team felt that they had
the background knowledge in fisheries management and expertise to
confidently predict the impact of these threats on the biological
status of the species within this timeframe.
The ability to measure or document risk factors to a marine species
is often limited, where quantitative estimates of abundance and life
history information are often lacking altogether. Therefore, in
assessing extinction risk of a data limited species, it is important to
include both qualitative and quantitative information. In assessing
extinction risk to the oceanic whitetip shark, the ERA team considered
the demographic viability factors developed by McElhany et al., (2000)
and the risk matrix approach developed by Wainwright and Kope (1999) to
organize and summarize extinction risk considerations. The approach of
considering demographic risk factors to help frame the consideration of
extinction risk has been used in many of our status reviews (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
[[Page 96309]]
well-founded in conservation biology and that individually and
collectively provide strong indicators of extinction risk.
Using these concepts, the ERA team evaluated demographic risks by
assigning a risk score to each of the four demographic risk factors.
The scoring for these demographic risk criteria correspond to the
following values: 0--unknown risk, 1--low risk, 2--moderate risk, and
3--high risk. Detailed definitions of the risk scores can be found in
the status review report.
The ERA team also performed a threats assessment for the oceanic
whitetip shark by evaluating the effect that the threat was currently
having on the extinction risk of the species. The levels included
``unknown,'' ``low,'' ``moderate,'' and ``high.'' The scores were then
tallied and summarized for each threat. It should be emphasized that
this exercise was simply a tool to help the ERA team members organize
the information and assist in their thought processes for determining
the overall risk of extinction for the oceanic whitetip shark.
Guided by the results from the demographic risk analysis and the
threats assessment, the ERA team members were asked to use their
informed professional judgment to make an overall extinction risk
determination for the oceanic whitetip shark. For this analysis, the
ERA team considered three levels of extinction risk: 1--low risk, 2--
moderate risk, and 3--high risk, which are all temporally connected.
Detailed definitions of these risk levels are as follows: 1 = Low risk:
A species or DPS is at low risk of extinction if it is not at a
moderate or high level of extinction risk (see ``Moderate risk'' and
``High risk'' below). A species or DPS may be at a low risk of
extinction if it is not facing threats that result in declining trends
in abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity. A species
or DPS at low risk of extinction is likely to show stable or increasing
trends in abundance and productivity with connected, diverse
populations; 2 = Moderate risk: A species or DPS is at moderate risk of
extinction if it is on a trajectory that puts it at a high level of
extinction risk in the foreseeable future (see description of ``High
risk''). A species or DPS may be at moderate risk of extinction due to
projected threats or declining trends in abundance, productivity,
spatial structure, or diversity. The appropriate time horizon for
evaluating whether a species or DPS is more likely than not to be at
high risk in the foreseeable future depends on various case- and
species-specific factors; 3 = High risk: A species or DPS with a high
risk of extinction is at or near a level of abundance, productivity,
spatial structure, and/or diversity that places its continued
persistence in question. The demographics of a species or DPS at such a
high level of risk may be highly uncertain and strongly influenced by
stochastic or depensatory processes. Similarly, a species or DPS 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 present and substantial demographic risks. The ERA
team adopted the ``likelihood point'' (FEMAT) method for ranking the
overall risk of extinction to allow individuals to express uncertainty.
For this approach, each team member distributed 10 ``likelihood
points'' among the extinction risk levels. This approach has been used
in previous NMFS status reviews (e.g., Pacific salmon, Southern
Resident killer whale, Puget Sound rockfish, Pacific herring, and black
abalone) to structure the team's thinking and express levels of
uncertainty when assigning risk categories. Although this process helps
to integrate and summarize a large amount of diverse information, there
is no simple way to translate the risk matrix scores directly into a
determination of overall extinction risk. Other descriptive statistics,
such as mean, variance, and standard deviation, were not calculated, as
the ERA team felt these metrics would add artificial precision to the
results. The scores were then tallied and summarized.
Finally, the ERA team did not make recommendations as to whether
the species should be listed as threatened or endangered. Rather, the
ERA team drew scientific conclusions about the overall risk of
extinction faced by the oceanic whitetip shark under present conditions
and in the foreseeable future based on an evaluation of the species'
demographic risks and assessment of threats.
Evaluation of Demographic Risks
Abundance
While a global population size estimate or trend for the oceanic
whitetip shark is currently unavailable, numerous sources of
information, including the results of a recent stock assessment and
several other abundance indices (e.g., trends in occurrence and
composition in fisheries catch data, catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE), and
biological indicators) were available to infer and assess current
regional abundance trends of the species. Given the available data, and
the fact that the available assessments were not conducted prior to the
advent of industrial fishing (and thus not from virgin biomass), the
exact magnitude of the declines and current abundance of the global
population are unknown. However, based on the best available scientific
and commercial data, the ERA team concluded, and we agree, that while
the oceanic whitetip shark was historically one of the most abundant
and ubiquitous shark species in tropical seas around the world,
numerous lines of evidence suggest the species has not only undergone
significant historical declines throughout its range, but likely
continues to experience abundance declines of varying magnitude
globally.
Across the Pacific Ocean, several lines of evidence indicate
significant and ongoing population declines of the oceanic whitetip
shark. In the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO), the oceanic whitetip shark
was historically the third most abundant shark species after blue
sharks (Prionace glauca) and silky sharks (C. falciformis). The oceanic
whitetip comprised approximately 20 percent of the total shark catch in
the tropical tuna purse seine fishery from 2000-2001 (Roman-Verdesoto
and Orozco-Zoller 2005) and averaged 9 percent of the total shark catch
from 1993-2009 (with silky sharks comprising 84 percent, the hammerhead
complex comprising 5 percent, and other sharks comprising 2 percent;
Hall and Rom[aacute]n 2013). However, if only the more recent period
from 2005-2009 is considered, then the proportion of silky sharks is 93
percent, followed by the scalloped hammerhead shark (1.6 percent), and
the smooth hammerhead shark (1.5 percent). The changes are the result
of a rapid decline in oceanic whitetip sharks (Hall and Rom[aacute]n
2013). Data for the oceanic whitetip shark in the EPO is available from
the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), the Regional
Fishery Management Organization (RFMO) responsible for the conservation
and management of tuna and tuna-like species in the IATTC Convention
Area. The IATTC Convention Area is defined as waters of the EPO within
the area bounded by the west coast of the Americas and by 50[deg] N.
latitude, 150[deg] W. longitude, and 50[deg] S. latitude.
Nominal catch data from the IATTC shows that purse seine sets on
floating objects, unassociated sets and dolphin sets all show
decreasing trends of oceanic whitetip shark since 1994 (IATTC 2007). In
particular, presence of oceanic whitetip sharks on sets with floating
objects, which are responsible
[[Page 96310]]
for 90 percent of the shark catches in the EPO purse seine fishery, has
declined significantly (Hall and Rom[aacute]n 2013). Based on nominal
catches per set as well as the frequency of occurrence of oceanic
whitetip sharks in floating object sets, the species has practically
disappeared from the fishing grounds, with a seemingly north to south
progression. Similar trends are also seen in dolphin and school sets.
These declines in nominal CPUE or the frequency of occurrence
translates to a decline of 80-95 percent from the population levels in
the late 1990s (Hall and Rom[aacute]n 2013). Although there are various
potential reasons for such reductions, including changes in fishing
areas or methods, higher utilization rates, or some combination of
factors, the increasing rarity of this species in EPO purse seine sets
likely tracks closely with their relative abundance (Hall and
Rom[aacute]n 2016).
Similar levels of decline have also been observed across the
Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Like the eastern Pacific, the
oceanic whitetip shark was once one of the most abundant pelagic shark
species throughout the tropical waters of the region. For example, tuna
longline survey data from the 1950s indicate oceanic whitetip sharks
comprised 28 percent of the total shark catch of fisheries south of
10[deg] N. (Strasburg 1958). Likewise, Japanese research longline
records during 1967-1968 indicate that oceanic whitetip sharks were
among the most common shark species taken by tuna vessels in tropical
seas of the Western and Central Pacific, and comprised 22.5 percent and
23.5 percent of the total shark catch west and east of the
International Date Line, respectively (Taniuchi 1990). However,
numerous sources of information indicate significant and ongoing
abundance declines of oceanic whitetip sharks in this region. For
example, a recent stock assessment conducted in the Western and Central
Pacific, based on observer data from the Secretariat of the Pacific
Community (SPC), estimated an 86 percent decline in spawning biomass
from 1995 to 2009, with total biomass reduced to just 6.6 percent of
the theoretical equilibrium virgin biomass (i.e., a total decline of
93.4 percent; Rice and Harley 2012). Based on the results from the
oceanic whitetip stock assessment, the median estimate of oceanic
whitetip biomass in the Western Central Pacific as of 2010 was 7,295
tons (Rice and Harley 2012), which would be equivalent to a population
of roughly 200,000 individuals (FAO 2012). An updated assessment
analyzing various abundance indices, including standardized CPUE,
concluded that the oceanic whitetip shark continues to decline
throughout the tropical waters of the Western and Central Pacific (Rice
et al., 2015), indicating a severely depleted population of oceanic
whitetip shark across the region with observations of the species
becoming increasingly rare. Similar results were found in analyses of
CPUE data from the Hawaii-based PLL fishery, where oceanic whitetip
shark showed a decline in relative abundance on the order of >=90
percent from 1995-2010 (Clarke et al., 2012; Brodziak et al., 2013). It
must be recognized that the closeness of the agreement between the
trends in observer data from Hawaii and the observer data from the SPC
for the entire Western and Central Pacific Ocean may be partly due to
the use of datasets that partially overlap for years prior to 2005.
Still, even after 2005, the trends show similar results suggesting that
the patterns are representative of regional trends in oceanic whitetip
abundance. A preliminary update of the Brodziak et al. (2013) study
with 4 additional years of data (2011-2014) indicates a potential
relative stability in the population size at a post-decline depressed
state (Young et al., 2016). Nonetheless, the ERA team concluded, and we
agree, that the levels of significant and ongoing population decline
observed in these studies indicate that these declines are not just
local or regional, but rather a Pacific-wide phenomenon, with no
significant indication that these trends have reversed.
In the Northwest Atlantic, the oceanic whitetip shark was described
historically as widespread, abundant, and the most common pelagic shark
in the warm parts of the North Atlantic (Backus et al., 1956). Several
studies have been conducted to determine trends in abundance of various
shark species, including the oceanic whitetip shark. Baum et al.,
(2003) analyzed logbook data for the U.S. PLL fleets targeting
swordfish and tunas, and reported a 70 percent decline in relative
abundance for the oceanic whitetip shark from 1992 to 2000. Similarly,
Baum and Myers (2004) compared longline CPUE from research surveys from
1954-1957 to observed commercial longline sets from 1995-1999, and
determined that the oceanic whitetip had declined by more than 150-
fold, or 99.3 percent (95 percent; Confidence Interval (CI): 98.3-99.8
percent) in the Gulf of Mexico during that time. However, the methods
and results of Baum et al. (2003) and Baum and Myers (2004) were
challenged on the basis of whether correct inferences were made
regarding the magnitude of shark population declines in the Atlantic
(see discussions in Burgess et al., (2005b) and Burgess et al.,
(2005a)). Of particular relevance to the oceanic whitetip, Burgess et
al., (2005b) noted that the change from steel to monofilament leaders
between the 1950s and 1990s could have reduced the catchability of all
large sharks, and the increase in the average depth of sets during the
same period could have reduced the catchability of the surface-dwelling
oceanic whitetip (FAO 2012). Later, Driggers et al., (2011) conducted a
study on the effects of different leader materials on the CPUE of
oceanic sharks and determined that with equivalent methods but using a
wire leader, the catch rates of Baum and Myers (2004) for the recent
period would have been 0.55 rather than 0.02 (as estimated by Baum and
Myers (2004) using nylon leaders). Comparing the recent 0.55 value with
the Baum et al. (2003) value of 4.62 for the 1950s gave an estimated
extent of decline of 88 percent (FAO 2012). In a re-analysis of the
same logbook dataset analyzed by Baum et al. (2003) for the Northwest
Atlantic using a similar methodology, Cort[eacute]s et al., (2007)
reported a 57 percent decline from 1992-2005. The decline was largely
driven by a 37 percent decline from 1992 to 1993 and a subsequent
decline of 53 percent from 1997 to 2000, after which the time series
remained stable (2000-2005). However, an analysis of the observer
dataset from the same fishery resulted in a less pronounced decline
than that of the logbook analysis, with a 9 percent decline in
abundance from the same period of 1992-2005. Finally, the ERA team
conducted an updated analysis (1992-2015) using the same observer data
analyzed by Cort[eacute]s et al. (2007). Similar to previous analyses,
there was high variability in the initial years of the time series, but
overall, the analysis conducted by the ERA team showed ~4 percent
decline over the time series, with the overall trend indicative that
the population may have stabilized (Young et al. 2016). Although
observer data are generally regarded as more reliable than logbook data
for non-target shark species (Walsh et al., 2002), it should be noted
that the sample size of oceanic whitetip shark in the observer data was
substantially smaller than for other species, and thus the trends
estimated should be regarded with caution. Additionally, although
misreporting and species misidentification are likely to be much more
prevalent in logbooks,
[[Page 96311]]
which can obscure abundance trends, misidentification is not considered
an issue for the oceanic whitetip, whereas it is more problematic for
other species such as night shark and other Carcharhinus species. It
should also be noted that fishing pressure on the oceanic whitetip
shark began decades prior to the time series covered in these studies
(with the exception of the Baum and Myers (2004) study), thus the
percentage declines discussed here do not represent percentage declines
from historical virgin biomass. Therefore, given all of the caveats and
limitations of the studies and analyses discussed above, it is likely
that the oceanic whitetip shark population in the Northwest Atlantic
and Gulf of Mexico experienced significant historical declines;
however, relative abundance of oceanic whitetip shark may have
stabilized in the Northwest Atlantic since 2000 and in the Gulf of
Mexico/Caribbean since the late 1990s at a significantly diminished
abundance (Cort[eacute]s et al. 2007; Young et al. 2016).
In other areas of the oceanic whitetip shark range, robust and
reliable quantitative abundance data are limited or lacking altogether.
