[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 71 (Thursday, April 15, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19863-19868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07714]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 210409-0078;RTID 0648-XR116]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition
To List the Shortfin Mako Shark as Threatened or Endangered Under the
Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
[[Page 19864]]
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: 90-day petition finding, request for information, and
initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the
shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) as threatened or endangered
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to designate critical
habitat concurrent with the listing. We find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. Therefore, we are initiating a
status review of the species to determine whether listing under the ESA
is warranted. To ensure this status review is comprehensive, we are
soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding this
species.
DATES: Scientific and commercial information pertinent to the
petitioned action must be received by June 14, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2021-0028 by the following method:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NMFS-2021-0028 in the Search box.
Click on the ``Comment'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
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).
Interested persons may obtain a copy of the petition online at the
NMFS website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/petitions-awaiting-90-day-findings.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adrienne Lohe, NMFS Office of
Protected Resources, (301) 427-8442, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 25, 2021, we received a petition from Defenders of
Wildlife to list the shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) as a
threatened or endangered species under the ESA and to designate
critical habitat concurrent with the listing. The petition asserts that
I. oxyrinchus is threatened by 4 of the 5 ESA section 4(a)(1) factors:
(1) Present and threatened modification of its habitat; (2)
overutilization for commercial and recreational purposes; (3)
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (4) other natural or
manmade factors. The petition is available online (see ADDRESSES).
ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions and Evaluation
Framework
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90
days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or
endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly
publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)).
When it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information
in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a
``positive 90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a
review of the status of the species concerned during which we will
conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and
commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a
finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted
within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the
12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available
information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day
stage, a ``may be warranted'' finding does not prejudge the outcome of
the status review.
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which
is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species,
any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when mature (16
U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
(jointly, ``the Services'') policy clarifies the agencies'
interpretation of the phrase ``distinct population segment'' for the
purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the
ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is
``endangered'' if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and ``threatened'' if it is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20),
respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our
implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened
or endangered based on any one or a combination of the following five
section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (2) overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3)
disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
to address identified threats; (5) or any other natural or manmade
factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR
424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)) define ``substantial scientific or commercial
information'' in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist,
or reclassify a species as credible scientific or commercial
information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable
person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that
the action proposed in the petition may be warranted. Conclusions drawn
in the petition without the support of credible scientific or
commercial information will not be considered ``substantial
information.'' In reaching the initial (90-day) finding on the
petition, we will consider the information described in sections 50 CFR
424.14(c), (d), and (g) (if applicable).
Our determination as to whether the petition provides substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted will depend in part on the degree to which the
petition includes the following types of information: (1) Information
on current population status and trends and estimates of current
population sizes and distributions, both in captivity and the wild, if
available; (2) identification of the factors under section 4(a)(1) of
the ESA that may affect the species and where these factors are acting
upon the species; (3) whether and to what extent any or all of the
factors alone or in combination identified in section 4(a)(1) of the
ESA may cause the species to be an endangered species or threatened
species (i.e., the species is currently in danger of extinction or is
likely to become so within the foreseeable
[[Page 19865]]
future), and, if so, how high in magnitude and how imminent the threats
to the species and its habitat are; (4) information on adequacy of
regulatory protections and effectiveness of conservation activities by
States as well as other parties, that have been initiated or that are
ongoing, that may protect the species or its habitat; and (5) a
complete, balanced representation of the relevant facts, including
information that may contradict claims in the petition. See 50 CFR
424.14(d).
If the petitioner provides supplemental information before the
initial finding is made and states that it is part of the petition, the
new information, along with the previously submitted information, is
treated as a new petition that supersedes the original petition, and
the statutory timeframes will begin when such supplemental information
is received. See 50 CFR 424.14(g).
We may also consider information readily available at the time the
determination is made. We are not required to consider any supporting
materials cited by the petitioner if the petitioner does not provide
electronic or hard copies, to the extent permitted by U.S. copyright
law, or appropriate excerpts or quotations from those materials (e.g.,
publications, maps, reports, letters from authorities). See 50 CFR
424.14(c)(6).