In the South Atlantic, the oceanic whitetip has been characterized as
one of the most abundant species of pelagic shark in the southwestern
and equatorial region. For example, the oceanic whitetip was the third
most commonly caught shark out of 33 shark species caught year-round in
the prominent Brazilian Santos longline fishery, and one of 7 species
that comprised >5 percent of total shark catches from 1971-1995 (Amorim
1998). In Itajai, southern Brazil, oceanic whitetip sharks were
considered ``abundant'' and ``frequent'' in the surface longline and
gillnet fleets, respectively, from 1994-1999 (Mazzoleni and Schwingel
1999). Likewise, in equatorial waters off the northeastern coast of
Brazil, the oceanic whitetip shark was historically reported as the
second most abundant elasmobranch species, outnumbered only by the blue
shark (P. glauca), in research surveys conducted within the EEZ of
Brazil, and comprised 29 percent of the total elasmobranch catch in the
1990s (Lessa et al., 1999). From 1992-2002, oceanic whitetip CPUE in
this area averaged 2.18 individuals/1,000 hooks (Domingo et al., 2007);
more recently, however, the average CPUE recorded in this same area
from 2004-2010 of 0.1-0.3 individuals/1,000 hooks (Fr[eacute]dou et
al., 2015) is much lower. Additionally, none of the other areas within
this region exhibit CPUE rates comparable to the rates seen in the
1990s. Further, demographic analyses from the largest oceanic whitetip
shark catching country in the South Atlantic (i.e., Brazil) indicate
abundance declines similar to the Northwest Atlantic of 50-79 percent
in recent decades (Santana et al., 2004; ICMBio 2014) and coincide with
significant declines in catches of oceanic whitetip shark reported by
Brazil to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas (ICCAT). As a result of these declining trends, the oceanic
whitetip shark was designated as a ``species threatened by
overexploitation'' in 2004 by Brazil's Minist[eacute]rio do Meio
Ambiente (Ministry of Environment), and listed under Annex II of
Brazil's Normative Ruling No. 5 of May 21, 2004 that recognizes
endangered species and species threatened by overexploitation,
including aquatic invertebrates and fish. In 2014, Brazil finalized its
national assessment regarding the extinction risk of Brazilian fauna,
and listed the oceanic whitetip shark as Vulnerable under Brazil's
``Lista Nacional Oficial de Esp[eacute]cies da Fauna Amea[ccedil]adas
de Extin[ccedil][atilde]o--Peixes e Invertebrados Aqu[aacute]ticos''
(National Official List of Endangered Species of Fauna--Fish and
Aquatic Invertebrate; ICMBio 2014).
Elsewhere across the South Atlantic, the oceanic whitetip shark
appears to be relatively rare, with low patchy abundance. For example,
in 6 years of observer data from the Uruguayan longline fleet (1998-
2003), catches of oceanic whitetip shark were described as
``occasional'' with CPUE rates of only 0.006 individuals/1,000 hooks
(Domingo 2004). However, during this study, the Uruguayan longline
fleet operated between latitudes 26[deg] and 37[deg] S. and within sea
surface temperatures ranging between 16[deg] and 23 [deg]C, which are
largely lower than the temperature preferences of the species. Domingo
(2004) noted that it is unknown whether the species has always occurred
in low numbers in this region of the South Atlantic, or whether the
population has been affected significantly by fishing effort. More
recently, Domingo et al. (2007) found similar results, with the highest
CPUE recorded not exceeding 0.491 individuals/1,000 hooks. In total,
only 63 oceanic whitetips were caught on 2,279,169 hooks and 63 percent
were juveniles. All catches occurred in sets with sea surface
temperatures >=22.5 [deg]C (Domingo et al., 2007). Again, this data
does not indicate whether a decline in the population has occurred,
rather, it clearly reflects the low abundance of the species in this
area (Domingo et al., 2007). The low abundance of oceanic whitetip in
this area may be the result of the species' tendency to remain in
warmer, tropical waters farther north. Alternatively, it could be a
result of historical fishing pressure in the region.
Finally, in a study that synthesized information on shark catch
rates (based on 871,177 sharks caught on 86,492 longline sets) for the
major species caught by multiple fleets in the South Atlantic between
1979 and 2011, catch rates of most species (with the exception of P.
glauca and A. superciliosus), including oceanic whitetip, declined by
more than 85 percent (Barreto et al., 2015). However, it should be
noted that there are some caveats and limitations to this study,
including high and overlapping confidence intervals, raising the
possibility that the trends may be noise rather than truly tracking
abundance. Nonetheless, while robust abundance data is lacking in the
South Atlantic, the best available information, including demographic
analyses and fisheries data across the region from 1979-2011, indicate
the oceanic whitetip shark has potentially experienced a significant
population decline ranging from 50-85 percent (Santana et al. 2004;
ICMBio 2014; Barreto et al. 2015). Overall, the ERA team concluded, and
we agree, that the oceanic whitetip population in the South Atlantic
has likely experienced historical declines similar to levels seen in
the Northwest Atlantic, and this population decline is likely ongoing,
although we acknowledge some uncertainty regarding the available data
from this region.
Abundance information from the Indian Ocean is relatively deficient
and unreliable. Nonetheless, historical research data shows overall
declines in both CPUE and mean weight of oceanic whitetip sharks
(Romanov et al., 2008), and anecdotal reports suggest that oceanic
whitetips have become rare throughout much of the Indian Ocean over the
past 20 years (IOTC 2015a). The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)
also reports that despite limited data, oceanic whitetip shark
abundance has likely declined significantly over recent decades.
Furthermore, a few quantitative studies provide some additional
information indicative of declining trends of oceanic whitetip in the
Indian Ocean. For example, data from an exploratory fishing survey for
large pelagic species conducted off the eastern seaboard of the
Maldives from 1987-1988 reported that oceanic whitetips represented 29
percent of the sharks caught by longline and 10 percent of the sharks
caught by gillnet in all fishing zones (Anderson and Waheed 1990).
During this survey, the
[[Page 96312]]
average CPUE for all sharks was 48.7 sharks/1,000 hooks. Applying the
percentage of oceanic whitetips in the catch to the total CPUE, it is
estimated that the CPUE of oceanic whitetip in this period was about
1.41 individuals/100 hooks (FAO 2012). More recently, Anderson et al.
(2011) estimated that the average CPUE of oceanic whitetip in the shark
longline fishery was only 0.20 individuals per fishing vessel (or
approximately 0.14 sharks/100 hooks), and estimated the species
contributed only 3.5 percent of the shark landings. This would
represent a 90 percent decline in abundance between 1987-1988 and 2000-
2004. Such a level of decline would be consistent with the decrease in
the proportion of oceanic whitetip in the catch (from 29 percent of
longline shark catch in 1987-1988 to just 3.5 percent of landings in
2000-2004) and also with anecdotal information reporting a marked
decrease in sightings of oceanic whitetip sharks off northern and
central Maldives (Anderson et al., 2011; FAO 2012). The IOTC Working
Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch (WPEB) noted the following on the
aforementioned studies: ``Data collected on shark abundance represents
a consistent time series for the periods 1987-1988 and 2000-2004,
collected with similar longline gear, and that the data was showing a
declining trend in oceanic whitetip shark abundance, which is a
potential indicator of overall stock depletion.'' The WPEB further
noted that it could be related to localized effects, although this was
deemed unlikely as oceanic whitetip sharks are wide-ranging and
abundance trends from long-term research conducted by the former Soviet
Union between the 1960s and 1980s indicate a similar decline of oceanic
whitetip sharks, and that ``sightings of this species in Maldives and
R[eacute]union islands is now quite uncommon'' (IOTC 2011).
Similarly, surveys of the tuna longline fishery in India indicate a
likely decline of oceanic whitetip shark abundance. In Andaman and
Nicobar waters, where catches of sharks are prominent and contribute
35.15 percent of the catch by number and 51.46 percent by weight, John
and Varghese (2009) reported that the oceanic whitetip shark comprised
4.6 percent of the total shark catch from 1984-2006. However, in more
recent surveys, Varghese et al., (2015) report that oceanic whitetip
shark comprised only 0.23 percent of the total shark catch from 2004-
2010 in this area, which is significantly lower than what John and
Varghese (2009) reported previously. Off the West Coast of India in the
eastern Arabian Sea, the percentage of oceanic whitetip sharks in the
overall shark catch also declined slightly from 0.6 percent to 0.45
percent. Overall, Varghese et al. (2015) shows that the index of
relative abundance of sharks was considerably lower than that found in
earlier studies, indicating a decline in abundance over the years.
While the lack of standardized CPUE trend information for oceanic
whitetip in these studies makes it difficult to evaluate the potential
changes in abundance for this species in this region, based on the best
available information, it is likely that the oceanic whitetip has
experienced some level of population decline in this region.
Additionally, it is important to note that India has objected to IOTC
Resolution 13-06, which prohibits the retention of oceanic whitetip
sharks (since 2013) in IOTC managed fisheries, and thus this Resolution
is not binding on India. Therefore, oceanic whitetip sharks may still
be retained in Indian fisheries.
Other studies on the abundance trends of oceanic whitetip shark in
the Indian Ocean, including analyses of standardized CPUE indices from
Japanese and Spanish longline fisheries, also indicate potential
population declines, although trends are conflicting. Two studies
estimate standardized CPUE for oceanic whitetip shark in the Japanese
longline fleet operating in the Indian Ocean (Semba and Yokawa 2011;
Yokawa and Semba 2012). In the first 2011 study, CPUE reached its peak
in 2003 and then showed a gradually decreasing trend thereafter. Prior
to 2003, large fluctuations in oceanic whitetip CPUE are attributed to
changes in reporting requirements rather than the actual trend of the
stock, as those years represent the introduction phase of a new
recording system. The data showed low values in 2000 and 2001
(attributed to extremely low catches), and a gradual decreasing trend
from 2003 to 2009. The authors interpreted a 40 percent decline in CPUE
as an indication of a decrease in abundance of the population (FAO
2012; Semba and Yokawa 2011). Yokawa and Semba (2012) updated the data
to 2011 using a modified data filtering method, which produced a rather
similar and somewhat flattened trend.
Standardized CPUE of the Spanish longline fishery from 1998 to 2011
showed large historical fluctuations and a general decreasing trend of
oceanic whitetip shark from 1998-2007, followed by an increase
thereafter in the last 4 years of the time series. Overall, the
magnitude of decline in this study was estimated to be about 25-30
percent (Ramos-Cartelle et al., 2012); however, it should be noted that
due to the high variability of the standardized catch rates between
consecutive years and limited availability of specimens in some years,
this index could be representative of a particular period rather than a
plausible indicator of the stock abundance at large (Ramos-Cartelle et
al., 2012). Specifically, the data yielded support for the relatively
low prevalence described for this species in the commercial fishery of
surface longline fleets targeting swordfish in waters with temperatures
generally lower than those selected by this species as its preferred
habitat (Garc[iacute]a-Cort[eacute]s et al., 2012; Ramos-Cartelle et
al., 2012).
Finally, a study that incorporated data from the tropical French
and Soviet Union purse seine fisheries analyzed the interaction between
oceanic whitetip sharks and the tropical purse seine fisheries in terms
of occurrence per set (not taking into account the number of
individuals caught per set) from the mid-1980s to 2014. Results showed
a marked change in the proportion of fish aggregating device (FAD) sets
with oceanic whitetips present, fluctuating around 20 percent in the
mid-1980s and 1990s, and then dropping to less than 10 percent from
2005 onwards. Taking into account that the number of FADs has greatly
increased since the 1990s (Dagorn et al., 2013; Maufroy et al., 2015;
Tolotti et al., 2015b), the change in the proportion of FADs with
oceanic whitetip sharks by more than 50 percent could indicate an
important population decline (Tolotti et al., 2015b). Alternatively,
the decline of oceanic whitetip shark occurrence per FAD could be the
result of a sharp increase of FAD densities combined with a small and
stable population size. In this scenario, the proportion of oceanic
whitetips/FAD would simply decrease because there aren't enough sharks
to aggregate around that many FADs. However, although the analyzed data
does not provide a straightforward interpretation (as both hypotheses
seem plausible), given the declines indicated in other studies
throughout the Indian Ocean, it seems more plausible that the marked
decline observed in Tolotti et al. (2015b) is indicative of a declining
abundance trend rather than a small, stable population.
Despite the varying magnitudes of reported declines of oceanic
whitetip shark in the Indian Ocean, the ERA team agreed that given the
significantly high fishing pressure and catches of oceanic whitetip
shark in the Indian Ocean (which are likely severely underreported),
combined with the
[[Page 96313]]
species' high at-vessel mortality rates in longlines in this area and
the species' low-moderate productivity (see the Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes section
below for more details), it is likely that the species will continue to
experience population declines in this region into the foreseeable
future.
Overall, in areas where oceanic whitetip shark data are available,
trends from throughout the species' global range show large historical
declines in abundance (e.g., Eastern Pacific, Western and Central
Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans). Recent evidence suggests that
most populations are still experiencing various levels of decline due
to continued fishing pressure and associated mortality. Further, the
potential stabilization of the abundance trends at depleted levels seen
in observer data from the Northwest Atlantic and Hawaiian PLL fisheries
represents a small contingent of the global population. Thus, the best
available scientific and commercial data available suggest that the
global population of oceanic whitetip continues to experience various
levels of decline throughout the majority of its range.
Growth Rate/Productivity
The ERA team expressed some concern regarding the effect of the
oceanic whitetip shark's growth rate and productivity on its risk of
extinction. Sharks, in general, have lower reproductive and growth
rates compared to bony fishes. The ERA team noted that this species has
some life history parameters that are typically advantageous, and some
that are likely detrimental to the species' resilience to excessive
levels of exploitation. For example, in comparison to other shark
species, the oceanic whitetip is relatively productive, with an
intrinsic rate of population increase (r) of 0.094-0.121 per year
(Cort[eacute]s 2010; 2012). The oceanic whitetip also ranked among the
highest in productivity when compared with other pelagic shark species
in terms of its pup production, rebound potential, potential for
population increase, and for its stochastic growth rate (Chapple and
Botsford 2013). Although the oceanic whitetip shark has a relatively
high productivity rate compared to other sharks, it is still considered
low for a fish species (r <0.14). Additionally, the species has a
fairly late age of maturity (~6-9 years for females depending on the
location), has a lengthy gestation period of 9-12 months, and only
produces an average of 5-6 pups every two years. Thus, while this
species may generally be able to withstand low to moderate levels of
exploitation, given the high level of fishing mortality this species
has experienced and continues to experience throughout the majority of
its range, its life history characteristics may only provide the
species with a limited ability to compensate. Therefore, based on the
best available information, these life history characteristics likely
pose a risk to this species in combination with threats that reduce its
abundance, such as overutilization.
Spatial Structure/Connectivity
The oceanic whitetip shark is a relatively widespread species that
may be comprised of distinct stocks in the Pacific, Indian, and
Atlantic oceans. The population structure and exchange between these
stocks is unknown; however, based on genetic information, telemetry
data, and temperature preferences it is unlikely that there is much
exchange between populations in the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific Oceans.
However, recent genetic data suggests potentially significant
population structure within the Atlantic, which may be underpinned by
the fact that this species exhibits a high degree of philopatry in some
locations (i.e., the species returns to the same site for purposes of
breeding or feeding, etc.). While the population structure observed in
the Atlantic, despite no physical or oceanographic barrier, could
result in localized depletions in areas where fishing pressure is high
(e.g., Brazil), habitat characteristics that are important to this
species are unknown. The species is highly mobile, and there is little
known about specific migration routes. It is also unknown if there are
source-sink dynamics at work that may affect population growth or
species' decline. There is no information on critical source
populations to suggest spatial structure and/or loss of connectivity
are presently posing demographic risks to the species. Thus, based on
the best available information, there is insufficient information to
support the conclusion that spatial structure and connectivity
currently pose a significant demographic risk to this species.
Diversity
As noted previously in the Population Structure and Genetics
section, recent research suggests the oceanic whitetip shark has low
genetic diversity (0.33 percent 0.19 percent; Ruck 2016),
which is about half that of the closely related silky shark (0.61
percent 0.32 percent; Clarke et al., (2015a)). The ERA
team noted that the relatively low mtDNA genetic diversity of the
oceanic whitetip raises potential concern for the future genetic health
of this species, particularly in concert with steep global declines in
abundance. Based on the fact that exploitation of the oceanic whitetip
shark began with the onset of industrial fishing in the 1950s, only 5-7
generations of oceanic whitetip have passed since the beginning of this
exploitation. Thus, the low genetic diversity of oceanic whitetip shark
likely reflects historic levels, and the significant global declines
are not yet reflected genetically (Ruck 2016). The ERA team noted that
this may be a cause for concern in the foreseeable future, since a
species with already relatively low genetic diversity undergoing
significant levels of exploitation may increase the species' risk in
terms of reduced fitness and evolutionary adaptability to a rapidly
changing oceanic environment as well as potential extirpations. The ERA
team also noted that low genetic diversity does not necessarily equate
to a risk of extinction in and of itself for all species; but, in
combination with low levels of abundance and continued exploitation,
low genetic diversity may pose a viable risk to the species in the
foreseeable future.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Oceanic Whitetip Shark
As described above, section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS'
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.11(c)) state that we must
determine whether a species is endangered or threatened because of any
one or a combination of the following factors: The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting
its continued existence. The ERA team evaluated whether and the extent
to which each of the foregoing factors contributed to the overall
extinction risk of the global oceanic whitetip shark population. We
summarize information regarding each of these threats below according
to the factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Available
information does not indicate that destruction, modification or
curtailment of the species' habitat or range, disease or predation, or
other natural or manmade factors are operative threats on this species;
therefore, we do not discuss those further here. See Young et al.
(2016) for
[[Page 96314]]
additional discussion of all ESA section 4(a)(1) threat categories.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Threats to the oceanic whitetip shark related to overutilization
stem from mortality in commercial fisheries, largely driven by demand
of the international shark fin trade, bycatch-related mortality, as
well as illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. The oceanic
whitetip shark is generally not a targeted species, but because of its
tendency to remain in the surface mixed layer of the water column (0-
152 m depth) and in tropical latitudes where fishing pressure is often
most concentrated for target species such as tuna, the species is
frequently encountered and suffers high mortality rates in numerous
fisheries throughout its global range. The oceanic whitetip shark is
also considered a preferred species for the international fin trade
because its large, morphologically distinct fins obtain a high value in
the Asian fin market. The high value and demand for oceanic whitetip
fins incentivizes the retention and subsequent finning of oceanic
whitetip sharks when caught, and thus represents the main economic
driver for retention and mortality of this species in commercial
fisheries throughout its global range. In fact, growth in demand from
the fin trade during the 1990s coincided with a pattern of soaring
catches of oceanic whitetip sharks in numerous fisheries across the
globe. Catches generally peaked from 1995 to 2000 and were followed by
precipitous declines over the next 10 years due to severe overfishing
(Hazin et al., 2007; Lawson 2011; Clarke et al., 2012; Hasarangi et
al., 2012; Brodziak et al., 2013; Hall and Rom[aacute]n 2013). The
oceanic whitetip is regularly caught incidentally with PLLs, purse
seines, handlines, troll and occasionally pelagic and even bottom
trawls (Compagno 1984). In addition to mortality as a result of
retention and finning in commercial fisheries, oceanic whitetip sharks
experience varying levels of bycatch-related fishing mortality,
including at-vessel and post-release mortality. Finally, recent reports
of illegal trafficking of oceanic whitetip shark fins suggest the
species may be heavily impacted by IUU fishing activities. Therefore,
the ERA team assessed the following factors that may have contributed
or continue to contribute to the historical and ongoing overutilization
of the oceanic whitetip shark: Retention and finning in commercial
fisheries for purposes of the international fin trade, incidental
bycatch in commercial fisheries (including impacts of at-vessel and
post-release mortality), and IUU fishing activities.
In the EPO, the oceanic whitetip shark is caught on a variety of
gear, including longline and purse seine gear targeting tunas and
swordfish. They are also believed to be taken in artisanal fisheries in
many countries around the EPO (IATTC 2007). To date, the IATTC has not
conducted a stock assessment for the oceanic whitetip shark. However,
species-specific catch estimates based on observer data from the purse
seine fishery are available from the IATTC observer database. As noted
previously in the Demographic Risk Assessment--Abundance section, the
oceanic whitetip was the second most abundant shark in the catches
behind the silky shark, and comprised approximately 9 percent of the
total shark catch from 1993-2009 (Hall and Rom[aacute]n 2013). In
floating object sets, which are responsible for 90 percent of oceanic
whitetip shark catches, capture probability of the species has
decreased over time from a high of 30 percent capture rate per set
between 1994 and 1998, to less than 5 percent from 2004 to 2008 (Morgan
2014). Estimated catches of oceanic whitetip sharks in all purse seine
sets peaked with approximately 9,709 individuals caught in 1999;
however, within 10 years catches dropped dramatically to an estimated
379 oceanic whitetip sharks caught in 2005. Estimated catches of
oceanic whitetip shark continue to decline in the EPO tropical tuna
purse seine fishery, with only 120 individuals caught in 2015. This
drastic decline in oceanic whitetip catches is in stark contrast to
catches of the closely related silky shark, which have remained
relatively constant over the same time period. Further, size trends in
this fishery show that small oceanic whitetip sharks <90 cm, which
comprised 21.4 percent of the oceanic whitetips captured in 1993, have
been virtually eliminated (Hall and Rom[aacute]n 2013), indicating the
possibility of recruitment failure in the population. During this same
time period, there was an increase in both the total catch of tunas by
purse seiners that employ drifting FADs and the number of FADs deployed
(Eddy et al., 2016; Hall and Rom[aacute]n 2016). Over the past decade,
the total number of FADs deployed per year has continued to increase
steadily, from about 4,000 in 2005 to almost 15,000 in 2015 (Hall and
Rom[aacute]n 2016). The total number of sets deployed has also
continued increasing, with 2015 being the highest record observed.
Thus, given the continued increase in fishing effort and expansion of
the tropical tuna purse seine fleet in the Eastern Pacific, fishing
pressure and associated mortality of oceanic whitetip sharks are
expected to continue.
Oceanic whitetip sharks are also sometimes a significant component
of the bycatch in EPO longline fisheries, and are thought to be taken
by local artisanal fisheries as well. While observer data is not
available from these fisheries, some limited information is available
from the various countries that fish in these waters. For example, the
oceanic whitetip shark was identified as one of several principal
species taken by Mexican fisheries targeting pelagic sharks (Sosa-
Nishizaki et al., 2008). Farther south, the oceanic whitetip shark has
also been recorded in the catches of the Ecuadorian artisanal fishery.
In an analysis of landings from the five principal ports of the
Ecuadorian artisanal fishery from 2008-2012, 37.2 mt of oceanic
whitetip shark were recorded out of a total 43,492.6 mt of shark
catches (Martinez-Ortiz et al., 2015). Although limited, this
information confirms that in addition to significant fishing pressure
by the tropical tuna purse seine fishery, oceanic whitetip sharks are
taken in longline and artisanal fisheries in unknown quantities. Based
on the foregoing information, the ERA team concluded, and we agree,
that overutilization of the oceanic whitetip shark is ongoing in this
region, with no indication that these pressures will cease in the
foreseeable future.
In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), the oceanic
whitetip shark commonly interacts with both longline and purse seine
fisheries throughout the region, with at least 20 member nations of the
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC; the RFMO
responsible for the conservation and management of tuna and tuna-like
species in the region) recording the species in their fisheries. As
noted previously, the oceanic whitetip historically comprised between
20-28 percent of the total shark catch in some industrial longline
fisheries during the 1950s and 1960s (Strasburg 1958; Taniuchi 1990).
In this region, where sharks represent 25 percent of the longline
fishery catch (Molony 2007), more recent observer data show that the
oceanic whitetip shark represented only 6.3 percent of the total shark
catch from 1991-2011(with blue shark comprising the large majority at
~80.5 percent; Lawson 2011). In the purse seine fishery, the oceanic
whitetip was once the second most common species of shark caught as
bycatch in the WCPO,
[[Page 96315]]
and comprised approximately 4.2 percent of the total shark catch from
1994-2011 (Lawson 2011). In addition to being caught indirectly as
bycatch, observer records indicate that some targeting of oceanic
whitetip shark has occurred historically in the waters near Papua New
Guinea, and, given the high value of oceanic whitetip fins and low
level of observer coverage in the region, it is likely that targeting
has occurred in other areas as well (Rice and Harley 2012). Based on
nominal and standardized catch rates for longline and purse seine
fisheries, records of oceanic whitetip sharks in both fisheries have
become increasingly rare over time, with catches of the species
significantly declining since the late 1990s (Lawson 2011; Clarke et
al., 2011a). For example, estimated catches of oceanic whitetip shark
in the WCPO longline fishery suggest that catches peaked in 1998 at
~249,000 individuals and declined to only ~53,000 individuals in 2009
(Lawson 2011). It should be noted that catches by the fleets of
Indonesia and the Philippines were not included because neither
observer nor effort data were available for these fleets. Over the same
time period (from 1995 to 2009) rates of fishing mortality consistently
increased, driven mainly by the increased effort in the longline fleet,
and remained substantially above the maximum sustainable yield (MSY)
(i.e., the point at which there would be an equilibrium) for the
species (Rice et al., 2015). The previously discussed stock assessment
report (Rice et al., 2015) attributed the greatest impact on the
species to bycatch from the longline fishery, and lesser impacts from
target longline activities and purse-seining (Rice and Harley 2012). In
fact, Rice et al. (2015) determined that fishing mortality on oceanic
whitetip sharks in the WCPO has increased to levels 6.5 times what is
sustainable, thus concluding that overfishing is still occurring.
As a result of continued and increasing fishing pressure in the
WCPO, size trends for oceanic whitetip have also declined, which is
indicative of overutilization of the species. For example, declining
median size trends were observed in all regions and sexes in both
longline and purse seine fisheries until samples became too scarce for
analysis. These size trends were significant for females in the
longline fishery (Regions 3 and 4; See Figure 1 in Clarke et al., 2011a
for the regional map), and for the purse seine fishery (Region 3).
Regions 3 and 4 (i.e., the equatorial region of the WCPO) represent the
species' core habitat areas, and contain 98 percent of the operational-
level reported purse seine sets and the majority of longline fishing
effort (Clarke et al., 2011a; Rice et al., 2015). The decline in median
size of female oceanic whitetip sharks is particularly concerning due
to the potential correlation between maternal length and litter size,
which has been documented in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans (Lessa et
al. 1999, Bonfil et al. 2008). While Rice et al. (2015) more recently
report that trends in oceanic whitetip median length are now stable,
the majority of sharks observed are immature. In fact, 100 percent of
oceanic whitetips sampled in the purse seine fishery have been immature
since 2000 (Clarke et al., 2012).
In the U.S. Pacific, the oceanic whitetip shark is a common bycatch
species in the Hawaii-based PLL fishery. This fishery began around
1917, and underwent considerable expansion in the late 1980s to become
the largest fishery in the state (Boggs and Ito 1993). This fishery
currently targets tunas and billfish and is managed under the auspices
of the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC). From 1995-
2006, oceanic whitetip sharks comprised approximately 3 percent of the
total shark catch (Brodziak et al., 2013). Based on observer data from
the Pacific Islands Regional Observer Program (PIROP), oceanic whitetip
shark mean annual nominal CPUE decreased significantly from 0.428
sharks/1,000 hooks in 1995 to 0.036 sharks/1,000 hooks in 2010. This
reflected a significant decrease in nominal CPUE on longline sets with
positive catch from 1.690 sharks/1,000 hooks to 0.773 sharks/1,000
hooks, and a significant increase in longline sets with zero catches
from 74.7 percent in 1995 to 95.3 percent in 2010. As discussed
previously in the Evaluation of Demographic Risks--Abundance section,
oceanic whitetip CPUE declined by more than 90 percent in the Hawaii-
based PLL fishery since 1995 (Walsh and Clarke 2011; Brodziak et al.,
2013). Brodziak et al. (2013) concluded that relative abundance of
oceanic whitetip declined within a few years of the expansion of the
longline fishery, which suggests these fisheries are contributing to
the commercial overutilization of oceanic whitetip within this portion
of its range. It should be noted that while the Hawaii-based PLL
fishery currently catches oceanic whitetip shark as bycatch, the
majority of individuals are now released alive in this fishery and the
number of individuals kept has been on a declining trend. For example,
according to the U.S. National Bycatch Report First Edition Update 2
(see www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/observer-home/first-edition-update-2) the
shallow-set fishery released alive an estimated 91-96 percent of all
oceanic whitetip sharks caught from 2011 to 2013. During the same time
period, the deep-set fishery released alive an estimated 78-82 percent
of all oceanic whitetip sharks caught. However, it is unknown how many
of these sharks survived after being released. Nonetheless, this
particular fishery may be less of a threat to the oceanic whitetip
shark in the foreseeable future. However, across the WCPO as a whole,
given the ongoing impacts to the species from significant fishing
pressure (with the majority of effort concentrated in the species' core
tropical habitat area), including significant declines in CPUE,
biomass, and size indices, and combined with the species' relatively
low-moderate productivity, it is likely that overutilization has been
and continues to be an ongoing threat contributing to the extinction
risk of the oceanic whitetip shark across the region.