The ``substantial scientific or commercial information'' standard
must be applied in light of any prior reviews or findings we have made
on the listing status of the species that is the subject of the
petition. Where we have already conducted a finding on, or review of,
the listing status of that species (whether in response to a petition
or on our own initiative), we will evaluate any petition received
thereafter seeking to list, delist, or reclassify that species to
determine whether a reasonable person conducting an impartial
scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the
petition may be warranted despite the previous review or finding. Where
the prior review resulted in a final agency action--such as a final
listing determination, 90-day not-substantial finding, or 12-month not-
warranted finding--a petition will generally not be considered to
present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted unless the petition
provides new information or analysis not previously considered. See 50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)(iii).
At the 90-day finding stage, we do not conduct additional research,
and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to
help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioners'
sources and characterizations of the information presented if they
appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have
specific information in our files that indicates the petition's
information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant
to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than
one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available
information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long
as it is reliable and a reasonable person conducting an impartial
scientific review would conclude it supports the petitioners'
assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the
species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to
make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of
specific information alone necessitates a negative 90-day finding if a
reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would
conclude that the unknown information itself suggests the species may
be at risk of extinction presently or within the foreseeable future.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we first
evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, in light of
the information readily available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under
the ESA. Next, if we conclude the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information suggesting that the petitioned
entity may constitute a ``species,'' we evaluate whether the
information indicates that the species may face an extinction risk such
that listing, delisting, or reclassification may be warranted; this may
be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status
and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the
species. We evaluate whether the petition presents any information on
specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk
for the species (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity,
spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and
historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the
potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction
risk for the species. We then evaluate whether the petition presents
information suggesting potential links between these demographic risks
and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1) of
the ESA.
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to
the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these
factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species
to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad
statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification
of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute
substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We
look for information indicating that not only is the particular species
exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a
negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that
negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by
nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union on the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk
classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or
state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may
not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA.
For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a
species' conservation status do ``not constitute a recommendation by
NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because
NatureServe assessments ``have different criteria, evidence
requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of
endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of
lists should not be expected to coincide'' (https://explorer.natureserve.org/AboutTheData/DataTypes/ConservationStatusCategories). Additionally, species classifications
under IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent; data standards, criteria
used to evaluate species, and treatment of uncertainty are also not
necessarily the same. Thus, when a petition cites such classifications,
we will evaluate the source of information that the classification is
based upon in light of the standards on extinction risk and impacts or
threats discussed above.
Distribution, Habitat, and Life History
The shortfin mako is a large pelagic shark that occurs across all
temperate and tropical ocean waters (Rigby et al. 2019; Santos et al.
2020). The species is highly migratory and is known to travel long
distances in open ocean, continental shelf, shelf edge, and shelf
[[Page 19866]]
slope habitats (Rogers et al. 2015). The species also displays fidelity
to small geographic areas on or near continental shelves and coastal
areas of high productivity, although this resident behavior is rarely
observed in the open ocean (Rogers et al. 2015; Francis et al. 2019).
Shortfin mako shark vertical distribution in the water column is
affected by water temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration, and
time of day. The preferred water temperature of the species is thought
to range between 17 [deg]C and 22 [deg]C (Casey and Kohler 1992; Nasby-
Lucas et al. 2019; Santos et al. 2020), though the species also
regularly occupies waters between 22 [deg]C and 31 [deg]C (Vaudo et al.
2017). As the species has one of the highest measured metabolic rates
of any shark, it typically inhabits waters with DO concentrations of at
least 3 milliliters per liter and avoids areas with low levels of DO
(Sepulveda et al. 2007; Abascal et al. 2011). Individuals spend most of
their time in the upper part of the water column but dive to depths of
several hundred meters, allowing them to forage for mesopelagic fishes
and squid, though dives may have other functions including navigation
(Francis et al. 2019). Tagging studies have found that the species
typically spends more time in deeper, colder water during the daytime
and at night moves to shallower, warmer waters (Sepulveda et al. 2004;
Loefer et al. 2005; Stevens et al. 2010; Abascal et al. 2011; Nasby-
Lucas et al. 2019). Although thermal barriers have consistently been
shown to limit shortfin mako movement between different regions (Casey
and Kohler 1992; Vaudo et al. 2017; Corrigan et al. 2018; Santos et al.