The oceanic whitetip shark was also once described as the most
common pelagic shark throughout the warm-temperate and tropical waters
in the Atlantic and beyond the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico
(Mather and Day 1954; Strasburg 1958). Oceanic whitetip sharks are
taken in the Atlantic Ocean by longlines, purse seine nets, gillnets,
trawls, and handlines; however, the large majority of the catch from
1990-2014 reported to ICCAT was caught by longline gear (Young et al.,
2016). Oceanic whitetip sharks have exhibited a range of at-vessel
mortality rates in longline gear in the Atlantic Ocean between 11-34
percent (Beerkircher et al., 2002; Coelho et al., 2012; Fernandez-
Carvalho et al., 2015) and have been ranked as the 5th most vulnerable
pelagic shark in an Ecological Risk Assessment that assessed 11 species
of pelagic elasmobranchs (Cortes et al., 2010). In total, approximately
2,430 mt of oceanic whitetip catches were reported to ICCAT from 1990-
2014; however, this is likely a severe underestimation of the total
amount of oceanic whitetip sharks taken from the Atlantic. For example,
Clarke (2008) calculated trade-based estimates that indicate between
80,000-210,000 oceanic whitetip sharks were sourced from the Atlantic
Ocean in 2003 alone to supply the Hong Kong fin market, which
translates to approximately 3,000-8,000 mt.
In the Northwest Atlantic, the oceanic whitetip is caught
incidentally as bycatch by a number of fisheries,
[[Page 96316]]
including (but not limited to) the U.S. Atlantic PLL fishery, the Cuban
``sport'' fishery (``sport'' = private artisanal and commercial), and
the Colombian oceanic industrial longline fishery operating in the
Caribbean (E-CoP16Prop.42, 2013). In the United States, oceanic
whitetip sharks are caught as bycatch in PLL fisheries targeting tuna
and swordfish in this region, with an estimated 8,526 individuals
recorded as captured in U.S. fisheries logbooks from 1992 to 2000 (Baum
et al., 2003) and a total of 912 individuals recorded by observers in
the NMFS Pelagic Observer Program from 1992-2015. Relative to target
species, oceanic whitetip sharks are caught infrequently and only
incidentally on PLL vessels fishing for tuna and tuna-like species.
Landings and dead discards of sharks by U.S. PLL fishers in the
Atlantic are monitored every year and reported to ICCAT. Overall, very
few oceanic whitetip sharks were landed by the commercial fishery,
except for two peaks of about 1,250 and 1,800 fish in 1983 and 1998,
respectively, but otherwise total catches never exceeded 450 fish (NMFS
2009). Commercial landings of oceanic whitetip sharks in the U.S.
Atlantic have been variable, but averaged approximately 1,077.4 lb
(488.7 kg; 0.4887 mt) per year from 2003-2013. Although oceanic
whitetip sharks have been prohibited on U.S. Atlantic commercial
fishing vessels with pelagic longline gear onboard since 2011, they can
still be caught as bycatch, caught with other gears, and are
occasionally landed. However, since the ICCAT retention prohibition was
implemented in 2011, estimated commercial landings of oceanic whitetip
declined from 1.1 mt in 2011 to only 0.03 mt in 2013 (NMFS 2012; 2014).
As discussed previously, the oceanic whitetip population size has
likely declined significantly in this region due to historical
exploitation of the species since the onset of industrial fishing
(refer back to the Demographic Risk Assessment--Abundance section);
however, results of the ERA team's analysis show that the oceanic
whitetip shark population in this region has potentially stabilized
since the 1990s/early 2000s (Young et al., 2016). The potential
stabilization of oceanic whitetip sharks occurred concomitantly with
the first Federal Fishery Management Plan for Sharks in the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, which directly manages oceanic
whitetip shark under the pelagic shark group, and includes regulations
on trip limits and quotas. This indicates the potential efficacy of
these management measures for reducing the threat of overutilization of
the oceanic whitetip shark population in this region; therefore, under
current management measures, including the implementation of ICCAT
Recommendation 10-07 (see Factor D--Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms for more details), the threat of overutilization is not
likely as significant in this area relative to other portions of the
species' range.
In Cuba, some evidence suggests a historical decline of oceanic
whitetip shark may have occurred, although this is uncertain. In the
1960s, the oceanic whitetip shark was characterized as the most
abundant species off the northwestern coast of Cuba, but since 1985, a
substantial decline was observed in some species, including the oceanic
whitetip. Variations in fishing effort and changes in the fishery make
it difficult to assess the present condition of the resource, but since
1981 there has been a tendency towards decline (Claro et al., 2001).
Recent monitoring studies of a prominent fishing base in Cojimar, Cuba
recorded the oceanic whitetip shark comprising only 2-5 percent of the
shark landings from 2008-2011 (Cuba Department of Fisheries 2016). In
contrast, Vald[eacute]s et al., (2016) show a steady pattern of
abundance for the oceanic whitetip shark in Cuban fishery landings
along the northwestern coast from 2010 to 2016. However, sharks caught
in Cuban fisheries are never discarded, but rather utilized for either
human consumption or bait. Cuba is not a member of ICCAT, and thus
ICCAT Recommendation 10-07 on the retention prohibition of oceanic
whitetip sharks is not applicable in Cuban waters. Further, evidence
suggests there is a prevalence of small, immature individuals in Cuban
catches, which suggests the possibility of an important nursery area
for this species in the region. However, because these animals are
small and of less value to the fishermen, they are typically using the
juvenile C. longimanus as bait while at sea, a practice which is likely
in conflict with sustainable fisheries management and conservation
objectives (Valedz et al., 2016) and may be contributing to
overutilization of the species.
Farther south, it is likely that overutilization is an ongoing
threat in the South Atlantic. Although fishing effort has been high and
began intensifying in the southern Atlantic Ocean after the 1990s
(Camhi et al., 2008), there is limited information on the catch rates
or trends of oceanic whitetip sharks in this region. Oceanic whitetip
sharks are taken as bycatch in numerous fisheries operating in the
South Atlantic, including Brazilian, Uruguayan, Taiwanese, Japanese,
Venezuelan, Spanish and Portuguese longline fisheries; however, the
largest oceanic whitetip catching country in this region is Brazil. As
noted in the Evaluation of Demographic Risks--Abundance section of this
proposed rule, oceanic whitetips were historically reported as the
second-most abundant shark in research surveys from northeastern Brazil
between 1992 and 1997 (FAO 2012), with a high CPUE rate of 2.18
individuals per 1,000 hooks (Domingo et al., 2007). More recently,
however, average CPUE in this same area has seemingly declined. It also
appears that the percentage of mature sharks has declined in recent
years compared to surveys conducted in the 1990s. For example, the
frequency of mature sharks >=180 cm was higher in the 1990s than in
years 2005-2009. It should be noted that the data from 2005-2009
represents a much larger area of the southwestern and equatorial
Atlantic and has a much larger sample size (n = 1218; Tolotti et al.,
2013) than the results from the surveys conducted in the 1990s (n =
258; Lessa et al., 1999). However, the two study areas do overlap and
provide some indication that the size composition of oceanic whitetip
sharks in the southwestern Atlantic may be shifting downwards. Catches
of oceanic whitetip in the Brazilian tuna longline fishery have also
shown a substantial decline, decreasing from ~640t in 2000 to only 80t
in 2005 (Hazin et al., 2007). According to the ICCAT nominal catch
database, catches of oceanic whitetip shark by Brazilian vessels
continued to decline, with 0 mt reported from 2009-2012 and only 12 mt
from 2013-2014. Although robust standardized CPUE data are not
available for the species, making it difficult to evaluate whether the
decline in catches resulted from decreased abundance or from changes in
catchability, related, for instance, to targeting strategies (Hazin et
al., 2007), a recent tagging study indicates that the preferred
horizontal and vertical habitat of oceanic whitetip shark, including
potential nursery areas, is heavily impacted by the industrial longline
fishery. Telemetry data provides evidence that the equatorial region
off Northeast Brazil is an area where the oceanic whitetip shark shows
a high degree of philopatry (i.e., site fidelity). This same area also
happens to be where the highest level of fishing effort is
concentrated. For example, from 1999-2011, despite a wide distribution
[[Page 96317]]
of fishing sets, the area with the highest effort concentration by the
Brazilian longline fleet was bound by the 5[deg] N. and the 15[deg] S.
parallels and by the 040[deg] W. and 035[deg] W. meridians (i.e., the
equatorial region of Northeast Brazil). Thus, the majority of fishing
effort by the Brazilian fleet directly overlaps the preferred habitat
area of oceanic whitetip sharks (Tolotti et al., 2015a). Further, many
studies show a substantially high percentage of juveniles in the
catches from this region (Coelho et al., 2009; Tambourgi et al., 2013;
Tolotti et al., 2013; Fr[eacute]dou et al., 2015), which suggests the
presence of nursery habitat. For example, Tambourgi et al. (2013) found
that 80.5 percent of females were immature and 72.4 percent of males
were immature in the Brazilian pelagic longline fishery between
December 2003 and December 2010. Thus, it is likely that the intensive
fishing pressure of oceanic whitetip across its preferred vertical and
horizontal habitat, including nursery areas in Brazilian waters, is
negatively impacting oceanic whitetip sharks at all life stages, and
contributing to the overutilization of the species. In addition to
information from Brazil, a recent study that synthesized information on
shark catch rates for the major shark species caught by multiple fleets
in the South Atlantic from 1979 and 2011 (e.g., Belize, Bolivia,
Brazil, Canada, Spain, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, Japan, Saint Kitts
and Nevis, Korea, Morocco, Panama, Portugal, Taiwan, United Kingdom,
Uruguay, United States, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Vanuatu)
concluded that declines of many shark species, including the oceanic
whitetip, coincided with significant fishing effort expansion, a lack
of regulatory measures to deal with shark bycatch, finning and directed
fishing for sharks by some fleets (Barreto et al., 2015). Based on the
foregoing information, the ERA team concluded, and we agree, that
overutilization in the South Atlantic Ocean is likely a threat
contributing to the oceanic whitetip's risk of extinction in the
foreseeable future.
Overutilization is also likely a threat to oceanic whitetip sharks
in the Indian Ocean. The oceanic whitetip is reported as bycatch in all
three major fisheries operating in the Indian Ocean; the species is
considered ``frequent'' in both longline and purse seine fisheries, and
``very frequent'' in the gillnet fishery (Murua et al., 2013b), with
gillnet fisheries reporting the highest nominal catches of sharks in
2014, and making up nearly 40 percent of total catches (Ardill et al.,
2011; IOTC 2015a). Although information from this region is limited and
catch data are severely underreported, the IOTC (the RFMO that manages
tuna and tuna-like species in the Indian Ocean and adjacent waters)
reports that catches of oceanic whitetip shark are ranked as ``High,''
meaning the accumulated catches from 1950-2010 make up 5 percent or
more of the total catches of sharks recorded (Herrera and Pierre 2011).
In fact, a recent study estimated that the oceanic whitetip shark
comprises 11 percent of the total estimated shark catch in the Indian
Ocean (Murua et al., 2013a). It is also ranked as the 5th most
vulnerable shark species caught in longline fisheries in the region
(out of 16 species assessed) and the most vulnerable shark species
caught in purse seine gear due to its high susceptibility (Murua et
al., 2012; IOTC 2015a). Oceanic whitetip sharks also exhibit relatively
higher at-vessel mortality rates in longlines in this region compared
to other regions (i.e., 58 percent; IOTC 2015a) and likely have high
mortality rates in purse seine and gillnet fisheries as well.
The main fleets catching oceanic whitetip in the Indian Ocean in
recent years (2011-2014) include: Indonesia, Sri Lanka, I.R. Iran, EU
(Spain), China, Madagascar, and Seychelles. The reporting of catches of
oceanic whitetip sharks shows an unusual trend in 2013 and 2014, with
5,000+ mt reported to the IOTC. These trends are dominated by the Sri
Lankan combination longline-gillnet fisheries, and an addition of
proportionately very large catches by India (IOTC 2015b). Prior to the
unusual trend in 2013 and 2014, the trend in oceanic whitetip catch
shows a substantial increase throughout the 1990s, which likely
corresponds with the rise in the shark fin trade (Clarke et al., 2007),
a peak at 3,050 mt in 1999, followed by a sharp and continued decline
in the 2000s. Although the IOTC database is constrained by a number of
limitations, information from some fleets catching oceanic whitetip
shark indicate declines in catches as well. For example, from 1996-
2004, landings of oceanic whitetip in Sri Lanka peaked at approximately
3,000 mt in 1999 and show a declining trend thereafter (Hasarangi et
al., 2012) to less than 300 mt in 2014. It is only in the last two
years (2013 and 2014) that annual shark production has seen a
significant decline in Sri Lanka due to regulatory measures
(Jayathilaka and Maldeniya 2015). Most recently, Sri Lanka reported
only 88 mt of oceanic whitetip shark catches to IOTC in 2015. Thus, the
decline in oceanic whitetip catches in Sri Lanka occurred prior to the
implementation of any regulatory measures, and may therefore be
indicative of a population decline in Sri Lankan waters as a result of
overutilization. Similarly, the substantial decline of oceanic whitetip
sharks in the Maldives, from comprising 29 percent of the longline
shark catch in the 1980s to only 3.5 percent of landings from 2000-2004
(refer back to the Demographic Assessment--Abundance section of this
proposed rule), is likely the result of overutilization of the species.
In fact, Anderson et al. (2011) determined that the shark stocks that
supported the shark fishery were sequentially overfished, with the
decline in pelagic shark catches the result of high (and likely
unsustainable) levels of fishing by overseas fisheries.
The IOTC's Working Group on Ecosystems and Bycatch stated that at
current catch levels (i.e., average of 347 mt prior to 2013), the
Indian Ocean stock of oceanic whitetip was at considerable risk. Given
the previous discussion regarding likely abundance declines in this
region, combined with the high level of fishing pressure on oceanic
whitetip sharks in the Indian Ocean and the species' low-moderate
productivity, it is therefore likely that the substantially high
catches of oceanic whitetip sharks in the Indian Ocean (5,000+ mt
estimated for 2013 and 2014) are in excess of what is sustainable and
are likely contributing to overutilization of the species in the Indian
Ocean.
Finally, the ERA team determined that demand from the international
shark fin trade is the main economic force driving the retention and
subsequent finning of oceanic whitetip sharks taken as bycatch in
commercial fisheries worldwide, as they are considered a preferred
species for their fins, command high prices in the international market
(U.S. $45-85/kg; E-CoP16Prop.42 (2013)) and make up part of the ``first
choice'' category in the China, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
(SAR) fin market (Vannuccini 1999). From 2000 to 2011, China, Hong Kong
SAR maintained its position as the world's largest trader of shark
fins, controlling the majority of global trade. In order to determine
the species composition of the shark fin trade, Clarke et al., (2006a)
analyzed 1999-2001 Hong Kong trade auction data in conjunction with
species-specific fin weights and genetic information to estimate the
annual number of globally traded shark fins. Using this approach, the
authors discovered that oceanic whitetip sharks are sold under their
own category ``Liu Qiu'' and represent approximately 1.8 percent of the
Hong Kong shark fin
[[Page 96318]]
market (Clarke et al., 2006a). This level of oceanic whitetip shark
fins in the trade translates to an estimated median of 700,000 oceanic
whitetip sharks (range: 200,000-1,200,000 individuals), with an
equivalent median biomass of around 21,000 mt (range 9,000-48,000 mt),
traded annually (Clarke et al., 2006b). The lack of estimates of the
global population makes it difficult to put these trade-based estimates
into perspective. However, given the minimum estimate of ~9,000 mt
traded annually is in excess of the total biomass estimated for oceanic
whitetip for the entire Western and Central Pacific Ocean in 2010
(i.e., 7,295 mt), the effect of the removals (for the shark fin trade)
on the ability of the overall population to sustain this level of
exploitation is likely substantial.
In more recent years, genetic testing conducted in various fish
markets provides additional confirmation of the ongoing utilization of
oceanic whitetip shark in the shark fin trade. For example, a genetic
sampling study conducted on shark fins collected from several fish
markets throughout Indonesia determined that oceanic whitetip shark
fins were present and comprised approximately 1.72 percent of the fins
tested (Sembiring et al., 2015). In a genetic barcoding study of shark
fins from markets in Taiwan, the oceanic whitetip was 1 of 20 species
identified and comprised 0.38 percent of average landings from 2001-
2010 (Liu et al., 2013). In another genetic barcoding study of fins at
the Deira fish market in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (with sharks
originating from Oman), oceanic whitetip shark comprised 0.45 percent
of fins tested (Jabado et al., 2015). Although it is uncertain whether
these studies are representative of the entire market within each
respective country, results of these genetic tests confirm the
continued presence of oceanic whitetip shark fins in various markets
throughout its range.
Recent studies indicate that due to a waning interest in fins as
well as increased regulations to curb shark finning, the shark fin
market is declining. In fact, the trade in shark fins through China,
Hong Kong SAR, which has served as an indicator of the global trade for
many years, fell by 22 percent in 2012. Additionally, current
indications are that the shark fin trade through Hong Kong SAR and
China will continue to contract (Dent and Clarke 2015). The pattern of
trade decline closely matches the pattern in chondrichthyan capture
production and thus suggests a strong link between the quantity
harvested and the quantity traded. However, a government-led backlash
against conspicuous consumption in China, combined with global
conservation momentum, appears to have had some impact on traded
volumes as well (Eriksson and Clarke 2015). Despite the potential
improvements in the trade, it is clear that the shark fin trade has
asserted and continues to assert significant pressure on oceanic
whitetip sharks. Given that oceanic whitetip fins are among the most
prized in the international shark fin trade and obtain a high value per
kg, combined with recent evidence of oceanic whitetip fins in several
prominent markets, the incentive to take oceanic whitetip sharks for
their fins remains high and is an ongoing threat contributing to the
overutilization of the species. This is further evidenced by recent
incidents of illegal trafficking of oceanic whitetip fins, which
indicate that oceanic whitetip sharks are still sought after for their
fins and continue to experience pressure from demands of the fin trade
(see Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section below for
more details). In addition, a surge in the trade of shark meat has
occurred in recent years. This could be the result of a number of
factors, but taking the shark fin and shark meat aggregate trends
together indicate that shark fin supplies are limited by the existing
levels of chondrichthyan capture production, but shark meat is
underutilized by international markets (Dent and Clarke 2015). This
suggests that historically underutilized chondrichthyan species will be
increasingly utilized for their meat. The ERA team considered whether
the recent shift in demand away from shark fins to shark meat would
have any considerable impact on the oceanic whitetip shark. Although
there are markets for low-value shark meat such as oceanic whitetip,
the retention bans for the species in all relevant RFMOs will likely
dampen this threat. Thus, the ERA team did not think this increase in
demand for shark meat would create a significant new threat to the
species.
Overall, based on the best available information, the ERA team
concluded, and we agree, that overutilization is the single most
important threat contributing to the extinction risk of the oceanic
whitetip shark. Due to the paucity of available data from some regions,
the ERA team acknowledged that there are some uncertainties in
assessing the contribution of the threat of overutilization to the
extinction risk of the oceanic whitetip shark throughout its range. As
results from the Cort[eacute]s et al. (2012) and Murua et al. (2012)
Ecological Risk Assessments demonstrated, the threat of overutilization
of oceanic whitetip sharks may be exacerbated by the species' low-
moderate productivity combined with the species' tendency to remain in
the surface mixed layer of the water column (i.e., 0-152 m) and within
warm, tropical waters where the majority of fishing effort is often
most concentrated. The severity of the threat of overutilization is
dependent upon other risks and threats to the species, such as its
abundance (as a demographic risk) as well as its level of protection
from fishing mortality throughout its range. Given the above analysis
and best available information, as well as evidence that the species'
current trends in abundance place its future persistence in question
due to overutilization, we find that overutilization for commercial
purposes is a threat that places the species on a trajectory towards
being in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future throughout all
or a significant portion of its range.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The ERA team evaluated existing regulatory mechanisms to determine
whether they may be inadequate to address threats to the oceanic
whitetip shark. Existing regulatory mechanisms assessed include
federal, state, and international regulations for commercial fisheries,
as well as the international trade in shark products. Below is a
description and evaluation of current and relevant domestic and
international management measures that may affect the oceanic whitetip
shark. More information on these management measures can be found in
the status review report (Young et al., 2016) and other recent status
reviews of other shark species (Miller et al., 2013; 2014). The
following section will first discuss U.S. domestic regulatory measures
applicable to the oceanic whitetip shark, followed by international
regulations that may affect sharks in general, as well as the oceanic
whitetip shark in particular.
U.S. Domestic Regulatory Mechanisms
In the U.S. Pacific, highly migratory species (HMS) fishery
management is the responsibility of adjacent states and three regional
management councils that were established by the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act: The Pacific Fishery Management
Council (PFMC), the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and the
Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC). The PFMC manages
highly migratory species
[[Page 96319]]
off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California; however, the
oceanic whitetip shark is not one of the species they actively manage,
as its distribution favors more tropical waters. The PFMC is, however,
actively engaged in international fishery management organizations that
manage fish stocks that migrate through the PFMC's area of
jurisdiction. In 2011, NMFS published a final rule (76 FR 68332)
issuing regulations to implement decisions of the IATTC, including the
Resolution Prohibiting the Retention of Oceanic Whitetip Sharks (C-11-
10), which is described in more detail below in the International
Regulatory Mechanisms section of this proposed rule. According to the
final rule mentioned previously, U.S. fisheries that target highly
migratory species rarely retain, transship, land, or sell this species
in the IATTC Convention Area.
The WPFMC has jurisdiction over the EEZs of Hawaii, Territories of
American Samoa and Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
and the Pacific Remote Island Areas, as well as the domestic fisheries
that occur on the adjacent high seas. The WPFMC developed the Pelagics
Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP; formerly the Fishery Management Plan for
the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region) in 1986 and NMFS,
on behalf of the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, approved the Plan in 1987.
Under the FEP, the oceanic whitetip shark is designated as a Pelagic
Management Unit Species and is subject to regulations. These
regulations are intended to minimize impacts to targeted stocks as well
as protected species. Fishery data are also analyzed in annual reports
and used to amend the FEP as necessary. In Hawaii and American Samoa,
oceanic whitetip sharks are predominantly caught in longline fisheries
that operate under extensive regulatory measures, including gear,
permit, logbook, vessel monitoring system, and protected species
workshop requirements. In 2015, NMFS published a final rule to
implement decisions of the WCPFC to prohibit the retention of oceanic
whitetip sharks in fisheries operating within the WCPFC's area of
competence (or Convention Area), which comprises the majority of the
Western and Central Pacific Ocean. The regulations were published in
the Federal Register on February 19, 2015 (80 FR 8807) and include
prohibitions on the retention of the oceanic whitetip shark, as well as
requirements to release any oceanic whitetip caught. These regulations
are applicable to all U.S. fishing vessels used for commercial fishing
for HMS in the Convention Area (PIRO 2015). As noted previously in the
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes section of this proposed rule, oceanic whitetip
sharks are still caught as bycatch in this fishery, but the majority of
individuals are now released alive. Though post-release survival rates
are unknown, it is likely these regulations are helping to reduce
overall mortality of the species to some degree.
In the Northwest Atlantic, the U.S. Atlantic HMS Management
Division within NMFS develops regulations for Atlantic HMS fisheries,
and primarily coordinates the management of Atlantic HMS fisheries in
Federal waters (domestic) and the high seas (international), while
individual states establish regulations for HMS in state waters. The
NMFS Atlantic HMS Management Division currently manages 42 species of
sharks (excluding spiny dogfish) under the Consolidated Atlantic HMS
FMP (NMFS 2006). The management of these sharks is divided into five
species groups: Large coastal sharks, small coastal sharks, pelagic
sharks, smoothhound sharks, and prohibited sharks. Oceanic whitetip
sharks are managed under the pelagic sharks group. One way that the HMS
Management Division controls and monitors commercial harvest is by
requiring U.S. commercial Atlantic HMS fishermen who fish for or sell
sharks to have a Federal Atlantic Directed or Incidental shark limited
access permit. These permits are administered under a limited access
program, and NMFS is no longer issuing new shark permits. As of October
2015, 224 U.S. fishermen are permitted to target sharks managed by the
HMS Management Division in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, and
an additional 275 fishermen are permitted to land sharks incidentally
(NMFS 2015). Under a directed shark permit, there is no directed
numeric retention limit for pelagic sharks, subject to quota
limitations. An incidental permit allows fishers to keep up to a total
of 16 pelagic or small coastal sharks (all species combined) per vessel
per trip. Current authorized gear types for oceanic whitetip sharks
include: Bottom longline, gillnet, rod and reel, handline, or bandit
gear. There are no restrictions on the types of hooks that may be used
to catch oceanic whitetip sharks, and there is no commercial minimum
size limit. The annual quota for pelagic sharks (other than blue sharks
or porbeagle sharks) is currently 488 mt dressed weight. NMFS monitors
the different shark quota complexes annually and will close the fishing
season for each fishery after 80 percent of the respective quota has
been landed or is projected to be landed. Atlantic sharks and shark
fins from federally permitted vessels may be sold only to federally
permitted dealers. Logbook reporting is required for selected fishers
with a federal commercial shark permit. In addition, fishers may be
selected to carry an observer onboard, and some fishers are subject to
vessel and electronic monitoring systems depending on the gear used and
where they fish. In terms of processing sharks landed, the head may be
removed and the shark may be gutted and bled, but the shark cannot be
filleted or cut into pieces while onboard the vessel and all fins,
including the tail, must remain naturally attached to the carcass
through offloading.
In 2011, NMFS published final regulations to implement decisions of
ICCAT (i.e., Recommendation 10-07 for the conservation of oceanic
whitetip sharks), which prohibits retention of oceanic whitetip sharks
in the PLL fishery and on recreational (HMS Angling and Charter
headboat permit holders) vessels that possess tuna, swordfish, or
billfish (76 FR 53652). The implementation of regulations to comply
with ICCAT Recommendation 10-07 for the conservation of oceanic
whitetip sharks is likely the most influential regulatory mechanism in
terms of reducing mortality of oceanic whitetip sharks in the U.S.
Atlantic. It should be noted that oceanic whitetip sharks are still
occasionally caught as bycatch and landed in this region despite its
prohibited status in ICCAT associated fisheries (NMFS 2012; 2014), as
retention is permitted in other authorized gears other than pelagic
longlines (e.g., gillnets, bottom longlines); however, these numbers
have decreased. Prior to the implementation of the retention
prohibition on oceanic whitetip, an analysis of the 2005-2009 HMS
logbook data indicated that, on average, a total of 50 oceanic whitetip
sharks were kept per year, with an additional 147 oceanic whitetip
sharks caught per year and subsequently discarded (133 released alive
and 14 discarded dead). Thus, without the prohibition, approximately
197 oceanic whitetip sharks could be caught and 64 oceanic whitetip
sharks (32 percent) could die from being discarded dead or retained
each year (NMFS 2011). Since the prohibition was implemented in 2011,
estimated commercial landings of oceanic whitetip declined from only
1.1 mt in
[[Page 96320]]
2011 to only 0.03 mt (dressed weight) in 2013 (NMFS 2012; 2014). In
fact, from 2013-2014, NMFS reported a total of 81 oceanic whitetip
interactions, with 83 percent (67 individuals) released alive and 17
percent (14 individuals) discarded dead (NMFS 2014; 2015). While the
retention ban for oceanic whitetip does not prevent incidental catch or
subsequent at-vessel and post-release mortality, it likely provides
minor ecological benefits to oceanic whitetip sharks via a reduction in
overall fishing mortality in the Atlantic PLL fishery (NMFS 2011).
In addition to general commercial fishing regulations for
management of highly migratory species, the United States has
implemented a couple of significant laws for the conservation and
management of sharks: the Shark Finning Prohibition Act and the Shark
Conservation Act. The Shark Finning Prohibition Act was enacted in
December 2000 and implemented by final rule on February 11, 2002 (67 FR
6194), and prohibited any person under U.S. jurisdiction from: (i)
Engaging in the finning of sharks; (ii) possessing shark fins aboard a
fishing vessel without the corresponding carcass; and (iii) landing
shark fins without the corresponding carcass. It also implemented a
five percent fin to carcass ratio, creating a rebuttable presumption
that fins landed from a fishing vessel or found on board a fishing
vessel were taken, held, or landed in violation of the Act if the total
weight of fins landed or found on board the vessel exceeded five
percent of the total weight of carcasses landed or found on board the
vessel. The Shark Conservation Act was signed into law on January 4,
2011, and implemented by final rule on June 29, 2016 (81 FR 42285),
and, with a limited exception for smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis),
prohibits any person from removing shark fins at sea, or possessing,
transferring, or landing shark fins unless they are naturally attached
to the corresponding carcass.
As expected, U.S. exports of dried shark fins dropped significantly
after the passage of the Shark Finning Prohibition Act. In 2011, with
the passage of the U.S. Shark Conservation Act, exports of dried shark
fins dropped again, by 58 percent, to 15 mt, the second lowest export
amount since 2001. This is in contrast to the price per kg of shark
fin, which was at its highest price of ~$100/kg, and suggests that
existing regulations have likely been effective at discouraging fishing
for sharks solely for the purpose of the fin trade. Thus, although the
international shark fin trade is likely a driving force behind the
overutilization of many global shark species, including the oceanic
whitetip, the U.S. participation in this trade appears to be
diminishing. In 2012, the value of fins also decreased, suggesting that
the worldwide demand for fins may be on a decline. For example, a
decrease in U.S. fin prices coincided with the implementation of fin
bans in various U.S. states in 2012 and 2013, and U.S. shark fin
exports have continued on a declining trend (Miller et al., 2013).
However, it should be noted that the continued decline is also likely a
result of the waning global demand for shark fins altogether.