2020), genetic studies indicate a globally panmictic population with
some genetic structuring between ocean basins (Schrey and Heist 2003;
Corrigan et al. 2018).
Shortfin makos are estimated to live to at least 29 years, and
males and females reach maturity at approximately 7-8 years and 18-19
years, respectively (Bishop et al. 2006; Natanson et al. 2006). Natural
mortality levels for the species are low (Bishop et al. 2006). Females
have a 3-year reproductive cycle (Mollet et al. 2000), and estimates of
gestation time vary from 9 months to 25 months (Mollet et al. 2000;
Duffy and Francis 2001; Joung and Hsu 2005; Semba et al. 2011). Litter
size typically ranges from 4 to 25 pups (Mollet et al. 2000; Joung and
Hsu 2005). As the species is late maturing and slow growing with
moderately high longevity and low annual fecundity, its productivity is
very low (Bishop et al. 2006).
Status and Population Trends
While there are no data available on the global abundance of
shortfin mako sharks, stock assessments and standardized catch-per-
unit-effort (CPUE) data indicate that the species is declining globally
(CITES 2019; Rigby et al. 2019). Overall, the species has experienced
an estimated median population reduction of 46.6 percent, with the
highest probability of 50-79 percent reduction over three generation
lengths (72-75 years) (Rigby et al. 2019). All regional populations are
in decline with the exception of the South Pacific, which shows some
evidence of population increases (Rigby et al. 2019).
The steepest population declines are indicated in the North and
South Atlantic (Rigby et al. 2019). The most recent stock assessment by
the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
(ICCAT) indicates a 90 percent probability that the North Atlantic
stock is in an overfished state and is experiencing overfishing (ICCAT
2019b). Trend analysis of modeled biomass in the North Atlantic
estimates a median decline of 60 percent between 1950 and 2017 (Rigby
et al. 2019). Although ICCAT reports a high degree of uncertainty in
the status of the South Atlantic stock (ICCAT 2019b), standardized
catch rates in South Atlantic longlines indicate steep declines of 99
percent in the average CPUE of 1979-1997 and 1998-2007 (Rigby et al.
2019 citing Barreto et al. 2016). Further, long-term combined trends
for shortfin mako and porbeagle (Lamna nasus) in the Mediterranean Sea
indicate a 99.99 percent decrease in abundance and biomass since the
early 19th century (Ferretti et al. 2008).
Declines in the Indian and North Pacific Oceans are also evident,
but not as steep as those indicated in the Atlantic (Rigby et al.
2019). Although the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and
Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean (ISC) Shark Working Group
(2018) found that the North Pacific stock was likely not in an
overfished condition and was likely not experiencing overfishing
between 1975 and 2016 (42 years), the IUCN Red List assessment of the
trend over three generations (72 years) indicated a median decline of
36.5 percent (Rigby et al. 2019). Additionally, data from the Western
and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) indicate that longline
catch rates of mako sharks (shortfin and longfin mako (Isurus paucus)
combined) in the North Pacific declined significantly by an average of
7 percent (90 percent confidence interval: 3 to 11 percent) annually
between 1995 and 2010 (Clarke et al. 2013). A preliminary stock
assessment in the Indian Ocean indicates that the stock is experiencing
overfishing, but is not yet overfished (Brunel et al. 2018). The trend
analysis for modeled biomass in the Indian Ocean indicates a median
decline of 47.9 percent over three generation lengths (Rigby et al.
2019).
In the South Pacific, trend analysis of modeled biomass indicates a
median increase of 35.2 percent over three generation lengths (Rigby et
al. 2019). Longline catch rates reported to WCPFC did not indicate a
significant trend in abundance of mako (shortfin and longfin combined)
in the South Pacific between 1995 and 2010 (Clarke et al. 2013).