Similarly, many U.S. states, especially on the West Coast, and U.S.
Flag Pacific Island Territories have also passed fin bans and trade
regulations, subsequently decreasing the United States' contribution to
the fin trade. For example, after the State of Hawaii prohibited
finning in its waters and required shark fins to be landed with their
corresponding carcasses in the state in 2000, the shark fin exports
from the United States into Hong Kong declined significantly in 2001
(54 percent decrease, from 374 to 171 t) as Hawaii could therefore no
longer be used as a fin trading center for the international fisheries
operating and finning in the Central Pacific (Clarke et al., 2007).
With regard to oceanic whitetip sharks, the finning regulations
introduced in 2001 in the U.S. Hawaii-based longline fishery have acted
to reduce mortality on oceanic whitetip and other large shark species
(Walsh et al., 2009). Prior to the ban, from 1995-2000, the fins were
taken from a large proportion of captured oceanic whitetip with the
remaining carcass being discarded (72.3 percent in deep sets and 52.7
percent from shallow sets), as was the case with other large sharks
(Walsh et al., 2009). From 2004-2006, following the implementation of
the new regulations, almost all sharks were released, although some
were dead on release. Overall, minimum mortality estimates declined
substantially as a result of the finning regulations, from 81.9 percent
to 25.6 percent in deep sets and from 61.3 percent to 9.1 percent in
shallow sets (Walsh et al., 2009). However, aside from this example,
there is little information on the level of compliance with the various
fisheries management measures for sharks, including oceanic whitetip,
with compliance likely variable among other countries and regions.
Overall, regulations to control for overutilization of oceanic
whitetip sharks in U.S. waters, including fisheries management plans
with quotas and trip limits, species-specific retention prohibitions in
PLL gear, and finning regulations are not in and of themselves
inadequate such that they are contributing to the global extinction
risk of the species. In fact, it is likely that the stable CPUE trend
observed for the oceanic whitetip shark in the Northwest Atlantic is
largely a result of the implementation of management measures for
pelagic sharks under the U.S. HMS FMP. However, because oceanic
whitetip sharks are highly migratory and frequently move beyond U.S.
jurisdiction, these regulatory mechanisms are limited on the global
stage in that they only provide protections to oceanic whitetip sharks
while in U.S. waters. While this does not make them inadequate in terms
of their purpose of protecting oceanic whitetip sharks while in U.S.
waters, finning and retention bans are likely inadequate in other parts
of the world to prevent further population declines of oceanic whitetip
as a result of overutilization (as discussed in detail below).
Therefore, given the significant abundance declines observed for the
species as a result of overutilization, and the fact that regulatory
mechanisms are largely inadequate elsewhere across the species' range,
it is unlikely that U.S. regulatory mechanisms alone are enough to
mitigate for threats contributing to the species' global extinction
risk.
International Regulatory Mechanisms
Regarding international regulatory mechanisms, the ERA team
expressed significant concern regarding existing regulations to control
bycatch-related mortality, finning of oceanic whitetip sharks for the
international shark fin trade, and illegal fishing and trafficking
activities. The ERA team recognized that the number of international
regulatory mechanisms for sharks in general, and the oceanic whitetip
shark in particular, have been on the rise in recent years. For
example, the oceanic whitetip shark was listed under Appendix II of the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora
and Fauna (CITES) in 2014. CITES is an international agreement between
governments, with the aim of ensuring that international trade in
specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival.
International trade in specimens of Appendix-II species may be
authorized by the granting of an export permit or re-export
certificate. No import permit is necessary for these species under
CITES (although a permit is needed in some countries that have taken
stricter measures than CITES requires).
[[Page 96321]]
However, recent data from Hong Kong's Agriculture Fisheries
Conservation Department (AFCD) suggests that these measures are not
adequately implemented or enforced by all CITES Parties with respect to
the oceanic whitetip shark. Specifically, since the oceanic whitetip
shark was listed under CITES Appendix II in 2014, approximately 1,263
kg (2,784 lbs) of oceanic whitetip fins have been confiscated upon
entry into Hong Kong because the country of origin did not include the
required CITES permits and paperwork. Since 2014, confiscated oceanic
whitetip fin shipments included 940.46 kg from Colombia, 10.96 kg from
the Seychelles, and 272.49 kg from the United Arab Emirates (AFCD,
Unpublished data).
In addition to trade regulations, finning bans have been
implemented by a number of countries, including the European Union
(EU), as well as by nine RFMOs. These finning bans range from requiring
fins remain attached to the body, to allowing fishers to remove shark
fins provided that the weight of the fins does not exceed 5 percent of
the total weight of shark carcasses landed or found onboard. In fact,
all of the relevant RFMOS prohibit fins onboard that weigh more than 5
percent of the weight of sharks to curb the practice of shark finning
(i.e., the fins-to-carcass ratio). Although the fins-to-carcass weight
ratios have the potential to reduce the practice of finning, these
regulations do not prohibit the fishing of sharks and a number of
issues associated with reliance on the 5 percent fins-to-carcass weight
ratio requirement have been identified, including: the percentage of
fins-to-carcass weight varies widely among species, fin types used in
calculation, the type of carcass weight used (whole or dressed) and fin
cutting techniques; under the fins-to-carcass weight ratio measure,
sharks that are not landed with fins attached to the body make it
difficult to match fins to a carcass (Lack and Sant 2009). There are
also issues with using the ratios for dried vs. fresh fins, which can
change the ratio substantially. Further, despite their existence, laws
and regulations are rapidly changing and are not always effectively
enforced by countries and RFMOs (Biery and Pauly 2012).
Numerous RFMOs and countries have also implemented various
regulations regarding shark fishing in general, which are described in
detail in the Status Review Report (Young et al., 2016). A number of
countries have enacted complete shark fishing bans (i.e., bans on
retention and possession of sharks and shark products), with the
Bahamas, Marshall Islands, Honduras, Sabah (Malaysia), and Tokelau (an
island territory of New Zealand) adding to the list in 2011, the Cook
Islands in 2012, and the Federated States of Micronesia in 2015. These
``shark sanctuaries'' (i.e., locations where harvesting sharks is
prohibited) can also be found in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape
(which encompasses around two million km\2\ and includes the Galapagos,
Cocos, and Malpelo Islands), in waters off the Maldives, Mauritania,
Palau, French Polynesia, New Caledonia and Raja Ampat, Indonesia.
However, it should be noted that sharks can still be caught as bycatch
in these areas and enforcement is likely difficult; thus, their
efficacy for reducing bycatch-related mortality of sharks is uncertain.
In addition to international regulatory mechanisms for the
conservation of sharks in general via shark finning and fishing bans, a
number of species-specific measures have been implemented for the
conservation of oceanic whitetip sharks in particular. Specifically,
the oceanic whitetip is the only shark species that has a no-retention
measure in every tuna RFMO, which underscores the species' conservation
status. However, the ERA team noted that international regulations
specific to oceanic whitetip sharks are likely inadequate to mitigate
threats that will result in further population declines throughout the
species' global range. Notably, these measures likely have varying
rates of implementation and enforcement and they do not prevent oceanic
whitetip sharks from being caught in the first place, nor the
subsequent at-vessel and post-release mortality that may result from
being captured. Additionally, evidence suggests illegal trafficking and
exportation activities of oceanic whitetip sharks are ongoing.
In 2011, the IATTC adopted Resolution C-11-10 for the conservation
of oceanic whitetip sharks, which provides that IATTC Members and
Cooperating non-Members shall prohibit retaining onboard,
transshipping, landing, storing, selling, or offering for sale any part
or whole carcass of oceanic whitetip sharks in the IATTC Convention
Area. However, this measure is not likely adequate to prevent capture
and a substantial amount of mortality in the main fishery that catches
oceanic whitetip sharks in this region (i.e., the tropical tuna purse
seine fishery). Though published mortality rates of the oceanic
whitetip shark in purse seine fisheries are not available, it is likely
the species experiences high mortality rates similar to congener C.
falciformis during and after interactions with purse seine fisheries
(i.e., ~85 percent in Western and Central Pacific and Indian Ocean
tropical purse seine fisheries; Poisson et al., (2014); Hutchinson et
al., (2015)). Given that oceanic whitetip sharks are captured in a net
where they are unable to swim, and they are also subjected to the
weight of whatever tonnage is on top of them, the sharks likely
experience high levels of stress that can lead to mortality even if
they are released alive. In addition, rough handling techniques
utilized after sharks are brought onboard can also increase mortality.
Thus, the ERA team concluded, and we agree, that the retention
prohibition enacted for oceanic whitetip sharks in the eastern Pacific,
particularly for the tropical tuna purse seine fishery, is not likely
effective in reducing the threat of overutilization in this region.
In the Western and Central Pacific, the WCPFC also has regulatory
measures for the conservation of sharks in general, as well as specific
measures for the conservation of oceanic whitetip sharks. Likely the
most influential management measure for the conservation of oceanic
whitetip sharks in the Western and Central Pacific is Conservation
Management Measure (CMM) 2011-04, which prohibits WCPFC vessels from
retaining onboard, transshipping, storing on a fishing vessel, or
landing any oceanic whitetip shark, in whole or in part, in the
fisheries covered by the Convention. However, observations from the
longline fishery have shown that CMM 2011-04 for the retention
prohibition of oceanic whitetip is not being strictly followed (or not
yet fully implemented), with non-negligible proportions of oceanic
whitetips still being retained or finned. In fact, both in number and
proportionally more oceanic whitetip sharks were retained in 2013 (the
first year of the CMM) than 2012 in the longline fishery (Rice et al.,
2015). In addition, observations from the Western and Central tropical
tuna purse seine fishery suggest similar issues discussed previously
for the eastern Pacific purse seine fishery: Even if live release is
strictly practiced in purse seine fisheries, the number of sharks
surviving is expected to be low.
In addition to finning controls and species-specific retention
bans, the WCPFC has also adopted some conservation measures related to
fisheries gear to reduce bycatch of oceanic whitetip sharks in the
first place. For example, CMM 2014-05, which became effective in July
2015, requires each national fleet to either ban wire leaders or ban
shark lines, both of which have potential to reduce shark
[[Page 96322]]
bycatch. However, while it is predicted that oceanic whitetip shark
mortality may be reduced by up to 40 percent if both measures are used,
this CMM allows flag-states to choose which fishing technique they
exclude. Using Monte Carlo simulations, Harley and Pilling (2016)
determined the following: if flag-states choose to exclude the
technique least used by their vessels, the median predicted reduction
in fishing-related mortality is only 10 percent for the oceanic
whitetip shark. If flag-states exclude the technique most used by their
vessels, this would reduce the fishing mortality rate by 30 percent.
This compares to a reduction of 40 percent if choice was removed and
both techniques are prohibited. Therefore, given the high levels of
fishing mortality experienced by this species, it is unlikely that the
options under CMM (2014-05) of either banning shark lines or wire
traces will result in sufficient reductions in fishing mortality
(Harley et al., 2015). Thus, based on the foregoing information, the
ERA team concluded, and we agree, that despite the increasing species-
specific management measures in this region, given the severely
depleted state of the oceanic whitetip population and the significant
levels of fishing mortality the species experiences in this region,
less[hyphen]than[hyphen]full implementation will erode the benefits of
any mitigation measures.
In the Atlantic Ocean, ICCAT is the main regulatory body for the
conservation and management of tuna and tuna-like species. In 2010,
ICCAT developed Recommendation 10-07, which specifically prohibits the
retention, transshipping, landing, storing, selling, or offering for
sale any part or whole carcass of oceanic whitetip sharks in any
fishery; however, like other previously described retention bans, the
retention ban implemented by ICCAT does not necessarily prevent all
fisheries-associated mortality. Although oceanic whitetip sharks have a
relatively higher at-vessel survivorship rate than other pelagic sharks
in the Atlantic, some will still likely die as a result of being
caught. As previously discussed in the Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes section of this
proposed rule, Brazil is one of the top 26 shark-catching countries in
the world and the largest oceanic whitetip catching country in the
Atlantic Ocean, comprising 89 percent of the total oceanic whitetip
catch reported to ICCAT from 1992-2014. Thus, the following text
focuses on existing regulatory mechanisms and their efficacy for
reducing fishing pressure on oceanic whitetip sharks in Brazil. Since
the implementation of ICCAT Recommendation 10-07, Brazil reported 12 mt
of oceanic whitetip from 2013-2014, which indicates the species is
still being caught and continues to experience fisheries-related
mortality in this portion of its range. In addition to ICCAT
regulations, sharks in Brazil must be landed with corresponding fins
and a 5 percent fin to carcass weight ratio is required. In addition,
all carcasses and fins must be unloaded and weighed and the weights
reported to authorities. Pelagic gillnets and trawls are prohibited in
waters less than 3 nm (5.6 km) from the coast; however, given that the
oceanic whitetip is a pelagic species, a gillnet ban within 3 nm of the
coast is not likely going to be beneficial to the species. Further, it
is generally recognized that these regulations are poorly enforced
(Chiaramonte and Vooren 2007). In December 2014, the Brazilian
Government's Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation
approved the National Plan of Action for the Conservation of
Elasmobranchs of Brazil (No 125). However, this plan will not be fully
implemented until 2019, and it focuses on a list of 12 priority species
that does not include the oceanic whitetip shark. As noted previously,
the oceanic whitetip shark was designated as a ``species threatened by
overexploitation'' in 2004 by Brazil's Ministry of Environment, and
listed under Annex II of Brazil's Normative Ruling No. 5 of May 21,
2004. In 2014, Brazil finalized its national assessment regarding the
extinction risk of Brazilian fauna, and listed the oceanic whitetip
shark as ``Vulnerable'' under Brazil's National Official List of
Endangered Species of Fauna--Fish and Aquatic Invertebrate (ICMBio
2014). Species listed as ``Vulnerable'' enjoy full protection,
including, among other measures, the prohibition of capture, transport,
storage, custody, handling, processing and marketing. The capture,
transport, storage, and handling of specimens of the species shall only
be allowed for research purposes or for the conservation of the
species, with the permission of the Instituto Chico Mendes. However,
whether these regulations are adequately implemented and enforced is
unclear. In fact, there is strong opposition from the fishing industry
and some ordinances guaranteeing protection to endangered species in
the country have recently been canceled (Di Dario et al., 2014).
Additionally, systematic data collection from fleets fishing over
Brazilian jurisdiction ended in 2012, and onboard observer programs
have been cancelled, which renders any further monitoring of South
Atlantic shark populations difficult or impossible (Barreto et al.,
2015). Given the foregoing information, it appears that existing
regulatory mechanisms in Brazil may not be adequate to effectively
manage the significant threat of fishing pressure and associated
mortality on oceanic whitetip sharks in this region.