In sum, while data on abundance and trends are incomplete, the
information presented in the petition indicates that the species is
declining across its range, with the exception of the South Pacific.
Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors
The petition asserts that I. oxyrinchus is threatened by four of
the five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: Present and threatened
modification of its habitat, overutilization for commercial and
recreational purposes, inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,
and other natural or manmade factors, including climate change.
Information in the petition and readily available in our files
indicates that the primary threat facing the species is overutilization
in fisheries worldwide, and we find that listing the shortfin mako as a
threatened or endangered species under the ESA may be warranted based
on this threat alone. As such, we focus our discussion below on the
evidence of overutilization in commercial fisheries. However, we note
that in the status review for this species, we will evaluate all ESA
section 4(a)(1) factors to determine whether any one or a combination
of these factors are causing declines in the species or are likely to
substantially negatively affect the species within the foreseeable
future to such a point that the shortfin mako is at risk of extinction
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
According to information cited in the petition and readily
available in our files, the greatest threat to the shortfin mako shark
is historical and ongoing overfishing. Shortfin mako sharks are
targeted in semi-industrial and artisanal
[[Page 19867]]
fisheries in the Indian Ocean and as sportfish in recreational
fisheries, though the majority of the catch is taken incidentally in
commercial fisheries targeting tuna, billfish, and swordfish throughout
the species' range (Camhi et al. 2008). According to the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) global capture
production statistics, total reported catch for the shortfin mako in
the period 2010-2016 totaled 91,989 metric tons (t) (CITES 2019).
Landings in the Atlantic totaled 45,959 t (50 percent of global
reported catch), in the Pacific totaled 31,838 t (34 percent of global
reported catch), in the Indian Ocean totaled 14,043 t (15 percent of
global reported catch), and in the Mediterranean totaled 152 t (less
than 1 percent of global reported catch) (CITES 2019). Reported catch,
however, is a substantial underestimate of actual catch. Campana (2016)
estimates that in the Atlantic, only 25 percent of the total catch is
reported to ICCAT. Reported catch also does not account for mortalities
that result from fisheries interactions, including sharks that are
discarded, finned, or that experience post-release mortality. In fact,
levels of fishing mortality in the Northwest Atlantic estimated through
fisheries-independent satellite telemetry data were found to be 10
times greater than previous estimates from fisheries-dependent data,
and 5-18 times greater than those associated with maximum sustainable
yield (Byrne et al. 2017). Therefore, impacts of commercial fishing
fleets on the shortfin mako are likely much greater than reported catch
numbers suggest.
Shortfin makos are most commonly caught as bycatch in longline
fisheries, and are also caught in gillnets, purse seines, trammel nets,
and trawls (CITES 2019). When bycaught, the species experiences
mortality through at-vessel or hooking mortality, and post-release
mortality. Rates of at-vessel mortality, or mortality resulting from
interactions with fishing gear prior to being brought onboard, have
been estimated at 26.2 percent for shortfin makos bycaught in Northwest
Atlantic pelagic longlines, though this varies by target species and
fishing vessel (Campana et al. 2016). The proportion of shortfin makos
that experience at-vessel mortality was significantly higher than that
of blue sharks, likely because shortfin makos are obligate ram
ventilators (i.e., they must be continuously swimming forwards to move
water over the gills) with high oxygen requirements, and their ability
to ram ventilate is compromised once hooked (Campana 2016; Campana et
al. 2016). The rate of post-release mortality has been estimated at
31.3 percent for shortfin makos bycaught by Northwest Atlantic pelagic
longlines (Campana et al. 2016). Combining at-vessel and post-release
mortality, total bycatch mortality in the Canadian pelagic longline
fishery is estimated at 49.3 percent (95 percent confidence interval:
23-73 percent), assuming that no live sharks are retained (Campana et
al. 2016). Other available estimates of post-release mortality for the
species include 47 percent in the Hawaiian deep-set commercial longline
fishery and 31.6 percent in the Hawaiian shallow-set commercial
longline fishery (Walsh et al. 2009). In sum, shortfin makos experience
substantial mortality as a result of being incidentally caught in
commercial fisheries.
Shortfin makos also experience mortality through opportunistic
retention, and are more frequently retained than other pelagic sharks
based on their highly valued meat and fins (CITES 2019). The species is
preferred in the Hong Kong fin market, one of the largest fin trading
markets in the world (Fields et al. 2018). Clarke et al. (2006a)
estimate that the species makes up approximately 2.7 percent (95
percent probability interval: 2.3 to 3.1 percent) of the Hong Kong
shark fin trade, the fourth highest proportion of auctioned fin weight
after blue (Prionace glauca, 17.3 percent), hammerhead (Sphyrna zygaena
or S. lewini, 4.4 percent) and silky (Carcharhinus falciformis, 3.5
percent) sharks. A more recent study found shortfin makos to be the
fifth most commonly traded species in Hong Kong based on random samples
of fin trimmings from retail markets (Fields et al. 2018). The
estimated number of shortfin makos utilized in the worldwide shark fin
trade each year is between 300,000 and 1,000,000, totaling between
20,000 and 55,000 t in biomass (Clarke et al. 2006b). Beyond the fin
trade, shortfin mako sharks are highly valued for their meat, which is
utilized fresh, frozen, smoked, dried, and salted for human consumption
(CITES 2019; Dent and Clarke 2015). Shortfin mako liver oil, teeth,
jaws, and skin are also traded, though most of these products are of
lower value and are not traded in significant quantities (CITES 2019).
The shortfin mako's low productivity and high susceptibility to
capture give it one of the highest risks of overexploitation of sharks
caught by Atlantic pelagic longline fleets (Cort[eacute]s et al. 2015).
Additionally, fisheries mortality primarily affects sub-adults
(approximate ages of 3-15 years), meaning that as this exploited age-
class matures, the reproductive population will shrink (Winker et al.
2020). For this reason, ICCAT (2019a) projects that even with zero
total allowable catch in the North Atlantic, the stock would continue
to decline until 2035, and would have only a 53 percent probability of
being rebuilt and no longer subject to overfishing by 2045. Overall,
the shortfin mako's recent population declines, low productivity, high
vulnerability to overexploitation, and the long lag time between
implementation of management measures (e.g., reducing or eliminating
allowable catch) and the start of population recovery lead us to
conclude that listing the species as threatened or endangered may be
warranted.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the petition, the literature cited in the petition,
and other information readily available in our files, we find that
listing I. oxyrinchus as a threatened or endangered species may be
warranted. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA
and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)), we will
commence a status review of this species. During the status review, we
will determine whether I. oxyrinchus is in danger of extinction
(endangered) or likely to become so (threatened) throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. As required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of
the ESA, within 12 months of the receipt of the petition (January 25,
2021), we will make a finding as to whether listing the shortfin mako
shark as an endangered or threatened species is warranted. If listing
is warranted, we will publish a proposed rule and solicit public
comments before developing and publishing a final rule.
Information Solicited
To ensure that the status review is based on the best available
scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting comments and
information from interested parties on the status of the shortfin mako
shark. Specifically, we are soliciting information in the following
areas:
(1) Historical and current abundance and population trends of I.
oxyrinchus throughout its range;
(2) Historical and current distribution and population structure of
I. oxyrinchus;
(3) Historical and current condition of habitat for I. oxyrinchus;
(3) Historical and current data on bycatch and retention of I.
oxyrinchus in industrial, commercial, artisanal, and recreational
fisheries worldwide;
[[Page 19868]]
(4) Data on trade of shortfin mako products, including fins, meat,
jaws, skin, and liver oil; and
(5) The effects of other known or potential threats to I.
oxyrinchus over the short-term or long-term; and
(5) Management, regulatory, or conservation programs for I.
oxyrinchus, including mitigation measures related to any known or
potential threats to the species throughout its range.
We request that all data and information be accompanied by
supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or
reprints of pertinent publications. Please send any comments in
accordance with the instructions provided in the ADDRESSES section
above. We will base our findings on a review of the best available
scientific and commercial information available, including all
information received during the public comment period.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: April 12, 2021.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-07714 Filed 4-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P