The ERA team also identified several issues with regulations in the
Indian Ocean. The IOTC, the main regulatory body for managing tuna and
tuna-like species, has management measures in place for sharks in
general, and also specifically for the oceanic whitetip shark. In 2013,
the IOTC passed Resolution 13-06 that prohibits the retention,
transshipment, landing, or storing of any part or whole carcass of
oceanic whitetip sharks. However, unlike similar regulations
implemented by other RFMOs, the IOTC retention prohibition of oceanic
whitetip shark exempts ``artisanal fisheries operating exclusively in
their respective EEZ for the purpose of local consumption.'' However,
the definition of artisanal vessels in the IOTC encompasses a wide
array of boats with vastly different characteristics. They range from
the pirogue that fishes close to shore for subsistence with no motor,
no deck and no holding facilities, to a longliner, gillnetter or purse
seiner of less than 24 m with an inboard motor, deck, communications,
fish holding facilities, and in some cases chilling or freezing
capabilities. This latter vessel could potentially conduct fishing
operations offshore, including outside its EEZ (Moreno and Herrera
2013). For example, in 2014 and 2015 the Islamic Republic of Iran and
Sri Lanka reported 239 mt of oceanic whitetip sharks caught by gillnets
that fall under the definition of ``artisanal fisheries.''
Additionally, while some no[hyphen]retention measures ban the ``selling
or offering for sale'' of any products from the specified shark
species, the IOTC oceanic whitetip shark measure does not (Clarke
2013). Further, this measure is not binding on India, which is one of
the main oceanic whitetip shark catching countries identified by the
IOTC in the Indian Ocean. Finally, IOTC Resolution 13-06 was passed as
an interim pilot measure; therefore, it is highly uncertain as to
whether this measure will be ongoing into the foreseeable future. As a
result, it appears that the retention ban of oceanic whitetip in the
Indian Ocean is limited in scope relative to other RFMO no-retention
measures, and only
[[Page 96323]]
partially protective depending on whether the measure is adequately
implemented and enforced. For example, in Indonesia, which is the
largest shark fishing nation in the world, oceanic whitetip sharks are
protected in order to comply with IOTC Resolution 13-06. However,
evidence suggests that this Resolution may not be strictly adhered to.
For instance, in a genetic barcoding study of shark fin samples
throughout traditional fish markets in Indonesia from mid-2012 to mid-
2014, oceanic whitetip shark was identified as present (Sembiring et
al., 2015) despite being prohibited in 2013. In addition, authorities
confiscated around 3,000 oceanic whitetip shark fins from sharks caught
in waters near Java Island as recent as October 2015 (South China
Morning Post 2015). Thus, while it generally appears that the IOTC has
increased its number of management measures for sharks, including the
oceanic whitetip, these regulations are likely inadequate to prevent
further population declines of the oceanic whitetip shark in this
region as a result of overutilization.
It is clear that many countries and RFMOs have implemented shark
finning bans or have prohibited the sale or trade of shark fins or
products, and have even prohibited the retention of oceanic whitetip
sharks in their respective fisheries, with declining trends in finning
and catches of oceanic whitetip sharks evident in some locations as a
result of these regulations (e.g., Fiji, Australia and the United
States; see Young et al., 2016 for more details). It also evident that
the international trade in shark fins may be gradually slowing. In
fact, as described previously, the trade in shark fins through China,
Hong Kong SAR, which has served as an indicator of the global trade for
many years, fell by 22 percent in 2012. Additionally, current
indications are that the shark fin trade through Hong Kong SAR and
China will continue to contract (Dent & Clarke 2015). However, although
the overall situation regarding the shark fin trade appears to be
improving due to current regulations (e.g., increasing number of
finning bans) and trends (e.g., waning demand for shark fins), and it
may not be as severe a threat to some species of sharks compared to
others, evidence suggests that oceanic whitetip fins are considered to
be preferred or ``first choice'' in the Hong Kong market (Vannuccini
1999; E-CoP16Prop.42 2013) and the high demand for oceanic whitetip
fins is ongoing. This is evidenced by recent genetic studies that
confirm the presence of oceanic whitetip shark fins in several markets
throughout its range, as well as several recent incidents of illegal
finning and trafficking of oceanic whitetip fins despite national and
international regulations. For example, in February 2013, oceanic
whitetip fins were found in a large seizure of fins from a Taiwanese
vessel illegally fishing in the Marshall Islands. In 2014, illegal
oceanic whitetip shark fins were discovered in a random sample
inspection of three 40 kg sacks slated for export from Costa Rica to
Hong Kong (Tico Times 2014). Additionally, and as previously noted,
Indonesian authorities seized 3,000 shark fins belonging to oceanic
whitetip sharks that were reportedly caught in waters around Java
Island in October 2015. The fins, which were about to be flown to Hong
Kong, were seized at the international airport that serves the capital
Jakarta. This haul was worth an estimated U.S. $72,000 in Indonesia,
but would reportedly fetch several times that amount in Hong Kong
(South China Morning Post 2015). Therefore, it is clear that the
oceanic whitetip shark is subject to illegal fishing and trafficking,
particularly for its valuable fins. Given the recent downturn in the
shark fin trade (Dent & Clarke, 2015; Eriksson & Clarke 2015), the
threat of this IUU fishing for the sole purpose of shark fins may not
be as significant into the future. However, based on the best available
information on the species' declining population trends throughout its
range, as well as current utilization levels, the present mortality
rates associated with illegal fishing and its impacts on oceanic
whitetip shark populations may be contributing to the overutilization
of the species. Therefore, based on the foregoing information, the ERA
team concluded that despite national and international regulations to
protect the oceanic whitetip, illegal finning and exportation
activities are ongoing. As such, and based on the best available
information, existing regulatory mechanisms to control for
overutilization by the shark fin trade are likely inadequate to
significantly reduce this threat to the oceanic whitetip shark at this
time.
Overall, and based on the above review of regulatory measures (in
addition to the regulations described in Young et al., 2016), the ERA
team concluded, and we agree, that existing regulatory mechanisms to
control for overutilization are largely inadequate to significantly
reduce this global threat to the oceanic whitetip shark at this time.
The ERA team acknowledged that in some locations, regulatory measures
may be effective for reducing the threat of overutilization to some
degree. For example, as noted in the U.S. Domestic Regulatory
Mechanisms section, in the U.S. Northwest Atlantic and Pacific Island
States and Territories oceanic whitetip sharks are managed under
comprehensive management plans and regulations with trip limits,
quotas, logbook and protected species requirements, and other various
fishing restrictions. In the Northwest Atlantic, oceanic whitetip
sharks are managed under the pelagic species complex of the Atlantic
HMS FMP, with commercial quotas imposed that restrict the overall level
of oceanic whitetip sharks taken in this part of its range. Pelagic
longline gear is heavily managed and strictly monitored. The use of
pelagic longline gear (targeting swordfish, tuna and/or shark) also
requires specific permits, with all required permits administered under
a limited access program. Presently, no new permits are being issued;
thus, persons wishing to enter the fishery may only obtain these
permits by transferring the permit from a permit holder who is leaving
the fishery, and transferees are currently subject to vessel upgrading
restrictions. These national regulations, as detailed in the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP and described in this Status Review Report,
combined with ICCAT's Recommendation 10-07 on the retention prohibition
of oceanic whitetip shark, have likely led to the recent stabilization
of the Northwest Atlantic population. In Hawaii, finning and no-
retention regulations have resulted in a significant decline in the
number of oceanic whitetip sharks finned and an increase in the number
of sharks released alive. Thus, these U.S. conservation and management
measures in and of themselves are not inadequate such that they
contribute to the extinction risk of the oceanic whitetip shark by
increasing demographic risks (e.g., further abundance declines) or the
threat of overutilization (e.g., unsustainable catch rates) currently
and in the foreseeable future. However, the oceanic whitetip shark is
highly migratory and often moves beyond U.S. jurisdiction. For example,
in just one tagging study conducted in the Northwest Atlantic, five
tagged oceanic whitetip sharks made transboundary movements, spending
time in waters managed by different countries (United States, Cuba, and
several of the windward Caribbean islands) or the high seas that are
managed by international bodies (Howey-Jordan et al. 2013).
Additionally, the ERA team emphasized that regulatory mechanisms
[[Page 96324]]
to control for overutilization of the species are largely inadequate
throughout the rest of the species' global range. Therefore, based on
the best available information, and given the significant global
abundance declines of the oceanic whitetip shark as a result of
overutilization, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is
likely a threat contributing to the species' risk of extinction
throughout its range.
Overall Risk Summary
Guided by the results and discussions from the demographic risk
analysis and threats assessment, the ERA team members used their
informed professional judgment to make an overall extinction risk
determination for the oceanic whitetip shark now and in the foreseeable
future. The ERA team concluded, and we agree, that the oceanic whitetip
shark currently has a ``moderate'' risk of extinction globally. The ERA
team was fairly confident in determining the overall level of
extinction risk of the oceanic whitetip shark, placing more than half
of their likelihood points in the ``moderate risk'' category. To
express some uncertainty, particularly regarding the lack of robust
abundance trends and catch data for populations in certain areas (e.g.,
South Atlantic and Indian Ocean), as well as potential stabilizing
trends observed in two areas (e.g., Northwest Atlantic and Hawaii), the
team placed some of their likelihood points in the ``low risk'' and
``high risk'' categories as well. Likelihood points attributed to the
overall level of extinction risk categories were as follows: Low Risk
(20/60), Moderate Risk (34/60), High Risk (6/60). The ERA team
reiterated that the once abundant and ubiquitous oceanic whitetip shark
has likely experienced significant historical population declines
throughout its global range, with multiple data sources and analyses,
including a stock assessment and trends in relative abundance,
suggesting declines greater than 70-80 percent in most areas. The ERA
team concluded that declining abundance trends of varying magnitudes
are likely ongoing in all three ocean basins.
In terms of threats to the species, the ERA team noted that the
most significant threat to the continued existence of the oceanic
whitetip shark in the foreseeable future is ongoing and significantly
high rates of fishing mortality driven by demands of the international
trade in shark fins and meat, as well as impacts related to incidental
bycatch and IUU fishing. The ERA team emphasized that the oceanic
whitetip shark's vertical and horizontal distribution significantly
increases its exposure to industrial fisheries, including pelagic
longline and purse seine fisheries operating within the species' core
tropical habitat throughout its global range. In addition to declines
in oceanic whitetip catches throughout its range, there is also
evidence of declining average size over time in some areas, which is
particularly concerning given evidence that litter size is potentially
correlated with maternal length. With such extensive declines in the
species' global abundance and the ongoing threat of overutilization,
the species' slow growth and relatively low fecundity may limit its
ability for compensation. Related to this, the low genetic diversity of
oceanic whitetip is also cause for concern and a viable risk over the
foreseeable future for this species. This is particularly concerning
since it is possible (though uncertain) that a reduction in genetic
diversity following the large reduction in population size due to
overutilization has not yet manifested in the species. Loss of genetic
diversity can lead to reduced fitness and a limited ability to adapt to
a rapidly changing environment, thus increasing the species' overall
risk of extinction.
Finally, the species' extensive distribution, ranging across entire
oceans and across multiple international boundaries complicates
management of the species. The ERA team agreed that implementation and
enforcement of management measures that could reduce the threat of
overutilization to the species are likely highly variable and/or
lacking altogether across the species' range. The ERA team acknowledged
a significant increase in species-specific management measures to
control for overutilization of oceanic whitetip shark across its range;
however, the ERA team also noted that most of these regulations,
particularly the retention prohibitions enacted by all relevant RFMOs
throughout the range of the species, are too new to truly determine
their efficacy in reducing mortality of oceanic whitetip shark. Despite
this limitation, and with the exception of the Northwest Atlantic and
Pacific Island States and Territories, the ERA team was not confident
in the adequacy of these regulations to reduce the threat of
overutilization and prevent further abundance declines in the
foreseeable future. First, the ERA team discussed the fact that
retention prohibitions do not prevent at-vessel and post-release
mortality, which is likely high in some fisheries. In addition, the
biggest concern to the ERA team with regard to these regulatory
mechanisms going forward is the lack of full implementation and
enforcement. The ERA team noted that proper implementation and
enforcement of these regulations would likely result in a reduction in
overall mortality of the species over time. However, the best available
information suggests that this may not currently be the case. Given the
species' depleted state throughout its range, the ERA team agreed that
less than full implementation and enforcement of current regulations is
likely undermining any conservation benefit to the species.
Based on all of the foregoing information, which represents the
best scientific and commercial data available regarding current
demographic risks and threats to the species, the ERA team concluded
that the oceanic whitetip shark currently has a moderate risk of
extinction throughout its range. We concluded that the species does not
currently have a high risk of extinction because of the following: The
species has a significantly broad distribution and does not seem to
have been extirpated in any region, even in areas where there is heavy
harvest bycatch and utilization of the species' high-value fins; there
appears to be a potential for relative stability in population sizes on
the order of 5-10 years at the post-decline depressed state, as
evidenced by the potential stabilization of two populations (e.g., NW
Atlantic and Hawaii) at a diminished abundance, which suggests that
this species is potentially capable of persisting at a low population
size; and the overall reduction of the fin trade as well as increasing
management regulations will likely reduce the threat of overutilization
to some extent, and thus reduce the species' overall risk of
extinction. However, given the species' significant historical and
ongoing abundance declines of varying magnitudes in all three ocean
basins, slow growth, low fecundity, and low genetic diversity, combined
with ongoing threats of overutilization and largely inadequate
regulatory mechanisms, the ERA team concluded that the oceanic whitetip
shark currently has a moderate risk of extinction throughout its global
range. In other words, due to significant and ongoing threats of
overutilization and largely inadequate regulatory mechanisms, current
trends in the species' abundance, productivity and genetic diversity
place the species on a trajectory towards a high risk of extinction in
the foreseeable future of ~30 years.
[[Page 96325]]
Conservation Efforts
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary, when making a
listing determination for a species, to take into account those
efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation to protect
the species. In judging the efficacy of protective efforts, we rely on
the Services' joint ``Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions'' (``PECE;'' 68 FR 15100; March 28,
2003). The PECE is designed to guide determinations on whether any
conservation efforts that have been recently adopted or implemented,
but not yet proven to be successful, will result in recovering the
species to the point at which listing is not warranted or contribute to
forming a basis for listing a species as threatened rather than
endangered. The purpose of the PECE is to ensure consistent and
adequate evaluation of future or recently implemented conservation
efforts identified in conservation agreements, conservation plans,
management plans, and similar documents developed by Federal agencies,
State and local governments, Tribal governments, businesses,
organizations, and individuals when making listing decisions. The PECE
provides direction for the consideration of such conservation efforts
that have not yet been implemented, or have been implemented but have
not yet demonstrated effectiveness. The policy is expected to
facilitate the development by states and other entities of conservation
efforts that sufficiently improve a species' status so as to make
listing the species as threatened or endangered unnecessary. The PECE
established two basic criteria: (1) The certainty that the conservation
efforts will be implemented, and (2) the certainty that the efforts
will be effective. Satisfaction of the criteria for implementation and
effectiveness establishes a given protective effort as a candidate for
consideration, but does not mean that an effort will ultimately change
the risk assessment for the species. Overall, the PECE analysis
ascertains whether the formalized conservation effort improves the
status of the species at the time a listing determination is made.
The concern regarding the practice of finning and its effect on
global shark populations has been growing both domestically and
internationally. Notably, the push to stop shark finning and curb the
trade of shark fins is evident overseas and even in Asian countries,
where the demand for shark fin soup is highest. For example, in a
recent report from WildAid, Whitcraft et al. (2014) reported the
following regarding the declining demand for shark fins: An 82 percent
decline in sales reported by shark fin vendors in Guangzhou, China and
a decrease in prices (47 percent retail and 57 percent wholesale) over
the past 2 years; 85 percent of Chinese consumers surveyed online said
they gave up shark fin soup within the past 3 years, and two-thirds of
these respondents cited awareness campaigns as a reason for ending
their shark fin consumption; 43 percent of consumers responded that
much of the shark fin in the market is fake; 24 airlines, 3 shipping
lines, and 5 hotel groups have banned shark fins from their operations;
there has been an 80 percent decline from 2007 levels in prices paid to
fishermen in Tanjung Luar and Lombok in Indonesia and a decline of 19
percent since 2002-2003 in Central Maluku, Southeastern Maluku and East
Nusa Tenggara; and of 20 Beijing restaurant representatives
interviewed, 19 reported a significant decline in shark fin
consumption. While there seems to be a growing trend to prohibit and
discourage shark finning domestically and internationally, it is
difficult to predict at this time whether the trend will be effective
in reducing the threat of overutilization to the oceanic whitetip
shark. Nonetheless, we conclude that these conservation measures are
not likely to be effective in reducing current threats to oceanic
whitetip shark to the point that listing would no longer be warranted.
There are also many other smaller national and international
organizations with shark-focused goals that include advocating the
conservation of sharks through education and campaign programs and
conducting shark research to fill data gaps regarding the status of
shark species. Some of these organizations include: The Pew Environment
Group, Oceana, Ocean Conservancy, Shark Trust, Bite-Back, Shark
Project, Pelagic Shark Research Foundation, Shark Research Institute,
and Shark Savers. More information on the specifics of these programs
and groups can be found on their Web sites. Important research on
oceanic whitetip sharks is also being conducted in a joint partnership
by Nova Southeastern University and the Guy Harvey Research Institute.
To facilitate conservation and management efforts for oceanic whitetip
sharks, the Guy Harvey Research Institute/Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation
and their project partners are using integrative approaches to
investigate the population connectivity of this species, including
ongoing studies of the global stock structure of oceanic whitetip
sharks by using genetic techniques, as well as migration patterns of
this species in the western Atlantic with the aid of satellite tracking
technologies. All of these conservation efforts and non-regulatory
mechanisms are beneficial to the persistence of the oceanic whitetip
shark. The implementation of many of these efforts, especially the
shark research programs, will help to fill current data gaps in oceanic
whitetip abundance, genetics, and movement patterns, which can
ultimately help inform other conservation and management measures.
However, it is too soon to tell whether the collective conservation
efforts of both non-governmental and academic organizations will be
effective in reducing threats to the species, particularly those
related to overutilization of the oceanic whitetip shark.
Proposed Determination
Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that NMFS make listing
determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data
available after conducting a review of the status of the species and
taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or
foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and
conserve the species. We have independently reviewed the best available
scientific and commercial information, including the petition, public
comments submitted on the 90-day finding (81 FR 1376; January 12,
2016), the status review report (Young et al., 2016), and other
published and unpublished information, and we have consulted with
species experts and individuals familiar with the oceanic whitetip
shark. We considered each of the section 4(a)(1) factors to determine
whether it contributed significantly to the extinction risk of the
species on its own. We also considered the combination of those factors
to determine whether they collectively contributed significantly to the
extinction risk of the species. Therefore, our determination set forth
below is based on a synthesis and integration of the foregoing
information, factors and considerations, and their effects on the
status of the species throughout its range. With respect to the term
``foreseeable future,'' we accept the ERA team's definition and
rationale of approximately 30 years as reasonable for the reliable
prediction of threats on the biological status of the species. That
rationale for a foreseeable future of approximately 30 years was
provided in detail previously (refer back to the
[[Page 96326]]
Assessment of Extinction Risk--Methods section of this proposed rule).
We conclude that the oceanic whitetip shark is not presently in
danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range. We summarize the factors supporting
this conclusion as follows: (1) The best available information
indicates that the species has experienced significant and ongoing
abundance declines in all three ocean basins (i.e., globally); (2)
oceanic whitetip sharks possess life history characteristics that
increase their vulnerability to harvest, including slow growth,
relatively late age of maturity, and low fecundity; (3) the species'
low genetic diversity in concert with steep global abundance declines
and ongoing threats of overutilization may pose a viable risk to the
species in the foreseeable future; (4) due to the species' preferred
vertical and horizontal habitat, the oceanic whitetip shark is
extremely susceptible to incidental capture in both longline and purse
seine fisheries throughout its range, and thus experiences substantial
levels of fishing mortality from these fisheries; (5) the oceanic
whitetip shark is a preferred species in the international fin market
for its large, morphologically distinct fins, which incentivizes the
retention and/or finning of the species; and (6) despite the increasing
number of regulations for the conservation of the species, existing
regulatory mechanisms are largely inadequate for addressing the most
important threat of overutilization throughout a large portion of the
species' range. We conclude that the species is not presently in danger
of extinction as a result of the following supporting factors: (1) The
species is broadly distributed over a large geographic range, and does
not seem to have been extirpated in any region, even in areas where
there is heavy harvest bycatch and utilization of the species' high-
value fins; (2) there appears to be a potential for relative stability
in population sizes on the order of 5-10 years at the post-decline
depressed state, as evidenced by the potential stabilization of two
populations (e.g., NW Atlantic and Hawaii) at a diminished abundance,
which suggests that this species is potentially capable of persisting
at a low population size; (3) there is no evidence of a range
contraction and there is no evidence of habitat loss or destruction;
(4) the overall reduction of the fin trade as well as increasing
management regulations will likely reduce the threat of overutilization
to some extent in the foreseeable future, and thus reduce the species'
current overall risk of extinction; (5) there is no evidence that
disease or predation are contributing to an increased risk of
extinction of the species; and (6) there is no evidence that other
natural or manmade factors are contributing to an increased risk of
extinction of the species.
As a result of the foregoing findings, which are based on the best
scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that while the
oceanic whitetip shark is not presently in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, it is likely to
become so within the foreseeable future. Accordingly, the oceanic
whitetip shark meets the definition of a threatened species, and thus,
the oceanic whitetip shark warrants listing as a threatened species at
this time.
Effects of Listing
Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA include the development and implementation of
recovery plans (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); designation of critical habitat, if
prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); a requirement that
Federal agencies 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 designated critical habitat (16 U.S.C.
1536); and prohibitions on ``taking'' (16 U.S.C. 1538). Recognition of
the species' plight through listing may also promote conservation
actions by Federal and state agencies, foreign entities, private
groups, and individuals.
Identifying Section 7 Consultation Requirements
Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) of the ESA and NMFS/FWS
regulations 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. If a proposed species is ultimately listed,
Federal agencies must consult on any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out if those actions may affect the listed species or its
critical habitat and ensure that such actions do not jeopardize the
species or result in adverse modification or destruction of critical
habitat should it be designated. Examples of Federal actions that may
affect the oceanic whitetip shark include, but are not limited to:
Alternative energy projects, discharge of pollution from point sources,
non-point source pollution, contaminated waste and plastic disposal,
dredging, pile-driving, development of water quality standards, vessel
traffic, military activities, and fisheries management practices.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C.
1532(3)) 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. Designations of critical habitat must be
based on the best scientific data available and must take into
consideration the economic, national security, and other relevant
impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. If we
determine that it is prudent and determinable, we will publish a
proposed designation of critical habitat for the oceanic whitetip shark
in a separate rule. Public input on features and areas in U.S. waters
that may meet the definition of critical habitat for the oceanic
whitetip shark is invited.
Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the ESA
We are proposing to list the oceanic whitetip shark, Carcharhinus
longimanus, as a threatened species under the ESA. In the case of
threatened species, ESA section 4(d) leaves it to the Secretary's
discretion whether, and to what extent, to extend the section 9(a)
``take'' prohibitions to the species, and authorizes us to issue
regulations necessary and advisable for the conservation of the
species. Thus, we have flexibility under section 4(d) to tailor
protective regulations based on the needs of and threats to the
species. The section 4(d) protective regulations may prohibit, with
respect to threatened species, some or all of the acts which section
9(a) of the ESA prohibits with respect to endangered species. We are
[[Page 96327]]
not proposing such regulations at this time, but may consider potential
protective regulations pursuant to section 4(d) for the oceanic
whitetip in a future rulemaking. In order to inform our consideration
of appropriate protective regulations for the species, we seek
information from the public on the threats to oceanic whitetip shark
and possible measures for their conservation.
Role of Peer Review
The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure that listings are
based on the best scientific and commercial data available. In December
2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final
Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing minimum peer
review standards, a transparent process for public disclosure of peer
review planning, and opportunities for public participation. The OMB
Bulletin, implemented under the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-
554), is intended to enhance the quality and credibility of the Federal
government's scientific information, and applies to influential or
highly influential scientific information disseminated on or after June
16, 2005. To satisfy our requirements under the OMB Bulletin, we
obtained independent peer review of the status review report.
Independent specialists were selected from the academic and scientific
community for this review. All peer reviewer comments were addressed
prior to dissemination of the final status review report and
publication of this proposed rule.
Public Comments Solicited on Listing
To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and effective as possible, we solicit comments and
suggestions from the public, other governmental agencies, the
scientific community, industry, environmental groups, and any other
interested parties. Comments are encouraged on this proposal (See DATES
and ADDRESSES). Specifically, we are interested in information
regarding: (1) New or updated information regarding the range,
distribution, and abundance of the oceanic whitetip shark; (2) new or
updated information regarding the genetics and population structure of
the oceanic whitetip shark; (3) habitat within the range of the oceanic
whitetip shark that was present in the past, but may have been lost
over time; (4) new or updated biological or other relevant data
concerning any threats to the oceanic whitetip shark (e.g., post-
release mortality rates, finning rates in commercial fisheries, etc.);
(5) current or planned activities within the range of the oceanic
whitetip shark and their possible impact on the species; (6) recent
observations or sampling of the oceanic whitetip shark; and (7) efforts
being made to protect the oceanic whitetip shark.
Public Comments Solicited on Critical Habitat
We request quantitative evaluations describing the quality and
extent of habitats for the oceanic whitetip shark, as well as
information on areas that may qualify as critical habitat for the
species in U.S. waters. Specific areas that include the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, where
such features may require special management considerations or
protection, should be identified. Areas outside the occupied
geographical area should also be identified, if such areas themselves
are essential to the conservation of the species. ESA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(g) specify that critical habitat shall not
be designated within foreign countries or in other areas outside of
U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, we request information only on potential
areas of critical habitat within waters under U.S. jurisdiction.
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the Secretary to consider the
``economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant
impact'' of designating a particular area as critical habitat. Section
4(b)(2) also authorizes the Secretary to exclude from a critical
habitat designation those particular areas where the Secretary finds
that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation,
unless excluding that area will result in extinction of the species.
For features and areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, we
also request information describing: (1) Activities or other threats to
the essential features or activities that could be affected by
designating them as critical habitat; and (2) the positive and negative
economic, national security and other relevant impacts, including
benefits to the recovery of the species, likely to result if these
areas are designated as critical habitat. We seek information regarding
the conservation benefits of designating areas within waters under U.S.
jurisdiction as critical habitat. In keeping with the guidance provided
by OMB (2000; 2003), we seek information that would allow the
monetization of these effects to the extent possible, as well as
information on qualitative impacts to economic values.
Data reviewed may include, but are not limited to: (1) Scientific
or commercial publications; (2) administrative reports, maps or other
graphic materials; (3) information received from experts; and (4)
comments from interested parties. Comments and data particularly are
sought concerning: (1) Maps and specific information describing the
amount, distribution, and use type (e.g., foraging or migration) by the
oceanic whitetip shark, as well as any additional information on
occupied and unoccupied habitat areas; (2) the reasons why any habitat
should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided
by sections 3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) of the ESA; (3) information regarding
the benefits of designating particular areas as critical habitat; (4)
current or planned activities in the areas that might be proposed for
designation and their possible impacts; (5) any foreseeable economic or
other potential impacts resulting from designation, and in particular,
any impacts on small entities; (6) whether specific unoccupied areas
may be essential to provide additional habitat areas for the
conservation of the species; and (7) potential peer reviewers for a
proposed critical habitat designation, including persons with
biological and economic expertise relevant to the species, region, and
designation of critical habitat. We seek information regarding critical
habitat for the oceanic whitetip shark as soon as possible, but no
later than March 29, 2017.
Public Hearings
If requested by the public by February 13, 2017, hearings will be
held regarding the proposal to list the oceanic whitetip shark as a
threatened species under the ESA. If hearings are requested, details
regarding location(s), date(s), and time(s) will be published in a
subsequent Federal Register notice.
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Classification
National Environmental Policy Act
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA restricts the information that may be
considered when assessing species for listing and sets the basis upon
which listing determinations must be made. Based on the requirements in
section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA 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
[[Page 96328]]
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
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 state agencies in each state in
which the species is believed to occur, and those states will be
invited to comment on this proposal. We have considered, among other
things, Federal, state, and local conservation measures. As we proceed,
we intend to continue engaging in informal and formal contacts with the
state, and other affected local or regional entities, giving careful
consideration to all written and oral comments received.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports,
Transportation.
Dated: December 22, 2016.
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 223 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec. 223.201-202
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for
Sec. 223.206(d)(9).
0
2. In Sec. 223.102, in paragraph (e), add a new entry for ``Shark,
oceanic whitetip'' under Fishes in alphabetical order by Common Name to
read as follows:
Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous
species.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------- Citation(s) for Critical
Description of listing habitat ESA rules
Common name Scientific name listed entity determination(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fishes
* * * * * * *
Shark, oceanic whitetip..... Carcharhinus Entire species. [Insert Federal NA NA
longimanus. Register page
where the
document
begins],
[Insert date of
publication
when published
as a final
rule].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
see 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
FR 58612; November 20, 1991).
[FR Doc. 2016-31460 Filed 12-28-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P